Article

Development Induced Journal of the Anthropological

Survey of India
Displacement: Issues 69(2) 276–289, 2020
© 2020 Anthropological Survey of India
and Indian Experiences Reprints and permissions:
in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india
DOI: 10.1177/2277436X20979760
journals.sagepub.com/home/ans

Arun Kumar Singh1

Abstract
Development-induced displacement debate has attracted academicians, planners
and policymakers in the last hundred years because of its contradictory connotation.
The twentieth century is considered to be the period of unprecedented economic
development in many areas of the world. Megaprojects, like irrigation projects
and large dams, have become symbols of economic development; apart from
generating energy, these projects have also generated employment and income
for the people affected. Post-Independence India has witnessed a large number
of development projects for fulfilling the socio-economic needs of a different
section of society residing in different parts of the country. Efforts have been made
by government authorities for the promotion of major, medium and small-scale
developmental projects in sectors like irrigation, industries, power, transportation
and so on. However such mega-development projects involve the acquisition
of land from common and poor people resulting in forced mass displacement
which disrupts the socio-economic fabric and spoils the environmental flavour
of the surrounding areas. A large number of people are deprived of their cultural
identities and livelihood primarily as a direct consequence of land acquisition.The
experiences suggest that the long drawn-out process of displacement has caused
widespread traumatic psychological and socio-cultural consequences including
the dismantling of traditional production systems, desecration of ancestral sacred
zones, graves and places of worship, scattering of kinship groups, disruptions
of the family system and informal social network (Kothari, 1995. Economic &
Political Weekly, 31(24), 1476–1485). Under this type of parochial treatment,
the fundamental goal of economic development, that is, to promote the welfare
and wellbeing of the people remains a daydream, and the vulnerable groups of
human society are denied of their fundamental/human rights and have to bear the
situation at the cost of development.

1
Banaras Hindu University,Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Corresponding author:
Arun Kumar Singh, Banaras Hindu University,Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh 221005, India.
E-mail: [email protected]
Singh 277

Keywords
Development, displacement, kinship and family, social networks, psychological
consequences

Dimensions of Development
‘Development’ is a concept. Thomas (2004) argues, it is ‘contested, complex and
ambiguous’. The meaning of development has changed over space and time. In
the 1940s and 1950s, development was identified as ‘economic development’,
with focus on per capita gross national product and there was hardly any discussion
on social, personal and other aspects of life. In the late 1960s, the focus shifted
from socioeconomic parameters, like access to education, health status, housing
condition and other goods and services were taken into account while talking
about development. In the 1980s, the concept of development included aspects of
the environment such as freedom from different types of pollution, quality of life
and affordability of an individual to access such goods and services. In this way,
the concept of development widened its scope to add the empowerment of people
by increasing their choice and voice. A common theme in all this is that
‘development’ encompasses ‘change’ in a variety of aspects of the human
condition. The ultimate goal of human development should be the expansion of
individual and collective freedom. The purpose of the Neolithic revolution, with
the rise of the first urban settlements and the civilisations located in river basins,
was to increase the freedom of man, understood in the context of minimising
adverse human effects on the environment. Modern conceptions also emphasise
the importance of economic development as a means of increasing the well-being
of society. Economic development should therefore have a positive effect on
emerging categories such as human development, human security and human
rights and the state should focus on three fundamental questions: what is the
purpose of economic development, who are the beneficiaries and by what means
should it be achieved and implemented?

Understanding Displacement
Displacement involves physical eviction from a dwelling and the expropriation of
productive land and other assets to make possible alternative use. According to
Cernea (2000), displacement can start before people are physically evicted from
the residence by legally stopping construction, entrepreneurial investment and
public infrastructure investments. This makes households suffer economically
before actual removal from their land/houses and eventually leads them to
impoverishment. Development-induced displacement is primarily a socioeconomic
issue associated with loss or significant reduction of access to basic resources on
which communities depend. Development-induced displacement and resettlement
(DIDR) occurs when people are forced from their homes and/or land as a result of
278 Journal of the Anthropological Survey of India 69(2)

