Tribal Resistance Movements and the Politics of Development-Induced Displacement in Contemporary Orissa

Abstract

The article is a study of two tribal movements based on development-induced displacements in contemporary Orissa. In fact, all the two micro-movement studies are resistance movements against mining based heavy metal industries, e.g. against the Utkal Alumina International Ltd. (UAIL) at Kashipur and against the Vedanta Aluminium Ltd. (VAL) at Lanjigarh. Based on both primary and secondary data, the study is an exercise in new social movement theory. Within the analytical framework of new social movement perspective, the article attempts to explore the nature and extent of displacement and loss of livelihood caused by the projects along with the issues of disappearing tribal culture and tribal identity with the advent of modernity and its corresponding alien culture. Further, it explores the extent of politicisation of the movements. In its continued exploration, the article articulates the role of the civil society (intellectuals, mass media, activists’ organisations and NGOs) in shaping the course of the movement. Lastly, it explicates the questions on development discourse and emergent policy issues from these micro-movements.

Keywords

Collective mobilisation development-induced displacement tribal protest new social movements tribal identity role of civil society politics of development inclusive development

Introduction

Over the past two decades, micro-social movements in India have become an important form of collective action and resistance by the people to protect common interests or values to which they strongly adhere to. However, the New Social Movements (here after NSM) theory that emerged in response to the proliferation of social movements during the 1960s were very different from the classical ones such as the labour movement, peasant movement, Dalit movement, etc. These classical social movements were characterised by hierarchical structures, loyalty to one social group or class and were concerned mainly with economic goals. These movements were long-drawn and were fought on the lines of classical Marxian thinking on class struggle.But from early 1980s onward, micro-movements in India have become points of convergence for diverse themes of protests that have significantly resisted increasing commodification and monopolisation of life-supporting resources such as land, water and forest. Resistance movements have targeted forces that threaten sustainable use of land, water, forest and their unequal distribution, exploitative power relations behind this, centralisation of decision-making and disempowerment of communities caused by the related development process. Movements by the landless, peasants, fishermen, adivasis/tribals and displaced people have taken up issues of livelihood, opportunities, dignity and development. These people’s movements are also against the violation of human rights, civil, political and natural rights and demand systemic equality and justice within the larger framework of development. For example, the resistance movement against the Hirakud hydel project at Burla, Sambalpur, in 1960s and the similar resistance movement against the Rengali Hydel Project in the 1970s, the well-known Baliapal protest movement during 1985–90 against the missile-testing range, the save Gandhmardan Movement in the early 1980s in the Baragarh district against the mining of Gandhamardan hills by the Bharat Aluminum Company (BALCO), the Gopalpur protest movement against export-based Tata steel during 1995–96, the Chilika Banchao Andolan against the Integrated Shrimp Farming Project (ISFP) of Tata group and Govt. of Orissa in early 1990s and the tribal resistance movement at Lower Suktel dam at Bolangir in 2005 are some of the micro-movements (typically resistance movements) that had shaken up the socio-political lives of Orissa the south eastern state of India.

If the (ex post facto) study by Baboo (1991: 2373–79) was the sole study of the resistance by the Hirakud dam oustees, the studies by Patel et al (1988), Patel (1989) and Routledge (1993) were those of Baliapal resistance movement. Similarly when the study of Samal (2002) was based on the Chilika Banchao Andolan, the studies by Baviskar (1995) and Dwivedi (1999 and 2006) were all based on Medha Patkar-led Narmada Bachao Andolan. Lastly the studies of Sarkar (2007), Banerjee (2006) and All India Citizens Initiative (2008) all portray the violent agitations at Nandigram and Singur villages.

Objectives of the Study

The present article is a study of two tribal resistance movements of recent origin in the Indian state of Orissa which were all against the displacement caused by mining-based metal industries e.g. UAIL at Kashipur and VAL at Lanjigarh.

The article aims at studying these two micro-movements from the New Social Movement perspective. Within this framework, we propose to study

the nature and extent of displacement and loss of livelihood caused by the concerned developmental projects

the course of the movement by identifying the degree of polarisation taking place between the positions of state and that of the agitating tribal people, and the extent of politicisation of the movement

the role of the civil society (intellectuals, media, activists and NGOs) in shaping the course of the movements

The article further aims at studying the issue of tribal identity and the disappearing tribal culture because of the advancement of modernity.

Lastly, the article also proposes to bring out emergent development discourse from the paradoxical relationship between development and displacement causing violent resistance.

Methodologically speaking, this is a qualitative exercise mostly based on data and information collected from both primary and secondary sources. The article is based on two case studies of micro movements which are, in fact, resistant movements staged by the tribal people adversely affected by the upcoming mining based heavy industries in the interiors of Orissa. Further, the article is organised on the framework of new social movements’ perspective.

Collective Mobilisation of the Development Induced Displaced in Orissa

The history of development-induced displacement and subsequent protest movements by the affected population, that are mostly Adivasis/tribals, can be traced back to the early years of independence. Movements against the Hirakud Hydro-electricity dam project in Orissa dates back to early 1950s. The protest movement against the Rengali Hydro-electricity dam project dates back to 1971. Of late, the mining-based metal industries in the interior jungle territories of Orissa have given rise to bitter struggles against these by the local tribal populations. The Gandhamardan Bachao movement against the mining-based Aluminum project in the 1980s came to limelight first when the Bharat Aluminum Company (BALCO), a Govt. of India undertaking with foreign technical collaboration, tried to mine the densely forested range on the top of the Gandhamardan hills in the Bargarh district of northern Orissa. On 2nd May 1983, BALCO with a huge investment officially started its mining work which was projected to be completed by April 1985. But the project could not proceed due to the agitation by the local people, most of whom belonged to various tribes inhabiting the area. The resistance movement by the tribal people raised a number of significant questions related to the issues of Rehabilitation and Resettlement(R&R), vanishing religio-cultural life of the tribes, environmental degradation, ecological imbalance and the poor agricultural productivity of this drought-prone area.

Orissa’s contemporary resistant movements can be attributed to the signing up of a number of MoUs by the Orissa Mining Corporation (OMC) with a number of Indian and multinational mining companies. This, of course, is a reflection of India’s post-liberalised economic policy and the desperate attempt by one of the poorer states of India to experience growth and development through industrialisation. The option of mining based heavy industrialisation by the state is obvious as the state of Orissa has a massive mineral resource base of iron ore, bauxite, ferromanganese, etc.

Nature and Extent of Development Induced Displacement: The Cause

Kashipur’s Mining based Refinery Project (Case Study No. 1)

The Kashipur block of Rayagada district is the land of primitive tribal communities like Kondh, Paraja, Penga and Jhodia and the landless Dalits like Doms. The tribal livelihood has successfully combined forest dwelling with shifting cultivation and settled cropping. They usually practice shifting cultivation locally called Podu. They solely depend on the forest land for their sustenance and livelihood. It is noteworthy that Kashipur is located in the Rayagada district which was earlier part of the undivided Koraput district (one of the three ‘infamous’ KBK districts) notorious for poverty and starvation deaths (Sarangi, 2002: 3239–40). It has very low agricultural productivity and is one of the poorest districts of the country. In addition to this, rampant corruption in the district administration of Rayagada and failure of Orissa Tribal Development Programme (OTDP) and other poverty alleviation programmes such as Food For Work (FFW), Jawahar Gram Samridhi Yojna (JGSY), Employment Assurance Scheme (EAS), Pani Panchayat, etc. (Das, 2003: 81–84) makes Kashipur amenable to a mobilisation for resistance. This is also an area heavily influenced by Maoists. The debilitating levels of poverty here seem to have nurtured radical left currents in the region. In the backdrop of high impoverishment among the affected people, their loss of shelter, land and livelihood pushes many of them to starvation deaths.

