1) “…to minimize displacement of people and to promote non-displacing or least-displacing alternatives…only the minimum necessary area of land commensurate with the purpose of the project should be taken, and the use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes should be kept to the minimum…and irrigated land use should be kept to the minimum for such purposes…
none of the ‘minimum’ in this article has been quantified. who defines the minimum?
2) in my experience as a trainer, i know that adults are damned hard to teach new things. it even takes a good bit of drilling to get people to say ‘sorry’. the government, however, seems quite confident that a few weeks (maybe, it isn’t quantified either) training will successfully turn a farmer into what, a jhakkas tailor? a smart security guard? an expert auto driver? (no, that has not been quantified either)
3) “…preference to groups or cooperatives of the affected persons in the allotment of contracts and other economic opportunities in or around the project site…”
how many “affected persons” will have the skill to handle the ‘economic opportunities” around the “project site”? for instance, how many of the displaced marginal farmers in singur would know how to operate the tata plant canteen? and even if they were ‘preffered’, how does one check the quality of their work? and do they get sacked if they don’t perform?
there are aspects of this policy (on paper) that i like, though.
1) “The benefits under the new Policy shall be available to all affected persons and families whose land, property or livelihood is adversely affected by land acquisition or by involuntary displacement of a permanent nature due to any other reason, including natural calamities.”
2) “Besides, the policy talks about housing benefits including houses to the landless affected families in both rural and urban areas.”
…and the joke goes on…