[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dam-l LS: The Hindu: Too early to rejoice over Narmada verdict?
Too early to rejoice over Narmada verdict?
Date: 24-02-1999 :: Pg: 14 :: Col: d
By Kalpana Sharma
MUMBAI, Feb. 23.
The celebrations in Gujarat over the recent Supreme Court interim
order allowing the authorities of the Sardar Sarovar Project
(SSP) to resume construction of the dam on the river Narmada gave
the impression that all the hurdles had been cleared. The Gujarat
Chief Minister, Mr. Keshubhai Patel, was called ``Sachha Sardar''
and the rhetoric conveyed ``victory'' for Gujarat and defeat for
the anti-dam campaigners. Such a conclusion, however, may be
premature.
In its order of February 18 during the final hearings in the
public interest litigation filed by the Narmada Bachao Andolan
(NBA) in 1995, the Supreme Court gave the Sardar Sarovar Narmada
Nigam Ltd. (SSNNL) permission to re-start construction on the dam
and raise the height from the current 80.3 metres to 85 metres.
Construction work had been suspended when hearings on the case
began in 1995. But the Apex Court also laid down an important
caveat, one that is at the root of the problem confronting the
SSP.
The Supreme Court has asked Justice P. D. Desai (retd.), who will
head a ``Grievance Redressal Committee'', to report to the court
by April 9 whether the rehabilitation of the oustees resettled so
far has been satisfactory. Justice Desai's efforts will follow
those of a committee set up just as the hearings began in 1995 to
look into the same issue.
In 1993, the Centre had constituted a five-member committee to
look into several aspects of the SSP, including environmental
impact and resettlement. When the NBA filed its case, the Supreme
Court asked the same committee, partially reconstituted, to
submit another report. While one of the members of the committee,
Mr. Ramaswamy Iyer, former Union Water Secretary, had given a
separate note, the committee had also submitted several unanimous
recommendations which were never made public.
The committee had highlighted the serious difficulties that were
already apparent on the issue of resettlement and had recommended
construction in stages, so that at each point the resettlement
question could be satisfactorily addressed. It had also
recommended the appointment of an ombudsman to hear grievances of
oustees. This report is still with the court. It is therefore not
clear what new light another committee can shed in a matter of
six weeks on a question that has been investigated by others.
Furthermore, in the course of the hearings in the last four
years, the resettlement issue was constantly before the court as
the mega- project will lead to the displacement of 33,000
families in Madhya Pradesh, 3,100 in Maharashtra and 4,600 in
Gujarat. As late as last year, the Madhya Pradesh Government had
filed an affidavit stating that as many as 19 of the resettlement
sites offered by the Gujarat Government for people who would be
affected if the height of the dam was raised to 85 metres were
unsuitable for various reasons. If this was the situation last
year, it is unclear how the hurdles to finding suitable land for
potential oustees can be tackled in such a short period.
In any case, according to the Narmada Waters Disputes Tribunal
(NWDT) award, land for oustees should be identified one year
before submergence and resettlement should be completed six
months before submergence. If the SSNNL successfully raises the
height of the dam to 85 metres before the monsoon, that is in the
next three months, how will the Governments of Gujarat, Madhya
Pradesh and Maharashtra resettle the people whose homes and lands
will be submerged during the monsoon as a consequence of the
raised height? According to official figures, which have often in
the past turned out to be under-estimates, of the 365 project
affected persons (PAPs) who would need to be resettled in Madhya
Pradesh, only 229 have moved so far. In Maharashtra, 220 PAPs
will need to be resettled.
The areas that will be submerged if the dam height reaches 85
metres by early June are the villages of Bhil and Bhilala and
lands in Alirajpur, Kukshi and Badwani tehsils in Madhya Pradesh,
Akrani and Akkalkuwa tehsils in Maharashtra and Chhota Udepur and
Nandod taluks in Gujarat.
Another question is about the height of 85 metres. Depending on
Justice Desai's report, the court could permit further
construction up to 90 metres. But on its own admission, the SSNNL
acknowledges that the dam will only be able to serve any purpose
in terms of irrigation water or electricity once it crosses 110
metres. Thus, even at 90 metres, the dam will not be functional.
Meanwhile, the other major issue that the Madhya Pradesh
Government has raised - that the final height of the dam be
lowered to 436 feet because water flows in the river are now
lower than when the NWDT award was determined - remains
unresolved.
What the order is likely to result in is forced resettlement even
if in theory it is called ``voluntary''. When people get the
signal that the dam is going to be constructed regardless of
factors such as adequate rehabilitation, they might be tempted to
take whatever is offered, however inadequate, rather than hold
out for a fair resettlement package. This is the reason the
Gujarat Government is in such a celebratory mood.