CED Publications
CED Publications
Film Screeing
Signs of The Times
Docpost
By & for NGOs
CED Newsletters
IN FOCUS
|
DEVELOPMENT-INDUCED
DISPLACEMENT Compiled by Mr.Amit Yadav In the contemporary
world defining development has been a quagmire, which requires familiarity not only
with the colloquialisms but also with the inconsistencies,
ambiguities and paradoxes attached to the notion of development. This
paper is an effort to understand the dilemma of development-induced
displacement, the question of rehabilitation, resettlement, and
reparation, in the process, trying to draw useful and legitimate
distinctions between the `mainstream development' and the `alternative
approach to development'.
The study is focused on the larger issues involved in development projects, making a comparative cost benefit analysis of the development on the social and individual welfare and the long term impact thereon. The paper envisages an insight to the development induced displacement concentrating specifically on the physical forms of development, i.e. projects which require land expropriation and call for displacement by decree. noticeably, such catastrophic development projects cause upheaval and displacement of communities, the paper scrutinizes such projects, including Dams, Industrialization, Mining (natural resource extraction), Distributive policies, and other Mega infrastructural projects, besides the lop-sided Disaster Management and reconstruction programs that cause misery to the masses in case of Natural disaster, looking on to the greater policy issues related to displacement, rehabilitation and the consequences thereof, especially on the vulnerable groups. |
| Introduction:
The popular
paradigm
of development has ruled the whole post War discourse irrespective of
the cultural social and political ideologies of the nations, each one
aspired to run past this race of development, unfortunately, six
decades later, we are as near to the goal as to a mirage. In the
process every effort and every sacrifice is justified unless the
horizon of development stops receding. Not only this, today the goal
itself is showing cracks, is crumbling and stands like a ruin in the
intellectual landscape. The delusion and disappointment around the
much hyped notions of development, in the long run, only echoed: it
did not work. The conditions which catapulted the idea have vanished;
the hopes and desires are exhausted, rendering it obsolete and
outdated. However the miscellany of the idea still dominates the
social economic and political discourses equally in official
declarations and the grassroots. 1 Through this paper an
attempt is made to question this very structure of the dominant
paradigm.
The
established
perception of development has been nothing more than a myth, a
misconceived enterprise or a fantasy devoid of any reasonable
conclusions, what is required is to come out of these imaginary
credos and take on the real challenges faced by humanity, because
adherence to an outmoded approach, (based on the concept that
whatever is big, capital-intensive, modern and industrial is best)
can lead to incalculable and irreparable loss to humanity. The notion
of increased production and creation of growth, against a background
of national (Government) interest and security, with intention to
develop the society as a whole focus primarily on those having land,
collateral and resources to invest, and all this at the cost of
disadvantaged and poor in the society. The resources are extracted by
the elites of the society and those who are "resource poor" have
no involvement in this process and the so called "development"
have not impinged much on their lives than being harmful and taking
away the little they had, and in the process reducing them to
"objects" of development.2 They are lamented as "what one might call
`people in the way of progress' having to
move to make way for, and suffer for, the kind of infrastructural
development that is, for many people, the hallmark of progress. It is
seen as unfortunate, but nevertheless as expedient, `for the shake
of nation', that some should suffer".3
In my endeavour I try
to enquire this notion of `Progress' and `national interest',
i.e. whose progress, in whose nation?
Historically, the idea of
"Development"
have been mostly materialistic and objective and with all the
responsible instruments combined together to bring about development
the mankind is still groping in the dark for the ideal set up for the
same. The mankind, unable to withstand the onslaught of the
fast-paced, factory-loving industrial civilization which exploited
and tried to enslave nature and men alike, in the emerging paradigm
shift, favour, well meaning individuals and communities, patriotic
and global identities and relations, helping to live in harmony with
nature and to live without impoverishing or endangering future
generations, what has come to be known as sustainable development.
This is the beginning of the larger debate of whether the dominant
perception is put to rest? Has the new turn percolated to popular
perception? Does peoples participation (as in case of Narmada Bachao
Andolan) has brought any change in the dominant paradigm?
This paper
tries to
understand that whether the paradigm shift has actually exposed the
inability of the established notions of development to answer the
larger economic, social, political and ethical questions? Or there is
need of a holistic approach to the whole discourse of development;4
moreover, examines
why the policy ideals could never be actualized in letter or spirit,
rather created a gulf between policy on paper and in practice,
besides alienating the poor from the developmental process? Moreover,
the role of democracy as a political system has been neglected and
missed the attention of the social scientists, anthropologist and the
activists alike in this whole debate. To what extent do democratic
processes, decentralization of power and Local Self Governance, reach
to the vulnerable and marginalized section of the society becomes
imperative to dwell irrespective of the political ideologies. The
answer to which could help in countering the blind run to
"materialistic development", (wherein, virtually, every
development project has dispelled people from their living for the
advantage of only some compartments (usually the resourceful) of the
society) and to understand the phenomenon in its totality.
The paper does not confine and
nor is
limited to the raging impact of an awful project like Sardar Sarovar
Dam (it none the less is one) or the despair and despondency caused
by the displacement or the failure to address the issues of
resettlement, rehabilitation and reparation of the displaced. The
irony is that there are numerous clones of Sardar Sarovar, (nearly
4500 big and small) besides the multifaceted and multidimensional
predicaments of development.
As any evasion of a problem
would lead,
problems that development has created have also multiplied faces and
dimensions over time. Today the problem is not confined to
construction of Dams or industries per se; rather different genres
altogether are in vogue. To illustrate a few, the distributive
policies, increase in heights of Dams, careless mining induced by
industrialization, unplanned urban settlements vis-Ã -vis
natural disasters, mega infrastructural projects like the national
road quadrangle and the river interlinking, besides, globalization
and privatization as contemporary manifestations of mainstream
development are put under the scanner in this paper.
Development, or a version of
it, is
creating disadvantaged people. Even as it creates wealth for a few,
it leaves the others with an irreparable sense of loss and
impoverishment. And when these people make an attempt at resistance,
they inevitably come into conflict with the law. Already
marginalized, they are further faced with the daunting task of facing
up to state power, reinforced by `wealth out to create more of it'
and lastly by a politically articulate community comprising mostly of
an educated, urbanite middle class impregnated with the rhetoric;
whereof `development', synonymous with `progress' and `modernization'
is the panacea for all the ills of the third
world.
In this paper I attempt to view
the
development debate from the angle of `real people' – the ones'
who actually bear its `real costs' till long after the matter has
settled for the rest – and also touch upon its legal, social
and
environmental ramifications. For most part, the problem is studied
through the eyeglass of a few big projects and the violence wrought
in their wake. The paper also briefly looks at the larger canvas, of
which the abovementioned is but a small part, namely the processes of
development in their entirety.
