Article

Agrarian Situation, Journal of Land and Rural Studies

4(2) 140–152
Land Acquisition  2016 Centre for Rural
Studies, LBSNAA

and Insurrections of SAGE Publications

sagepub.in/home.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2321024916640068
Independent India: http://lrs.sagepub.com

An Analysis of the
Indian State Response

Nayakara Veeresha1

Abstract
The article focuses upon the relationship between agrarian relations, mode
of land acquisition by the state and insurrections that took place in India after
1947. It attempts to analyse the linkages of land relations between peasants and
landlords. More specifically it looks at the nature of association with the land,
changes occurred in the nature and perspective of relationship due to changes in
the perspective towards development. It analyses how the changing role of state in
acquiring the land for developmental outcomes has led to variety of social uprisings
in the form of insurrections. Insurrections are modest attempts to alter the power
relations of the society with reference to land ownership and rights. Insurrections
are challenges to the outcome of good governance. There is a need to design
proper governance institutional arrangements to contain the insurrections arising
due to land conflicts in the process of pursuit of development.

Keywords
Development, governance, insurrection, land acquisition, land reforms, state

Introduction
India is an agriculture-based society with 55 per cent of the population depends
upon agriculture and its allied activities for their economic livelihood. Despite
of gradual decline in agriculture sector’s contribution to the gross domestic

1
Centre for Political Institutions, Governance and Development (CPIGD), Institute for Social and
Economic Change, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.

Corresponding author:
Nayakara Veeresha, Centre for Political Institutions, Governance and Development (CPIGD), Institute for
Social and Economic Change, Dr V K R V Rao Road, Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru-560072, Karnataka, India.
E-mails: veeresha@isec.ac.in; nayakaraveeresha@gmail.com
Veeresha 141

product (GDP) land remains as critical resource for the ‘means of production’ and
is central to understand the political economy of India. Farmer’s suicides across
the country are an indication for the declining status of agriculture sector. The
steady decline of agriculture sector’s contribution to the GDP may be due to
multiple factors such as declining number of people to undertake farming as their
major livelihood activity particularly by the youth, changing relations between
the agriculture worker and land owner, lack of adequate support from the state,
inadequate budgetary allocations, rise in the population, rapid growth of
urbanisation, rural-urban migration, lack of adequate infrastructure investment,
bureaucratic inertia, lack of sincere efforts among the governing class, food
inflation and insecurity. These factors are interlinked to one another and have
serious consequences on the agricultural prospect and food security of the country.
What are the factors that have contributed for this kind of situation in the
agricultural sector? How far the development paradigm transformed the India’s
agriculture sector?
In investigating these factors, the article focuses upon the mode of land
acquisition by the state for the purposes of development. Land acquisition
for promoting industrial development and in transforming agriculture-based
societies to industrially strong societies, under the modernisation project, is the
developmental pattern that has been followed by the most colonised nations
particularly after the Second World War. However, this transition has met stiff
resistance in these countries as the system of land relationships and ownership
pattern are inherently complex in making the transformation process difficult;
India is not an exception to this trend. The rise of local insurrections against the
unequal and injustices met by the landlords is being more and visible clearly in
most parts of India. Outdated legislations coupled with political and administrative
inertia have given rise to peasant and indigenous land struggles to protect and
preserve their land not just as a source of livelihood but also as a ‘means of
production’ propounded by Marx.
In India the land is owned by the influential social groups, that is, jati. The land
relations with the social structures are complex and deep in nature. In order to
bring equitable development, it is necessary to change land ownership patterns in
the countryside. In this context, the term insurrection can be understood as modest
attempts to alter the social power relationships with respect to land ownership and
rights. Towards this development, India has experienced several uprisings since
1947 including the armed struggles. Etymologically the term insurrection does
not include the arms component in it. Therefore, it can be understood as citizen
uprisings to bring the social change. The term insurrection has to be differentiated
from the term ‘insurgency’ in terms of its focus on the individual course of action
and is independent of agency/structure/organisation.
Insurrections of post-Independent period have taken place in order to improve
the socio-economic conditions as a legitimate right especially land rights. The
state need to acknowledge this in order to understand the social uprisings as
insurrections and not as ‘insurgency’ to capture the political power by the armed
struggle. In this context, it is observed that ‘in its search for change India has
142 Journal of Land and Rural Studies 4(2)