In 1993, Orissa became the focus point for mining corporations as the Govt. of Orissa planned to set up aluminum plants in the mineral rich area of Kashipur. The front runner was a consortium called Utkal Alumina International Limited (UAIL) that had a plan to do mining of bauxite in Baphlimali hill region and process the same in a big refinery at a Kondh village named Ramibeda. The consortium consisted of two large Indian companies and one MNC (Tata, Indal and Norway’s biggest corporation NORSK Hydro). In the period between 1998 and 2000, when the resistant movement gained momentum against the UAIL, Tata quit the venture. Then the ALCAN (Canada) brought up a major share in its subsidiary INDAL, sold it to HINDALCO. Later, due to the growing resistance by the tribal people and under pressure from Norwegian Human rights activists and public opinion, Norsk Hydro too withdrew from the project. Since then, it became a joint venture of the mining giants HINDALCO (of Aditya Birla group) (55 per cent) and Alcan of Canada (45 per cent). Apart from UAIL, large corporate houses with interests in bauxite mining like L&T and RSB Metaltech are also apparently showing interests in Kashipur and Lanjigarh area to produce alumina. All these developments add to peoples’ suspicion and resistance.

The resistance movement in the Kashipur block started not only against UAIL, although this was the chief target, but also against other bauxite mining projects of BALCO, L&T and Sterlite Industries India Ltd (SIIL) in the same area. The ongoing UAIL project was to affect the lives of more than 5,000 families in nearly 100 villages (directly by UAIL and indirectly for its connecting railway line and for its power supplying upper Indravati hydel project) (Das, 2001: 2613–14). However it was to provide employment for about 1,000 people, almost none of whom were from among the 5,000 affected by the project. But these mining activities were to destroy their forest habitat and ecosystem having perennial water streams that form the basis of lives and livelihood of more than 2,000 families in more than 11 + 3 = 14 villages directly. While the officials claim that only 148 families from three villages, namely Domkaral, Ramibeda and Kendukhunti were to be displaced and other 11 villages in the periphery were to be partially affected, the reality is vastly different. The residents of these three villages were to lose more than 75 per cent of their land. Aditya Birla group had already acquired 2,500 acres of land there. The project had displaced more than 2,000 people with immediate effect, but was making mere promises to secure jobs for 1,000 people over 20 years.

Lanjigarh’s Mining based Refinery Project (Case Study No. 2)

Lanjigarh is part of the Kalahandi district of Orissa. Tribal people like the Dongaria Kondh, Kutia Kondh and Jharania Kondh have lived in the Niyamgiri mountain range of Lanjigarh area from time immemorial. The Kondhs are a primitive tribe fully dependent upon forest products and forest-based agricultural land for their subsistence. Again Kalahandi district (one of the three infamous KBK districts) is notorious for its poverty and starvation deaths. Its rare distinction is its low agricultural productivity. It is also one of the poorest districts in the country. Because of its poverty it has been a breeding ground for the Naxalites.

Vedanta Resources Plc (VRP) is a UK based company. The Company’s original name was SIIL. In December 2003, it was launched in the London Stock Exchange as VRP in order to build Lanjigarh refinery in Kalahandi district of Orissa. The VRP had started its work for setting up of a refinery at Lanjigarh and mining of bauxite from the Niyamgiri Hill Range. Now it is working under the banner of Vedanta Alumina Limited (VAL), based in Mumbai, which is a subsidiary of the London based Company VRP. This company, in order to feed its Lanjigarh refinery, was to mine bauxite from the Niyamgiri hills jointly with OMC as per the lease agreement signed between VAL and OMC in October 2004. Both SIIL and the VAL are headed by a non resident Indian, Anil Agarwal. The major share holders in VAL are Barclays, Deutsche Bank and ABN Amro. The aggregate investment of the project was approximately ₹ 4,000 crores then. For this purpose, 723.43 hectares of land was required by the VAL. Out of which 232.75 hectares was private and most of this land belonged to the Kondhs. Most of the land is categorised as forest. According to the office of the Collector, Kalahandi, 12 villages of the Gram Panchayat Lanjigarh and Batelima will be affected by the proposed Alumina refinery at Lanjigarh. From these villages, 60 families were to be displaced and 302 families will be affected as their land will be acquired for the project. But in reality, the plant displaced 102 families from their homes. Another 1,220 ‘project affected’ families lost either all, or parts, of their farmland. So far, the project displaced two villages partially and two completely and the list will add on. Out of the 64 displaced households in Jaganathpur village, most of them are Kondhs who had been cultivating there for generations. On 23 January 2004, four tribal villages, Borobhota, Kinari, Kothduar, Sindhabahali and their agricultural fields, in south east Kalahandi district, were razed by VAL, where from the villagers were forcibly evicted. Lanjigarh movement is not only about its large scale displacement of tribal people, but also about the violation of environmental laws/forest conservation laws as its extensive mining in the Niyamgiri mountains threatens an entire ecosystem, implying even drying up of rivers flowing from the mountains. Further it is also about violation of 1996 Act of Panchayats Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA).

Disinformation and Politics for Collective Mobilisation

These large scale displacements have aroused protests among the affected people against these developmental projects. It is needless to emphasise that these collective protests have taken the shape of social movements. To perceive the phenomena as social movements, one may rely on A Tourine (1985: 749–89), three principles that must co-exist in any social movement, namely: (a) the principle of (group) identity, (b) the principle of opposition and (c) the principle of (involvement in) totality. And we observed the operation of the three principles of Tourine as the tribals made a categorical issue out of loss of their cultural identity, organised themselves in opposition to the developmental projects in question and the state that facilitates the projects and lastly the tribal population involved itself in the movement in totality as it is a matter of livelihood and identity for them. The theoretical framework of classical social movement that entails perceiving a collective action for mobilisation in the direction of institutionalisation, is considered to be inadequate in the present context because of the complexity of these movements and also considered to be unsuitable for the absence of any specific political ideology and class basis of these movements. Having fought the movements on the ground initially, the movement was later fought in the public sphere, i.e, in the media/internet on behalf of the destitutes of development (symbolic of the psychology of underdogs).

Industrialisation will open up employment opportunities to educated unemployed and will generate work for the unskilled poor in the different unorganised and service sectors and in the near future the poor state of Orissa will overflow with milk and honey. This was the message disseminated from assorted quarters, the corporate, media, the government, the international aid agencies, the funded NGOs and even the world-bank agents. But, from the beginning of these projects, the democratic state had maintained a stony silence on the questions of the exact nature of these projects, how many villages were to be displaced completely or partially, or were to be affected directly or indirectly through these projects and how many people will lose their homesteads, land, what will be the nature and extent of the rehabilitation and resettlement and what would be the nature and extent of environmental and ecological degradation, etc. The concerned corporate houses grossly underplayed the facts pertaining to displacement and environmental degradation and overplayed the facts pertaining to R&R. On the contrary the activist organisations and their ally NGOs overplayed the facts pertaining to displacement and environmental degradation but underplayed the R&R measures to come. The state and district administration along with the company officials launched an intensive public disinformation campaign to portray the resistance as misguided and manipulated the public opinion through media in favour of the projects. This is what Padel and Das (2008: 594) called ‘manufacturing of consent’. However there prevailed an environment of distrust for which both the sides are responsible. This was possible in the absence of authentic and complete information about the projects which was to come from the Govt. administration but it was silent.

