Latest news with #NarmadaBachaoAndolan
Time of India
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Is working for Dalits, farmers 'anti-national' ?: Medha Patkar slams BJP MPs over meeting walkout
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads A day after BJP MPs walked out of a parliamentary panel meeting she was invited to, activist Medha Patkar on Wednesday hit back, asking if standing up for Dalits, Adivasis, farmers and labourers now counts as "anti-national".A meeting of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Rural Development and Panchayati Raj to discuss the implementation of the land acquisition act ended abruptly on Tuesday as BJP MPs protested against the panel's decision to hear Patkar , who had led protests against raising the height of the Sardar Sarovar Dam in Gujarat under the banner of ' Narmada Bachao Andolan '.The panel, headed by Congress MP Saptagiri Sankar Ulaka, had called Patkar to hear her views on the implementation and effectiveness of the land acquisition law enacted by Parliament when the Congress-led UPA government was in power in Union minister and BJP MP Parshottam Rupala was joined by other lawmakers from his party as they walked out of the meeting, with some dubbing Patkar as "anti-national". A BJP MP even said he had no idea that leaders from Pakistan could also be called to such a meeting."What is the charge of being anti-national? We are working with Dalits, Adivasis, farmers, labourers... Is that something anti-national? To protect their rights under the law and the Constitution, and the human rights, which are above the constitutional rights," Patkar told PTI."And even if whatever we are saying is wrong, they can oppose it. But that doesn't mean that they can call us anti-national or 'urban naxals'. This democratic process includes the parliamentary standing committee proceedings," she said she has participated in parliamentary panel discussions earlier and has been part of consultations carried out by the government for framing the Land Acquisition Act of 2013."Even when Sumitra Mahajan was in the Chair, we were given a good hearing," she said, referring to the former Lok Sabha Speaker and BJP said they were invited to appear before the panel, made their submissions, and all due process was said she was informed that a communication was sent by the secretary general of the Lok Sabha to the chairperson -- Congress MP Ulaka -- to cancel the meeting due to a lack of quorum. The activist said she was told by officials that 17 MPs had come for the meeting, and questioned how there was a lack of quorum."The written letter that the secretary general gave to the chairman to cancel the meeting gave only one reason that there is no quorum. The fact that I was invited to appear was not mentioned as the reason," she prime minister H D Devegowda's Janata Dal (Secular), which is a part of the BJP-led NDA, also participated in the meeting but not in the walkout, Patkar said."Mr. Devegowda, he did not walk out. He was just sitting quietly near the chairman," she about the Narmada Bachao Andolan, Patkar said they only demanded what was awarded by the Narmada Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT) was established in 1969 to resolve the water-sharing disputes among Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan concerning the Narmada River."They are mentioning the position taken by the Narmada Bachao Andolan. Our position has been that the award by the Narmada tribunal should be implemented," she said."Even the World Bank stopped funding this project (Sardar Sarovar Dam), saying that it was an ill-planned project. The statistics on which the decision is based the data is flawed. The World Bank took a position that they had not followed the law," she World Bank had agreed to fund the project to increase the height of the dam in 1985. However, following protests by the NBA led by Patkar, they formed the Morse Commission to look into factors like environmental cost and human the World Bank decided to pull out of the project, the government cancelled the loan sanctioned by the World Bank on 31 March stressed that the rehabilitation of the families that were to be dislocated was important."There were thousands of families living in this area. How could they be denied fair and full rehabilitation? That was the question. Now, about 50,000 families have received rehabilitation. Whatever is remaining, a few thousand in Madhya Pradesh, hundreds in Maharashtra, hundreds in Gujarat, the dialogue is still going on," she said."We want the government to take immediate action and decision, but they are not doing it on war footing," she added.