opted for insurrection as its primary instrument, rather than revolution’ (Akbar,
2013). Such important insurrectionary attempts are Tebhaga Movement (1946),
Telangana Insurrection (1946), Naxalbari and Srikakulam Uprisings (1967),
Singur and Nandigram upheavals (2007) and the Niyamgiri movement (2009)
in Odisha.
In all these uprisings agrarian issues are at the root of the problem. Of all the
issues land is the central factor along with forest, mineral resources have played
an important role in mobilising the farmers, adivasis and other backward sections
of the people towards insurrection. ‘Left Wing Extremism’2 is an official term
used by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, to describe the
insurrectionary situation existing in the central and eastern states. The insurrection
in central and eastern states was construed as single largest internal security threat
that the country is facing by the policy makers. The common connecting link
of all these uprisings is land and its mode of acquisition by the respective state
governments and the land policies of union government. Until the legislative
act of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, come into effect the acquisition of
land was governed by the colonial legislation, The Land Acquisition Act, 1894
and the respective state government acts.

Historical Events of Land Acquisition by the State

Tebhaga and Telangana Insurrection (1946–51): At the time of Independence
armed struggles were on in Tebhaga region of West Bengal and Telangana area of
princely Hyderabad State. Tebhaga Movement was based on a demand that the
share of crop has to be one-third instead of half that is given to the land owner. ‘It
must be noted that at that time there was no law regulating relations between the
landlords’ (Sen, 1972) and the peasants in Bengal and Telangana.
The Telangana and Tebhaga uprisings were started as a response to the
oppressing landlord regimes which continued for about five years. The system
of Vetti (Bonded Labour) in Telangana and ‘Barga’ system (feudal land relations)
in Tebhaga of Bengal region was deeply embedded social practices and served as
an effective instruments to exploit the landless poor, small peasants, adivasis and
other backward sections of people. The Communist Party of India in Tebhaga and
Telangana has exploited the ground situations to fulfil the objective of attaining
political power through armed struggle. The party was successful in mobilising
the masses and also able to capture the land from big landlords and thereby was
distributing the same among landless labourers. These initiatives have made deep
impressions upon the people’s mind towards the Communist party.
The Telangana and Tebhaga Movements have brought the concerns of the
landless and poor peasant’s exploitation by the middlemen and landlords before

2
Left wing extremism denotes an ideology of replacing the existing social and political order with the
means of extra constitutional or violent methods motivated by the combined political philosophies of
Marx–Lenin–Mao.
Veeresha 143

the newly formed governments both at the Union and the State. The immediate
effect of this is the abolition of Zamindari system throughout the country. This
understanding has promoted the land reform measures in the country beginning
with the First Year Plan in the 1951–52.
The various state governments have brought land ceiling acts in order to
contain the concentration of the land. After enacting the land ceiling laws, the
states were implemented the ceiling laws with a slow pace. However, due to
large time gap between the enactment of legislation and its implementation has
given the necessary time, space and scope for the landlords to transfer the land
to their family members and relatives. Exemptions such as land allotments made
to the academic institutions, religious bodies, trusts, registered societies, public
sector industries etc., all these have led to the reduction of land area that is to
be declared as surplus. Poor availability of land records has created complexity
in implementation process. Revenue departments that are already overburdened
with their duties and responsibilities were given the responsibility of
implementing the ceiling laws. It also reflects the poor administrative capacities
to implement the ceiling laws. The land reform measures were not been able
to alter the existing social and power relations among the rural communities.
However, from the modern state–citizenship perspective, the step of abolition
of intermediaries is historical in a sense that it has established a kind of ‘social
contract’ between the peasants as a subject of citizenship and the state as an
accommodative agent.
Naxalbari Uprising (1967): The insurrection was started on 23 May 1967, in
the Naxalbari3 village when a local adivasi peasant went to plough her/his land and
was attacked by the hired persons of landlord. In response to this, local peasants
and adivasis resisted the attack using traditional arms. During this agitation police
was killed at Jharugaon village. Gradually the agitation took into violent shape
and spread to the other areas in Kharibari and Phansidewa.
The aim of the Communist Party was to liberate the poor and landless from
the oppressive landlord regime to establish new social order which implements
land reforms for the welfare of the peasants and landless poor. Naxalbari uprising
has attracted the attention of the globe particularly by the countries which are
governed by the Communist Party. In China, the People’s Daily of Beijing called
this uprising as ‘Spring Thunder over India’.
The Naxalbari uprisings in West Bengal have questioned the legitimacy of
the Indian State and the Communists have critiqued the nature of Indian state
as semi feudal and as capitalistic state. Naxalbari uprisings has influenced the
peasant community throughout the country and acted as a catalyst for the agrarian
unrest in several parts of the country. The agrarian crisis drew the attention of
policy makers to think seriously to contain the discontent and distress among
the peasant communities.
The Telangana and Naxalbari upheavals represent peasant situation in the
beginning of Independence and after two decades of Independence, respectively.
3
The Naxalbari village is located in Siliguri subdivision of Darjeeling district in the West Bengal
State, India.
144 Journal of Land and Rural Studies 4(2)

