Critically examine the National Policy on Rehabilitation and Resettlement substantiating it with experiences from different parts of India.

Understanding the National Policy on Rehabilitation and Resettlement (NPRR), 2003

The NPRR 2003 outlines a framework for rehabilitation and resettlement of people displaced due to development projects, natural disasters, and other reasons. Its core principles include:

• Right to Rehabilitation and Resettlement: Recognizing displacement as a loss of assets and livelihoods.
• Participation: Ensuring the involvement of affected communities in planning and decision-making.
• Asset Transfer: Providing displaced persons with assets equivalent to those lost.
• Livelihood Restoration: Focusing on restoring livelihoods through skill development, employment, and income generation opportunities.
• Timely Implementation: Ensuring rehabilitation and resettlement occur before displacement, whenever possible.

Critical Assessment: Strengths and Weaknesses

While the NPRR 2003 represented a significant advancement, its implementation has been hampered by several factors.

Strengths

• Framework for Rights-Based Approach: Provided a legal and ethical framework for rehabilitation.
• Increased Awareness: Raised awareness among policymakers and the public about the importance of rehabilitation.
• Community Participation Guidelines: Encouraged community involvement, although effectiveness varies.

Weaknesses

• Lack of Stringent Enforcement: The policy is largely advisory, with no legally binding mechanisms for enforcement. This has led to widespread non-compliance.
• Inadequate Funding: Insufficient budgetary allocations have consistently hindered effective implementation.
• Land Acquisition Challenges: Acquiring land for resettlement remains a major hurdle, often leading to delays and inadequate relocation sites.
• Limited Livelihood Restoration: Rehabilitation packages often fail to adequately restore livelihoods, leaving displaced populations vulnerable.
• Corruption and Leakages: Funds intended for rehabilitation are often diverted due to corruption and bureaucratic inefficiencies.

Experiences from Different Parts of India: Case Studies

Let's examine experiences from different regions to illustrate the policy's successes and failures.

1. Sardar Sarovar Dam (Gujarat & Madhya Pradesh)

The Sardar Sarovar Dam project, a part of the Narmada Valley Development Project, resulted in the displacement of thousands of people. While the NPRR was in place, implementation has been criticized for:

• Delayed Resettlement: Many displaced families were resettled years after the project began, facing immense hardship.
• Inadequate Land: Resettlement land was often of poor quality and unsuitable for agriculture.
• Lack of Livelihood Support: Skill development and employment opportunities were insufficient to sustain displaced families.

According to a 2018 report by the Narmada Control Authority (NCA), over 40,000 families remain to be fully resettled, highlighting the policy’s shortcomings.

2. Polavaram Irrigation Project (Andhra Pradesh)

The Polavaram project has displaced numerous tribal communities. Issues encountered include:

• Forced Displacement: Concerns about the lack of free and informed consent from affected communities.
• Loss of Traditional Livelihoods: Displacement disrupted traditional forest-based livelihoods.
• Inadequate Compensation: Compensation rates were often inadequate to cover the loss of assets and livelihoods.

3. Mining Activities in Odisha (Keonjhar District)

Keonjhar district, rich in iron ore, has witnessed extensive mining activities, leading to the displacement of tribal communities. The experience here demonstrates:

• Lack of Rehabilitation Plans: Mining companies often failed to develop comprehensive rehabilitation plans as mandated by the NPRR.
• Environmental Degradation: Resettlement sites were often located in environmentally degraded areas.
• Loss of Cultural Identity: Displacement disrupted traditional social structures and cultural practices.

A 2021 report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) highlighted significant irregularities in the implementation of rehabilitation and resettlement plans for mining-affected communities in Odisha.

The Right to Fair Compensation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCR Act)

The RFCR Act, 2013, was enacted to strengthen the NPRR 2003 by providing a more robust legal framework for land acquisition, rehabilitation, and resettlement. It mandates:

• Higher Compensation Rates: Increased compensation for land acquisition.
• Resettlement Action Plans (RAPs): Mandatory preparation and implementation of RAPs.
• Grievance Redressal Mechanisms: Establishment of mechanisms for addressing grievances of displaced persons.

However, the RFCR Act has also faced implementation challenges, including delays in land acquisition and inadequate funding.

Policy/Act	Key Features
National Policy on Rehabilitation and Resettlement (NPRR), 2003	Advisory framework; emphasizes participation, asset transfer, livelihood restoration
Right to Fair Compensation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCR)	Legally binding; mandates higher compensation, RAPs, grievance redressal

The National Policy on Rehabilitation and Resettlement, 2003, was a crucial step towards ensuring a more humane approach to displacement. However, its advisory nature and inadequate implementation have limited its effectiveness. While the RFCR Act, 2013, has strengthened the framework, challenges persist. Moving forward, a more robust enforcement mechanism, increased budgetary allocation, and greater community participation are essential. Furthermore, a shift towards a holistic approach that considers the social, cultural, and environmental impacts of displacement is crucial for ensuring sustainable and equitable development. The focus needs to move beyond mere compensation to ensuring that displaced communities can rebuild their lives and livelihoods with dignity.