'No new law can make Jharkhand give land'

Q&A: Xavier Dais

The Jharkhand Mines Area Coordination Committee has been resisting land acquisition in the state for the last four years. The issue has gained renewed importance in the light of the proposed rehabilitation and land acquisition policy of the government. Committee spokesperson Xavier Dais tells Sreelatha Menon that there is nothing new in the policy

The new rehabilitation and land acquisition policy cleared by the government has separate packages for industry acquisition and government acquisition. What do you think about the dual policy?

I don't think it is dual. A policy that allows the government to acquire 30 per cent of the land needed by industry is not dual in nature. It is the same old policy. It is a deal between one powerful group and the other less powerful group. So if the government assists the strong side, the weak side will have to succumb.

What are the implications of the proposed policy on Naxal activities which have hit states like Jharkhand, Orissa and Chhattisgarh?

It will definitely lead to more conflicts. Newspapers have already reported that 90 per cent companies are paying money to the Naxals to be able to operate. This speaks volumes.

So the Naxals will exploit the situation more?

We get worried if the Naxals exploit. However, when industry exploits the poor, nobody thinks about the latter.

Aren't land acquisitions preceded by a public hearing? What exactly happens?

That has nothing to do with acquisition. It is required under the Environment Protection Act. When industry needs land, the block office issues a notice and asks people for objections. The land is then acquired by the state on behalf of industry.

We didn't have problems till recently in acquiring land through the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Why do we have problems now?

It is not true that there was no problem before. The railway line from Jharia to Howrah was built by the Bengal Nagpur Railways. It was the first land acquisition 150 years ago. There was a massive resistance from the Santhals.

There was resistance when the Tata group arrived in Jamshedpur. Much of it was not documented. No compensation was paid because the land was the property of the ruler of Dalbhumgar.

The ruler transferred the land and the tribals had to leave their homes. The Tata group's centenary celebrations this week is reminiscent of the way people were forced out of their homeland.

But there wasn't the kind of violence as we see now.

No, there definitely was. There were massive protests against the takeover of land for public sector firms in Bokaro, Rourkela, Bhilai, Durgapur, Hathia, and Hindustan Engineering Corporation in Ranchi. Singur and Nandigram are the present day faces of 150 years of struggle against land acquisition.

What was wrong with the Land Acquisition Act that it offered no protection to land owners?

The Act has been thoroughly misused for industry. The Act, when formulated, was clear that land would be acquired only for public purpose like railway tracks, roads, schools, hospitals but not for commercial interest.

So the government could have been sued for taking land for PSUs?

The adivasis didn't have the strength to do so.

What about Singur?

Those who wanted to see the Left parties embarrassed took up the issue. But when the Kalinga Nagar incident took place on January 2, it was not such a big issue. Nobody wanted to touch the corporates though land mines were used. How can you use land mines in the era of free markets?

Isn't the proposed policy allowing free markets?

Land owners should have the freedom to say no. Remember that the new arrangement would allow the government to buy some of the land. If I have to sell my house I can't let the government sell one room of my house. If I let industry come in one room, it will eventually acquire the rest of the house. It is a cunning and deceitful step that the government is taking. And we won't allow it.

We won't give even an inch of land in Jharkhand to any greenfield project, irrespective of the introduction of any new law. We wanted the Land Acquisition Act to be scrapped, and a new Act to be introduced for only public purposes. We also want that people should have the right to say no.

How can you be sure that people in Jharkhand won't sell land for greenfield projects?

We have 62 organisations at the grassroots level and they have banned the entry of NTPC, three major plants of Tatas (with an investment of Rs 60,000 crore), 20 coal mines, iron ore and bauxite mines and four uranium mines into the villages.

Where else will a mine come if not in interior areas?

Precisely. India has a high density population and you can't think of mega mining projects here. This whole choice of the technology of mega mining is profitable in thinly populated countries like Australia and the US. We would also like to tell the government that it cannot sell off today what society will need tomorrow.

So, our organisation has been telling the government that it should use bauxite iron ore and coal reserves in the same way as ONGC uses its oil reserves for geo-political bargaining.

If we use aluminium as a bargaining point internationally, we can make western countries fall at our feet. If India stops exporting aluminium, China's development plans will come to a standstill, and we should do this because in two years China will sell aluminium and steel in the international market at throwaway prices.

Private mining companies won't really care about this. And the government too doesn't care about the noise you make.

Why do you think the government is spending a year to work on the rehabilitation policy? Every government is absolutely petrified now by resistance movement.

What makes you so optimistic?

The resistance movement will decide who will be elected tomorrow. For four years, not a single greenfield project was allowed in Jharkhand. So I can say resistance has worked.

What about the solution that the government has found? Will it work?

There is no negotiation. The government is incapable of negotiating with people. We don't have a mechanism whereby a dialogue can take place. When the government talks it talks to the chambers.

What's the hope?

If our present political system is incapable of delivering, then it must go. Why is Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez creating international impact by nationalising the mineral industry? If a tribal can do it in Venezuela then why not such a change in India?