E/CN.4/2003/90 page 17 49. Only the Adivasi population who live in the area that will be submerged in the reservoir (considered as project affected peoples, or PAP) are eligible for compensation and resettlement. However, many more will be affected indirectly, yet they are often not considered as PAP and therefore ineligible for rehabilitation. This would include people on islands that would be marooned and in areas affected by canals, dykes, the creation of a new wildlife sanctuary and a reforestation scheme to compensate for tree loss, and resettlement schemes on traditional Adivasi lands. Adivasi territory has also been affected by the construction of a colony to house the workers and officials engaged in the construction work and administration of the dam. All of these secondary consequences have displaced Adivasi villages and affected their lives and livelihoods. Patwardan comments that “displacement needs to be viewed as a ‘process’ rather than an ‘event’ which starts much before the actual physical displacement and continues for a long time after uprooting has taken place”, and concludes that the current situation is symptomatic of the “gross underestimation of the human costs of large dams”.57 50. Whereas state governments have offered comprehensive resettlement and compensation packages to “landless” Adivasis displaced from their homes, observers point out that in practice Adivasis have not fully benefited from them. The promised lands in Gujarat did not materialize or were of poor quality, whereas in Madya Pradesh the government had no resources to resettle displaced Adivasis. Moreover, resettlement has been delayed for many years and it is reported that 75 per cent of the displaced people have not been rehabilitated.58 To the extent that the law does not recognize customary rights to land and that therefore Adivasis may be considered “encroachers” on government land, they have not received adequate compensation for their losses. In common with other indigenous peoples, Adivasis have a unique and close relationship with the land and its resources. Compensation packages treat land as property, whereas for Adivasis, their land is intrinsically linked to their culture and livelihood. It appears that the Government has failed to deal with the numerous non-quantifiable losses experienced due to the dam such as loss of access to religious sites and social disintegration.59 Displacement due to the SSP has led to fragmentation of Adivasi communities as well as loss of cultural identity. Resettlement areas are often unsuited to the communal lifestyle of Adivasis, particularly if they have been resettled in communities of non-tribal people who reject the tribal way of life or have had to move to the cities.60 51. Involuntary displacement readily leads to a violation of several economic, social and cultural rights. Despite claims to the contrary, resettled Adivasis have generally had to suffer a reduction in their standard of living, the loss of livelihood resources, and a reduction of health standards, a situation that stands counter to articles 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. While in displaced communities Government has established schools for the population, there are reports that due to economic hardship many children cannot afford to stay in school, whereas the curriculum appears to be ill-adapted to the cultural and language needs of Adivasi children (art. 13).61 There have also been reports of violence and the use of force by the police upon protesters and resisters to displacement, in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.62 The NBA recently called for protest of the decision by the Narmada Control Authority63 in May 2002 to allow the dam height to rise to 95 m even though over 35,000 families displaced when the dam height reached 90 m have still not been resettled.64 In a recent urgent appeal to the Prime Minister of India the Habitat International Coalition reported that “submergence due to the monsoons and raising the