However, the condition of peasants in India has now become worse after the
country has gone through liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation processes.
In the context of land acquisition, these historical events have resurrected the
significance of land reforms in the country with particular reference to land
ownership patterns of the society. These events are politically significant as they
raised the questions on the policy landscape of land reforms. The research and
policy division of the Ministry of Home Affairs has prepared a paper in pointing
that ‘the failure of land reform as the main cause for the widespread agrarian
unrest and discontent’ (Ministry of Home Affairs, 1969). ‘The state governments
were incapable of providing democratic solutions for the deep social causes of the
growing agrarian discontent. Instead, they handled each new outbreak as a problem
of law and order’ (Frankel, 2005, p. 381). In this context, it is worth to look at the
observations made by the Expert Group (2008) of Planning Commission that

… the cause’s specific to the Naxalite movement are part of an overall scenario of
poverty, deprivation, oppression, and neglect in large parts of the country. The main
support for the Naxalite movement comes from dalits and adivasis. Our brief review of
various disturbing aspects of the socio-economic context that prevails in large parts of
India today, and that may (and can) contribute to politics such as that of the Naxalite
movement or erupt as other forms of violence (pp. 3, 30).

Nandigram and Singur Movement (2007–08): History has repeated. West Bengal
the state where Naxalbari uprising took place has once again resurfaced in the
context of coercive mode of land acquisition by the state government for the
industrial purposes. The state has met strong resistance for the land acquisition by
the villagers. However, the State Government using the armory of force killed the
resisting people, an act which was criticised by the media all over the country.
This has raised the question of priority of choosing between the fertile land and
industry for the development of ‘state’ and ‘nation’. Political events that have
taken place aftermath led to the decline of left party’s position in the state which
once regarded as pro-poor and pro-peasant. The left front government’s approach
of forceful acquisition of the land for the Special Economic Zones has given
political mileage for the All India Trinamool Congress Party, Indian National
Congress and Socialist Unity Centre of India (Communist). The biggest political
gainer in this is the All India Trinamool Congress party leader Mamata Banerjee.
She led the protests from the fore front to oppose the land acquisition and wrote
letters to the then Prime Minister and Union Home Minister to stop the violence
in Nandigram and Singur. She got huge public support and is one of the strong
reasons to come back to the power by winning the assembly elections in 2011.
Land ‘Alienation’ in Scheduled V Areas: The PESA Act, 1996, clearly
empowers the gramsabha to prevent the land alienation in the Fifth Schedule
areas. Political exclusion in governing, deprivation of right over natural resources,
land acquisition by the non-tribal’s are some of the critical factors that have added
fuel to the issue of land alienation in Fifth Scheduled areas that further increased
to become the largest internal security threat for the country in the form of Left
Wing Extremism.
Veeresha 145

