UPROOTED FOR WHOSE BENEFIT –Development-Induced Displacement in Assam 1947-2000.

DISPLACED FOR A LOST CAUSE

Name of the book: UPROOTED FOR WHOSE BENEFIT –Development-Induced Displacement in Assam 1947-2000.

Writer: Walter Fernandes and Gita Bharali;

Publisher: North Eastern Social Research Centre, 110 Kharghuli Road, Guwahati.

Number of pages: 734 Price Rs. 350.

Singur and Nandigram marked not just a watershed moment in deciding the political fortunes of the TMC and Left Front Government in West Bengal by catapulting Mamata Bannerjee as the didi of the masses, ripping off, not in the least unceremoniously, what was essentially a leftist ideal and making it her own. It also jolted the comfortably complacent urban middle class from his blissful ignorance and made the average Indian family familiar with issues of displacement, rehabilitation, resettlement etc. It is no wonder then, that policy framers in New Delhi are sitting up and taking note of how the dispossessed marginal can shape political destinies. The Land Acquisition Act (LAA), 1894, a colonial legacy, is no doubt outdated. With the draft land acquisition bill to go public in a few days, one can be assured that the raging debate will continue.

The book is first among an NESRC initiative on a series on displacement studies. The study looks at the extent of post-independent displacement and deprivation in the state by development projects from 1947 to 2000. Completed in 2006 and published in Assamese in 2007, lack of funding delayed its english translation. Nevertheless, it couldn’t have come out at a better time.

The first chapter as an introduction calls the study, a ‘story of the losers’ – the narrative of the dispossessed coming to the fore. Initially one maybe overwhelmed by the numbers and statistics but that makes it credible. Conscientious effort of the researchers to arrive at a conservative estimate of the number of people who are deprived of livelihood without physical relocation (PAPs) as well as displaced people (DPs), in the face of inadequate data and official records, is commendable.

Interviewing 726 families from 12 representative projects, the study creates a strong database of development affected people with separate analysis for the extent to which people belonging to the general category, dalits and tribals in particular are alienated, not just from their physical spaces but also their social and cultural domains. Highlighting the plight of the displaced woman as twice removed, the study calls for an alternative developmental paradigm which upholds a person’s right to a life of dignity in Article 21of the Constitution. A perceptive examination of the quality of life of the displaced, before and after the completion of developmental projects, illuminates the unmistakable urban bias of the ‘public purpose’ behind such projects. Understandably, one accustomed to a sustainable traditional economy cannot be deposed and placed in a formal economy with the expectation to survive unassisted. 1,916,085 people, 22.14% of it tribals (they form 12.9% of the state’s population), have been displaced from over 1,405,809 acres of land acquired for development from 1947-2000. With resettlement as little as 9%, Assam has a very poor track record of rehabilitation.

It stresses on the need to replace the market value with ‘replacement value’. “Land, because of its intrinsic nature of being naturally given and fixed in quantity, attracts rent and prices based on the current incomes from land are inadequate”-Anup Sinha, Professor of Economics, IIM, Calcutta. The new draft bill emphasises the need to make the affected people stakeholders in the development process. In the new proposal, farmers should get six times the market value as compensation for their land and landless labours should get Rs 2,000 per month for 20 years. It also makes it mandatory for projects to obtain approval of 80% of the affected people.

Is the hullaballoo surrounding the Subansiri project anti-development? Despite reassurances from both the NHL and the government, constructive wisdom from NEEPCO’S Ranganadi project cannot be ignored. Commissioned in 2002, it has been accused of neglecting downstream impact studies as well as going against the promise of giving jobs to affected people. As Milan Kundera puts it, “The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.” This book is a celebration of the struggle.

SUMEELA ADHIKARIMAYUM

Published on August 12, 2011