Finding the plot

With the incipient implementation of the new Forest Act, land transfers and shrinking areas of influence of settlers will only end in more fights, writes Meera Mitra.

Singur is not quite behind us and we are still learning from what happened there. Looming large on the horizon, however, are other contentious land issues that not only include farm land but also forest and urban lands.

HT Image

In fact, more contentious than parceling out farmland for industry is the competing interests of the State in giving land back to the environment and forests. So far, tribals and settlers in forests, who have no property rights, have made forests the key to their survival. The National Forest Action Plan (1999) noted that fires affect 35 million hectares of forest area annually, of which 90 per cent are caused by humans to meet their livelihood purposes.

Even in the mid-80s, surveys showed that two-thirds of India’s most protected areas had human habitation and there were ‘severe’ conflicts between the State and the locals. With the incipient implementation of the new Forest Act, land transfers and shrinking areas of influence of settlers will only end in more fights. The issue of property rights of the State and settlers will return without innovative solutions.

Fragmented land holdings and inadequate capitalisation of resources keep poor farmers poor. But clinging to land, under-transformed livelihoods is also the bane of poor forest settlers. You may ask why are tribals in 2008 still in the hunting and gathering mode? Unfortunately, the market forces that reach them are not those that sustain forests but those that incentivise its destruction through smuggling and poaching.

Apart from the lack of an innovative surge towards development, the State often emerges as the one subverting development. The amended Panchayati Raj Act empowered tribals to ownership, management and control of Minor Forest Produce (MFP), which constitutes 70 per cent of their income. However, the tribal policy acknowledges that the collection and trade of MFP is monopolised by the state forest departments. What hope can one harbour that any new forest rights implementation will be different? Governance is as much about letting go as of regaining legitimate control. The quicker we see this in action, the better.

Farmland issues like Singur are testing our curiosity regarding solutions. However, we were not without advice or guidance even earlier. National Policy on Rehabilitation and Resettlement, 2007 and the Recommendations of the Standing Committee on SEZs 2007 had pointed the way to more ‘caring’, expanded and transparent provisions for those affected. The inadequacy of the chilling provisions of the arcane Land Acquisition Act of 1894, (used in Singur) were exposed and the proposed amendments Bill 2007 still awaits enactment.

In the amended Act, transparency and fair pricing provisions are embedded. Rehabilitation plans will be made in consultation with affected families. Importantly, these will also be discussed in the Gram Sabha and circulated publicly. Moreover, market responsive direct purchases — both private and public — will constitute 70 per cent of the needed land; acquisitions for companies will be made only for 30 per cent of the land required. Further, the ‘intended use of land’ will be a factor in determining value for the displaced.

The Singur case has been often used to point out that privately negotiated sales of land could get better results. This, while largely true, is not without caveat. Town planner and architect Kuldeep Singh argues for the need to have strong regulatory systems, which can ensure the integration of these virtual private ‘cities’ into the legal administrative system of regional planning, security, police, municipality and panchayat without problems. The active presence of the State in its key roles of governance, infrastructure building and security must remain.

In Delhi, urban land-use issues have exposed other inadequacies. Frustrated citizens are seeking refuge in justice rather than depending on governance for solutions. For instance, the insistence of proper zonal plans had to emerge out of Supreme Court petitions against the Delhi Master Plan. Again, it was court petitions regarding the Delhi Metro that led to the order for reduction of noise pollution and to other citizen-friendly provisions. Even as the Supreme Court heard petitions challenging commercialisation in the Master Plan, further amendments for more commercialisation were introduced by the State.

We are a nation in a hurry. We have dynamic entrepreneurs, a strong civil society and political parties. But what is missing is governance and that has to be bridged. Here is the opportunity for the State to get innovative, be truly inclusive, be expeditious, to inspire change trajectories and most of all to get in where it must and to stay out where it is notceded.

Meera Mitra is a sociologist and the author of It’s Only Business: India's Corporate Social Responsiveness in a Globalised World