Case of Niyamgiri: The case of Niyamgiri has demonstrated the strength of local
democracy in India particularly in scheduled areas. The geographical site is known
for its ecological richness, mineral (bauxite) resources and culturally significant
to the local adivasis communities. Dungaria Kondh and Kutia Kondh are the two
important adivasis communities having culturally symbiotic relationship with the
Niyamgiri hills. The state government has proposed mining project in this area
through a Memorandum of Understanding with the Vedanta mining company.
Adivasis are intensely resisted the state government’s move to allow the mining
in Niyamgiri hills. The Supreme Court of India has directed gramsabha to take
a final decision on this matter as mandated by the (The Scheduled Tribes and
Other Traditional Forest Dwellers [Recognition of Forest Rights] [FRA] Act,
20064) and (The Provisions of the [Panchayats Extension to Scheduled Areas]
[PESA] Act, 19965). Twelve villages of gramsabha unanimously rejected the state
government’s proposal to allow mining in the sacred hills in 2013. After this the
state government has withdrawn the proposal with the Vedanta Company. This
is a victory to the gramsabha and to the ability of adivasis for asserting their
democratic rights.
Land Conflicts in Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand: Both the states of
Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand are formed in the year 2000. These states consist
of adivasis population with rich mineral and forest resources. The respective
state governments have signed memorandum of understanding with the private
corporations and multi-national companies for setting up of the industries and
mining purposes. However, the local resistance is high as the adivasis are not
happy with the kind of developments taking place. High prevalence of poverty,
malnutrition coupled with ineffective implementation of the constitutional
rights under the (FRA, 2006) and (PESA, 1996) Acts have left the adivasis
communities in isolation and far from the socio-economic progress in scheduled
areas. Large amount of land need to be acquired for the Naya Raipur capital city
in the state of Chhattisgarh have led to dispossession of land among the tribal
population. This has created a governing gap between the local communities
and the state. The presence of densely forest area provides a strategic space for
the non-state actors such as extremists (loosely referred as Naxalites or Maoists)
to persuade the villagers to mobilise them in support of their political objectives.

4
An act to recognise and vest the forest rights and occupation in forest land in forest dwelling scheduled
tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who have been residing in such forests for generations but
whose rights could not be recorded; to provide for a framework for recording the forest rights so vested
and the nature of evidence required for such recognition and vesting in respect of forest land with
effective from 31st December 2007. For more details, doi:http://www.forests.tn.nic.in/legislations/
graphics/The%20Scheduled%20Tribes%20&%20Traditional%20Forest%20Dwellers%20ACt%20
2006.pdf
5
The Parliament of India enacted the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA)
to extend Part IX of the Constitution with certain modifications and exceptions to the Scheduled V
areas of 9 States viz. Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya
Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha and Rajasthan. The Ministry of Panchayati Raj is the nodal Ministry for
implementation of the provisions of PESA in the States. For more details, refer the link, doi: http://
www.panchayat.gov.in/pesa-legislation
146 Journal of Land and Rural Studies 4(2)