Indian Express
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
BJP MPs object to Medha Patkar, Prakash Raj at parliamentary panel meeting, walk out
A political row erupted between the BJP and the Opposition on Tuesday after the ruling party's MPs on the parliamentary Standing Committee on Rural Development and Panchayati Raj boycotted its meeting in protest against the presence of activist Medha Patkar and actor-turned-activist Prakash Raj who had been invited to depose before the panel. The meeting, which was eventually cancelled, had been convened to discuss the implementation and effectiveness of the 'Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013'. While the BJP MPs alleged that the committee's chairman Saptagiri Sankar Ulaka, a Congress MP from Odisha, had kept the members in the dark about the witnesses summoned for deposition and had summoned 'anti-nationals' and 'urban Naxals', Ulaka said the Lok Sabha Speaker's office had cleared the names but the BJP leaders were 'not ready to listen'. Of the 29 members of the parliamentary panel, 14 were present on Tuesday, and with eight MPs of the BJP-led NDA boycotting, Ulaka had to cancel the meeting as there was no quorum. BJP sources said apart from their party's MPs, ally Janata Dal (Secular)'s leader and former PM H D Deve Gowda followed them. However, Congress sources claimed that Deve Gowda did not boycott the meeting. Sources said the BJP MPs felt 'agitated' when they saw Patkar and Raj, and refused to enter the meeting hall unless Patkar, a founding member of the Narmada Bachao Andolan, was sent back. As a member of the Narmada Bachao Andolan, Patkar has earned the ire of BJP leaders and workers for her campaign against the Sardar Sarovar Dam project in Gujarat. Raj, a popular actor, is known for his anti-BJP views. The BJP MPs are learnt to have questioned Ulaka for inviting 'anti-nationals'. One BJP MP is learnt to have said that if people such as Patkar and Raj were being invited to depose before a parliamentary panel, next time they might as well invite the Pakistan PM. Another BJP MP is said to have complained about 'urban Naxals' being invited to Parliament. 'We boycotted the meeting because we were kept in the dark about who was coming as witnesses. We entered and saw Medha Patkar sitting there. We should have been given the list of these people and which NGO they belong to. How could the chairman keep such information from us?' BJP MP Sanjay Jaiswal told The Indian Express. The ruling party's members said Ulaka rejected their suggestion to hear senior officials from the Department of Land Resources, and the ministries of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and Tribal Affairs who too had been invited on Tuesday. 'We were very clear that we would not allow the activists to depose first,' said Jaiswal. 'It was not decided in any of the meetings who would come to the parliamentary committee. Prakash Raj's name was not in the list. Why should we listen to someone whose background we don't know?' said BJP MP Raju Bista. Responding to the BJP leaders, Ulaka told The Indian Express, 'We had such meetings several times. It is a normal procedure; the agenda was set, officers from the ministries concerned and the stakeholders, including those who are working in NGOs and other civil society representatives, were invited. The Speaker's office was informed and the list was approved. However, when they (BJP MPs) saw Medha Patkar, they, in a synchronised way, started shouting, 'She should not be allowed.' I told them just listen to her as she is someone who has been fighting for the landless people and their rehabilitation.' 'What's wrong with listening to her?' the Congress MP asked. 'The committee together prepares the report, and we submit our recommendations to the government. It's the government that takes the decisions, we do not.' His party colleague and fellow panel member Imran Masood labelled the BJP members' behaviour as 'anarchy'. 'If you have called someone, you should listen to them, irrespective of whether you agree with them or not. They walked out. We called them … This is anarchy. You are not following parliamentary procedure. Why can't you listen? The BJP people didn't want to hear about issues related to land acquisition of marginalised people,' he said. Apart from Patkar and Raj, the committee had invited 10 more civil society representatives. Although Standing Committee reports carry significant influence, they are not legally binding on the government. The meeting on Tuesday would have been the 29th meeting of the committee. Till now, it has discussed matters such as 'Rural Employment through Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA)', the 'Status of Rashtriya Gram Swaraj Abhiyan (RGSA)', and reviewed the progress made under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana.