Kashipur: The root of suspicion and the idea of being uprooted in the minds of the tribal people started quite long back around 1993 when they first felt the presence of strangers in their tribal hinterland gathering various kinds of information from them, setting up drilling rigs and other machinery with alien technological instruments and taking the samples of water and soil, collecting information with questionnaires. In the early stages of the mining work, neither the company nor the state Govt. made effort to disseminate the detailed and clear information, to the affected tribals. For example, in village Kendukhunti in Kashipur block, people were told by the surveyors that the survey was being carried out for the children’s education project. For a long time the tribal people were kept in darkness and being supplied with vague answers by the surveyors regarding the projects. Later on, the people of this area were told that bauxite will be mined in the area and factories will be set up and they have to evacuate their habitat. With the fear of losing their habitat and their livelihood base, people from the villages of Sunger Panchayat of Kashipur block and Kerpai/Naktrundi Panchayats of Thuamul-Rampur block assembled on 22nd February 1995 and met the Tehsildar of Kashipur along with the representative of Anchalika Surakhya Parishad. They demanded detailed and clear information about the: (a) effect of the mining project in their lives and their habitation, (b) the terms and conditions agreed upon between the Govt of Orissa and the multinational companies for the setting up of these projects, (c) the response of the Govt., on the issue of the forceful eviction of native inhabitants from their homes and land, with no options offered to them (d) and the benefits to the Kashipur block of Rayagada district and Thuamul Rampur block of Kalahandi district from the mining and industrial activities of the big mining magnets. Further, to counter the environmentalists’ allegations the UAIL claims to have conducted several technical studies, like, EIA and environmental management plans by the engineers India, SEIA study by NIRD Hyderabad, mixing depth studies by the department of Oceanography and meteorology of Andhra University, impacts of discharges of treated effluents by the Industrial Toxicology Research Centre, Lucknow, etc. But none of these reports are made public. Hence there is an absence of technical information to clear out suspicions and rumours.

Lanjigarh: Vedanta acquired a reputation through sustained campaign by activists of being an ‘unscrupulous’ MNC that has bribed key people in the governments both at the centre and the state. They cited the hurried manner in which the application of VAL for diversion into forest land was cleared by the MOEF on 28th March 2005 (although denied in the first clearance of 22nd September 2004 by MOEF). On 17th September 2010 the National Environment Appellate Authority suspended the environmental clearance to VAL that was granted in 2009 (The Indian Express, 2010). A desperate Orissa Govt. through OMC moved to the Supreme Court on April 2011 against MOEF’s withdrawal of environmental clearance to VAL at Lanjigarh for its bauxite mining at Niyamgiri hills.

While the activists and Vedanta made contrasting claims with the latter selling dreams of bringing extraordinary development to the tribals, the implementation of the complete R&R package was a time-consuming affair. The displaced people, at the same time, wanted immediate compensation and R&R benefits. The situation was made more complex by the fact that they had no access to any authentic information about the compensation and R&R measures proposed. This allowed vicious rumours to float around. Hence, although the primary causes of the violent resistance were: (a) large scale displacement, (b) virtual absence of direct jobs, (c) poor compensation packages and (d) delayed implementation of R&R measures, the major secondary causes were the popular distrust with corporates as well as the state administration and too much of politicisation.

Politics of Development and of the Movements

In Kashipur, mainstream political parties like Congress, BJP, and BJD were hell bent on starting the project. These parties have formed an All-Party Committee to support the projects. Sarangi (2002: 3241) alleged that these political parties are now acting as agents of UAIL engaging themselves as private army and threatening tribal people to leave their land for the industry so that they would grab the contracts for construction. This was a misplaced allegation and it was based on the wrong assumption that the adivasis have ownership rights over their habitats in the forest. This was claimed way back in 2002 when the Recognition of forest rights of the traditional forest dwellers Act 2006 (that tribes can hold land for habitation and self-cultivation within the forest) was non-existent.

In the Niyamgiri area of Lanjigarh, local Congress and radical communist groups (particularly CPI-ML New Democracy, CPI-ML Red Flag and CPI-ML Liberation) leaders are active in the resistance movement. The project has provoked a serious political conflict between the political parties like the ruling BJD and the opposition Congress. While the BJD advocates for the upcoming development in the area by revenue and employment generation through mega projects like VAL, the opposition parties point out the various adverse impacts on the ecosystem and biodiversity of Niyamgiri mountains although they support the industrial policy of the state in the legislative assembly. The politicisation added a new chapter when we heard that the local (Lanjigarh) tribal MLA, who was also Orissa’s minister in charge of tribal development had been mobilising tribal followers for staging a dharana (sit down protest) in front of the Supreme Court in favour of the company at the time of hearing of the case. There was a rumour going on the area that ‘Vedanta has been assured that the verdict will not go against the company if such a Dharana is arranged in Delhi’. But in 2009 general election, the Kalahandi Lok Sabha seat went to Congress. Thereafter the politicisation of Lanjigarh project has become more intense. Bhakta Charan Das, the new Congress MP from Kalahandi, has been mobilising support from congress leadership and pro-congress intellectuals at New Delhi against the project. Not surprisingly, based on its Forest Advisory Committee report headed by N. C. Saxena the MOEF has withdrawn the environmental clearance for VAL (on 24th August 2010) and tried to scrap it. Two days later (on 26th August) Rahul Gandhi, Congress general secretary participated in a huge rally at Lanjigarh and claimed that as the supporter of tribal people in Delhi, the Union Govt. has denied environmental clearance to notorious VAL for mining in the Niyamgiri range. Thus, the Congress led Union Govt.’s predetermined decision to stall VAL project renders the Saxena committee report irrelevant. Quickly, the Govt. of Orissa assured VAL of alternative mining fields. Following this the MOEF issued two show cause notices on 1st September 2010 to VAL alleging non-compliance of environmental conditions by its refinery plant and CPP both at Lanjigarh and threatened its closure (Financial Chronicle, 2010). On 3rd September 2010 Bhakta Charan Das, the Congress MP, in a press conference at the state capital demanded the closure of VAL refinery (when on the same day the ‘Save Vedanta day’ rally was organised at Lanjigarh by BJD youth wing). Following this, on 17th September 2010 the National Environment Appellate Authority also suspended the environmental clearance to VAL that was granted in 2009 (The Indian Express, 2010). A desperate Orissa Govt. through OMC moved to the Supreme Court on April 2011 against MOEF’s withdrawal of environmental clearance to VAL at Lanjigarh for its bauxite mining at Niyamgiri hills.

