1. The
Study and Campaign
2. Public
Lecture Series
3. Tsunami
and Afteron
4. North
East India Segment
5. Nepal
Segment
6. Pakistan
and Bangladesh Segments
7. Myanmar
segment
8. “Voices’
Project
9. OCHA
Nepal Thematic Report Summary
10. Report
of the Workshop on the IDPs in India’s Northeast, 24-26, 2006, Kohima, Nagaland
11. Responsibility
to Protect: A Series of Consultations in Bangalore, Bhubaneshwar and Kolkata
to Understand the Internal Displacement Situation in India
· Internal
Displacement in India: The Imperatives to Look at the Causes and Linkages
and to
Find Durable Solutions (13- 15 July 2007, Bangalore)
· Dominance,
Development, Displacement, Rights and the Issue of Law ( 27-29 July , 2007
, Bhubaneswar )
· Unkept
Promises: Displacement and Little or No Resettlement Under the Left Front
Government
in West Bengal (3-6 September 2007, Kolkata)
12. CRG
Workshop on India’s R&R Policy, 16 August 2007, Delhi

1. The Study and Campaign
The CRG has been engaged in research on the internally displaced
persons since 2002 in view of the fact that, in the last one decade, the
number of internally displaced persons (IDP) has been on the rise in South
Asia just as in many other parts of the world. Discrimination against
minorities, violence, war, ethnic hatred, state repression, demands for
self-determination, natural and man made disasters such as famines and
floods, ill-conceived development projects such as highways and dams – all
have contributed massively to internal displacement. Often the victims of
forced displacement are unable to cross borders due to severe lack of
resources and are forced to live within a regime that had created occasions
for their displacement in the first place.
The societies and the polities of South Asia have shown weak
capacity to cope with the severe humanitarian crises and the disasters of
unprecedented magnitude in form of major occurrences of forced
displacements. Internal displacement has become one of the chief concerns of
the administrators, policy-making circles, and humanitarian agencies. It is
the integral today to studies of forced displacement in South Asia,
particularly in the context of the experiences of Sri Lanka, India, and
Nepal.
An interesting aspect in the study of IDPs in South Asia conducted
by the CRG with the help of the Brookings Institution, which has already
been published as a monograph by Sage in 2005, portrays that there are no
legal or constitutional mechanisms in any country in South Asia for the IDPs
in particular, no inventory of best practices. In fact South Asian states
have organized rehabilitation and care on an ad hoc basis for the IDPs in
the same manner as they have dealt with refugees. Yet the reality is that
the IDPs are more vulnerable than the refugees, particularly because they
have to remain within a system that is responsible for their displacement,
and there is no definite international protection mechanism for them.
In the last decade the UN Guiding Principles on Internal
Displacement have created occasion for rethinking on the situation of IDPs
worldwide. Individually South Asia scholars, jurists, civil liberties and
human rights activists are in the forefront of such rethinking. The more
important point is that the Guiding Principles have become the common
benchmark for protection and care of the IDPs in a region where States are
at conflict with each other and hence do not want to learn from each other’s
best practices; also there is no regional mechanism on this critical issue
of human rights and humanitarianism.
Keeping this in mind the CRG has organized a South Asian advocacy
campaign on the Guiding Principles and on how coupled with other legal and
non-formal measure it can be used to serve the interest of the victim
communities. The CRG has been the founder of the only regular journal on
forced migration in South Asia, Refugee Watch. This journal through
the last five years has built up a substantial body of writings, case
studies, analyses, interviews, and documents on IDPs that became a
significant study material for such a training program. CRG has completed in
collaboration with the Brookings Institution a massive study of the patterns
of internal displacement in South Asia based on country analyses of
Pakistan, India, Burma, Nepal, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and
Nepal. Such a study has been possible because of strong relations that CRG
has with relevant functionaries in humanitarian and human rights
organizations, academics, human rights activists, and legal scholars in
these countries. The aim of the study has been to find out how the South
Asian situation fares in the mirror of the UN Guiding Principles on Internal
Displacement. The study has also included an over all report on conditions
of women who have been victims of internal displacement in this
region. This study has made it possible for CRG to form a network of
scholar activists who supported this South Asian advocacy and training
programme on the Guiding Principles. The programme commenced with a
preparatory meeting in Kathmandu in July 2004.
2. Public Lecture Series
In
2005, CRG hosted three public lectures by Robert Kogod Goldman, Professor of
Law & Louis C. James Scholar; Co-Director, Center For Human Rights and
Humanitarian Law, American University, Washington College of Law,
Washington, D.C., USA on Internal Displacement, The Guiding Principles on
Internal Displacement, The Principles’ Normative Status, and The Need For
Effective Domestic Implementation in Kolkata, Pune and Delhi in
collaboration with the West Bengal Political Science Association, Bhowanipur
Education Society College, Kolkata, and Indian Society for International
Law, Delhi.
(For the text of Goldman's lecture, RW
26)
The public lecture series will continue. This year Professor Ranabir
Samaddar and Dr. Paula Banerjee will deliver two lectures on IDPs in South
Asia in Dhaka University under this programme. Last year during the winter
course on forced migration, several public lectures were instituted.
3.Tsunami
and After
The last few years have witnessed an enormous increase in the
number of internally displaced people in all countries in South Asia. The
Tsunami has further added to this overwhelming problem. The situation of IDPs in South Asia is particularly vulnerable because unlike the refugees
they are never able to move away from the site of conflict and have to
remain within a state in which they were forced to migrate in the first
place. Their situation seems even more susceptible to danger when one
considers that there are hardly any legal mechanisms that guide their
rehabilitation and care. Only recently we have the UN Guiding Principles on
internal displacement. Keeping that in mind it becomes imperative for
scholars working on issues of forced migration in South Asia to design
programs that look into the IDP situation in this region and the relevance
of the Guiding Principles. Calcutta Research Group in collaboration with the
Brookings Institution has, for the last few years, been working on this
theme. The group has designed a number of programs on rehabilitation and
care of IDPs in the region, which has been supported by the Brookings
Institution project on IDPs. The activities listed below should be
considered as a continuation of previous such work. The Calcutta Research
Group in collaboration with the Forced Migration Review (Oxford University)
and the Brookings Institution conducted a one-day meeting on rehabilitation
and care of Tsunami victims in India. In the meeting experiences from
Andaman and Nicobar Islands and the Tamilnadu were discussed and lacuna’s of
state and non-state responses were pointed out. The meeting ended with a
series of recommendations on further programs for rehabilitation and care of
victims that will be both gender sensitive and sensitive to voices of
vulnerable group.
4.Northeast India Segment
Northeast India has witnessed protracted conflicts and
displacements of thousands of people in the last few decades. On the one
hand, we know of such cases, where an ethnic community claimed exclusive
rights over a space that it defines as its “homeland” on the ground that it
is the “original inhabitant” of the land. By the same token, they have held
that outsiders have no right to settle there. In Assam in Northeast India in
the last count (August 2004) a total of 37,677 families (2,37,768 people)
were staying in makeshift camps in three districts of western Assam – Kokrakjhar, Bongaigaon and Dhubri. Their displacement was also due to
ethnicity related reasons. There are about 37,000 Reangs displaced from
Mizoram who are living in North Tripura. There are more than 200,000
Adivasis and Bodos still in camps in western Assam and between 50,000 to
60,000 Bengalis displaced by tribal guerrilla violence from various parts of
Tripura. The total number of ethnicity-induced IDPs is close to 300,000 in
northeast India alone. Other than that millions of people are displaced for
reasons of development such as dam building. Thousands of tribals are
displaced due to the building of Dumbur lake in Tripura. There are 148
medium schemes of dams in Northeast India today that has raised tremendous
protests from the potentially displaced people of the region. Keeping this
in mind Calcutta Research Group has planned an advocacy program for the
rehabilitation and care of displaced and potentially displaced people in
Northeast India. Calcutta Research Group in collaboration with OKD
institute in Guwahati is in the process of translating the Guiding
Principles of four different Northeast Indian languages. It hopes to hold
an advocacy workshop in Shillong that will audit these translations, discuss
its relevance for IDPs in the region and plan programs for rehabilitation
and care.
5. Nepal Segment
The purpose is to create a forum for in-depth study on IDPs in
Nepal and formation of a website entirely devoted to the situation of those
IDPs. This website will be entirely in Nepali language. All materials
published in English will be translated into Nepali. This is particularly
because only urban people in Nepal speak English. The language for most
others is Nepali. Hence to widely sensitise people on this issue a Nepali
website has become imperative. We wish to fulfil this lacuna. In Nepal
populations have been displaced for roads, irrigation schemes, airports,
promulgation of national parks, and watershed management projects. However,
the extent and history of these displacements have been mostly forgotten.
Starting from February 1996, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) has been
waging a “People’s War” in Nepal. The war started in a few districts in the
mid-western hills. This has resulted in thousands of displaced people of
whom many are women and yet the government figures are as low as 2,514. Yet
unofficial records portray that only at
Gaddachauki in Kanchanpur district in far western Nepal by the beginning of
January 2003, 40,000 Nepalis were displaced. In Nepalganj more than 8000
people crossed the border in 2003. Keeping these figures in mind a program
on IDPs needs to be developed in Nepal. For that purpose we propose the
creation of a website that would not just contain all published reports and
studies on IDPs but also constantly update it through fresh research and
through materials collected from media and reports of all rights based
organisations.
6. Pakistan and
Bangladesh Segments
The CRG proposes the translation of the volume on “Internal
Displacement in South Asia” in Urdu. The translation of the book in Urdu
will serve the purpose of reaching a wide audience in Pakistan, increase its
readership, and justify the CRG-Brookings Institution’s joint plan of
building a core team on South Asia devoted to the rehabilitation and care of
IDPs. The translation will be published once we get there a good publisher
who has wide distribution capacity. The dissemination can begin through the
Karachi University after we have published the translation.
The proposal of holding a series of public lectures in Bangladesh will help
in the dissemination of news and views on the IDPs and facilitate
discussions on the book entitled Internal Displacement in South Asia.
More significantly, it will help the dissemination of the Bengali
translation of the Guiding Principles (already published).
7. Myanmar Segment
Myanmar has a total area of about 230,800 square miles. As modern
Myanmar is situated on the borderland of different cultures – Mongoloid and
Indian, people belonging to competing cultures and civilizations have often
fought each other on the soil of this not-so-big country. A variety of large
and small ethnic groups reside in Myanmar. Major among them are: Burmans,
Karens, Mons, Arakanese (or Rakhaines), Chins, Kachins, Karennis (or
Kayahs), Nagas, Pa’os, Palaungs and Was. After September 1958, when General
Ne Win and his associates took power, Myanmar started to drift away to
authoritarian rule. After the 1962 coup, General Ne Win and his
Revolutionary Council imposed complete military rule in the country. As a
result of this military rule most ethnic groups other than the Burmans have
faced tremendous displacement. The contemporary phenomenon of large-scale
displacement of people in Myanmar has turned into a matter of acute concern
in the last one and a half decades. Whereas some displaced civilians could
take shelter in countries on the other side of the border, mainly in
Thailand, and sometimes in India, the rest could not or did not cross the
international border and became Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). In
short, these civilians got displaced either in anticipation of forced
relocation when the government troops ordered them to relocate, or they fled
when the human rights abuses or military threats became absolutely
intolerable for them. In fact, the human rights situation in the border
areas of Myanmar is among the worst in the world, and includes, as has
already been indicated, counter-insurgency operations directly targeting
civilians, forced labour, restrictions on farmers and land confiscation.
There are regular reports of torture, arbitrary executions, sexual violence
and indiscriminate use of landmines to make areas uninhabitable and forced
recruitment by both the government troops and armed opposition groups.
Although there are efforts to bring the plight of IDPs in Myanmar to the
focus of international rights based communities but whatever has been done
is meagre considering the magnitude of the problem. The CRG wants to hold a
consultative meeting of different Myanmarese ethnic groups in Bangkok where
representatives of Shan, Chin, Karen and other ethnic groups will develop a
consolidated framework for improving the situation of IDPs in Myanmar and
design an advocacy program for their rehabilitation and care.
8. ‘Voices’ Project
This is a Project on Recording the Opinions of the IDPs on National
and International Measures Relating to their Relief, Rehabilitation, and
Resettlement and Protection of Their Human Rights. As a result of the
ceaseless campaign by the global human rights and humanitarian community –
the UN institutions, several national governments, individual human rights
and humanitarian groups within countries, and legal and other experts - the
task of safeguarding the human rights of the IDPs on a national and global
scale has been receiving increasing attention. There have been the Guiding
Principles besides the national mechanisms available in many countries.
Human Rights commissions, other institutions such as the women’s commission,
the judiciary, and administrative measures and policies have also
contributed to the protection of the rights of the IDPs to the extent
possible today.
Yet, amidst all this increasing attention and proliferating
measures, few have cared to find out as to how all these measures have
benefited the victims of internal displacement - the IDPs themelves. It is
important to know their voices so that the humanitarian and protection
measures become participatory, these measures can be improved upon, and the
human rights community and the public get to know if the measures are
effective, if they reach their target at all, and what measures are
necessary to make the human rights and humanitarian protection more
effective.
