An Introspection: Manipur Paddy Conservation Bill 2014

By Jiten Yumnam

In a significant development on 25 July 2014, the Manipur Assembly passed the Manipur Conservation of Paddy Land Bill 2014 amidst the longstanding and ongoing struggle for protection of agriculture land on an urgent basis. The passing of the Bill indicates at least a tardy realization of the Government, at least, of basic significance of agriculture in Manipur’s economy. However, one wonders what Manipur actually needs at this point of time in agriculture or for that matter in larger Manipur’s economy. Is it mere protection of paddy land or protection of agriculture land? One is also concerned on the approach, piecemeal or holistic? The question is more obvious given Manipur’s land terrain, its geography and diverse pattern of agriculture practices. Manipur’s agriculture both in the valley and the hills is not restricted merely to paddy cultivation. Especially in the hill areas, diversified cultivation assumes much prominence with pursuance of traditional forms of agriculture. 

Manipur has different categories of agriculture land, depending on the terrain, in the plains, wetlands, hills, forest etc with diverse agricultural practice. One wonders if the policy will cover all agriculture land. The protection of agricultural land in Manipur should also entail protection of wetlands, forest land and those areas with possibility for permanent cultivation. And here it is highly crucial to ensure involvement of all different communities of Manipur practising different types and forms of agriculture practices and to acknowledge their pattern of land ownership and agriculture practices, to identify best practices and ways to protect agricultural land in all terrains across Manipur.  

Interestingly, the bill is introduced at a time where agriculture land both in the hills and valley fast shrinks and vigorously conscripted for multiple large scale development projects and uncontrolled urbanization. Land grabbing is an alarming phenomenon fast unfolding in Manipur amidst India’s aggressive pursuance of neoliberal economic policies and its economic and political expansionist policies. Peoples’ stern resistance against agriculture land acquisition without their free prior and informed consent, such as for creation of Capitol Project, Industrial Growth Centre, international Airport in Imphal etc are still fresh in peoples’ memories[1]. Today, residents of Yurembam are dead against the land acquisition move for Trans Asian Highway. The village already lost substantial trace of their land to the Power Station of NEEPCO, Ltd and due to the expansion of 400 KV power plant of the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd very recently[2]. Further much concern abound that the inconsiderate implementation of the subsidy oriented National Food Security Act, 2012 of India in Manipur has enormous potential to destroy indigenous agriculture with dumping of cheap and chemical laden food grain from beyond Manipur. Much of Manipur’s prime agriculture land is also lost due to extensive militarization of Indian armed forces under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958 to subdue insurgent groups seeking self determination of Manipur.

The new policy will simply be irrational and meaningless without addressing the implications of development onslaught in Manipur. Manipur, with its geographical advantage of locating right in middle of South Asia and South East Asia is already at the centre of an international economic process of converting entire Asian region into a huge market. The Trans Asian Railway, the Trans Asian Highway and the 400 KV High Voltage Transmission lines are part of the larger strategy to economically connect Asian sub regions and to foster trade between countries in South Asian and South East Asia, the process being facilitated by economically powerful countries through Multilateral banks, viz, World Bank, Asian Development Bank etc and bilateral banks like Japan Bank for International Cooperation. The enormous challenge is indigenous peoples of Manipur are excluded in the process of defining such development priorities and processes. Further, the people are not even informed of the potential multifaceted impacts of large development initiative under such processes. Rather its land, its forest and rich resources are already subjected to economic exploitation, as evident in the ongoing process to construct more than 200 mega dams all over India’s North East region and to drill oil and natural gas by multinational companies, such as in Manipur by Jubilant Energy. Indeed, power trading is one of the priorities set in Asian Development Bank’ and World Bank’s development visions for the region. The infrastructures created for such economic process will conscript huge trace of prime agriculture land and will directly facilitate unhindered dumping of cheap agricultural produces from across borders from South and South East Asia, thus destroying indigenous agriculture and undermining food sovereignty of Manipur. 

