This volume invites the reader to a journey through some narratives of development projects in India and elsewhere. These are projects that have displaced people forcibly to gain the ‘right of way’ for major infrastructural construction, and in the process, have dramatically affected and changed the lives of many people. Unfortunately, in more cases than we can count, these changes in the ‘affected peoples’ lives were not for the better. The ‘stories’ reported in this volume are genuine and factual, based on empirical research and analysis.

The book's co-authors are scholars and researchers from different countries. The case studies they wrote for this book will take the reader to several continents—first to India itself, but also to other Asian countries such as China, Bangladesh and Pakistan, as well as to Africa, particularly to Ethiopia, Zambia and central Africa, and even to Europe, in France. In addition, the book's theoretical chapters rely on statistics from many other countries, since development-caused displacement is now a universal phenomenon. Facts alone, however, are not sufficient without analysis and conceptualisation. Therefore, in dealing with the empirical material, the present volume promotes a comparative approach and employs analytical models for interpreting its data.

The organisation of book is structured along three distinct thematic parts. The first addresses theoretical issues in development-induced displacement and resettlement (henceforth DIDR). The [Page xxii]second part is devoted to a group of studies on India. The third section of the volume brings research testimonies from many other countries, mainly in Asia and Africa. The contributors and the editor have worked together to provide the reader, not simply with a compilation of studies but with an integrated set of contributions which commonly share some fundamental ideas.

The magnitude of forced displacement is huge. It also is growing. Our contributors emphasise both the worldwide dimensions of development-caused displacement and the need for comparative approaches for studying their similarities and differences in deriving theoretical generalisations. As Michael M. Cernea's chapter emphasises:

The contributors highlight the fact that experiences of displacement and resettlement are comparable across countries regardless of their location.

Precisely because our volume offers the reader primary data in a comparative perspective, it becomes possible to starkly reveal the single most important feature underlying population displacement caused by development projects: this feature is the constant presence of ‘impoverishment risks’, and the loss of assets, incomes and livelihoods, including impacts on cultural heritage and identity. The volume also inquires into the reconstruction and survival strategies of those displaced from a gendered perspective.

The authors of individual chapters in this book come from different social disciplines but, collectively and individually, they take a pluri-disciplinary perspective, seeking to draw on concepts and arguments relevant to Resettlement and Rehabilitation (R&R) that come from various disciplines. The chapters do not compel [Page xxiii]closure through a dominant framework from any discipline. The queries raised are numerous, varied and interlinked. This collective research endeavour seeks to explore various facets of internal displacement and the impacts of mega developmental projects (dams, roads, parks) on the lives of internally displaced persons (IDPs) because of development or conservation. This also explores people's coping strategies, the transformatory potential of sound resettlement with reconstruction, land tenure, social relations and access to infrastructure. What is compelling is the resulting overall narrative, relying on a documentation that includes, but is not limited to, the personal narratives of those displaced.

The authors have sought to find and describe results that indicate good practices and enhance the understanding of the consequences of adequate or inadequate relocation in a comparative perspective. Some of the research chapters (for example, on the Bhakra Nangal, Kariba, Sardar Sarovar Project, this volume) add to the surveys undertaken so far on those cases. Others highlight how the political economies of growth in various parts of the world have often resulted in inequality and conflict between those displaced and the state (see Bharali, Sharma, Shekhawat, Padovani, Faure, this volume).

State-led displacement, with its pauperisation and violations of IDPs' human rights, have been a dominant theme of academic research during the prior and current decades, that is increasingly reorienting itself towards the economic premises and consequences of forced displacement. Several contributors have relied in their work on the theoretical framework formulated by Michael M. Cernea: the ‘Impoverishment Risks and Reconstruction (IRR) Model’, which has been widely embraced and employed by research in India and elsewhere. Scholars have used this model in order to understand the multidimensional processes that set in the post-displacement phase and invariably result in landlessness, joblessness, homelessness, marginalisation, food insecurity, increased morbidity and mortality, loss of access to common property resources and community disarticulation. ‘Impoverishment is a syncretic and multidimensional process. The model first deconstructs it into its eight fundamental components listed above. Reconstruction then is a reversal of the impoverishment and can be understood and accomplished along the same variables, considered in a holistic, integrated way’ (see Cernea and McDowell 2000: 11–55).

[Page xxiv]Answers are sought within the aforementioned IRR framework in various chapters in the book (see Dias, Faure, Khatun, Velath, Modi, Ravindran and Mahapatra, this volume). This research argues that despite growing awareness about social justice (due to the concerted efforts of mainly civil society movements and the adoption of R&R policies at the national and international levels), the distributional and gender impacts of development projects are not laudable. It argues that policy statements alone may not be a sufficient condition for alleviating the sufferings of those displaced and women in particular, as evident from the case studies from India and other parts of the world that are detailed in this book.

