INDIA: Manipur Memorandum on Rights vis-à-vis Land Acquisition Imphal: 3rd July 2014 JOINT MEMORANDUM To, 1. Shri. Vinod Kumar Duggal His Excellency, The Governor of Manipur 2. Shri. O. Ibobi Singh The Hon’ble Chief Minister of Manipur 3. Shri. Th. Deben Singh The Hon’ble Revenue Minister, Manipur 4. Shri. Dr. Chaltonlien Amo The Hon’ble Chairman, Hill Area Committee, Manipur Subject: Regarding the notified Draft Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Social Impact Assessment and Consent) (Manipur) Rules, 2014 Sir, The undersigned most respectfully and humbly wish to bring to your attention for necessary action the following matters: 1. That, we had learnt through a press report in the Sangai Express (Manipuri) daily newspaper of June 19, 2014 that the Government of Manipur had issued a Gazette Notification by the Secretary (Revenue) inviting objections and suggestions to a Draft Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Social Impact Assessment and Consent) (Manipur) Rules 2014; (Copy of press report attached) 2. That, the said press report mentioned that copies of this draft was available only at the office of the Under-Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat South Block, Government of Manipur in Imphal for interested persons and that the objections and/or suggestion should be submitted within one month of the issue of the Gazette Notification; 3. That, no official information notifying this Gazette Notification was issued by the Government of Manipur in any other daily newspaper of Manipur, nor was an official announcement made in the AIR (Akashvani Imphal) or Doordarshan (DDK Imphal) for the attention of all the public of Manipur in this very critically important matter of compulsory land acquisition and public views thereof; 4. That, after our efforts, we managed to get a copy of the Gazette Notification on the draft rules from the State Government Press, which demonstrates how ordinary citizens and interested public are denied fair and easy access to this process of consultation as stipulated in Sections 109 and 112 of the relevant Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (No. 30 of 2013); 5. That, in the current national and global policy making exercise, it is a recognized practice by institutions and governments that all stakeholders are consulted and their views taken when legislations, policies and rules or regulations of great importance for the public or stakeholders are framed. The idea of framing Legislation, Policies and Rules through public consultations stems from the realization that these instruments work best when different views that inform them are incorporated and balanced. A bad instrument results in bad outcome. Meaning that if those who do not agree with a bad resettlement policy (and hence a resettlement plan) might obstruct the project which can delay a project for prolonged period thus causing losses. 6. That, for project affected communities the only support to lean on is a good Rehabilitation and Resettlement programme, even if they do not like the project. When forceful or compulsory evictions takes place for development activities with a public purpose, those affected must be better off then what they were before. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (No. 30 of 2013) in its preamebular statement of objects states that it is an “Act to ensure, in consultation with institutions of local self-government and Gram Sabhas established under the Constitution, a humane, participative, informed and transparent process for land acquisition for industrialisation, development of essential infrastructural facilities and urbanisation with the least disturbance to the owners of the land and other affected families and provide just and fair compensation to the affected families whose land has been acquired or proposed to be acquired or are affected by such acquisition and make adequate provisions for such affected persons for their rehabilitation and resettlement and for ensuring that the cumulative outcome of compulsory acquisition should be that affected persons become partners in development leading to an improvement in their post acquisition social and economic status and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” 7. That, with multiple projects planned in the state of Manipur as India Looks East, we must not end up with affected people by highways, railways, dams, etc., lining up as beggars on our streets. Affected people must be active parties to the development activities that are designed to benefit everyone. 8. That, the question of Accessibility of the Draft is left unanswered in the Gazette notification. Making it only available at the Secretariat or on a website is surely not the best way for people to get this read. If the government is serious of reaching out to people of the state then at least what is expected is that it is available in a manner and form accessible at the district and sub-divisional levels. 9. That, like in most policy making exercise, it is expected that, there is proper public consultations held so that views of the public at large and experiences of affected people are taken on board. At least District Level consultations with prior notifications must be held and culminating with a state level final consultation. This will not mean that all views will be or can be taken on board with the key progressive elements of best practices of national and international levels are incorporated. 10. That, Government needs to define this engagement process with the people better. This will mean pre-arranged and scheduled meetings/consultations at district and state level, submission process, local language translation timeline, final draft paper meetings etc. It becomes key in policy discussion in at least letting stakeholders know how their views will be considered as the draft evolves into final Rules. 