 |
What does this Priyanka mania suggest? Firstly, it reveals the desperate shortage of telegenic personalities in public life. Faced with a tired and geriatric political class, many of whom are well past their sell-by date, Priyanka clearly stands out. The fact that she is rarely seen, emerging only at election time perhaps enhances her mystique. She is elusive for much [...]
Natural resources belong to people, the court emphasised. The state legally owns them on behalf of its people and from that point of view natural resources are considered as national assets, more so because the state benefits immensely from their value. The state is empowered to distribute natural resources. “However, as they constitute public property/national asset, while distributing natural resources, [...]
When Unilever’s global CEO Paul Polman says that the era of cheap food is over, he seems to be making sense. After all, for nearly 20 years now, India has been growing 6.7% on average every year; for 30 years, China’s growth has averaged 10% every year. A lot of people now require more than subsistence needs. The growth of food production [...]
IN the context of Swami Vivekananda’s 150th birth anniversary (celebrated on 12 January), it would be pertinent to recall what Sri Aurobindo had said about his contribution to national reawakening: “British rule has been the record success in history in the hypnosis of a nation. It persuaded us to live in a ‘death of the will’, creating in ourselves the [...]
The world as we know is experientially shrinking and it has changed the paradigm of production, transmission, and consumption of media products. Three aspects of it, pertaining to journalism, are note worthy: First, it has become evident that technology is neither value-neutral nor inherently equity-driven. It takes on the form and structure of the society where it operates. It is [...]
They are the worst victims of physical and mental torture by police in the Mecca Masjid blast case. But like justice, compensation too seems to elude them till date. A few hours before Mohammed Raeesuddin was to receive a cheque of Rs.300,000 along with 15 others, his name was deleted from the list. Syed Imran Khan and his uncle Shoaib [...]
It was around 10 am on January 7, 2009 that I got a call from Ramalinga Raju. I was in a review meeting, paradoxically conducting a learning session on `How to manage in downturn situations’. Usually if I did not take the call, Raju would just leave a message with my secretary, telling him that it was nothing urgent and [...]
The 2011 remain in the history as manifestation of Indian inaction and indecision. With the corruption, inflation on one hand and inaction –inefficiency on the other, the 2011 became a different year for the rulers and the ruled. As the white robed politics revolved around the black robed judicial institutions the Government and people too looked to Judges. Surprisingly it [...]
The Manmohan Government did not want Lok Pal at all, while the Team Anna did not want the Manmohan’s Lok Pal Bill. While Lok Pal failed to come through the political manipulations succeeded in stalling the mission of Anna Hazare to have an anti-corruption Ombudsman in India. The UPA succeeded in passing through the year 2011 without Lok Pal, though [...]
(IANS) Hindus in Russia Wednesday posted a major victory in a hard-fought six-month legal battle as a Siberian court axed a plea seeking to ban the Bhagavad Gita and to brand the holy text “extremist” literature, even as hopes were expressed that the state prosecutors do not appeal against the verdict. During the final hearing in the Leninsky district court of [...]