Such a task for mapping the “voices” in the region of South Asia
was begun by the Calcutta Research Group in collaboration with the Brookings
Institution, USA. Conceived in a small South Asian meeting held in Bangkok
in March 2005 the project began in August 2005. The initial, time-bound
pilot study covered select IDPs in Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh and in four
different regions in India. This was meant to be a pilot study carried out
in IDP camps in South Asia. The partner organization for this work
included:
1 Bangladesh
Suraiya Begum, Research Initiatives, Bangladesh
2. Nepal
Nepal Institute of Peace, Kathmandu
3. Sri Lanka
National Peace Council, Sri Lanka
4 India
Madhuresh Kumar, MCRG, Kolkata
Dr. Asha Hans and Ms. Amrita Patel, Santa Memorial Rehabilitation Centre,
Bhubaneswar
Anasua Basu Ray Chaudhury, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, New
Delhi
Anuradha Bhasin Jamwal, Kashmir Times, Jammu and Kashmir
The work combines three methods – (a) random survey of some
selected IDP campsites and settlements and analysis on the basis of a
focused questionnaire (b) focus group discussions with IDPs living in camps
and (c) select case studies and presentations of voices from those selected
areas or population groups. A total of 528 respondents from four different
countries were interviewed. Other than that a number of focus group
discussions were held and over thirty selected cases were studied in
depth. There were country reports from Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh and
case reports from Gujarat, Kashmir, Orissa and Bodoland in India.
As a result of the ceaseless campaign by the global human rights
and humanitarian community – the UN institutions, several national
governments, individual human rights and humanitarian groups within
countries, and legal and other experts - the task of safeguarding the human
rights of the IDPs on a national and global scale has been receiving
increasing attention. There have been the Guiding Principles besides the
national mechanisms available in many countries. Human Rights commissions,
other institutions such as the women’s commission, the judiciary, and
administrative measures and policies have also contributed to the protection
of the rights of the IDPs to the extent possible today.
Yet, amidst all this increasing attention and proliferating
measures, few have cared to find out as how all these measures have
benefited the victims of internal displacement - the IDPs. It is important
to know their voices so that the humanitarian and protection measures become
participatory, these measures can be improved upon, and the human rights
community and the public get to know if the measures are effective, if they
reach their target at all, and what measures are necessary to make the human
rights and humanitarian protection more effective.
Again
while in many parts of the world the global community is conducting
protection measures for IDPs, and trying to ensure their human rights, and
in many cases national governments are taking energetic measures toward this
goal, there is insufficient monitoring and evaluation of these measures by
the displaced themselves, who could shed critical light on
the possible differences between the stated claims of protecting the victims
and the actual state of affairs. Most important, there are significant cases
where the victims of displacement do not receive any protection at all from
any recognised source, and their voices remain completely unheard.
Getting to know the experiences and opinions of the victims - the IDPs - was
therefore critical; indeed, it is one of the surest, most effective, most
economic and most transparent method of evaluating the national and
international response and ensuring that mistakes committed in one place in
the course of protection work is avoided in others.
Such
a task for mapping the “voices” in the region of South Asia is additionally
significant because of large scale and still undocumented displacements, ad
hoc nature of the administrative responses, absence of any legal regime for
the internally displaced, intense civil war in Nepal, the unprecedented
disaster of the Tsunami, and a frenzy of developmental projects throughout
the region in the wake of globalisation.
For the preliminary report of the entire project click
here.
(For report on research,
translation, and other activities under this segment, please visit
archives.)
9.OCHA Nepal Thematic
Report Summery
“The
Internally Displaced Persons: Current Status” Kathmandu,
6 September 2006
The first issue of the OCHA Nepal Thematic Report deals with the current
status of the internally displaced persons in Nepal, which is one of the key
issues for a lasting peace between the interim government of Nepal and the
CPN-Maoists. The report evaluates the impact of the recent political changes
on the displacement dynamic in Nepal highlighting the unresolved issues
affecting IDPs as well as challenges in planning IDP return support
programmes.
Monitoring internal displacement in Nepal has never been an easy
task due to the unclear demarcation between conflict-related displacement
and seasonal and economic migration from the hill districts as well as the
wide range and diversity of those displaced.
The current status of IDPs in Nepal is further overshadowed by the
general confusion and stigmatization of IDPs exacerbated by the lack of a
clear national policy on IDPs. The proposed National Policy on Internally
Displaced Persons is currently on hold pending an implementation plan and
possible modifications. Moreover, the near-absence of government presence
outside the district headquarters as well as the unstable political
situation constitute potential triggers for new displacement.
The ongoing return process is on the increase but remains contested
by the UN, which is still questioning the existence of conditions for a safe
return of IDPs. However, the right to return is not consistently respected
by the CPN-Maoists, who continue to negatively influence opportunities for
sustainable returns through their control of IDPs’ lands. Food insecurity
and lack of livelihood in general is both a reason to leave and an obstacle
to return.
The UN and I/NGOs have been active in their response and
coordination of protection and assistance to IDPs in Nepal. The
international agencies are working together on plan as well as safe
environment for returns to take place.
OCHA has launched the Nepal Information Platform, where all
information available in relation to internal displacement in Nepal, is
compiled. The site can be accessed at www.un.org.np
Full OCHA Nepal Thematic report
available at
www.un.org.np/reports/OCHA/2006/IDP-thematic-report/2006-9-7-OCHA-Nepal-Thematic-Report-IDPs.pdf
10.Report of the
Workshop on the IDPs in India's Northeast
The Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group (MCRG) in collaboration with the Naga
Peoples’ Movement for Human Rights (NPMHR) organised a three-day workshop on
the Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) in India’s Northeast at Hotel Japfu
in Kohima, Nagaland during August 24-26, 2006. Academics, human rights
activists and media-persons from different parts of India’s East and
Northeast participated in this workshop.
In the inaugural session on 24 August, Samir Kumar Das, Research
Coordinator, MCRG made some introductory comments indicating the
justification of organising such a workshop in Kohima. He also referred to
the previous work done by the MCRG in this context. Nepuni, General
Secretary, NPMHR, welcomed all the participants. Dr. Monirul Hussain,
Professor, Department of Political Science, Gauhati University presented a
status report on the IDP Situation in Northeast India and this report was
subsequently discussed in the workshop. In fact, Dr. Hussain’s presentation
acted as the keynote address to the workshop. Apart from a concept note and
Monirul Hussain’s keynote address, copies of an article entitled “Nobody’s
People in No-man’s Land” by Subir Bhaumik [in Paula Banerjee, Sabyasachi
Basu Ray Chaudhury and Samir Kumar Das (eds.), Internal Displacement in
South Asia, (Sage: 2005)] and another one entitled “Population
Displacement in India: A Critical Review” by Samir Kumar Das and Sabyasachi
Basu Ray Chaudhury (published in Refugee Watch) were circulated among
the participants as reference points for discussion in the workshop. Walter
Fernandes, Director, North Eastern Social Research Centre, chaired this
session. Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury, Secretary, MCRG, proposed a formal
vote of thanks at the end of the session.
-
Status
Report By Monirul Hussain
North East India has been a
very distinct civilisational, geographical, socio-economic, cultural and
political entity in India. Of the 635 tribal groups listed by
Anthropological Survey of India, 213 were found to be living in the
Northeast India. This region is geographically isolated and connected with
the rest of India through a narrow corridor. Besides, the region is also
economically underdeveloped. The migrations of different groups at different
periods of history from the neighbouring areas have made the society in
Assam rich and diverse in terms of race, religion, language and culture.
Even the society in the hills of North East also reflects high degree of
diversity though each community living therein
has its distinct characteristics. However, with its annexation into the
British colonial India, Assam was exposed to a very high degree of
in-migration as an inseparable part of the colonial transformation of
society, polity and economy. Obviously, .a large number of these migrants,
were, in-fact the displaced people. Whether the tribal from the Jharkhand
region who migrated to Assam’s tea plantations, or the or the uprooted
peasants of East Bengal who migrated to Assam in large number in search of
land and livelihood, all of them were in fact the displaced people induced
by the political economy of colonial India. Briefly speaking, Assam remained
the unofficial host to large number of displaced people throughout the
colonial period. End of the British colonialism also forced Assam to become
a host of a large number of East Pakistan refugees. Unlike, Panjab and
Bengal the outflow of refugees from the North East was virtually
insignificant.
One can find all the three kinds of IDPs in the North East India i.e.,
1. Conflict
induced IDPs
2. Development
induced IDPs and
3. Natural
disaster/ environment induced IDPs ( many preferred to call them
Environmental Refugees).
Data on IDP is very scanty. Most difficult is to find data on natural
disaster/ environment induced displacement of population. Next in order of
difficulty is to gather data on development-induced displacement. North East
has experienced a massive development induced displacement of population
during the postcolonial period. Compared to these two categories, it is
relatively easier to collect data on conflict-induced displacement of
population. It is mainly because the media normally does not miss to report
conflict because it is an important political event. Our media is largely
obsessed with the political news and largely ignore the development and
environment issues that displace people. Hence, in the process, we get some
information about the conflict-induced displacement but not much on
development and environment induced displacement of population in North East
India. Besides, if not all, a significant number of media personnel accept
the events of human displacement caused by environmental degradation as
“natural” events. Similar is the case with the displacement caused by
development projects. Here too population displacement becomes natural!
Ethnic conflicts became endemic in postcolonial North East India. Here,
ethnic conflict includes the conflict between the state and ethnic groups/
insurgent groups, inter ethnic and intra ethnic conflicts. One particular
situation of ethnic conflict may reflect one, two or all these three kinds
of conflicts simultaneously.
Among the North Eastern states, internal displacement has been quite high in
Assam. Conflict has been the main cause of major displacement of population
in Assam. Although it is very difficult to give an exact data of IDPs caused
by conflict in this region, we can give some estimates of government and
some other agencies here. Tens
of thousands of Bengalis, Hindus and Muslims, were displaced all over Assam
in violence unleashed during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, particularly during
six years of anti foreigner’s agitation led by students and the dominant
Asamiyas. During the worst phase of violence in July-September 1960, almost
50,000 Bengalis, mostly Hindus crossed over to West Bengal seeking shelter
there. Again, in 1972-73, 14000 Bengalis fled to West Bengal and elsewhere
after the breakout of riots over language issue. However, the real figure of
displacement is far more than mentioned here because government account
includes only those people who took refuge in the camps of West Bengal.
Thousands died in the riots during the agitation between 1979 and 1985 -
almost 2,000 in the village of Nellie alone.
The inter-ethnic clashes in the Bodo heartland of Kokrajhar and Bongaigaon
has displaced a large number of people. At one stage, the number of IDPs
reached more than 3 lakhs. It should also be mentioned here that the
Bodo-Muslim ethnic violence that occurred in October 1993 has displaced
about 3568 families consisting of 18000 persons. Again, a series of major
incidents took place throughout the district in May 1996 when a section of
Bodos attacked ethnic Santhals. This conflict has resulted in the
displacement of a huge population. Almost 42,214 families consisting of
about 2, 62682 persons were displaced by this conflict “at the peak of the
Bodo Armed Movement, Assam accounted for nearly more than half of India’s
population of Internally Displaced Persons”.
These victims were sheltered in 78-relief camps around Kokrajhar and its
adjoining areas. After staying as inmates in the camps many of them return
to their villages in 1997 with a small amount of returnees grant provided by
government of India. However, in 1998 again conflict started between the two
groups resulting in the displacement of 48,556 families consisting of
3,14,342 villagers. Till April 2005, in Kokrajhar 1, 26,263 inmates were
living in 38 state sponsored relief camps in the district.
Some of these conflict-induced IDPs are living in the relief camps for more
than a decade now. The government is providing only rice to the inmates of
some of the camps for 10 days a month. Even that supply too was erratic.
Sometimes, the IDPs do not get their rations for months together. Assam
government records indicates only 33,362 displaced people were left in the
camps Kokrajhar district and 74,123 were left in the camps in Gossaigaon
district.
In the Kokrajhar sub division number of inmates in the relief camps has
decreased from 41,999 to 28,961 on August 2006. Little more than one-third
are children and two thirds are adults. However, we could not verify the
number of IDPs as given by the district administration. Still the number of
IDPs is quite large despite settlement of the Bodo issue. The leadership of
the Bodoland movement now leading the Bodoland Autonomous Council as well as
a part of the present Congress led coalition government of Assam. It seems
they have given utmost priority to the rehabilitation of the ex-insurgents.
And resettlement and rehabilitation of IDP is still a low priority issue in
the political agenda of the state government as well as the Bodoland
Autonomous Council.
Although the government reports are claiming decrease in the number of the
inmates of these camps but it is also found that these displaced are forced
to leave the camps. Many tribal leaders allege that the administration was
stopping rations to force these people out of the camps.
The Muslims of Bengali origin chased out by the Bodo rebels in 1994 are
living in pathetic conditions in some places of Assam. Near Bijni on the
National Highway, nearly 8,000 such Muslims live in huts on both sides of
the National Highway 37.
The life of the IDPs living in the camps in Assam has been very difficult.
Most of them do not get adequate food, nutrition and proper medical care.
Children of these camps are deprived of formal education and health care
services. Though, some receive food aid, but it often arrives sporadically
and insufficient in quantity and nutrition. Thus these losing their
possessions like land, home and livelihood live in a dehumanised condition.
According to the Home Minister of Meghalaya, approximately 350 Pnar people
having close affinity with the Jaintia community of Meghalaya have fled the
North Cachar Hills district following the Dimasa- Hmar conflicts in 2003.
This has not only spread terror in and around the Cachar district but also
resulted in thousands of Dimasas and Hmars being displaced from their gutted
down villages, to take shelter in about 25 relief centres.
Again, 4,000 Khasis and Pnars fled from Assam to Meghalaya after getting
threat from Karbi militants in November 2003. The displaced were sheltered
in camps. However, after staying for a period of two months in the camps the
displacees return back.