The
feasibility of
the seminally western paradigm of development that has inexorably
affected the entire third world, has been question marked since the
last couple of decades. But the contagion, it seems, has deep roots,
and in spite of its very fundamentals under attack and the west
having realized its inherent negativity and having put in place
proscriptions of development, the developing world is almost
fatalistically falling into the very same trap. About a decade ago,
the world community came up with alternatives to the prevalent model,
suggesting designs that shifted the emphasis away from the `economic'
dimension of development. The alternative visions; `sustainable'
and `social development' effectively challenged (still to do that
in praxis) the supremacy of the economic growth model. Ironically the
developed west was more than welcoming of the idea, whereas the third
world, though instrumental in its very first propositions, is still
bereft of any examples of its effective application. One of the many
reasons could be a cynical, yet reasonable apprehension on the part
of the developing world that the rich apparently relieved of the
threat from the poor have now very conveniently realized the extent
of environmental depredation and very much aware of the consequent
threat to their own well being would be tempted to resolve it at the
poor's expense. 5
Post World War II the debate
has assumed
colossal proportions and I, in this very inchoate study make no
pretense of mapping any significant part of it. Also, before I
proceed any further, I believe a justification of my having taken a
stand right at the inception of this piece would be in order. `A
Development study is – contrary to the hegemonic position
– an
explicitly normative field. And the `normativity' requires a
transformation into an approach wherein `people matter'. The
production of knowledge should take people as the point of departure
and as active participants.
The
production of
knowledge is inherently associated with the current power relations
and on account of the epistemological bias of western science and its
global impact, knowledge has come to serve the interests of control,
better than the needs of emancipation. As such knowledge itself has
become a repressive social force. Intellectuals cannot stay aloof and
disclaim responsibility. There are no neutral grounds in the
development arena and therefore choices are essential.' 6
To quote Elie Wiesel, "I swore never to be
silent whenever human beings endure suffering
and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the
oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never
the tormented."7
It was only when intellectuals
of the
third world, on account of their negative experiences offered
strident critiques of what was hitherto the only conceptualization of
development, did there come into existence a debate on the same,
shattering the myth of a relatively consensual world view. In my
opinion this knowledge base that sought to question the very
fundamentals of the dominant paradigm was not exactly the outcome of
a conscious decision to reorient the subject by virtue of an abstract
realization that dawned upon the intelligentsia, but was a product of
the real economic, social and cultural consequences compelled by the
application of the dominant model. I believe that the turn that came
about within the discourse was ineluctable for it is but natural that
if the dominant position within a discourse does become a `socially
repressive force' it would also create its own counterview; which
is what has happened. But unlike the dominant position, the turn has
yet to percolate into popular perception and real application
(especially so in the case of India); which is why I believe stands
have to be taken consciously, if not, they will be compelled by
practical exigencies.
|
|
"Ever tried making an omelette without breaking the egg?" These two
quotations
from the Times of India8 and by Thayer
Scudder9 respectively
summarize the perfect dilemma of the dominant developmental paradigm.
`Development'
refers to economic, socio–political processes and cultural
processes of change in human societies. Their happening is
unavoidable and also necessary but the questions that they bring in
their wake too need answers. Questions such as, what exactly is
development? The answer I am afraid is far from simple, for one
cannot take a monolithic viewpoint in conceptualizing or defining
development; but there's a relative consensus with regards it's
object: It primarily seeks to satisfy the spiritual and material
needs of man. It is for the benefit of the human beings in all of
their aspects, tangible and intangible.
Development
from the
foregoing conclusion would then amount to a realization of human
potential. And furthermore the juxtaposition of human rights with
development implies that it is something that can be identified,
measured and implemented. How then do we measure development? Antony
N. Allot invented the `General Felicity Index (GFI)', according
to which the measure of development is directly proportional to the
measure of felicity of the individual. One measures `not just the
increase in the number of factories or expansion of services, but
whether life is happier and more fruitful and enjoyable for the
individual. In doing so one has to balance one factor against
another."10
Underdevelopment
on
the other hand is a series of complex interacting phenomena,
resulting in flagrant inequalities of wealth and poverty, stagnation,
a relative backwardness when compared with other countries,
production facilities which fail to progress to the required
standards, economic, cultural, political and technological
dependence.11 Further
questions:
Does development always mean the same thing to all parties? And most
important and fundamental, the question of whether or not the
consequences of the processes set off by the dominant paradigm could
be acceptable as `progression' towards the aforementioned object
for its subjects. The questions are many, the answers not too
forthcoming; but one aspect is more or less resolved: the need for a
change in the dominant paradigm. And modalities for the same are
underway; yet there remain serious and longstanding conflicts posited
by the old paradigm, if I may wishfully call it so. These crises's,
it is now firmly believed, spawned, not out of a misguided
application; but their causes lie rooted in the political, economic
and as a corollary, the epistemological underpinnings of the dominant
paradigm.
The dominant
paradigm
of `development', a direct continuation of the 500 years of
colonial history, is predicated on a belief in the superiority of the
West, of western knowledge, and western technology and of western
civilization as a whole.12
After the
Second
World War and the decolonization process, the direct financial
responsibility of maintaining colonial administrations was replaced
by minuscule aid programmes, managed by new administrative
organizations. Both economic and political interests were at stake,
which is why development aid was deployed as a means in the struggle
for world hegemony by the western powers. This important aspect of
the power struggle between the `first' and `second' world;
one that generated `violence' in the `third' world was
largely hidden from the view of western citizens who lent their
support to post-war development projects through their taxes and
gifts. Ironically, the so called `cold war' became the basis for
the maintenance of peace and welfare on that side of the earth, while
the competition for development clients in the `third world' led
to a series of `hot wars' here. This struggle for world hegemony
was euphemistically referred to as development cooperation.13
The
abovementioned
proposition could also be used for an exposition of the
conceptualizations supplied by the two major paradigms that have
dominated the field; namely the `dependency theory' and the
`modernization theory'. The first argues that the sources of
underdevelopment are to be found in the history and structure of the
global capitalist system. This theory premises underdevelopment as a
product of historical forces and a direct result of the interaction
between the hitherto underdeveloped social formations and the forces
of western imperialism.14
The other theory
holds that development is an inevitable evolutionary process of
increasing societal differentiation that would ultimately produce
economic, social and political institutions like those in the west.
The outcome, it is claimed would be the creation of a free market
system, liberal democratic political institutions, and the `rule of
law'.15 It
is mostly believed
that the two theories articulate dichotomous paradigms in the field.16
I, however, beg to
differ; for in my opinion the former is an expression of `why'
the developing world came to accept the latter in theory and praxis.