development. The largest scale of development-induced displacement and

resettlement is seen in the world’s most densely populated countries: China and
India. Paranjpye (1988) estimated that the construction of dams had forced the
involuntary resettlement of at least 21.6 million people up to that date. According
to Taneja and Thakkar (2000), the construction of dams alone displaced between
21 and 40 million people in India. As noted by Mahapatra (1999) development
might have displaced 25 million people in India during the second part of the
twentieth century (from 1947 to 1997). Negi and Ganguly (2011) estimate that
over 50 million people in India have been displaced over the last 50 years, which
is a more accurate statistic if we take project-affected people (PAPs) into account.
Fernandes (1998) has estimated at 60 million the total number of people displaced
and affected by development projects in India. An Indian government statement
of 1994 gives the number of over 10 million development-induced displaced
people (DP) in the country who are still ‘awaiting rehabilitation’.

Perspectives on Displacement

Developmentalist’s Perspective
Its focus is on the development of the project and considers displacement as
inevitable, intrinsic and a precondition for development and takes care of its ‘side
effects’ by giving compensation.

People’s Perspective
It argues that those who are not a part or choose not to be a part of the course of
development, fall victims to the same. For example, tribals, dalits or the
economically marginalised are dependent on nature for subsistence. But, the
development initiatives systematically alienate them from nature and its produce
and affect their livelihood.

Environmentalist’s Perspective
It contends that the protection, conservation and preservation of the environment
and the habitat are the top priority. Though this approach is people-centred, it is
more concerned about the long-term effects of development.

The Impact of Displacement

The fundamental feature of forced displacement is that it causes unravelling of
existing patterns of social organisation at many levels. When people are forcibly
Singh 279

moved, production systems are dismantled, long-established residential

communities and settlements are disorganised and life-sustaining informal social
networks are broken. Many anthropological and sociological field studies have
documented the qualitative consequences of forced displacement. These
consequences vary with local circumstances, but there are basic features which
could be brought under the broad spectrum of reported displacement effects is the
onset of impoverishment. Cernea (2000) has identified eight dimensions of
impoverishment risk induced by displacement. They are landlessness, joblessness,
homelessness, marginalisation, food security, morbidity, loss of access to common
property resources and community disarticulation. Forced displacement risks can
be put under four major’s mutually inclusive categories (a) economic, (b) social,
(c) psychological and (d) common property resources and services (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Displacement and Related Impoverishment Risks.

Source: www.coursehero.com/file/60300633/09-chapter-2pdf
280 Journal of the Anthropological Survey of India 69(2)

Impact of Displacement
Studies on these groups indicated that indigenous groups and ethnic minorities
from the largest group most of them being tribals or dalits who experience adverse
effects on livelihood because such people largely depend on their surrounding
environment. Effects include loss of ancestral homeland, loss of burial land, loss
of properties inherited over many generations, loss of livelihood resources and
weakening of traditional values. Few studies have shown that women experience
more severe effects of DIDR than men. Koenig (2000) asserts that there is
increased stress on women than men due to loss of access to individual gardens,
reduced ability to produce food, decreased fertility and reduced women power
within the family due to greater dependence on their husbands.
Other effects include denial of compensation for women and the exclusion of
widows and female-headed households in the resettlement package. It also caused
the breakup of families, a weakening of kinship ties and a loss of the security and
insurance created by family and kinship relationship (Downing, 2002). The
decline of traditional economic activities as a result of displacement has also been
reported to have specific impacts on women as it had affected their role in the
family. DIDR causes interruption in the function of schools and children access to
education, this can happen during the period of transfer or can last for a longer
period of time.
The vast majority of internal displacements lead to a significant deterioration
in the level of community security. The most evident non-quantifiable impact of
displacement is the souring or breaking down of relationships—between various
community sections in a village, between households, between families in the
same household and between members of the same family. The cultural security
risks affecting the displaced are the consequences of the disintegration of
previously cohesive communities and significant changes in the former model of
life brought about by relocation.
Contamination of the surrounding environment by the projects causes
deterioration in local people’s health. Consumption of contaminated water and
produce from contaminated land can lead to vulnerability of health. Agricultural
problems caused by land degradation can lead to malnutrition, which increases
susceptibility to other health problems. Other commonly reported health
problems are stomach problems, fever, malaria and psychological depression,
anxiety and stress. Women and children are particularly vulnerable to the health
consequences of displacement. Resettlement plans should ensure access by the
displaced to health care institutions in the new place of residence. Incidents of
health problems can occur during relocation but usually, it is not taken care of
during resettlement plans.
A village in course of its organic evolution builds numerous economic and
social linkages with the neighbouring regions. This results in the economic
dependence of the village community with the neighbouring regions, especially
the nearest urban and semi-urban centres and the local wholesale trading hubs of
agricultural products. With displacement proximity to markets and economic
links got disrupted.
Singh 281