Even though there were reports in the media on declining trend of Maoist
ideology in the state  of Jharkhand, the picture in the state of Chhattisgarh is
highly tensed and the lives of adivasis is at stake as they were subjected to the
conflict between the insurgents and the state.
To sum up the historical events related to land conflicts, India has substantially
enhanced the economic prosperity after opening up of its market by adopting
the liberal economic policies in 1991. However, the economic prosperity has
not equally distributed in the society thereby increasing the concentration of
wealth in the hands of few. After 1991, land acquisition have been largely taking
place in the name of ‘development’ through the means of ‘ideological consent’
as described by Gramsci, along with coercive means wherever the state met
resistance by the local people. To illustrate the land conflicts of post-1991 period
in areas of Sompet in Andhra Pradesh, Nandigram and Singur in West Bengal,
Niyamgiri in Odhisa, mineral-rich states of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand are the
battlefields of internal armed conflict. These conflicts are exclusively related to
the mode of land acquisition by the respective state governments for the mining
and other industrial projects.
The wide spread farmer’s suicides in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,
Maharashtra and Telangana reflect the continuing neglect of larger agrarian
issues by the governing class of people. Therefore, it is necessary to rethink the
‘development’ path followed by India as the agrarian issues are at the centre stage of
national progress. It is not possible to have development without reducing the
agrarian unrest and social discontent among the farming and adivasis communities
in countryside. All the major social upheavals described above have the root causes
in the ‘the problem of kisans and the problems of the agricultural labourers began to
attain political salience. But the problems have been defying solutions, as the later
Maoist struggles demonstrated’ (Seshadri, 1983, p. 159) and political exclusion of
adivasis communities in the development process.
State Response to Agrarian Insurrections: The various uprisings explained
above gives a contextual background to examine the approach and nature of land
acquisition methods adopted by the states and union government of India. Here,
the state is referred as an instrument and mechanism to steer the social engineering
process to build an egalitarian order. Hegel articulated ‘state as a consequence of
historical development. It is based on rational freedom, organized in such a way
as to enable each to realize his freedom in conjunction with others. It is an ethical
order embodiment of man’s self-consciousness’ (Avineri, 1974).
In the context of agrarian insurrections, how far the state in India has followed
ethical approach and to what extent it has been able to build an egalitarian social
order by reorganising the complex land relationships and ownership patterns in
the countryside. At this juncture it is pertinent to raise some critical questions
to guide the discussion in a more productive manner. How can we explain the
nature of state in India with respect to land acquisition process? What are the
means (coercive or consent) adopted by the state in India to acquire the land for
development purposes? How far the state has followed the guidelines enshrined in
the Directive Principles of State Policy of the Constitution in acquiring the land.
Veeresha 147

In the first decade of Independence (1950–1960), some efforts were made by

the Union government of India to reduce the gap between the peasants and the
newly formed ‘nation-state’. The Tebhaga and Telangana uprisings have provided
insights about the complex nature of land-society relations in the context of India.
This understanding has provided major inputs for the agrarian policies particularly
for the abolition of intermediaries in the land systems. The newly constituted
governments (at Union and state levels) have not yet equipped with necessary
governing capacities to deal with the variety of social (land) conflicts arising as
they were in the formative stages of development.
The unresolved land and agrarian issues have given rise to Naxalbari uprisings
in West Bengal, that is, exactly after two decades of Independence. To some extent
the approach of the Union government was, by and large socio-economic during
the first decade of Independence and tried to improve the nature of relationship
between peasants and land owners by abolishing the intermediaries. The Union
government has adopted some of the structural policy measures (tenancy laws,
ceiling laws) to acquire the land during this period. Myrdal (1985, pp. 1310–11)
observed that ‘the elimination of the big feudal landlords by parliamentary means
is no small achievement in the first decade of Independence’.
However, it should also be noted that the containment of Telangana
insurrection involves heavy police action in Hyderabad which is a paradox in
the evolution of parliamentary democracy of India. Naxalbari insurrection has
profoundly influenced the urban youth in West Bengal and thereby, spreading
its tentacles in other states such as Kerala, Bihar and Agency areas in Andhra
Pradesh. This uprising has raised serious questions about the remnants of feudal
practices in the country and in a way it challenged the legitimacy of the state.
Adding strength to this argument, the West Bengal Left Government also came
down heavily on the Communist ideologues to suppress the movement by
military means. After this, an experiment was made in the form of ‘Operation
Barga’ to address the issues of tenant rights of the land. It had able to secure
tenancy rights to the land to some extent.
Time has passed in 2007; the land conflicts erupted in Nandigram, Lalgarh and
Singur indicating the coercive nature of state and its forceful land acquisition for
the Special Economic Zone purposes. The stiff resistance by the local people made
the state government to withdraw the proposal of acquiring the fertile lands. It
also shows how the state diluted the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
In this context, it can be stated that the state has not obliged with the constitutional
spirit to adhere with the Directive Principles of State Policy with respect to land
acquisition process and failed to provide good land governance. Niyamgiri case
highlights the negligence of state to implement the provisions of (FRA, 2006) and
(PESA, 1996) guidelines before signing the Memorandum of Understanding with
the companies for mining the mineral resources. This reminds a famous saying
of former chairman of National Commission on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes Sharma (2012) ‘Independent India has become worse to the tribals’.
Why the state government of Odhisa through local administration did not
convene gramsabha as per the constitutional obligation before signing MoUs with
148 Journal of Land and Rural Studies 4(2)

the companies? This attitude reflects the intent of state towards adivasis wellbeing.
The Supreme Court of India in its verdict on Salwa Judum has observed that,