The former also puts the latter in perspective: In hindsight, the
underdeveloped condition of the third world is best explained by the
`dependence theory' and the consequent development paradigm,
predicated on the `modernization theory' is simply its logical
fallout.
But the outcome predicted by
the `modernization theory' is only halfway through and with the
realization of its eventual consequences; it seems that the world
view is moving towards an alternate vision. Furthermore, if one was
to accept the proposition that development rhetoric was used as a
mere tool in the heady competition for global hegemony (the
historicity of which I believe is more or less undeniable), the
`dependence theory' would in fact substantiate the hitherto
acceptance and application of the `modernization theory'.
Development
rhetoric
divides the post war period into decades, wherein the fifties and
sixties constitute the period of the economic and political recovery.
Large amounts of capital were injected into third world countries to
strengthen their infrastructural sectors so as facilitate the
development of their (multinational) trade and industry. This period
was marked by an emphasis in the linear, evolutionary model of
modernization in theory as well as in praxis.17
By the late sixties
and early seventies the optimism of the western `modernization
theory' of development began to fade in the light of experience
gained in the third world. One thing became very clear – the
development theories based on the western model of economic growth
were profoundly inadequate.18
The experience in the
developing countries showed a polarization between the poor and self
enriching top layer. And therefore focus shifted to the `poor
people' of the third world.19
But the real
consequences of the ostensible shift in policy remained the same as
before. Like before, the oligarchies that had captured organs of
state continued to enrich and empower themselves as a class relative
to the wider society, to whom "development plans" one after the
other were offered at a national and subsequently at the global
level, as a hope for a `chimera' like prosperity.20
The result: the
economic benefits of such supposed development have not even trickled
down to the vast majorities in the countries that are euphemistically
referred to as `developing'. But the most fundamental loss has
been the obstruction of the evolution of the indigenous alternatives
for societal self – expression and authentic progress.21
The dominant model
was inherently myopic; its emphasis was on industrialization, science
and technology, ruthless exploitation of natural resources and
letting loose of market forces, completely ignoring the cultural and
social sensibilities of its subjects. The social aspects of the
development debate were highlighted in the early eighties and their
importance was underscored at the World Summit on Social Development
held in March 1995 at Copenhagen. From the documents arising out of
the Summit, it can be inferred that social development by then, had
acquired a new and expansive meaning. It was apparently more
comprehensive than mere economic development; it subsumed the latter;
but it specifically aimed at the attainment of much wider social
objectives.22 Social
development in
the UN quarters broadly refers to improvements in human well being,
brought about by a modification in societal conditions. Development
thinking during this period had come to accept people or human
centeredness as its fulcrum. Social transformation (not to be equated
with social differentiation) conducive to eradication of poverty,
promotion of productive employment and acceleration of social
integration was the key to social development. Policies were to be
aimed at reducing and eliminating polarization of societies, social
exclusion, unemployment and poverty and to provide opportunities or
the disadvantaged groups to improve their living conditions (UNESCO
1994:10).23
Another very
important issue that has almost always been relegated to the
background in this whole development discourse since the beginning is
its impact on culture and vice versa. The search for a homogenous
process of development has been accompanied by a deepening erosion of
cultural identities. The western paradigms have adversely affected
the cultural distinctiveness of the developing countries and the
`modernized' version of development has succeeded in establishing
the hegemony of essentially occidental cultural constructs;24
which in a cynical
vein, is simply a covert and more sophisticated form of imperialism
than the prior model; the object of then though still stands; that it
is the destiny of the West to civilize and convert the backward
peoples of the earth to the truths vouchsafed to the West alone.25
The issue of obdurate
traditions and cultural constructs that resist change are sometimes
cited as reasons for the failure of development strategies premised
on economic growth. It must however be remembered that not everything
in tradition is negative and therefore it would imprudent to reject
tradition as a whole in order to facilitate an alien culture that
promotes gross materialism and personal consumption at the cost of
social justice.26
Which by no means is
an assertion of the "everything's great about our culture"
syndrome but an acceptance of the fact that culture per se has
critical functions that development does not offer adequate
replacement for, and therefore it cannot be dispensed with to promote
growth. In fact any worthwhile growth would by necessary implication
have to take into account relevant cultural factors and coexist with
them. A convergence of tradition and modernity is not impossible: but
would from my perspective be paradoxical, and therefore perfectly in
line with the true nature of all things. It is what must be, and what
is finally being attempted now.
In connection with social
development
two allied concept have found mention in the current debate; that of
`human development' and `sustainable development'. The
concept of human development implies people-centered development; a
development where people are empowered to make their own choices. It
emphasizes the relevance of local knowledge and values as guidelines
and tools for making these choices thereby equipping people with the
requisite knowledge and resources to take charge of their own
destinies. Sustainable development on the other hand is its
extrapolation into a broader idea as is very aptly and ideally
elucidated by the UNDP Report (1994; 4):
A major step
in the
direction of human development was the articulation and adoption of
the Millennium Development Goals by the UN General Assembly in 2000,
at a special meeting attended by the 147 heads of state or
government.28
In theory the MDGs are the most prominent initiative on the global development agenda and have a great deal in common with human rights commitments. But neither the human rights nor development communities has embraced this linkage with enthusiasm or conviction.29 In brief, the eight MDGs aim to: (1) eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; (2) achieve universal primary education; (3) promote gender equality and empower women; (4) reduce child mortality; (5) improve maternal health; (6) combat HIV/Aids and other diseases such as malaria; (7) ensure environmental sustainability; and (8) develop a global partnership for development. These goals have sought to reorder priorities across the development spectrum. If human rights are not seen to be part of that agenda, the rhetoric of the past couple of decades about the integration or mainstreaming of human rights into development efforts will have come to naught. 30 Attempts
to link the
human rights approach to development issues, at least within the UN
context go back as far as the mid-seventies to the report of
Manoucher Ganji on economic, social and cultural rights. The next
step was the proclamation of the UN Commission on Human Rights in
1977 of the existence of a right to development. Initially there were
hopes that this concept would provide a context in which efforts
could be made to investigate the complex links between the two sets
of concerns. But the subsequent quarter of century of debates has not
produced any tangible results in the quest to link human rights and
development. What we have is innumerable speeches, major diplomatic
battles over the wording of resolutions and the creation of a UN
expert committee followed by a UN governmental working group,
followed by an independent expert, followed by a new UN working
group. One thing is clear that something is definitely not working.31
Within the UN system the spirit
of
rights based approaches is encapsulated in the "Common
Understanding on the Human Rights Based Approach to Development
Cooperation," adopted in 2003 at a meeting involving some ten UN
agencies and a wide range of other development agencies, which gave
an imprimatur of sorts to such analyses. The three main elements of
the "Common Understanding" were:
1. All programmes
of development cooperation, policies and
technical assistance should further realization of human rights as laid
down in the Universal Declaration and other human rights instruments.
