Redraft the draft

That the government, as reported in this newspaper, has put out a draft rehabilitation policy for public discussion should be viewed in this context: if every big project that requires land gives birth to a protest movement, neither the project nor 8212; contrary to activist assumptions 8212; the people benefit. The smart way is to create compensation packages that offer a mark-up on the base offer, which must not be niggardly to begin with. The mark-up is required so that affected people feel the development agency is aware that there are inherent costs to displacement. This is the only way to incentivise movement. The second requirement is that compensation must reach in time and if it does not, the agency must pay attractive rates of interest. That8217;s a good way to disincentivise apathy in rehab policy. Clearly, this kind of rehab can only work if the exercise is allowed to be flexible in terms of details. How does the draft rehab policy address this?

Sadly, good intent in the policy has been equated with a good number of bureaucratic institutions and solutions. There are plenty of committees, nods to representational and civil society politics and fixed, in terms of land or money, compensation plans. Therefore, there8217;s little flexibility. To say, for example, that displaced cattleshed owners in wasteland will be given Rs 3,000 per hectare makes no sense when wasteland acquisition in two places are unlikely to have the same problems or parameters. Or, those losing a house may not want a free plot, even if they are satisfied with the government ceiling on the plot size. They may want money. Agricultural workers may prefer training for a better job than a menial job at the project site or the promise of minimum wage-based compensation.

An essential point about rehab projects is that they must not treat the affected as victims requiring fixed treatment. A compensation package that handsomely reflects market rewards is better than one promising re-creation of livelihoods, something bureaucrats are very bad at. The draft policy needs a serious redraft.