ADIVASI communities will be adversely affected by the present Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill 2011. This Bill should be opposed in its present form. TheBill in its preface states that its provisions will make “land losers and other affected families, partners in development, leading to an improvement in their post-acquisition social andeconomic status” – tall claims to conceal the real anti-tribal nature of the Bill. An analysis of the Bill shows that it will be an instrument to further land alienation and land grab fromAdivasi communities, a trend that has got greater impetus in the years of neo-liberalism. The processes of loot and plunder of natural resources including mineral wealth, much ofwhich lies beneath land in the Fifth Schedule areas, will not be curbed or weakened in any way by this Bill. On the contrary Adivasi communities will now be legally excluded fromdecision making in this area. Adivasi rights in the sphere of livelihood will not be protected. These were the conclusions reached in the discussions on the Bill in the recently held meeting of the central committee of the Adivasi Adhikar Rashtriya Manch. The AARM in aresolution adopted at the meeting finalised its position on various clauses of the Bill pertaining to Adivasis within the general framework towards the Bill adopted by the All IndiaKisan Sabha. It called on its units to organise Adivasi communities to demand fundamental changes in the present draft to replace the draconian Land Acquisition Act of 1894. SEPARATE SECTION ON TRIBAL LAND & RIGHTS One of the problems with the Bill is that it does not look at the issues connected with acquisition of tribal land in a comprehensive manner. In the case of tribal communities, thereare very specific constitutional provisions and laws which govern land relations in tribal areas like the Fifth and Sixth Schedule, Panchayats Extension to Scheduled Areas Act(PESAA), the various laws like Forest Rights Act, Wild Life Protection Act and state laws or Government Orders concerning Adivasi land. Over the years, many of these rightshave been ignored, weakened or violated. A Bill which claims to make land losers and other affected as partners in development should then logically include provisions not only tostrengthen Adivasi rights but also to reverse the erosions which have taken place both in practice and in policy. But in this Bill there are only stray references to some of theseprovisions like rights under the Forest Rights Act. In the main, tribals are clubbed with others. This is a dangerous ploy to conceal the deliberate omissions in the Bill as far as tribalrights are concerned. Thus the Bill does not contain a single word on such critical issues such as land use in tribal areas; protection of livelihood; issues of use of communityproperty; of access to community resources which require specific protections; the historical problems created due to non-distribution of pattas to tribals in Fifth Schedule andother areas on non-forest land traditionally under tribal occupation, the position of tribals in non-Scheduled areas etc. These issues must be addressed by inclusion of a separatechapter on land acquisition where the land belongs to tribals or where the location is in a tribal area, whether in the Scheduled area or not. It is essential at all levels of the Bill totreat tribal land and livelihoods on a separate footing just as is done in the Constitution of India. SCRAP THE BILL’S FOURTH SCHEDULE The Bill is supposed to replace the draconian 1894 Land Acquisition Act. However, for tribals along with this draconian Act there are other legislations which have also been usedin the past to push through coercive land acquisition in tribal areas. The Bill has a separate Fourth Schedule which excludes as many as 16 Acts from the purview of the Bill. Theseinclude many of the Acts which have been used against tribals such as the Land Acquisition Mines Act of 1885; the Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition Act 1957, The Petroleum andMinerals Pipeline (acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act 1962 apart from the Railways Act, National Highways Act etc. The declared purpose of the Bill to bring a “humane”legislation is thus shown to be utterly fraudulent as the same draconian Acts will still apply to tribals. It also means that the benefits of the relief and rehabilitation (RR) provisions inthe Bill will not apply when these Acts are used to acquire land. The government can also add more such legislations in the Fourth Schedule if it so desires. This is a Schedulewhich is detrimental to tribal interests in particular and must be scrapped. TRIBAL LAND ACQUISITION WITHOUT CONSENT The fatal blow to Adivasi rights in the Bill is on the issue of prior informed consent. The Bill legalises direct acquisition by the government in Fifth Schedule and Sixth Scheduleareas without the consent of tribals. In the Bill if the land is being acquired for private companies or for PPP projects, then 80 per cent of those affected have to give their consent.But as far as tribals are concerned since tribal land is ostensibly to be acquired only by the government for government use, no such consent is required. In fact a close reading ofthe Bill reveals that the wording is such that it will not only permit entry of private companies in tribal areas but will also gift the company a hurdle free access because there is noneed to get the consent of 80 per cent of the affected people. Chapter I, Clause 2 in the Bill has a proviso which states “No land shall be transferred by way of acquisition, in the Scheduled Areas in contravention of the law relating to landtransfer, prevailing in such Scheduled areas.” This appears to be a protection against acquisition by private companies or transfer of land acquired by government to privatecompanies in the Scheduled areas. But the real meaning is something else. (1) In most states, governments acquire the land and lease the land to private companies like mining companies. They do not transfer