Great Nicobar mega-infrastructure project AND land compensation

 Inequities arise between settler families and original islanders over land compensation for the Great Nicobar mega-infrastructure project 

The report, “DEF-GNI ( Dependents and Ex-Servicemen Forum for Equitable Negotiation, Compensation & Entitlements – Great Nicobar Island )

It Objects to Low Minimum Circle Rates Fixed for Villages of Campbell Bay Tehsil, Seeks Revision Ahead of Airport Land Acquisition”,

 This highlighted the grievances of the Great Nicobar’s settler (non-tribal) community in the matter of the compensation being awarded for their land

 that is being acquired for the mega-project under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013. 

About 300 families of ex-servicemen were settled in Great Nicobar between 1969 and 1975 for which about 40 square kilometres were de-notified / given  from the Tribal Reserve. 

 these settlers now form the majority of the population here. “The Dependents and Ex-Servicemen Forum for Equitable Negotiation, Compensation & Entitlements – Great Nicobar Island (DEF-GNI)”, the report noted,

 “has raised strong objections to the minimum circle rates fixed for villages under Campbell Bay Tehsil, terming them unreasonably low and unjust.”

Inadequate compensation

low rates of compensation

ranging from ₹113 to ₹180 per square metre, they are being offered as against the ₹11,370 - ₹20,500 per square metre offered in the Andaman islands when land is acquired for tourism projects.

 The forum requested that the rates be fixed in a manner that ensures a minimum compensation of not less than ₹1 crore per acre of agricultural land to affected landowners.

Bishnu Pada Ray 

The matter has also been raised regularly by the lone Member of Parliament (MP) from the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Bishnu Pada Ray of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). 

In December, he demanded - 

: that the land was being acquired from ex-servicemen settler families who were originally brought here by the government to serve strategic and national security purposes; 

these families had already faced two major displacements, one during the initial settlement and then again after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami;

there were major procedural violations in the land acquisition process;

 there were serious deficiencies in the social impact assessment carried out for this land, 

and that compensation being offered should be ₹32 lakh per hectare as against ₹9 lakh being offered currently.

There are two things that stand out: 

first the claim makers —

 the settler families, are not opposing the project. Their only request is adherence to due process and ensuring that no family is left without land or livelihood.

The second is the deep contradiction at the heart of (un)democratic representation and politics here:

  

the settler community and their representatives, while seen seeking fairness and justice over their own land, 

are also collaborating with the same authorities in alienating / leaving 

• land, 
• livelihood 
• resources of Great Nicobar’s tribal communities (the Shompen and the Great Nicobarese) to make it available for the same project.

Alienating / leaving  tribal lands

84 sq.km st land   to project 

In a process  nearly 84 sq.km of legally notified tribal reserve is sought to be denotified and handed over to project authorities.

 Everyone from local agencies such as the

•  Andaman and Nicobar Tribal Welfare Department, 
• 
  
•  local settler communities, 
• 
  
•  Union Ministries of Environment and of Tribal Affairs have been complicit / involve .

explicit violation of provisions of the Forest Rights Act 

 complete absence of the Shompen in discussions, the pressure being exerted on the Nicobarese to ‘voluntarily’ surrender their lands for the project, 

the public and vociferous /  confident  support expressed by settlers and authorities, 

and the explicit violation of provisions of the Forest Rights Act, in which representatives of the settler community have signed documents freeing up tribal reserve land for the project

Pertinent issues being ignored

nomadic hunter gatherer Shompen 

 But what about the original islanders such as the nomadic hunter gatherer Shompen that is notified as a particularly vulnerable tribal group, a PVTG? 

They may not want compensation because they have no use for the money we offer. 

What about the Nicobarese  

who wish to return to their traditional pre-tsunami lands and settlements but are not being provided the means to do so?

 And what of the impact on

•  lives, 
• 
  
• livelihoods and 
• 
  
• cultures of these communities that are completely dependent on the sea and the forests?
• 
  

 What also of the pristine forests and unique biodiversity that will be lost forever?

This situation underlines multiple things at the same time. 

On the ground it highlights the stark nature of (un)democratic local politics as adjacent communities are forced into competition and conflict over land and resources. 

At the macro level

 it highlights how local communities and rights to resources are only minor pawns in the larger geo-political and development agendas of the state, of its larger political economy, and indeed the rhetoric of national sovereignty and strategic autonomy.

SOURCE THE HINDU