However, in late 2005, the Karbi Anglong district witnessed one of the worst
and longest spells of ethnic violence of Assam. Such violence continued
unabated for over one month. The two militant outfits of this district –
United People’s Democratic Solidarity (UPDS) and Dima Halam Daoga (DHD)
fought with each other resulting in mass killing and violence in the
district. The UPDS is the dominant Karbi militant group, while the DHD
claims to represent the Dimasa tribe’s aspiration for a separate homeland.
This conflict has also affected the Bodos living in the district. Not to
speak about the Karbi and Dimasa villages, but the villages having the
majority of other groups had to flee their places. At first, the conflict
was concentrated mainly in Diphu sub-division, but later it spreads to
Hamren sub-division also. Thousands of families have been rendered homeless
with Karbis attacking the Dimasas in some places and the Dimasas retaliating
in full measure in other areas The panic stricken people of villages though
not directly affected, have also fled their houses to stay in the relief
camps. All along the highway, scores of relief camps have sprung up.
However, people belonging to other ethnic groups are also taking shelter in
the relief camps. Even when violence was abated to some extent, the people
did not want to go back to what remains of their homes and hearths.
Although, official sources asserted that there is no shortage of relief
materials, many relief camps are facing shortage of food, medicine, clothing
and kerosene. Another major problem is that the students of the districts
are suffering as more than 40 schools have been transformed into relief
camps.
According to an estimate the ethnic violence of October 2005 has displaced
more than 60,000 tribal people belonging to Karbi and Dimasa tribes. Hence,
at the present moment it can be estimated that in Assam only, there are over
200000 conflict-induced IDPs in various relief camps both in the plains and
the hills awaiting resettlement and rehabilitation. It must be mentioned
here that in many cases a number of displaced remain unnoticed and
undocumented in the state.
In November 2003, hundreds of Hindi-speaking people left Assam in the wake
of the backlash that followed attacks on the train passengers of northeast
India in various places of Bihar. Leaving aside the uncounted numbers of
those internally displaced, about 20,000 persons, perhaps more, are believed
to have fled the State.
Tension in the border areas also results in the displacement of the people.
Very recently, on August 10, 2006; the Bangladesh Rifles attacked two
outposts of the Border Security force in Cachar and Karimganj districts
killing two women. The BSF also retaliated and the firing between the two
border guards continued for a long time. Anticipating further violence,
nearly 3000 residents of Harinagar, Kinarkkal and Tukegram villages of
Cachar and Karimganj fled their homes in panic. The displaced people have
been lodged in the relief camps opened at schools and club buildings at a
safe distance from the international border. There are problems in the
Indo-Bangladesh border over land in Cachar district, as it is believed that
the Bangladeshi national try to cultivate in the land of Harinagar area of
this district. This is stated to be the main reason behind such an incident.
However, later on Indian government has dismissed the report on land
encroachment by the Bangladeshi National in the Indian side. Again on 20
August there were exchanges of fire between India’s BSF and Bangladesh’s BDR
in which a Bangladeshi woman died.
People living in the border area, whether an international or inter-state in
North East India always suffers from a deep sense of fear because of
conflict between inter-state border and intra state border. Like
Indo-Bangladesh border, the Assam and Nagaland border and the Assam and
Arunachal Pradesh border have very often generate displacement of
population. However, such displacements have not received adequate attention
from the media.
Anti-Bengali movement has displaced people not only from Assam earlier but
also from Tripura and Meghalaya. In Meghalaya there was a large-scale
displacement of Bengali population, mainly from Shillong. Since the early
1980s, an estimated 25000-35000 Bengalis have left Meghalaya and settled
down in some other states of India, mainly in Assam and West Bengal.
According to Meghalaya Census report, in 1981, there were 119571 Bengalis in
Meghalaya, constituting 8.13 percent of the state’s population. But in 1991,
this stood at 144261, constituting only 5.97 percent of the total
population. There has been a steady decline of Bengali population in
Shillong over last three decades.
In Tripura, attacks on Bengali has been more widespread. Here, the Bengalis
constitute the majority and taken over land on a large scale from the
indigenous communities. The violence started between the two communities
with the riot of June-July 1980 in which about 1076 Bengalis and 278 tribals
were killed. during this riot, 189,919 people, 80 per cent Bengalis and the
remaining 20 percent tribal were displaced and took shelter in the 186 camps
that were set up for them. After the return of normalcy, it was difficult
for the Bengalis to return back to their villages as they were taken over by
the tribal. Some of the tribal youths formed Tribal
National Volunteers (TNV). Between March 1992 and March 2002, these rebels
killed 823 Bengalis and 3312 were kidnapped. About 1/7th of those kidnapped
did not return. Thus, after 1980 since the first major ethnic riot in
Tripura, more than 100000 Bengalis have been displaced from the state.
The Tripura State Revenue Minister, in a statement in the Legislative
Assembly, on 24 September 2003, quoted IDP figures in the state; in what
could be the first such attempt by any state government in the region to
assess the scale of physical movement of people due to militancy. The
minister said, “Between March 1998 to February 2003, 19,468 families have
been displaced from their original places”. If each family is estimated to
have five members, the total number of people displaced would be around
98,000, roughly amounting to more than three per cent of the state’s total
population. This is a very large displacement indeed.
Manipur has witnessed substantial internal displacement and ethnic
relocation in the wake of the Naga-Kuki and the Kuki-Paite feuds in the
1990s that led to nearly 1700 deaths and destruction of property worth
millions of Rupees. At least 600 villages were burnt down during the Naga-
Kuki feud, in which nearly 10000 houses were destroyed. The Nagas killed 898
Kukis during the eight-year-old feud while 312 Nagas were killed by the
Kukis. On the other hand, the Paites killed 210 Kukis in clashes and lost
298 persons from their community. Almost 3000 houses in 47 villages were
destroyed and 22000 Kukis and Paites were displaced. Again, during the riots
between the meites and Pangals, more than 100 were killed in which 196
houses in 9 villages were destroyed.
The regrouping of Mizos by the Indian Army in the wake of Mizo rebellion
had displaced a large number of Mizo population. During the first
regrouping, 45000 and in the second regrouping 87000 Mizos were regrouped.
This had forced the Mizo farmers away from his lands as they were forced to
settle in roadside locations guarded by the army.
Mizoram has also witnessed a massive outflow of Burmese refugees in 2003.
The Chin refugees who had taken refuge in the state following persecution by
the Burmese Junta in the post-1988 democracy uprising were forcibly
repatriated to Myanmar during July-August 2003. It is reported that more
than 4000 Burmese refugees went back to Myanmar after this violence. More
than 50,000 ethnic Chin, Kuki
and Naga refugees from Myanmar have been left at the mercy of the state
governments and the local populace.
About 30,000 to 40,000 Brus/ also called Reangs fled from Mizoram State of
India to Tripura to escape from a campaign of violence and terror against
them allegedly by members of the Mizo Zirlai Pawl (Mizo Students Union) and
Young Mizo Association (YMA). From 15 October 1997 onwards, Reangs from
Tungbagin, Kawnmun, Pheileng, Laxmicheraa, Kwartha, Rangdil, Fileng and
Tuipuibari areas of Aizwal district of Mizoram fled to neighbouring states
to escape from persecution from the non-state actors. It is alleged that the
state too remained as silent spectator.
According to an estimate of Tripura government, 30690 Reangs belonging to
6859 families have fled into Tripura in last 3 years. Later on, at the
initiative of the Mizoram government, almost 3000 refugees returned back to
Mizoram but a majority has chosen to stay back in the IDP camps of Tripura.
During the visit to the relief camps under Kanchanpur sub-division in North
Tripura from 2-4 January 2006, Asian Centre for Human Rights found the
conditions of over 34,000 displaced Brus in the camps in North Tripura as
sub-human. Medical and sanitation facilities are almost non-existent in
these camps. The inmates use the water from ponds and streams as a result of
which water born disease spread out very easily. More than 5000 children in
the camps are deprived of education. Even Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan has not been
extended to these camps.
Another survey in these camps reveals the fact that the inmates are also
becoming victims of AIDS. A survey at the refugee camps in Kanchanpur
Sub-division of North-Tripura district conducted by the state health
department has found that at least 6 Bru IDPs staying at these camps have
been suffering from AIDS and 12 others are found to be HIV positive. Health
department sources further say that a section of poverty stricken refugees
were working as sex workers and a section of youth were drug addicts, who
are contributing towards the spread of this disease.
Development projects are very often linked with the problem of displacement.
The development projects of the North East region have directly affected the
poor and powerless tribal both in the hills and plains. Absence of adequate
resettlement and rehabilitation policy for the displaced has led to further
pauperisation, marginalisation and helplessness among the oustees. The South
Asian Solidarity for Rivers and Peoples (SARP) maintained that from the 72
hydel projects proposed in the NE region only the contractors and dealers of
cement, iron etc will be benefited, not the common people. It will also help
the better off to lead a luxurious life, but at the same time the poor and
the backward communities will be deprived of their livelihood. It is also
interesting to see that Central Allocation for NE projects has increased
substantially in 2005-06 financial year. Eighty new projects were sanctioned
in this year for this region. By now it has become clear that mega dams have
done more harms than good to the people. But still the central government is
proposing new plans having dangerous consequences ignoring the fragile
ecology of this region. The common people have become conscious of the fact
that such projects are not only going to displace them, but also discrete
their timeless bond with the elements of nature. They will be alienated from
their own place. The people have now understood that Dams and other mega
projects will imperil their sustainable modes of living making their life
more difficult. Geological condition of this region is fragile. Instead of
making any effort protect the rich flora and fauna, the central government
is coming with new proposals for setting up different projects in this
region, which will have serious consequences in the long run. It is also
interesting to see that are by some the development projects of the
neighbouring states have also generated IDPs in this region. e.g, the Kaptai
Dam constructed on the river Karnaphuli across the international border in
the Chittagong Hill Tracts has displaced a large number of Chakmas and
Hajongs of the CHT. A large number of them settled down in Tripura and
Arunachal Pradesh creating refugee problem. The indigeneous communities of
Arunachal apprehend that the 65,000 strong Chakma-Hajong refugees could in
future emerge as a dominant political force. Such an eventuality would seal
any prospects of their deportation. They are also increasingly worried about
the alleged gradual transfer of their land to the refugees. Besides, the
refugees are also accused of encroaching on the reserved forestland.
Among the northeastern states, development induced IDPs are more visible in
Assam. The oil sector in Assam also contributed towards the problem of
displacement. New oil townships are established in various places of upper
and lower Assam displacing the inhabitants of those areas. Two paper Mills
of Assam at Jagiroad and Cachar have also forced people out of their homes
besides destroying the greenery. The Jagiroad paper mill has mostly
displaced the people belonging to Tiwa tribes. On the other hand, the Cachar
Paper Mill in Barak Valley of Assam has reduced the bamboo forest in the
neighbouring area.
Moreover, urban expansion of Guwahati city has displaced the tribal mostly
belonging to Karbis and Bodos. Urban expansion is pushing these people out
of the city to the periphery. In 1973, when Assam’s capital was shifted from
Shillong to Guwahati once again the tribals had to sacrifice. An estimated
1,00000 population were displaced at that time. Again educational
institutions like Gauhati University and IIT, Guwahati have also displaced
the original inhabitants of the outskirts of the city without proper
rehabilitation.
The Pagladiya Dam Project is to be constructed in Nalbari District of Lower
Assam. The project is going to irrigate 54,125 hectres of land, protect
40,000 hectres of land from flood and erosion, and generate only 3 MW of
electricity. But it would displace almost 1,05000 population most of whom
are tribal people. The rehabilitation and resettlement package offered by
the government is also not acceptable to the people of the area. Besides
many of them do not posses proper ownership documents and therefore will not
get any compensation. Hence, the people have started their movement under
the banner called “Pagladia Bandh Prakalpar Ksatigrastha Alekar Sangram
Samiti” against the implementation of the project. The Central government as
well as the Brahmaputra Board, which is the implementing agency of the
project, is making all efforts to construct the dam there. But till now the
resistance of the people have been quite successful and the authority has
failed to do even the ground survey because of the massive resistance of the
people.
For the construction of the fourth bridge over the mighty Brahmaputra ‘the
Bogibeel Bridge’, already more than 2000 bighas of land have been occupied.
According to an estimate, almost 500 families having ownership documents of
these lands are not compensated yet. It is to be mentioned that the land has
been taken for keeping stones and other materials required for the
construction of the bridge.
The 2000 MW Lower Subansiri project to be constructed on the border areas of
Assam and Arunachal is already facing lot of opposition from the people as
well as from the governments of both the sectors. The project was planned by
National Hydro Electric Power Corporation (NHPC), a government run public
sector unit and it is very keen to construct the dam as it has obtained
environmental clearance for the projects. The proposed height of the dam is
116 meters and it will submerge 3436 hectres of land. At the same time more
than 1 Lakh tribals of Arunachal Pradesh will be adversely affected by the
dam, out of which about 15000 faces the threat of physical displacement.
Besides it will affect the rich bio diversity of the region as 42 hectares
of land belonging to Tulley Valley reserve forest will also be submerged,
where many rare animal species can be found. The NHPC has already
constructed their office on an elephant corridor. As a result of this the
elephants have started attacking and destroying the neighbouring villages.
The indigenous people of Arunachal are also worried over the threats posed
by these projects to their habitats and unique cultural heritage. They
further fear that the project would also lead to influx of outsiders
creating social problems. Again, the project is going to submerge a vast
tract of cultivable land in Arunachal Pradesh impoverishing a large number
of indigenous people, while people of other states will get the benefit.