it. The Bill does not refer to governmentleases at all. (2) If government acquires the land, it need not get consent of the project affected people. Nowhere in the Bill is there any reference to mandatory consent of tribalsfor acquisition of their land. (3) In several states the “prevailing laws” (through the Rules for implementation of PESAA) are ambiguous regarding the rights of tribals in FifthSchedule areas or under PESAA. Under PESAA there is a specific provision which gives jurisdiction of development projects to the Gram Sabha. In March this year the AndhraPradesh government has adopted Rules for the implementation of PESAA. Under these Rules, the issues concerning land acquisition and the resettlement and rehabilitationpackage have been taken out of the jurisdiction of the Gram Sabha and instead transferred to the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samity. The Rules have also devalued the role oftribals in the Gram Sabha by specifically stating that the vice-president and secretary of the Gram Sabha must belong to the Scheduled Tribes. In other words, the president of theGram Sabha can be a non-tribal. Taken together both these provisions in the Rules are highly objectionable and erode tribal rights. But the present central Bill will legalise this underthe Clause in the Bill cited above. Take another example of Jharkhand. There are two laws in operation, the CNT Act (Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act) and the SPTA Act (SanthalParganas Tenancy Act). These Acts mandate that no tribal land can be transferred to non-tribals. But there is no protection against land acquisition by the government orsubsequent leasing of that land to private parties by government in these laws. Since there are other states also where the rights of tribals have already been diluted in the laws,Clause 2 of the Bill is highly deceptive and will not give protection to tribals. In Chapter IV under the heading Notification and Acquisition, Clause11 (2) states that no notice for acquisition will be made unless the Gram Sabha is consulted and in the caseof Sixth Schedule, the Autonomous Council. Thus consent is replaced by consultation. This again is dilution of tribal rights. The word consulted must be replaced with priorinformed consent. Thus in these two clauses as well as a later clause on rehabilitation and resettlement, the government allows forcible acquisition of land in Fifth and Sixth Schedule areas belongingto tribals without their consent and retains the right to lease the land to private companies. A related issue is that of the deliberate omission of any mention of land use in the entire Bill. For Adivasis in particular this is an omission which will have a very negative impact.The so-called green bench of the Supreme Court was informed that between 1980 and 2006, a total of 11.33 lakh hectares of forest land, including in Fifth Schedule areas has been“diverted” for non-forestry purposes. Of this, as much as 5.7 lakh hectares was “diverted” between 2001 and 2006 — clearly an unstated joint project of the NDA and UPAgovernments. Since then even more land has been diverted. The term “diversion” is of course a euphemism for the legal sanction given for land grab by corporate, miningcompanies, power companies and also for government projects like building dams, roads etc. by arbitrarily changing land use policies in tribal areas. Under PESAA the type ofproject and land use is under the jurisdiction of the Gram Sabha. The present Bill has no section about land use. This is another example which in effect nullifies the jurisdiction ofthe Gram Sabha in PESAA areas. ACQUISITION FOR MINING As far as land acquisition for purposes of mining, including mineral extraction, is concerned the present draft is silent on it which means that the present practices will continue. In1997 the landmark judgement of the Supreme Court known as the Samatha judgement specifically prohibited transfer of land in Scheduled Area by way of lease to non-tribals,corporation aggregates, etc; Renewal of lease is defined as fresh grant of lease and therefore, prohibited. It also suggested that cooperatives run by tribals could be given themining leases. However, the government has ignored this judgement. The present LARR Bill provides an opportunity to the government to establish the principle of tribalownership in the law itself. In cases where the government wants to develop mining activities, the government must first get full tribal consent. Secondly, if tribals themselves canform the cooperatives or a company for the purpose, preference must be given to them. Thirdly, in such cases where this is not the preferred choice and where there is consent,the tribal community will negotiate the terms, with either free equity in the government company of at least fifty per cent (the earlier government Bill had proposed only 26 per centfree equity) or at least 50 per cent share of the profits to the tribals. This must be included in the LARR Bill. TRIBAL LAND OUTSIDE FOREST AREAS A related issue is that in many non-forest areas in the Fifth Schedule, tribals do not have proper ownership papers and titles for the land they have occupied for generations. TheForest Rights Act grants pattas to tribals living in forests, but not to tribals who face the same problem in non-forest areas. Thus acquisition of land occupied by tribals must beassumed to be land owned by tribals. If this is not done, then there will be en masse displacement of tribals without any protection. TRIBAL LAND OUTSIDE SCHEDULED AREAS As far as rights of tribals who live outside Scheduled areas and in non Scheduled states, there is no special protection afforded to them under the present Bill. It is essential to treatland owned or occupied by tribals on the same footing as in the Scheduled areas in all those areas where tribals constitute a significant percentage of the population to becalculated at the block, not district level. At present there are no laws protecting their land. In such areas, 80 per cent prior