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 ?
Approach · directive: “how would you approach / what would be the main elements”
What it asks · Explain how a policymaker would approach the unfair sharing of costs and benefits of development, and set out the main elements of a fair compensation and rehabilitation policy.
The question has 2 parts — answer each
- Explain how you would approach the problem of the unjust distribution of the costs and benefits of development
- Set out the main elements of your suggested compensation-cum-rehabilitation policy
Open with · Development projects are meant to benefit the nation, but if those who lose land and community bear the whole cost, the gain is neither just nor sustainable.
Cover
- Approach: treat displacement as a last resort, affected people as partners, and the poorest as those who must not bear the costs; consult tribal and rural representatives.
- Prevent and minimise: choose alternative sites and designs that need less land, avoid forests and Scheduled Areas where possible, and make displacement the last option.
- Consent and participation: social impact assessment with public hearings, gram sabha consent, and recognition of rights over forest and common land, with all information in local languages.
- Compensation: fair market value with solatium, paid on time and before eviction; include non-owners such as landless labourers, sharecroppers, artisans and forest dwellers.
- Rehabilitation: land for land where possible, houses with civic amenities, jobs or skills, subsistence allowance, and resettling whole communities with their culture and common resources.
- Benefit sharing: a share in project income such as equity or royalty, local development funds (like District Mineral Foundations under the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015) and preference in jobs and contracts.
- Institutions and monitoring: a single agency, ring-fenced funds, rehabilitation completed before construction begins, independent audit, quick grievance redress and a database of all affected families.
Close with · A just policy shares the gains of development with those who pay its price, and it treats rehabilitation as a condition for the project, not an afterthought.
Add value (verified)
- Article 39(b) directs State policy toward distributing community resources for the common good, supporting the ethical case for sharing project benefits fairly. The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024), Article 39(b) — Legislative Department ↗“the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good”
- Rawls: the least advantaged are not objects of charity or pity but those to whom reciprocity is owed as a matter of basic justice. John Rawls — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ↗““The least advantaged are not, if all goes well, the unfortunate and unlucky—objects of our charity and compassion, much less our pity—but those to whom reciprocity is owed as a matter of basic justice” ( JF , 139).”
- RFCTLARR Act, 2013, s. 2(2): acquisition for private companies needs the prior consent of at least 80% of affected families, and for PPP projects at least 70%. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — bare Act (High Court of Tripura) ↗“(i) private companies, the prior consent of at least eighty per cent, of those affected families, as defined in sub-clauses (i) and (v) of clause (c) of section 3; and (ii) public private partnership projects, the prior consent of at least seventy per cent. of those affected families”
- RFCTLARR Act, 2013, s. 41: as far as possible no acquisition in Scheduled Areas; where it happens, only as a demonstrable last resort and with prior consent of the gram sabha or panchayat. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — bare Act (High Court of Tripura) ↗“(1) As far as possible, no acquisition of land shall be made in the Scheduled Areas. (2) Where such acquisition does take place it shall be done only as a demonstrable last resort. (3) In case of acquisition or alienation of any land in the Scheduled Areas, the prior consent of the concerned Gram Sabha”
- Orissa Mining Corporation v MoEF (Niyamgiri), Supreme Court, 18 April 2013: the gram sabha to decide on the community's claims within three months before the final decision on Stage II forest clearance. Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs Ministry of Environment & Forest & Ors, 18 April 2013 — Supreme Court (Indian Kanoon) ↗“We are, therefore, inclined to give a direction to the State of Orissa to place these issues before the Gram Sabha with notice to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India and the Gram Sabha would take a decision on them within three months”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2016, GS Paper IV — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 1 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 360 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS
Rawls held that the least advantaged are not objects of charity but people to whom reciprocity is owed "as a matter of basic justice". Adivasis and villagers who give up land for mines and dams are exactly such people.
How I would approach the problem
- Principles: displacement only as a last resort; the affected as partners, not obstacles; no family left a net loser; Article 39(b) directs that community resources serve the common good.
- Stakeholders: displaced families including the landless and forest dwellers; host communities; developers; the government; future generations.
- Method: study past displacements, consult gram sabhas and tribal representatives before drafting, and build on the 2013 land acquisition law rather than start afresh.
Main elements of the suggested policy
| Stage | Policy element |
|---|---|
| Before | Avoid, assess impact, obtain consent |
| At displacement | Full, timely compensation |
| After | Livelihood, community, shared benefits |
- Avoid and minimise: alternative sites and designs; the 2013 Act permits acquisition in Scheduled Areas only "as a demonstrable last resort", with prior consent of the gram sabha.
- Consent and participation: a social impact assessment with public hearings; prior consent of 80% of affected families for private projects and 70% for PPP projects; information in local languages.
- The gram sabha's voice: in the Niyamgiri case (2013) the Supreme Court directed that the gram sabha decide on the community's claims before the final clearance for the mining project.
- Fair compensation: market value with solatium, paid in full before eviction; cover sharecroppers, artisans and forest dwellers, who lose livelihoods rather than titles.
- Livelihood rehabilitation: land for land where possible; a house with water, school and health access; a job or skill training with a subsistence allowance until incomes stabilise; resettle communities together so kinship, culture and commons survive.
- Benefit sharing: equity, royalty or annuity; District Mineral Foundations under the MMDR Amendment Act, 2015; preference in project jobs and contracts.
- Institutions: one accountable agency, ring-fenced funds, rehabilitation completed before construction, a database of every affected family, independent social audit and a time-bound grievance forum.
Development is just only when those who pay its price share its gains. Making rehabilitation a precondition, not an afterthought, turns the displaced from victims of growth into its stakeholders.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.