India is not short of labor—skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled—or indigenous capital.  Several of the richest people in the Forbes list of billionaires are Indians. Further, a recent UN report informs that India has become a top destination for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), despite its infrastructural and governance inadequacies. Indian business groups like the Tatas, Ambanis and Mittals are buying prestigious but ailing enterprises in the United States and Europe.  So, why cannot India just stride ahead of China? Many answers are possible, but one of them is the unavailability of land. This may sound facetious, since thousands of acres of agricultural and non-agricultural land is there. But, this land cannot be acquired for infrastructural or industrial purposes due to political interests making it impossible. A weak coalition government in New Delhi, dependent on the support of regional parties has been unable to resolve the dilemma of balancing infrastructural and industrial imperatives with the humanitarian needs of the oustees.  Adding to these issues are environmental concerns, some genuine, some contrived, by NGOs and politicians jockeying for their advantage and power. 

The combination of these negative factors has impinged on land availability that will seriously impinge upon India’s growth story. Significantly, steel makers like Posco (South Korean) and Arcelor Mittal (MNC) have decided to wind up their plans to set up mega-steel plants in Orissa that involved an investment of US$80 billion. The Golden Quadrilateral program designed to link the four metropolitan cities of India by modern highways is ailing, largely due to difficulties in acquiring land for this critical project. Land has become India’s most insidious obstacle to becoming G-3 over the next decade, as is being predicted.

Proceeding further, how does the issue of land become securitized? We notice that any large scale project leads to displacement of population and impacts on the ecology. Tensions arise between those displaced and the State or the population benefited, that leads to great acrimony and violence. The other side of this issue which is rarely noticed is that more employment opportunities need being provided for India’s growing population. Its youthful demographics are universally deemed to be an asset for economic growth. But, if this volatile population remains unemployed, it could become a major internal security threat, fueling urban unrest and left extremism. 

Clearly, progress cannot be achieved at human cost. Despite its remarkable progress in the industrial and services sector, India remains an agricultural economy. Some 65-70% of its population is dependent on land, while agriculture contributes towards only 25% of the GDP. Clearly, fertile and irrigated lands should not be acquired, nor should forests be destroyed, since that would accelerate climate change. A balance is required, but where this balance should be drawn leads to different answers. Only some inveterate environmentalists would argue for halting industrialization and development with the population remaining in their villages. The problem becomes different if this idealistic vision is abandoned, and consequence management is pursued. In other words, the outcome of land acquisition and deforestation needs being addressed. What does this imply?  Two issues are involved—resettlement and rehabilitation of the displaced population, and mitigating the effects of the environmental impact.

Addressing the displacement issue requires that the affected population is enabled to acquire a lifestyle, which is not inferior to, and is conceivably superior to what they had before. Further, the environment must be restored to either what obtained earlier or is better than what existed. Many mental cobwebs need removal if this approach is to be followed, and antiquated beliefs abandoned.

Taking up relief and rehabilitation first, why should the oustees be resettled on land, especially, when land is scarce? The intention cannot be to acquire land from non-oustees to rehabilitate them; creating a cycle of rehabilitation and ouster.  Can the oustees be given a choice of being resettled on land, or accommodated in allied vocations like dairy, piggery and poultry farming? Or, provided training in non-agricultural vocations like electricians, fitters, turners, radio and TV mechanics, data processors and so on? Jobs could be provided to them in the projects from which they are displaced by an amendment to the concerned recruitment rules. 

Similarly, lateral thinking is required for dealing with the environmental impact. Government needs to insist that the environment is restored to its original condition by ensuring that open cast mines are filled up and planted over with forest cover. Compensatory afforestation could be ensured by, for instance, insisting that at least two or more trees are planted and nurtured for some years for every tree that has been felled. Similarly, effluents should be treated before they are evacuated into rivers; smoke stacks should be equipped with electrostatic precipitators to remove carbon and so on.

Political will and administrative honesty are the obvious pre-requisites required.