Disappearing Tribal Culture and Identity

The developmentalists often assumed that peoples’ resistance movements occurred purely because of economic reasons, whereas the reasons are much more complex, embracing economic, social and particularly cultural issues. The project planners have often had wrong assumptions. Violation of economic rights of the affected people might have itself proved to be a strong motivator for resistance, but a great deal of the moral content of the resistant movement is, in fact, derived explicitly from cultural issues pertaining to the rights of existence as cultural entities, of identity, of spiritual links to land and environment and of loyalty to mythological as well as historical ancestors. It would be sheer reductionism to attribute resistance solely to economics or for that matter to purely cultural concerns.

In the present context of discussion, cultural factors refer to: (a) attachment to the place and (b) cultural identity.

Place of attachment refers to the bonding of the people to the place which provides for the very ontological grounding of a culture. Attachment to the place involves positively experienced bonds that often occur without the awareness of the people. These bonds are developed out of the behavioural, affective and cognitive ties between the individuals and their groups residing in the same socio-physical environment. The process of getting attached to a place thus involves the behavioural, cognitive and emotional embeddedness of individuals in forging the link between their socio-cultural and physical environments. Thus an attachment to a place virtually refers to a repository of embedded life experiences that are not separable from the feelings associated with the place. Further such attachments may transcend the unique experiences of individuals and involve a constellation of social relations and corresponding culture of the entire community (Oliver-Smith, 2001: 61–69). Hence one of the strong cultural factors behind the resistance of the tribal people is alienation from the sense of attachment to their land.

Native place signifies relationships between individuals as well as between individuals and their groups. Both as a repository of life experiences and type of human relations, place of attachment plays an important role in the formation, maintenance and preservation of groups’ cultural identity. The feelings, memories, ideas, values and meanings associated with everyday life in a particular setting come to constitute an important dimension of a groups’ identity (ibid.). Hence owing to displacement from the native place the very identity of the tribal people is at stake. In this context becomes relevant is the notion of BHITTA MATEE found among the locals which connotes their generations of dependence on the land and their attachment to the land. This attachment provides the basis for tribal culture of a particular variety typical to a tribe because it is the reflection of tribal emotions in the form of their dance, music, cosmology, belief system and hence tribal culture and subsequently tribal identity.

Hence cultural factors such as the intimate connections between the physical environment and religion, cosmology and worldview, enacted through rituals and celebratory cultural events as narrated in folklore play significant roles in building relationships of a group/community with its traditional land. In effect the ties between people and their land base provide the ontological ground of a cultural identity. Thus a sense of belonging to a place plays an important role in the groups’ collective identity formation (as its history becomes contextualised). So is the case of these tribal groups of Kashipur and Lanjigarh whose religious life, cosmology and world view stands endangered owing to their displacement from their physical environment.

The preponderant tribes in both the project areas are Kondhs (Dongaria, Kutia) Saora (Langia), Bhuiyan, Oraon and Munda. It is needless to iterate that these tribes are the natives of the forest and mountains. Hence the identity of any tribal community is associated with the forests, hills and mountains. The tribal identity is expressed through their distinct social organisation and cultural forms (dress patterns, language, rituals, festivals, songs/dances and their spiritual life). Physical relocation of tribal population is a complex issue and have significant adverse implications for their identity, culture and customary livelihood. Tribal culture, way of life, folklore, religious practices are inextricably linked with their relationship with nature. Tribal communities have their distinct identity which is different from the mainstream society. Displacement often leads to a sudden onslaught of dominant values threatening the very basis of their cultural identity because culture which is rooted in a particular place, cannot be easily ‘reconstructed’ in another place. Resettlement after displacement not only relocates groups/communities in space, it also remakes them. Often the community is reconfigured in certain ways and the local culture is pressed for a change, as it gets linked to regional and national market systems. Visualisation of this itself engenders resentment and subsequent collective resistance among the affected people. So is the case of tribal people of Niyamgiri mountains.

In Lanjigarh area, the tribal culture is associated with the Niyamgiri hill range. The Dongaria and Maji Kondhs, inhabitants of the area believe that, Niyamgiri is their place of origin and worship. Niyam Raja is the deity of these mountains. Niyam Raja means the ‘Lord of the Dharma’, ‘Lord of the Rule’ or the ‘Lord of the Law’. In the name of Niyam Raja these tribal people maintained a taboo on cutting of trees. Niyamgiri is not just a mountain range for them. It has been worshipped as Niyam Penu (God) for generations by these tribal people living in and around it (hence it has been protected so far). Tribal religious life is now transformed. Experiencing the invaders around them tearing their earth apart with earth movers, blasting of mountainous rocks and cutting down trees of the forest to earn money, negates tribals’ sense of sacredness of nature which lies at the heart of traditional tribal religion. Thus the very act of opening up the belly of the earth for mining and construction activities undermines the traditional reverence to Dharni Penu (Earth Deity). The traditional beliefs, values, norms and religious practices have come under fire and community festivals like the ones for first fruit/harvest of the various crops, Meria festival of sacrifice, etc. that traditionally used to bring the villagers together are dying. The tribal religio-cultural life has under gone huge changes which are tantamount to their ‘detribalisation’. For example, a woman who had just been removed from Kinari village to make way for Vedanta’s refinery told Amoro devata ke bi nashta kole—they even destroyed our deities—referring to the Dharni vali (Earth Goddess stones) that form the centre of a Kondh village, which has been crushed into rubbles along with the houses. Padel and Das (2008: 585–88) call this ‘cultural genocide’.

Strained Kinship & Clan system: Lasting tensions have emerged within and between tribal families according to their varying stand taken on accepting the compensation and employment from the company. One of the biggest splits was between the six villages in Lanjigarh block; those which accepted compensation for their land (who were moved to Vedantanagar colony) and those which refused the compensation (were left outside the refinery walls). The first group has lost the spatial community of a Kondh village once for all. Further, there has emerged a sense of distrust and tension within the tribal households as family members became suspicious of the other member of the family who received the lump sum amount as compensation. There were cases reported when the family member who received the lump sum did not share it with others or gave only peanuts to other family members. Those displaced and put in settlement colonies away from their original place of habitation even find it difficult to maintain matrimonial relations with their community. Thus the social fabric of the tribal stands disintegrated. Having lost the unity of the community the tribal people have experienced the penetration of money and alien culture into their social relations.

Lastly when the tribal people lose their land, traditional homes, it results in their loss of livelihood too. They become dependent upon the non tribal others and get connected to the larger market economy in place of their own forest based subsistence economy. This dependency on external market puts the tribal people socially in a disadvantageous position where they are engaged as menial workers of various kinds. That apart the tribal people who earlier by and large had lived in an egalitarian social structure now got connected to the larger caste Hindu society as low caste people and even as untouchables. Thus it is a clear case of social displacement too.

Anatomy of Collective Mobilisations and Violent Resistance

The extent of repression was very high on the tribal people in both these places from all the corners, by the state administration/police, the CRPF and finally the local mercenaries of the concerned companies. Violence was inflicted on the tribal people because of their opposition to the mining based refinery projects. The tribal people obstructed the project activities by the companies like land surveying, leveling, boundary wall construction, etc. Along with these activities they organised sit-in demonstrations (Dharanas), protest public meetings and protest-walks (marches).

Role of the Civil Society in Shaping the Course of the Movement

According to Fuentes and Frank (1989: 79–91), NSMs are people’s struggle against systemic exploitation and oppression and for survival/identity in a complex dependent society. These movements are instruments for democratic self-empowerment of people, organised independently of the state, its institutions and political parties and are a reflection of people’s search for alternatives. In a nutshell, NSMs take place in the civil society/cultural sphere (for which they claim autonomy) vis-à-vis the state. To Cohen (1985: 700), civil society is seen ‘in action terms as the domain of struggles, involving public spaces and political processes. It comprises the social realm in which the creation of norms, identities, and social relations of domination and resistance are located.’

