Followers

Thursday, May 22, 2014

The clamour for land in Assam


Increased migration to Guwahati has implications beyond city limits. Photo: Flickr / Sabed Hussain
Increased migration to Guwahati has implications beyond city limits.
Photo: Flickr / Sabed Hussain
From far-flung hamlets they arrive early on buses, minivans, trucks, and even bicycles. The morning chill fails to dampen their spirits as they rush to reach the protest site to hear their leaders speak. Most of them are daily wage earners sacrificing a day’s pay to turn up for the rally. The Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti (KMSS) is demanding 12 bighas and 1.5kothas of land be allocated to the landless in rural and urban areas respectively. This is a revolution for them, a revolution that gives voice to their aspirations for land ownership. Uncomfortable questions, however, cannot be avoided.
Never before has the clamour for land been so intense in Assam. On 29 January, more than 10 people lost their lives in fighting at the Assam-Arunachal Pradesh border at Behali reserve forest in Sonitpur. Violence on 7 January between the Karbi and Rengma Naga tribes that left 16 dead illustrates the depth of ethnic animosity in the region while the self-immolation and subsequent death of a KMSS protestor on 24 February outside the Assam Secretariat speaks volumes about the intensity of the struggle for land. The Tarun Gogoi-led government was busy distributing land pattas on the same day as the immolation, though only to a select few.
Both the government of Nagaland and its inhabitants have been at constant loggerheads with Assam over land issues. While the government of Assam is accusing the Naga administration of aiding land theft, it is lobbying the Centre to demand the return of territory that has been encroached upon. As the Assam police carry out indiscriminate reprisals on villagers, clashes have become a regular affair in the bordering hamlets of Sibsagar and Jorhat. Tea gardens dominate the region, which means labourers often bear the brunt of violence.
Although the adjacent conflict with Arunachal Pradesh is nothing new, its seriousness has been underscored by recent deaths, capturing the attention of the public as well as the authorities. Claims emerging from the intelligence agencies that Maoists are setting up footholds in the border areas of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh are cause for concern. The Chief Minister of Assam Tarun Gogoi asserted that recent land-based conflict with Arunachal Pradesh was aggravated by Maoists attempting to implicate locals in an active confrontation with armed encroachers. That corruption and ineffective governance in the handling of land titles was instrumental in the Maoists establishing a presence in Orissa provides an ominous precedent for current events.
Meanwhile, xenophobia among the Assamese middle class is rising, with widespread concern over the rate at which land is being sold to non-Assamese outsiders. The upward aspirations of Assam’s middle class have resulted in the sale of generations-old land to facilitate their joining the elite in Guwahati. While the abandonment of spacious houses in surrounding towns in favour of migrating to cramped high-rise apartments is perplexing, it is part of a more insidious problem. High-rise buildings are often constructed by companies who illegally occupy land in Adivasi belts, or purchase it from the government at inordinately low prices, giving weight to accusations of corruption. The hand-in-glove relationship between the land mafia and the authorities has culminated in Guwahati becoming a high-rise city. Most of the land in small towns is now owned by this vigilante merchant class, resulting in the declining land share of the indigenous Assamese.
Difficult questions
Within Assam, the KMSS has led protests and dharnas throughout the state demanding land pattas for peasants. As these demands increase, the question of citizenship cannot be avoided: in Assam, both are intricately related, with citizenship often treated as a fluid issue. Clauses within the Assam Accord, which asserts 1971 as the ‘deciding year’ upon which citizenship is based, are yet to be implemented. With the KMSS demanding the immediate allocation of land pattas to landless peasants throughout the state, anxiety concerning undocumented immigrants profiting at the cost of the indigenous people of Assam has been an unfortunate byproduct. Issues related to undocumented immigrants have, however, persisted since Independence. In 1964 the Assam Pradesh Congress Committee adopted a resolution to expel ‘illegal’ immigrants in accordance with the 1951 National Register of Citizens. The agreement failed to be enforced due primarily to intra-party tensions, with many suspecting the pernicious influence of vote bank politics. In the absence of effective governance via systemic corruption and opportunism, class tensions have once again manifested themselves in potentially explosive citizenship-based grievances.
The 11th hour striking down of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) (IMDT) Act by the Supreme Court in 2005 is testament to the government’s flawed approach to the issue. While the legislation was clearly draconian, unconstitutional and unworkable, the char areas have nonetheless suffered in the absence of regulation. Continuously appearing and disappearing due to the torrents of the mighty Brahmaputra, the chars are now a haven for the land mafia. With Bangladesh just a few kilometres away, the lack of effective land allocation has seen local goons and landlords profit at the expense of vulnerable populations from both sides of the nominal ‘border’. Maintaining land records has proved a herculean task due not only to relentless river-borne erosion, but also an ad-hoc land management system operating in a region completely lacking official oversight. These char areas have become labyrinths in which indigenous and undocumented migrants live precariously in immense poverty and devoid of basic amenities. The issuance of voter ID cards, ration cards and land pattas to these communities has been counteracted by political disputes and business interests.
Within this context, the issue of citizenship is critical: even if the government agrees to allocate the land pattas demanded, the point of reference for their allocation will be contentious. The All Assam Students Union (AASU) demands the NRC of 1951 be implemented with 1971 as the cut-off date, while minority bodies including the Assam Minority Students Union (AMSU) oppose this, demanding a fresh NRC on the basis of the 1971 voter list. The eviction and dispossession of Adivasis from traditional lands is prompting some, however well-intentioned, to posit the problem of land scarcity as an either/or scenario, giving voice to a dangerous discourse. Ongoing efforts on behalf of the KMSS to secure Adivasi land for 80,000 to 85,000 families conflicts with official census statistics that put the number of legitimate candidates at around 65,000. Accusations that the 20,000 difference is a result of interloping ‘illegal’ settlers underscores the highly charged nature of the final ruling on the NRC and what it means for those seeking land.  
Legal obstacles
The age-old Assam Land and Revenue Rule (1868) is of a vintage unfit to address issues of land conflict in the region. A new, more comprehensive land policy is vital. The Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (2010), supposedly drafted to protect indigenous people from land theft, has failed miserably in achieving its stated goal. Rather, the Act inverts the equation, positing the landless as criminals while safeguarding the interests of the land mafia. With tribal and agricultural land illegally used by business groups for non-agricultural purposes, Right to Information applications highlight the consistent violation of the Land Ceiling Act, which restricts the individual possession of more than 50 bighas of land. A lack of transparency and a corresponding dearth of knowledge among landless peoples have created uncertainty over what exactly constitutes tribal land, forest land, eksonia land or myadi land. Officials agree that though formal transfers have been minimal, the temporary alienation of land is common.
Though the sixth schedule of the Constitution has adequate provisions to restrict land alienation, they are formal, individual-based and fail to understand traditional Adivasi laws which recognise community ownership. This has led to the concentration of land in the hands of a few wealthy chiefs while the majority of Adivasis are landless and remain vulnerable to eviction. The non-tribals living under these council areas in the meantime complain of being discriminated against and allege that their political as well as socio-economic aspirations are endangered. Land has been one of their primary greivances as many seek a transfer or stay of the land, demanding the intervention of the revenue department in Dispur rather than the relevant local council. Meanwhile, the existing autonomous councils under the aegis of the Sixth Schedule have given birth to demands for separate states, adding to the clamour for land. Though many cite historical kingdoms to justify their demands for the demarcation of new states, the present versions of those kingdoms reflect the incongruity of the proposals.