Development-induced displacement has resulted in two major fallouts:

environmental damage and loss of livelihood among the people. Environmental
damage caused by the implementation of development projects leads to long-term
deterioration in the security of whole communities. Most of the developmental
activities in the forested lands directly affect the tribal population and for them,
forests are the primary means of livelihood. So, restrictions imposed on the use of
forests leaves them deprived.
Almost all forest land in that region has been lost due to submergence, thereby
suddenly cutting off an important source of regular supply of wood and other
inputs. None of the resettlement sites, including the government ones, have any
common land for grazing. The absence of grazing land and the worsened economic
condition has forced many families to sell off a majority of their cattle.
Most of the landowning families who lose a major share of their agricultural
lands, because of the submergence, do not get any compensation equivalent to the
submerged land. Whatever they get is much less than what they have lost at the
cost of development projects. Loss of agricultural lands has an immediate impact
on employment opportunities particularly those who are directly depending on
farm-related activities. Many villages/local people witnessed a sharp decline in
agricultural land ownership and loss of income.
People living in rural areas are dependent on their surrounding area besides
land for various purposes. They keep cattle (cows, buffaloes, goats) for milk and
dung. Various trees are grown by families in their farmland and house plots as
sources for providing fruits, wood, herbal medicines and shade. All these resources
are lost when they are displaced because of some undertaken project.

Approaches to Reconstructing Livelihoods

Experience shows that DP do well when they have an option to pursue their
original occupation. Rural people involved in land-based activities face fewer
problems when they are relocated to agricultural land of comparable size and
quality. Similarly, the remedy more suitable for people from urban areas is the
provision of employment. However, both land and jobs are scarce so other
strategies like self-employment income-generating schemes seem to offer an
alternative that is being currently pursued in many places.

Cash Compensation
Rehabilitation simply means the payment of cash in lieu of lands and other
properties acquired for project purposes. Theoretically, cash should help people to
move onto the recovery track. The DP, especially those from areas closer to cities
or areas witnessing the rapid economic growth, often prefer cash compensation.
They see compensation as offering them a wider range of options for improving
their economic status. In practice, cash compensation as an income restoration
measure often fails to benefit the affected people for a variety of reasons.
282 Journal of the Anthropological Survey of India 69(2)

Land-based Remedies
This involves replacing the lost land with new land at some other place. For DP
from rural areas, this indeed remains the best and the most preferred option.
Experience suggests that resettlers usually do well when they get land for land,
especially land in newly irrigated areas, as no occupational change is involved.
However, the most common complaint of the DP is regarding the new land which
is not of the same quality that they parted with.

Employment
People who get jobs are usually re-establishing themselves in less time than those
who get land. This explains the preference for jobs particularly in government and
public sector which are permanent, well paid and provide many other benefits.
Projects generate many new employment opportunities: in their offices, at
construction sites but the main problem with such jobs, however, is that they are
of a temporary nature, terminating once the construction work is over.

Self-Employment
Projects are attempting to promote self-employment schemes as an option to help
the DP by developing skills like tailoring, poultry farming, carpentry, plumbing,
car and scooter repair shop, operating a telephone booth, running grocery shop
and so on. In recent years, Coal India Limited, under a World-Bank-funded
project, has pursued this approach as part of the environmental and social impact
project (Mathur, 1995). Such initiatives involve training as a first step followed by
arranging small loans for self-employment projects from an array of microcredit
institutions and finally, providing information on marketing possibilities for the
sale of products.