Indian Express
18-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Indian Express
A saxophone in Beirut, harmony in Kyiv: How music persists in the time of bombs
As missiles lit up the distant sky, music spilled from a rooftop bar in Beirut. A saxophonist, Alain Otayek, stood atop the DJ console and played in full, unflinching glory. On the ground, the impact was devastating. As Iran and Israel exchanged fire, over 220 people in Iran were killed, while Israel reported 24 civilian deaths. The Lebanese musician's performance, now a viral video, has divided the Internet. Some have called it callous, but for Otayek, it was a moment of resilience. 'The world breaks, borders burn, and battles roar. But a melody rises. I play for no side but the human spirit. Because music, music always stays,' he said in an Instagram comment. Meanwhile in — Jackson Hinkle 🇺🇸 (@jacksonhinklle) June 15, 2025 Scientists have long puzzled over the evolutionary roots of music — and why it endures. Naturalist Charles Darwin theorised that music and speech likely emerged from a common musical protolanguage, which early humans used to communicate emotions. Renowned neuroscientist Daniel Levitin believed that music was part of our biological makeup. Rhythm and beat, even sans lyrics, have the power to stir emotions, provoke thought and leave lasting imprints on the brain. Music persists across cultures, geographies and generations — an anchor tethering humans to their souls. The human voice can transcend language, finding solace in rhythm to connect, celebrate, grieve, pray, or defy. In times of conflict, music can become a vessel for collective resistance, shared sorrow, and bearing witness. Music as resistance Music often finds a new identity in human despair. Ryan Coogler's recent vampire flick, Sinners, explores how a whole new genre, the Blues, emerged amid the violent oppression of African Americans in the 19th century. Black workers sang in the church and the fields in the rural southern states of America, giving voice to their hardships. These songs evolved into what is now called 'the Blues'. A similar cultural resurgence is reshaping India's soundscape. 'Dalit pop' has gained significant momentum in recent years as a powerful response to India's long history of caste-based discrimination. Artists like Sumeet Samos, Arivu, and Harish Kamble have reclaimed Dalit identity through their music, challenging caste hierarchies and amplifying marginalised voices. In fact, India has a rich history of protest music, from the pre-Independence calls of resistance, such as 'Vande Matram' and 'Ekla Chalo Re', to today's 'Hum Dekhenge' (Faiz Ahmed Faiz) and 'Azadi' (DIVINE). Popular tracks like 'Ma Rewa' (Indian Ocean) and 'The Warli Revolt' (Swadesi) have given voice to protest movements such as the Narmada Bachao Andolan and the Save Aarey protest. Young artists like Mahi Ghane continue the tradition with songs such as 'Jungle Cha Raja', which became all the rage on Instagram recently. Music as propaganda American music conductor Leon Botstein has written about the inherent paradox in the use of music in wartime. Marches and anthems can be used to instil both courage and conformity, he wrote in a 1991 New York Times piece. In Russia, for instance, the pro-Putin pop star Shaman has become an anthem machine for nationalist fervour. Alexei Navalny, who was a fierce critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin and passed away in jail last year, once revealed that prisoners were forced to listen to Shaman's 'I am Russian' at 5 am every day. The singer-songwriter supports Russia's war against Ukraine and has created waves among the country's youth. In India, the growing popularity of 'Hindutva pop' reveals how easily music can be co-opted by ideologies that divide. Historians have documented how Hitler instrumentalised the works of German composer Ludwig van Beethoven for Nazi propaganda, promoting the narrative of German superiority. Interestingly, though, Beethoven simultaneously became the voice of anti-Nazi resistance. And when the Allied emerged victorious over the Nazis, it was Beethoven's liberation opera, 'Fidelio', that was performed in Vienna. This duality with the same notes inspiring liberation and oppression raises an uneasy question: can music truly unify when it is so easily weaponised? Music that unites Botstein attests to music's power to 'communicate over political differences'. 'Hearing music during wartime refers us to the condition of life we would most wish to see exist, a condition of freedom and peace in which the power of the imagination — in service of the experience of beauty — among all peoples can flourish,' he wrote. In 2023, The Guardian interviewed multiple musicians across the war-torn Ukraine, who had decided to use their music as 'a weapon'. Oleksii Makarenko, the founder of Gasoline Radio, spoke of uniting the eastern provinces, heavily influenced by the Russians, with the rest of Ukraine through music. 'We are trying to find songs from these regions to show that they are historically Ukrainian territories,' he said. In September 2024, a young Ukrainian singer, Diana Oganesyan, released a beautiful yet haunting video as she harmonised alongside the air raid sirens. As she walked down an empty street in Kyiv, her voice echoed, overpowering the shrill of the sirens. Bathed in the yellow glow of the street lamps, Diana's voice seemed almost angelic, dispelling the fear of violence. A post shared by melancholydi (@boomdiboom) // She captioned the video in Ukrainian, loosely translating to, 'to sing songs in the midst of trouble'. An Instagram user asked how she was so calm, and Diana replied, 'because I got used to (it)'. Whether it's a saxophone in Beirut or a harmony in Kyiv, these small yet powerful acts of rebellion are a testament to how music can become an exponent of peace amid war. It's a reminder that sometimes resistance is simply an act of creating beauty in a world determined to erase it. Sonal Gupta is a senior sub-editor on the news desk. She writes feature stories and explainers on a wide range of topics from art and culture to international affairs. She also curates the Morning Expresso, a daily briefing of top stories of the day, which won gold in the 'best newsletter' category at the WAN-IFRA South Asian Digital Media Awards 2023. She also edits our newly-launched pop culture section, Fresh Take. ... Read More
Time of India
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
The land beneath our laws: From 1894 to 2025!