The need for clarity on reasons for loss of agricultural land need be considered. Will there be a rethinking of the development process and rescinding of unsustainable policies with the move to defend agriculture land? Or will it be just an expression of intent devoid of practicalities. Will it also rethink certain development process, such as 105 MW Loktak HEP Project, to return the 83,000 acres of prime agriculture land, submerged by the project? Will it also consider abandoning the Tipaimukh dam project which will submerge nearly 30,000 hectares of forest and fertile agriculture land along the Barak River and its tributaries in Tamenglong and Churachandpur Districts[3]? Will the decision led to saving more than 1000 hectares of agriculture land in Mapithel Valley to be submerged by Mapithel dam[4]? The proposed Chakpi dam will submerge more than 3000 hectares, most of which will be prime agriculture land along the Chakpi River in Chandel District[5].  

One also needs be clear of the objectives of pursuing such bill or policies? One needs a comprehensive assessment of reasons for loss of agriculture land or threats to sustainable agriculture in Manipur, based on which the policy need be based. Manipur’s agriculture in all terrains is increasingly rendered uneconomical for the farmers and indigenous communities due to multiple reasons, high cost of fertilizer and pesticides, high labor cost, lack of state support, influx of cheap agricultural items, impacts of climate change and lack of marketing support, bad infrastructure etc. 

One may also ask if the passing of the bill or the enactment of related policies able to defend agriculture land of Manipur. Manipur’s agriculture is under intense pressure due to the liberalization of Indian agriculture, where Agri corporate bodies are fast converting the state into their market for fertilizers, pesticides, high yielding seeds, agriculture equipments etc, which increases cost of farming. Defense of agricultural land need rethinking the capitalist led development, dominant development model based on profits for private parties, which undermines sustainable agriculture. One wonders if the Government of Manipur will embark on this at a time when it is deeply encouraging commercial agriculture as outlined in the New Land Use Policy of Manipur 2014[6]. The reality today is the unregulated corporate expansionism under imperialist countries led globalization is the biggest threat to sustainable agriculture in Manipur? The Government need be sensitive to such challenges and threats to agriculture in Manipur, both in the hills and plains. Further, also to understand the grievances of small scale farmers, which have limited state support for their agriculture activities, such as purchase of farm equipments, irrigation facilities and crop insurance etc. Without challenging the larger unsustainable development models and all threats to sustainable agriculture, a mere defense of paddy land will simply be irrational? There are fundamental contradictions to be addressed, in policy application and in defining development vision and processes. One also wonder if there will there be reconsideration of the Policies like Manipur Tourism Policy 2011 and Manipur Hydroelectric Power Policy etc, that will destroy agriculture land, forest, water sources and restrict community’s access to their land and survival sources. 

Is formulation of paddy conservation bill rational? One may rather wish to press a policy to protect all agriculture land in its entirely in Manipur and will certainly lead to a more substantial understanding of Manipur in itself, which can lead to answers to many challenges of Manipur. The Government of Manipur should consider a comprehensive agriculture policy which recognize communities’ rights over their land and recognize their right to free, prior and informed consent before introducing any initiative or development projects that will undermine their rights or relationship with their land. It is highly crucial to perceive the importance and intrinsic relationship of communities with their land. A holistic policy to protect agriculture land, wetlands, forest of Manipur should be framed in due consultation with communities. The policy need be based on sustainable agriculture, promotion of small scale farming, recognition of indigenous agriculture, addressing the key threats to agriculture etc with the protection of agriculture land as one of the key and essential components of the policy. Protection of agricultural land should be an essential and key component of promoting just and sustainable development in Manipur. A mere intent to protect agriculture land will mean nothing till a holistic approach is adopted for agriculture.  