1. Role of Intellectuals:

Social activists, freelance writers, anthropologists, sociologists, research scholars, film makers, human rights groups, who not only visited the affected areas, but also prepared reports on the issues of contemporary resistance and the extent of state repression on the people. The Council for Social Development (CSD), a Delhi-based organisation, started a mission headed by Muchkund Dube (Ex. Foreign Secretary of India) in January 1999. Its aim was to study the situation at Kashipur, in the Rayagada district of Orissa and to dig out the ground realities and to formulate a Rehabilitation policy package. The team did an extensive survey of those areas, met persons of both the sides, those who support the VAL project and those who did not. Also they gathered information from various Govt. officials employed at the affected area and in the state secretariat, NGO activists and members. The report brought the reality of the bitter relationship between the victims and the state authority including the company officials. There were also evidences on the excessive use of coercive methods by the officials for the withdrawal of tribal people. The report brought out the state’s step against the four local NGOs namely Agragamee, Ankuran, Laxman Nayak Society, Weaker Section Integrated Development Agency (WIDA) with the allegation for supporting this genuine movement of the tribal people. There was an upsurge in the number of reports/studies by various national level participatory forums that have been involving these grassroots movements through empirical studies/surveys. Following are some of these:

Judicial Commissions, Tribunals or Similar Independent Reports on Violence Against Adivasis Violating the Laws in Orissa [Examples only] 1999 Former Foreign Secretary Muchkund Dubey’s independent commission from CSD examining claims of violence against Adivasis (11–18 January 1999) 2001 Chief Justice D.S. Tewatia and Swami Agnivesh’s independent report on police killing Adivasis on 16th December 2000 2003 High Court Justice Prafulla K. Misra Commission also on the 16th December 2000 killings (suppressed by GoO, later leaked and released) 2005 Lawyers’ Field Mission, India’s Peoples Union for Civil Liberties and Independent civil society body 2006 Chief Justice Bhargava’s Tribunal, Published October 2006 2006 Justice Usha’s Commission on Communalism in Orissa (Chatterjee & Desai, 2006) 2006 Chief Justice of India Yogesh K. Sabharwal for the Supreme Court on Vedanta bauxite, violating the law and illegalities against Adivasis (pending).

2. Role of Activist’s Organisations:

The painstaking efforts of activists in these movements (social, legal, environmental and human rights) to highlight the various ground level issues of the tribal and similar marginalised communities are remarkable. These micro-movement groups were adopting the effective and innovative methods of organising Padayatra to raise consciousness among people to mobilise them. The activists from the various movement organisations in these trouble torn areas were organising Padayatras (protest walk or peace walk), Dharana (peaceful sit on), to unite the tribal groups by sharing a common perspective and concern for specific issues. They organised their protest walks and moved through affected villages, interacted with tribal people and mobilised their opinion, in favour. As tribal people were facing problems like alienation from their land, home and livelihood and harassment by the Govt. officials and mercenaries of the company it became easy to muster their support.

Apart from NGOs, there emerged several grassroots level activist/movements organisations may be at the behest/inspiration of NGOs to mobilise the affected population. The noteworthy among the movement organisations in the two mentioned disturbed areas (Kashipur and Lanjigarh) are: Prakrutika Sampada Surakhya Parishad (PSSP) of Kashipur, Basundhara Surakshya Samiti (BSS), Anchaklika/Vanasampada Surakhya Samitis (in the villages of Kashipur block) and Baphlimali Surakhya Samiti, at Kashipur and Chasi Mulia Sangha of Rayagada/Koraput, Loka Shakti Abhiyan (LSA) of Lanjigarh, Niyamgiri Surakhya Samiti (NSS) Lanjigarh, Geen Kalahandi, Niyamgiri Bachao Samiti (NBS), Niyamgiri Surakhya Abhiyan (NSA), Samajbadi Jana Parishad (SJP), Kalahandi Sachetan Nagarika Manch, etc at Lanjigarh. These movement organisations are although independent organisations/forums but in order to meet their common goal, to fight out the giant mining company, they often coordinate their own activities in an area and at times work in a consortium manner. This was possible because of their unity of purpose.

The major activists working with the people of Kashipur area (namely, Rabi Pradhan, Saroj Mohanty, Vidhya Das, Deba Ranjan Sarangi who are intellectuals too) were also severely harassed by the state police. These above mentioned activists and Bhagban Majhi were booked under National Security Act (NSA). Non-bailable warrants have been issued for some of the activists like the Prafulla Samantara President of Lokashakti Abhiyan Orissa, Achyut Das President of the NGO Agragamee. Also in Bargarh Samata Bhawan, the office of the Samajbadi Jana Parishad was not spared by the police. In Lanjigarh, the arrested movement leaders were Nayan Dash and Lingaraj Azad, state president of Samajbadi Jana Parishad. The activists of the Lanjigarh movement who took lead were Daising Majhi, Bhim Majhi, tribal women leader Maladi Majhi, communist leader Gananath Patra, Rajendra Sarangi, Bhagbat Prasad Rath, Dhabaleswar Nayak, Santosh Mallik, Rajendra Bharati, Satyabadi Nayak, B. Thakur, Srikantha, Snehansu and Siddharth Naik. All of them were not tribal people but were locals who stood united and consistently sought the ouster of the VAL from Kalahandi.

There is evidence to suggest that in the areas of Kashipur and Lanjigarh, the interior tribal dominated areas the Christian missionaries too were directly extending support to these tribal movements. It is not surprising that on 5th February 2010 the Church of England declared to withdraw its 2.5 million pounds worth investment from the VAL’s mining project certainly at the instigation of Christian Missionaries working in this remote tribal belt on the ground that VAL is indulging in violation of human rights, endangering indigenous tribes, wild life and environment (BBC News, South Asia 5 February 2010). Further the state administration has stumbled upon evidences of Naxalite involvement in these movements. As if these were not enough for the disadvantage of the state of late, the politics of the movement has revealed a different shade that refers to the involvement of an older and subtler political forum that aimed at carving out a separate state of Koshal out of Orissa’s western districts where Kashipur and Lanjigarh movements were fought.

3. (a) Role of Local NGOs:

The Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) as a phenomenon emerged in India in late 1970s and early 1980s. The NGOs are receiving funds from inside and outside the country to do state-approved developmental work in the rural areas. Some of the NGOs entered into the South-western areas of Orissa in 1980s. The main four NGOs, namely Agragamee, Laxman Nayak Society, Ankuran and Weaker Section Integrated Development Agency (WIDA) had been working among the tribal people of Kalahandi and Rayagada for more than two decades by organising various literacy programmes, imparting training in watershed management, implementing Govt’s pro-poor policies, fomenting awareness among them regarding their legal and constitutional rights, augmenting introduction of new technologies in agricultural practices and forming grassroots people’s organisations. In the beginning, among the four NGOs, Agragamee disseminated information to the people regarding the Kashipur project, its adverse impact on their lives and livelihood resources and the environment. Tribals are more dependent on Agragamee due to its long and deep association with the people. It took some steps like signature campaign and articulated some of the demands like, full information about the project induced displacement and clarification regarding the benefits of the people on 22nd Feb 1995. As the NGOs always want to earn and retain a pro-people image they could not immediately withdraw themselves from the movement. NGOs worked to control and keep the movement within a limit which will not threaten their very existence and at the same time will remain close to the tribal people without the fear of rejection. In spite of heavy repressive measures from the government, those NGOs continued to support the movement. Many NGOs like Agragamee, Ankuran, etc. were derecognised, their funding from the state Govt. was discontinued. The Central Govt. and other aid agencies were informed adversely to stop funding these NGOs. Their offices were raided by police, employees were arrested, FIR and criminal cases were filed against many NGO workers. These litigations drained their time, scanty resources and motivations (Das, 2003: 83). Even these NGO workers faced physical harassment and threats.