Company Secretary - Aditi Maheshwari & Associates. Author- The Unblinking Eye! and Walking The Rainbow of Life! India's land acquisition story is not just about transferring ownership; it's a reflection of shifting power equations—between the State and citizen, development and displacement, past and progress. The evolution of land acquisition laws from colonial-era expropriation to people-centric, transparent frameworks is one of the most significant transformations in India's legal and governance landscape. As of 2025, this evolution is not just legal—it is digital, environmental, and deeply social. The British colonial government institutionalised the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 to formalise the state's authority to acquire private land for 'public purposes.' This law was engineered more for administrative efficiency than justice. Compensation was nominal, determined by government valuation, and there was no requirement for consent or rehabilitation. Landowners were essentially dispossessed by decree. Though the Act used the language of development, it served the colonial imperative—railways, plantations, administrative buildings—disregarding indigenous rights and customary land use. Unfortunately, this paternalistic model continued long after independence, with the 1894 Act remaining in force until the 21st century. Despite India's transition to democracy, the 1894 law lingered, largely unchanged. Attempts to amend it in the 1960s failed to address its core problems: forced acquisition, poor compensation, and complete neglect of rehabilitation. The discontent was palpable in countless agitations across the country—from Narmada Bachao Andolan to Bhatta-Parsaul—each highlighting the deep distrust between landowners and the State. By the early 2010s, the need for a comprehensive overhaul was undeniable. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (LARR Act) was enacted in 2013 to replace the outdated 1894 Act. The new law reversed the principle of acquisition—from the State's right to the people's consent. It introduced: Enhanced compensation (up to 4× market rate in rural areas), Mandatory consent (70% for PPPs, 80% for private projects), Social Impact Assessments (SIA), Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) as enforceable rights, Return of unused land within five years, Transparency and public accountability mechanisms. While pathbreaking in intent, the rollout has been uneven across states. Implementation challenges, bureaucratic delays, and dilution attempts through state-specific amendments have blunted its full impact. 2014–2025: India has seen mixed outcomes post-LARR. On one hand, it has fostered a more balanced acquisition ecosystem in urban infrastructure, railways, and industrial corridors. On the other, challenges in rural and tribal areas persist—particularly with laws like the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 which circumvent LARR protections. Several developments post-2020 have shaped the current land acquisition climate: a) Environmental and procedural reforms In 2025, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways mandated fixed timelines for land acquisition and clearances to avoid project delays, particularly for national highways. This move is aimed at de-bureaucratising acquisition while maintaining regulatory integrity. b) Digital modernisation Under the Digital India Land Records Modernisation Programme (DILRMP), states like Chandigarh have digitised land mapping using GIS and drones, reducing fraudulent claims and simplifying acquisition logistics. Aadhaar-enabled identification and blockchain-backed registries are also being piloted in several districts. c) Judicial Intervention The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark 2025 ruling, asserted that land compensation cannot be mechanical. In the Noida land acquisition case, it directed full compensation to farmers even after a 30-year delay—reaffirming the primacy of equity over technicality. d) State-led innovations: Land pooling models States like Punjab have introduced voluntary land pooling schemes to enable urban expansion. Though these are touted as development-friendly and consent-based, experts caution against the dilution of safeguards provided under the LARR Act. Outlook as of mid‑2025: Progress with Caveats. As India recalibrates its development trajectory, the status of land acquisition presents a mixed yet hopeful picture. Several key trends define the present scenario: Fast-track infrastructure projects: Mandatory timelines for land acquisition and statutory clearances have streamlined national highway projects. The procedural predictability is attracting more bidders and reducing project delays. Return of unused land: Reinforcing LARR's spirit, amendments to the National Highways Act now obligate the return of acquired land if not utilised within five years, strengthening accountability. Digital and transparent acquisition systems: Unified digital land records, GIS-based mapping, and real-time tracking of acquisition status have made the process more transparent and less prone to manipulation. Judicial checks on arbitrary compensation: Courts are increasingly intervening to ensure that compensation considers location, future development potential, and equitable treatment of all affected parties. Social and environmental justice gaps remain: The Social Impact Assessment mechanism still lacks depth in capturing environmental and gender-specific impacts. Particularly in tribal and ecologically sensitive zones, assessments often remain perfunctory. Land is not merely an economic asset in India—it is emotion, identity, and legacy. As development intensifies, the State must evolve from being an acquirer to an enabler. This means: Expanding LARR's framework to include climate resilience, biodiversity valuation, and gender parity in compensation. Investing in local capacity building, especially for panchayats and district magistrates who anchor acquisition processes. Revisiting exemption laws like the Coal Bearing Areas Act, to align with constitutional rights and ecological mandates. Strengthening tribal protections, especially in Scheduled Areas, under PESA and FRA laws to make consent not just procedural but meaningful. India's land acquisition journey—from colonial extraction to constitutional empowerment—reflects its democratic maturation. The LARR Act of 2013 was a turning point, but as of 2025, it needs strengthening, not rollback. The challenge now is to build on its ethical foundations, reinforce justice, and recognise land acquisition not as a transaction—but a transformation. Only then can we say the law truly serves the people it affects most. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
