← All questionsGS4 · 2016 · Ethics Case Study ·Ethical Compensation-cum-Rehabilitation Policy
QUESTION 10
GS4
20 marks

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 traditional ways of community 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?

WRITE IN
14 min
250 words

What the examiner wants

Design a fair rehabilitation policy for tribal and rural people displaced by large projects.

Case studyName the stakeholders and the issues, weigh the options, and say what you would do and why.

Demand-wise check

  1. 1Stakeholders: displaced people, tribals, industry, government, urban beneficiaries≈50 words
  2. 2Approach: participation, consent, justice, sustainability≈50 words
  3. 3Elements: land-for-land, livelihood and skill training, annuity or share in profits, housing and services, cultural continuity, grievance redress, monitoring≈50 words
  4. 4Tribal safeguards: PESA, FRA, gram sabha consent≈50 words

Open in about 30 words and close in about 30.

Answer plan

Ethical issuesApproachMain policy elementsImplementationConclusion

Where marks usually go

  • Focusing only on cash compensation
  • Ignoring tribal laws

Draw this

  • Table: policy element → purpose

Value addition

  • CaseOrissa Mining Corporation v MoEF (2013, Niyamgiri): gram sabhas decided on mining affecting their rights.Supreme Court, 2013
  • LawDistrict Mineral Foundations under the MMDR Amendment Act 2015 use mining contributions for affected people.MMDR Amendment, 2015
  • LawRFCTLARR Act 2013 mandates SIA and R&R entitlements.RFCTLARR Act, 2013

Mapped topper copies

Reviewed public-source references related to this PYQ. Same-syllabus references are labelled separately.

Links open original public sources. MainsBuddy does not host these answer sheets.