RESOLVING LAND DISPUTES
The main occupation of the people living in villages in India is
agriculture. Since agriculture is primarily a land-based activity,
disputes relating to land are common in villages. Let us read the
following story to understand how land disputes occur, and the
mechanism in place to resolve them. MEANS
Answers
Explanation:
he appreciation of conflict resolving mechanisms
A feeling among many people we spoke to is that money plays an important role in the resolution of
land disputes. A frequent discussion about the Bashingantahe is that, despite the fact that they should be
accessible to even the poorest people in the communities, they tend to demand remuneration. Diverse
discussions in the case study communities show, that this remuneration (the agatutu) is often not
regarded as a prescript, but rather as a social obligation, a traditional part of the ceremony of
reconciliation. Nonetheless, despite the fact that the gift of beer is regarded as symbolic and not
circumscribed –in principle, any gift according to the financial capacities of the parties would do-, in
practice many people in the communities eschewed the Bashingantahe for the costs. The convention is
clearly, that while for other disputes remuneration is not compulsory, for land disputes it is. In some
cases the Bashingantahe themselves explicitly demanded a payment for their services.
It was clear that in some instances, the costs of bringing a case forward to the Bashingantahe were the
primary reason people did not approach them and hence left their dispute unresolved. In Muriza, a visit
to the Bashingantahe was not necessary before proceeding to the Tribunal, and the costs of visiting the
institution were seen as high as compared to those of the Tribunal. It was for the costs of bringing a
case forward to the Bashingantahe that people had positive opinions of the Commissions J&P. While
various Bashingantahe mentioned the obligation within their tradition to address any injustice they
observe in their communities, various examples were recorded in which the Bashingantahe did not take
action against injustices involving land, despite apparently being aware of the situation, presumably
because the disadvantaged party had no means at its disposal.
The costs of procedures as well as the fact that outcomes are not always predictable were also a reason
for people not to approach the various Tribunaux. In southern Rumonge, the Tribunal de Résidence is
clearly considered an institute for the rich, and is not much trusted by people without much money. In
Nyagasebeyi it was observed by many people that the progress and outcome of litigation depended very
much on the financial means available to people. Moreover, people with money are able to continue
prosecuting, speculating on the impossibility of their adversaries to appear before court and to continue
litigation, or forcing them to make large expenses. As a result, they are able to win a dispute because of
exhaustion of their adversary, or delay the final outcome of a dispute tremendously, in the meantime
profiting from the status quo. The same tendencies were observed by people in Giteranyi. In Muriza,
several examples were given that showed that people in dispute, rather than being interested in a just
outcome, are being interested in getting what they want. People that can afford it continue litigation
until they beat their opponent, no matter what the costs. Except for Muriza, the fact that procedures at
the Tribunaux took a long time was an important reason for people to search a faster solution at
community level, were cases may often be decided upon in a few weeks time.
In all communities there was talking about corruption in the formal and informal juridical systems. In
Giteranyi in almost half of the examples examined in detail that appeared in front of the Tribunal de
Résidence, people suspected or alleged that corruption had played a decisive role. A lot of people were
convinced that in the Tribunal rich people will by definition win from poor people. However, one
should be careful in the interpretation of accusations of corruption. The tendency was observed of
people to talk about ‘corruption’ is case of judgements that were not at their advantage. In other
instances, judgments were described as corrupted, because people appeared not to understand the logic
behind them. This highlights the need for more transparency and understandable language from both the
Bashingantahe and the Tribunal.