RAIPUR: Chhattisgarh has witnessed a spate of mass agitations in recent months against coal and mineral mining projects, exposing a critical gap in the way mining blocks are auctioned and developed.
Protests have erupted against the Amera extension coal project of Coal India Ltd in Sarguja, the Purunga coal project and the Tamnar coal block in Raigarh, besides opposition to limestone projects of major cement and aluminium companies. Similar resistance has also been reported from other states.
Among the sequence of events, what increasingly becomes apparent is that after the coal and mineral blocks are successfully auctioned for commercial mining, there arises a critical gap—auction done without resolving statutory, land and social prerequisites. This disconnect purportedly unfolds as a single biggest reason behind excessive delays, growing social unrest around mining projects or even cancelled public hearings.
Development of coal and mineral blocks requires prior approvals and coordination with Gram Sabhas and panchayats, along with no-objection certificates from departments such as forests, railways, irrigation, revenue and mining. Corporate players argue that tender documents should ideally include khasra-wise land details, ownership records and maps clearly demarcating private, government and forest land.
“However, most of these responsibilities to accomplish are transferred to the successful bidder after the auction, despite the bidder having paid large upfront premiums and committed to long-term investments”, they narrated in unanimity and further claimed that such structural weakness leaves the investor exposed to local opposition, administrative delays, and political mobilisation for circumstances beyond their control.
Mining blocks are awarded on premium and the huge revenues generated through it are intended for local development.
In addition to substantial land compensation, affected families receive comprehensive rehabilitation benefits: housing plots ranging from 300 to 600 square metres, house construction assistance, livelihood support, transport allowance, resettlement grants, and options for employment, lump-sum payments or long-term pensions. Despite these safeguards, public hearings are increasingly being disrupted or cancelled.
Distrust prevails when local leaders from both ruling and opposition parties seen initially fuel protests that later spiral into larger agitations. Vote-bank politics, misinformation, and attempts to extract additional concessions frequently overshadow genuine environmental concerns. And these may lead to serious implications.
Development and dissent must coexist in a democracy, but many believe that development cannot be held hostage to manufactured unrest.
To address such repeated issues, officials on condition of anonymity agreed for the pressing need for policy correction preferably at the national level. They agreed that the pre-auction preparedness should be mandatory. All statutory clearances need to be reasonably secured—Gram Sabha consultations, land verification, inter-departmental NoCs—should be completed before a block is auctioned.
Public hearings must be protected by law, with a scope for lawful protest and finally there can be accountability mechanisms introduced to deter repeated, organised disruptions after due process has been followed.