Skip to main content

page search

News & Events Rethinking Land Security as a Verb
Rethinking Land Security as a Verb
Rethinking Land Security as a Verb
Picture of a semi-dry piece of land, with cracks on the field, with tiny green saplings sprouting
Meenakshi Nair Ambujam
Picture of a semi-dry piece of land, with cracks on the field, with tiny green saplings sprouting

Banner Image Credits: Photo by Ashwini Chaudhary(Monty) on Unsplash | Free to use under the Unsplash License

 

Another Human Rights Day has come and gone. And, here we are, still grappling with the ways in which insecure land rights contribute to the erosion of human rights. Even though land rights are not generally considered a human right under international law (Gilbert 2013), the intimate relationship between land rights and human rights has been well-documented (International Land Coalition 2003; OHCHR 2015; Ramsahye 2016). Report after report has highlighted how unequal access to land and insecure tenure impact the poorest and most vulnerable sections of society the most, disproportionately affecting not just their ability to exercise control over the access and use of natural resources but also their food security and their capacity to overcome poverty (for example, see: link 1, link 2, link 3). For instance, women, Indigenous Peoples, Dalits, Adivasis, slum dwellers and other minority communities are victims of forced displacement and dispossession more often than not, highlighting how insecure land rights produce and sustain systemic and structural inequalities and vice-versa.

Take the case of India, where Adivasis or Scheduled Tribe communities, who comprise roughly 8.6% of the total population, constitute more than 40% of those displaced and dispossessed because of large-scale development projects (Varughese and Mukherjee 2024). Drawing on evidence from Satirgolus and Choi’s work (2015),  Varughese and Mukherjee (2024) state that development projects and initiatives have displaced no fewer than 15 million people the world over between 2010 and 2019. These numbers paint a grim picture of not only who bears the costs of development but also whose rights are undermined in the name of development. It is precisely for this reason that a human rights perspective is critical to understanding land rights and land security.

Moreover, various UN reports consider secure land rights a precondition for realising gender equality, economic prosperity and independence, and physical security, as well as for addressing climate change and inequality— thus becoming a critical condition to achieving several Sustainable Development Goals. The 2015 report released by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) opens its Introduction by highlighting how ‘most aspects of social development, peacebuilding and humanitarian assistance, as well as disaster prevention and recovery’ are tied to the land rights and its management (ibid, 1).  Furthermore, land also has a social and cultural life— it is tied to memory, belonging, identity, ways of being, and more.

Land rights and security of tenure, thus, are critical to justice— social, political, and economic.

Land Security, Land Rights, and Documents:

Discussions around land rights and land security often revolve around title deeds and documentation. This is unsurprising as rights to land are quite frequently claimed, negotiated, and contested over paperwork— be it in Indonesia, where farmers are fighting against corporate entities, Indigenous Peoples in the Amazon, or Adivasis and Dalits in India. For instance, land titles are essential to establish one’s relationship to a plot of land if one needs to claim compensation and rehabilitation post-displacement. Similarly, land documents, which formalise property rights— be it individual or collective— can help prevent communities from being forcibly evicted or displaced. Most importantly, they provide a legal basis and foundation for one’s claims to land and its use, thus opening avenues to raise concerns and address grievances. All this is to say that land titles are perceived as critical to realising secure land rights.

When it comes to discussions surrounding investment and economic development, the World Bank, INGOS, Development Consultancies and other non-state actors consider documenting and recording land rights as vital to releasing land from its ‘dead capital’ status (de Soto 2000). Mobilising Hernando de Soto’s influential work, The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else (2000), these actors often argue that clear and transparent land records and the issuance of titles are critical to helping countries and their vulnerable populations realise their full development potential. Placing criticism against de Soto’s work aside[1], from the perspective of these actors, the importance of land titles—whether as communal titles, individual private deeds, or joint deeds—to the conceptualisation of secure land tenure and land rights, and by extension, the realisation of several human rights, cannot be overstated.

Evidence from the ground, however, shows that while documents are vital to rendering land security tangible, land titles alone do not help communities at the margins escape insecurity. This is especially so in spaces where historically stratified social relations and power hierarchies constantly and consistently disadvantage specific populations. But, before heading into a discussion of the relationship between land documents, land rights, and land security, it is pertinent to reflect on what the word security means.

