[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dam-l LS: A Roy rejoinder to BG Verghese in latest Outlook.
APOLOGIES FOR ANY MULTIPLE POSTING.
------------------------------------------------------------
The Greater Common Good II
Arundhati Roy accepts B.G. Verghese's compliments on her poetic writing,
but refutes his rebuttal of the randomly selected facts from her
argument
I am glad it's none other than B.G.Verghese who has written an
(official?) rejoinder in Outlook (A Poetic Licence, July 5) to my essay
The Greater Common Good. Glad, only because I trust that he is an
honourable man defending long-held beliefs and not a venal one seeking
to line his wallet. So at least we have the semblance of a debate on our
hands. What more can one ask for?
Almost everyone who wants to rubbish my argument begins by paying me
extravagant, back-handed compliments about my ‘poetic writing’. Almost
as though poetry by definition is imprecise, unsubstantiated mush. Not
something that Real Men who build Big Dams dabble in.
"The poetry was charming. The facts wrong," Mr Verghese says. The poetry
may have been charming (though it’s not an adjective that I would
choose), but the facts are right.
I won’t restate my case, let me simply say that I stand by every single
fact that Mr Verghese has tried to dispute. Every single argument. The
Greater Common Good is now available as a book. Each fact is backed up
by sources independent of the nba (whose cause he accuses me of
"parroting") and listed in the end-notes of the book.
I don’t expect someone like Mr Verghese who has served on the Narmada
Planning Group and spent a good part of his life advocating Big Dams to
suddenly screech to a halt and jettison his point of view. But it’s bad
strategy on his part to try and derail a huge, and hugely necessary,
national debate by picking out at random facts from the tail end of the
argument, turning it into techno-jargon, stirring in some personal
invective and serving it up as a whole new kind of soup.
The Sardar Sarovar dam, I continue to maintain, is an economic,
technological, ecological, and human disaster in the making. The
benefits that its proponents promise it’ll bring—both in terms of power
generation and irrigation—have been exaggerated to laughable levels. In
my essay I have shown how the politically powerful lobbies—sugar
farmers, five-star hotels, water-parks and urban centres—are already
poised to siphon off the irrigation water from the main canal long
before it reaches Kutch and Saurashtra—the billboards of the Gujarat
government’s Thirst Campaign.
Mr Verghese says that the "planned irrigation delta will not permit cane
farming which is discouraged". (There’s a difference between ‘not
permitting’ and ‘discouraging’.) He says that the 14 existing sugar
factories are outside the command area. What he doesn’t mention is that
licences have been issued for about a dozen new ones, many of them in
the command area. The chief promoter of one of them, the Sardar Sugar
Factory, is Sanat Mehta, who was chairman of the Sardar Sarovar Narmada
Nigam for several years. The chief promoter of another was Chimanbhai
Patel, former chief minister of Gujarat, who (along with his wife) was
the most vocal, ardent proponent of the Sardar Sarovar dam. He liked to
call himself ‘Chhota Sardar’.
The people of Kutch and Saurashtra, who have endured water-shortages for
years, have begun to recognise government propaganda for what it is.
Civil unease is stirring as realisation dawns that the Sardar Sarovar is
mopping up their money but is not going to solve their water problems.
That the solution lies not with the government but with themselves. The
Gujarat Land Development Corporation estimates that there is at least 15
to 20 million acre feet of rainwater that can be harvested by local
watershed harvesting schemes in Kutch and Saurashtra. (The Sardar
Sarovar promises, on paper, 3 million acre feet to these areas.) In
several villages, entirely through peoples’ initiatives, successful
water harvesting schemes are already under way. Hundreds of thousands of
wells are being recharged with rainwater that was flowing away unused.
So much for the government of Gujarat’s claims that there are no
alternatives to the Sardar Sarovar.
Recently, a people’s organisation—the Kutch Jalsankatan Nivaran
Samiti—filed a case against the government of Gujarat and the Sardar
Sarovar Narmada Nigam in the Gujarat High Court, asking for
clarification of when, where and how much water will be delivered to the
districts of Kutch.
Meanwhile, what does Mr Verghese suggest we do about the fact that
there’s a possibility that the people who are supposed to benefit from
the project—the people in whose name the frenzy is being drummed up—may
not, after all, get any water at all?
"Why not wait and see?" he says!
You bet. Why not submerge a civilisation, uproot a few hundred thousand
people, make the people of Kutch and Saurashtra linger on in hope for a
couple more decades, shell out another few thousand crores of rupees of
public money and see how it all pans out. Is this an argument?
Mr Verghese was upset about the fact that I scoffed at the government’s
scheme of a centralised electronic irrigation system to deal with
problems of potential water-logging. I admit I scoffed. How can one not?