However in a significant development, the Ministry of Power has decided to
drop plans for the construction of Upper Subansiri dam in Arunachal Pradesh
following directions by the Ministry of Environment and Forest on the basis
of Indian Board of Wildlife.
The Dumbar Dam of the Gumti Hydel Project in South Tripura district, aims at
generating 8.60 MW of power, has displaced a total of 5845 tribal families –
between 35,000 to 40,000 people in all. The Gumti Hydel project has mainly
displaced the people belonging to Reang community. Although a rehabilitation
scheme was taken up for the permanent rehabilitation of the affected
families and payment of compensation in terms of acquisition of their land
was also undertaken by the state government but it is experienced that most
of the affected population dispersed in different localities of Tripura
States and they are not in a position to response during the course of
rehabilitation activities. Another point to be mentioned here is that the
affected Reang communities are mostly jhumias and they are having no land
records even of their homestead land. Therefore it is virtually impossible
for them to get resettlement without land document.
Likewise, Tipaimukh Multi purpose project is also going to displace over
15000 people. It would mainly attack two tribal communities- Zeliangrong
Nagas and the Hmar. It is to be mentioned here that the tribal people have
very close relationship with the nature. Moreover, they are attached to the
mother earth and have a very well knit web of community life. The
construction of such projects disturbs their community life and breaks their
relationship with the nature. Besides, in the North East such displacement
due to development creates the problem of space further creating ethnic
conflicts among them.
Tuli paper Mill of Nagaland has also displaced hundreds of tribal families
and affected the rich bio diversity and environment. The Loktak Hydel
project in Manipur displaced around 20,000 people as their villages went
under water. In Arunachal Pradesh more than 20,000 would be displaced by the
Siang project.
It is difficult to estimate the number of IDPs caused by environmental
degradation, i.e. flood, riverbank erosion, and landslide etc. However, some
reasonable conclusions can be drawn about the enormity of the problem. As a
result of continuous environmental degradation; flood and river-bank erosion
in the plains, and landslide in the hills have become endemic. This has
caused innumerable deaths, destruction and population displacement. The
intensity of flood, river-bank erosion and landslide has increased
substantially over the years in terms of area and victims. It would be
pertinent to point out that the plight of the river-bank erosion induced
IDPs are much more severe than that of the victims of flood. The victims of
flood at least can go back to their original land once the flood water
recedes. However, the river-bank erosion induced ID peasants can not go back
to their land. Because, their land has become a part of river’s new/extended
bed. It is not only the mighty river Brahmaputra but also the innumerable
small and medium sized rivers are also causing havoc in the plains of Assam,
i.e. the Brahmaputra Valley and the Barak Valley.
The flood of 2004 alone affected more than ten million people in Assam
valley. Excepting two hill districts, all the districts of the plains of
Assam experienced devastating flood and riverbank erosion. In an
unprecedented flash flood in October of 2004, nearly one thousand people
died in Goalpara district of Assam. The government provided some relief to
some of these flood-affected people, which was far from adequate. Besides
flood, erosion has also created problem for the people of Assam. According
an official report, the river Brahmaputra eroded 4, 29, 657 hectares of
prime agricultural land. Roughly, 7% of the land in the plains has been
eroded between 1951-2000. This has definitely displaced at least 3 million
peasants. Today they constitute the most pauperised community in Assam’s
plains. In the absence of proper resettlement and rehabilitation policy,
most of them have experienced multiple displacements.
The United Nations Guiding Principles on internally displaced Persons has
given a framework for taking care and providing adequate protection of the
displaced. These 30 principles cover all three phases of internal
displacement – the pre-displacement, situation during displacement and the
post displacement i.e. the return and resettlement of the displacees.
However, it is very unfortunate that these principles are not implemented in
India in general and Assam in particular. It seems the state too totally
oblivious to the UN guiding principles on IDPs.
Principle 1 says that IDPs shall enjoy in full equality the same rights and
freedoms under international and domestic law. But the IDPs living in the
camps as well as outside the camps in the North East never enjoy the freedom
as enjoyed by other citizens.
Principle 2 states that these principles shall be observed by all
authorities, groups and persons irrespective of their legal status and
applied without any adverse distinction. So, all the non-state actors and
different groups are under obligation to follow/ obey it. However, these are
not observed, rather violated very often, in the North East India by
different groups.
Principle 4 is very vital particularly to this region because it states that
the IDPs should not face discrimination. It should be mentioned here that
the displaced who mainly belong to the minority or backward groups often
have to face discrimination in various respects in this part of the country.
Principles 6 & 7 have been grossly violated in the Northeast India time and
again. This principle states that every human being have the right to be
protected against being arbitrarily displaced from his/her home or place of
habitual residence. Principle 7 states that it prohibits displacement unless
the safety and security of the people to be displaced are ensured by the
authority. Implementations of these principles will safeguard the people
from development-induced displacement.
Observance of Principles 8 & 9 by the authority in the North East India
would have led to the betterment of the condition of the displaced people.
Principle 8 states that displacement shall not be carried out in a manner
that violates the right to life, dignity, liberty and security of those
affected, while principle 9 states that states are under obligation to
protect against displacement of indigenous people, minorities, peasants
etc., with a special dependency on and attachment to their lands. Contrary
to this, in the North East India, most of the time, it is found that the
displaced belong to the indigenous, minorities and peasant groups.
Again, principle 11 states that IDPs should be protected against rape,
torture and other gender specific violence; slavery of any form and sexual
exploitation. But the IDPs living in the camps are very often become the
victims of these types of exploitation.
Principle 14 of the UN Guiding Principles mentions about the right of the
IDPs to move freely and to choose his or her own residence. But it is
difficult for the IDPs of the North East to enjoy these rights in and out of
the camp. Besides, it is nearly impossible for them to choose their own
place of residence.
Principle 17 emphasizes on the integrity of the family of the displaced and
reunion of the members of the family. This is of great significance to the
IDPs of the North East where a large number of people are displaced by
conflicts and in case of such displacement there is every likelihood of
disintegration of the family.
Principles 18-22 of the UN Guiding principle specifically deal with the
basic needs of the IDPs, medical care and protection of the property. But
the IDPs staying in the camps hardly receive all these facilities. Moreover,
it is very difficult for them to get back their property.
Principle 23 speaks about right to education and states that special efforts
should be made to ensure full and equal participation of women and girls in
educational programmes. But the inmates of camps as well as those living
outside hardly enjoy the right to education.
Principle 25 makes the national authority responsible for giving
humanitarian assistance to the IDPs. Therefore, it has great significance as
the displaced do not have to depend on the provincial authority for getting
the assistance.
Principles 28, 29 and 30 specifically deal with the return, resettlement and
reintegration of the displaced persons. It allows the internally displaced
persons to return voluntarily, in safety and with dignity, to their homes or
places of habitual residence or to other place. It also speaks about the
full participation of the internally displaced persons in the planning and
management of their own resettlement and rehabilitation.
Thus, the Guiding Principles emphasize on the individual’s right to be
protected against arbitrary displacement and providing basic facilities to
the displaced. Besides it also speaks about minimizing the adverse affects
of displacement. Implementation of these principles is the need of the hour
to improve the conditions of the displaced, particularly in the North East.
Here it should be noted that in Assam, there is every likelihood that one
person may face different types of displacement during his lifetime. e.g. a
person displaced by flood or riverbank erosion may cross the boundary
experience conflict-induced displacement in his/her new place of residence.
Thus, displacement becomes a serialized and multiple experiences. All these
have made it very difficult to correctly estimate the number of IDPs in the
North East. Usually, it is estimated by simple head counting. However, such
method excludes the population who choose to migrate to the urban centres of
the state in search of livelihood.
On the next two days, the workshop had seven separate
sessions (parallel sessions) to discuss different dimensions of the IDP
situation in India’s Northeast. On 25 August, the participants were divided
into four different groups at the very outset. While three different groups
discussed the IDP situation in the Bodo Territorial Council and lower Assam,
IDP situation in Karbi Anglong, and the IDP situation caused by dams, the
fourth one dealt with the IDP situation perceived by the NPMHR in the
Naga-inhabited areas of India’s Northeast.
Monirul Hussain moderated the discussion in the group deliberating on the
IDP situation in the Bodo Territorial Council and lower Assam. Madhuresh
Kumar and Subhash Barman initiated the discussion. The participants in the
group discussed how the instances of conflict-induced displacement have
matters of crucial concern in the Bodo Territorial Council and Lower Assam.
It was pointed out how the tensions between the Bodos, on the one hand, and
the Santhals and other non-Bodo communities, on the other, have displaced
hundreds and thousands of people. More than 1,00,000 people are still
sheltered in the makeshift camps in three districts of western Assam,
namely, Kokrakjhar, Bongaigaon and Dhubri. In short, the displacement in
these areas has happened due to an ethnic community claiming exclusive
rights over a space that it defines as its “homeland” on the ground that it
is the “original inhabitant” of the land. By the same token, they have held
that outsiders have no right to settle there. But, whereas the displaced
Santhals are ready to return, the displaced Muslims are not at all confident
of returning to their land. Their situation is worst due to their minority
status and growing communalisation of politics in the region. As
cross-border migration from Bangladesh has always been an important issue in
the region, no political party has ever been able to help them out. It was
felt that, without necessary steps being taken with regard to these IDPs,
more cases of human rights violation would be taking place.
Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury moderated the discussion on the IDP situation
in Karbi Anglong. In this session, Holiram Terang and Mousumi Choudhury
initiated the discussion. The participants pointed out that, the fighting
between the Karbi and Dimasa tribal insurgent groups has displaced about
50,000 people in the hill district of Karbi Anglong. Out of them, about
forty per cent are listed as minors by the government itself. The
discussants mentioned that, the Karbi Anglong and North Cachar Hills
districts have been the main scenes of ethnic violence over the past few
years. As a consequence, thousands of civilians were displaced due to
clashes between various ethnic groups and attacks against their villages.
Apart from the Karbi-Dimasa conflict, fighting erupted between the Dimasa
and Hmar tribes over land and governance in the North Cachar Hills and
displaced up to 5,000 people. It was felt that, dialogues between the
representatives of the Karbi and Dimasa communities could only lead to the
long-term solution of the IDP problem in this region. Therefore, more
initiatives for dialogues among the moderates in both the communities should
be encouraged at all levels.
Sibaji Pratim Basu moderated the discussion on the parallel session on the
IDPs in the Naga-inhabited areas of India’s Northeast. The representatives
of the NPMHR initiated the discussion in this session. The participants
talked about the IDP situations mainly in Nagaland and Manipur. The NPMHR
representatives raised some of the very crucial issues of displacement of
the Naga people caused by the government and administrative policies and
state-directed processes of development. It was pointed out that the Naga
people are facing acute problem concerning the transformation of their land
into camps and garrisons of security forces. It was felt that the ways
states and administrative units have been reorganised in the region have
created deep problems. Population pressure caused by migration as only
various development projects has also been the cause for large-scale
people’s eviction from land. All these led to severe cultural and economic
problems for the displaced persons within or outside the boundaries of
Nagaland. The participants felt that the Government of India must seriously
and sincerely express political will to resolve these issues. At the same
time, the participants were appreciative of the complexities involved in the
process. But it was also felt that there is no other way than to
reactivating civil society initiatives to develop the spirit of
understanding, tolerance and accommodation, and organise ‘people-to-people
dialogues’. Ecological balance must be maintained in the earthquake-prone
Doyang dam area. Proper rehabilitation must be given to the evicted farmers
and special schools should be set up for their children to check the number
of ‘school dropouts’, a phenomenon that generally leads to ‘drug abuse’;
among them.
The fourth parallel session of the day dealt with the IDP situation caused
by dams. Subhram Rajkhowa moderated this session and Walter Fernandes
initiated the discussion. It was pointed out that there is a serious
difficulty in getting the actual figure of the persons displaced due to the
construction of dams in India’s Northeast. The laws on land acquisition
usually recognise individual ownership of land and it hardly recognises the
collective ownership system common among different indigenous groups in
India. Therefore, at the time of acquisition of land, the indigenous people
very often remain outside the statistical domain and they do not receive
benefits offered by the government for the IDPs caused by the dams. Under
the circumstances, Fernandes argued that, there is a need for adoption of a
detailed policy mechanism to address this issue. Sabuj Mukhopadhyay was
entirely against the construction of dams as it causes large-scale
displacement of people and ecological disasters in most cases. Phamhring
Sengul spoke about Mapithel and Tipaimukh dams and he suggested that, the
experts need to study the implications of these dams more intensively.
Following a detailed discussion, the group came out with a few suggestions:
i) There
is a need to make a cost-benefit analysis of the construction of dams from
different perspectives – social, ecological, legal, economic, technical and
cultural.
ii) Article
371 should be extended to include all tribal community law along with the
question of gender equity and avoiding the dangers of ethnic conflict.
iii) The
group also suggested that, the creation of a database on the community
ownership in India’s Northeast is needed urgently.
iv) The
group also gave a thrust to the creation of network of resistance movements
against the construction of dams.
On 26 August, the participants again divided themselves into three different
groups to discuss the problem of statelessness, the IDP situation in North
Manipur Hills, and the appropriateness of the UN Guiding Principles in
India’s Northeast.
Subhram Rajkhowa initiated the discussion on the problem of statelessness in
India’s Northeast. Akum Longchari also contributed to the discussion
significantly. The problems faced by the Chakmas in Arunachal Pradesh were
discussed at length among other relevant issues. Walter Fernandes chaired
the session.
