Land needed for mining, dams and other large-scale projects is acquired mostly from Adivasis, hill dwellers and rural communities. The displaced persons are paid monetary compensation as per the legal provisions. However, the payment is often tardy. In any case, it cannot sustain the displaced families for long. These people do not possess marketable skills to engage in some other occupation. They end up as low paid migrant labourers. Moreover, their traditional ways of community living are destroyed. Thus, the benefits of development go to industries, industrialists and urban communities whereas the costs are passed on to these poor helpless people. This unjust distribution of costs and benefits is unethical. Suppose you have been entrusted with the task of drafting a better compensation-cum-rehabilitation policy for such displaced persons, how would you approach the problem and what would be the main elements of your suggested policy?

Facts and stakeholders

Large projects displace Adivasis, hill dwellers and rural communities who receive tardy, inadequate cash compensation, lack marketable skills, and lose their community life - so costs fall on the poor while benefits accrue to industry and cities. Stakeholders: displaced communities, the state, industry, and future generations. This unjust distribution of costs and benefits is the core ethical wrong.

Ethical issues

• Distributive justice - fair sharing of development's costs and benefits;
• Right to life and livelihood with dignity (Article 21);
• Free, prior and informed consent of tribal communities;
• Intergenerational and cultural loss beyond monetary measure.

Approach to a better policy

I would treat rehabilitation as a right, not charity, shift from one-time cash to sustained livelihood restoration, and make the displaced partners and beneficiaries in the project rather than its victims. I would consult communities directly and use social-impact assessment.

Main elements of the policy

• Fair, prompt compensation at genuine market value with transparent, time-bound disbursal;
• Livelihood restoration - skilling, jobs in the project, and a stake such as equity, annuity or a share of revenue;
• 'Land for land' and housing where feasible, with civic amenities in resettlement sites;
• Free, prior and informed consent and Gram Sabha approval, honouring PESA and the Forest Rights Act, 2006;
• Cultural and community preservation - resettle communities together to protect their social fabric;
• Grievance redress and independent monitoring of rehabilitation outcomes.

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 provides a statutory baseline to build upon.

Conclusion

Development is ethical only when its beneficiaries include those who bear its costs; rights-based, participatory rehabilitation makes growth just.