On a meeting of NGOs to discuss the project related issues convened by the Southern Revenue Divisional Commission of Orissa on the 1st week of July 1999, Agragamee did not participate. Ankuran made a statement in the meeting that ‘we will help the Govt. in installing the project if it withdraws its decision of deregistering our organisation’. Later Ankuran denied the statement through a rejoinder. The other noteworthy local NGOs which worked for the tribal people and support the resistance movement were: Friends of Tribal Society (FTS), Deshapremi Jana Samukhya (DJS), Kalahandi Sachetan Nagarik Mancha, Jala, Jungle O Zamin Surakhshya Manch, and Sanhati.

(b) Role of International NGOs

Apart from local NGOs there were also some International NGOs involved with the movements against these mining based projects. Some of these NGOs were ACTION AID, CARE INDIA, HIVOS and NORWATCH. The ACTION AID with the help of Sanhati (an NGO at Kashipur) helped some tribal leaders to go to Delhi to give press statements protesting against the project. After sponsoring their visit to Delhi, the NGOs issued a different suitable press statement regarding funding the visit as it was to address the issues regarding the proposal to confer full power to Gramsabha on land acquisition issues and not deal with the movement issues. On the other hand, on 15th December 2000, Care International and an all party committee formed by UAIL tried to organise a multi-stakeholder dialogue in Nuagaon village at Maikanch. In a different case, the NGO called Norwatch from Norway came to collect the opinion of the victims of the Kashipur area about the ongoing project and its compensation package. The damaging report by the Norwatch, about the protesting people of Kashipur, forced the Norwegian company Norsk Hydro to withdraw itself from the project (UAIL) in 1998.

Thus the roles of NGOs in these resistance movements could be summarised as follows: (a) dissemination of relevant information, (b) awareness building among the affected people, (c) forming grassroots level activist organisations, (d) strategy building for mobilisation, playing through media in a controlled and clever manner, (e) funding the movement both directly and indirectly and (f) extending expertise for negotiation with powerful and knowledgeable adversaries like state and company officials. We would strongly agree with the view that NGOs’ guidance and involvement in these movements have certainly not allowed these to fall into the folds of Maoists armed struggle that has spread its tentacles in these tribal dominated areas of interior Orissa. Thus these movements have remained within the limits of civil society, so far.

Role of Mass Media in the State of Orissa

In the present days of global interconnectivity, no resistance movement is fought in isolation. It is receiving good brand imaging and media coverage in every part of the country. It cannot be alienated from the world of media, through which these micro-movements seek to expand their domain of influence. The news of repression and intimidation of the tribals, social-legal activists and the protests of the marginalised people against the mining projects of western Orissa became the focus of both the national and international media attention. The coverage of the movement was wide in the electronics media but the electronics media is not free from politics as the TV channels (O TV, E TV Oriya, DD Oriya, Kanaka TV, Nakshatra TV, etc.) by and large followed their own party lines as it becomes a question of credibility of a state Govt (BJP and BJD coalition then). The local print media (newspapers in vernacular/Oriya) had a great role to play in these movements. As these movements were highly politicised the print media also followed their broad party lines. The only leading Oriya daily that had been giving almost unbiased coverage of the movements was The Samaj (from the Servants’ of People Society). ‘The Sambad’ (from Eastern Media) toed the line of Congress party, while The Prajatantra and The Dharitri, other leading Oriya dailies had been tacitly toeing with the lines of BJD and BJP the then ruling parties.

This battle was also fought in the internet where the movement organisations and their sympathising intellectuals run website giving news about the movement and portraying their views on regular basis. Environmental Protection Group (EPG) Orissa has such a website that carries numerous articles with legal, economic and environmental implications of the projects. MinesandCommunities.org , niyamgiri.net, Kashipur.info, kashipursolidarity.tripod.com , orissametals.com , etc. are some of the other important internet based websites that transmit information/news about the project and the movements. Even web materials prepared in French and German are posted for Canadian audience and Deutsch bankers of Vedanta to restrain Alcan India and VAL respectively. Of course many of their write-ups are in fact emotional, highly subjective, sometimes distorted and vehemently one sided. The quality and volume of propaganda material released through internet and print media particularly for Lanjigarh movement has been vicious. As a result international environmental activists have made bee line to Lanjigarh to save its tropical forest and primitive tribes (as blue colored Tribes of Avatar film of Hollywood).

Why These Tribal Resistant Movements be Treated as New Social Movements

These movements meet most of the theoretically identified features of NSMs, such as:

The rise of NSMs in recent decades is to be attributed to the rise of various strong interest groups (e.g., displaced tribal groups, in this context) and also to the near total absence of macro-movements, i.e, working class movements, peasant movements, trade union movements and the like. NSMs in India have often erupted due to the multiple modernities and identities, which are essentially centered around local issues (e.g., scrapping the project and protecting the tribal cultural identity). NSMs are also conceived as non-party political forums, based on grassroots popular initiatives and single issue based anti-state movements (Oommen, 2001: 1–16). These are also distinct as they operate almost wholly outside the traditional political party system.

The newness about the new social movement is that these opposed the tyranny of the state Govt (e.g., repressive measures of the administration in Orissa, in this context) without questioning the very existence and legitimacy of the state power. These also do not intend to directly take over power by overthrowing the political regime. Neither did they question the Indian state as the Naxals do.

The intermediary institutions (i.e., civil society institutions like NGOs and other activist organizations) play a significant role in fomenting these movements and also bring these movements into fruition. NSMs are mostly civil society based as the network of civil society activist organisations involving mass media work in coalition (e.g., network of NGOs and movement organisation, in this context) for attaining the specific objectives.

These are essentially anti-systemic (e.g., against developement induced displacement, in this context) and not anti-regime movements. The social movements emerging out of conflicts over sharing natural resources like land/forest, water etc., concerns for ecology/environment, human rights, cultural identity, etc. can be seen as the causes of eruption of such new social movements (as all these are true in case of the two movements).

In general, NSMs evolve around moral issues, particularly in the developing countries, NSMs work even towards attaining distributive justice in sharing economic resources and services (e.g., adequate compensations and R&R measures for those displaced, in this context).

Ideologically, the encouraging features of these NSMs are mostly their less orthodox and less doctrinaire nature (e.g. no ideological overtone in these two resisitance movements). In addition to this NSMs characteristically have no obsession to capture state power but they do aim at bringing about change in state apparatus and various social institutions.