The Hindu
11-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
The women who remain largely invisible
Across India and South Asia, women have long been at the forefront of movements resisting unjust development, extractivism, and climate degradation. They have led protests against destructive mining, dams, and infrastructure projects. Yet, when it comes to decision-making, these women are largely invisible. From the forests of Odisha to the coastlines of Tamil Nadu, women have led some of the most sustained resistance movements. In Sijimali (Odisha), women continue to protest mining projects threatening their forest-based way of life, often facing police violence. In Jharkhand, Adivasi women in Dewas are blocking coal mining operations to protect ancestral land. In Tamil Nadu, women from fishing communities have been at the forefront of protests against the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant. These movements represent a powerful assertion of community-led development and environmental protection rooted in lived realities. Leadership not acknowledged Despite being central to the resistance, women are systematically excluded from consultations, especially those that claim to uphold free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). In many cases, community meetings and decisions on land are dominated by men, while women, who bear the disproportionate burden of displacement and environmental degradation, are sidelined. Women's perspectives are also frequently devalued or dismissed as emotional, despite being rooted in acute socio-environmental knowledge. In Bangladesh's Phulbari, women resisted an open-pit coal mining project, enduring police crackdowns while organising mass mobilisations. In India's Narmada Bachao Andolan, Medha Patkar's leadership brought global attention to the devastating impact of dams. Yet, policies designed in response to such movements have often remained blind to the gendered impacts of displacement and rehabilitation. Legal frameworks in South Asia do exist to protect women's land rights — at least on paper. India's Forest Rights Act (2006) and PESA Act (1996) recognise women's role in Gram Sabhas and grant equal rights to forest resources. Nepal's Joint Land Ownership Policy encourages land co-ownership between spouses. Bangladesh prioritises women in land distribution under its Khas land programme. However, these frameworks are undermined by systemic gaps: land titles often remain in the name of male household heads, with women rarely listed as joint or sole owners. Implementation mechanisms lack gender sensitivity, and Gram Sabhas are frequently held in male-dominated settings. Additionally, many displaced women are not counted as heads of households and are thus excluded from compensation. There is no comprehensive gender-sensitive land policy at the national level in India. State land redistribution programmes often overlook single women, widows, or women without formal documentation. Despite the 2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act granting equal inheritance rights, customary laws and local practices frequently override statutory provisions, particularly in tribal regions. The intersection of formal legal barriers with entrenched patriarchal norms leads to a practical erasure of women from land governance processes. This invisibility becomes even more glaring in the context of climate change. In India and beyond, extreme heat, water scarcity, and environmental pollution are deepening existing gender inequalities. Women walk farther for water, care for sick family members, and work longer for less — all while being excluded from decisions on climate resilience, rehabilitation, or mitigation. Yet, most climate adaptation frameworks fail to integrate women's traditional ecological knowledge or ensure their participation in planning. While FPIC is increasingly cited in international standards and development finance frameworks, its actual implementation rarely includes gendered perspectives. What use is 'consultation' if it takes place in spaces where women feel unsafe to speak? What legitimacy does consent hold if it is given without understanding the long-term ecological and social impacts, or if it is granted by male leaders who don't represent women's interests? Need for structural change If we are serious about gender justice, climate justice, and inclusive development, this must change. Governments and corporations must ensure that consultations are not only free and prior but informed and inclusive. This means scheduling meetings at times accessible to women, ensuring women-only spaces when necessary, and providing translation and legal aid. It means recognising women as independent landowners, not just as dependents of male household heads. At the same time, women's leadership within movements must be amplified. Too often, women do the groundwork — organising, protesting, feeding, and sustaining the movement — without having a seat at the table. Movement allies, NGOs, and policymakers must acknowledge and support women's leadership, not just on the streets but in negotiation rooms, legislatures, and compensation boards. If development is to be democratic, if climate policy is to be just, and if resistance is to be meaningful, the voices of women must not only be heard — they must lead. Their stories are not of victimhood, but of vision. It's time our policies, laws, and institutions reflected that truth. Bhoomika Choudhury, International lawyer and researcher specialising in business and human rights, corporate accountability, and labour rights
