Deceptive promise of more

Faced with sporadic and, at times, bloody protests over land acquisition, the government has come out with a new rehabilitation and resettlement policy which, though relatively rational and balanced, is not flawless. The new code moots, apart from financial compensation, measures like land in lieu of land, jobs in the new projects, and education and skill training for those rendered landless. Besides, the solatium to be paid to affected land holders has been doubled from 30 per cent to 60 per cent of the market value of land. The new policy also seeks to make it easier to take over land by widening the definition of "public purpose" for justifying acquisition and (as this newspaper has advocated) allows state governments to acquire up to 30 per cent land for those private parties who manage to procure on their own 70 per cent of the land required for their projects.

However, the land-for-land provision is conditional on the availability of land in the proposed resettlement area, which automatically makes this obligation inapplicable in most cases. Similarly, the stipulation of employing at least one person from each of the affected families in the industrial or other project concerned is subject to there being vacancies and the suitability of those persons for the available jobs; these are logical qualifications but they also make it easy to dodge the commitment being given. Even the new definition of the "public purpose" has angered land rights activities, who feel that this concept has been given the widest possible range of meanings. The government, on its part, has sought to forestall the misuse of land acquired for a private party by laying down that the land would revert to it if not used for the stated purpose within five years. The catch even here is that the land goes back to the government, and not to the original owners. All this gives rise to scepticism about how much of a difference the new policy will make.