2. Human rights standards contained in, and principles derived from, the universal declaration and other international instruments guide all development cooperation and programming in all sectors and in all phases of the programming process. 3. Development cooperation contributes to the development of the capacities of "duty bearers" to meet their obligations and/or of "right holders" to claim their rights.32 These
formulations do
little more than restate the fundamental dilemma and do not actually
offer a lot of guidance on a resolution. They are mostly expressed at
a level of abstraction (which though not uncharacteristic of the
human rights discourse) would come across as abstract, untargeted and
untested to the development economists. Despite all their
sophistication they offer little in respect of applicability in
concrete situations and appear to simply gloss over real life
complexities which inevitably require hard decision making and
trade-offs.33
The politics of human rights
seems to
have inhibited the development of enforcement mechanisms at the
international level, although there have been egregious achievements
in formulating norms and standards over five decades.
|
|
Development
policy:
on paper and
praxis the Indian Experience
Indian development paradigm, post independence, has been no different to any developed or developing country, which continues to haunt the marginalized and vulnerable section of the society even today, especially the indigenous and tribal population. From the First Five Year Plan `Nehruvian socialism' virtually followed the Capitalist path for economic progress using the mahalanobis model and concentrated on capital goods industry to attain self-sufficiency in a short time. Construction of big dams, with a conviction of "development", for irrigation to increase agricultural production and power for the industry led Nehru to comment that dams were the `temples of modern India'( in a speech that he grew to regret in his own lifetime). And we in modern India true to our love for temples took Mr. Nehru literally and threw ourselves into the spree of dam building with unnatural fervour and became world's third largest dam builder. The development policy which seemed to have been "grow fast and the trickle down will bring distributive justice", backtracked, with limited growth that hardly trickled down. The urge
for development after
independence led to an initial amnesia, claiming its glory in
imitating the west, of building Big Dams and justifying there need to
fulfill the power and irrigation demands of the industries and
agriculture respectively, for the so called "self sufficiency",
riding on the emotional trump card that labeled them as things of
national pride and branded the sufferings as "sacrifices in the
nation building". But unfortunately the bender continues unabatedly
till date.
The state
power of "eminent domain"
– the power of a state to take private property for public use
–
to acquire land and/or appropriate natural resources has been
deployed ostensibly for public good, with compulsory acquisitions for
the projects meant to promote public purposes i.e. `developmental
projects', which invariably necessitates involuntary resettlement
of people or in other words the displacement. These persons are
called displaced persons (DPs) or the project affected persons or
families (PAPs PAFs), the number whereof is largest among all kinds
of displacements.
Displacement linked to development, according to Alfe Morten Jerve, could be caused either by:34
However, displacement
is not confined to physical removal of one from his house it can be a
deprivation of productive land, or other income generating assets,
the displacement of collectivities causes an economic crisis for all
or most of those affected with sudden disarticulation and sometimes
also triggers a political crisis as well.35
It is a complex
phenomenon, as Upendra Baxi has put it, which is not a one-time event
but a series of happenings affecting human lives in myriad ways.36
The notion of development, it seems, has
not changed since independence, the policy framework is grounded on
the theory of "public interest" or "public purpose", and it
is the government or more specifically some bureaucrats exercising
the executive power finalize the policy which has ineluctable
ramifications on the lives of lakhs of peoples affected by such
projects. The subsistence of any such project primarily depends on
availability of dispensable land for the purpose and in the second
most populous country it is difficult to get large area of land. In
such situation the doctrine of "eminent domain" is invoked by the
state and for the "greater common good", private and community
land is acquired from the people compulsorily to facilitate the
projects. The following news article from The Hindu dated
31-05-2001 gives a glimpse of the process of land acquisition for the
`public purposes'.
Only three
states in India have enacted statutes, post independence, for
resettlement, a step ahead from `mere compensation', of the project
affected people. Maharashtra, was the first to enact a law in 1976.
After a legal challenge of some of its provisions in courts of law, it
was recast in 1986 receiving Presidential assent in 198937. Madhya Pradesh followed suit with a law specially
designed to apply for irrigation projects, extendable to other
developmental activities at the discretion of the state government38. The Karnataka Government passed its law in 1987, but
obtained the Presidential assent seven years hence, in 199439. Other state are today under severe pressure from the
Courts, financial threats from the lenders, compulsions under
international obligations and under a fear of agitation by the NGOs, to
come up with rehabilitation and resettlement policy before they
finalize any developmental project. The similar policies by Orissa and
Andhra Pradesh in the recent times are illustration to the same.
Displacement, unfortunately, is
often regarded as one time phenomenon despite being a process rather
than an event which starts much before the actual displacement and
continues for a long time after the uprootment has taken place, as the
projects take years and decades before completion and during this
period the status of the project affected people remains in limbo. Even
the constitutional protection envisaged to the scheduled areas are
allowed to disappear by the state in name of, usually unspecified,
`public purpose'. Despite there being legislative protections under the
Panchayat Act in favour of self rule the principle of eminent domain
has always preceded all other legal provisions and protective measures.
Ironically, in taking such decisions no attention was ever paid to the
victims of development, i.e. the oustees or the displaced persons, nor
any plan or policy framework followed to rehabilitate and resettle
them, except for certain temporary arrangements culled out from the
policy prepared by National Working group on Displacement.40
There is virtually no uniform Law for
rehabilitation and resettlement in India till date.
Amrita Patwardhan in her
paper41 points this fact in a succinct way: "Lack
of
proper national policy and lacunas in the existing policy documents is
a major problem. Apart from that, there are serious problems at the
level of implementation as well. In most cases, there is a wide gap
between the framed policy on paper and what gets translated in reality.
For example, the policy at times has a provision for a choice between
cash or land for land compensation. But Project Affected Persons (PAPs)
as in case of Narmada Sagar, Maheshwar in Madhya Pradesh are not
informed about provisions, thus forcing the people to take whatever is
offered, under the threat of impending submergence. The state policy in
Madhya Pradesh has a provision for the affected people to get land in
the command area, but, there is not a single case where this clause has
been invoked for, rehabilitating people in the command area of the
project.
Most state level policies or the
National policy in the making, have provisions for land for land
compensation, but due to several loopholes affected people, in many
cases are just given arbitrary cash compensation. Despite the
provisions in the Madhya Pradesh Act, in two major projects, Hasdev
Bango and Bargi, where displacement occurred after the enactment of the
Act, people were given some scanty compensation sum, and no land
(Banerjee, 1997).
Rehabilitation of people displaced by
dams like Hirakud, built way back in 1950s is not yet complete.
Compensation amounting to Rs. 154,146994 was not paid after years
(Mahapatra, 1990). When the compensation was paid to some people, cash
was distributed to PAPs in their original village and signature / thumb
prints were taken. Some money from this was pocketed by the official.