The discussion on the IDP situation in North Manipur Hills was moderated by
Monirul Hussain. Gina Shangkham, K.T. Sounai, Inaotomba Thongbam and Sunita
Akoijam initiated the discussion. As North Manipur Hills region is marked by
conflict among different ethnic communities sharing the same territorial
space. It was felt that, more cross-community dialogue is required to avoid
situations of further conflict-induced displacement.
Finally, the discussion in the session on the appropriateness of the UN
Guiding Principles in India’s Northeast was initiated by Madhuresh Kumar and
Vinai Kumar Singh. Both of them argued that despite certain difficulties,
there is scope for selective application of the UN Guiding Principles on
Internal Displacement in India’s Northeast. However, it was felt that there
is a need for more extensive dissemination of these Principles and dialogues
on them. The sensitisation of these Principles would be a necessary
precondition for their successful application, it was pointed out. Holiram
Terang moderated the discussion in this session.
The formation of UN Guiding
Principles on Internally Displaced Persons is one of the outcomes of the
evolution of the ideal of law of humanitarian assistance, which has been
present in international relations and its normative system for a long time.
This ideal is embodied in a range of international instruments, which
pertain to international human rights law, international humanitarian laws
and international refugee laws. These include the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights 1948, the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, 1966 Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, four
Geneva Convention of 1949 and the two Additional Protocols of 1977, and the
1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol.
Over the years, the increased efforts of creation of institutional measures
to respond to situation of internal displacement viz., Emergency Relief
Coordinator (ERC) in 1991, Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) in 1992,
the Executive Committee on Humanitarian Affairs (ECHA) in 1997 were
culminated into establishment of Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs (OCHA). This trend was consolidated by the adoption of UN Guiding
Principles on IDPs. Since then there are intensive debates to understand the
value of these laws and provisions of humanitarian assistance vis-a-vis principle
of sovereignty and non-intervention. In other words, does the provision of
humanitarian assistance violate the principles of sovereignty and
non-intervention? This important and interesting debate, which has many
ramifications, has generated substantial literature.
This study would like to recall the Rosalyn Higgins expectation that
question relating to property in international law need to be looked as a
coherent whole. Question of permanent sovereignty over natural resources,
restitution, compensation, human rights are all intertwined. She also
observed that if we isolate them we exclude relevant factors from our
consideration. These observations reflect the division of opinion among
academicians and at international forums on property issues in international
law and represent an attempt to mark comprehensive approach to the
contemporary international law of property.
In India, at present, there are two perspectives to look at statutory land
acquisition legislation; one is legal perspective i.e., irrational land-use
laws due to dysfunctional policies on land acquisition and also affecting
environment. The other is to look in a cultural perspective as a part of a
broader social movement. The legislations at the centre of the debate are
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Indian Forest Act, 1927, which are
considered of colonial vintage. After independence, Forty fourth
Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978 abolished the right to property as a
fundamental right and has incorporated it merely as a constitutional right
which will be regulated by ordinary law. Consequently, Article 19(1)(f) and
31 have been deleted and the new Chapter IV, namely, Right to Property
(Article 300-A) has been inserted in the Indian Constitution. Article 300-A
provides that “no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority
of law”. This Article gives the government an inherent right to acquire
property. This power is known as ‘Eminent Domain’. However, new
Article imposes only one limitation on the power of Eminent Domain i.e.,
authority of law. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Maneka
Gandhi’s Case and a series of cases following that case, the validity of
law depriving a citizen of his property can be challenged on the ground that
it does not provide for payment of compensation and is not for ‘public
purpose’.
The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is founded on the principle of ‘Eminent
Domain’ of the State. The Act empowered the Collector of the district or
any government officer specially appointed to perform these functions to
exercise independent quasi-judicial power. It requires a public notification
under Section 4 to inform people about the State’s intention to acquire land
for what it claims to be a “public purpose”. There is an increasing
consensus as regards uncertainty in the law of public purpose. What
constitutes ‘public purpose’ is deliberately left open in the law, and the
power to determine its definition rests essentially with the state. It is
significant that subsequent amendments to the LAA in 1984, and the new draft
of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 2000, currently under
consideration by the Government of India, do not undermine either the
eminent domain of the State or the unassailable power of the State to
determine what constitutes in any specific instance a ‘public purpose’. It
is pertinent to note that the power of eminent domain invariably conflicts
with Constitutional imperatives contained in Part XVI of the Constitution of
India, designed to protect Scheduled Tribes. It is also noted that in
general, courts in India have endorsed the doctrine of eminent domain. There
is suggestion that for commercial and profit-making activities, consensual
displacement based on free negotiation with those in occupation and
dependent for their livelihoods on the land in question, should become the
rule. However, it is also noted that such negotiation between economically
powerful corporations and relatively powerless and unorganised small
land-owners allowing the free play of market also has obvious related
dangers. Moreover those without legal rights on land would not be involved
in the negotiations at all. Therefore, although compulsory acquisition may
be debarred in such cases, state regulation to ensure the equity of the
negotiations would continue.
The next issue in the debate is the nature and extent of state
responsibility for the rehabilitation of the displaced. State authorities in
India have been reluctant to admit responsibility beyond the payment of
compensation as determined by law. Nevertheless, the state has been armed
with draconian powers of compulsory land acquisition. Recently, Ministry of
Rural Development issued a National Policy on Resettlement and
Rehabilitation for Project Affected Families, 2003. In fact, state dealt the
rehabilitation in an ad hoc manner. The states in India have continued to
resist the laying down of the nature of their precise responsibilities for
rehabilitation in the form of even a comprehensive policy statement. Most
state governments either do not have comprehensive rehabilitation policies
or legislations, or where these do exist in whatever form, the government
themselves are observed to have directly or tacitly blocked their
implementation. The state governments of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and
Karnataka for instance, have passed laudable laws that provide for
rehabilitation of oustees for acquisition of land in the command area of big
dams, but these are only enabling provisions and the state governments have
chosen not to exercise these powers for any project. Recently, a draft Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2000 prepared after a
series of consultations with people’s movements, academics and NGO’s is a
step in this direction. It proposes that ‘public purpose’ should include
such purposes by which the Government intends to bring into effect the
Directive Principles of State Policy of the Constitution of India. Further,
the draft proposes that land acquired for individuals or companies producing
or offering goods or services for profit shall not be considered a public
purpose. It is silent about the need for the state to regulate such
negotiations to ensure equity. Therefore, the purpose of the suggested
amendment is that when acquisition is sought to be resorted to by state, the
burden of proof must be on the state to prove that it is for a purpose
related to social equity. However, concern has been shown about the weakness
of the policy such as the neglect of pragmatic aspects of implementation,
and the omission of compensation for common pool resources (CPR),
sharecroppers and migrant agricultural labourers.
There is scope to develop new institutional mechanisms to ensure continued
gain for the original land holders from the economic cycle set off by the
new development on their erstwhile property. One method that has been
suggested is to vest the ownership of the land being developed in a new
company on lease. Give the original landholders proportionate stakes in the
land-owned company. Other method is to allot the oustees shares in the
enterprise coming up on their land.
The number of people known to be internally displaced by conflict in India
exceeds 600,000. Insurgency and retaliatory operations by security forces
have been found a major factor of displacement. Civilians have fled fighting
and have sometimes been directly targeted by militant groups in Kashmir, the
North East and in several states of central India. Irony is that India has
no national IDP policy targeting conflict-induced IDPs, and the
responsibility for IDP assistance and protection is frequently delegated to
the State Governments. Although the Indian Governments provides support to
conflict-affected populations, such assistance is mostly ad hoc and does not
properly correspond to the needs of the displaced. State Governments have
been assigned the main responsibility to assist and rehabilitate the
displaced, and results have been that the practices vary significantly from
State to State. The New Delhi based Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR) has
on several occasions appealed to National Human Rights Commission to address
the situation of the internally displaced in the North East. Sometimes
international NGO’s have assisted IDPs in Assam and, occasionally, in
Kashmir, Medicines Sans Frontiers works with Santhal displaced in Assam and
started programmes in the Karbi Anglong area when violence erupted there in
October 2005. However, there is growing recognition to the fact that access
to affected populations in the conflict zones frequently has been denied.
Even international community has largely failed to address issues of
internal displacement in India. In the case of Gujarat, Amnesty
International accused the UN and other international aid agencies of failing
to put sufficient pressure on the state to provide relief to thousands of
internally displaced victims, many of them women and children.
It is worth mentioning that the lack of credible information on numbers and
subsistence needs of the displaced in India leaves thousands of people
unassisted and unaccounted for. There is thus urgent need for national
authorities to conduct surveys in conflict surveys in conflict-affected
areas to documents the number of internally displaced and their specific
needs. A more coherent response to situations where people flee conflicts
would also include the creation of national institutional focal point on
internal displacement and a national legal framework upholding the rights of
internally displaced. In brief, there is increasing demand to draft a
national policy on internally displaced person targeting conflict-induced
IDPs.
With regard to humanitarian assistance to internally displaced person caused
by natural disaster, there are a number of authoritative international “soft
law” instruments calling upon all states to take special measures to
expedite the entry of relief personnel and materials in cases of disaster.
These include General Assembly Resolutions 46/182 of 1991 and 57/150 of
2002, the “Measures to Expedite International Relief,” adopted by both the
International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (“International
Conference”) and the United Nations’ Economic and Social Committee in 1977,
the International Conference Declaration of Principles for International
Humanitarian Relief to the Civilian Population in Disaster Situations of
1969, and the Recommendations of the Customs Co-ordination Council
(predecessor to the World Customs Organization) to Expedite the Forwarding
of Relief Consignments of 1970. The latter instrument also makes a specific
call on receiving states to waive any otherwise-applicable duties or taxes
on relief goods.
Only a few “hard” international instruments addressing these questions were
applicable to the states discussed in this note. On 18 January 1977, the
India has become a party to the 1973 Kyoto Convention on the Simplification
and Harmonization of Customs Procedures which mainly codified the Customs
Co-ordination Council recommendations mentioned above. Likewise, India is a
party to the Tampere Convention on the Provision of Telecommunication
Resources for Disaster Mitigation and Relief Operations of 1998, which
entered into force in January 2005, in the thick of the tsunami response
operation.
In the wake of the tsunami, momentum has built for the development of new
instruments to address displaced person caused from natural disaster. In
January 2005, an international conference on disaster reduction adopted the
Hyogo Framework for Action focused on disaster risk reduction and
preparedness, including through anticipatory national legislation. In July
2005, the member states of ASEAN adopted the Agreement on Disaster
Management and Emergency Response – a far-reaching treaty addressing
cooperation between states and with other disaster-relief actors. Although
many of the provisions of the latter instrument are of a general nature and
require specific implementation measures by each state, the Agreement
provides for special exemptions from taxation, duties and other charges for
relief providers importing equipment such as vehicles, telecommunications
and other materials and equipment, by both recipient and transit states. It
also directs the states parties to facilitate the entry, stay and departure
of personnel, goods and equipment and encourages cooperation with
international and non-government organisations and civil society. Some
governments have also been moved to initiate or accelerate the process of
the development of national legislation to deal with disaster situations.
Indonesia has recently proposed a new Disaster Management Bill to its
parliament, and the governments of Sri Lanka and India recently adopted new
disaster bills. However, while the Indonesian and Indian bills refer to the
possibility of receiving international assistance, neither they nor the new
Sri Lankan law contain specifics of when and how this should occur. The
United States Congress is also currently considering a bill to provide
certain immunities from liability to “disaster relief volunteers” both
domestic and foreign as well as to governmental and intergovernmental
organizations that use their services; however, in light of the volume of
Hurricane Katrina-inspired legislative proposals, it is unclear if it will
be adopted.
In brief, UN Guiding Principles emerge in large part as a response to the
call by IDPs actors in which effective assistance and relief would reduce
the perceived hardship caused to them. The Guiding Principles give legal
expression to the standards and procedures applicable in humanitarian
assistance, which have been developed over the years. Moreover, the Guiding
Principles do allow an assessment of whether state policy to end IDP status
infringes key principles of protection, such as non-discrimination, safety
and freedom of choice.
At the end of these group discussions, all participants reassembled in the
plenary session. Samir Kumar Das chaired the session. In the beginning of
this session, the reports from all the seven groups were presented by the
rapporteurs of each session. The final report based on these group reports
was discussed and adopted after minor modifications. These were then
discussed and the final report was adopted by the plenary. Then all the
participants signed a statement at the end of the session.
“This dialogue welcomes
this initiative taken by the MCRG in collaboration with the NPMHR. It
expresses deep concern at the plight of the IDPs in India’s Northeast
induced by such factors as conflicts, development and environmental
degradation and government policies relating to land, development and
economy etc. It has also felt that the problem should be seen in a larger
perspective and that the Government of India must seriously and sincerely
express their will to resolve it. It was also felt that there is no other
way than to reactivate civil society initiatives to develop the spirit of
understanding, tolerance and accommodation between peoples and organise
people-to-people dialogues. The participants of the dialogue urge on the
state and non-state actors to recognise due importance of the civil society
groups and initiatives. It also calls upon the government to formulate a new
peoples-oriented, rights-based resettlement and rehabilitation law and
policy in order to address the humanitarian crisis generated by
displacement.”
