Judicial Justice for Special Economic Zone Land Resistance

Abstract

The context for land resistance in liberalising India is dynamic. As the state promotes capital investment, lines between public and private are blurred. Land is central to these efforts, as new industries, mines, large-scale agricultural projects and infrastructure initiatives all require vast amounts of land. The introduction of Special Economic Zones (SEZ) in the Indian state of Goa highlight land deal tensions. Following protests rallying thousands and widespread public mistrust of land and regional planning processes, the state’s chief minister halted the zones. This action mollified public unrest and temporarily appeased anti-SEZ social movements. However, scepticism arose as the chief minister failed to legally de-register the zones and return SEZ lands to original owners or collectives. Amidst state inaction, movement members sought judicial justice. Protest and corruption theories are integrated with political interpretations of liminality in this article to frame how social movements shift their patterns of intervention in response to or in anticipation of inaction. Enhanced opportunities for corruption, exemplified by the SEZ model, lead movements to adapt strategies of resistance beyond state-oriented protest. The interventions discussed represent a shift in the ritual form of protest and the degree of political engagement with the judiciary. The multi-faceted contestation altered power structure, while politicising and scrutinising land deals.

Key Words:

• Land conflict
• justice
• Special Economic Zones
• resistance
• liminality
• corruption
• public interest litigation

Acknowledgements

The author thanks the many people interviewed in India, who remain anonymous in this article. She is particularly grateful to those who granted access to the RTI and court case documents. The guest editors, Uday Chandra, Kenneth Bo Nielsen and Judy Whitehead, the anonymous reviewers and Bhaskar Vira provided insightful comments, which strengthened and clarified the arguments. The Cambridge Political Economy Trust generously funded the represented research. Any errors or omissions are solely the author’s responsibility.

Notes

¹ After state-level policy on RTI, the idea was codified in national law in 2005 as the Central Right to Information Act. RTI is a mechanism which allows certain people to reconceptualise their rights as citizens, their ability to audit government officials and their active participation in how they are governed (Jenkins and Goetz 1999, 603).

² Where these interviews are cited in this article, an interview number is used when the anonymity of the respondent is necessary.

³ The late Mathany Saldahna was a tourism minister in the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government, a member of parliament, and a leader in the Fisherworkers Movement.

⁴ FIRs are written or oral complaints submitted to the police by an aggrieved person (or on their behalf) about an alleged offence.

⁵ The Indian pharmaceutical company Cipla bought the company in 2010.