Examine the challenges of rehabilitation and resettlement in large infrastructure projects affecting tribal populations in India.

Q. Examine the challenges of rehabilitation and resettlement in large infrastructure projects affecting tribal populations in India. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The Xaxa Committee (2014) noted that tribal communities bear a disproportionate share of development-induced displacement while gaining the least from such projects [4]. Protests around the ₹44,605-crore Ken-Betwa Link Project show that rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) remains the weakest link in India's infrastructure push [1][5].

Legal and procedural gaps - The LARR Act, 2013 mandates Social Impact Assessment, consent and a defined R&R entitlement schedule, but exemptions and varying state rules dilute these safeguards in practice [2]. - The Forest Rights Act, 2006 requires recognition of individual and community forest rights before diversion; claims often remain undecided when possession is taken [3].

Inadequate and inequitable compensation - Awards are cash- and land-title-centric, ignoring commons — grazing land, minor forest produce — that the FRA recognises as livelihood rights [3]. - Differentiated packages breed conflict: in Ken-Betwa, submergence-affected and canal-affected families in Chhatarpur and Panna allege unequal treatment [5].

Livelihood and cultural dislocation - Forest-dependent households are relocated into cash economies without skills or assets, producing what the Xaxa Committee described as post-displacement impoverishment and loss of social networks [4]. - Land-for-land is rarely feasible near project sites, and sacred groves and kinship ties are simply non-compensable.

Institutional and implementation deficits - Faulty enumeration excludes tenants, landless labour and adult sons; correction is reactive — at Ken-Betwa, inclusion of left-out families was assured only after a prolonged hunger strike [5]. - R&R lags construction, as engineering milestones under an eight-year completion target dominate review [1].

R&R fails less from absent law than from weak sequencing and ownership. Settling FRA claims and completing resettlement before submergence, offering land-for-land with annuity and project-benefit sharing, and vesting monitoring in Gram Sabhas under PESA can align projects with Article 46 and SDG-10. Water security for Bundelkhand is legitimate; it must not be financed by tribal impoverishment.

(~325 words)

Sources: 1. PIB, "Cabinet approves Ken-Betwa Interlinking of Rivers Project" (Dec 2021) — project cost of ₹44,605 crore, components and eight-year implementation timeline 2. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — Social Impact Assessment, consent and R&R entitlement framework 3. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 — individual and community forest rights, including minor forest produce 4. Report of the High Level Committee on Socio-Economic, Health and Educational Status of Tribal Communities (Xaxa Committee, 2014), Ministry of Tribal Affairs — disproportionate tribal displacement and post-displacement impoverishment 5. The Hindu, "Why are there protests over the Ken-Betwa project?" (July 26, 2026) — Chhatarpur/Panna protests, compensation disparity, and post-agitation assurance on rehabilitation inclusion