People remembered this sense of humiliation 30 years after, when they
were struggling for survival (Viegas, 1994). In Sardar Sarovar, Gujarat
has one of the most progressive rehabilitation packages, but resettling
25 % of the families displaced by the reservoir has taken 15 years and
there is a wide gap between the tall promises and the ground reality
(Bhatia, 1997; TISS, 1993, Dhawan, 1999). Once people are shifted from
the submergence villages, officials do not bother about their
complaints and the oustees are often left to fend for themselves."
The on paper projected costs of any
large project at the inception multiply manifold by the time it is
started and further escalate during the execution and by the time of
completion it turns up to something which one would have not imagined
while it was initiated, or in other words, not have even been
initiated. Added to it is the interest to be paid on the loan incurred,
thus, by the time the loan is paid off the total cost of the project at
that point of time (the actual cost of the project) becomes
unimaginably exorbitant. And this fact and statistics is never brought
to the notice of the tax-payers. (See infra the polavaram debt
analysis).
Ultimately development has
induced people (displaced) to accept enormous sacrifices in the name of
national interest, but its stated fruits—"progress, prosperity,
modernity and emancipation"—are yet to reach the displaced. The
result:
the displaced and the dispossessed, to development projects, question
the legitimacy of the developmental process. They reiterate that
"planning for the people", "people's participation", "people's needs",
"humanisation of development"— are but mere rhetorics.42
|
| Cost-benefit analysis
of development
(the human and the environmental cost) This brings us to certain unanswered,
rather ignored, questions, that is, what benefit, in fact, do the
developmental projects deliver? Who are the real beneficiaries of this
process? Given the number of displacements and the plight suffered by
the displaced, one might wonder whose nation is it? Whose good is being
served? Who is the "public" in the so called `public purpose' of these
projects? Does, in fact, in the long run these projects cost effective,
especially with respect to human and environmental costs?
One of the appalling facts about these
projects in India is the absence of reliable database on the
performance and their impacts on the economy of the nation, the lives
of the people and the environment at large, in absence of any
systematic evaluation to ascertain if the enormous investments in large
projects were justified one is in dark as to what they have delivered
or has they delivered as promised? This shows nothing but the lack of
concern of the state towards the human and environmental costs involved
in large projects.
Take this example. A report
from
Singrauli (1994) stated that the displaced settlements, right in the
neighbourhood of the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) plant,
remain enveloped in darkness. The same we hear in Korba, Madhya Pradesh
(MP), "look at their colonies...," as one oustee stated, "they have
light, proper drinking water, all basic amenities... development is for
them Is it not so?" Who is being developed if the bearer of the cost is
not the ultimate (or even one of its) beneficiary?43
Historically all projects have caused
displacement and displacement has been a saga of marginalization, yet,
given the growing needs of modern society, all projects cannot be
stopped. What is required is to consider the larger implications of
displacement while assessing the viability, social, environment and
economic, of a project as a pre-emptive measure to tackle the problems.
Though cost-benefit analysis is undertaken presently too, but the
credibility of the methods adopted is questionable as the authorities
fail to evaluate the social and environmental costs. Even the statutory
requirements of seeking clearances from department of environment or
forest is also not followed, further the actual stakeholders i.e. the
"public" is never consulted before finalizing the projects and the
oft-mentioned formula of `people's participation', which has become
part of almost every project document, has become a travesty of
people's lives. The condition of all projects, completed or those in
pipeline, have been same from Bahakra Nangal on Sutluj to Indira Sagar
on Godavari. Years later, a Central Minister visited Bhakra Dam, which
was commissioned in 1963, and wrote about this visit (Rao, 1978:79-80)
as follows:
"The Bhakra Project was
completed
in all respects and the Prime Minister dedicated it to the nation on 22
October 1963. There was a large gathering and everybody felt happy that
the damwould confer immense benefits for all industrialists and
agriculturists. It is curious to observe how we handle our projects
without sparing a thought for the affected people. When the Bhakra dam
was built, the village of Bhakra, situated on the banks of the Sutlej,
was submerged and the people built their houses on the adjacent hills.
The project resulted in great suffering to the people of the village,
but nobody took note of the peoples' representations. It was many years
later, during one of my visits to the dam site, that I found that the
new village of Bhakra had neither drinking water nor electricity,
though surrounded by blazing brilliant lights. This was indeed unfair
and I asked the Bhakra Management Board to supply both power and water
to the village. Even then, there were objections. The Management Board
thought that this was not a proper charge on the Project. This indeed
was an absurd approach which I overruled. I hope that in future proper
amenities are made available in the rehabilitated villages."
These and
other such projects also have
radical impact on the surrounding environment and the ecology. In
achieving the so called "greater common good" or "the national
interest" the long run adverse impacts on the natural resources are
ignored. Each river has its own ecology, each forest or land area has
its unique habitat, but the manner in which the dams are built, mining
is done or industries are set up have disturbed the ecological balance
and destroyed the natural habitats. Urbanization, mega infrastructure
building like Airports, Railways and Highways or Neuclear Reactors, or
even the Special Economic Zones have besides displacement done nothing
but produced another class of vulnerable group called urban poors.
People dependent upon the land, forest and other natural resources for
their livelihood have not only been deprived of their vital subsistence
resources, their long term sustainability is also jeopardized through
land acquisition and displacement.
Even the economic costs of
these
projects is alarmingly huge, which escalates awfully during the
construction period and ultimately when we take into account the
difference between estimated cost and the actual cost incurred over the
time and the interest to be paid on that amount thereon, no way that
one would find any real economic benefit in the process. The tentative
economic burden of Polavaram44 is one such illustration,
other projects being
no exceptions.
