The new policy on
Resettlement and
Rehabilitation (2007) assumes – as the old one did - that the state is the owner of all
land in this country. With that provision intact, it does introduce some new features (such as stipulating that the promoters of industrial projects should come up with alternative sites for their projects). The problem with this policy is that while it appears to be fine on paper, there are still many loopholes and the discretionary powers of the state have not been spelt out in clear terms. For example, the new policy states that:
~ Industrial projects should not displace the local populace (wherever possible)
~ Industrial projects should be set up on wastelands (as far as possible)
In other words, every statement of (good) intent has been qualified by the words “as far as possible”, leaving the administration free to go back on its commitments. And while the new policy does cause for a
social impact (the impact that the project will have on public properties, assets and infrastructure) assessment, it makes it mandatory only where more than 200 families are affected.
The government’s new policy, however, has been more or less pre-empted by the
Supreme Court; which has ruled that the state should acquire agricultural land (for industrial purposes) only as a last resort.
Perhaps the most trenchant criticism of the new policy is that while the government allows acquisition of land for
public purpose, it has not spelled out what that
public purpose is! Environmentalists suspect that the public purpose is only what the government says it is…
Where the new policy scores over the previous one is that it mandates under what terms the land will be acquired (
market rates). The compensation offered is land for land (wherever possible) and employment for one member of the family. The new policy should be complemented for some
out of the box thinking; as it offers the affected families the option of shares in these industrial projects – thus making them stakeholders or shareholders in these enterprises.
In conclusion, whenever the new policy spells out its procedures in concrete terms it looks good – but wherever it gives itself uncalled for flexibility by taking recourse to ambiguity, it begins to (suspiciously) resemble the older policy that it has supposedly replaced. It should be remembered that the older policy also had many of the features present in the new policy – but was a failure. Perhaps the government should reflect on the causes of that failure; the main cause being that the administration could not adhere to its own guidelines and comply with its own regulations.