Written by Rinchen Angmo
On 28th November 2022, The Administration of the Union Territory of Ladakh Revenue Department released a document : ‘Inviting objections from the general public to the draft “The Union territory of Ladakh Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Social Impact Assesment and Consent) Rules, 2022.
I have many objections. The first being, despite being guaranteed the Sixth Schedule by the Constitution of this country as a region comprised of 97% members belonging to the Scheduled Tribe, we have so far heard nothing about our land safeguards. Instead here we are having to look at schemes that are opening doors for land acquisition instead. Slow claps.
Before continuing with the analysis of the document, lets look at why Ladakhi leaders and activists in the 1980s fought for Scheduled Tribe Status for Ladakhis. ‘The agitation for tribal status was a strategic ploy for advancement within the Indian political system. Activists in the 1980s believed that secession from the state of Jammu and Kashmir, a possible long-term goal, meant that guarantees preventing outsiders from buying land in Ladakh might no longer apply. Abrogation of those guarantees, some felt, might result in outsiders buying so much property that the Ladakhis could become a minority in their own region. The tribal status appeared to maintain the ban on outsider purchases of land, while giving the Ladakhis some measure of separation from the state government.’2 Hence, the government then recognized that 97 percent of the population comprised tribal communities. As per such a recognition, it is only constitutional that the region be granted Sixth Schedule.
1 Bruce Bonta, Ladakhi Attitudes Toward Tribal Status [anthology chapter review] 2006.
2 Ibid.
Hence, our active engagement with the administration’s decisions is imperative in order to carve out a future of survival for Ladakhi people.
That the administration has invited objections to the document, is a welcome step. Therefore, as citizens of a democracy we must play our role in it.
The document’s Chapter II Article (1) states that ‘Whenever land in any areas is required or likely to be required for public purpose, the requiring body or its authorized representative, for whom land is to be acquired shall file the Request to the concerned District Collector’. I don’t understand how land in ‘any’ areas can be open to acquisition. In a document titled ‘Land Rights of Scheduled Tribes’ by the Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, article 5 states: ‘By way of safeguards against displacement special provisions have been made for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes under Section 41 and 42 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 which protect their interests. As per Section 41 (1), as far as possible, no acquisition of land shall be made in the Scheduled Areas. As per Section 41(2),where such acquisition does take place, it shall be done only as a demonstrable last resort.’ Whereas, the entire document released by the UT Ladakh Administration projects a rather strong openness to land acquisition.
With regard to articles like 13 (5), I don’t like the way the document is worded such that there is room to displace people. They talk about how to conduct rehabilition without stating that displacement will not be encouraged. Displacement should never be considered. Is it too much to ask for?
Article (7) (ii) talks about ‘impact mitigation’. In the light of climate change, Ladakh’s melting glaciers (which as a part of the world’s third pole will affect millions), can we really talk about impact mitigation? No project that has adverse impacts on the environment and on sentient beings should be given room for development in the first place.
Article (8) states that ‘The Social Impact Assessment must……. Provide an assessment as to whether the benefits from the proposed project exceed the social costs and adverse social impacts that are likely to be experienced by the affected families or even after the proposed mitigation measures, the affected families remained at risk of being economically or socially worse, as a result of the said land acquisition and resettlement.’ Throughout, the document is worded with a presupposition that displacement might after all be inevitable. The administration is there for the welfare of common people, how can they be so open to the idea of displacement before its requirement has even be ‘necessitated’.
Article (16) Appraisal of Social Impact Assessment report by an Expert Group mentions four categories of ‘experts’. They must add the experts must necessarily be locals.
Article (19) states that ‘To ensure acquisition of minimum amount of land and to facilitate the utilization of un-utilized public lands, the District Collector may prepare a district-level inventory report (Village wise) of waste, barren and unutilized public land, and land available in the Administration land bank and that may be made available to the Social Impact Assessment team and Expert group.’ What does the phrase ‘facilitate the utilization of unutilized public lands’ mean? Ladakh is a trans-Himalayan cold-desert, common sense hints that this implies that most of the public land will naturally be ‘unutilized’ because of the nature of terrain. Moreover, just because land is barren doesn’t mean it’s useless:
a) it’s parts of an ecosystem where all elements are interdependent.
b) many wild animals call this uninhabited land home.
c) the glacial system of Ladakh operates on the interconnected links of ‘unutilized’ land
d) what does utilization even mean
e) there is something known as open natural ecosystem (ONE). Open natural ecosystems are meant to be open and natural.
The reasons why Ladakhis have been able to carve a flourishing civilization in the harshest climate and terrain is because our ancestors over have over the centuries nurtured the land and its beings with compassion and care. We cannot let that be destroyed by companies who want to ‘utilize’ our ‘unutilized’ land for purposes which are not too difficult to guess.
Chapter IV is on Consent. Article 20 (1) states that ‘The Collector shall obtain prior consent of the affected land owners in Form- Y (Part A). (2)The Collector may constitute a team of officers under his control to assist him in the process of obtaining the prior consent.’ How is it consent if a very powerful official is going to create a team of officers to prod the concerned party for their consent. What is a common person supposed to do in such a skewed dynamic of power?
The document also states that they will ‘organize public awareness campaigns to encourage participation of the affected land owners in the consent processes’. The one point the document reiterates is about how displacement will most likely to be necessary and ways to ‘encourage’ consent for that.
But no one should be displaced. Period.
Article (29) makes a separate point for ‘Development plan for Scheduled Tribe Families’. This makes me wonder whether they’ve just copy pasted this document from somewhere. Are they unaware that 97% Ladakhis fall under Scheduled Tribe Category?
I was really hurt by the number of times the word displacement appeared in the document. The undertone of the document seems to condone displacement to an extent that it requires immediate public scrutiny. Displacement is not limited to a number, it’s about to individual lives. Individuals lives who are attached to the land on which they’ve grown up, the land where their ancestral house is, the land tilled by their ancestors for centuries, the land where they’ve known their neighbours through generations, land considered sacred for its monasteries, mosques and churches, land considered sacred because of the lhas, land considered sacred because of centuries old prayer rooms in ancestral homes. No force has the right to deprive anyone of what their land means to them. Many people In villages build new houses as close to their old house as possible in order to keep the house near the blessed presence of the land’s lha or lhamo (deity). How then do they suppose ‘displacement’ can compensated for in material terms? The administration clearly lacks an understanding of Ladakhi people and we will now see whether or not they also lack a will to at least attempt to understand Ladakhi people.
Overall, this document really saddened me. Throughout, there are undertones of encouraging displacement and partiality towards prospective ‘projects’. Its lengthy nature and repetitive points seem to be designed to confuse common people. Regardless, since they have invited objections to the rules, we must use this opportunity to at least relay our objections to them; I have done so via email. I encourage everyone to engage with the proposed rules and at least attempt to have them reformed. Whether or not they implement changes corresponding to the public’s objections will be another story, a story to be engaged with in a different way when the time arrives.