informed consent of project affected tribals andresolutions of consent from the affected Gram Sabhas must be a pre-condition. PUBLIC PURPOSE As far as land in Scheduled areas is concerned, government alone has the right to acquire land for “public purpose.” It is therefore crucial to ensure that the “public purpose”clause is actually for public purpose. In several states like Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Adivasi communities are in resistancestruggles against arbitrary land takeovers by mining companies supported by governments, or against large displacements due to projects like big irrigation and power projects inFifth Schedule areas. There are cases, as for instance in Jharkhand, where even after fifty years the earlier displaced tribal families and others in the Damodar Valley project or thecoal mining areas are yet to be resettled and compensated. In other cases, tribals are victims of multiple displacements. In almost all these cases whereas the land acquisitions are inthe name of public purpose, the definition of public clearly excludes Adivasis who appear to be the non-public as far as the benefits of these projects, for which they lose theirland, are concerned. The present Bill has an extremely broad definition of what constitutes public purpose which will be against tribal interests. For example the definition ofinfrastructure in the Bill in Clause 3 (o) sub section (iii) includes mining activities, tourism, and in (iv) irrigation projects. Irrigation project in tribal areas could mean construction ofbig dams and submergence of tribal villages. Thus, the Polavaram project in AP, which would displace lakhs of tribals, would be included as infrastructure under this Bill. There isanother draconian sub section (v) under which any other project or public facility may be notified by central government as public purpose. So, as and when the governmentdecides, any project can be brought under this clause further broadening the definition of public purpose. In several states tribals own valuable land around developing cities like Mumbai, Ranchi, Bhubaneswar, Vishakhapatnam etc. In the name of “planned development” government isacquiring the land and then handing it over to real estate companies and developers. The Bill includes “planned development” in urban and village areas under the clause of “publicpurpose.” This will accelerate takeover of tribal land. There has to be a separate section for definition of public purpose for land acquisition in Scheduled areas. In tribal areas public purpose has to be limited to land acquisition forpurposes like village roads, small irrigation projects, railways, government hospitals, government schools or educational institutions, provision of land for project affected people,housing for poor and landless. In such cases government may acquire land and the full compensation as well as rehabilitation and resettlement measures must apply. UNNECESSARY HURDLES In the Section defining “project affected people” there are two categories namely, project affected families and interested persons. Tribals who have lost land, livelihood or rightsunder the Forest Rights Act are included in both categories. However, there are conditions imposed such as proof that they are primarily dependent on the livelihood being lostdue to acquisition and that they have been there for three years. The experience of the implementation of the Forest Rights Act shows that any qualifications such as in the use ofthe word “primarily” is very problematic and acts as a barrier to access rights. For example how would a tribal who has to undertake multiple activities to survive be able to pointout that she was primarily dependent for survival on gathering and sale of minor forest produce? These conditions and qualifications must be removed as they place unnecessaryhurdles to access the rights under the Bill. COMPENSATION The compensation offered in the Bill in Schedule 1 is diluted even from the earlier proposal. Earlier it was three times the market value. Now it is reduced to two times the marketvalue. Along with this, a solatium of 100 per cent of the market value is also included. But the market value is calculated as the average price shown in registered sale deeds which,as is well known, is usually shown as a much lower price than actual sale price to avoid taxes. For tribal land, market value is even more arbitrarily decided since there is in fact nodeveloped market for tribal land as land sales to non-tribals are prohibited. In such cases under Sec 26:3 (a) of the Bill, the government has the sole right to decide the price on thebasis of sale price of similar land in adjacent area. Since the government is itself the acquiring authority it is in government interest to keep the price lower. Here there is a directconflict of interest. Therefore to determine market value in such areas a special provision to involve the Gram Sabha and affected families for an agreed compensation amount isessential. Secondly, under Sec 69 the compensation is fixed and then it is to be divided between “interested persons.” This is not fair to any of the affected persons. Apart from the landloser, the loss suffered by all affected families/ interested persons must be calculated separately and the compensation amount given. For tribals, the usage of common property is a critical issue. Common property is used by tribals for a variety of reasons including for jhum cultivation in some areas. Thereforeacquisition of land for a project which includes common property traditionally used by tribals must be included in compensation assessments, which is not done in the present Bill. As Kisan Sabha has suggested, compensation amount should be not less than six times the market value, including solatium in rural areas. Further, it must apply to all cases of landacquisition of tribal land. State governments must have the right to enhance the compensation as well as the Rehabilitation and Resettlement entitlements according to the specificsituation in the state. REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT This section applies to those projects which lead to displacement. There is a separate provision for R and R for STs and SCs under Schedule 2. In case of land lost by STs for any project, equivalent land or 2.5 acres will be given whichever is lower. This is in violation of the FRA which recognises up to four hectares as theamount of land for which a land patta may be given in forests. Therefore, nothing lower than four hectares can be accepted. As far as tribal land is concerned there must be anequivalent amount of land given as has been acquired. Another totally unfair provision is that the value of the land given will be calculated and deducted from the compensation tobe given. There is no guarantee what type of land will be given in exchange for the land lost. Once again the actual value of the land given in exchange can easily be inflated since ashas been stated earlier the calculation of market value of tribal land cannot be the same as that adopted for non-tribal land. Therefore the land for land policy must be in addition tothe compensation to be paid and not in lieu of it. In addition, all landless tribals who are project affected must be given land. Under the FRA and the amended Wild Life Protection Act, displacement can take place only after the entire R and R package is in place. The present Bill does not ensure this. Ithas highly watered down provisions and does not mandate either consent of Project Affected Persons to the R&R package or their ratification that the R&R is complete prior todisplacement. It merely exhorts the Collector to ensure this. This must be amended in the Bill. According to the Bill one job per affected family in projects which create jobs is to be given or Rs 2000 per month for 20 years indexed to the Consumer Price Index forAgricultural Workers. This should not be less than the agricultural minimum wage of two adults in both cases. The one time grant to displaced ST and SC families should beincreased from Rs 50,000 proposed to Rs 1 lakh. Under Clause 11 of Schedule 2 there is mention of “involuntary displacement.” This is not defined anywhere in the Bill. Yet some of the R&R provisions such as a developmentplan are applicable only where there is “involuntary displacement.” In other words the law foresees a situation where government is permitted to acquire tribal land without consentthus leading to involuntary displacement. The point is that there can be no involuntary displacement on any grounds. If tribals do not give their consent, the project cannot goahead. Therefore the issue of involuntary displacement has to be clarified. The provisions of R&R must apply to all cases of displacement regardless of whether it is “voluntary”or “involuntary” displacement. If STs are resettled in another district then the Bill provides for reservation benefits enjoyed as well as protections under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules will be extended to themwherever they are resettled regardless of whether the areas of resettlement are Scheduled or not. There are some other sections about provision of infrastructural facilities etc. in resettled areas, cremation grounds, community sites etc. but everything gets nullified by a line underthe Schedule II and III related to R&R which says “In case any element of R&R package is not provided, the same should be indicated as NIL under column 4 and reasonstherefore to be given.” In earlier projects rehabilitation conditions have been totally violated. Here the government is shameless enough to bring such a provision in the law itself.This shows that the R&R Schedules are not mandatory nor are there any penalties for non-implementation. This is an objectionable loophole which subverts the very concept ofR&R which must be removed. RETURN OF LAND Under Section 95 of the Bill, if the land so acquired is not used for ten years, it will revert back to the government. Since in tribal areas, it is the government acquiring the land, thisproviso must be changed. It should be that if the government does not use the land acquired from tribals within five years it should revert back to the tribals without taking back thecompensation paid. There are other draconian clauses in the Bill which must be strongly opposed. For example no aggrieved person has the right to approach the lower courts. The DistrictCollector’s decision is final. Bureaucrats have been given immense powers under the Act and at every stage their decisions are final. There is no avenue for appeal and objectionsagainst the R&R package. There is no representation of tribals in crucial committees to decide about the project. All these proposals have to be opposed. MAIN DEMANDS In conclusion, the main demands on the basis of which concrete amendments are to be made include: 1. A separate section in the law for land acquisition from STs and all clauses related to STs to be brought into this section 2. Public purpose in Fifth Schedule and Sixth Schedule areas to be narrowed down and redefined. 3. No acquisition of tribal land without prior informed consent. No use of urgency clause in Scheduled areas. 4. Recognition of tribal ownership of minerals and stone for quarrying etc. in Fifth Schedule areas, including of community property where such mining is proposed. 5. No conditions in definition of project affected people. 6. Compensation must be enhanced. Compensation should be assessed for all affected families independently of the compensation to land losers. The usage of common propertyand its loss due to acquisition needs to be counted as eligibility for compensation as land losers. 7. The R&R package must be enhanced and made mandatory. It must be in place before displacement. 8. All other anti-democratic clauses such as no recourse to courts to be removed. These are some of the issues which will form part of the campaign and struggles being planned by the Adivasi Adhikar Rashtriya Manch on the tribal related issues in the LandAcquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2011.