Complicating Security:

Security is an interesting word. In the dictionary, it is categorised as a noun (See: Merriam-Webster); it may refer to the state of being free from danger or threat, denote measures taken to achieve that, it could mean something that provides a sense of certainty, safety, or guarantee (like a deposit, job security, or a document that proves ownership— like a title or a stock certificate), or the state of being able to meet one’s basic minimum needs (food security) (See: Merriam-Webster). Security of land rights and tenure draws on some of these elements and is defined as the “certainty that a person’s right to land will be recognised by others and protected in cases of specific challenges” (FAO 2002:18). The OHCHR’s report complements this statement by adding, “At a minimum, land tenure security should protect occupants/users against forced eviction, harassment and other threats related to land regardless of the type of tenure. In this context, land tenure security can be viewed as the degree of confidence individuals and groups enjoy in maintaining access to, use of, and control over land [emphasis not mine]”. 

With regard to land, however, I argue that security needs to be thought of as an action word— a verb, something processual, something that needs to be constantly worked upon— so that it does not get undone. Viewing security as such allows us to approach the question of land rights and security not as something that is a ‘done game’ as soon as title deeds are handed over but as something that requires continuous negotiation and work. This is especially so when we centre on communities facing vulnerabilities and those at the margins, for whom land security is not a guarantee but a continuous and ongoing struggle— one that requires sustained action to uphold. This article explores why land security must be reimagined as a verb, as an active process essential for justice. It does so by focusing on two cases from India— one from Gujarat and another from Kerala—to elucidate the complexities that undergird the experience of secure land rights. Although the examples date back several years, they still hold valuable insights for us today. Drawing on newspaper reports and other grey materials, this article approaches these cases by asking: What shape and form does land security take following land distribution? And how is land security experienced, bolstered, or even undone?

Cases and Examples:

Case 1: The land rights protests that emerged in the state of Gujarat in India in 2018 provide an excellent example of how land security needs constant work and doesn’t end with just the allocation of paper. A report from April 2018 notes that 22 families belonging to Dalit and Adivasi communities were yet to receive physical possession of land, which was allocated to them decades ago on paper. The report continued to note that this was not an isolated incident but that several others hailing from 12 other districts faced similar predicaments— they were all allocated land on paper but could not possess it. It further stated that caste-based atrocities that were committed against Dalits emerged out of conflicts over these lands, which were distributed to them as part of the early days of land reform. However, physical possession of these properties remained a mirage, as government authorities barely showed any will to acquire the land and hand it over to the new occupants. At one point, the report cites a resolution which stated, “local authorities refuse to vacate encroachments upon the land, which legally belongs to Dalits or Adivasis” (see here).

While land reforms and the subsequent allocation of property to Dalits and Adivasis had much to do with freeing them from landlessness and ensuring their security of tenure and land rights, what was seen in the aftermath of these allocations was that they remained solely on paper. These lands were either occupied by dominant caste groups, who refused to relinquish their possession, stuck in red tape, or both. With physical possession not being concomitantly transferred alongside the allotment of land rights, what emerged was a population of Dalits and Adivasis whose land security continued to be in limbo.

In other cases, the Navsarjan Trust— a grassroots Dalit organisation in Gujarat—found that the absence of regularisation of land rights meant that in several villages, at that time, Dalits were granted ‘legal possession’ of roughly 6000 acres of land without actual physical possession. This was also reported in an op-ed by Martin Macwan in the Indian Express, a national daily, in 2018.

More recently, however, news from Gujarat has been inspiring. After a long and arduous struggle spanning a little over 40 years, Dalits were finally able to reclaim their land by compelling the state to remove the encroachers and resolving any discrepancies in documentation. This struggle, led by grassroots Dalit organisations, Dalit farmers, and activist-politician Jignesh Mevani, relied on the labour of several stakeholders (see here, here, and here). Mevani and his organisation, for instance, had to conduct robust surveys to determine how many families were affected and then petition the court.

This constant and continuous labouring to secure what was already legally granted by the state demonstrates how land security needs to be verb-ed out. It requires steady and perpetual work and negotiation, especially when those involved belong to communities that experience marginalisation and vulnerability. Moreover, larger histories of discrimination and oppression, in this case— striated along the lines of caste, class, and gender, become important. This has a huge bearing on how effectively institutions protect constitutionally enshrined rights.

Case 2: In March 2020, the New Indian Express, a popular Indian newspaper, ran an interesting report centring on the Government of Kerala’s Zero Landless Scheme. It said, “716 families pay tax for land, but have no access to it […] Though the government gave title deeds to the beneficiaries, the plots were not demarcated and assigned to them, said the official”.