The book's second part has six field-based studies on various aspects of involuntary displacement in India. The book has an Indian bias for three specifc reasons: first, the book was drafted in India; second, the editor and several contributors, most of whom are Indian, are conversant with displacement issues in the Indian context; and finally, the debates and contestations on the subject are extremely vibrant in India. To a large extent, this is due to the exponential increase of development and displacement in India, as a result of the liberalisation policy, multiplication of infrastructural and extractive projects, and of increased investments by transnational corporations. Millions of displaced persons have become impoverished.

India also is the country of much active civil society protests against forced displacements and impoverishment, mobilised by multiple civil society organisations. Forcible acquisition of land and the violent resistance, most notably against the special economic zones (SEZs), has stirred up intense debates engaging strata of the population that are not themselves affected by such displacements, but get involved in resistance from a human rights perspective.

Data meticulously compiled by a group of Indian researchers who gathered information on a state-by-state basis show that of the vast majority of India's over 60 million oustees, about three quarters have not been rehabilitated and became worse off after displacement (see Fernandes, this volume).

This is a dramatic statistic. It shows how much pain has been inflicted on thousands of project-affected households, and how much ruin and destitution development projects have caused for scores of millions. These projects should have uplifted poor people from their chronic state of poverty, and enabled them to gain [Page xxv]access to a better livelihood, as development discourses claim. In practice, however, the foundation of these people's existence has been dismantled, and those responsible for this state of affairs sidestepped their economic, political and ethical responsibility to at least reconstruct the social, economic and cultural lives of those relocated.

India's civil society and primarily the project-affected persons are unanimous in thinking and stating that a major villain responsible for disastrous development in India is the archaic Land Acquisition Act (LAA) of 1894. This law, drafted under colonial conditions, remains on the statue books in today's post-independence jurisprudence, despite the alternation over time in the national government of virtually all major political parties. Even more, the destructive effects of this outdated law have been worsened by the amendment made to it in 1984. At that time, the government's power of ‘eminent domain’, the legal doctrine used by the state for the compulsory expropriation under the excuse of ‘national interest’, was in fact expanded instead of being restrained by democratic considerations regarding people's civil and economic rights. That unfortunate amendment extended the eminent domain principle beyond the limits put on it even by its framers.1 It gave authority to state agencies to use the sword of eminent domain to cut access to farming lands, pastures, trees, and so on from their small owners, and to hand over these lands to private sector corporations for their projects geared solely towards profiteering.

Based on this extension that distorts the eminent domain principle, the pace of land acquisition and concomitant displacement has increased manifold. However, dispossessing people of their agricultural lands, homesteads and other immobile assets is unacceptable. It is less and less tolerated by the public at large. Our volume argues that the eminent domain principle should not be regarded as holy and intangible, or as an unmovable principle. On the contrary, philosophers, legal specialists and social scientists increasingly argue that this principle is not justified in law or in ethics (see Velath, this volume).

The militant demonstrations against development projects are not a new phenomenon in the country, particularly after the developments in the Narmada valley in the 1990s which have changed the DIDR scene. The anti-dam struggles of the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) against the Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) in [Page xxvi]Gujarat brought the issue of forced relocation into the public realm and raised awareness on the subject. The reactions to the blatant violation of the basic human rights of those displaced, mainly the right to livelihood, access to common property resources (CPRs) and the right to habitat, have become more audible and violent in the recent past. The potential victims of state-led displacements for infrastructure projects (see Bharali, this volume) and SEZs are no longer mute spectators. The loud protests have resulted in serious rethinking on the subject of development and displacement and on the rights of the victims of development. However, what is of concern is that those dislodged lack adequate protection under the national and international laws.

Since 2006, the recent protest movements against SEZs in India have stirred a nationwide debate on the rights of displaced persons. These indicate that counter-trends are at work and getting stronger. For the past few decades, social activists have been trying to impress upon decision-makers that it is the government's fundamental duty to properly resettle and rehabilitate the displaced population. The state has been compelled to acknowledge that there are three players in the process of development: the state, the developer and the displaced/to-be displaced. There is now at least an acknowledgement by the state, albeit reluctantly, that development-induced displacees are stakeholders in the development process. But this recognition in discourse is not matched by actions in law, in resource and in benefits sharing. The oustees indeed are stakeholders entitled to a better share and improvement in welfare, and should be recognised as such in practice, not in discourse alone.

On 9 January 2007, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stated that a national rehabilitation policy was on the anvil and that would be ‘progressive, humane and conducive to the long term welfare of all the stakeholders’.2 He added, ‘Industrial development is not a zero sum game. It can be a win-win process for all the sections of society’.3 On 31 October of that year, the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy (NRRP), formulated earlier, was finally notified and gazetted by the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD). However, this policy failed to address the critical issue: forcible acquisition of land through the ‘eminent domain’ of the state and the resulting landlessness and impoverishment. The civil society activists also logically pointed out that an R&R policy, [Page xxvii]applicable in the entire country, should have been in place prior to the SEZ Act of 2005 that entails colossal displacement.

