Revision summary
Displacement for mines and dams has dumped costs on Adivasis and villagers while cities take the gain. Cash that arrives late cannot replace commons, skill or dignity. The drafting approach is rights-first, least displacement, consent, and livelihood as the test of success. Policy elements include SIA, payment before taking, land-for-land or royalty or equity, training, gendered titles, host-area support and independent monitoring. RFCTLARR 2013 is the floor; Scheduled Area consent and the Forest Rights Act must actually operate.
Model answer
Copper italics in this answer — like this — are the key facts. Each one is unpacked in the Facts & figures rail.
Introduction
- The stem already names the ethic: costs on the forest and the field, benefits in the city. A better policy cannot be a thicker cheque alone. It must restore livelihood, voice and a share in the project that erased the village.
Body
Stakeholders
- Adivasi, hill and rural families who lose land, commons, graves and skills tied to a place.
- Women and children, who often lose more when cash goes to a male “head”.
- Host villages that receive the displaced.
- Project authorities, industrial users and urban consumers of power, ore and water.
- The State as trustee of Scheduled Areas, forests and public purpose.
- Future generations who inherit either a fair precedent or a pattern of internal colonialism.
Ethical issues and values
- Justice: those who pay the cost must share the benefit. The present pattern fails Rawls’s least-advantaged test and fails Gandhi’s last-person test.
- Dignity: cash that turns a farmer into a nameless migrant is not rehabilitation.
- Consent and voice, especially in Scheduled Areas under the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 and the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
- Sustainability: a mine that ends in a wasteland is a second displacement.
- Values: equity, empathy, trusteeship, non-maleficence, and constitutional special care under Articles 15, 46 and the Fifth and Sixth Schedules.
Approach to drafting
- Start from rights, not from the project’s convenience. Public purpose must be real, least-displacing, and shown in a social impact assessment.
- Treat land, forest, water and culture as a bundle. Paying for the patta and ignoring the commons is a lie.
- Prefer land-for-land and project-linked livelihood over a one-time deposit that inflation will eat.
- Make delay expensive for the acquirer, not for the family.
- Gender the policy: joint titles, separate accounts, and work for women.
- Use the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as the floor, then raise it for Adivasi and hill contexts where the 2013 Act is weaker in practice.
Main elements of the suggested policy
- Avoidance: show why this site, why not a less inhabited alternative, and why a smaller footprint cannot do.
- Free, prior and informed consent in Scheduled Areas, with gram sabha minutes that are not forged; independent observers.
- Social impact assessment with public hearing in the local language, including downstream and host-area effects.
- Compensation: multiplier on market value as in RFCTLARR, plus commons, standing trees, and a solatium; payment before taking possession, with interest that actually bites if the treasury is late.
- Rehabilitation before displacement: houses, roads, school, anganwadi, health post, and electricity in the resettlement site; no “cash and vacant plot on a rock”.
- Livelihood: land for land of comparable quality where possible; if not, a legally enforceable share in royalties or a unit of project equity; jobs with training that starts years before the blast, not a peon post for one son.
- Skills and education: residential schooling and certified trades chosen by the community, not only a contractor’s unskilled roster.
- Food security until the new livelihood is proven, using the National Food Security Act, 2013 pipeline, not a farewell ration.
- Cultural continuity: graveyards, worship sites, and forest access compatible with the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
- Host-area package so the receiving village is not a second victim.
- Independent authority for R&R with Adivasi representation, social audit, and a time-bound grievance tribunal.
- No forced eviction without the package being certified complete by that authority.
- Urban and industrial beneficiaries: a surcharge on the project to fund R&R, so costs are not only “the land loser’s problem”.
- Monitoring for a generation, not for two accounting years; return of unused land.
Options rejected
- Only higher cash: still produces migrants.
- Only jobs at the gate: machines will cut those jobs.
- Treating protest as anti-national: that is how unjust distribution defends itself.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD ACQ[Acquisition] --> AVOID[Avoid or minimise] AVOID --> CON[Consent and SIA] CON --> PAY[Pay before possession] PAY --> LIV[Land skills share in project] LIV --> MON[Independent audit for a generation]
Conclusion
A just policy prices delay, pays before taking, replaces commons and livelihood, shares project rent, and puts gram sabha consent before the blast. Cash without a life is how the unethical pattern continues. The city’s power and ore must carry the hill’s cost on the city’s bill.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Case study. Suppose you are an officer in charge of implementing a social service scheme to provide support to old and destitute women. An old and illiterate woman comes to you to avail the benefits of the scheme. However, she has no documents to show that she fulfils the eligibility criteria. But after meeting her and listening to her you feel that she certainly needs support. Your enquiries also show that she is really destitute and living in a pitiable condition. You are in a dilemma as to what to do. Putting her under the scheme without necessary documents would clearly be violation of rules. But denying her the support would be cruel and inhuman. (a) Can you think of a rational way to resolve this dilemma? (b) Give your reasons for it. 24. You are a young, aspiring.
Next question on this syllabus topic (2016 · Q13). View answer →
-
If the law already pays compensation, why is the pattern still unethical?
Because payment is often late, commons are unpriced, skills are not replaced, and project profits do not return. Legality of a cheque is not justice of a life.
-
Can every family get land for land in a crowded State?
Where comparable land is impossible, the substitute must be a durable share in project value plus real housing and skills, not a shrug and a migrant bus.
Same topic · past papers
UPSC has asked this before
These previous-year questions sit on the same topic. Open one to practise the earlier ask.
