The NBA asserts that Madhya Pradesh has been forcing cash compensation on oustees in lieu of land-for-land as stipulated, on the ground that land is not available. When the Narmada Award was made, degraded forest land could be used for R&R. But passage of the Forest Conservation Act in 1985 barred all such diversion. The patent untenability of the land-for-land formula was compounded by the terms offered for eligible “oustees”. This provided, with some variations, for a minimum of two ha for each “oustee”, or as much as the holding lost; two ha for each coparcener, two ha for each major son, two ha for every encroacher and two ha for each landless labourer employed. Where was all this land to come from? In addition, each “oustee” is entitled to a 500 sq m homestead plot and to be settled in clusters.

The persisting promise of land-for-land is misconceived as an absolute right and only credible form of R&R. Distress migration from the Narmada Valley, as elsewhere, on account of lack of development or employment opportunities has led to hundreds of thousands moving from farms or the countryside to non-farm, non-land occupations. Where land is available, let land be given by all means. For the rest, and for the most part, supervised cash compensation with training and micro credit for asset-creation and self-employment around homestead plots or flatted factories would be a better answer.

As the SSP dam rises, submergence will be partial and seasonal, sometimes only for a few days in a year of high flood. Many millions of farmers all over the country live with such a regime and practice draw down farming or cultivate char lands richly fertilised by receding floods. To treat all of this as total or permanent “submergence” is to misunderstand and exaggerate the problem. Differential compensation is in order here.

... contd.