Barred
A
conveyer-belt frame built by Vedanta
orissa:
controversy
The
Earth Is
Rumbling
The tribespeople
of Kalahandi oppose Vedanta’s takeover of a region they hold in
reverence
Anuradha Raman
Tradition
&
Progress
The tribal
view
* Can there be another Niyamgiri?
* What do we do for our livelihood? We can’t live on compensation money.
* Why destroy for development?
The Vedanta view
* Complying with all environmental rules, compensating tribals well
* Have spent $24 mn in rehabilitation
* India will become a world leader in aluminium production
***
For the
last one
year, the Niyamgiri hills in Kalahandi district of southwestern Orissa
have been reverberating with protests and demonstrations. The tribals
of the area—the Khonds, Kutiyas and Jharaniyas, who worship the hills
as living gods—are taking on Vedanta, a UK-based mining major that has
acquired a licence from the government to exploit the abundant bauxite
reserves in the pristine region.
But matters took
a curious turn last month. After hearing a representation made by
tribal leaders, the Church of England (CoE), an investor in Vedanta,
decided to review the situation arising out of the conflict between the
tribals and the company and did not rule out pulling out of Vedanta for
ethical considerations. The church’s shareholdings in Vedanta are worth
Rs 20 crore, a small stake in a Rs 3,000-crore company. But if the CoE
pulls out, the action will carry tremendous symbolic power and will
prove a shot in the arm for environmental activists, who have been
alleging all along that Vedanta is violating laws and displacing
tribals from their traditional habitat. The church will take a final
decision after its ethical investment advisory group meets later this
month; but by all accounts, a pullout seems likely.
"
The
cost-benefit analysis should take into account long-term
economic returns from eco-resources."
Meanwhile, in
Niyamgiri, tensions are running high. Early last month, protesters
torched a jeep they believed was on a recce of bauxite reserves in the
hills. Skirmishes between Vedanta staff and tribals take place off and
on. The tribespeople’s anger is perceptible. “Why aren’t the tribals of
Niyamgiri in Orissa being heard? Why is the abode of my gods being
mined?” asks Kumti Manjhi, a tribal leader who’d travelled to England
to get the church to turn its ears to his people’s complaints. “The
hill is my god. Will the government agree to mine mountains in other
parts of the country on which other gods are believed to reside? I
worship Niyamgiri. It has helped generations of my people survive.
Aren’t the religious sentiments of tribals respected in this country?
I’ve been to jail thrice fighting for our rights. I fear no one.” Of
his forceful presentation before the church, organised with the help of
friends, Manjhi says, “I told them: ‘If you destroy my gods, I will
destroy yours.’” Rather than the threat itself, what seems to have made
the church reconsider the ethics of its investment in Vedanta is
Manjhi’s ardour and his concomitant sense of utter helplessness in the
face of a state-corporate behemoth.
“These hills are
like my father to me. How can I watch quietly when they are dishonoured
and violated?”—Nathu Manjhi, a tribal
Conflicts
between tribals and the state are nothing new—especially when they are
portrayed as a struggle between the modern (read progressive
governments and corporates) and the primitive (read tribals). Vedanta,
in partnership with the state-owned Orissa Mining Corporation, promises
to put India on the global map as undisputed leader in production of
iron ore, aluminium and zinc. But the tribals are asking if this should
be at the cost of destroying their habitat, with which, in their
animist traditions, they engage in a sacred covenant.
And environment
activists ask if there can ever be another Niyamgiri once the mining
starts. A visit there is a trip to paradise—lush greenery, scores of
streams crisscrossing the mountains, rich soil, an abundance of
wildlife. In fact much of the region is protected under Section 18 of
the Indian Wildlife Act, and the Orissa government had declared it an
elephant reserve as recently as 2004. But once the mining begins, the
ecosystem will be lost.
The controversy
broke out following an MoU signed in 2004 between the Orissa government
and Vedanta Aluminium Ltd, a subsidiary of Vedanta Resources, for
establishing a bauxite mine on Niyamgiri hills and an aluminium
refinery on the foothills. The company hoped to mine over a million
tonnes of bauxite, having obtained the rights to 721.3 hectares,
including 672 hectares of forest land. A conveyor belt, not fully
assembled yet, stretches downhill. The tribals complain about the
detours they have to take around it. Environmentalists fear the
approach roads will prove the end of the wealth of flora and fauna in
the area.
But how did
Vedanta manage to get its mining plans okayed? A careful examination of
the various clearances required to start mining in an area that was
declared to be rich in biodiversity by the Wildlife Institute of India
(WII), Dehradun, reveals the role of both the state government and the
Union ministry of environment & forests. The ministry gave its
clearance on April 26, 2009—just two days after a public hearing was
conducted in the region. The earlier warnings were all ignored.
Flaming: A jeep
set on fire by protesters
The first had
come from the central empowered committee, constituted under the
Environment Protection Act (1986), in accordance with a 2002 order of
the Supreme Court. The committee observed: “Had a proper study been
conducted before embarking on a project of this nature and magnitude
involving massive investment, the objections to the project from the
environmental/ecological/forest angle would have become known in the
beginning itself and in all probability the project would have been
abandoned.”
The second came
from WII in 2006. Its status report said, “Mining could trigger
irreversible changes in the ecological characteristics of the area. The
cost-benefit value should not only take into account the material
benefits of bauxite mining...(but also) the perpetuity of the resources
and ecosystem services that would be provided by these forests in the
future. Compromising long-term economic returns, therefore, cannot be
an alternative for short-term gains.” The apex court, however, ruled in
2008 that the company was free to mine after it complies with the due
process of law.
That, as
environment activists will affirm, rarely happens. In March this year,
the Orissa Pollution Control Board had asked Vedanta to comply with
pollution norms after their readings showed a high alkalinity level in
the Vasundhara river. Curiously, within a few days, the board declared
that the company was following all norms. Responding to questions from
Outlook, a spokesperson for Vedanta said, “There is no habitation or
cultivation atop the Lanjigarh (mining site) deposit. Out of
approximately 250 sq km of Niyamgiri hill ranges, approximately 4-5 sq
km of area, where there is no habitation or cultivation, will be
utilised for Vedanta’s mining operations.” The company also said a
resettlement colony for about 100 people was taking full care of some
displaced tribals. It says the protests are backed by foreign companies
that don’t want India to progress.
Most of the
tribals residing in the colony refused to speak, but Mali Manjhi, one
of the few to have agreed to a rehabilitation package offered by the
company, said, “I had 20 acres. Now I get Rs 1,300 per month, barely
sufficient for my needs. I used to grow paddy, millet. Now I have to
buy it from the market.”
Is there then no
hope for the tribals? Activists are banking on the Forest Rights Act
(FRA), which backs the community’s claim over forest land. Simply put,
gram sabhas of tribal villages can “initiate the process of determining
the nature and extent of individual or community forest rights or
both”. So far, two villages have staked claim—a first step, but more
are likely to follow.
Sceptics may say
the process could allow Vedanta scope for intervention, but the tribal
activists are steadfast in their resolve. “We’re not against
development,” they say. “But the state must recognise the rights of
tribal communities that have lived here for ages.”
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?261786
Critical Concerns
