After much deliberation by many wise heads, including a group headed by Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, the mines ministry appears to have secured a consensus in favour of giving landowners displaced by mining 26 per cent of the profits from mining operations. While the necessary amendment to the relevant legislation has not yet been approved by the Cabinet, that can happen soon. This is unfortunate since mining interests across the board had opposed the provision vigorously during the deliberations. No business interest will willingly give up a share of profits, so the business opposition to the idea is understandable. But the flaws in the concept go deeper and militate against the fundamental objective of ensuring the landowner, usually a tribal, a better return on what has been not just his livelihood but also a way of life and making him part of the development process. It is the failure of the latter that lies at the root of the sense of alienation among tribals in central India, which has found expression in the rise of extremists.
The decision of the central and state governments concerned to stick to the idea is understandable. They have an insurgency problem on their hands and want to be seen to be doing something to set right past wrongs. The problem is that the measure is shortsighted and unlikely to help the displaced tribals in the long run for various reasons. What good is a share of profits if they are volatile (global commodity prices are notoriously so) and sometimes even non-existent, if there is a loss-making year for a business? Besides, profits can be manipulated. Thus, the way to ensure a steadier stream of returns for tribals will be to apportion a share of revenue in the manner of a mining royalty, as we have earlier argued, which is payable as mining operations are carried out. Tata Steel, which has a good record of community service around its mining and steel-making operations, has suggested the social cost of resettlement be made a part of operational costs, not profits, during the life of the mine. It has also suggested that the levy be utilised in consultation with the community through a trust or local development body with participation by all stakeholders. Even so, there is no certainty since businesses can sit for years on mining leases without working, but there is no question as to what makes for a steadier flow of annuity.
Even this is not the complete answer. What a tribal needs is not cash, which is soon gone, but the skill to earn a living through a new occupation. There is an even deeper need, to help tribals retain at least part of the way of living and tradition which define them. For this it is vital to get the right to rehabilitation — in areas geographically similar to the one that is lost and in communities that are able to partially recreate the life that existed earlier. And this is something money can’t buy. Dedicated voluntary action has to be part of the rehabilitation process which must, of course, have the necessary resources to get things done. Since the die has not yet been cast in the matter, it is to be hoped that better sense can still prevail.