… the problem rests in the amoral political economy that the State endorses, and the
resultant revolutionary politics that it necessarily spawns. The state seeks to arm the
youngsters amongst the poor with guns to combat the anger, and unrest amongst
the poor. The fight against Maoists/Naxalites is no less a fight for moral, constitutional
and legal authority over the minds and hearts of our people (Sundar & Ors vs. State of
Chhattisgarh, 2011, pp. 6, 14 and 51).

What was the amoral political economy that the court has been referring, what
are its implications on the wellbeing of adivasis? Given the above context the
critical argument lies in, where the state governments in the areas of insurrection
have tried to acquire the cultivable and fertile land from the adivasis, peasants,
farmers and other backward sections of the people without or very less consent
from the local people. The coercive methods of land acquisition by the state
governments have met with stiff resistance by the local communities and civil
society organisations. In a nutshell, the state in India has responded through a
mixture of coercive and consent methods in containing the insurrections related
to land conflicts. However, it can be observed that the coercive means have
always given the upper hand over the methods of consent in dealing with the
land issues. This has given rise to a political vacuum for radical kind of politics
including the present ‘left wing extremism’ which is referred as India’s gravest
internal security threat that the country is facing by former Prime Minster of
India Manmohan Singh.
Implications of State Response on the Land Governance: From the above
analysis it can be inferred that the state response to the agrarian insurrections has
been largely coercive in nature to acquire the land for development. What are the
implications of the state response in changing the agrarian order especially in
rural areas?
To a large extent, land in the villages is owned by influential social groups who
influence the land relationship patterns within the community and village. ‘The
distribution of economic and political power was a function of control over land
as much as, if not more than, it was of caste’ (Alavi & Harriss, 1989, pp. 38–39). A
crucial factor that need to be probed is that how can we bring the changes in social
institutions such as jati (caste) which is a key social structure responsible for land
owning in rural areas. What is the impact of insurrections of Telangana, Tebhaga,
Naxalbari, Nandigram, Singur and Niyamgiri in changing the land ownership
patterns with particular reference to the institution of jati?
In the context of developing countries, particularly of India, the impact of
agrarian uprisings has to be seen from the perspective of broader social change
and development. The Tebhaga and Telangana uprisings were responsible ‘for
building a fundamental base which necessitated in initiating the reforms in
transforming the nature of land relationship and ownership rights’ (Ahmed, 1975;
Joshi, 1975). The uprisings to some extent were able to loosen the rigidity of jati
Veeresha 149