Addressing and reversing the potential threats to a viable and sustainable agriculture in Manipur, such as extensive promotion of industries, large scale development projects, infrastructure projects, extensive militarization etc is highly crucial. A thorough understanding of the potential risks and challenges of agriculture in Manipur in the larger neoliberal economic framework of considering agriculture purely in economic terms need be pursued. One need to ponder where is Manipur’s agriculture and how our farmers can cope with the onslaught of multiple free trade agreements signed by India with South East Asian and South Asian countries. In this context, merely conserving paddy land will highly be insufficient. It is highly critical to really identify and insist on what needs to conserved and for what purpose and if it simply will be enough. Reviewing and changing development processes detrimental in sustainable agriculture is urgent. Protection of agriculture land is not feasible less there’s a concerted effort both to understand and to respond to the larger global forces, which already threatened the socio- economic, political and cultural values of Manipur

---

[1] Developmental challenges : Airport & University expansion, The Sangai Express, 11 May 2008, 

[2] Manipur's debut in railway map may wipe out Yurembam, fear inhabitants
Source: The Sangai Express / Newmai News Network, The 9 July 2014

[3] “Damned Hearings of Tipaimukh High Dam”, by Jiten Yumnam, the Imphal Free Press  

[4] “Mapithel Dam and Militaristic Development”, by Jiten Yumnam, the Sangai Express

[5] “Nuances of Chakpi Dam Plan in Manipur”, Centre for Research and Advocacy, Manipur, March 2014

[6] New Nuisance: Manipur’s New Land Use Policy 2014, by Jiten Yumnam The Sangai Express, 22 July 2014

Manipur’s Ambiguous Farmland Defense Move

By Jiten Yumnam

mangangmacha@gmail.com

Two contrasting media reports in subsequent days in early July, 2014 provoke enough confusion in Manipur. In a strange and seemingly stirring from deep slumber to its senses, the media reports the ruling Congress party of the Manipur Government resolves to protect agriculture land[1], citing setting up of brick farms, residential areas, schools as key reasons for agriculture loss. Few organizations hastily applauded the decision. The decision already provokes wide interest for an agrarian state like Manipur, where nearly 70 percent of its people rely on agriculture for sustenance. Manipur’s agriculture has long been in a state of crisis for long, its land has been shrinking alarmingly in recent decades and an industrial form of agriculture fast descends.    

No further details were elucidated except for the intent expressed to save agriculture land. All’s fine till the next day when denizens of Yurembam village in suburb of Imphal Town expressed strong objection to fresh move to acquire their village land for construction of rail tracks and a Station for the Trans Asian Railway passing through Manipur. The village already lost substantial tract of their prime agricultural land for setting up the high voltage power transmission and distribution lines of Power Grid Corporation of India with funding from the World Bank and for expansion of the Yurembam Power Sub Station. The village literally is on the verge of extinction[2].

One wonders whether the recent decision of ruling party is reasons rife for rejoice? And whether there’s comprehensive introspection of reasons for loss of agriculture land or threats to sustainable agriculture in Manipur? Will such decision led to food sovereignty or sustainable agriculture in Manipur, as also outlined in the draft Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for the Post 2015 development agenda. One also wonder if the decision will undo development injustice in Manipur. One obviously needs to dwell into hard realities to find lucid answers.

For long, Manipur manages agriculture without a comprehensive policy to protect agriculture land. Adhocism rules the roost as agriculture land continues to be conscripted one after another amidst growing public resentment. Peoples’ resistance against farmland acquisition without their consent, in the setting up of National Institute of Technology at Lamphelpat and at Kyamgei and the expansion of Imphal Airport and proposed expansion of Manipur University, setting of Manipur industrial centre at Chingarel etc are still fresh in peoples’ memories[3]. Much of Manipur’s prime agriculture land is also lost due to accommodate extensive deployment of Indian armed forces under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958 to subdue insurgent groups seeking self determination of Manipur.

