So let's put things in a bit of perspective here.
On the one hand it is wrong to take over someone else's property and land. It is illegal and part of the law system which protects other people/corporations and governments from taking what is rightfully ours. If one of these people came and took over part of our homes we would feel bad, right?
But that's not the half the picture.
1. How did the people who currently own this land come to become its owners? We are fully well aware of how the sale of land of this size happens. Are we not aware of how much money exchanged hands or are we not aware of how many bureaucrats themselves have vested interests in it. I would be interested to look at the uncensored deed of the papers, the partnership of the venture that is making that mall. Who is willing to bet there's a politician who's part owner in the enterprise? How the revenue generated from sale of commercial shops will go on to fund the next candidacy of an elected official. Police force that harasses women in the city doesn't become effective overnight. This happens when a minister orders them to evacuate people.
2. On what basis was this land distributed. The premise of the government is that it owns public land (since it is made up of 'public') and ideally distributes land to serve the community better. There are huge ranges of green in bangalore that have been destroyed and are currently being destroyed for construction. Finding a park in the city is now almost akin to finding an oasis in a desert. Greens used by military are taken over for corporate construction in the city. There is no consideration towards these people with respect to their lives when these decisions are made. The only beneficiaries of these constructions are us, the upper middle class and consumers and the rich corporations who are the producers.
3. These people are being dislocated because they are affecting someone's plans and there is/might be talk about them being compensated. Why can't the people who own the land be relocated and then compensated by more quantity of land in a different less posh location. Surely the eviction of 2000 families should seem like enough reason. But the decision is to favour the few who have come to own this through corporate and government machinery designed for and by them. ( Let us not even go into the interest benefits received by the corporations using fabricated balance sheets, who essentially build the entire project funded largely by public money )
4. Also, according to the Indian constitution, there is no fundamental right to property as of the 42th amendment (or something similar). If there is a man who owns a house on a site where a highway or a trainline needs to be laid, he is removed from that place with compensation. Surely, the lives of 2000 families should be enough cause for that to come into effect. This is in fact an abuse of that very recommendation.
5. One more question we need to ask ourselves is what constitutes owning the land. Living there with your family, constituting a livelihood etc. seem like they should amount to something. If it really comes down to legal residence, most of the poor (tribals etc) don't have legal certificates for land. Two generations ago we wouldn't have any physical ownership to our lands. For crying out loud, we as a country are only 3 generations old.
Moreover, I don't think that law can be used as an absolute defence. They are more often than not the garb much of the powerful hide behind. It is often a mirage designed for protection of the rich and powerful.
For a moment, let us say everything is by the book - Law is useless if all we know is the letter of the law and not the essence of the law.
Rules are made for a reason, to protect not to destroy. Just because a rule is present doesn't mean that it should be blindly followed. If this is a case that makes it look invalid, it should not be followed. And let's face it the reason why we are sitting here typing this mail is because we have won a genetic lottery in india. The people owning/constructing the land are not born geniuses who have hard earned something unique through labour. They are more often than not at the right place at the right time.
Maybe it is even wrong to the corporation that has bought this land. Maybe the business venture they invested in gets hampered and there are some losses. Compensate that by delaying payment liabilities. It's a call between supporting blind
economic growthand an inclusive empathetic decision.
At the gut of it, we just need to ask ourselves one moral question whether it is ok to destroy the lives of 2000 families who are already living at the fringes of society.