-
Signatories
1. Samir
Kumar Das, MCRG
2. Mousumi
Choudhury, Diphu Government College, Karbi Anglong
3. Jonathan
Ingty, Karbi Students’ Association
4. Abraham
Lotha
5. Krishna
Bandyopadhyay, MCRG
6. N.
Vemut, NPMHR
7. G.
Shangkham, NPMHR
8. K.T.
Sounai, NWUM
9. Phamhring
Sengul, NPMHR
10. Akum
Longchari
11. Subhash
Barman
12. Inaotomba
Thongbam, Imphal Free Press
13. I.
Imchen, Naga Students’ Federation
14. Barnalee
Choudhury, Department of Political Science, Gauhati University
15. Shaiuz
Zaman Ahmed, The Dolphin Trust
16. Zoheb
Ahmed, Panos, South Asia
17. Walter
Fernandes, NESRC
18. Sabuj
Mukhopadhyay
19. Subhram
Rajkhowa, Department of Law, Gauhati University
20. Vinai
Kumar Singh, ISIL, New Delhi
21. Holiram
Terang, Autonomous State Development Council
22. Uttam
Bathari|
23. Sibaji
Pratim Basu, MCRG
24. Monirul
Hussain, Gauhati University
25. Akoijam
Sunita, Imphal Free Press
26. Madhuresh
Kumar, CACIM
27. Sabyasachi
Basu Ray Chaudhury, MCRG
11.
Responsibility to Protect: A Series of Consultations in Bangalore,
Bhubaneshwar and Kolkata to Understand the Internal Displacement Situation
in India
Internal Displacement
in India: The Imperatives to Look at the Causes and Linkages and to Find
Durable Solutions (13- 15 July 2007, Bangalore)
13 July (Friday)
9.30 AM Welcome address: Samir Kumar Das & E. Deenadayalam
9.40 AM Introduction to the workshop: Ranabir Samaddar
10.15 AM Formation of discussion groups and respective group
rapporteurs
11.00 AM Tea break
12.15 PM Theme lecture: Internal Displacement and the Gender
Question
Speaker:
Paula Banerjee
Chair
: Rajesh Kharat
1.30 PM Lunch break
2.30 PM Group
Discussion A: “Is the Right to Return a Symbolic Right?” Lessons
from Bodoland, Gujarat and
Sri
Lanka
Moderator:
Samir Kumar Das
Group Discussion B: The situation of IDPs due to
conflict, development, and natural and man-made
Disasters:
case studies from South India
Moderator:
Ravi Hemadri
4.00 PM Coffee break
4.30 PM Rapporteurs’ brief reports followed by discussions by
the participants
7.00 PM Film show
14 July (Saturday)
9.30 AM Theme lecture: Policy review of national provisions of
relief, resettlement and rehabilitation and the
role
of NHRC
Speakers:
P.S. Rao, O.P. Vyas and Mohd. Yusuf
Moderator:
Ranabir Samaddar
11 AM Tea break
11.30 AM Group Discussion C: “Administration of Care, How Careful
Caregivers Are?: NHRC interventions
in
Gujarat,
Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh”
Moderator:
Parivelan
Group
Discussion D: “Human Rights Laws and Regimes of Protection for IDPs”
Moderator:
Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury
1 PM Lunch break
2 PM Panel discussion on Kudremukh project
Moderator:
E. Deenadayalam
3.30 PM Tea
break
4 PM Rapporteurs’ brief reports followed by discussions by
the participants
7 PM Film show
15 July (Sunday)
9.30 AM Presentation of the CRG Report on the Voices of the
IDPs: Methodology, Findings and Scope for
Improvement/
by Ranabir Samaddar & Paula Banerjee
11 AM Presentation of Certificates
11.30 AM Vote of thanks: Ravi Hemadri & Sabyasachi Basu Ray
Chaudhury
11.45 AM Tea Break
Mahanirban Calcutta Research
Group organized the first workshop on “Internal Displacement in India –
causes, linkages and responses” in collaboration with The Other Media, Delhi
in Bangalooru from 13-15 July 2007. The main focus of this workshop was to
generate a dialogue and discussion from activists, academics, lawyers and
media persons representing various states from South India on the Internal
displacement situation in India in general and South India in particular.
The resource persons were drawn from Government, Academics and legal
background. The participants included research scholars, academics, human
rights activists, professionals, former government officials and
representatives of some civil society organizations from Karnataka, Goa,
Andhra Pradesh and Kerala.
The major thrust area of this training programme were the victims of
forced migration, particularly internally displaced persons in India, with
special emphasis on the southern part of the country, although examples from
other countries in South Asia will be also brought in for purposes of
comparison and analysis.
The following modules will be the basis of the workshop material:
-
Internal displacement –
causes, linkages, responses
-
Human Rights laws and
instruments of Protection - international regional, and national regimes
of protection, and the principle of legal responsibility (with special
reference to the gender question)
-
Durable Solutions –
Relief and Resettlement Policies (with special reference to women)
On 13 July 2007 after a
brief round of self-introduction, initiated by E. Deenadalayam, The Other
Media, he extended a warm welcome to all the participants and expressed that
this dialogue and sharing of experiences will be useful for creating future
network among activists, academics and government machinery. This was
followed by the Ranabir Samaddar’s inaugural lecture on “Internal
displacement situation in India – politico –legal dimension in
perspective”.
In
his introductory remarks, he reflected on the changing dynamics of
globalization and how it influences of the economics of the Indian state. In
this context he cited the way farmers in China migrated northwards to escape
floods. While entry of foreign capital is taking Indian economy to newer
heights, the agricultural growth rate has dropped to 2-3%. The economic
logic is working in a democratic space which encourages involvement and
decision making powers of the economically powerful leaving the ‘farmers’
out of this dialogic process. He criticized the age-old colonial law, Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 in his address, which has been used to acquire land.
Though there exists UN Guiding Principles; it does not fall within the ambit
of the international customary law because of its non-binding
characteristic. The ambiguity of the UN Guiding Principles in a way
reinforces that even international humanitarian agencies have chosen to
function under the “protection –based” model rather than “rights based”
model. While the international bodies have resorted to working within the
protection-based framework; in India people affected by violence are not
considered as Internally displaced persons. In fact the policy exercises
till date has been devoted to only “project –affected persons”. He raised
another pertinent question as to the efficacy and applicability of this
policy exercise. Representatives from NHRC acknowledged that one of the
problem areas that underlie the policy exercise is the Land Acquisition Act,
which has been the subject of criticism. They also argued that participatory
governance is the effective way to resolve the contradictions that the
recent policy exercise has created. Dr. Paula Banerjee closely looked at the
blindness of the policy exercise towards women – headed household and the
paternalistic treatment of the policy towards adult unmarried women. She
concentrated on the gendered nature of displacement and adopted a critical
stance towards the way women are subject to violence because their “honour”
becomes “honour of the community”. Women are also subject to domestic
violence in camps. The camps are becoming sites of gendered politics where
young boys are subject to “feminisation” and become victims of trafficking.
Apart from gendered performances of the internally displaced; the very
pattern of resource distribution is rooted in patriarchal ideology. Post
Tsunami relief, fishing nets and identity cards were not distributed to
women.
On the second day of
the workshop IDP Voices Report- a study conducted by CRG was discussed in
detail. Ranabir Samaddar and Paula Banerjee initiated the discussion. Paula
Banerjee set the backdrop of the report in terms of the three issues that
the IDP voices Report focused on the issue of vulnerability, right to return
and camps as sites of ‘power”. The issue of vulnerability and right to
return is related and it is this complexity that becomes evident in the
report details.
The issue of the right to return was discussed in detail in the working
group discussion where participants agreed that it becomes a symbolic right
when the displaced people are victims of conflict induced displacement. The
group moderator Samir Das, CRG raised certain questions like the notion of
“home”, raised certain interesting questions in the course of the group
discussion whether the right to return should feature in the agenda of
engineering solutions. The “right to return” question also assumes
displacement as given and it is in this context that the group members
agreed that displacement should be treated as a political question.
Deenadayalam, The Other Media emphasized that once displacement is treated
as a political question one could identify the ethnic, caste based issues
that the state paradigms of development ignore when it comes to relief and
rehabilitation. This was also pointed in the course of another group
discussion on “Administration of Care, How Careful Caregivers Are?: NHRC
interventions in Gujarat, Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh”. O.P. Vyas, P.S.
Rao and Mohd Yusuf discussed the way NHRC had intervened in case of Gujarat
post Godhra Riots. They also highlighted the various NHRC interventions.
O.P. Vyas pointed out that the Commission had issued several
instructions in the wake of post Godhra riots of 2002 being monitored by the
Special Rapporteur, NHRC. The Commission has expressed its concern to the
fact that even four years after the tragic events, more than 4,500 families
remain displaced from their normal locations and put in temporary/semi
permanent structures erected by the NGOs, community organizations, etc. Even
more disturbing was the fact that around 500 families live in camp like
locations in tents, exposed to the elements. The Commission therefore
emphasized upon the focal points of Administration of Care, How Careful
Caregivers Are? The Commission had also intervened and monitored the
criminal cases of this period related with Godhra incidents.
The Commission also intervened effectively in dealing with the issue of
Chakma Refugees in Tripura. The Problem started due to the
Panchari–Khagrachari– Matiranga Kussakar massacre that took place between
1st May to June, 1986 and about 42,000 refugees came over to Tripura. The
Longuda massacre on 4-5 May, 1989, caused another 25,000 Chakmas people to
take refuge in Tripura. The initiative for repatriation of refugees gathered
momentum after the visit of Prime Minister of Bangladesh (the then)
Begum Khalida Zia in May, 1992 after an understanding with the Indian
Prime Minster (the then) Shri P.V. Narsimha Rao. The pathetic living
conditions in refugee camps in Tripura worsened further and the conditions
were allegedly being created so that the remaining refugees under duress
return back to Bangladesh. The Commission took cognizance of this grave and
sensitive issue. In order to have first hand assessment of the situation,
the NHRC deputed its own team for spot enquiries to assess the ground
realities of the relief camps. The team of the Investigation Division of
the Commission visited these camps in May, 1996 wherein the refugee
population was found to be 49,275 (9319 families) in six camps in south
Tripura district. The NHRC visit brought about significant improvement in
the areas of administration of the camps, supply of Ration and other
commodities, better accommodation, water supply, medical care, educational
facilities, payment of allowances, deployment of mobile task force for their
safety and security etc. The NHRC intervention also helped in removal of
blockade of essential commodities/vegetables to refugee camps and there was
no imminent threat as such for exerting pressure for their repatriation.
The situation in the state of Arunachal Pradesh was however different.
The NHRC for the plight of Chakma refugees of Arunachal Pradesh, invoked the
writ jurisdiction of the Apex Court for enforcement of the rights under
Article 21 of the constitution, of about 65,000 Chakma/Hajong tribals. The
supreme court on 9.1.1996 in a land mark judgment, upon consideration of the
matter, had held, that “We are unable to accept the contention of the state
govt. that no threat exists to the life and liberty of the Chakmas
guaranteed by Art.21 of the constitution, and that it had taken adequate
steps to ensure the protection of the Chakmas. After handling the present
matter for more than a year, the NHRC recorded a prima facie finding that
the service of quit notices and their admitted enforcement appeared to be
supported by the officers of the state Govt. The NHRC further held that the
state Govt. had, on the one hand, delayed the disposal of the matter by not
furnishing the required response and had, on the other hand, sought to
enforce the eviction of the Chakmas through its agencies. It was further
held that, the Chakmas have settled in Arunachal Pradesh since the last
about two and a half decades and have raised their families in the said
State. Their children have married and they too have had children. Thus, a
large number of them, were born in the state itself. Now it is proposed to
uproot them by force. The ASPSU has been giving out threats to forcibly
drive them out to the neighbouring State which in turn is unwilling to
accept them. The residents of the neighbouring State have also threatened to
kill them if they try to enter their State. They are thus sandwiched between
two forces, each pushing in opposite direction, which can only hurt them.
What is evident in the NHRC interventions is that the NHRC powers are
limited. The group members were of the view that it is through consultative
process and dialogue effective resistance can be brought bout.
The noted lawyer and
activist B.T. Venkatesh pointed out how women migrant workers are forced to
do sex- work also highlighted the gender politics of internal displacement
in the second day of the workshop. He discussed in detail the mining
projects in Karnataka and the ecological effects. In this context, he
referred to the KIOCL project activities. He was critical of the state
governments’ initiative to declare Kudremukh a national reserve in the name
of ecological preservation because thousands of tribals will be displaced.
He also pointed out how tribals are billed killed under the garb of
naxalites.
During the course of the workshop participants from Goa and Kerala
pointed that it is important to critically look at the eco-tourism projects
and the displacement caused by these projects. They were critical of the
Coastal Regulation Zone Act. The need to review NRP 2006, and the existing
policies and bills was voiced by all the participants. There was a common
consensus to review the Land Acquisition Act and the workshop ended on a
note of future consultations between civil society organizations,
academicians working on internal displacement in India.
Dominance, Development,
Displacement, Rights and the Issue of Law (27-29
July 2007, Bhubaneswar)
27 July (Friday)
Inaugural session
11.30 AM Chair: Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chowdhury
Welcome address: Asha Hans, Director, Sansristi
11.35 AM Introduction to the workshop: Ranabir Samaddar, Director,
CRG
11.50 AM Inaugural address: Hon’ble Justice D. P. Mohapatra,
Chairperson, Orissa State Human Rights
Commission
12.30 PM Special address: Mr. A.B. Tripathi, NHRC, Bhubaneshwar
Vote of thanks
1.15 PM Lunch break
Session 1
2.15 PM Chair: Sibaji Pratim Basu
(Formation of working groups)
Lecture on “Internal Displacement – causes,
linkages, responses” by Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chowdhury
2.45–3.00PM Tea Break
3.00 PM Group discussions on “ Is the Right to return a symbolic
right?” Lessons from Orissa, Jharkhand and
Chhatisgarh
Moderator: Asha Hans and Aditi Bhaduri
4.30 PM Report on Group Discussion
28 July (Saturday)
9.30 AM Chair: Amrita Patel
Lecture on “Human Rights Laws and Regimes of
Protection of IDPs” by Sabyasachi Basu
Ray
Chowdhury
10.30 AM Tea Break
10.45 Leaving for Vani Vihar
11. 30 AM Special lecture on the Internal Displacement in
Bangladesh: Imtiaz Ahmed
(Venue:
Utkal University, Vani Vihar)
Chair: Vice Chancellor, Utkal University
Welcome address: S.N.Mishra
Vote of thanks: Jayanti Jagdev
1.15 PM Return to hotel
1.45 PM Lunch Break
2.45 PM Special Lecture on “Paradigms of development discourse
and displacement – Case studies from Orissa”
by K C Samal from Centre for Nabakrishna
Chowdhary Development Studies and Praful Samant Roy,
Social
Activist.
