India Culture, Business, Sports and Food. Get all the buzz in India now

Fateh Lal Bapu is dead. His baithak near the Shreenathji temple in Nathdwara, Rajasthan, has also wound up. The younger generation, be it devotees or residents, have no clue of the bloody scenes this temple town witnessed in 1987. It all began when Ganesh Lal Mali, a former MP, escorted Keyur Bhusan of the Akhil Bharatiya Harijan Sevak Sangh for Darshan at the Vaishnav temple. Later, as they sat and sipped tea at Bapu’s baithak, a crowd swelled and demanded that Bhusan be handed over. His sin: being a lower caste, his entry had polluted the house of the Vaishnav Lord. Bapu swore to protect his ‘guest’ with his life. While threatening to set his baithak on fire, a mob tore Mali’s clothes and nearly killed Bhusan. Bhagwati Prasad Deopura is among the few who witnessed the bloody caste battle. He rewinds 20 years and he spits venom, blaming ‘outsiders‘ for ‘disturbing the peace’ in Nathdwara. In other words, for making Dalits aware of their constitutional rights. Deopura is among those who continue an anti-English campaign. Given his stiff resistance, English newspapers and literature are not allowed in Nathdwara. The Sahitya Mandal, of which Deopura is ‘Pradhan Mantri’ organizes an ‘Angrezi Hatao Diwas” (Ban English Day) every year. As far as the Dalits are concerned, Deopura, like most people here, would turn a blind eye to a ‘quiet entry’. But a ‘declared’ Dalit would have to face the consequences: “Joote parenge.” (They will be clobbered with shoes), says Deopura. It is, therefore, all about silence. Sneak in quietly and even if you are noticed, no one will bother you; declare your identity and you are asking for trouble. The influx of ‘outsiders’ has blurred caste identities. With thousands thronging the temple daily, it is impossible to identify a Dalit from one who is not. The problem, however, is faced by the lower caste locals who cannot venture anywhere near the temple, for fear of inviting the wrath of the high castes. A vermilion-smeared Vaishnavite, for instance, has no qualms about hollering “Harijan!” to a sweeper if he wants a job done. Sip tea with an educated shopkeeper and he will ask you to throw the kulhad (earthen cup) on the street: “Harijan le jayega” (a Dalit will pick it up), he says brazenly. In the 80s, Dalits had to go as far as Udaipur for a haircut because the barbers [...]

Two important Bills pending in Parliament seek to amend the Land Acquisition (LA) Act, and to give statutory authority for the first time to the rehabilitation and resettlement (RR) policy, itself revised on the basis of experience since the first RR policy of 2004. Will these twin Bills succeed in staving off further Nandigrams by securing greater justice for farmers and other displaced persons, while expediting at the same time the land acquisition of land for development projects? The two Bills contain several far-reaching improvements. They broaden the definition of persons whose rights must be considered when land is being acquired, to include tenants, formal and informal, and to tribals with traditional rights over forest land. They require social impact assessments to be carried out according to procedures laid down in the new RR Act, which provides for consultation with the project affected families themselves, leading to the preparation of a transparent, publicly available RR plan and survey of affected families, within three months of a land acquisition notification. The LA Bill shortens the permissible time over which land acquisition procedures must take place. Disputes are removed from the jurisdiction of the civil courts, and entrusted to an ombudsman and special tribunals to expedite resolution. The most significant departure, perhaps, is that the LA Bill narrows the definition of ‘public purpose’, to land acquired for strategic and infrastructure development purposes, while removing ‘companies’ as direct beneficiaries. Companies will now be expected to acquire land themselves, through negotiated purchases from willing sellers, although the Bill allows government to step in, if it is in the public interest, to acquire the land of any ‘hold-outs’ once a company has aggregated 70% of the land required. This land will be acquired at the same rate as that of the negotiated purchases, which will ensure that it receives the market rate. In such cases the livelihood and RR entitlements of the landless, including labourers, artisans and others, will have to be met by the company. Where the project authorities or company cannot provide employment to landless affected persons, they will have to protect their previ0us income for two years. There are two important interconnected deficiencies in the Bills however. While , lip service is paid to the need to appraise projects by quantifying their socio-economic costs and benefits, no mechanism is included through which affected families, community organisations, and concerned citizens can do so, [...]