After announcing the end of Naxalism in Bastar, Amit Shah has now returned to Delhi. During his visit, he said that incomes in Bastar would increase sixfold over the next five years. He also announced that every family would be given cows and buffaloes, and that Gujarat’s Amul cooperative model would be introduced in Bastar.
This is welcome, although cattle have traditionally played only a limited role in the tribal economy. Many tribal communities believe that a cow’s milk belongs to its calf, and therefore they do not milk cows. Earlier, some Yadav families in Bastar were involved in the milk trade, but till today I have never been offered milk tea by a tribal family there.
The previous Congress government’s Gothan scheme was fairly successful in non-tribal areas, but in tribal regions people refused to tie their cattle in community cattle sheds. In his speeches, Amit Shah made no mention of mining, even though the Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh stated that Bastar’s development would come through agriculture.
It is perhaps no coincidence that mining in Bastar began around the same time that the Naxalite uprising erupted in Naxalbari in Bengal. Experts estimate that over the past 60 years, governments have earned nearly ₹1 lakh crore from mining in Bastar, and a large portion of that income has gone toward security expenditure.
There is a common understanding that Chhattisgarh was created primarily for economic reasons, unlike many other states that emerged from mass political movements. Although it took more than 25 years after statehood to weaken the Naxal movement, it is now evident that mining activity in former conflict zones will intensify further.
While Maoists sometimes allowed mining operations in exchange for money from companies, the overall atmosphere of insecurity slowed industrialization. Yet even after the decline of Maoists, local communities continue to strongly oppose new mining projects wherever the government has attempted to expand them.
However, in one mining region, a group of local residents recently stated that they would be willing to discuss mining if they were given an ownership stake in the projects. Over the last decade, companies have increased CSR spending in Bastar, but such spending still amounts to no more than about 5% of total profits.
The distribution of mining profits is striking. Critics often focus only on corporations, accusing governments of doing the “dirty work” to facilitate mining for private gain. (Under law, the consent of affected tribal communities is mandatory before mining begins in tribal areas, and these processes are often manipulated.)
But if one studies the financial accounts carefully, it becomes clear that in places like Bastar, companies retain only around 20–25% of mining profits, while governments collect nearly 70–75% through royalties, taxes, levies, and other charges. Over the past decade, roughly 5% has also been spent through mechanisms such as the District Mineral Foundation (DMF).
Across much of the world, governments generally keep less than 50% of mining profits for themselves. Therefore, it seems reasonable that an additional 20–25% of the profits currently going to the government should instead be transferred directly to affected local communities through Direct Benefit Transfers. Even in DMF spending today, local people have almost no meaningful participation.
People in Bastar no longer have Naxalite support for anti-mining resistance, but opposition to mining is increasing even in non-Naxalite areas. Everyone must understand that unless local communities receive a larger share of mining profits, peaceful mining will not be possible.
The Maoists may no longer be present to channel public anger, but after their departure, the central question in people’s minds remains: how will mining now take place? Ignoring the most important issue is not a solution. Without a serious discussion on this question, conversations on all other matters will have limited value.
This year also marks 100 years since mining began in Chhattisgarh. With the Maoists fading away, this is the right moment to rethink how local communities can benefit from mining so that they do not oppose it. History shows that violence eventually produces counter-violence, and sooner or later that reaction will emerge in one form or another.
In today’s world, “no mining” is not a realistic proposition. But it is time to think seriously about non-violent mining. When I spoke to tribal youth advocating dialogue, they said:
“We also want jobs. We also want development. But what kind of mining will happen? What kind of development will happen? What will our participation be in it? The government should talk to us.”
When iron ore leaves the Bailadila hills in train wagons bound for Japan, local people call those trains “thief trains.” A hundred years of mining statistics suggest that they are not entirely wrong. A peaceful society cannot be built on a sense of theft. This is a historic opportunity to correct that.
Disclaimer
Views expressed above are the author’s own.
END OF ARTICLE