relationship with the land and brought flexibility to this social institution. Based
on this it is observed that there is a declining trend in the power of rural elite social
groups owning the land in the regions of Telangana suggesting that the jati system
in India is a flexible social institution and will undergo changes influenced by
local political and economic factors.
With the so far experience, it can be observed that the states in India have not
been able to identify the structural problems such as land relationship patterns,
ownership rights, land-owning institutions of agriculture in order to address
them which were reckoned again in the uprisings of Naxalbalri (West Bengal)
and Srikakualm (Andhra Pradesh) state. From 1967 onwards adivasis land
concerns such as alienation of land, deprival of traditional rights over the forest
resources were also added to the agrarian issues. This has precipitated the land
issues further which enhanced the state’s responsibility to balance the increasing
domestic pressure of development (such as local famines, food insecurity and
technological adoption in agriculture) and international pulling factors (to
promote industrialisation and urbanisation) with respect to land acquisition.
Due to these global and local developments, the core issues of land relationship
between the tenant and the landowner, ownership rights have not got due
importance among the policy makers.
The Naxalbari and Srikauklam uprisings were brought the land and forest
concerns before the Union and state governments once again to the forefront.
In a way the Naxalbari uprisings challenged the legitimate sovereignty of the
Indian state.
Legitimacy is the authority to steer the society in a productive and progressive
way. It is the collective will of citizens of a given society to the state to coordinate
social mobilisation and integration. To exercise this kind of legitimate authority
‘the state has to enjoy broad consensus to govern with a little recourse to forced
compliance’ (Johnston, 2011). In all the above cases of social upheavals, the state
in India has opted for ‘force’ as its first method rather than going for consent
to address the land issues in the conflict areas. Even in the so called ‘left wing
extremist’ affected states; how far the democratically elected state governments
are enjoying the recognition from the governed particularly among the adivasis
communities is the researchable issue that need deeper empirical investigation.
However, it should be underlined that, the entry point for radical politics in
India is the land and its reforms which are broadly agrarian issues. Even a recent
study confirms the fact that ‘the majority of Indian states have been unable to enact
meaningful land reforms largely because of the strength of the rural elite at the
local level’ (Kennedy & Purushotham, 2012). Land-related conflicts in Nandigram,
Singur, Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand states have emerged in the post-economic
reforms period, that is, after 1991. This can be mainly attributed to the withdrawal
of the state to address the critical land issues to bring economic development and
social justice despite the fact that ‘Indian democracy has provided a subtle and
resilient mechanism for conflict management’ (Bardhan, 1984, p. 77).
After 1991, the governments both at Union and state have not given proper
attention to the land conflicts arising due to the coercive land acquisition for
150 Journal of Land and Rural Studies 4(2)

the development projects. Rampant land alienation in the tribal areas and large
displacement induced by the development projects in the states such as Andhra
Pradesh, Odhisa, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and West Bengal have left the adivasis
communities dispossessed from their land and culture. The factors such as land
‘alienation’ in scheduled areas, large displacement, migration across the country
made Union government to think seriously on these issues.
This has prompted the Government of India to appoint the Committee headed
by Dileep Singh Bhuria to examine these issues and also to suggest mechanism for
extending the provisions of part IX of the constitution related to the Panchayats
to the Fifth Scheduled Areas. The Committee has come up with a radical piece of
legislation in the form of PESA (1996) and subsequently FRA (2006). However,
the respective state governments have not given adequate importance to implement
the provisions of these acts in the constitutional spirit.
Decline in ground water levels, soil erosion, inadequate irrigation facilities,
commercialisation of agriculture, complexity in the institutional rules of
banking credit, increased prices of chemical fertilisers/seeds, quality and timely
availability of the seeds for sowing, lack of other local institutional support are
some of the structural and policy concerns which need immediate attention from
the law makers to improve the situation in agricultural sector. These structural and
systemic issues of agrarian sector need conscious efforts by the state to stop the
farmer’s suicides in the countryside.
The rise in number of farmer’s suicides across the country is a direct indication
of declining importance of the agrarian issues not only among the governing class
and also society as a whole. Commenting on the serious problem that the death
of peasants poses to the state in the twentieth century is ‘the most dramatic and
far-reaching social change of the second half of this (last) century, and the one
which cuts us off forever from the world of the past, is the death of the peasantry’
(Hobsbawn, 1994, p. 289). Agriculture sector in the country is suffering due to
crisis of commitment not only from political class and also from the academia,
non-governmental organisations, other professionals, student communities in
order to bring the life into the farming community of the nation. A state cannot
have the legitimate sovereignty by abdicating its responsibilities as enshrined in
the Constitution.