Chair: Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chowdhury
3.45-4.00 PM Tea
Break
4.00 PM Group Discussions on Module B: Human Rights laws and
instruments of protection
– international, regional, and national regimes of
protection, and the principle of legal responsibility
(with
special reference to the gender question)
Moderator: Madhuresh Kumar and Imtiaz Ahmed
5.00 PM Break
7.00PM Film Show
29 July (Sunday)
9.30 AM Panel Discussion on The Situation of IDPs due to
conflict , development, and natural
and man-made
Disasters
:case studies from Eastern India.
Panelists: Bibhu Tripathy and Ishita Dey
Chair: Asha Hans
10.45-11.00AM Tea break
11.00 AM Panel Discussion on the Voices of IDPs: Asha Hans, Amrita
Patel and Madhuresh
Kumar, Balaji Pandey,
Vikramaditya,
Pramila Swain
Moderator: Ranabir Samaddar
12.00 PM Participants’ group discussions under Module C: Durable
Solutions – Relief and Resettlement Policies
(with
special reference to women)
Moderator: Aditi Bhaduri and Sudeep Basu
1.00 PM Lunch Break
2.00 PM Participants’ Presentation under Module C: Durable
Solutions – Relief and Resettlement Policies (with
special
reference to women)
Moderator:
Sibaji Pratim Basu
3 PM Tea break
3.30 PM Valedictory lecture: G.V.V. Sharma, I.A.S., Revenue
Secretary, Government of Orissa
Guest of Honour: Himadri Mahapatra, Orissa State
Human Rights Commission.
4.30 PM Presentation of certificates
4.45 PM Vote of thanks: Ishita Dey
The second workshop
organized by CRG was held in collaboration with Sansristi, Bhubanehswar. The
main agenda of the three-day workshop was to focus on the development
induced displacement in Orissa and West Bengal to initiate a dialogue on the
National Rehabilitation Policy 2006 and to understand the demands of the
resistance movements against SEZ in India. The major thrust area of this
workshop was the survivors of forced migration, particularly internally
displaced persons in India, with special emphasis on the eastern part of the
country, although examples from other states in India as well as other
countries in South Asia may be brought in for purposes of comparison and
analysis.
The following modules were the basis of the workshop material:
-
Module
A: Internal displacement – causes, linkages, responses
-
Module B: Human Rights
laws and instruments of protection – international, regional, and
national regimes of protection, and the principle of legal
responsibility (with special reference to the gender question)
-
Module C: Durable
Solutions – Relief and Resettlement Policies (with special reference to
women)
Asha
Hans, Director Sansristi, extended her heartfelt welcome to all the
participants and hoped that this workshop will open up new dimensions for
academics, grassroots level activists and civil society organization working
on various aspects of internal displacement in India.
Ranabir
Samddar, director CRG, introduced the theme of the workshop and pointed out
that the issue of forced displacement from the rights point of view should
be analysed in the context of globalization. He also argued that
displacement has changed the priority of human rights. Earlier when people
talked about rights; reference was made solely to fundamental rights;
directive principles; social and economic rights; any person would pose a
question what happens to the right to equality; what happens to the right to
equality under the provision of the Indian constitution. Right to equality
according to him had very little importance in the case of the people who
are served notices to evacuate land. In this context, he referred to the
field visit to Benaras during the First Winter Course on Forced migration.
The participants interacted with people who were displaced thrice in their
lifetime. It is against this backdrop that one should question state
responsibility; question of land; labour in the unorganized sector
constantly being constantly evicted from one place to another. These groups
are unfortunately form the core of the “invisible” population of the visible
democratic state. While there have been attempts to expand the meaning of
the article 21 on the other hand the violence in Gujarat, Jammu Kashmir,
construction of dams, mines and the kind of life they are forced to live
will remain beyond the purview of the judiciary and the state machinery. The
iron laws of globalization- has been responsible for forced displacement;
and it is the issue of forced displacement which has re-shaped the rights
agenda.
D.P.
Mohapatra, Chairperson, Orissa Human Rights Commission inaugurated the
workshop and the guest of honour for the inaugural session was A.B.
Tripathi. IPS (Retd) Former Director General of Police, Orissa and Former
Special Rapporteur of NHRC. Both of them highlighted certain fascinating
aspects of the internal displacement situation in India. Both of them in
their address highlighted the need to address to issue of resettlement and
rehabilitation, which could be an effective solution for the internally
displaced people due to development induced displacement. Most of the
resistance movements in Kalainganagar and elsewhere have been a result of
unplanned development discourse which failed to examine the nature of
displacement that these projects could have created.
D.
P. Mohapatra, in his inaugural address pointed out that rehabilitation and
resettlement goes hand in hand. The attempt to rehabilitate and resettle
entails various complex issues and requires persistent effort; exercise of
right to life and integration with the local populace so that they do not
feel discriminated. In this context he referred to a locality in Cuttack
known as the “refugee” colony. The very usage of this name according to his
view creates a sense of dislocation and an attribution of stigma attached to
the landless people who are forced to resettle themselves in a new area. He
also emphasized that it is important to address how to avoid displacement in
any area. For this there should be a survey conducted to identify the number
of people residing in the area, their source of livelihood. He congratulated
CRG’s efforts to work on a firm policy on rehabilitation and resettlement.
Land acquisition process in itself should be reviewed.
A.B.
Tripathi, the guest of honour spoke on the Relief and Rehabilitation Policy,
Orissa, 2006. The draft was formulated after 13 tribals were killed in
Kalingagnagar. According to A. B. Tripathi, the draft prepared by the state
is one of the best in the country. He mentioned that the draft was prepared
under the supervision of an IPS officer from Karnataka. He argued that that
effective policies like the Orissa R&R policy could prevent violent
incidents in Kalinganagar. He was critical about the various development
projects that are in progress and pointed out that “displacement” is seen as
a law and order problem in the eyes of the state. There is a need to review
the land acquisition process in terms of acres of land that is being
allocated for steel projects in Orissa or even for university. The land
allocation often subsumes the industry and the township which leads to
enormous displacement of agricultural people who are left landless. He
concluded his address by citing that the state should review land allocation
and pointed out how IT parks require less amount of land compared to other
industries; in a way reinstating that the land allocation should be examined
before sanctioning the projects in line.
On
27 July 2007, Ranabir Samaddar in his lecture on Module A looked at the way
the Indian State has created a consensus on development among the people.
The state consensus assumes displacement as an inevitable outcome of
development. In this lecture he looked at the UN guiding principles and 1951
convention to examine the nature of the displacement situation in India.
On
Module B, Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury also referred to the Deng Principles
and pointed out that it has ignored development-induced displacement as it
mainly drew upon Sub-Saharan experiences of conflict. 1951 convention has
been criticized for its failure to recognize gender-related issues specially
rights of women and children. As a result conventions like CEDAW should be
read as a parallel text to understand the international regimes of
protection as against the national regimes of protection which implies the
policy exercise that the Indian state has resorted to cope with the demands
of the internally displaced due to development induced displacement. There
is no machinery of protection for the conflict-induced displacement.
During
the course of the workshop, participants reviewed the National
Rehabilitation Policy 2006 from the lens of the existing international
framework as a part of the group discussion on “Module C: Durable Solutions
– Relief and Resettlement Policies (with special reference to women)” and
expressed their anxiety regarding the awareness of the laws. The
participants felt that the rehabilitation package should be decided in
consultation with the people. There is a need to strengthen the
Intellectual property rights to protect indigenous knowledge. Everybody
agreed that there is a need to review the compensation package. The revenue
department decided the compensation package in case of Behrampur irrigation
project. In such cases the department failed to identify the needs of the
community. Thus the participants agreed that need-based resettlement
packages are possible through consultative process between the project
affected, NGO and the state.
During
the course of the workshop there was a special Lecture organised by CRG,
Dept of Journalism & Electronic Communication and School of Women’s
Studies, Utkal University. Dr. Imtiaz Ahmed delivered his special lecture on
“Internal Displacement in Bangladesh”. On this occasion the Jayanti
Jagdev, Director, School of Women’s Studies gave her welcome address. Prof.
L. N Mishra, Journalism and Prof. L. N Mishra, VC Utkal University were
present on this occasion.
This was followed by
two lectures on “Paradigms of development discourse and displacement –
Case studies from Orissa” by K C Samal from Centre for Nabakrishna
Chowdhary Development Studies and Praful Samant Roy, Social Activist. Both
of them through various case studies in Orissa highlighted that the fruits
of development should be equally shared.
The
workshop concluded with the valedictory address by G.V.V. Sharma, I.A.S.,
Revenue Secretary, Government of Orissa. Himadri Mahapatra, Orissa State
Human Rights Commission was the Guest of honour for the valedictory
session.
Unkept Promises:
Displacement and Little or No Resettlement under the Left Front Government
in West Bengal (3-6 September 2007, Kolkata)
3 September 2007 (Monday)
5- 6.45PM Inaugural session
Chair: Subhas Ranjan Chakraborty, President CRG
5–5.05 PM Welcome address by Subhas Ranjan Chakraborty, President,
CRG
5.05–5.20 PM Introduction to the Workshop: Ranabir Samaddar, Director,
CRG
5.20 – 6 PM Release of the Report on Development–induced Displacement
in West Bengal (prepared by Walter
Fernandes and others) and Inaugural address by
Hon’ble Justice Shyamal Kumar Sen, Chairperson,
West Bengal State Human Rights Commission.
6 – 6.15 PM Remarks by Walter Fernandes, Guest of Honour.
6.15–6.45 PM Press
release.
6.45 PM Tea
4 September 2007
(Tuesday)
9.30 –11 AM Discussion on the National Rehabilitation Policy (2006) of
Government of India.
Facilitator: Samir Kumar Das
11.30 – 12 noon Tea Break
12- 1.30 PM Discussion on Typology of displacement, international
norms and the Indian Scenario
Facilitator:
Walter Fernandes
1.30– 2.30 PM Lunch Break
2.30– 4PM Working Group Discussion I
Group A: Women and children IDPs: vulnerability and
government response
Moderator: Aditi Bhaduri
Group B: Internal Displacement situation in North
East.
Moderator: Monirul Hussain
Group C: Internal Displacement situation in West
Bengal.
Moderator: Subir Bhaumik
4-4.30PM Tea Break
4.30- 6PM Film Show
5 September 2007
(Wednesday)
9.30-10.30AM Report on the working group discussions on the previous day
Moderator: Sabyasachi Basu Raychowdhury.
10.30- 11AM Tea Break
11- 12.30PM Discussion on SEZ and displacement
Facilitator: Ishita Dey
12.30-1.30PM Lunch Break
1.30-3PM Discussion on the situation of the indigenous people
Facilitator: Walter Fernandes
3-3.30PM Tea Break
3.30-5PM Working Group Discussion II
Group
A: Situations in Orissa, Jharkhand and Chattisgarh
Moderator: J.P.Rao
Group B: Natural disaster-induced displacement
Moderator: Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chowdhury
Group C: Conflict-induced displacement
Moderator: Paula Banerjee
5-7PM Film show
6 September 2007
(Thursday)
9.30–10.30 AM Report on the working group discussions on the previous day
Moderator: Ishita Dey
10.30-11AM Tea Break
11-12.30PM Discussion on instrumental mechanisms
Facilitator: Sujato Bhadra
12.30-1.30PM Lunch Break
1.30-2.30PM Discussion on future plans
Facilitator: Ranabir Samaddar
2.30-3PM Tea Break
3- 3.10PM Presentation of Certificates
3.10-3.25PM Vote of thanks
The third and the final series of workshop was held in Kolkata from 3-6
September 2007 September in Hotel The Sojourn, Kolkata. The primary aim of
the workshop was to generate a dialogue on the how the existing typologies
on internal displacement are governed by state discourse. In continuum with
the previous discussions in Bangalore, Bhubaneshwar and Delhi it was felt
that in order to understand the prevailing state discourse in India we
should initiate a dialogue on the National Rehabilitation Policy 2006, the
Communal Violence Bill and the Forest Bill. Media-persons, lawyers, and
activists from Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, North Bengal and other states
attended the workshop. Participants from the previous workshops also
attended the three-day proceedings.
On
3 September Hon’ble Justice Shyamal Kumar Sen, Chairperson, and West Bengal
State Human Rights Commission inaugurated the workshop. On this occasion he
released the report prepared by Water Fernandes, Shanti Chetry and others,
titled “Development Induced Displacement and deprivation in West Bengal
1947-2000: A quantitative and qualitative Database on its extent and impact”.
Prof. Subhas Ranjan Chakraborty chaired the inaugural session.
