land acquisition bill 2014 from singur to niyamgiri india on the backfoot

Land Acquisition Bill 2014

•From Singur to Niyamgiri

•India on the back foot

My house is prime property!

•Can you please stop the Peddar Road flyover ?

Oh ! we cannot demolish houses of Delhi's elite

•Can we have single lane flyovers in this city ?

•Even if it causes traffic snarls

And then there is this argument....

My farmland is not negotiable

•Damn your national project !

Right ! Mr Kejiriwal, Anna Hazare, Medha Patkar, Lalu, Mulayam, Sharad Yadav, Nitish Kumar, Mamta Banerjee,........

..... and Mrs Sonia Gandhi

In Dec 2012 UPA chief Sonia Gandhi scrapped the Land Bill proposal approved by a cabinet committee of the UPA Government

A new Land Acquisition act requiring 80% consent for private projects and 70% for government projects was put into place in 2013

At the behest of the NAC chaired by Sonia Gandhi the social impact assessment clause was added.

The law would give enormous power to NGO's like the NAC and the politicians of UPA

It would allow them to stop industrialization of India, that the NAC and its supporters wanted.

The UPA law drew inspiration from :

•The stalled manufacture of Tata Nano car project at

Singur West Bengal

Fomenting agitation against land acquisition

•Mamta's Trinamool congressended the 30 year old CPM rule

in West Bengal

It also drew inspiration from the stalled Vedanta aluminium project at Kalahandi Orissa, India's poorest district

•when the UPA stopped bauxite mining at neighboring Niyamgiri

The UPA knew that fomenting tribal dissent would give them and the NGO's unlimited power over India's untapped mineral wealth of bauxite resources.

The stalled 5-million-tonne greenfield Lanjigarh aluminium refinery plant and the Jharsuguda aluminum smelter would provide 5000 jobs for the states

•However such large projects would bring down aluminium prices

globally

…And it is here that the interests of the UPA aligned with Canadian NGO's and mining giants

• Keeping Vedanta, Posco and Arcelor Mittal away from India’s mines is a • global -strategy

• pursued by both multinational mining companies as well as NGOs working for tribal and ecosystem status

quo in third world nations

For the UPA was not the only party that wanted For the UPA was not the only party that wanted to control the growth of bauxite mining.to control the growth of bauxite mining.

....it had international support ....it had international support

The policy to keep The policy to keep developing nations off mining developing nations off mining

was first outlined was first outlined by the Canadian PM by the Canadian PM

Stephen Harper in 2007Stephen Harper in 2007

Thereafter Canadian International Development Agency CIDA and mining giants like Rio Tinto Alcan financed NGO's in India and other emerging countries to help stop bauxite mining

Canadian NGO's like World Vision, Plan Canada and WUSC financed and fomented the initial agitations against mining in third world countries.

In India it started with the Niyamgiri hill range that is spread over 250 sq km and contains bauxite reserves of about seventy million tons and is home to 1,453 members of the Dongria tribe

Bauxite mining was stopped in Bauxite mining was stopped in Niyamgiri because the tribals Niyamgiri because the tribals worshipped ‘the entire hill’ !!!worshipped ‘the entire hill’ !!!

As per the constitution of India natural resources is national property to be used for national good.

If I find Gold or Silver under my ancestral house, it’s not mine, but a national property. Right ?

• So how is bauxite from Niyamgiri, • the property of the Gods of

• the Dongria tribe of 1453 people ?

Why must we have consent clause for mining in tribal areas ?

why do national projects like roads, why do national projects like roads, bridges, bridges,

infra structure or projects whereinfra structure or projects wherelarge employment avenues are created large employment avenues are created

need consent of individuals …or the need consent of individuals …or the gods?gods?

How are the rights of 1453 tribals of Niyamgiri greater than the rights of 1.3 billion Indians ?

Maintaining Status Quo means no development for tribals and farmers and 1.3 billion Indians

It means sustenance through dole based economic measures like MGNREGA

• It means dependence on a •MAI BAAP SARKAR, on Kissan Leaders and

on NGO's who would fetch the poor grant based sustenance

But we want jobs not doles

•This is why we voted against UPA overwhelmingly in May 2014

•

The UPA and the opposition however holds the cards in the Rajya Sabha

•The NGO's still control crowds from Ralegaon Siddhi to Jantar

Mantar

However we the voters of India are many more in number.

• if we choose not to keep quite !

We voters must make development actually happen?

•We must have jobs !

Drop consent clause in land bill

Your consent as landowners is not more vital than our jobs !

•Let national projects acquire land without consent clause !

Change the Land Law !

•we don't want dole based governance.

• http://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com/Whathappensif/my-land-is-more-vital-than-your-national-project-

from-singur-to-niyamgiri/

Let India have roads, let India have bridges,let India have factories,

•Let India have jobs !

The above presentation draws data from the book Neta, Babu & Subsidy : Roundup 2000 to 2014

• http://www.infibeam.com/Books/neta-babu-subsidy-sandip-sen/9789382711377.html

• and on Kindle • http://www.amazon.co.uk/Neta-Babu-Subsidy-roundup-2000-2014-ebook/dp/B00JKC0YO6