Will there be a rethinking of the development process and rescinding of destructive and unsustainable policies with the move to defend agriculture land? Or will it be just an expression of intent devoid of practicalities. The development record of government of Manipur is heavily laden with injustice, disrespect of peoples’ rights over their land, their right to participate in development decision making and also brute use of force. Will it also rethink certain development process, such as 105 MW Loktak HEP project, to return the 83,000 acres of prime agriculture land, submerged by the mega dam project? Will it also consider abandoning the Tipaimukh dam project which will submerge nearly 30,000 hectares of forest and fertile agriculture land along the Barak River and its tributaries in Tamenglong and Churachandpur Districts? Will the decision led to saving more than 1000 hectares of agriculture land in Mapithel Valley to be submerged by Mapithel dam? The proposed Chakpi dam will submerge more than 3000 hectares, most of which will be prime agriculture land along the Chakpi River in Chandel District of Manipur.

The decision of the Government of Manipur comes at an interesting phase of Manipur’s history, already in the centre of large scale Trans Asian development initiatives and larger international policies. The Trans Asian Railway, the Trans Asian Highway and the 400 KW High Voltage Transmission lines are both part of the larger strategy to economically connect Asian sub regions and to foster trade between countries in South Asian and South East Asia, the process being facilitated by several economically powerful countries like Japan through its Japanese Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) and several Multilateral banks, primarily the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. With countries like India and Thailand supporting such master plans through their Look East Policies and Look West Policies, Manipur and other parts of India’s North East confronts development onslaught of multinational corporations and intrusion of international financial institutions, conscripting agriculture land in the subsequent industrialization and infrastructure development processes. Neither its people nor its land and resources are involved in definition of such development priorities but rather subjected them for exploitation in all forms to advance their interest and priorities. These infrastructures will only facilitate dumping of cheap agricultural produces from across borders and destroying indigenous agriculture.

Manipur also saw aggressive corporate expansionism with several policies formed to facilitate such processes. The Manipur Loktak Lake Protection Act, 2006, the Manipur Tourism Policy, 2011 and also the Manipur Hydroelectric Power Policy, 2012 etc all favour privatisation and corporatization of peoples land and resources, all of which will require substantial acquisition of agricultural land forcibly and evicting communities. There’s ongoing process to introduce the New Land Use Policy (NLUP), 2014 to facilitate privatisation and commodification of communities’ land and resources. Several farmers’ bodies already opposed the 6^th amendment Bill of Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms recently passed in the 7^th session of the 10^th Legislative Assembly in March 2014, for favouring the rich and wealthy[4].  

Development injustice has strongly been pursued in forced confiscation of peoples land and eviction of small scale farmers. Conscription of agriculture land with state militarism and justice denial can never be sustainable and just development. Further, the police personnel involved in unleashing brutalities on communities asserting defense of their agriculture land as in the case of Mapithel Dam, Khuga Dam, Loktak Eviction etc faces no trial and hence justice remains denied to them.  

One also needs to reflect as to the objective and purpose of protecting agriculture land. This question finds much relevance given the high inputs to agriculture and as farmers increasingly finds it difficult to sustain their agricultural activities. One need to introspect what additional factors threatens Manipur’s agriculture, such as the promulgation of subsidy oriented policies such as National Food Security Act, 2012 and its inconsiderate application in Manipur with enormous potential to destroy indigenous agriculture with dumping of cheap and chemical laden food grain from outside Manipur. Moreover, multinational corporations aggressively promoted their agricultural products ranging from high yielding seeds, chemicals, pesticides, herbicides etc, which will eventually destroy indigenous agriculture, subjecting small scale farmers fully dependent on chemical laden and high capital intensive forms of agriculture. This will render farming impossible for impoverished and marginal farmers. There’s also wide impact of free trade agreement signed by the Government of India with South East Asian countries on agriculture in Manipur. Cheap agriculture products from Myanmar, Thailand and China already destroyed production of seasonal indigenous crops of Manipur[5].  

