The land bill has been passed by both houses of parliament with last-minute amendments. The bill comes in the wake of farmers’ protests against land acquisition for industry in recent years, and thus puts in place extra precautions and better compensation. This way, the initiative can be projected as farmer-friendly, pro-common man, and anti-industry – and that should help the Congress revive its fortunes to some extent.
But what about the amendments? They grant exception from all the above solely to irrigation projects.
Apparently, these amendments came after suggestions from Madhya Pradesh chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, and the media has focussed on the politics of it – how Narendra Modi’s criticisms of the food security bill were ignored but suggestions from Modi’s rival were accepted. The more important point, however, is that the amendments solely relate to the Narmada project. And that project, like anything related to reforming political parties (for an example, look at their reaction to the supreme court ruling on criminals in politics), is something for which there has always been a bipartisan support.
A bit of explanation first. The bill calls for retrospective application, and also land-for-land compensation in case of irrigation projects. After amendments, the new law will not apply retrospectively, and cash can be given as compensation for land. (Also, there will not be any social impact assessment, or SIA, for dams.) Now, is there anything other than the Narmada project to which these special clauses apply?
Simply put, Madhya Pradesh has not been able to find land to give away to people displaced by the Narmada dam projects. While the supposed beneficiaries of the project are yet to receive promised benefits, the affected people are already displaced and have nowhere to go, because the state government is handing out cash compensations in violation of the original Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal award of 1978. The land bill, applied retrospectively, would have created problems for the state, but now it can breathe easy.
Rural development minister Jairam Ramesh, otherwise very eloquent, has not yet explained why the Narmada project (a series of 30 big dams, 135 medium dams and 3,000 small dams) needs a special treatment. Since the new provisions will now apply to future dam projects as well, Ramesh needs to explain what is so special about big dams in general.
And when you consider that dams have displaced far more people than any industrial project, these special exceptions not just dilute the land bill, they make it pointless. According to the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People (SANDRP) and other sources, 5,500 big dams constructed in India till date have together displaced nearly 5.5 crore people, close to half of them tribals. In terms of politics, then, it seems farmers affected by land-for-industry have been able to get their way but tribals and others affected by dams are a constituency that can be ignored.
Meanwhile, if we resume the thread of the theme of the Narmada and bipartisan politics, let it be noted that notwithstanding all sound and fury on party lines among New Delhi, Gandhinagar and Bhopal over the decades, all parties are equally backing the project that is yet to deliver despite heavy investments and social costs. Take the biggest of the big dams on the Narmada for example: the Sardar Sarovar Project. A large part of the canal network is pending, water has not reached “parched parts of Kutch and Saurashtra”, water is diverted to industry and yet, this is the only place where Modi and Manmohan Singh are on the same page.
In May 2010, after Gujarat the CM requested the PM to “expedite” the matter, the Centre lost no time in allowing a hike in the project cost from Rs 6,406 crore (1986-87 prices) to Rs 39,240.45 crore despite the state government’s non-compliance in several aspects like the canal network that could have been completed a long time ago.