Following
this, Walter Fernandes in his inaugural remarks highlighted how the tribals
and the dalits were at the receiving end in the name of development in West
Bengal, which demanded acquisition of 29lakh acres of private land and 7
lakh acres of common land. 30% of the displaced are Dalits or SCs and there
are large numbers of backward castes. The study he pointed out is based on
available land records till 1990. In this context he pointed out that the
West Bengal Government has committed 2lakh 2000 acres of land solely for
industrial purpose. The report findings show that only nine projects have
resettled some DPs. The resettlement process was applicable for DPs of
private land. Some of the projects that have resettled their DPs are
Maithan(1950), Mayurakshi(1961-1990), DVC(1960-1981), Kunustoria
Mine(1960s), Bakreshwar Thermal 80-90s, EM Bypass(1990s) and Budge Budge
Thermal Power station(1980). The report findings conclude with a note to
minimise displacement as the development model fails to distribute the
benefits of projects equally to all. After the inaugural address, there was
a press release.
On
4 September 2007 Samir Kumar Das initiated a discussion on National
Rehabilitation Policy 2006. He claimed that it is significant to read the
policy exercises in the context of globalisation. NRP 2006 is another policy
which aims to create pervasive nationalist consciousness through creation of
provisionary resettlement policies for the project affected. He pointed out
that NRP 2006 should be read parallel to Communal Violence Bill. Sanam and
Ishita presented a critique of the Communal violence Bill.
The
issue of resettlement and rehabilitation in both the bills are problematic
because though the policy/ bill propagates consultative process the very
notion underlying the policy exercise is rooted in the politics of
inclusion/ exclusion. The proceedings of the discussion of typology of
displacement initiated by Walter Fernandes highlighted the politics of
exclusion and inclusion and said the state has always maintained a politics
of favouritism towards conflict-induced and disaster induced displacement
compared to development induced displacement. In this context, he said it is
very important to examine the fundamental issues like the Land Acquisition
Act 1894 in particular, and to rethink whether or not the very act and
demand of policy exercise will be of any help. This was followed by the
three working group discussion on 4 September 2007 on Women and children
IDPs: vulnerability and government response, Internal Displacement situation
in North East and Internal Displacement situation in West Bengal.
On
5 September 2007 there was a special lecture by Prof. Monirul hussain on the
Nellie Massacre which was well attended. The discussion on SeZ and
displacement revolved around the existing paradigms of development, global
governance and resistance movements in various regions against the expansion
of SeZ. The Governments neo-liberal paradigm was discussed in detail in this
session. In the discussion on indigenous people, Sebastian Rodrigues
presented a critique on the Forest Bill and Walter Fernandes initiated the
discussion. The forest bill was discussed in detail in the group discussion
on Situations in Orissa, Jharkhand and Chattisgarh. The other two
discussions were on Natural –disaster induced displacement and conflict
induced displacement. The proceedings of the session had certain common
issues like the right to return, the need to approach the question of
resettlement and rehabilitation from the vantage point of the needs of the
community rather than a overarching policy on R&R. The inclusion of IDP in
the refugee mandate was also debated. The discussion on instrumental
mechanisms focused on a needs- based approach which would address the
particularistic concerns rather than the general concerns of the community.
The workshop ended with the participants sharing their experience about the
workshop.
(For a detailed report on the three
consultations kindly visit the section on reports)
12. CRG Workshop on India’s
R&R Policy, 16 August 2007, Delhi
Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group organized a one-day deliberation in YMCA,
Delhi on the recent draft of Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy of
Government of India on 16 August 2007. The proposed meeting was attended by
a select group of academics, human rights activists, media - persons and
lawyers to review the existing R&R policy. The meeting was attended by
Vrinda Grover, Ashok Agrawaal, Sahana Basavapatna, Sanam Roohi, Paula
Baneree, Ranabir Samaddar, Vinai Kumar Singh, Madhuresh Kumar. Priyanca
Mathur Velath, Walter Fernandes, Malvika Vartak, Pradip Kumar Bose,
Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury, Samir Kumar Das and Ishita Dey. The daylong
deliberation was divided into three sessions.
In the first Session, Ranabir Samaddar in his introductory remarks
spoke briefly on the Internal Displacement programme of CRG in general and
the three Internal displacement workshops in Bangalore, Bhubaneshwar and
Kolkata in particular. He reflected on how most of the activists and
environmental groups from South India, mainly Kerala, Goa and Andhra Pradesh
in IDP workshop in Bangalore were critical of the CRZ act in particular.
During the course of the group discussions one of the questions raised by
academics from Chennai and Bangalore was whether or not the National
Rehabilitation Policy will be able to address the specific necessities of
the “community”. In this context he cited the instance post tsunami, how the
construction work carried out in Andaman and Nicobar Island did not take
into account the existing ecological conditions. He sincerely hoped that in
the joint critique prepared by Walter Fernandez, Priyanca Mathur Velath and
Madhuresh would address these complexities. The chair of the session Prof.
Pradip Bose invited Samir Kumar Das to present his initiatory comments.
In
the initiatory comments, Samir Kumar Das argued that the very practice of
policy explosion should be seen as an act of re-building the nationalist
consciousness about development. Post independence, people were ready to
undertake little sacrifices for industrial development and eager to pay the
price for the nation as a whole. As this nationalist consensus gradually got
fractured, the need for enunciating policies basically meant reincorporating
the fragments into the national body and reestablishing the consensus is
more deeply felt. Globalization therefore coincides with a hitherto
unprecedented policy explosion. Post 1990s there has been a phase of policy
explosion, which has two fold implications. They are (a) the language of
policies is not the language of rights. Rights are basically defined as
claims against the collective. (b) The fragments once re-placed and
reunified with the national body will not make the latter exactly the same
as before. As far the draft policy is concerned “rehabilitation” as
guaranteed by the draft is only an adjunct to development – meant basically
for assuaging the displaced produced by it. But at no point, is right
against displacement viewed as a value in itself – a reason for scrapping or
stalling displacement-inducing development projects and development
strategies. While non-displacing or least displacing alternatives need to be
explored as per the policy draft (this is in tune with the Guiding
Principles), there is no guarantee that development project will have to be
scrapped if alternatives cannot be found. In short, protection against
displacement is never viewed from a rights-based perspective. He highlighted
the inherent “number bias” in the policy draft. The Social Impact Assessment
a newly introduced provision will be applicable in case of projects that
will “displace physically” 400 or more families in the plains and 200 in the
hill or scheduled areas and DDP blocks. The gender insensitivity is
reflected in the way the draft treats unmarried daughters and sisters within
the purview of the family rather than as independent individuals. The draft
not only makes a distinction between the project-affected persons but also
prioritises the Project Affected compared to the Displaced persons. Another
significant point of departure is the fact that this draft fails to make
little room for discussion between project affected and the requiring
agency. Though it speaks of “prior informed consent” the draft fails to
address the question of peoples involvement other than rehabilitation
measures which will be decided in the deliberations of gram sabhas in rural
areas and public hearing in case of urban areas. The focus of NRP 2006 is on
resettlement with a few possible additions such as land “if available” and
preference in jobs “if there are vacancies” and if the persons are qualified
for the jobs. He concluded his presentation with a note on the efficacy of
act vs policies and how the present draft draws inspiration from the Land
Acquisition Act 1894 by borrowing phrases like acquisition for “public
purpose” or any other reason.
This
was followed by brief interventions from Madhuresh, Walter and Priyanca.
Madhuresh in his brief presentation highlighted one instance of broken
promise, the case of Bhakra Nanagal Project. The oft-quoted Bhakra legend,
through a study conducted by Manthan Adhyayan Kendra in April 2005, reveals
that approximately 371 villages were affected. Bhakra Beas Management Board
(BBMB) states that 7,206 families, i.e., 36,000 persons were affected. There
was no uniform policy for the displaced and those displaced by the level of
1280 feet were given only cash compensation and those above 1280 feet and
upto 1700 feet were either given an option for cash or land compensation.
After 20 years of completion of the dam, Government’s Rehabilitation
Committee submitted its report in 1983 claiming to have rehabilitated all
the displaced families. Today the ongoing struggles of the DPs in Narmada,
Koel Karo, Tehri, Rengali, Tawa, Indira Sagar, Kashipur, and Kalinganagar
among other regions are the lessons that the prevalent discourse of
development should probe into. What is pertinent to us are the draconian
measures of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 that has been instrumental in
aiding development induced displacement and state’s failure to formulate a
general R&R policy.
Walter
Fernandes in his presentation pointed out that the crucial question we
should pose ourselves whether or not NRP 2006 will lead to
rehabilitation? In his critique he did a comparative study between NPRR
2003 and NRP 2006. He argued that for resettlement to lead to
rehabilitation, it has first to prevent impoverishment. That is the main
reason for the insistence on minimising displacement and for stating that
those who pay the price should be the first beneficiaries of the project.
These statements enunciate the principle that their lifestyle should be
better after the project than before it because they pay the price of
development. A basic condition for it is a democratic process that includes
their prior informed consent.
Priyanca
Mathur Velath in her critique of the draft feels that the essential problem
with rehabilitation and resettlement in India is “lack of political will”.
Despite the much-quoted recent promises of the Indian Prime Minister, Dr.
Manmohan Singh at the FICCI Annual General Meeting in New Delhi in January
2007 that, ‘a new Rehabilitation Policy will be finalised in the next three
months, which will be more progressive, humane and conducive to the long
term welfare of all the stakeholders in our economy’ the fact remains that
‘for 50 years the Indian Government did not wish to promulgate a National
Policy on (Rehabilitation and Resettlement) R & R for serving its own people
or discharging its constitutional responsibilities’. The lack of political
will is implicit in the way these drafts asked for suggestions from people.
While NPRR 2003 was advertised in newspapers in February 2004; the new draft
was put up on the website of the Union Ministry of Rural Development only
from 4 - 11 October, 2004 and people were given only seven days to respond
to it. As comments were solicited only on the website the process excluded
the participation of all those affected people who did not have access to
the internet. In this context she argued whether this draft could empower
the powerless and restrict the process of impoverishment that displacement
necessarily ensures. It also has to ensure social justice. Any modern
legislation for the displaced, to be relevant to the needs of our times has
to invoke the consent of all the parties involved, ensure participation and
be transparent. Monetary compensation should only be part of the package
that should be calculated on current market rates. Rehabilitation should be
seen as a right not some concession, providing it should be the legal duty
of the government and the displaced should be made equal stakeholders in the
benefits of the development process.
Paula
Banerjee chaired the next session where she initiated the discussion on the
gender and legal aspects of the NRP 2006. Malvika Vartak felt that the
policy failed to address women’s ownership of land. She argued that many
women are dependent on land for their livelihood. She wondered whether or
not NRP 2006 has any provision for a woman dependent on forest produce. It
is at this juncture Walter Fernandes consented to Malvika’s proposition. He
insisted that policies should be owner oriented. He also pointed out the
caste/ tribe dynamics within gender that often leads to an exclusionary
politics. Malvika pointed out that resettlement has other implications. As
an instance she cited the instance how the drop-out rate of girl children
increased among resettlement cams for the project affected in Indira Sagar
dam. She also drew our attention to the Salwa Judum Camps where women have
been subject to sexual assault.
Priyanca
Mathur Velath wondered whether or not the definition of the “family” will
have any larger societal implications. Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhury
reflected that the way the “family is defined will be a an aid in the claim
making process. From a legal perspective he felt that this policy serves a
limited purpose, as it is not justiciable. With the liberalization of
economy, the market forces play an important role to ‘manufacture consent’
and this is implicit in the NRP 2006 which primarily focuses on development
induced displacement. Samir Das and Vinai Kumar Singh felt that there are
two ways of looking at policies, i.e., it has no legal purpose or policies
contain the potential of initiating legal changes.
Vinai
Kumar Singh emphasized that right to property; right to housing should be
two important components of the R&R policy. In this context, Malvika pointed
that the within the international law there should be provision of security
of tenure. This will prevent arbitrary eviction. The national legal system
should delineate certain scheduled areas where purchasing and selling of
land should be banned. Ranabir Samaddar felt that the right to property
should be seen as an individual right and distinguished from collective
right. Walter Fernandes who felt community rights are crucial as it is the
only way of ensuring right to tenure and right to livelihood opposed this
argument. Ranabir Samaddar asked the house to rethink of a replacement of
the “eminent domain” argument. In this context he felt that it is
significant to reflect on the way we define “public trust” and Trusteeship”.
In
the concluding session, Vrinda Grover engaged with the Communal Violence
Bill. She pointed out that the ambit of this bill is not only to address
religious violence, but also caste, tribe. The bill in a nutshell aims to
cover the entire gamut of conflict. The bill proposes to demarcate
communally disturbed areas. Any area that does not lie within this
classificatory scheme will not receive any aid or compensation when violence
erupts. She was critical about the way the institutional arrangement of the
relief and rehabilitation scheme. She concluded with a note that this bill
merely aims to fulfill one of the agenda of the Common Minimum Programme of
the UPA Government in the wake of 2009 elections. Following her critique of
the Bill, Ranabir Samaddar wanted to know whether or not the provisions of
this bill recognized IDP as a legal category. Vrinda said it’s a long way
for the state to recognize IDP as a legal category.
The
meeting concluded with a note on the necessity to engage with the Communal
Violence bill and the Forest bill to understand the state discourse on
policy exercise. Ranabir Samaddar in the concluding session decided on the
submission deadline of the revised draft of the joint critique. The deadline
was 31August 2007. It was agreed that Ishita and Sanam would work on a
critique of the Communal Violence Bill.
(The detailed critique of NRP 2006 and
Communal Violence Bill has been published by CRG. Please visit the section
on publications
for further details) |