No one has cared to look into the actual cost-benefits of these Avtars. Neither there is nor been any post-facto analysis of such large dam (or for that matter any other) projects undertaken since 1960s. What is and how much had been the actual benefit and to whom it all went? The question remains unanswered. |
| Avtars of Development:
Mega Dams Massive dams are much more
than
simply machines to generate electricity and store water. They are
concrete, rock and earth expressions of the dominant ideology of the
technological age; icons of economic development and scientific
progress to match nuclear bombs and motor cars. The builders of Hoover
(a colossal dam on the river Colorado in the U.S.A) were advised by an
architect to strip the dam of planned ornamentation in order to
accentuate the visual power of its colossal concrete face. Theodore
Steinberg a historian at the University of Michigan says that Hoover
Dam `was supposed to signify greatness, power and domination. It was
planned that way.'45
The industry defines a `major
dam' on the basis of its height (at least 150m), volume (at least 15
million cubic metres – six times the Great Pyramid of Cheops),
reservoir storage (at least 25 cubic kilometres – enough water
to flood
the country of Luxemburg to depth of 1 metre) or electrical generation
capacity (at least 1000 mega watts – sufficient to power a
European
city of a million inhabitants). In 1950, 10 behemoths met this
criterion; by 1995 the number had soared to 305. The leading builder of
major dams is the US, followed by the ex- USSR, Canada, Brazil and
Japan.46
Most of the
world's major river
basins are now girdled with dams; many great rivers are now little
staircases of reservoirs.47
Worldwide, reservoirs have a
combined capacity of some 6000 cubic kilometres, equivalent to over
three times the volume of water in all the rivers in the world. The
weight of the reservoirs is so great that it can trigger earthquakes
–
scores of samples of so called reservoir – induced seismicity
have been
recorded. Geophysicists even estimate that the redistribution of the
weight of the earth's crust due to reservoirs may have a very slight
but measurable impact on the speed at which the earth rotates, the tilt
of its axis and the shape of its gravitational field. 48
The floodplains soils which reservoirs
inundate provide the world's most fertile farmlands; their marshes and
forests the most diverse wildlife habitats. A dam tears at all the
interconnected webs of river valley life. The most extreme illustration
of the downstream impacts of water diversion would be the Aral Sea
(once the largest freshwater body outside of the USA) in Central Asia.
The sea has shrunk into less than half of its previous area and
separated into three hyper saline lakes.
Dams are the main reason why one fifth of the world's freshwater fish have become endangered or extinct. Amphibians, molluscs, insects, water fowls and other riverine and wetland life forms are similarly affected. The human consequences of the `damming' of the world have
been as dramatic as its ecological ones.
Although the dam builders have not bothered to keep count, the number
of people flooded off their lands is most certainly in millions if not
in billions. And these would be conservative estimates; I'll show you
how: According to a detailed study of 54 large dams done by the Indian
Institute of Public Administration, the average Indian dam displaces
about 44,182 people. Admittedly 54 out 3300 (India has built these many
big dams since independence) is not a good enough sample but since it's
all we've got, let's do some rough arithmetic. To err on the side of
caution lets reduce the number of people displaced per dam to 10,000.
It works out to 33 million displaced by large dams alone.49
This is the estimate with regards to India
alone; one wonders about the global magnitude of human displacement
that damming would be responsible for.
Large dams in India
Out of these 4291 dams 3159 are located in three states only i.e. 1529 in Maharashtra, 537 in Gujarat and 1093 in Madhya Pradesh.
Available
evidence suggests that
that very few of these people ever recovered from the ordeal, either
economically or psychologically. Many more have suffered the loss of
irrigation provided by seasonal floods, loss of fisheries and wood,
game and other benefits of now sub-merged forests. Just as valley
bottoms flooded by the dams are most favourable to human settlement in
the present, so they were in the past, and thus reservoirs have
inundated countless important archaeological and cultural sites. 50
Dams can be
lethal too; because
they break. More than 13,500 people have been swept to their deaths by
the roughly 200 dams outside China which have collapsed or have been
overtopped during the twentieth century. A calamitous series of dam
bursts in the Chinese province of Henan left approximately 230,000 dead
in August 1975.51
|
| Dams: What they are
and what
they do?
Dams have
two main functions. The
first is to store water; the second is to raise the level of the water
upstream to enable water to be diverted into a canal or to increase
`hydraulic head' – the difference in height between the surface
of the
water in the reservoir and the river downstream. The creation of
storage and head allows dams to generate electricity; to supply water
for agriculture, industries and households; to control flooding; and to
assist in river navigation by providing regular flows and drowning
rapids.52
A growing number of academic
and
activist researchers, however, have been building up an impressive
corpus of data showing the extensive damage that dams and their
associated irrigation schemes cause to watersheds, cultures and
national economies. Furthermore, the evidence seems to show that dams
have not fulfilled the promises made for them. Dams cost many times
more than claimed, diverting investments from more beneficial uses.
Reservoirs tend to fill up with silt long before predicted; they supply
much less electricity than expected. Irrigation schemes are badly
managed, destroy soils, bankrupt small farmers and turn lands used to
feed local people over to the production of crops for exports. Dams
assist the powerful to enclose the lands of the politically weak. By
misleading people into believing that they can control floods, dams
encourage settlement on floodplains, turning damaging floods into
devastating ones.53
In the name of development,
national
elites, through the institutions of the state and market, and often in
collaboration with foreign capital, have appropriated natural resources
– land, water, minerals and forests – for conversion
into commodities.
The circulation goods which this has brought forth, has taken place
primarily among the elite. The elite have therefore; through such
pseudo developmental activities impoverished the earth of its natural
resources.
The earth's
impoverishment has
meant that communities who depend upon the natural base for sustenance
have been deprived of their resources. This alienation cannot be
described in terms of loss of material livelihood only; it is most
profoundly the loss of culture autonomy, knowledge and power.54
Thus no amount compensation or rehabilitation
can make good the same. People have been pushed off their lands,
forests and riverbanks and their water taken away by the state for the
supposed good of the state. The only people that benefit are the
aforementioned elite. Further more
the credibility of
big dam projects is undermined by the fact that genuine needs of the
people can be met in other ways. Water can be provided for draught
prone areas, much more quickly and cheaply and equitably with the use
of small scale schemes, some using traditional techniques, some using
new methods and some using a combination of both. Increasing the
efficiency, supply and use of water can hugely expand the availability
of water without the need for new dams. Similarly, all countries have a
massive potential to reduce their energy use through conservation and
efficiency – to generate `negawatts' rather than megawatts. The
costs
of renewable generating sources (wind and solar power) are now falling
rapidly and are already cheaper than hydropower for many areas and
uses. 55
Sometimes
people cite small dams
as alternatives to large dams without realizing that this is a very
tricky proposition; on account of lack of a logical and fixed criterion
for making the aforementioned distinction. Usually the distinction is
made with regards to height, which is not a very reliable guide to the
impact of a dam. A 15 metre barrage on a densely populated floodplain
could have much more devastating impact than a 100 metre dam in a deep
valley. An example could be India's Farakka Barrage (less than 15metres
in height), which has had a devastating impact on the ecology and
economy of downstream Bangladesh. There are a number of different
factors that have a bearing upon the impact of a dam and therefore it
seems almost impossible that a standard could be laid down for the
same. Thus the alternative of small dams is fraught with intrinsic
flaws and therefore advocates of river restoration are now going beyond
mitigation to campaigning for dams to be pulled down and letting rivers
flow unhindered again. 56
|
| Resistance to Dams:
The
Narmada Bachao Aandolan.
