The recent statement by the Deputy Chief Minister of
Nagaland, T R Zeliang, to amend the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition)
Act, 1956, specially for National Highway projects to streamline land
acquisition processes and address compensation concerns need collective and
comprehensive deliberations. This announcement, as reported, came during a
project review meeting convened by Union Road Transport and Highways Minister, Nitin
Gadkari, in New Delhi on October 21, 2024 (‘Nagaland to amend land acquisition
laws for national highway projects’, Eastern Mirror, October 22, 2024). It
added, “the deputy CM, who also holds the National Highway and Planning &
Transformation portfolios, highlighted the unique challenges faced by Nagaland
due to its landholding system and the provisions of Article 371A of the Indian
Constitution” (as quoted, Ibid).
Earlier on October 31, 2023, the Union Minister of Road
Transport & Highways Nitin Gadkari told the Nagaland Government to come up
with a State Law within a couple of months to help resolve the land issues or
the Ministry would be compelled to de-scope the portion where there are land
issues and the National Highway would be compelled to hand over and converted
to State Government (‘Gadkari tells Nagaland to solve land issues else National
Highway projects will be handed to NPWD’, Nagaland Tribune, October 31, 2023).
Such undue pressure exerted by the Union government on the State government can
have deleterious consequences, undermining democratic principles of federalism
and compromising the voices of the people. This is because the dispute over
land acquisition and compensation persists as a contentious issue among
stakeholders, necessitating a comprehensive examination of its socio-economic
and political implications. The land acquisition and compensation conundrum in
Nagaland also represents a research gap, necessitating a systematic exploration
of its historical, cultural and economic, and political dimensions to inform
effective policy interventions and conflict resolution strategies. However, the
argument that the ‘unique’ landholding system in Nagaland and the provisions of
Art-371A hinders development in the state is flawed.
In the context of Nagaland, the ‘unique’ system of
landholdings – collective ownership or common property – instantiates forms of
relationship among members of a community. That is, control over land is
considered critical to identity by the tribals. Hence, losing land is equated
to losing identity vis-à-vis a threat to their culture. It is predicated on an
alternative relationship with land which is different from other societies of
India. In this regard, land as identity has forms which are stumbling blocks to
capital formation. In fact, land was a pivotal component, amongst other key
factors, driving the Naga movement for sovereignty beginning in 1946 which led
to the creation of a separate state on 1st December 1963. In effect, along with
the formation of a separate state, Article 371A was granted to Nagaland through
the Constitution (13th Amendment) Act 1962 which aims to protect cultural,
social, and economic practices of the Nagas and to ensure a significant degree
of autonomy in matters related to land and its resources.
However, research studies have pointed out the ambiguity of
the governing system maintained by the Government of India, whereby on the one
hand Article 371A clearly recognises customary laws in regard to land and
resources, whereas on the other hand, complete power is vested in the state
administration and judicial system which undermine and marginalised traditional
practices (Longkumar & Jamir, 2012, p. 15). Besides, these protective
mechanisms are not always effective for multiple reasons such as pressure on
people for defence projects like the Assam Rifle Headquarters, Jakhama where
the promised alternative livelihoods and other benefits remained unfulfilled
(Fernandes at. el., 2017, p. 180). In fact, militarisation and security
operations in Nagaland have contributed to the process of land alienation in
the name of ‘security’ and ‘development’ by setting up military camps in
strategic locations, taking away valuable community land (Longkumer &
Jamir, 2012, p. 16). Similarly, the Doyang Hydro Electric-Project resulted in
the weakening of community alternatives and increased the commercial value of
land (Fernandes at. el., 2017, p. 180).