Job in Government
In government, there is a system of job quota under which a certain percentage of
jobs is reserved for weaker section of the society (SC, ST, OBC). On a similar
basis, the government of Karnataka has recently issued a notification reserving
5% of government jobs for the people affected by a development project. This
creates new job opportunities, and the DP can get re-established.

Sharing Project Benefits

There is a growing realisation that the benefits of the project should be shared by
the DP. Sharing benefits reduce unproductive conflicts with resettlers and their
Singh 283

leaders and helps move resettlement more smoothly. Wicklin (1999) has
documented several cases where people displaced by dam projects have been
allocated newly irrigated lands downstream.

Resettlement Planning
Generally, the plans made for resettling PAP are ad-hoc and the focus is on
relocation. There is hardly any focus on livelihood reconstruction. There is no
long-term policy directed at providing economic opportunities to them. The
limited time and resources usually allocated for socio-economic surveys fail to
provide an accurate assessment of asset and income base of the populations
affected. Resettlement plans made without the basic information cannot be
expected to assist resettlers to regain their losses. Insufficient budgetary provision
is another bottleneck in the way of resettlement.

Displacement in India: Issues and Concerns

Displacement by development projects has been in practice from the early times
of Gupta dynasty. However, it did not disrupt common people because of its small
size and availability of vast tract of land available for their resettlement because
of less population and more land to settle. Displacement became a serious issue in
the colonial age, intensified after independence, and causes a bigger problem in
the age of liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation. The objective of the
colonial government was to turn South Asia into a supplier of capital and raw
material to Great Britain and a captive market for its finished products. Coal
mines of Raniganj in Bengal, tea gardens in Assam, a coffee plantation in
Karnataka and other schemes elsewhere had started displacing people in the early
nineteenth century. Land Acquisition Act of 1894 came into existence to facilitate
land acquisition at a lower rate. A large number of development projects have
been initiated in India in the post-independent era to meet the changing socio-
economic conditions of various categories of the population living in various
parts of the country.
Post-independence India has not only retained the colonial laws, but has also
strengthened them to make land acquisition easier. India’s first Prime Minister,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, while laying the foundation stone for India’s first major
river valley project, the Hirakud Dam in Orissa in 1948, said ‘If you have to
suffer, you should do so in the interest of the country’ and described big dams as
the ‘secular temples of modern India’. In the last 50 years, more than 50 million
people have been uprooted from their homes and huts, displaced from their farms,
jungles and rivers at the name of ‘National Interest’. These people bear witness to
the destruction of their own lives, livelihoods and lifestyles.
According to one estimate, from 1951 until 2000, dams alone displaced between
21 million and 40 million people in India (Taneja & Thakkar, 2000). The total
284 Journal of the Anthropological Survey of India 69(2)

number of development-induced displaced according to one researcher points to

50–60 million displaced persons. This figure includes 3 million in Jharkhand, 3
million in Orissa, 5 million in Andhra Pradesh, 1 million in Kerala, 2 million in
Assam, 4.2 million in Gujarat and 7.5 million in West Bengal (Fernandes, 2007).
Much of those affected by displacement are indigenous people belonging to the
scheduled tribes. One of the main reasons for the displacement of the tribal
population is that over 80% of coal and 40–50 other minerals are found in tribal
inhabited areas. Much of their land is owned by the community, so they have no
papers for individual ownership of land. The details of Distribution of Development
Projects by the Case of Displacement in India are mentioned in Table 1.
Yet, the issue of development-induced displacement has largely remained on
the margin and there is hardly any data about the actual number of the people
displaced as a consequence of the various development projects. Official figures
for the number of DP are just underestimates. In the absence of any reliable data,
a large number of cases are lying pending (Table 2).
The first displacement in independent India was reported during the
establishment of Durgapur steel plant in West Bengal in the 1950s displacing
around 125,000 people. The second case of displacement is a project for port
construction and enlargement in Mumbai, which displaced 12,000 people. The
five dams developed in Maharashtra displaced over 200,000 people. The
Karnataka programme, involving two dams has displaced over 220,000 people.
The famous Sardar Sarovar project, a high dam on the Narmada River whose
reservoir extends into three Indian states—Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya
Pradesh has displaced 300,000 people (Parsuraman, 1999).

