Date:19/10/2007 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2007/10/19/stories/2007101962241500.htm

New Delhi

Rehabilitation policy for oustees deceptive: Medha

Gargi Parsai

NEW DELHI: Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) leader Medha Patkar on Thursday declared that the struggle for the project-affected families to get their rightful share of rehabilitation and resettlement (R & R) would have to “continue” as the recently declared R & R policy was “deceptive and tricky.” She said the government ignored the suggestions of people’s movements and affected people and came up with a policy that suited the private interests at the cost of public resources.

Ms. Patkar who has been carrying the longest-ever struggle in modern times for the rehabilitation and resettlement of the Narmada dam affected populations, said the R&R Policy that had been declared was “highly complicated, confusing and at the same time deceptive.”

‘Ifs’ and ‘buts’

“The Land-for-Land based rehabilitation is subject to ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ and only to the ‘extent available’ whereas it is a known fact that the only land available with government authorities is either wasteland or non-cultivable land. Then how relevant would this sort of compensation be for the farmers and those dependent on farmlands?” she questioned.

Ms. Patkar alleged that by keeping the Land Acquisition Act intact, the United Progressive Alliance government had resorted to betrayal of the farmers and all others who were made to sacrifice for development projects. “While the complete draft of the policy is not yet available, various press statements indicate that the policy would be facilitative more to the interests of the corporates and developers than the affected populations,” she said. According to her, while the demand by people’s movements to abolish the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 is met with mixed response, the definition and scope of Public Purpose itself has been enlarged to include the private interests at the cost of public resources.

“Employment generation is stated in the objectives but more as a lip-service than with any serious effort to achieve. In any case, the assurance for providing employment is only in the form of ‘preference’ and ‘subject to availability of vacancies’ and ‘suitability of the affected persons’ and not as a guarantee.”

Ms. Patkar said in the new policy, 70 per cent of the total land would have to be purchased by the company/corporates and the rest could be compulsory acquired by governments. “How and why has the earlier announcement of keeping it at 90-10 ratio been changed? It is also not clear that whether whole of the policy will be applicable to those who would be selling their land.” The cash-based compensation and the success of the proposed decision to providing 20 to 50 per cent compensation in the form of shares in the proposed project would depend on the extent of transparency that was there. She said the proposed policy did not specify how displacement would be kept at the minimum as had been declared in the objectives.

Ms. Patkar said the Government ignored the suggestions given by the NBA to make the policy a real intention to rehabilitate the displaced. “The drafts submitted by the NBA and the National Movement of People’s Alliance were accepted by Sonia Gandhi as the head of the National Advisory Council but shelved by the Union Ministry of Rural Development and the Empowered Group of Ministers.”