Concluding Observations
In the context of growing unrest among the farmers, adivasis it is high time for the
state in India to chalk down its own path of social progress rather than trying to
follow the imported model of ‘development path’. This kind of transformation in
the role of state is necessary and inevitable in the wake of alarming food insecurity
and hunger situation in the country.
This is the proper historical time for the revival of agriculture by the state
in India and not for the civic insurrections all over the country in the form of
‘millions of mutinies now’ (Singh, 2013, pp. 1–3). Fertile lands should not be
Veeresha 151

given by the state for other purposes. Only dry lands can be made available for
the non-agricultural activities including the industrial set ups and mining in which
local people are made active stakeholders and not just beneficiaries.
For this to happen, the developmental role of the state in India need to
reorient in a manner that rather than facilitating forceful acquisition of the land,
the governments both at union and state have to aim at strengthening the local
democratic practices, activating gramsabha to take decisions of land acquisition
particularly in the scheduled areas where land conflicts are high. A civil war
situation exists in the central and eastern states between the insurgents and the
state over the forest, mineral and land resources and sovereignty issues; there is
an urgent need for the proper implementation of the legislations such as PESA
(1996) and FRA (2006) to mitigate the discontent and social unrest among the
local communities.
The elements of structural violence of the state have to be probed scientifically
in order to devise the necessary corrective measures to reduce the intensity of the
violent land conflicts arising due to the complex relations between jati, land and
forest in the society. Government has to focus on the issues of governance such as
tensions between the traditional governing systems and the modern institutions of
the state. The land acquisitions for the developmental initiatives have to be done
in accordance with the rule of law.
If government wants to contain the land-related insurrections including the
‘left wing extremism’ it has to strengthen the local panchayats and the traditional
governing systems parallely for making them more suitable to the present needs.
The current imposed governance systems in the scheduled areas need to be
reoriented to meet the concerns and needs of the adivasis communities. The social
discontent in large parts of the central and eastern states is an historic opportunity
for India to assert governing capacity and also for creation of suitable conditions
to restore the community centric governance to bring equity and harmony into the
social order.

Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to Dr Girish Kumar, Dr Satish Chandra, Dr Sivanna and Dr Varsha
Ganguly, Mr Pallav Karmakar for their valuable time and useful observations and comments
on the earlier draft of the article.

References
Ahmed, Z. (1975). Land reforms in South East Asia. New Delhi: Orient Longman.
Akbar, M. J. (2013). For every Telangana, a dozen seeds are being fertilized. Times of
India. Retrieved 30 July 2013, from http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
TheSiegeWithin/entry/for-every-telangana-a-dozen-seeds-are-being-fertilized
Alavi, H., & Harriss, J. (1989). Sociology of developing societies south Asia. Hampshire
and London: Macmillan Education Ltd.
Avineri, S. (1974). Hegel’s theory of the modern state. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Bardhan, P. (1984). The political economy of development in India. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
152 Journal of Land and Rural Studies 4(2)

Frankel, R. F. (2005). India’s political economy 1947–2004. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
Hobsbawn, E. (1994). Age of extremes: The short twentieth century 1914–1991. London:
Abacus.
Johnston, H. (2011). States and social movements. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity
Press.
Joshi, P. C. (1975). Land reforms in India: Trends and perspectives. Bombay: Allied
Publishers.
Kennedy, J., & Purushotham, S. (2012). Beyond Naxalbari: A comparative analysis of
Maoist Insurgency in India 1947 to present date. Comparative Studies in Society and
History, 54(4), 832–862.
Ministry of Home Affairs. (1969). The causes and nature of current agrarian tensions.
New Delhi: Research and Policy Division, Government of India.
Myrdal, G. (1985). Asian drama, Vol. II. New Delhi: Kalyani Publishers.
Planning Commission. (2008). Report of an expert group on development challenges in
extremist affected areas. New Delhi: Government of India.
Sen, S. (1972). Agrarian struggle in Bengal 1946–47. New Delhi: People’s Publishing
House.
Seshadri, K. (1983). Rural unrest in India. Delhi: Intellectual Publishing g House.
Sharma, B. D. (2012). Interview with Mahapatra R on Independent India worse for tribals.
Down to Earth. Retrieved 15 May 2013, from http://www.downtoearth.org.in/
interviews/independent-india-worse-for-tribals-38299
Singh, B. (2013). Naipaul’s India: A million mutinies now: A political perspective.
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 3(1), 1–3.
Sundar, N. and Ors. versus State of Chhattisgarh. (2011). Verdict of the supreme court
of India: New Delhi. Retrieved 1 June 2013, from http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/
outtoday/wc25007.pdf