Narmada dam oustees "marginalised, pauperised"; gram sabhas "not consulted" before acquiring their land

By A Representative
A high level panel of the Government of India, set up to take a stock of the socio-economic status of the tribals in the country, has strongly taken exception to “pauperisation” of oustees affected by the Narmada dam. Pointing out that there was complete failure to provide oustees “alternative land and sustainable livelihood”, leading to their “pauperisation”, the panel, which submitted its report in mid-2014, talks of “examples of tardy implementation, unfulfilled promises and violation of laws and rules by the very machinery expected to protect the interest of marginalised displaced tribals.”
Pointing towards “lack of managerial capacity in the state to implement resettlement and rehabilitation (R&R)” of the oustees, and “incapability to plan imaginative rehabilitation plans”, the report – submitted to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs but still not made public – says that on the whole it “reflects the lack of commitment on the part of R&R machinery, which did not recognise the fact that rehabilitation is a continuous process, and after taking possession of acquired land, they left the tribal diplaced persons to fend for themselves.”
Prepared by a committee under the chairmanship of Prof Virginius Xaxa, well known tribal expert with the Tata Institute of Social Sciences' Guwahati campus, the report, quoting research studies, says that “this dispossession is accompanied with environmental degradation, which is a basic additional factor causing impoverishment”. It particularly takes strong exception to the “displacement caused by the Narmada dam in Madhya Pradesh”, pointing towards how oustees were affected after the “dam height was raised to 119 metres by June 2006.”
Citing a research study, the Xaxa committee says, “Out of a total of 245 villages in the submergence zone, 193 villages are in Madhya Pradesh, 33 in Maharashtra and 19 in Gujarat. The study emphasises that India is a signatory to ILO Conventions 107 and 169 on the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples. Article 16 of ILO 169 states: 'Where the relocation of these peoples is considered necessary as an exceptional measure, such relocation shall take place only with their free and informed consent'.”
It further quotes the study to say, “Where a return to the traditional lands is not possible in the future, governments must provide 'lands of quality and legal status at least equal to that of the lands previously occupied by them'.”
However, it regrets, the field study found that “Gram Sabhas had not been formally consulted before notifications under the land acquisition Act (LAA), 1894, were issued; few attempts were made to inform the largely illiterate tribal populations about their rights as stated in the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT) Award; and the option of ‘land for land’ within Madhya Pradesh was never formally communicated to the Gram Sabhas.”
The report says, “The survey based on 20 R&R sites indicated that only 344 families were actually living in the R&R sites prepared for them. The survey found almost all the sites to be 'very poor'. The government apparently bought 1636.9 hectares of mainly black cotton soil for 86 R&R sites, most of which are totally unsuitable for building houses.”
Even as recommending that “all the adult sons, unmarried adult daughters, widows, divorcees and abandoned wives be treated as separate project affected persons (PAPs)”, the report states, “The study found that most Gram Sabhas in the 171 villages had held meetings and written letters to the Madhya Pradesh government, but received no response.Only when writ petitions were filed in the Supreme Court for villages like Picchodi and Jalsindhi, were judgments made in their favour.”
Coming to R&R in Gujarat of those affected due to the Narmada Project, the report talks of “defective R&R programme and policies” because the state machinery implemented R&R depends through the bureaucracy, which “has prejudices and biases against tribal people” and lack “understanding of their society.”
It adds, the findings about Gujarat were that “there was no consultation with displaced and project affected people, lack of communication, cultural differences were disregarded, faulty land – compensation procedures that did not take into consideration rights of tribal PAPs and added to this fraud and corruption.”
Citing the study, the report also notes “cases of coercion and human rights violations, where people were forced to leave and stay at resettlement locations. False promises were made but once the tribal people shifted, Government officials avoided them and there was absence of a system to address grievances and complaints.”