NSMs have never been substitutes, as class struggle in India within the factory and over the land and its products are still important today. Instead of replacing classical movements, the NSMs have supplemented them, as the latter have emerged in newer areas where the former have not emerged (e.g., Naxalite/Maoist movement in contemporary Orissa which is a class-based/classical kind of movement, is being tacitly supplemented by these micro-movements).

NSMs remain effective by retaining their identity, engaging parties in dialogue, yet remaining outside their control. Again, the NSMs in India, unlike those in the west have no mass participation, rather have thinner and local support bases only (e.g., both the movement studied are locality based without involving the larger population of their respective districts and the state).

Multiple actors like, intellectuals, activists, students and also the affected population itself plays lead roles in these movements (e.g., movements by intellectuals and activists, in this context). And those who direct these movements are mostly middle class based intellectuals. The actors from the middle class try to bring about changes through different means such as scholastic writings, mobilising people in a methodical/strategic manner, using media in their favour and the like (e.g., extensive reporting on these micro-movements in, newspapers, magazines and journals).

May be, because of their middle class preponderance, the NSMs function in a non-hierarchical manner. Some also argue that while the middle class plays the facilitating role and the lower class (e.g., affected population consisting of mostly tribal people, some dalits and few general, in this context) at the grassroots level participates in large numbers in NSMs (D’monte 1989: 19).

The other features of NSMs spelled out by Frank and Fuentes (1987: 1503–1510) that are found to be in match with the tribal resistant movements of Orissa under study, are as follows:

These movements have little or no membership ties (i.e., party membership) and have a spontaneous interest base. In spite of their variety what is in common to all NSMs is that these are mobilised on the basis of morality, justice and a social power for a particular purpose.

These movements have their own life cycles that of course are shorter in duration (e.g., not more than a decade in each of these cases).

NSMs mostly develop specific objectives for themselves and do not live beyond their specific objectives (We have already noted that Kashipur movement is stalemating because of loss of sight and also because the most notable outcome of the resistance movements, i.e., formulation of the Comprehensive R&R Policy of the Government of Orissa dated 20 May 2006 as the Government of Orissa had no such policy prior to this, except a draft version of July 2005).

NSMs generally evolve in grassroots politics and grassroots collective actions. Often these grassroots collective actions initiate micro-movements of smaller groups targeting localised issues with limited institutional base. These movements take the help of existing intermediary institutions (NGOs) and in the course of time produce organised democratic associations. But various associations, that is, voluntary associations and non party political forums and ideological groups also set the stage for such movements (e.g., convergence of efforts of movement organisations, NGOs and political organisations, in this context).

NGOs are seen as one of those new actors within civil society that promote people’s participation, through motivation, people’s mobilisation and people’s empowerment. NGOs mobilise people for movements and give rise to formation of various pressure groups and other intermediary institutions like popular grassroots (village level) organisations to sustain the movement for longer period (e.g., formation of grassroots level movement organisations).

The success and impact of NSM lie in its efforts in disseminating information through intense campaigns and in cultivating networks of contacts maintained and through leaflet writings, informal gatherings, organising discussion forums, etc. (Crook et al 1994: 154). These movements are articulated through catchy slogans, icons, and appeals.

Usually these NGOs share a set of common beliefs pertaining to their cause/concerns. Pointing out the fact that NGOs do play a decisive role in initiating movements, Edward and Hulme (1992: 24) argue that the unified efforts of grassroots organisations can coalesce into movements. When the movements get consolidated and institutionalised, these result in formation of various new organisations/institutions. Thus NSMs can be seen as a network of groups and organisations that are unified by shared conceptions, beliefs, ideals and specific goals by deliberate attempts on the part of the groups and organisations to ally themselves with one another through joint actions, coalitions, umbrella groups, etc. and so forth. At times NSMs consists of networks of collective actors (groups/NGOs) that may, under certain circumstances, even be able to forge themselves into large scale organisations.

Emergent Discourse on Development

Analysis of the two resistance movements engenders a substantive discourse on development in developing countries that could be articulated as the global discourse, national discourse and the regional discourse.

Issues on Global Discourse

Right to develop and right to development:

The post-colonial nation states have acquired a moral right to develop and have worked assiduously to expound the influence of both the state and the market through major investments in infrastructure addressing national priorities based on the ideological constructs of a welfare state (of utilitarian nature) founded on institutions like private property and mass society. It is assumed that the citizens of the nation would assert their right to development through these institutions of mass society and private property based on state and market. Hence there is a convergence of the moral right of the state and that of the citizens.

However, this convergence is not a logical necessity. Because the citizens may also articulate alternative model of development based on their rights to development and stress for small scale undertakings which maintain lower pollution levels, that address local priorities and that respect the local cultural autonomy. Citizens also perceive the necessity of seeking more (than what is existing) rights to participate in decision-making that affects their lives and community under this model. This duality of rights resulted in these micro-movements of contemporary Oriya society.

>Financial and technical versus social sustainability:

These resistant movements are in fact great lessons for the nascent democracies of developing countries like India where popular involvement in developmental projects (in participatory forms) is fast becoming a prerequisite. Further, a mere deployment of a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)/other project feasibility technique is certainly not enough for the sustainability of the project. The matrices of CBA dealing with economic parameters have already proven to be the harbinger of doomsday as these fail to answer the ethical question as to how to measure in economic terms the misery and sufferings of displaced people. Hence to ensure sustainability, CBA must include the new parameters/indicators, like loss of social networks/kinship networks, emotional and psychological costs and the cultural costs of displacement involving the project. Besides, the negotiation for rehabilitation and resettlement between the conflicting parties need to be on equal footings because the otherwise conflicting parties are in fact great unequals. Hence negotiations needs to be done like that of the industrial collective bargaining. In view of the emergent resistance movements the issue of corporate social responsibility has become imminent and has acquired greater value. Hence a social cost benefit analysis that is inclusive of the subjective as well as the objective costs is alone to be considered appropriate. That apart, a comprehensive and viable R&R Policy has now taken a somewhat different twist to be known as stakeholder’s approach wherein the affected population is being treated as one of the stakeholders. Therefore, an inclusive development needs to recognise the local peoples’ rights over the local natural resource bases and participation of the local people in the projects’ R&R measures.

Issues on National Discourse: Mega Development Projects versus Small Projects

All the two resistance movement studies are based on displacements caused by heavy industrial projects. Mega projects, particularly the ones based on FDI are often offered red carpets and those flex muscle in the interiors where these cause large scale displacement (bringing human misery), environmental degradation through pollution and ecological degradation through mining. Besides, in case of tribes/minority population, their displacement also causes cultural erosion. These may have snowballing effects resulting in violent resistance and political fall-outs. In view of these popular misgivings of mega-projects (however economically viable these might be) the developmental alternative could be smaller projects based on eco-friendly technologies which do not necessitate FDI, would cause less of environmental and ecological degradation and most notably least displacement of people. It would be highly inappropriate and regressive to say that development through industrialisation should be stalled as it causes displacement. In this context of tribal resistance movements and the NC Saxena Committee report of MOEF (2010) for VAL mining project at Niyamgiri, a view has emerged which argues that in the light of 2006 Act recognising tribal rights over forest land, tribal people be left alone and their land must not be encroached upon. It would be an extreme thing to say that tribal areas should be protected as sanctuaries. It is certainly not in the interest of the tribal people to be treated as exotic species in tropical sanctuaries. The forest areas that are habitats of tribes must not be construed as Jurassik parks, as idyllic haunts amidst the bounty of nature where the tribes are protected as endangered species of rare kind. As citizens of India they too have right to experience development and be integrated to the mainstream of Indian society.