Civil society activists have acknowledged that the formulation of the long pending national R&R policy is a positive step but have forewarned the government about its shortcomings. In fact, the people's movement has firmly opposed the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill and the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill, which were presented to the Parliament by the MoRD for approval in December 2007. The Land Acquisition Act, a colonial legacy, is being amended to include the private and corporate acquisition of land into the category of ‘public purpose’! Further, the amendments do not provide for a participatory approach but allow land to be acquired without the consent of the local Gram Sabhas and Ward Sabhas. It also includes an emergency clause that would allow property to be acquired within 48 hours! Based on the above-stated objections, the civil society organisations have demanded that the Land Acquisition Act be repealed. The R&R Bill of 2007 has been criticised and considered inadequate since it does not guarantee ‘land for land’ or an alternative livelihood that will maintain, if not improve, their living standards at the pre-displacement level.

There is a general consensus among the non-state actors that any R&R policy which has the potential of rebuilding the lives of those affected can be assessed in terms of five critical parameters. These are (i) has the policy genuinely considered a change in design of the project so that the least amount of displacement could occur? (ii) is the definition of the project-affected persons (PAPs) category comprehensive enough to cover all the types of displaced persons? (iii) is the rehabilitation package enough to provide a livelihood at the pre-project level? (iv) is the process of decision making participatory (that is, engaging the stakeholders) and does it allow the aggrieved party a fair judicial process to demand an adequate recompense? (v) and is the R&R policy binding on the project-implementing authorities and justiciable? These parameters call for an R&R policy based on human rights and enhancing livelihood.

The common theme that underlines all the chapters in this compendium is that DIDR inevitably results in the violation of human rights. The approach towards its remedy should incorporate both the assessment of ‘risks’ and the ‘recognition of rights’. Intensive field studies reflect the economic impacts and the multi-dimensional [Page xxviii]impoverishment caused among those uprooted. The findings in the research papers validate the general thesis spelt out by the conceptual apparatus of the IRR model. They conclude that the loss of commons, forests and rivers, which were an integral part of the lives of indigenous families, had an adverse impact on the reconstruction of livelihoods. As in the case of Sardar Sarovar, Bhakra Dam, Kariba and the Three Gorges, relocation to some of the resettlement sites with poor quality land (that is, water logged, lacking access to water, and so on) as well as the forced survival of the tribal populace in a market-based economy, has led to the spiraling downward of livelihood standards.

Though the bulk of the reportage in the volume focuses on the downside of displacement and relocation, it also tries to explore the strategies for the ‘reconstruction’ aspect of the IRR model. To illustrate, extended families and rehabilitation of extended kin networks on contiguous plots has prevented impoverishment at the Sardar Sarovar resettlement sites (see Modi, this volume). Yet another example of the restorative aspect of the IRR framework is the provisions for annual payments of 600 yuan (US$ 75) per farmer displaced as a result of hydroprojects between 1949 and 2006 in China. The annual payments over the next two decades—from 2006 to 2026—will enable these people to rebuild their livelihoods. In addition, research-based chapters in this compendium demonstrate the shortcomings and draw lessons on the implementation of infrastructural development projects. They reinforce the concept that high quality empirical data is essential for avoiding poor R&R planning. They argue that adequate mitigation measures built into project planning, ‘benefit sharing’ and good policies complemented with satisfactory implementation can reverse the ‘impoverishment risks’ and help restore incomes and rebuild social lives, after displacement (see Cernea, this volume).

Set against the above background, the volume's chapters are grouped in three main parts. The contributors—policy-makers, practitioners and civil society activists who have worked on this subject for decades have been able to generate original data from their field experiences and contribute to this volume. The chapters are cross-referenced to enable the reader to know about the comparable cases in the book.

The third and final part of the book is devoted to international experiences on displacement and resettlement, mainly in Asia and [Page xxix]Africa. Although the studies are located far apart in terms of the temporal and spatial contexts, what is significant is the fact that there are striking commonalities in the states' procedures and practices on development and displacement. The result of uprootedness worldwide is also invariably the degeneration of the socio-economic standards of those affected. Yet another concurrence in all the countries under review is the predominance of the principle of the ‘eminent domain’ and (except China) the lack of appropriate national laws and policies that could lead to an improved DIDR and thereby restore the incomes, social and cultural capitals of those displaced.

In the developing world, mainly in Asia and Africa, there is an unstated assumption that the outcome of displacement and the lack of a rights-based approach to R&R is mainly due to a paucity of funds. But the retroactive case study on France is an eye-opener for researchers on the subject, as the impact of displacement and the consequent effects of dislocation in France are no different from that in developing countries.

The studies undertaken in this book have heuristic value, for project planning, funding and implementing bodies, researchers and academics studying development-led displacement in view of the fact that there are numerous infrastructural projects underway in various parts of the world currently which are grappling with several unresolved social issues in the discourse on development and dislodgement. To look beyond relocation is the imperative of sustainable resettlement.

More detailed introductory remarks to each of the book's studies are contained in the Editor's ‘Introduction’ to each of the volume's three parts. The editor and the authors invite the book's readers to engage them further, with comments and questions that the contributors will be happy to respond to.