While government reports state that over 80,000 hectares of Assamese land is being illegally encroached upon by its six neighbouring states, outrage at the possibility of a land swap deal with Bangladesh makes clear the politicisation of anything land-related. As opposition parties such as the BJP make apparent their opposition to a land swap deal, the Assom Gana Parishad has staged protests throughout the state citing the proposed ceding of land as a failure on the part of the government to protect the land rights of the indigenous Assamese. They have instead demanded a ‘repatriation treaty’ with Bangladesh that will aid in ‘cleansing’ Assam of ‘illegal’ immigrants. By now, it is clear that a land swap deal will help both sides reiterate the border in a definitive way, thereby providing a citizenship framework for thousands of stateless people to pursue their basic rights. Sensationalist discourses concerning land in general and Bangladesh in particular are largely responsible for the misrepresentation of a land swap deal as a ‘selling off’ of land to Bangladesh. The fact that this land deal can contribute in a major way to a permanent and secure border mustn’t be overlooked in the current frenzy. Until a new Act is drafted, a land swap implemented, corruption brought to an end and the land mafia made solvent, ongoing conflict between Adivasis and undocumented migrants is likely. There will be no winners.
~Anuraag Baruah is a Delhi-based writer and poet.
Source:http://himalmag.com/clamour-land-assam/
What Will it Take to Clean Up the Ganga?