Table 1. Distribution of Development Projects by the Case of Displacement in India.

Projects with
Resettlement People Displaced
Case of Displacement Number % Number %
Dams 39 26.6 1,233,000 62.8
Transportation 36 24.7 311,000 15.8
Water supply, sewerage 18 12.3 59,000 3.0
Thermal (including mining) 15 10.3 94,000 4.8
Urban infrastructure 12 8.2 73,000 3.7
Irrigation, canals 7 4.8 71,000 3.6
Environmental protection 5 3.4 74,000 3.8
Industry 4 2.7 2,000 0.1
Forestry 2 1.4 45,000 2.3
Other 8 5.5 1,000 0
Total 146 100 1,963,000 100
Source: World Bank (1994).
Singh 285

Table 2. Sector-wise Displacement, Rehabilitation and Backlog During 1950–1990.

Number Number
Type of Project Displaced Rehabilitated Backlog Backlog in %
Coal and other mines 1,700,000 450,000 1,250,000 73.5
Dams and canals 11,000,000 2,750,000 8,250,000 75.0
Industries 1,000,000 300,000 700,000 70.0
Sanctuaries and parks 600,000 150,000 450,000 75.0
Others 1,200,000 300,000 900,000 75.0
Total 15,500,000 3,950,000 11,550,000 74.5
Source: Bhakthavatsala Bharati (1999).

According to one estimate, 15% of the world’s largest dams between 1947 and
1979 were built in India. Today the country has over 4,000 of them. These projects
brought about irreversible changes in land use and the lives of millions of its
dependants. As a result, the number of DP and project-PAP has risen enormously,
and there have been many more struggles than in the past. Tribals who comprise
8.08% of India’s population are estimated to be more than 40% of the displaced
population. Dalits constitute 20% of displaced persons (Fernandes, 1999).

Sardar Sarovar Project vis-à-vis Narmada Sagar Project

The Narmada River originating from Amarkantak in Madhya Pradesh with its 41
tributaries, flows for 1,300 km through Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh
and empties into the Arabian Sea. Since 1947, the river became the inevitable
source of interstate water disputes, with each of the three states proposing their
own schemes to harness its irrigation and power potential. The Narmada Water
Dispute Tribunal set up in 1969 to look at the distribution of water in an equitable
manner. The plans became increasingly ambitious, eventually leading to the
current goal of building 3,200 dams within the next 100 years. Of these, the largest
and most important are the Sardar Sarovar and Narmada Sagar dams, approved by
the Indian government in April 1987. The Sardar Sarovar dam in Gujarat will
irrigate an estimated 1.8 million hectares of agricultural land and generate 300
MW of electricity in the initial phase, later dropping to 150 MW in the final phase.
In 1979, the number of families that would be displaced by the Sardar Sarovar
Reservoir was estimated to be a little over 6,000. In 1987, it grew to 12,000. In
1991, it surged to 27,000. In 1992, the government declared that 40,000 families
would be affected. Today, it hovers between 40,000 and 41,500. But according to
the Narmada Bachao Andolan, the actual figure is 85,000 families, that is, about
half a million people.
The Narmada Sagar dam in Madhya Pradesh will be slightly smaller, irrigating
123,000 ha and generating at first 220 MW and then 150 MW. The Narmada
Sagar dam will submerge 40,332 ha of forest land, not including the 1,500 ha
286 Journal of the Anthropological Survey of India 69(2)

Table 3. Area and Population Affected by Narmada Sagar and Sardar Sarovar Project.

