Sharing of power and resources is fundamental to inclusive democracy and growth which needs to be reflected in our governance policy. The poverty and backwardness of the people of a State is more linked to its ownership over the resources and its utilization in the best interest of its common people.
The legislative power relating to resource governance is divided into three lists, the Union list, the State list and the Concurrent list, in our constitution which needs to be relooked in the context of emerging conflicts in resource rich States such as Odisha which has been deprived of its legitimate dues in many ways.
The State has advantage of natural resources such as land, forest, water ,mineral and seashore but how these resources are being used for the people of the State and who benefits more out of these resources need to be examined to ensure justice for the State and particularly for its marginalized sections.
In spite of resources, why the State continues to be backward and one of the poorest in the countryIJ It is demanded that the constitutional provisions and existing laws are effectively implemented in view of emerging resource conflicts relating to utilization and sharing of resources within the country and also within the State among its people.
There has been a continuous debate over resource federalism in the country with demand for more legislative power to the States in mater of resource governance so that the States can have full freedom over management of these resources. The nationalisation of resources has vested ownership with the Centre. The economic liberalization and privatization of resources has encouraged the centralization of decision in order to facilitate handover of resources without much administrative problem where the role of the States has been further sidelined. The issues have been emerging as one the major conflicting areas between the Centre and the States.
There are also incompatible areas among the States relating to resource distribution among States such as river water sharing; conflict over Mahanadi river water between Chattisgada and Odisha being a burning example. In this context, the constitutional provisions under Articles 262 and 263 relating to dispute relating to water of interstate river or river valley and coordination between States are not worked out effectively which has further complicated the problem over resource sharing. The privatization of water resources has additionally aggravated the water conflicts with more focus on corporate patronization. There has been competition among State Governments to supply water to the industries at the cost of agriculture and basic human need. The people on the bank of the river and outskirts of reservoirs are not getting adequate water for consumption and public demands for water are never properly dealt with priority by the Government. It is fact that after 70 years of independence, our women and children are blocking roads with empty vessels in their hand for drinking water.
The other important area is utilization and benefit sharing within regions of the State and among different social groups. It is observed that the national and State interest has not been inclusive of common man in sharing of resources and benefits out of it, especially with the marginalised sections who are historically alienated from the resources. So while demanding more power to the State on resource governance, it is equally important to see its decentralization within the State and across different social groups; then only it serves inclusive national and State interest.
Take for an example the mineral resources such as coal in Odisha which is a national resource and its governance is in the Central list under Article 246(list 54).
It has been always told that Odisha is blessed with mineral resources having one third of the coal deposits of the country but both nationalization and recent privatization have not been beneficial for the State. The State in general and the people in coal areas in particular have sacrificed everything for national interest but a sizeable poor people there are even not getting adequate drinking water, land for housing ,livelihood and other basic human needs.
The coal nationalization may be good but it has been no way beneficial for mineral bearing States. The new legislation for privatization of coal sector vested more power with the Centre for allocation of coal blocks. The coal royalty and related decisions are decided by the Centre. The governance of coal sector is under Central Acts such as
The Coal bearing areas (acquisition and development) Act 1957 and the MMDR Act 1957. It is also a fact that a number of Central public sector companies like the MCl, the NTPC, the Nalco and the SAIl are the lease holders.
How these public sector companies are exceptionally helping the State by sharing its profit while using the resources needs serious examination.
The State has virtually no role in the matter of mining lease except getting royalty fixed by the Centre. The State cannot impose any tax over coal or influence over the rate of royalty which is arbitrarily fixed, thereby depriving States of their genuine share. The local people staying over the coal area have no rights over the land having coal deposits and at any time they will be evicted for national interest. There has been no survey or settlement of the land. Even the land in 5th Scheduled areas is acquired for mining violating the Supreme Court judgments. The land laws of the Centre such as the SEZ Act 2005 and the Right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition and rehabilitation and resettlement Act 2013 in place of old land acquisition Act 1894, further justifies that the Center gets a privileged position over land.
It is also realized that whatever financial resources the State gets as tax, water tax ,land tax and royalty do not further percolate down to the local level and exclude the marginalized group in benefi sharing. As a result, the resource rich areas and the marginalized sections remain backward and undeveloped in many respects.
Though land is a State subject under Article 246 list – II no 18, the State is not implementing land settlement provisions in resource rich areas. The Odisha land Reforms Act 1960 (section 45) says 70 per cent of the surplus land of the village vested with the Government shall be settled with persons belong to SCs and STs. But this has not been implemented. The landless people have been demanding for homestead land for housing and agricultural land for livelihood but they are grossly ignored.
(manasbbsr15@gmail.com)