The Zero Landless Scheme, an ambitious development programme, was launched by the erstwhile United Democratic Front Government in 2013 (see: here). Its mission was to ensure there were zero landless people in Kerala by 2015. The article from 2020, however, pointed to grave concerns, highlighting that though title deeds were issued to beneficiaries, the corresponding plots of land were not clearly demarcated and handed over to them. As a result, while the beneficiaries continued to pay land tax— with the view of asserting their legal rights over the assigned plot— physical possession had not been transferred to them.

In other instances, lands allocated were so far away from where the beneficiaries stayed and worked that gaining meaningful possession of these far away lands remained an illusion (see here). Reports from as far back as 2013 highlight how the issuance of title deeds (also called pattas) and other land documents helped the state promote the narrative that the scheme was being well-implemented even as several beneficiaries raised complaints regarding the allocation of land. For instance, in some cases, lands distributed to landless Adivasis were reclaimed by the state after learning that these plots belonged to a separate bureaucratic department and could not be redistributed; in other instances, dominant communities refused to relinquish their possession of land to the beneficiaries, causing further conflict (See: here).

Akin to Gujarat, recovering land from those who encroached upon it has been difficult for the state, even though these plots were allocated to Adivasis, on paper (see: here). In another instance, a 2013 newspaper article notes that a beneficiary said, “It now seems that what we were given were some worthless papers and not land” (see: here). Similar sentiments were also echoed in Haritha John’s granular report on the Zero Landless Scheme, where her respondent, Ponnamma noted, “We are fed up; many times we approached village and panchayat office. Nothing has been done. Our land remains in the papers, we have even given request letters to the Chief Minister” (Haritha John- The News Minute 2015).

This example from Kerala helps us complicate two things: one, just because land titles are awarded does not mean that landlessness vanishes or land insecurity doesn’t persist; two, land tenure security is a process requiring ongoing negotiation and action. This latter bit, as argued earlier, is particularly the case with historically marginalised communities like Dalits and Adivasis, who have to constantly wrestle against institutional and state apathy. Unlike dominant caste communities whose land rights are usually protected legally and institutionally, Dalits and Adivasis often face an uphill task to just realise their legally sanctioned and allocated land rights. This once again points out how land security, in these contexts, is often not a given, but something that needs to be laboured and worked upon day after day, so that it doesn’t wilt away.

Concluding Thoughts:

Titles and land documents, to be sure, definitely matter. After all, these documents provide a legal basis for a claim to land. They also embody the state’s recognition and validation of one’s land rights. That being said, these examples also illustrate the importance of sequence. That is, when titles and other land documents reach beneficiaries before the land is physically handed over, it complicates how land rights are experienced and even undone. In these instances, the legal recognition of land rights did not accompany the physical transfer of land. As a result, the land insecurity and landlessness these seemingly well-intentioned schemes sought to remedy were simply sustained. Land security, thus, in these contexts, had to be constantly negotiated, claimed, contested, and put together—in other words, it required unwavering action and had to be verbed out. These cases also reveal that land security can be fleeting and slippery; it does not operate in a vacuum but is deeply entrenched and saturated in historically contingent socio-political relations of power.

Notes:

[1] One important criticism against de Soto’s work is that it fails to consider how this may pave the way for free market land transactions and speculation, thus further disadvantaging vulnerable populations. Another criticism of his work is how the poor and their informal networks and markets are treated rather simplistically, discounting the nuance of the issue. For more details, see: https://www.eurozine.com/hernando-de-soto-and-the-mystification-of-capital/#:~:text=In%20a%20critique%20of%20Hernando,the%20poor%20out%20of%20poverty. https://chriswoodruff.qeh.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/de-soto-JEL.pdf https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/influence-sotos-mystery-capital/

References:

Claeys, Priscilla. 2015. “The Right to Land and Territory: New Human Right and Collective Action Frame.” Revue Interdisciplinaire d’études Juridiques 75 (2): 115–37. https://doi.org/10.3917/riej.075.0115.

Cotula, Lorenzo. 2019. “Land and Human Rights: Towards a Rights-Based Approach for Addressing Commercial Pressures on Land.” Pressures on Land and Speculation. Geneva: International Institute for Environment and Development. https://www.iied.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/migrate/G04428.pdf.