For the Manipur Government, which has long ceased to think for itself, can it really oppose or obstruct the larger dominant paradigm or liberalization of agriculture and subsequent impacts on small scale and marginal farmers? Agriculture in India has landed in further crisis after wide reforms in the after math of the neo-liberal policies of 1991. Decline in the public investment, shrinking public extension services and contraction of institutional credit availability in rural areas after 1991 policy reforms has led to widespread agrarian crisis. The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Act, 2003 has been amended to facilitate setting up private markets, allowing contract farming and legalizing direct purchase from farmers. Multinational companies gained spaces in procurement, wholesale trade and retailing, much to the detriment of small scale farmers. Defense of agricultural land need rethinking the capitalist led development, dominant development model based on profits for private parties, which undermines sustainable agriculture. One wonders if the Government of Manipur will embark on this at a time when it is deeply encouraging corporate agriculture.

The reality today is the unregulated corporate expansionism under imperialist globalization is the biggest threat to sustainable agriculture in Manipur? The Government need be sensitive to such external challenges and threats to agriculture in Manipur, both in the hills and plains, including due to climate change. Further, also to understand the grievances of small scale farmers, which have limited state support for their agriculture activities, such as purchase of farm equipments, irrigation facilities and crop insurance etc. Without challenging the larger unsustainable development models and all threats to sustainable agriculture, a mere defense of agriculture land will simply be irrational?

One also wonder if there will there be reconsideration of the Policies like Manipur Tourism Policy 2011 and Manipur Hydroelectric Power Policy and other legislations that will destroy farmland and restrict community’s access to community land. Especially, the Manipur Tourism policy stipulated creating land banks and to simplify all necessary environmental, social, forest clearances for those that can accord maximum investments.  The other policy will submerge vast prime agriculture land.

Again, will there be real defense of agriculture land in Manipur? And for whom will they be defended? Will it be for the people or for the State functionaries or for the Multinational Corporations? What should be the process to defend? Can such process be defined exclusively by the State without involving communities who very much depends on their land for survival? The call for protection of agriculture land comes also at a time when wetlands are destroyed, with massive urbanization and for pursuance of unregulated industrial activities.

One also wonders what will be considered as agricultural land and whether it will be confined to only permanent cultivable land. Manipur has different categories of agriculture land, depending on the terrain and geography, in the plains, wetlands, hills and in the forest with different agricultural practice. The protection of agricultural land in Manipur should also entail protection of wetlands, forest land and those areas with possibility for permanent cultivation. And here it is highly crucial to ensure involvement of all different communities of Manipur practising different types and forms of agriculture practices and to acknowledge their pattern of land ownership and agriculture practices, to acknowledge and accept best practices and ways to protect agricultural land in different terrains. 

What kind of exception clause will be outlined, if ever there’s a policy for agriculture land protection?  With “Eminent Domain” concept ruling supreme and with legislations like the Manipur Land Registration and Reform Act, 1960, whose provisions are in line with the British colonial land act, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, still allowing State to forcibly acquire peoples’ land for ‘public’ purpose, one wonders how the Manipur Government will ensure protection of communities rights.

The Government of Manipur should consider a comprehensive agriculture policy which recognize communities’ rights over their land and recognize their right to free, prior and informed consent before introducing any initiative or development projects that will undermine their rights or relationship with their land. It is highly crucial to perceive the importance and intrinsic relationship of communities with their land. A holistic policy to protect agriculture land, wetlands, forest of Manipur should be framed in due consultation with communities. Reviewing and changing development processes or policies detrimental in sustainable agriculture of Manipur is urgently required. Protection of agriculture land cannot and simply work in isolation less there’s a concerted effort both to understand and to respond to the larger forces, which already threatened the socio- economic, political and cultural values of Manipur. A serious endeavour to ensure agriculture sector remains a viable survival option is very much crucial. Protection of agricultural land should be an essential and key component of promoting just and sustainable development in Manipur. A mere intent to protect agriculture land will mean nothing till a holistic approach is adopted for agriculture. 