One of the primary reasons for the delay of several projects
in Nagaland can be attributed to the lack of adequate compensation and the
perceived indifference of the government. For instance, the Landowners
Coordination Committee (LOCC) of tri-Junction (Khuovarii bridge) to Puchaspura
of National Highway two-lane (NH)-129 A package 1A from Dimapur to Peren through
Jalukie have demanded the authorities concerned to compensate all the
landowners affected by the construction work (‘NH-129: Landowners coordination
committee seeks land compensation’, Nagaland Post, March 18, 2021). Other
projects that were halted/delayed due to compensation issues include the 17km
Peren-Dimapur Package-V, 2.8 km Peren Town Build-up Area in Package-I (which
was separated from the main contract and delayed despite submitting the Damage
Assessment Estimate to NHIDCL five years ago), Kohima-Jessami Package-I for the
construction of nine culverts without any provision for protection or
compensation for potential damage to agricultural land and activities, a 1.4 km
stretch in the Chakhabama military area in Package-II, Kohima bypass project (Packages-III
and IV) (‘Nagaland to amend land acquisition laws for national highway
projects’, Eastern Mirror, October 22, 2024).
The demand for land compensation, however, is not exclusive
to Nagaland. In fact, the Central government itself advocates fairness for the
landowners through adequate compensation. The same concern is prevalent in
other parts of India. For instance, the Supreme Court on 23rd November 2024
said that the State cannot be permitted to acquire citizens’ land without
paying appropriate compensation. A bench of Justices B. R. Gavai and K. V.
Viswanathan observed that though the right to property is no longer a
fundamental right, it continues to be a constitutional right. The supreme court
dismissed a batch of pleas filed by the Himachal Pradesh government and others
challenging an order of the state high court which had held that the State
cannot take possession of citizens’ land without paying compensation (‘States
Must Compensate Fairly for Land Acquisition: Supreme Court’, NDTV, November 23,
2024).
In this regard, the flaw lies not in the absence of a State
Law rather in the failure of the concerned authorities to ensure fair and just
compensation of land. The solution, then, lies in effective and collaborative
implementation of early engagement with all stakeholders, transparency, fair
compensation, environmental mitigation, and community benefits. These steps
will also help minimise the conflict between various stakeholders like the
authorities, landowners and implementing agencies. Hence, seen from such a
lens, the argument that the unique landholding system of Nagaland or Article
371A hinders development is flawed.In
fact, customary practices of the Nagas are inherently collective in nature, albeit
variations among communities. No doubt, the negotiation process with multiple
stakeholders may extend project implementation, yet it fosters and ensures
inclusive participation and equitable distribution of opportunities, which is
the ultimate goal of any welfare nation.
As for the communities, land serves as a profound source of
identity, weaving together cultural heritage, ancestral roots, and communal
belonging. It is a tangible connection to history, tradition, and collective
memory. The land’s contours, rhythms, and seasons shape languages, customs, and
worldviews, and foster a deep sense of place and belonging. At the same time,
land has become a prized commodity, coveted for its economic value, strategic
resources, and potential for development. The forces of globalisation,
urbanisation, and market-driven logic have transformed land into a fungible
asset, often prioritising profit over people and place. This commodification of
land threatens to erode cultural identities, displace indigenous communities,
and disrupt ecological balances. This paradox raises critical questions: How do
we reconcile the intrinsic value of land as identity with its intrinsic value
as commodity? Can we redefine our relationship with land to prioritise cultural
heritage, environmental sustainability, and social justice? Or will the pursuit
of economic growth and resource extraction continue to dominate, imperilling
the very foundation of collective identity and sense of place?
Vizokhole Ltu
Senior Research Associate (NESRC)
ltuvizokhole@gmail.com
References
Longkumer, Lanusashi & Jamir, Toshimenla. (2012). Land
Alienation: Dynamics of Colonialism, Security and Development (Status of
Adivasis/Indigenous Peoples Land Series-6 NAGALAND). Delhi: Aakar Books.
Fernandes, W., Mughavi, B. C., Pienyu, M., Achumi, K. A.,
Yanthan, M. & Fidelia, T. (2017). The Challenge of Development:
Displacement in Nagaland 1947-2010. Guwahati: North Eastern Social Research
Centre.