The Valedictory Session on the concluding day of the 19th National Quality Summit held by CII Institute of Quality, 1-3 December 2011 at Bangalore with the theme “Creating Brand India through Quality” ended with a highly motivating and holistic session where His Holiness Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Founder, Art of Living Foundation spoke on how one could improve the quality of human life. While stressing [...]
When the leaders of the G20 met in Cannes in early November, the global economy was clearly on the threshold of, if not already well into, another major financial crisis. The need for action – fast, co-ordinated and effective – was more evident than ever since early 2009. Back then, the G20 did rise to the challenge by pledging reflationary [...]
The flame over the age-old Mullaperiyar dam row has once again reached Parliament’s doorsteps. None of the two conflicting parties — namely governments in Tamil Nadu and Kerala — seem to be in a mood to back off, and the controversy is set to become an additional headache for the already cornered UPA government at the Centre. Rediif.com tries to [...]
In the minimalist video of the viral hit ‘Why this Kolaveri di’, actor and occasional singer Dhanush can’t help grinning as he repeats the now-famous catchphrase of the song over and over again. He’s clearly having a lot of fun, getting a kick out of mouthing lyrics that are so absurd they make one burst into spontaneous giggles. Perhaps it is this [...]
The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare has adopted a multi-pronged strategy to check female foeticide, which includes legislative measures, awareness generation as well as programmes for socio-economic empowerment of women. The steps taken by the government to prevent female foeticide under the Pre conception and Pre natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, PC & PNDT Act include the following: Reconstitution of statutory [...]
ASSOCHAM called for allowing steel companies to own captive iron ore resources for sustainable growth which is crucial for the country’s infrastructural development. “All the integrated steel plants capable of undertaking viable, scientific and efficient iron ore mining should be made available captive iron ore mines,” “During the pre-liberlisation era, most steel plants were provided with captive iron ore mines [...]
The central challenges of our polity are the failure of the best and brightest to enter public life and make the necessary sacrifice to accept the burdens of leadership; and the highly centralized governance system which distanced people from the elected leaders and civil servants. The rest are all consequences of these twin failures. As a result, seven great scourges [...]
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009, which became operative with effect from 1st April, 2010, prescribed that Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR) in schools should be maintained as per the following specified levels: A. For classes 1 to V: (i) Two teachers for upto sixty admitted children (ii) Three teachers for 61-90 children (iii) Four teachers [...]
3G spectrum was auctioned through simultaneous ascending e-auction during April 2010. Four (4) Blocks of 2X5 MHz of spectrum in 2.1 GHz band has been auctioned in 17 service areas and five (5) Blocks 2X5 MHz of spectrum has been auctioned in five (5) Telecom Service Areas including BSNL/MTNL. As per the provisions of Notice Inviting Applications issued for 3G [...]
|
|||
 |
|||
  
|
|||
|
|
2012 | India Current Affairs. A Leading Source of Online Information on India. Disclaimer: We have taken every care to see that copyrighted material (content or images) is not included in this website. Still if there is any such inclusion of copyrighted material by accident or by mistake, the concerned authorized copyright holders may intimate at knhyderabad@gmail.com. On receipt of which we assure that we would remove that material if it is proved to be breach of copyright. |
Government