More from this topic
Q12 · UPSC Mains 2026 · GS IV · 20 marks · Solution
Case study. Ajit has been recently promoted as the Head of the Department of Weapon Sales (DWS) in the Ministry of Defence Production (MDP). His charter of duties includes international sales of weapons produced domestically by MDP. In two recent wars, MDP weapons have performed admirably, resulting in many countries showing interest in buying them, particularly long-range artillery and missiles. Country A and country B have asked for these weapons. However, production constraints restrict DWS to accept only one purchase order. Country A is a developing nation with a sound technology base. MDP is planning R&D collaboration with it for the next generation of weapons. It is not part of any security alliance and needs weapons for protection from a troublesome neighbour. It seeks a large acquisition on a long-term loan. Country B is also a developing nation. Military strength is its priority, with the military budget often ingressing into allocations for human resources and infrastructure development. It is in security alliance with a superpower who has a large military base there and periodically allots it financial grants. It is a member of an economic bloc with which the government is currently negotiating a free trade agreement. It is not a signatory of NPT but possesses smaller nuclear weapons and delivery systems. It supports some guerrilla forces abroad. It has sought a smaller acquisition and is prepared to make some advance payment. It is currently negotiating arms purchases from another nation too. Ajit discussed this case with his counterparts in the related departments. Therein, the significant economic benefits, employment generation and stronger diplomatic relations arising from this sale were highlighted. It was also emphasized that refusing the deal could result in country B purchasing weapons from some other supplier. Ajit was aware that in arms sales, due diligence at each stage was pivotal to ensure conformity to national policy and international treaties. (a) Discuss the options available to Ajit. Which option should he select and why? (b) How can Ajit balance nation's economic and strategic interests with ethical considerations?
Ethics Case Studies
This case study examines ethical dilemma in defense exports, balancing economic gains, strategic partnerships, and non-proliferation norms. Ajit must choose between Country A for R&D collaboration and self-reliance, or Country B for immediate financial gains and FTA leverage. The recommended course prioritizes long-term strategic security, technological synergy, and international humanitarian norms over short-term mercantile interests.
Q11 · UPSC Mains 2026 · GS IV · 20 marks · Solution
Case study. Rajapuram is a border district. Jhara and Biru, its two major communities are in continual conflict with each other. The social fabric is fractured and demands mending. Ethnic tensions between the two communities have erupted into violence resulting in a large number of deaths. The stated causes are conflicting land claims, uneven resource allocation and inadequate political representation in government bodies. Separate relief camps had to be created for the two communities. The situation is volatile and appears to be getting out of control. Rajan has been appointed the District Magistrate (DM) of Rajapuram and tasked to quickly get the situation under control. His immediate tasks include restoring administrative authority, reopening the highway and initiating peace talks. On taking over his appointment, Rajan realized that the inter-community rivalry had even seeped into the local administration and police. With functional neutrality being the immediate casualty, it had made both communities distrustful of the government. The neighbouring country could utilize the opportunity to spur insurgent activity and further aggravate the situation. Rajan favoured a controlled approach starting with opening the highway to restore food and medical supplies. He toyed with the idea of requisitioning CRPF units to help restore administrative control. (a) Discuss the ethical issues that need to be addressed in this case. (b) What are the options open to Rajan? Which option would ensure protection of his non-partisan image without compromising ethics?
Ethics Case Studies
This GS4 case study examines the ethical dilemmas faced by a District Magistrate in managing an ethnic conflict in a sensitive border district. It analyses the ethical issues involving neutrality, human life, security, and institutional trust. It evaluates options ranging from purely coercive measures to inclusive peace-building. The recommended approach balances administrative firmness with transparent, unbiased stakeholder engagement to uphold public service values.
Q10 · UPSC Mains 2026 · GS IV · 20 marks · Solution
Case study. Vikas is a government officer with over a decade of service in public administration. He has recently moved as the District Collector (DC) of Nainipura, a remote hilly district bordering a forest. Due to Nainipura's low levels of economic development, one of his major duties is to ensure proper functioning of the public distribution system (PDS) amongst the economically weaker sections (EWS). During his on-site visits, Vikas was apprised of a typical administrative challenge in operating the PDS. To prevent leakages, all distributors were required to carry out real-time biometric identification of the beneficiaries, whose fingerprints were tallied with identity card records. This was creating problems as the operating system sometimes rejected fingerprint matching in the cases of growing children, manual labourers and senior citizens. The problem was further compounded in periods of low WIFI connectivity. The distributors, in such cases, resorted to personal discretion when they could identify the recipient. Vikas had to address this problem on priority. Strictly adhering to 'government regulations' would ensure fiscal probity but would greatly trouble the proposed beneficiary, i.e., EWS. It may even impinge on their fundamental right to life as per Article 21 of the Constitution. Conversely, leaving the resolution solely to the discretion of the distributors could lead to misuse and leakages. (a) What are the options open to Vikas? How should he balance fiscal probity with empathy towards the designated beneficiaries? (b) Discuss the ethics of using technology as a gatekeeper for welfare schemes.
Ethics Case Studies
• Balance strict digital rules with human empathy to prevent vulnerable citizens from losing entitled rations due to technical failures. • Avoid extreme approaches like rigid enforcement (causing exclusion) or unchecked discretion (causing leakage and corruption). • Implement practical offline workarounds like manual registers, paper slips, or OTPs backed by periodic audits. • Treat procedural norms and technology as tools for human welfare rather than rigid ends in themselves. • Recognize that digital gatekeeping creates ethical tensions between fiscal efficiency and the exclusion of genuine beneficiaries. • Guard against technology violating human dignity by forcing vulnerable groups to repeatedly prove their identity against system errors. • Ensure administrative accountability so systemic technological failures are not unfairly blamed on the citizens.