Mainstream WeeklyI
Introduction: The Hasdeo Arand Conflict in Context
India’s constitutional democracy recognizes Adivasi or tribal communities as distinct social formations having special rights over land and forests. Ironically, some of the country’s richest tribal landscapes continue to be viewed as repositories of mineral wealth. Whenever coal, bauxite, iron ore, or other natural resources are discovered beneath forests inhabited by Scheduled Tribes, the language of development takes precedence over the language of constitutional justice.
The conflict in Hasdeo Arand closely reflects the ongoing dilemma between India’s environmental commitments and its continued dependence on coal-based development. Spread across approximately 1,898 sq. km. in northern Chhattisgarh, Hasdeo Arand is one of central India’s largest contiguous tracts of dense sal forest and a critical elephant corridor. The forest is home to nearly 10,000 Indigenous people, mainly from the Gond and Oraon tribal communities, whose livelihoods and culture are closely linked to the forest.
In 2010, a government-nominated committee earmarked the entire Hasdeo Arand region as a "no-go" area for mining because of its ecological significance. However, within a span of two years, this recommendation was reversed. During the UPA-II government, forest clearances were granted in 2012, providing access for mining projects in the region. In 2013, the Parsa East and Kente Basan (PEKB) coal block was allocated to Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited (RRVUNL) for supplying coal to its thermal power plants.
The policy reversal resulted in multiple disruptions. For instance, open-cast mining adversely affected one of India’s most biodiverse forest ecosystems, disrupted wildlife corridors, and accelerated the felling of thousands of trees. Evidentially speaking, the government estimate suggests the felling of over 81,000 trees between 2012 and 2023, while the environmental activists claim the figure to be more than 3.5 lakh trees. Further, the Indigenous communities living in the villages of Hariharpur, Fatehpur, Mohanpur, Ghatbarra, Kete, lost their homes, livelihoods, and cultural landscapes.
II
Development, Democracy, and the Political Economy of Extraction
The situation at Hasdeo Arand highlights the development dilemma where forests are simultaneously viewed as repositories of natural resources and sources of livelihood. While the relative importance given to these conflicting narratives has varied with changing political regimes, the underlying tension has continued to be the same.
Colonial forest administration was primarily concerned about extracting timber and other forest resources that suited their imperial interests. During the period, the Indian Forest Acts transformed forests into state-controlled resources while ignoring the rights of the forest-dwelling communities. The situation was not drastically altered in post-independent India. Although the objectives of post-colonial state differed from its tyrannical predecessor, yet forests continued to be perceived as an extractive resource. It was and is sacrificed to facilitate India’s development aspirations in the form of large dams, mining projects, industrial townships, etc. Unfortunately, the burden of such development projects is disproportionately borne by the inhabitants of such resource-rich regions, mainly the tribal communities. The examples of such development-induced eviction are plentiful, namely the massive displacement issue involved in Hirakud Dam, Singrauli coalfield, Sardar Sarovar Project.
Consecutive regimes have attempted to redress the formidable cost of displacement economic compensation and rehabilitation packages. However, such solutions perceived displacement as a problem to be managed and not as a political issue where people’s consent are taken. Hasdeo Arand is a clear reflection of this approach. The issue here is not merely tribal communities being evicted or losing their lands but whether constitutional safeguards for protecting Scheduled Areas were abided by. This is crucial because India’s constitutional framework offers substantial protection to tribal communities. The fifth schedule of the Constitution, for instance, provides safeguards for the protection of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Areas. The Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1986 attempts to bolster self-governance by empowering Gram Sabha in matters relating to community resources. Likewise, the Forest Rights Act, 2006 recognizes and vests land and resource rights to the forest-dwelling communities. These legislative measures therefore empower the tribal communities to participate meaningfully in decisions pertaining to their inhabitation and livelihoods.
Nonetheless the experience at Hasdeo Arand does not reveal the upholding of such constitutional provisions. Allegations concerning inadequate consultation and overlooking of Gram Sabha proceedings have generated widespread public debate. Democratic participation is thus reduced to a mere formality when confronted with powerful economic interests. Consultation, deliberation, and consent mechanisms lose their importance when decisions are governed by larger economic priorities.