Comments

Gram sabha as reformer: Mandla’s quiet challenge to the liquor economy

By Raj Kumar Sinha* This year, the Union Ministry of Panchayati Raj is organising a two-day PESA Mahotsav in Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, on 23–24 December 2025. The event marks the passage of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), enacted by Parliament on 24 December 1996 to establish self-governance in Fifth Schedule areas. Scheduled Areas are those notified by the President of India under Article 244(1) read with the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, which provides for a distinct framework of governance recognising the autonomy of tribal regions. At present, Fifth Schedule areas exist in ten states: Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan and Telangana. The PESA Act, 1996 empowers Gram Sabhas—the village assemblies—as the foundation of self-rule in these areas. Among the many powers devolved to them is the authority to take decisions on local matters, including the regulation...

MG-NREGA: A global model still waiting to be fully implemented

By Bharat Dogra When the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MG-NREGA) was introduced in India nearly two decades ago, it drew worldwide attention. The reason was evident. At a time when states across much of the world were retreating from responsibility for livelihoods and welfare, the world’s second most populous country—with nearly two-thirds of its people living in rural or semi-rural areas—committed itself to guaranteeing 100 days of employment a year to its rural population.

When a city rebuilt forgets its builders: Migrant workers’ struggle for sanitation in Bhuj

Khasra Ground site By Aseem Mishra* Access to safe drinking water and sanitation is not a privilege—it is a fundamental human right. This principle has been unequivocally recognised by the United Nations and repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court of India as intrinsic to the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. Yet, for thousands of migrant workers living in Bhuj, this right remains elusive, exposing a troubling disconnect between constitutional guarantees, policy declarations, and lived reality.

Policy changes in rural employment scheme and the politics of nomenclature

By N.S. Venkataraman* The Government of India has introduced a revised rural employment programme by fine-tuning the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), which has been in operation for nearly two decades. The MGNREGA scheme guarantees 100 days of employment annually to rural households and has primarily benefited populations in rural areas. The revised programme has been named VB-G RAM–G (Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission – Gramin). The government has stated that the revised scheme incorporates several structural changes, including an increase in guaranteed employment from 100 to 125 days, modifications in the financing pattern, provisions to strengthen unemployment allowances, and penalties for delays in wage payments. Given the extent of these changes, the government has argued that a new name is required to distinguish the revised programme from the existing MGNREGA framework. As has been witnessed in recent years, the introdu...

Rollback of right to work? VB–GRAM G Bill 'dilutes' statutory employment guarantee

By A Representative The Right to Food Campaign has strongly condemned the passage of the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB–GRAM G) Bill, 2025, describing it as a major rollback of workers’ rights and a fundamental dilution of the statutory Right to Work guaranteed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). In a statement, the Campaign termed the repeal of MGNREGA a “dark day for workers’ rights” and accused the government of converting a legally enforceable, demand-based employment guarantee into a centralised, discretionary welfare scheme.

A comrade in culture and controversy: Yao Wenyuan’s revolutionary legacy

By Harsh Thakor* This year marks two important anniversaries in Chinese revolutionary history—the 20th death anniversary of Yao Wenyuan, and the 50th anniversary of his seminal essay "On the Social Basis of the Lin Biao Anti-Party Clique". These milestones invite reflection on the man whose pen ignited the first sparks of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and whose sharp ideological interventions left an indelible imprint on the political and cultural landscape of socialist China.

'Structural sabotage': Concern over sector-limited job guarantee in new employment law

By A Representative The advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) has raised concerns over the passage of the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (VB–G RAM G), which was approved during the recently concluded session of Parliament amid protests by opposition members. The legislation is intended to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA).

India’s Halal economy 'faces an uncertain future' under the new food Bill

By Syed Ali Mujtaba* The proposed Food Safety and Standards (Amendment) Bill, 2025 marks a decisive shift in India’s food regulation landscape by seeking to place Halal certification exclusively under government control while criminalising all private Halal certification bodies. Although the Bill claims to promote “transparency” and “standardisation,” its structure and implications raise serious concerns about religious freedom, economic marginalisation, and the systematic dismantling of a long-established, Muslim-led Halal ecosystem in India.

Making rigid distinctions between Indian and foreign 'historically untenable'

By A Representative Oral historian, filmmaker and cultural conservationist Sohail Hashmi has said that everyday practices related to attire, food and architecture in India reflect long histories of interaction and adaptation rather than rigid or exclusionary ideas of identity. He was speaking at a webinar organised by the Indian History Forum (IHF).

Search This Blog