Total Land Forest Cultivable Villages Population

Project Affected (ha) Area (ha) Land (ha) Affected Affected
Narmada Sagar 91,348 40,332 44,363 254 129,396
Project
Sardar Sarovar 39,134 13,744 11,318 237 66,675
Project
Source: http://www.ielrc.org/content/c8601.pdf

needed to build staff housing and other construction facilities. The Sardar Sarovar
dam will submerge 13,744 ha of forest land (Table 3). Both of the projects will
displace nearly 200,000 people from their homes. Official sources state that, in the
case of the Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP)., 182 villages in Madhya Pradesh, 36 in
Maharashtra and 19 in Gujarat will be underwater and the Narmada Sagar Project
(NSP). will submerge an additional 254 villages in Madhya Pradesh. Out of the
more than 25,000 people affected by the SSP in Gujarat and Maharashtra, more
than 90% of them are members of the Bhil and Tadavi tribes. Most of them are
landless, and fall into two categories: traditional tribal cultivators with no land
titles, and the real landless agricultural labourers found in many villages of
Madhya Pradesh. The problem of waterlogging and soil salinity in the Narmada
projects is expected to be serious because the command areas of the projects have
largely black soils, which have very good water retention capacity. A study by
Indian Institute of Science, in Bengaluru, found that about 40% of the NSP’s
command area will become waterlogged unless stringent preventive measures are
taken.
The Bargi dam near Jabalpur was the first dam on the Narmada to be completed
(1990). It cost 10 times more than was budgeted and submerged three times more
land than the engineers said it would. About 70,000 people from 101 villages were
supposed to be displaced but when they filled the reservoir (without warning
anybody), 162 villages were submerged (Roy, 1999).

The millions of displaced people do not exist anymore. When history is written they
would not be in it, not even as statistics. Some of them have subsequently been dis-
placed three and four times¼. True, they are not being annihilated or taken to gas cham-
bers, but I can warrant that the quality of their accommodation is worse than in any
concentration camp of the Third Reich. They are not captive, but they re-define the
meaning of liberty and still the nightmare does not end. They continue to be uprooted
even from their hellish hovels by government bulldozers¼. The millions of displaced
people in India are nothing but refugees of an unacknowledged war. ¼ (Roy, 1999)

Displacement and Human Rights Related Issues

Development-induced displacement is a global human rights crisis which uproots
a large number of people from their original place. Development projects often
Singh 287

lead to heightened food insecurity and risks of disease, forced evictions,

joblessness, interruption of education, loss of livelihood resources and social
conflict, all of which seriously impinge upon the enjoyment of human rights. The
burdens and impacts of these projects often fall hardest on the poorest and most
disadvantaged groups within society (particularly women, indigenous populations
and ethnic minorities) who are in turn least likely to enjoy the benefits accrued by
these projects. Rajagopal (2000)1 has noted five ‘human rights challenges’ that
arise in relation to development-induced displacement.

Right to Development and Self Determination

In 1986, the UN General Assembly adopted a Declaration on the Right to
Development, which states that ‘every human person and all peoples are entitled
to participate in, contribute to and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political
development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully
realised’. The declaration, moreover, asserts the right of peoples to self-
determination and ‘their inalienable right to full sovereignty over all their natural
wealth and resources’ (UNGA, 1996).

Right to Participation
The right to participation is based on various articles of the International Bill of
Human Rights, which consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
More specifically, the 1991 International Labour Organisation Convention
Concerning indigenous and tribal peoples in Independent Countries (ILO
Convention 169) stipulates (Article 7) that indigenous and tribal peoples shall
participate in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of national and
regional development plans that affect them.

Right to Life and Livelihood

When the state or its machinery forces the people to evacuate the area for the sake
of development projects, this may constitute a direct threat to the right to life,
which is protected in the UDHR (Article 3) and the ICCPR (Article 6). The right
to livelihood is threatened by the loss of home and the means to make a living—
whether farming, fishing, hunting and trading or the like—when people are
displaced from habitual residences and traditional homelands.
288 Journal of the Anthropological Survey of India 69(2)

Rights of Vulnerable Groups

Growing evidence shows that, while development projects may create vulnerability
through impoverishment, they disproportionately affect groups that are vulnerable,
to begin with, particularly indigenous groups and women. Human rights of
vulnerable groups are protected generically in the International Bill of Human
Rights.