Issues on Regional Discourse: Development for Whom and Development at What Cost

The story of ‘development of the urban upper/middle class and powerful’ and ‘displacement of the marginalised’ is one that has been played out on several stages all over the country. The so-called development (for a particular section of the society which is dominant) brings out destruction for the marginalised communities virtually resulting in the breakdown of social linkages and creation of a cultural dysphoria. Revenues from mining contracts/lease, some development of the infrastructure, a few thousand jobs generated and some export earnings, etc. are the benefits but at a huge cost for the locals (social, economic and psychological) and for the ecosystem. The question, raised for the umpteenth time, is development of what and for whom? In the context of ‘development’, the question forgotten is who gains, who loses. People’s resistance to mining based heavy industrial projects elicits the usual response about growth, export earnings, foreign direct investment, job creation and infrastructure building, etc. But for the local people, development most often results in displacement, dispossession, loss of identity, disappearance of life-supporting natural resource bases and consequent extreme marginalisation. The modern development ideology brooks no dissent and rides roughshod over non-modern communities, cultures, traditional occupations and lifestyles. Hence this notion of development needs to be more inclusive and ensure equity in sharing the development experiences.

However with the growing awareness, the voices against extractive industrialisation are sounding louder. The transition is slow, but definite. Imposition of the development projects on the people is the reflection of a top–down system of governance and this has often compelled people to resist. Development through mega-projects and their consequent mega-resistance have compelled the system to reconsider the top–down model of development through heavy industrialisation. As it was the case of multi-purpose river valley projects in India that have been finally considered to be inappropriate because of a resistance movement called the Narmada Bachao Andolan. Similarly these resistance movements have forced the Govt of Orissa to formulate its first Comprehensive R&R Policy 2006 (except Draft R&R policy of 2005). Successive governments, of different political parties, local elite and businessmen have supported the alumina/steel projects in Orissa. At the same time, the struggle of the tribal people and their determination to make any sacrifice in order to protect their civil and political rights, their rights to livelihood and habitat clearly demonstrate that people at the grassroots are not going to accept the onslaught of market forces. Hence, the emergent issue is to decide whether to accept the prevailing definition of development as provided by the market and the state or to look for alternatives emerging out of the people’s struggles. In other words, the ultimate emergent question is whether development should mean only profit for capitalists or protection of the rights of the people and their livelihood. In the light of this argument a more participatory approach to development must be considered appropriate as it entails an inclusive development.

Theoretical Implications

Of late the two movements at Kashipur and Lanjigarh are stalemating. All the two movements have shown rhythmic patterns wherein the intensity of mobilisation and violence unleashed increase in proportion to the politicisation of the movement. Hence more the politicisation, more was the violence unleashed and more intense was the struggle. In a nascent democracy with multi-party system permissive of competitive politicking, resistance movements would be more decisive as parties tend to show their affinity to development issues. As these are movements by the development-induced displaced people, their degree of mobilisations show strong correlation with the extent of politicisation of the movement by non-ruling political parties in connivance with local vested interests. The net result is optimal justice.

References

All India Citizens Initiative (2008). Nandigram: What really happened? (Report of the People’s Tribunal on Nandigram). Delhi: Daanish Books.

Baboo

Balgovind

(1991). State policies and people’s response: Lessons from Hirakud Dam, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 26(41) (Oct. 12): 2373–75, 2377–79.

Banerjee

Parthasarathi

(2006). Land acquisition and peasant resistance at Singur, Economic and Political Weekly, 41(46), November 18.

Baviskar

Amita

. (1995). In the belly of the river, tribal conflict over development in the Narmada valley. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Chatterjee

A.P.

Mihir

Desai

(Eds) (2006). Communalism in Orissa. Report of the People’s Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights (Led by Justice K.K. Usha). Indian People’s Tribunal Secretariat: New Age Printing Press, pp. 1–87.

Cohen

Jean

. (1985). Strategy or identity: New theoretical paradigm and contemporary social movements, Social Research, Vol 52(4): 663–716.

Crook

Stephen

Jan

Pakulski

Malcolm

Waters

(1994). Postmodernization: Change in advanced society, London, UK: SAGE.

D’Monte

(1989). Green at the grassroots, Seminar, Vol 355, March: 16–20.

Das

Vidhya

(2001). Mining bauxite, maiming people, Economic and Political Weekly, 36(28), July 14–20: 2612–14.

10.

Das

Vidhya

. (2003). Kashipur: Politics of under-development, Economic and Political Weekly, 38(1), January 4–10: 81–84.

11.

Dwivedi

Ranjit

(1999). Displacement, risks and resistance: Local perceptions and actions in the Sardar Sarovar, Development and Change, Vol. 30, p. 4378.

12.

Dwivedi

Ranjit

2006, Conflict and collective action: The Sardar Sarovar Project in India, London: Routledge:

13.

Edwards

David

Hulme

(1992). Scaling-up the development impacts of NGOs: Concepts and experiences. In Edwards

Michael

Hulme

David

(Eds), Making a difference: NGOs and development in a changing world. London: Earth Scan 13–27.

14.

Frank

A. G.

Fuentes

Marta

(1987). Nine theses on social movement, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XXII(35), Aug 29: 1503–10.

15.

Fuentes

Marta

Frank

A. G.

(1989). Ten theses on social movement, World Development, Vol. XVII (2): 79–91.

16.

The Indian Express (2010, September 18). Available at http://www.indianexpress.com/news/environment-body-cancels-goahead-to-vedanta/683338/BBCNews, South Asia (2010, Feb 5). Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8500997.stm

17.

Oliver-Smith

Anthony

(2001). Displacement, resistance and the critique of development: From the grassroots to the global, Final report prepared for ESCOR R7644 and Research Programme on Development Induced Displacement and Resettlement, Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford.

18.

Oommen

T.K.

(2001). Multiple modernities and the rise of new social movements: The case of India, Indian Social Science Review, Vol. 3(1): 1–16.

19.

Padel

Das

Samarendra

. (2008). Orissa’s highland clearances: The reality gap in R&R, Social Change, Vol 38(4): 576–608.

20.

Patel

Sujata

Joseph

Mathai

Krishnendu

Ray

(1988). Bheeta maati-our soil, our earth, our home: A report on missile base and struggle, PUDR, August, Record No. CL 010015, Delhi.

21.

Patel

Sujata

(1989). Agni, cyclone and Baliapal agitation, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 24(25), June 24: 1381–82.

22.

Routledge

Paul

(1993). Terrains of resistance: Nonviolent social movements and contestations of place in India, Praeger Publishers, West Port, Ch-3: 39–74.

23.

Samal

Kishor

(2002). Shrimp culture in Chilika Lake: Case of occupational displacement of fishermen, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 37(18) (May 4–10): 1714–18.

24.

Sarkar

Abhirup

(2007). Development and displacement. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 42(16): April 16–21.

25.

Sarangi

Debaranjan

(2002). Surviving against the odds: Case of Kashipur, Economic and Political Weekly, Aug 3–9: 3239–41.

26.

Touraine

Alain

(1985). An introduction to the study of social movements, Social Research, Vol. 52(4): 749–88.