(a) The problem of displacement is inherent in the idea of development. Analyze the statement critically. (20 marks) (b) Rising…

(a) Is displacement inherent in the idea of development? A critical analysis

The claim has two sides.

For: modernisation theory treats displacement as an unavoidable cost of large dams, mines, industry and urban growth. Critical writers go further. David Harvey's "accumulation by dispossession" shows capital taking over commons such as land, forest and water, and Johan Galtung's structural violence describes the deprivation imposed on weaker groups. In India the burden has fallen on Adivasis, Dalits and small peasants, as in the Sardar Sarovar dam, mining and steel projects such as POSCO in Odisha (abandoned in 2017 after prolonged resistance), and land taken for Special Economic Zones under the SEZ Act, 2005. Rehabilitation has often been late, partial or absent, and commons and livelihoods are rarely compensated.

Against: displacement is not a natural law but the product of a growth-centred model and weak consent. Amartya Sen defines development as the expansion of freedoms, which excludes forced loss of livelihood. Policy has responded: the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2007, and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 require social impact assessment, consent in certain cases and rehabilitation. PESA (1996) and the Forest Rights Act (2006) give gram sabhas a role.

So displacement is a feature of a particular development model, not of development as such; participatory planning, prior informed consent and fair rehabilitation can reduce it.

(b) Rising 'ethnocentrism' leading to conflict

Ethnocentrism, a term from William Graham Sumner, means judging other groups by the standards of one's own, with an in-group/out-group divide. It leads to conflict when elites mobilise it.

Reasons:

• Competitive electoral politics: instrumentalists such as Paul Brass argue that leaders use caste, religion and region as resources for votes and state benefits.
• Scarcity: competition over land, jobs and resources, sharpened by displacement, migration and "sons of the soil" claims in some regions, heightens boundary-making.
• Social media: rapid spread of rumour and stereotyped images hardens group boundaries.
• Historical memory and perceived relative deprivation.

Counterweights: constitutional values, syncretic traditions (Bhakti and Sufi), cross-community economic ties, and courts and civil society limit the escalation. The statement is partly true: ethnocentrism raises conflict risk where it meets competition and political incentives, but it does not by itself produce conflict.

(c) Is social democracy a precondition for political democracy?

Political democracy means universal franchise, rights and competitive elections; social democracy means equality and fraternity in social and economic life.

Ambedkar warned the Constituent Assembly on 25 November 1949 that India was entering a life of contradictions: equality in politics but inequality in social and economic life, with "one man one vote" but not "one value". Unless removed, the latter would endanger political democracy.

India's experience is mixed. Universal franchise has survived since 1950 despite deep hierarchies, so political democracy can exist without social democracy. Yet its depth varies: states with strong land reform, literacy and social movements, such as Kerala, show more responsive local government and better human development, while elsewhere caste dominance and weak redistribution limit accountability.

Social democracy is therefore not a strict precondition for procedural democracy but is needed for its substance and durability.