In India,
among the many
struggles against national `development', one has received increasing
scholarly attention in the last fifteen years – resistance in
the form
of social movements. The ongoing struggle of the adivasis in the
Narmada valley in central India seems to be a real example of the
resistance of indigenous cultural communities to development. In India
the struggle over nature has an inherent class dimension because nature
provides the resources which are the bases of production. Unlike
elsewhere, In India conflicts over nature tend to follow the battle
lines between those who produce and those who own the means of
production. The Narmada Bachao Andolan as the movement is called; is a
resistance by the adivasis against the dam that the Indian government
proposes to build on the river Narmada, harnessing its waters for
irrigation. The reservoir of the proposed dam will submerge an area of
forested hills, displacing the adivasis who subsist upon this
environment. While the dam was both, a part and a symbol of
development, the movement against the dam seems to embody the cultural
resistance and alternative development. This alternative extended to
the very mode of political action in which the adivasis engaged
–
decetralisation, grassroots mobilization, which by itself, challenged
the authority of the state to act on behalf of the people.57
The movement brought to the
fore
fundamental questions, such as: Are big dams really in the public
interest? And it answered them also; if yes, then we would be required
to expound `public interest' differently, for public interest would
then surely run contrary to the interest of the environment and the
interest of the poor. It changed the long held common perception that
dams were good for everyone in the long run and therefore the short
term suffering of the displaced was justified in the interest of the
country. The issues concerning resettlement and rehabilitation of
displaced persons in the Indian context were brought into the public
domain mainly on account of this movement.
The movement
also led to an
awakening, which shattered the myth of dam `goodness' which was
propagated with such complete conviction since independence, that it
led Prime Minister Nehru to once comment that dams were the `temples of
modern India'( in a speech that he grew to regret in his own lifetime).
And we in modern India true to our love for temples took Mr. Nehru
literally and threw ourselves into the task of dam building with
unnatural fervour. As a result of these exertions, India now boasts of
being the world's third largest dam builder. According to the Central
Water Commission, we have three thousand six hundred dams that qualify
as big dams, three thousand three hundred of them built after
independence. One thousand more are under construction. And yet one
fifth of our population lacks drinking water while another two thirds
is deprived of basic sanitation.58
It was through the NBA'S efforts that people
began to see the latent cons of the big dams more clearly and this in
turn led to a widening of the movement's support base with people from
different walks of life coming together to show their solidarity
against such pseudo-developmental projects.
Another very important aspect
that was
highlighted by the NBA was the plight of the displaced persons. For the
first time since so many projects, people and more importantly the
government was forced to take serious note of the sheer magnitude of
the problem.
While a
scheme and machinery for
rehabilitation of the displaced ones as a result of partition did exist
transitorily, it must be asserted here that neither during British rule
nor in independent India till date, can one find a comprehensive
national policy or law to relieve the trauma of displacement,
especially of the involuntary kind. 59
All that exists today in terms of law and
policy is the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 that lays down that the
government is not bound to provide a displaced person anything but cash
compensation. And this too if the person can show a legal title to the
land, which unfortunately most tribals (highest percentage of people
displaced are tribals) don't have and therefore are ineligible to claim
compensation. Issues like these were for the first time taken up and
brought out in the public domain and as a result legislations are now
in place in Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka. Also a few other
states have evolved a cluster of policy guidelines or have
administrative guidelines or have orders issued from time to time, that
concern displacement and rehabilitation. The aforementioned
legislations though a step in the right direction are full of
inconsistencies and loopholes, but then again there's consolation in
the fact of a beginning.
Apart from
this there is another
first that the Andolan can take credit for: The pressure mounted by the
NBA led the World Bank to institute an independent inquiry in 1991
– a
move unprecedented in the Bank's behavioral history. The move fooled
nobody, yet it was a victory of sorts for the protesting villagers. The
committee known as the Morse Committee submitted its report in June
1992 after an intense ten month study. The report concluded that "the
distribution of the costs and benefits of he dam seem to accentuate
socio-economic inequities."60
To further quote from the
report, "Important assumptions upon which the projects are based are
now
questionable or are known to be unfounded. Environmental and social
trade-offs have been made, and continue to be made, without a full
understanding of the consequences. As a result benefits tend to be
overstated, while social and environmental costs are frequently
understated. Assertions have substituted for analysis."
"We think
that the Sardar Sarovar
Projects as they stand are flawed, that resettlement and rehabilitation
of all those displaced by the projects is not possible under the
prevailing circumstances, and the environmental impacts of the projects
have not been properly considered or adequately addressed."
"The history of environment aspects of Sardar Sarovar is a history of non-compliance. There is no comprehensive impact statement. The nature and magnitude of the environmental problems and solutions remain elusive." "It is
clear that the engineering
and economic imperatives have driven the projects to the exclusion of
human and environmental concerns. Social and environmental trade offs
have been made that seem insupportable today."61
The report in its
recommendations also
highlighted the issue of `encroachers' (adivasis who have no formal
title to the lands they've been cultivating) rights which was till then
a fact very conveniently overlooked by the Indian government. It also,
at the very beginning of its recommendations, pointed out that the
failure to consult the potentially affected people has resulted in
opposition to the projects. On the whole the recommendations expressed
complete dissatisfaction with the resettlement and rehabilitation
policies that existed and went to the extent of declaring the same
almost impossible under the prevailing circumstances.
With respect
to the environmental
recommendations this is what the committee had to say, "There has been
no comprehensive environmental assessment of the canal and water
delivery system in the command area. Information we have gathered leads
us to believe that there will serious problems with water logging and
salinity. We also found that many of the assumptions used in project
design and for the development of mitigating measures are suspect."62
The above cited environmental hazards interestingly are one of the major reasons that have led to de-commissioning of big dam projects in the developed world. With regards to the projects
as a whole
this is what the committee had to say, "It would be prudent if the
necessary studies were done and the data made available for informed
decision-making before further construction takes place. Implementation
requires that the bank take a step back. Otherwise, the possibility of
making sound decisions will be further compromised."
"Little can be achieved while
construction still continues."63
What the
Morse Report reveals in
temperate terms vindicates the stand of the NBA (contrary to
expectations) and further, indicts the Indian government and the World
Bank for what could be called a developmental crime, which in its
consequences equals the magnitude of devastation caused by major
natural catastrophes and wars.64
In spite of all this the Bank was still not
prepared to give up. It continued to fund the project. Two months after
the Independent Review, the Bank through one of its bogus committees
suggested a patchwork remedy to salvage the projects. The Indian
government was only too happy oblige.
It didn't however stop at
that, for in
the year 2000, the Supreme Court of India with regards the petition of
the NBA against the Government decreed that large dams do not cause
environmental damage (wonder how they reasoned that one) but in fact
bring about improvement in the conditions of the ousted and are
essential for the economic prosperity of the country. Their reason for
the above decision seemed to be the fact that the country has built so
many such dams in the past and the adverse consequences as claimed by
the NBA have not followed in those cases; therefore the fears of the
NBA seem unfounded. The court obviously refuses to see beyond what is
obvious lest the diabolical machinations of its political bosses are
made manifest. The recent judgment of the Supreme Court based on the
Sunglu Committee Report is also debatable.
