The traditional and utopian assumption is that the result of development must be shared with all the stake holders. Now the million dollar question arises, who are the stake holders ? Though it will be distinct and separate topic to discuss debate and arrive on a consensus on who are stake holders. Let’s take an example of state sponsored terror. The state acquires land for a private party under the pretext to foster the industry and drives out the original inhabitants. Thanks to the prevailing Illiteracy. Else the state may have to pay a lot of money to acquire the land because more the awareness to the subjects more the problem to the state. And they protest for their land at times peacefully and sometimes taking up arms for which the state is the only reason. Now in our case we have three stakeholders 1.State 2.the private party 3.original inhabitants/owners. In my opinion the true stake holders are original owners.
In stone age when man survived by hunting animals ie., even before the advent of the agriculture, he shared the gains with his community(not necessarily his own family).But in current case only the fittest survives. The Doctrine of survival of fittest applies. Darwin mentioned this taking in to account the animals of forest or wildlife. We are no beasts. Nehru always justified the suffering of a tribal of this country due to displacement. In political economy Land is an important aspect for business, without which the businesses may not flourish, but we need to know at what cost the development to be fostered. We have bill for this purpose in the anvil which promises a part of the revenue earned from the land to the original inhabitants. Hope this should help.
Irrespective of what type of government is formed in centre, I think there is no scope of change. So it is only the awareness of the people at the bottom could change the situation.