Rs 20,000 crore later, India's holiest river remains one of its dirtiest. Cleaning the Ganga--a promise made by Narendra Modi to the people of Varanasi--needs great political will and decisive action, reports M Rajshekhar
When he gives his report card to the people of India, as he promised in Parliament earlier this week, one of the metrics on which Narendra Modi will be judged is whether he reduced the numbers that scream environmental squalor in the graphic here.The graphic shows India’s holiest river, the Ganga, and its 2,525 km descent from the mountains to the sea, passing through towns and cities in four states.
The numbers show how the Ganga fares on a common metric used to measure the health of rivers: the density of coliform bacteria. Ideally, this should be below 5,000 per 100 ml. But, as the graphic shows, this is alarmingly higher at most places.
In Varanasi, where Modi made a pitch that moulded electoral strategy and religious symbolism, the figure is 58,000 per 100 ml—11.6 times over the acceptable limit, as per 2011 data from the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). The member of Parliament from Varanasi and PM-designate has promised to reduce this, not just in the sacred town of Vanarasi, but across the length of the river.
So far, Rs 20,000 crore has gone into the cleaning of the Ganga—most of it down the drain. From household waste to construction debris, from used irrigation water containing fertiliser and pesticides to industrial waste, from people bathing in the river to ashes immersed in it, the Ganga is abused.
“Not even a drop of sewage should reach Gangaji,“ says Vishwambhar Nath Mishra, chairperson, Sankat Mochan Foundation, which has championed several clean-up initiatives in Varanasi. However, even local projects are stuck for want of administrative and political support. The people of Varanasi are eagerly waiting for Modi to make good on his promise.
The question is: how?
Waste In Water Till now, India has followed a relatively simple approach to clean up the Ganga--or, for that matter, any of its rivers. It has acted on the assumption that preventing pollution is sufficient to restore the river.
Accordingly, India has been setting up effluent and sewage treatment plants, which clean up waste water before releasing it, along rivers like the Ganga.
The outcomes of the Rs 20,000 crore spent shows this approach has not worked.The drive to eradicate pollution has not equalled the scale of the problem. This was acknowledged in February in the Rajya Sabha by outgoing environment minister Veerappa Moily while replying to a question from BJP MP Smriti Irani on the amount of sewage generated (and treated) by towns along the Ganga. Citing CPCB numbers, Moily said 2.7 billion litres of sewage was generated every day by class 1 and class 2 cities along the river, but only 1.2 billion litres of treatment capacity existed. In other words, 55% of the sewage generated was dumped-untreated --into the Ganga.
There are also inequalities at work. Class 1 cities (like Kanpur and Patna) in the states the Ganga flows through have installed capacity to process 41-52% of their waste. However, in smaller towns, this dips to anything from zero to 30%.
In 2009, figuring the old model is not working, the ministry of environment created a new body--the National Ganga River Basin Authority. However, it proposed to add additional sewage treatment capacity of 566 million litres per day--half the shortfall that existed in 2012. “The absence of political will has ensured that the cleaning up work yields no results,“ says BD Tripathi, member, National Ganga River Basin Authority.
None of this is unique to the Ganga. It is estimated that India's cities and towns generate 38.2 billion litres of sewage every day. And the country has the installed capacity to treat just 11.8 billion litres--31% of what it needs.
The amount of waste actually treated would be lower, as plants usually run below installed capacity. A CPCB study last August to measure capacity utilisation of sewage treatment plants in 15 states found they averaged 66% usage. Environment is not a priority for governments. “When the Ganga and Yamuna Action Plans were created, the initial funds to set up treatment plants came from the Centre,“ says Manoj Mishra, convenor of Delhi's Yamuna Jiye Abhiyan. “But thereafter, the maintenance had to be done by state governments.“
Restoring Nature Other than capacity figures, data is scarce. In 201112, the Comptroller & Auditor General, the national auditor, surveyed water pollution in India. It found the Central ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) and a number of states “did not carry out identification of existing pollution levels in rivers and lakes in terms of biological indicators (like coliform)“. Also missing were studies on how rivers, major aquatic species, birds, plants and animals are affected by pollution. “As such, MoEF/CPCB was unaware of the risks being faced by the environment as a result of pollution of rivers and lakes,“ concluded CAG.
Here, even state governments are to blame. The CAG report says that no state has identified species at risk due to river pollution. And only seven have studied the risks to human health arising from river pollution. This absence of data, says CAG, “would have repercussions on implementation of programmes for control of pollution.“
According to Mishra of Yamuna Jiye Abhiyan, even if anti-pollution facilities come up in the numbers needed, they cannot revive the river on their own. “Pollution abatement is not the same as river restoration,“ he says. “A river has an ecosystem. It is not a canal. Unless you restore all its components, what you will have is a canal.“
India's rivers are seeing three forms of pollution: organic pollution like sewage; industrial effluents with chemicals; and fertiliser/pesticidetainted irrigation waters from farmlands. Mishra says a free-flowing river on its own can handle the first but not the other two. “A river can take care of the organic pollution if it has enough water,” he says. “But the other two—heavy metals and inorganic chemicals—the river doesn’t know what to do with them.” The minimum amount of water a river needs to perform its basic functions is referred to as its ecological flow. Tripathi says the real issue is increasing the river flow and ensuring the “selfpurifying” capacity of a river is allowed to work.
But that is not happening. “Look at the Ganga,” says Manoj Mishra. “There are three large barrages on the river— at Haridwar, Bijnor and Narora—which divert 100% of the river’s water. By Kanpur, the only water in the river is sewage. In Allahabad, the Yamuna meets the Ganga and revives it to some extent.” Ideally, he says: “No polluted water should return to the river. It should be recycled.
If Singapore can do this, why cannot we? At the most, only polluted organic should be allowed to return to the river.” That’s what Modi, member of Parliament from Varanasi and PM designate, will have to do.
With inputs from Akshay Deshmane
Source:http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/index.aspx?eid=31816&dt=20140522

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Table of Contents: Current Sociology

May 2014; 62 (3)

Articles