Gujarat minor mineral rules "ignore" farmers' and tribals' rights: People's groups represent to government

By A Representative
The new draft Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, seeks to give unfettered powers to “reserve any area not already held under any mineral concession for undertaking mining operations”, allowing these to to be taken by a government company or corporation owned or controlled by it” for mining.
It says, the only obligation for the government would be to issue a notification in the Official Gazette, specifying “the boundaries of such area and the mineral or minerals in respect of which such areas will be reserved.”
Objecting to this, the Khedut Samaj Gujarat (KSG) – the state's premier farmers' organization fighting fighting for land rights – has said the rule “ignores” the interests of the farmers' land ownership and common village land, adding, it is not “how the land would be acquired” and what “procedure to compensate” would be adopted.
KSG says, while the reservation of areas and grant to government companies, corporations or a joint venture is mentioned, wondering “what about farmers/tribals or general residents of such areas, if they want to mine the minerals individually or by founding producers’ company or a co-operative?”
Taking a tougher stance, Mines, Minerals and People (MM&P), a top advocacy group working in 16 Indian states, has said that the rules fail to take into account rights of individuals and communities while allowing the mining of minerals.
Citing the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Thressiamma Jacob & Ors vs Geologist, Department of Mining, Kerala, MM&P says, the owner of the land should be “the owner of the mineral and without the consent of the land holder mining lease should not be approved.”
MM&P says, even the Supreme Court Judgment in the case between Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs Ministry of Environment and Forest “upheld the rights of tribal communities and affirmed the importance of free prior consent of the affected community for any mining lease.”
Pointing out that the “the rules should explicitly state that without free prior consent of the affected community, the proposed mining lease would not be approved”, MM&P insists, the government should “modifying this rule to involve tribal individual or tribal cooperatives to be eligible for granting lease.”
Further objecting to the draft rules, to whom reactions were invited by the Government of Gujuarat, MM&P asserts, “There is no mention of Grievance Redressal mechanism in case of violation of human rights, rights over land and illegal mining”, adding, they, in fact, “overlook social impacts of mining.”
In yet another set of objections, KSG says, chapter III, clause 20, gives “free hand over water bodies, streams etc. to the lessee” a disaster for “downstream habitations and livestock rearers.”
GKS apprehends, “Water would be diverted or polluted and no restrictions have been made here, nor is there any provision for strictest possible punishment in diverting or polluting valuable water resources in Gujarat, which are very scarce. This cannot be tolerated.”
Objecting to yet another clause, 22(f), and calling it “draconian”, KSG says, the state government is proposed to act “on behalf of the lease holder”, even as depriving farmers of their right “just to serve the business community.”
The clause says, that in case of a dispute in the receipt of an offer of compensation for any damage from the operation in quarry lease, the lessee would have to “report the matter to the government and shall deposit with it the amount offered as compensation.”
The clause says, the government in such a case would be free to decide on “the amount of compensation” in accordance with the “the principles of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013.”
KSG asks, “Can government take sides and preserve the interests of business community at the cost of farmers? Is it public interest? Is it national interest? And for what and whose development?”

Comments

Unknown said…

Even in Meghalaya the govt. passed the MMMCR 2016 denying the rights of tribal people who have been excavating limestone since time immemorial through traditional methods......please kindly help us how to we counter the government.....for the past 10months halt on transportaion of limestone since limestone that has been been extracted through traditional methods which have been assessed and verified by the forest department no issue of challan and government is silent.....

August 17, 2017

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

CFA flags ‘welfare retreat’ in Union Budget 2026–27, alleges corporate bias

By Jag Jivan The advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) has sharply criticised the Union Budget 2026–27 , calling it a “budget sans kartavya” that weakens public welfare while favouring private corporations, even as inequality, climate risks and social distress deepen across the country.

From water scarcity to sustainable livelihoods: The turnaround of Salaiya Maaf

By Bharat Dogra We were sitting at a central place in Salaiya Maaf village, located in Mahoba district of Uttar Pradesh, for a group discussion when an elderly woman said in an emotional voice, “It is so good that you people came. Land on which nothing grew can now produce good crops.”

'Big blow to crores of farmers’: Opposition mounts against US–India trade deal

By A Representative Farmers’ organisations and political groups have sharply criticised the emerging contours of the US–India trade agreement, warning that it could severely undermine Indian agriculture, depress farm incomes and open the doors to genetically modified (GM) food imports in violation of domestic regulatory safeguards.

When free trade meets unequal fields: The India–US agriculture question

By Vikas Meshram The proposed trade agreement between India and the United States has triggered intense debate across the country. This agreement is not merely an attempt to expand bilateral trade; it is directly linked to Indian agriculture, the rural economy, democratic processes, and global geopolitics. Free trade agreements (FTAs) may appear attractive on the surface, but the political economy and social consequences behind them are often unequal and controversial. Once again, a fundamental question has surfaced: who will benefit from this agreement, and who will pay its price?

Why Russian oil has emerged as the flashpoint in India–US trade talks

By N.S. Venkataraman* In recent years, India has entered into trade agreements with several countries, the latest being agreements with the European Union and the United States. While the India–EU trade agreement has been widely viewed in India as mutually beneficial and balanced, the trade agreement with the United States has generated comparatively greater debate and scrutiny.

Trade pacts with EU, US raise alarms over farmers, MSMEs and policy space

By A Representative A broad coalition of farmers’ organisations, trade unions, traders, public health advocates and environmental groups has raised serious concerns over India’s recently concluded trade agreements with the European Union and the United States, warning that the deals could have far-reaching implications for livelihoods, policy autonomy and the country’s long-term development trajectory. In a public statement issued, the Forum for Trade Justice described the two agreements as marking a “tectonic shift” in India’s trade policy and cautioned that the projected gains in exports may come at a significant social and economic cost.

From Puri to the State: How Odisha turned the dream of drinkable tap water into policy

By Hans Harelimana Hirwa, Mansee Bal Bhargava Drinking water directly from the tap is generally associated with developed countries where it is considered safe and potable. Only about 50 countries around the world offer drinkable tap water, with the majority located in Europe and North America, and a few in Asia and Oceania. Iceland, Switzerland, Finland, Germany, and Singapore have the highest-quality tap water, followed by Canada, New Zealand, Japan, the USA, Australia, the UK, Costa Rica, and Chile.

Michael Parenti: Scholar known for critiques of capitalism and U.S. foreign policy

By Harsh Thakor* Michael Parenti, an American political scientist, historian, and author known for his Marxist and anti-imperialist perspectives, died on January 24 at the age of 92. Over several decades, Parenti wrote and lectured extensively on issues of capitalism, imperialism, democracy, media, and U.S. foreign policy. His work consistently challenged dominant political and economic narratives, particularly those associated with Western liberal democracies and global capitalism.

Search This Blog