| |
DEVELOPMENT:
NARMADA RIVER
Damning
Verdict
The high
profile people's agitation suffers a body blow as the Supreme Court clears
the controversial dam
By Uday
Mahurkar in Ahemdabad and Neeraj Mishra
in Bhopal
It
was always pitched as "The Big One". It was on the banks of
the Narmada that the battle lines were clearly drawn and it was always
clear that it was more than just a simple fight over one river. Think
of an issue-any issue that pricks the conscience in these times-and it
was there. The big dam-small dam controversy, the development-anti development
issue, NGOs Vs the Establishment, human rights, the heart-wrenching migration,
the tangle of rehabilitation and more importantly the damaging limits
to which dispute settlements in a democracy could be pushed. Construction
activity at the Sardar Sarovar Project, billed to be the costliest in
the world, had been stopped and the matter referred to the Supreme Court
even as the cost of delay mounted. Now after six years of arguments, the
apex court has finally ruled in favour of allowing construction, a major
setback to the environmentalists.
The judgement
delivered last week by Justice B.N. Kirpal had the concurrence of Chief
Justice of India A.S. Anand. It said that the dam should be built as envisaged
by the Narmada Tribunal's award given way back in 1979. "Once an
award is binding on the state it will not be open to a third party like
the petitioner to challenge the correctness thereof," the court ruled.
Worse, it debunked all the environmental apprehensions that the NBA petition
had raised, saying, "The petitioner has not been able to raise a
single instance where the construction of the dam has on the whole had
an adverse environmental impact." If the NBA can take consolation,
it is in the fact that there was a 2-1 split in the bench, with Justice
S.P. Bharucha giving a dissenting verdict. He said that the environmental
clearance given to the project by the Rajiv Gandhi government in 1987
was faulty as it was based on data that was insufficient for a complete
and thorough assessment.
For the Gujarat
Government, however, the judgement brought instant joy, sparking off Diwali-like
celebrations. Chief Minister Keshubhai Patel declared the day (October
18) as Vijay Diwas and even announced a half-day government holiday. In
many ways, the judgement has vindicated the stand of the Gujarat Government,
which stood firm in its demand for a high dam at the site despite a wide
range of criticism and opposition. "The verdict is the realisation
of a 40-year dream for our farmers ... it will change our state,"
says Gujarat Narmada Development Minister Jai Narayan Vyas. But officials
are also quick to point out that their state will only benefit when the
height of the dam is extended to at least 110 m, which could take between
one year and 18 months. As of now, the court verdict allows the height
to be extended to 90 m (it stands at 88 m) and further increases in height
have been linked to relief and rehabilitation measures by the states of
Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh-in accordance with a plan drawn up by the Narmada
Council Authority (NCA).
Why is the
dam's height so important? Simple. The lower the height of the dam, the
lesser the area submerged. That in one way means fewer villages to be
rehabilitated-but in another way it also means less irrigation and less
electricity. The 1979 tribunal had held that the height should be 138
m. Experts say this is the right height for water to reach the parched
lands of Kutch and Saurashtra as well as generate the promised 1,450 mw
of power. However, raising it to this height will also displace between
40,000 and 41,500 families, the majority of whom belong to Madhya Pradesh.
Predictably, they have been cautious about the judgement. Says Madhya
Pradesh Chief Minister Digvijay Singh: "We have yet to study the
judgement." However, his government has always maintained that it
has no land to settle the oustees (33,014 families). Digvijay's predicament
is understandable-among the states which will benefit from the project,
Madhya Pradesh stands to lose the greatest amount of land and will have
the most number of oustees. Besides, the project will not even irrigate
an acre in the state and though it should get more than half the power
generated, a lot of that has already been promised to the Centre to repay
earlier loans.
As for the
NBA, the judgement comes as a rude shock. Medha Patkar, the NBA's spearhead,
told INDIA TODAY: "Personally I am of the view that we shall end
our lives by drowning in the Narmada. However, we are holding a meeting
soon to chalk out our future course." What has really hurt their
credibility is that the judgement finds nothing wrong with the resettlement
excercise that has been going on sporadically in the Narmada Valley. The
NBA now agrees that they have taken every recourse available in a democracy,
but their stand is that the judgement is illogical and indicates that
the court has been misled by powerful lobbies. Adds Patkar: "The
verdict is anti-people and against the spirit of the Constitution."
Activists say they don't believe that this setback will be a harbinger
of more big dams and also point out that to the NBA's credit governments
are looking more seriously into environment, rehabilitation and human-rights
issues.
So what happens
now? When work started on the project in 1987, it was expected to cost
Rs 6,406 crore. Today, the cost is estimated at about Rs 21,600 crore.
A huge sum of money that has to be raised. Experts say that benefits from
the project will only come close to two years from now. Besides, the contentious
issue of rehabilitation has still to be worked out. And, of course, the
NBA hasn't given up. All in all, it may still be a while before Gujarat's
farmers cheer the fact that their irrigation canals are full of water.
Top
|
|
CII’s
conference on Friday on corporate governance is called Independent Directors:
Why, How and Who. Why Not, How Not and Who Not, would have been better,
says INDIA TODAY Associate Editor, V Shankar Aiyar