---

[1] “CLP bats for saving Agriculture Land”, 10 July 2014, the Sangai Express

[2] Manipur's debut in railway map may wipe out Yurembam, fear inhabitants
Source: The Sangai Express / Newmai News Network, The 9 July 2014

[3] Developmental challenges : Airport & University expansion, The Sangai Express, 11 May 2008, http://e-pao.net/epSubPageExtractor.asp?src=news_section.opinions.Politics_and_Governance.Developmental_challenges_Airport_Univ_expansion 

[4] Farmers` body opposes Manipur Land revenue and Land reforms 6th amendment Bill 2014

The Imphal Free Press, March 3, 2014,  http://kanglaonline.com/2014/03/farmers-body-opposes-manipur-land-revenue-and-land-reforms-6th-amendment-bill-2014/  

[5] “Banned food items from Myanmar still sold”,  The Peoples Chronicle,  3 August 2013 

Manipur’s Development Debacle in Post 2015 Context

By Jiten Yumnam

Hectic negotiation marks the ongoing efforts to replace the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) with Sustainable Development Goals in a post 2015 development agenda definition process, with the developed, developing and least developed countries aggressively pursuing their interest. One wonders if the re-definition of current development discourse in the post 2015 will ever led to a rethinking of the current development model and processes pursued across Manipur and other parts of India’s North East. For instance, will there be a rethinking into the proposed plans to built colossal mega dams all across the rivers of Manipur and other rivers in the region for a more sustainable and alternative options? Or will there be a rethinking in introducing other extractive industries and other large infrastructure projects that will destroy the rich biodiversity, flora and fauna of the region with serious implications for indigenous communities inhabiting the state and across region. Will the new SDGs led to more involvement of communities in defining development priorities and processes?

The outcome document of the Rio+20 global Summit on Environment and Development held at Rio De Janiero in June 2012 sets the momentum towards defining Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The limitations of the MDGs in terms of content and also its definition processes further provided impetus for SDGs. As diplomatic efforts and intensive negotiations among different stakeholders unfold, there’s clearly an obvious reality, of overwhelming focus on privatization of development, to entrust and legitimize corporate bodies’ role and involvement in all development processes throughout. Other pressing decision making process on key development challenges such as UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which gears up for a significant  decision by 2015 year end also witnessed delegating maximum responsibilities to private sector development processes with limited or extremely weak accountability mechanisms. Hopes fades fast as one perceives the pattern of decisions shaped in defining SDGs primarily at the UN HQs.

The current discourse is already marked by refusal of many States of UN to refer to the term “human rights based approach to development” or HRBA in defining sustainable development goals.  The overt emphasis on private sector led growth as the ultimate model of development in the Mexico High Level Meeting (HLM) of the Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC) and as also visible in the post Rio+20 processes without establishing a clear set of rules for accountability and respect of human rights of communities already provoked wide condemnations from CSOs and will only contribute in deepening inequality and human rights violations all over.  

The international discourse is strongly experienced in Manipur too, of increased effort to privatize people’s land and their survival sources in the name of development and clear cut refusal to uphold indigenous peoples’ rights. Manipur witnessed series of development policies formed in the last decade, interestingly in the last few years, to promote corporatization and privatization of community resources and commodification of peoples live and future, such as the Manipur Loktak Lake Protection Act, 2006, the Manipur Tourism Policy, 2011 and the most recent controversy is the Manipur Hydroelectric Power Policy 2012 and the New Land Use Policy, 2014.        

One also wonders if there can ever be just and sustainable development when corporate bodies, which only prioritize on profits, led such kind of development, especially at this time of multiple global crisis? Given the aggressive pursuance of policy deregulation towards corporatization of communities land and resources with militarism, the simplification of processes to seek such approval (single window clearances) and exclusion of community voices and space to air in their grievances and alternatives, one wonders if this will lead to sustainable development in Manipur. One wonder if emphasis on colossal projects in Manipur such as mining, mega dams etc, that will entail massive impacts be considered as sustainable and be pursued as key components of SDGs.