The crisis
is not confined to
Narmada, the Tihri Dam Project is completed, even after lots of hue and
cry and submerging one of the oldest township of social cultural and
archeological importance, and now is finally ready to be commissioned
in it full capacity. After an exhaustive evaluation of the project, the
Environment Appraisal Committee clearly recommended against continuing
with the Tihri Dam Project. Bharat Dogra then reasoned reasoned "If our
engineers are clearly told to go by the maxim 'development without
destruction,' i.e. projects which minimise ecological risks, they will
no doubt prepare such projects. It is time for policy-makers to give
them a clear direction so that controversial projects like Tihri Dam
Project can be avoided."65
The hegemony of the
Development Theology
had been such in this country that nobody cared to look for the nearly
75000 people who had virtually vanished that fateful night when the
Rihand dam was filled without any notice, in 1961. Even those who
settled at the brim of the dam were subject of multiple displacements.
The same was the fate of oustees of Nagarjunsagar dam who were ousted
forcibly by the police in face of impending submergence. The oustees of
Koyana, Bhakra dams, Ukai, Mahi-Kadana in Gujarat, Pong in Himmachal
Pradesh are in no better condition than of a destitute.
|
| Mines
The problem
of mining-induced
displacement and resettlement (MIDR) poses major risks to societal
sustainability. Unfortunately, no global survey has assessed the scale
of MIDR. Available evidence suggests that the problem is significant.
Mining displaced 2.55 million people in India between 1950 and 1990.
The likelihood that MIDR will be a significant issue increases as rich
mineral deposits are found in areas with relatively low land
acquisition costs (in the global market) that are being exploited with
open-cast mining and are located in regions of high population density,
especially on fertile and urban lands—with poor definitions of
land
tenure and politically weak and powerless populations, especially
indigenous peoples.66
MIDR is
accompanied by what
displacement specialists call the resettlement effect, defined as the
loss of physical and non-physical assets, including homes, communities,
productive land, income-earning assets and sources, subsistence,
resources, cultural sites, social structures, networks and ties,
cultural identity and mutual help mechanisms. The effect introduces
well-documented risks over and above the loss of land. The loss of land
may address only 10-20% of the impoverishment risks known to be
associated with involuntary displacement. Investigations into
displacement have found nine other potential risks that deeply threaten
sustainability; these include joblessness, homelessness,
marginalization, food insecurity, loss of common lands and resources,
increased health risks, social disarticulation, the disruption of
formal educational activities, and the loss of civil and human rights.
Failure to mitigate or avoid these risks may generate "new poverty," as
opposed to the "old poverty" that peoples suffered before displacement.
Certain groups—especially indigenous peoples, the elderly and
women—have been found to be more vulnerable to
displacement-induced
impoverishment risks.67
The Rich
mining belts of Orissa,
Bihar, Uttranchal, Rajasthan, jharkhand face the assault of the
economic-growth driven development even at the cost of humankind and
environment. Unfortunately those involved in this spree consider
displacement as something incidental to their projects. The two big
companies (Utkal Aluminium and Larsen and tubro) involved in mining in
kalahandi to kashipur the Bauxite rich belt of Orissa, simply claimed
that the degree of displacement will be very small, and those ousted
will benefit from handsome rehabilitation packages. Utkal Aluminium,
for example, said villagers of only the three hamlets of Korol, Dimundi
and Ramibera will be displaced from Kashipur hills. The locals though
were not convinced. They feared that once mining operations begin, they
are unlikely to limit it to merely one or two sites in the bauxite-rich
region, triggering off a series of displacements. Their experience with
displacement had made them doubly sceptical of rehabilitation packages.
An oft-cited example of an ineffective rehabilitation package in the
region is the Indravati dam project in 1989-90.68
The
manganese mining in North
Karnataka has also caused ecological imbalance besides creating huge
pits dug for mining the mud thereof destroying additional forest land,
in addition, the silt from these mines settle in the bottom of the two
dams, Kadraand and Kodsalli built nearby on the river Kali. Pits no
longer in use – "dead" in mining terminology – are left
callously never
bothering to re-fill them, which causes landslides, destroys more
forest land, clogged water sources, and muddy water flowing into
neighbouring standing paddy fields, ruining entire crops. Besides
causing unnecessary destruction of nature, it wiped out whole stretches
of virgin forests in the name of development.69
The Kudremukh National Park nestled in the midst of the Western Ghats which is identified as one of the 18 ecological hotspots of the globe, is supposed to be the third wettest region in the world with the annual rainfall exceeding 6000 mm. Three major rivers, Tunga, Bhadra and Netravathi also spring from the Kudremukh hills. The Kudremukh Iron Ore Company limited (KIOCL), which is situated in these very hills is extracting 10 million tonnes of iron ore annually. The Nagarika Seva Samiti which has conducted a detailed study into the functioning of the KIOCL and its effect on the environment feels that "the cascading effect of deforestation and other unsustainable activities like mining on Western Ghats has resulted in siltation of reservoirs and pollution of river systems".70
Large scale
illegal sand
quarrying, beyond permitted depth in a lake in Madambakkam, near
Tambaram, in Tamil Nadu had affected four villages in the area
obstructing the flow of water for farming, resulting in many people
migrating to other parts in search of employment.71
The coal
mining72 (including
open cast mining of coal) in
Singrauli which began in the late 60s uprooted hundred of thousands of
people from their lands and homes, most of them for the second time as
the Rihand dam had already displaced nearly 200,000 people. The third
time the same peoples were affected by the thermal power plants
including the one built by Birlas for their Hindalco aluminium plant
near Renukoot. Besides displacement the open cast mining produces huge
dust clouds and the scores of trucks in the vicinity of coal mines add
their share to the general pollution of the area. From Rihand dam to
coal mining and then thermal power station the people of Singrauli have
been displaced several times over a period of 10-15 years. People, who
initially cultivated land, depended on forest resources and tended
cattle have none of these occupational options open to them today.
Rapid deforestation, pollution and displacement continue to make their
lives miserable and forced them to struggle for survival.
Down to
Earth in its 15th
July 2000 edition73
reported that "[T]he problem of large-scale
displacement of poor people is the inevitable corollary of the
changeover to opencast mining. Already 35,000 people of 27 villages
have been displaced to make way for the Ananta, Kalinga, Lingaraj,
Bharatpur and South Balanda coalmines in Orissa. Thousands more will be
uprooted in the days to come in view of the massive expansion of mining
in the area. Those who remain get a worse deal."
|