Furthermore, the Hasdeo Arand experience reveals unequal sharing of developmental costs and benefits. Coal extraction from the region serves the energy requirement of the country and the benefits are widely distributed across consumers, industries, and government beyond Chhattisgarh. In contrast, the cost remains largely localized. Forest-dependent communities experience loss of land, livelihood, and culture, while receiving compensation only for the economic loss.
The irony here is that development is parochially understood in economic terms. It ignores the question of distributive justice. The questions like: Who bears the cost of development? How is the cost calculated? Who enjoys the benefits? Are the stakeholders consulted in the decision-making process? Such questions bear particular relevance in Scheduled Areas where constitutional provisions seek to protect marginalized communities from asymmetric power relationships. Hence, Hasdeo Arand’s dispute is not merely an environmental one over mining. It is a test of India’s democratic commitment of balancing economic development with constitutional justice. Instead of perceiving them as mutually exclusive categories, development should be designed in such a way that it is inclusive and ecologically sustainable.
III
Beyond Compensation: Many faces of Displacement
Any discussion on development-induced displacement largely focuses on the issue of economic compensation. Official statements enumerate the amount of monetary compensation provided, quantify the rehabilitation housing and employment offered. Even though such measures are important, they only capture a fraction of the disabilities suffered as a result of displacement. Displacement should be conceived as merely a physical shift of space but an alteration of an entire socio-ecological system that evolved over generations.
Land is more than an economic asset for the displaced families. It is symbol of status, identity, and inherited wealth. Moreover, forests, rivers, and common land are closely connected and together they constitute the habitat of the forest-dwelling communities. Displacement not only takes away their home and land but also their familiar ecosystem on which they have depended for generations.
The displaced population were rehabilitated in colonies. New settlement provisions cannot, however, recreate the ecological and cultural landscapes from which they have been uprooted. Houses may replace shelters, but they cannot reproduce the surrounding socio-environmental niche. Displacement severed the relationship of the community with their deyurs (sacred sites), ancestral burial grounds, and forests that formed the basis of their cultural identity. The felling of Karma (yellow teak) and Tad (palm) trees, revered in tribal tradition, constitutes both an environmental loss and an erosion of shared cultural heritage. The loss of these landscapes generates a sense of alienation that no financial package can adequately address. Development planning frequently recognizes material deprivation while neglecting cultural dislocation.
The most irreversible consequence of displacement is probably the loss of community institutions. Tribal societies have customarily organized their social life around shared cultural practices. Festivals and rituals have sustained the communities over generations. Relocation dismantles such institutions. Families get dispersed, traditional leadership structure is eroded, and customary practices gradually lose their social context. It is not just a loss of spatial proximity but the collective way of life through which communities reproduce themselves. For instance, festivals and rituals that once united the entire villages gradually declined after relocation. The traditional karma festival, which was celebrated collectively to mark community solidarity and protection, became a subdued occasion as families relocated.
The weakening of community institutions also has significant political implications. Fragmented communities have diminished capacity to negotiate with administrative agencies and private corporations. Individuals who once acted collectively increasingly confront powerful institutions in isolation. This asymmetry further deepens marginalization because displacement is followed by gradual erosion of collective bargaining power.
Public policy has long approached rehabilitation as an exercise in asset replacement. However, the experience of Hasdeo Arand suggests fundamental alteration of how displacement is to be perceived. Displacement is not a single event but a cumulative process resulting in economic insecurity, ecological degradation, institutional weakening, and cultural loss. Compensation may only address material deprivation, it cannot reconstruct the social world that is lost in the process of displacement.
The debate surrounding coal mining in Hasdeo Arand should therefore move beyond questions of economic compensation and focus on the issue of justice. Financial packages can never solely address the multiple impoverishments suffered in the displacement process. A more meaningful assessment must ask whether displacement itself could have been minimized, whether democratic consent was genuinely respected, and whether the long-term social and ecological consequences were adequately considered before irreversible decisions were taken. Until these questions occupy the centre of public debate, the rehabilitation will continue to function as a partial remedy for a much deeper democratic failure.
(Author: Anirban Mukherjee teaches Sociology at the Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Petroleum Technology, Bangalore)