Concluding Remarks
Post-Independent India has witnessed a large number of development projects for
fulfilling socio-economic needs. However, such mega development projects have
resulted in forced mass displacement disrupting the socio-economic fabric and
spoiling the environmental flavour of the surrounding areas. A large number of
people are deprived of their cultural identities and livelihood primarily as a direct
consequence of land acquisition. There is a violation of their human rights. In the
lack of any official reliable data, there is less focus on resettlement and
rehabilitation initiatives. So, there is a need to see the displacement and
development issues from human rights perspectives. More importantly, there is a
need for a paradigm shift and the focus of resettlement and rehabilitation policy
should consist of the livelihood reconstruction components which should consider:
• From landlessness to land-based resettlement.
• From joblessness to reemployment.
• From homelessness to house reconstruction.
• From marginalisation to social inclusion.
• From increased morbidity to improved health care.
• From food insecurity to adequate nutrition.
• From the loss of access to the restoration of community assets and services.
• From social disarticulation to rebuilding of networks and communities.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of
this article.

Note
1. Although Rajagopal’s discussion focuses on dams, the human rights challenges apply
in other types of development induced displacement.
Singh 289

References
Cernea, M. (2000). Risks, safeguard and reconstruction: A model for population
displacement and resettlement. Economic & Political Weekly, 35, 40–44.
Cernea, M. (2003). For a new economics of resettlement: A sociological critic of
compensation principle. International Science Journal, 55(175), 1–2.
Chambers, R. (2004). Ideas for development [IDS Working Paper 238]. IDS.
Fernandes, W. (1998). Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1998: Rights of project-
affected people ignored. Economic & Political Weekly, 33, 42–43.
Fernandez, W. (2007). Development-induced displacement: The class and gender
perspective. In Paper presented at the international conference on ‘The emerging
woman in the Indian economy’. Christ College, Bengaluru, November 26–7, 2007.
Hazra, A. (2010). Development at the cost of human life. Social Action, 60(2), 10–15.
Koening, D. (2002). Towards local development and mitigating impoverishment in
development-induced displacement and resettlement. Refugee Studies Centre,
University of Oxford.
Kothari, S. (1995). Whose nation? Displaced as victims of development. Economic &
Political Weekly, 31(24), 1476–1485.
Mahapatra, L. K. (1999). Testing the risks and reconstruction model on India’s resettlement
experiences. In M. M. Cernea (Ed.), The economics of involuntary resettlement:
Questions and challenges. World Bank.
Mathur, H. M. (1995). The resettlement of people displaced by development projects issues
and approaches. In H. M. Mathur (Ed.), Development, displacement and resettlement:
Focus on Asian experiences. Vikash Publishing House Private Limited.
Negi, N. S., & Ganguly, S. (2011). Development projects vs. internally displaced
populations in India: A literature based appraisal [Working Paper No. 103, 2011].
Center on Migration, Citizenship and Development, University of Bielefeld.
Oliver-Smith, A. (2005). Applied anthropology and development-induced displacement
and resettlement. In S. Kedia, & J. Van Willingen (Eds.), Applied anthropology:
Domains of application (pp. 189–221). Greenwood Publishing Group.
Paranjpe, V. (1988). Evaluating Tehri dam: An extended cost benefit appraisal. Indian
National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage.
Parasuraman, S. (1999). The development dilemma: Displacement in India. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Rajagopal, B. (2000). Human rights and development [Thematic Review V.4, Working
Paper]. World Commission on Dams.
Roy, A. (1999, June 4). The greater common good. Frontline. www.frontline.com/other/
article30257333.ece
Stanley, J. (2002). FMO research guide: Development-induced displacement and
resettlement [Research Paper, p. 4]. Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford.
Taneja, B., & Thakkar, H. (2000). Large Dams and Displacement in India. Submission no.
SOC166 to the World Commission on Dams. http://www.dams.org/kbase/submissions/
showsub.php?rec= SOC166
UN General Assembly. (1996). Declaration on the right to development [A/RES/ 41/128].
UN General Assembly.
World Bank. (1994). China: Xiaolangdi resettlement project [Report No. 12557]. World
Bank