Daniel, Desiree, Michael Sutherland, and Chinwe Ifejika Speranza. 2019. “The Role of Tenure Documents for Livelihood Resilience in Trinidad and Tobago.” Land Use Policy 87 (September):104008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.05.027.

Deininger, Klaus, Harris Selod, and Anthony Burns. 2012. “The Land Governance Assessment Framework: Identifying and Monitoring Good Practice in the Land Sector.” 65743. Agriculture and Rural Development. Washington DC: The World Bank.

FAO. 2002. “Land Tenure and Rural Development.” 3. FAO Land Tenure Studies. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organisation.

Gilbert, Jérémie. 2013. “Land Rights as Human Rights: The Case for a Specific Right to Land.” Sur - International Journal on Human Rights 10 (18): 115–35.

Golay, Christophe. 2020. “The Right to Land and the UNDROP.” International Land Coalition.

Jayaraj, VR. 2013. “Kerala CM’s Zero Landless Scheme Proves to Be a Farce.” The Pioneer, November 9, 2013, Kochi edition. https://www.dailypioneer.com/2013/india/kerala-cms-zero-landless-scheme….

John, Haritha. 2015. “Land Deeds Handed over by Sonia Gandhi, 17 Months Later 32 Families Are Still Landless.” The News Minute, February 12, 2015. https://www.thenewsminute.com/kerala/land-deeds-handed-over-sonia-gandh….

Koshy, Sneha Mary. 2013. “Kannur in Kerala Declared India’s First ‘Zero Landless Citizen’s District.’” Www.Ndtv.Com, November 2, 2013, South edition. https://www.ndtv.com/south/kannur-in-kerala-declared-indias-first-zero-….

“Land, Climate and Environmental Rights in Focus.” 2024. ISHR. December 19, 2024. https://ishr.ch/our-priorities/topics/land-climate-and-environmental-ri….

“Land Right Is a Human Right - Asian NGO Coalition.” 2021. June 23, 2021. https://angoc.org/news/land-right-is-a-human-right/.

“Land Rights.” n.d. Accessed December 28, 2024. https://www.eda.admin.ch/deza/en/home/themes-sdc/agriculture-food-secur….

“Land Rights | Environment Rights.” n.d. Accessed December 28, 2024. https://environment-rights.org/rights/land-rights/.

“Land Rights - Olivier De Schutter | United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.” n.d. Accessed December 28, 2024. http://www.srfood.org/en/land-rights.

“Land Tenure Security in Selected Countries: Synthesis Report.” 2014. HA/039/14E. Kenya: United National Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT).

Macwan, Martin. 2018. “The Lay of the Land.” The Indian Express, March 21, 2018. https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/land-rights-dalits-gu….

Mishra, Prachee, and Roopal Suhag. 2017. “Land Records and Titles in India.” PRS.

“OHCHR and Land and Human Rights.” n.d. OHCHR. Accessed December 28, 2024. https://www.ohchr.org/en/land.

“Provide Physical Possession of Land to Dalits, Adivasis by May 1, or Face Gujarat-Wide Agitation: Chief Minister Told.” 2018. April 20, 2018. https://www.counterview.in/2018/04/provide-physical-possession-of-land-….

Ramsahye, Robin. 2016. “The human right to land: A case of too many rights spoiling the broth or a recipe for justice?” Völkerrechtsblog. https://doi.org/10.17176/20180522-200042.

Shah, Jumna. 2024. “How Dalits in Gujarat Became Rightful Owners of Land Worth Rs 600 Cr.” India Today, September 19, 2024. https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-insight/story/how-dalits-in-gujar….

The Hindu. 2013. “Kerala Govt. Firm on Recovering Land from Encroachers,” December 17, 2013, sec. Kozhikode. https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/kozhikode/kerala-govt-firm-on-reco….

The Indian Express. 2024. “Land Allotted to Dalits Encroached, Says Jignesh Mevani, Seeks Action from Govt,” February 22, 2024. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/ahmedabad/land-allotted-to-dal….

The New Indian Express. 2020. “716 Families Pay Tax for Land, but Have No Access to It,” March 12, 2020. https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/2020/Mar/12/716-families….

The Pioneer. 2013. “Kerala’s Zero Landless Scheme a Gimmick,” October 21, 2013, Thiruvananthapuram edition. https://www.dailypioneer.com/2013/india/keralas-zero-landless-scheme-a-….

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. 2015. “Land and Human Rights: Standards and Applications.” HR/PUB/15/5/Add.1.