Manipur today witnessed increased intrusion of multinational companies both from developed and developing countries, whichever has the best capacity to loot, destroy, burn and ruin communities land, resources, their lives and future. In the case of ongoing process to drill and explore oil and natural gas in Manipur, oil companies and the State unleashed both misinformation and denial of information. There is serious accountability issue with the oil company, Jubilant Energy and Oil and Gas Corporation of India, as both failed to take the free, prior and informed consent of communities who depend on their land for survival. Rather there’s bribery of community leaders and manipulation of traditional decision making process, which creates confusions within and among communities.   

In India’s NE, the definition of development priorities continues to be defined by International Financial Institutions with State facilitation, which promoted enabling environment for private sector/business rather than communities in an atmosphere of exclusivity and lack of transparency and accountability. Such process lacks a full scale impact appraisal, denial of information, misinformation, upsetting the fragile ecological integrity and destroying cultures. The adherence to human rights standards, such as, UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples, 2007, is absent. In India’s North East alone, more than 200 mega dams are being pursued with several constructed in Brahmaputra-Barak River Basin. These dams have already threatened indigenous farming in India’s North East States by submerging vast tract of agriculture land, wetlands and forest[1]. And with lack of accountability of most of the corporate bodies involved in large scale destructive development, such as the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC) in the case of destruction of Loktak Wetlands by its 105 MW Loktak Project, one wonders if there ever will be development justice in Manipur? A development justice, which places people – that is the majority poor and the marginalized – at the front and centre of development as the primary agents and subjects of change. A development justice, where development process is designed and adapted in response to the aspirations of the people and their available resources, and not imposed by technocrats and so-called high-level experts for all time and for all peoples.  

There is no difference between the way how decisions are made on development processes, for specific development projects and policies introduced at the local context. The trend of development introduced in Manipur and across North East India is now a serious matter of alarm and concern. The focus of the region in global economic development, mostly to foster trade and development between South Asia and South East Asia through construction of gigantic highways, railways and other mega infrastructure projects along with promotion of extractive industries and big mega dams targeting the rich natural resources in the region will intensify social, environmental, cultural, health impacts and complicates the already worse human rights violations records in the region. Already, the Trans Asian Highway project and the High Transmission and Distribution Lines with Asian Development Bank and World Bank respectively and passing through Manipur had already displaced several communities from their agriculture and residential land areas. One wonders if the development decision making process in Manipur and across India’s North East works exclusively to the international decision making processes and other advances in development rights regime. There’s a strong disconnect. Marginalized communities most affected by such exclusive process will continue to be impacted, impoverished and pauperized. How can such development process bereft of taking communities into consent be considered sustainable and just? Development fostered under the current development architecture has already ruined lives, destroyed futures of many indigenous communities, displaced fisher folks, small scale farmers and women from their survival sources not only in Manipur, but also across communities worldwide.

One may also ponder if long standing complaints of affected communities to listen to the inconvenience and violations by those projects are ever listened to and considered for necessary action. There are even cases of community members including women killed, assaulted and threatened for demanding just development, for fair rehabilitation and resettlement, for review of destructive projects, for calling for rightful space to air in calls for alternatives and impact assessments. Three people affected by Khuga dam lost their lives in police firing in December 2005. In 2008, Ms. Lungmila of Louphoung Village affected by Mapithel dam in Manipur remain paralyzed after hit by tear gas canister fired by personnel of Indian Reserve Battalion[2]. How can development process which involves taking lives of communities and militarizing their land for asserting their legitimate rights be considered as sustainable and just development?

Given the indications of exclusion of community representatives, stakeholders in the officials decision making process in defining sustainable development goals in the ongoing post 2015 processes in the UN HQ has already led to widespread condemnations. The process, now solely confined for participation and decision among the member States of the United Nations is already arbitrary, exclusive and undermines international advances on just development, to ensure participation of communities and other stakeholders and also undermines the very spirit and outcome of the Earth Summit in 1992 and also the Rio+20 summit in June 2012.