11. That, at a preliminary glance of the Draft Rules, it is clear that the rules are not at all rooted in local realities, traditions and experiences in Manipur. For example, in both the hills and the valley, the draft rules clearly lack understanding of existing land ownership rights and how decisions are made and this can have project level complications. Concepts and entities (including authorities) are named without defining them, and this will result in multiple interpretations. 12. That, it is of great concern that the draft The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Social Impact Assessment and Consent) (Manipur) Rules, 2014 has been produced only in English language, which the vast majority of the population in Manipur and particularly project affected populations do not understand. One might refer to the recent The Manipur Loktak Lake (Protection) Act, 2006 and its subsequent amendments & The Manipur Loktak Lake (Protection) Rules, 2008 (that was published only in English language and was not understood by the fishing community in and around the Loktak Lake. When this Act was translated into local Meiteilon (Manipuri) the fisher community began to protest which resulted into the Manipur Legislative Assembly passing a hurried resolution to amend certain sections of the Act. Such Acts and Rules, which can have critical implications for affected people, from current and future projects, must be translated in local languages, so as to have their insights and experiences sought and incorporated. We must not end up with a piece of legislation that most people in Manipur do not understand or agree with; 13. That, for the purpose of an inclusive reading of the draft rules or its final notified version, it is paramount to ensure that, as the Act itself is not always read together with the Rules, these executive and administrative provisions of the legislation inclusively reflect what the Act stipulates; 14. That, in the drafting of these rules for Manipur, the drafters have deliberately employed a method of concealing crucial elements of the central Act that are required to be placed explicitly within the framework of the rules. The trick employed is to just state that “as under section xxx(x) of the Act”, and leave the matter at that. In this manner, the draft rules fails to fulfill its true functions as the rules have to be always read along with the Act. This is not practicable or desirable because the Act cannot function as the proxy of the rules. The Act provides the spirit and legal parameters for the rules, but it is not to be interpreted as the rules themselves; 15. Looking at the Draft Rules for Maharashtra, for example, which was notified in March 2014, it is clear that Manipur’s draft rules are quite inadequate and defectively reflects the peculiar and specific realities and needs of the people of our State. The Manipur draft has glaring omissions and defects, by fault or intent that makes it exclusive, non-participatory and vague as a guideline for the implementation of the central Act. In the end, the rules drafted for Manipur may suffer from the grave charge of violations of not just the central Act, but also of universal human rights principles and statutes. 16. There are several ideas or concepts that are included in the draft rules, which have been left deliberately vague or undefined in the draft rules though the Act of 2013 in Chapter 1, section 2 (1), (2) and (3) has somewhat exhaustively enlisted what is meant by “public purpose”, and also conditions that would apply in “Public Private Partnerships” or when a “Private Company” is allotted government acquired land, and so forth. 17. That, in the first Chapter, Section 2 (Definitions) of the draft rules, for example, the concepts of “industrialisation”, “essential infrastructural facilities”, “urbanisation”, and “public purpose” are left unattended, unlike in the central Act. It is not adequate to merely include a clause (2) “Words and expressions used and not defined in these rules but defined in the Act, shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Act.” 18. That, a rundown and lazy framing of rules for such a crucial law that attempts to address free and democratic India’s long unfolding catastrophe of compulsory land acquisition and its assault on human dignity, fundamental freedoms and rights, self-respect, socio-cultural and economic status, environment and ecology may be seen as criminal and immoral neglect by the state. 19. That, other entities and authorities that are also not clearly defined in the Manipur context include: a. “Deputy Commissioner” that seems to be interchangeably used with District Collector. b. Other district level officials including SDO/SDC, Block Development Officer (BDO) are not properly defined nor incorporated appropriately. c. In areas where the Manipur Panchayati Raj Acts of 1975 and 1994, the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971 (amended – 2000, 2008, 2011) are in force, the various authorities are not defined in the drafted rules. d. Various bodies and entities introduced in the draft rules are also not defined, e.g. administrator, Collector, agency, appropriate government, authority, local bodies, social impact assessment, social impact assessment plan, state government, etc. 20. That, the Manipur Draft Rules 2014 is a similar copy with small modifications of the centrally framed Rules that are applicable across the country with the exception of J&K, with some significant changes introduced because of the peculiar situation and realities in Manipur with special reference to the land ownership tradition and laws, and civil authority structures as a consequence of The North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971, etc. These have to be examined for consistency and conformity to the reality. 