Indian companies are among the biggest land holders in the African country through deals concluded in dubious circumstances
“It is not a land-grab, it is a life-grab. It is daylight robbery. But
if we protest, if we speak the truth, we could end up in jail or worse.”
Obang Metho was referring to the leasing of land to foreign companies
in Ethiopia, spreading over nearly four million hectares. Nyikaw Ochalla
joined in: “This is happening in the lands I grew up in, and it is my
relatives and childhood friends who are being jailed, beaten up, and
driven out; my childhood memories are being violated.”
Metho of the Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia, and Ochalla of the
Anuak Survival Organisation were speaking at the “Indian-Ethiopian
Seminar on Land Investments” organised on February 5-6, 2013 in New
Delhi. The seminar was put together by Indian civil society groups
Indian Social Action Forum (Insaf), Popular Education and Action Centre
(Peace), and Kalpavriksh, the research institution Council for Social
Development, and the U.S.-based research group Oakland Institute.
Indian stakes
The stories narrated by Obang and Ochalla were harrowing. The lands
being leased by the Ethiopian government to companies from India, China,
Malaysia, and other countries, were claimed by it to be “empty.” In
actual fact these are areas occupied or used by pastoral and small
farming communities, as also grasslands and forests with significant
wildlife. Decisions are being taken in the country’s capital to give up
these lands ostensibly to help the country produce food and generate
revenues; the underlying message is that either there is no one there to
do the job, or that local communities are simply not up to the mark.
Indian companies are among the biggest players in the land deals, with
investments of over $5 billion, and leases over 6,00,000 hectares.
Karuturi Global, a Bangalore-based agroproduce company has alone
received 3,00,000 hectares. Claims by these companies and by the
Ethiopian government that the deals are legal and entail no human rights
violations, have been shown as false in a series of on-ground
investigations. The Oakland Institute has meticulously documented the
nexus of corporations, politicians, investors, and officials that has
made the land-grab possible. It notes that there is no public
consultation with local communities (much less their consent), many of
whom find out that their pastures or fields have been sold off only when
bulldozers arrive. Any form of resistance or even questioning is met
with imprisonment, beating up, and even killing. Both private security
companies and the Ethiopian government’s own forces are used to protect
the investors. And there is a total lack of environmental and social
impact assessments in these deals.
It is also stated sometimes that what Indian companies are doing abroad,
is not the responsibility of the government. But this ignores the
various ways in which the Indian government facilitates and supports
such deals, not only through diplomatic channels but also financially
(even if indirectly). For instance the Indian Export-Import Bank has
pledged $640 million of credit over five years for Ethiopia’s sugar
industry, and the fact that Indian companies are getting the biggest
deals for sugarcane plantations cannot be unconnected.
Mass displacement
Obang and Ochalla were careful to clarify that they were not against
India’s people, who they realised could not be supporting such
land-grab; however, for the affected communities, “it is Indians who are
doing this to us.” It is therefore important for groups here to
question the intentions and actions of Indian companies and the Indian
government agencies supporting them. Does their behaviour in Ethiopia
meet the laws or guidelines under which Indian companies act within
their own country? Does it meet international standards of human rights
and environmental sustainability that India is a signatory to?
Over the next couple of years, the Ethiopian government plans to
forcibly move 1.5 million people off their homelands and concentrate
them into a few settlements in a process called “villagisation.” It
claims that this will enable it to provide efficient and good quality
services like drinking water, sanitation, schools, and clinics, which is
not possible in the case of today’s scattered, small settlements. But
Obang and Ochalla point out that all the relocation is taking place from
lands targeted by investor companies, and that even where communities
are saying they would much rather stay where they are with whatever
amenities they have, they are being forcibly moved out.
The claim that such investments are a “win-win” deal for the Ethiopian
people and Indian companies is also questionable. Much of the production
(sugarcane, cotton, jatropha, etc) is meant for export, and local
foodgrains which are the staple diet are not being grown. Very little
local employment is created; there is no requirement by the Ethiopian
government that companies have to hire locally. Nor is there any
contractual clause by which the money generated is to remain within the
Ethiopian economy. A handful of businessmen and politicians are the
prime beneficiaries.
Obang and Ochalla were at pains to state that part of the blame for this
sell-out is located within the country’s own history, in which
sometimes adverse relations between different tribes have become
entrenched in the political system. The country’s ruling elite are from a
tiny minority belonging to one ethnic group, who can ignore the
sufferings of other groups affected by land-grab. In this sense, it is
the Ethiopian people themselves who have to resolve the problem. But
there is also an important role for India’s people, especially in
highlighting the role of their own companies and government, and
facilitating greater awareness of what is taking place in the name of
Ethiopia’s development.
Odisha parallel
What is happening in Ethiopia (and other African countries) is an
outcome of India’s own aggressive push towards globalised economic
growth. The growth fetish has led to situations of both internal and
external colonisation, in which farms, waterbodies, forests, grasslands
and other natural resources are all up for grabs.
It was an ironical coincidence that on the very days the consultations
on Indian land-grab in Ethiopia were taking place in New Delhi, police
action was under way to forcibly evict villagers in Odisha to make way
for the Korean multinational Posco. Representatives of movements from
Jharkhand, Karnataka and elsewhere told Obang and Ochalla that they were
facing similar repression while resisting forcible takeover by the
government or by corporations. The currently dominant model of
“development” is pushing such violence across the globe, wherever
dominant nation-states and giant corporations are eyeing land and
resources.
In such a situation, people in India who care for human rights,
ecological sustainability, and basic justice, have to raise fundamental
critiques of “development” and centralised governance, and work towards
radical alternatives that secure the rights of all people to food,
water, shelter, energy, learning, health and livelihoods. Such
alternatives are already demonstrated to be feasible at thousands of
sites across the world, but it requires a mindset change for both the
Ethiopian and Indian governments to facilitate the empowerment of local
communities to adopt them, rather than paving the way for corporate
takeover. Neither the founders of India nor of Ethiopia would have
dreamt of a future in which development takes place at gunpoint.
(Ashish Kothari is with Kalpavriksh, Pune.)
No comments:
Post a Comment