There are several countries, from both developed and developing countries which seriously positioned to exclude civil societies and representatives of communities from the official decision making on defining SDGs and further to curtail mentioning “Human Rights” or even “Rights” for that matter[3]. There are even countries that refuse to acknowledge that ‘land’ is life for many, but rather perceive it as yet another “productive resource” for corporate exploitation and expansionism. Developed countries are clear during negotiations, to protect and advance the interest of their corporate bodies and their intellectual property rights regime, the basic premise of their corporate operations to consolidate wealth and profits. One may ask whether the current efforts to find sustainable development goals will really be sustainable and helpful for the communities and nature, already subjected to multiple layers of deprivation, conflict and devastation of their lives.  Or will the process contribute at least in restoring the health of our mother earth and in ushering development justice for many communities victimized and marginalized by the dominant development discourse.

The need for a just development is increasingly felt all over the world with states insisting on consolidation of the dominant development model and paradigm. As organizations worldwide prepares to observe the global day of development justice on 21st July to remind ourselves of the development injustice and the multiple impacts on marginalized and impoverished communities in deep corners of our earth, it is high time to remind ourselves if whether the current development process in Manipur actually serves the needs and also compatible to the wishes and aspirations of communities. Or whether it serves the interest and needs of only multinational corporate bodies and those in the State that actively support them.  Pursuance of development aggression with intensified militarism will never lead to sustainable development, which actually is all about promoting communities intrinsic rights and democratic decision making processes. For indigenous peoples, recognizing their inherent rights over their land and resources and respecting their right to free, prior and informed consent for any development decision making in their land and territories is key for sustainable development in their land.  

Promoting human rights based approach to development, fostering a community led development initiatives, promoting rightful participation, transparency and accountability will be crucial to foster development justice in Manipur. A significant step to promote development justice is to rethink all development processes for its compatibility to standards of human rights based approach to development. Reviewing policies detrimental to the rights of communities and to environmental integrity, and if necessary to repeal, such as Hydroelectric Power Policy, 2012, Manipur Loktak Lake Protection Act, 2006, Manipur tourism policy, Manipur Industrial policy etc, India’s PPP policy etc, Manipur Land Use Policy etc is fundamentally crucial.    

Development justice can be best ensured if development processes is rooted in the wishes and aspirations of communities and in promoting health and sustenance of our mother earth. A significant consideration of whose development, who defines and who benefits need be seriously explored. Any development process negating human rights and inconsiderate of the human rights based approach to development will only led to multilayered conflict and confusion and will only reinforce development injustice. Fostering a development process that respect indigenous peoples right to freely assert their self determined development is extremely important to secure development justice in Manipur and beyond. It is high time to advance Development Justice – a transformative development framework that aims to reduce inequalities of wealth, power, and resources between rich and poor, between men and women and between countries. The larger process of defining the Sustainable Developments Goals in the post 2015 process also need be sensitive to the realities of deprivation and inequality prevailing among the most marginalized and the violations within perpetuated by State, Corporate bodies, military and other powerful development actors, as in the case of Manipur and also be sensitive to their voice, aspirations as expressed in their concerted struggles for change and justice.          

---

[1] An Assessment of Dams in India’s NE seeking Carbon Credits under CDM of UNFCCC by Jiten Yumnam published by the International Rivers, USA, March 2012

http://www.internationalrivers.org/resources/an-assessment-of-dams-in-ne-india-seeking-carbon-credits-from-clean-development-mechanism

[2] Mapithel Dam and Endless Violations, by Jiten Yumnam, Imphal Free press, October 28, 2012   

[3] “OWG proposals risk sidelining consensus on human rights-centered sustainable development” CESR STATEMENT,  http://www.cesr.org/article.php?id=1564