21. That, on the other hand, there are also significant omissions in the draft which needs careful study to ensure that the Rules are framed as inclusively as possible within the ambit of stated intent of the Act of 2013. 22. That, for example, though the Act is to address lacunae of the repealed Land Acquisition Act of 1894 in compulsory acquisition of land for public purposes including “urbanisation”, the Draft Rules do not once mention Municipal Councils, Small Town Committees and Nagar Panchayats as important stakeholders in the processes to instill a humane, just, fair, participatory and transparent process and dispensation for affected peoples. This is a serious lapse in the draft. 23. That, on the other hand, with regard to areas in Manipur covered by The Manipur Village Authority (Hill Areas) Act, 1956, as a local body of self governance (The Act was implemented in 1957), and The Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971, it would be an imperative to address the specific protections and governance system that is prevalent in the spirit of the central Act, which provides certain exceptions for Schedules Areas, instead by being inhuman, parsimonious and legalistic. 24. That, in Chapter 3 of the central Act, under section 7(4), there is the provision for an independent multidisciplinary Expert Group to examine the Social Impact Assessment Study report and recommend abandonment of the project if the adverse conditions outweigh its predicted benefits. 25. That, in the rules drafted, as also in the central Act, it is highly questionable how a government appointed group can be deemed to be “independent”; 26. That, the draft rules fail to stipulate who are to be members of the Expert Group, only referring to the central Act. This is a regular trick employed in the draft rules; 27. That, the issue of a Project Feasibility Study and Report is mooted in the central Act. The draft rules do not emphasis this very important aspect in the decision making process for a proposed land acquisition. (The Rules framed for Maharashtra clearly stipulates that the Social Impact Assessment study report should be in three parts i) Project Feasibility Report; 2) Project Impact Report and 3) Social Impact Management Plan for the Project). 28. That, in FORM-II, Section C: Table of contents for Social Impact Assessment Report and Social Impact Management Plan, under Estimation and enumeration (where required) of affected families and assets, we see mention of Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dweller. With regard to this, it is an open secret that the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and its implementation in Manipur is a non starter and an uphill task for the Forest Department of the State to initiate. Moreover, the scope of implementation of the said Act, especially in the tribal areas of Manipur is rather limited. The term Forest Dwellers cannot appropriately be applied to the tribal peoples of Manipur for their settlement had already been recognised as settled villages. 29. That, given the complications in implementation, how exactly is the Government of Manipur going to apply the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 in “Social Impact Assessment Report and Social Impact Management Plan” of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Social Impact Assessment and Consent) (Manipur) Rules, 2014is a point that is to be seriously considered; 30. Therefore, we pray for your kind considerations of above stated matters, and to: a. Regard the contents of this Joint Memorandum pertaining to the contents of the Draft Rules, 2014 as only preliminary observations and not a final submission from the petitioners; b. Ensure that the Draft Rules, 2014 notified in the Manipur Gazette (Extraordinary) No. 72 on Tuesday, June 17, 2014 be made available in all major local languages of Manipur; c. Ensure a wide official announcement by way of advertisements at least consecutive 7 (Seven) times in all the leading local media, including AIR-Akashvani Imphal and DDK Imphal; d. Ensure that relevant translated texts of the draft are made easily available in all the district and sub-divisional headquarters of Manipur; e. Direct the concerned authorities to notify a clear process of engagement and finalization of the Draft Rules that takes into consideration Suggestions, Comments and Objections; f. Set a new deadline for the process of receipt after due revision of the Gazette Notification mentioned above; The following representatives append our signature hereto: 1. Dr. LD Roy (President, Centre for Organisation Research and Education) 2. Ram Wangkheirakpam, Indigenous Perspectives 3. Laishram Helenchandra Singh, JAC Against the Railway Station Yard at Yurembam 4. Oinam Rajen, All Loktak Lake Area Fisherman Union Manipur 5. Honreikhui K., Mapithel Dam Affected Villages Organization 6. Grace Jajo, Rights Activist 7. Th (o) Ratana, Lamlongei Yaipha Thouda Nupi Lup 8. Nameirakpam Yaima Meetei, Yurembam Apunba Club 9. Deben Sharma, People’s Dialogue Initiative 10. Onil Khetrimayum, Reachout 11. A. Norendro, Lei-Inkhol Youth Development Organization 12. Dr. Malem Ningthouja, Campaign for Peace & Democracy (Manipur) 13. Babloo Loitongbam, Human Rights Alert Signed on Behalf of all signatories. (Ram Wangkheirakpam) Director, Indigenous Perspectives, Jupiter Yambem Center, Imphal, Manipur (INDIA)
Posted on: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 12:16:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015