But that apart, I did suggest that they try it out in a pilot scheme
before using public money to experiment on the 1.8 million hectares of
the Sardar Sarovar command area.
Why not, for instance, experiment in the Bargi command area where the
dam irrigates only five per cent of the area it promised it would?
Or in the Tawa command, where after 27 years, the capacity utilisation
(the amount of area it actually irrigates compared to the amount of area
it was designed to irrigate) is 54 per cent (government figures)?
Or pick any section of the millions of hectares of water-logged land all
over India—in Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan.
If you include the costs of command area drainage and drinking water
distribution systems so that the Sardar Sarovar Projects can at least
pretend to achieve what they promise, we’re talking about thousands of
crores of rupees of public money. Enough, probably, to fund local water
harvesting schemes in every village in Gujarat.
As for his defence of ‘compensatory afforestation’ as a way of atoning
for schemes that destroy natural, old growth forest—it sounds quite
reasonable doesn’t it? Cut down a forest and plant one somewhere else.
Except that to assume that a natural forest is the sum of its trees is
an absurd notion. You don’t need a PhD in ecology to tell you—not in the
’90s—that you cannot cut down millions of years of evolutionary
adaptation and conjure it up somewhere else. It’s like trying to
compensate the loss of a wildlife reserve with a poultry farm. The
submontane dry deciduous forests that clothe the Satpuras and the
Vindhyas are among the most endangered sub-tropical ecosystems. I’m
afraid canal plantations just don’t make the cut.
Mr Verghese also keeps very quiet about where all the land for
compensatory afforestation is going to come from. Whose land will it be,
I wonder?
This brings me to the saddest, most cruel part of his ‘Rejoinder’—Mr
Verghese’s attitude towards the human price that is being paid for Big
Dams in general and the Sardar Sarovar in particular. It’s chilling to
see a private citizen, a thinking private citizen, so readily
regurgitate State Publicity. It’s ludicrous to portray the nba as a
terrorist organisation that parades government officers naked and
obstructs justice. There is a full-blown civil disobedience movement in
the Narmada Valley. And it’s happening on a scale that cannot be
artificially staged, or manipulated.
Please Mr Verghese. Come to the valley with us in July. Open your eyes
and try and see like a subject instead of a spokesperson of the State.
If it’s all true, this vision of sunshine and roses that Mr Verghese and
the Gujarat government want us to believe in, then what’s all the
secrecy about? Why not release all the studies that have been done into
the public domain (including the unfavourable ones)? Why not have them
peer reviewed? Why not publish a detailed break-up of the costs? Why not
account for the amount spent so far? Why not clarify where the remaining
money is going to come from, on what terms?
Why block every attempt at a review? Why prevent the fmg Committee from
entering Gujarat? Why ransack the nba office and burn its documents? Why
prevent the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Tribes from going to
the dam site? Why refuse permission to the World Commission on Dams to
visit the dam site? Why prevent a committee appointed by the Central
government from investigating the impact of the closure of the sluice
gates? Why prevent the Union welfare ministry from assessing the r&r
situation? What’s the paranoia all about?
After all, the government of Madhya Pradesh (the state through which 90
per cent of the river flows, and the state in which the remaining 3,199
dams envisaged by the Narmada Valley Development Project are going to be
built) is willing to listen. It has filed a case in the Supreme Court
admitting that there is less water in the river than when the plan was
first conceived. It has agreed to review all the projects that are still
on the anvil (except, strangely, the Maheshwar dam). It is actively
funding and encouraging local water-harvesting schemes.
Why is the government of Gujarat (and its spokesperson) so stubborn? Why
do they insist on repeating their old, obsolete illogic?
"Dams displace," B.G. Verghese says. "So does acute deprivation in the
Narmada Valley, but in a far higher ratio."
He then goes on to suggest that displacement is the government’s way of
relieving acute deprivation! That the major beneficiaries of the Sardar
Sarovar dam are "tribals, marginal farmers and women". (As though being
a woman precludes you from being a tribal or a marginal farmer.)
Mr Verghese wants us to believe that the State is actually doing people
a favour by uprooting them, taking them away from their forests and
their river, submerging their lands and homes, drowning their sacred
sites, smashing their ancient community links and resettling them
against their will.
He doesn’t just want to destroy a civilisation. He wants to spit in its
face while he’s at it.
Anybody who argues against this, according to him, is "glorifying the
noble savage". I, for one, am accused of wanting them to spend their
lives "grubbing for roots, deprived, impoverished and ‘protected’ by the
nba".
Why not add the word "grunting", Mr Verghese? "Grunting and grubbing for
roots"—doesn’t that sound more like it? Suitably bestial?
The tribal people whose villages are slated to be submerged by the
Sardar Sarovar Reservoir are very, very poor people. But they have
enough to eat. They are self-sufficient. They have a river that gives
them water and fish and fertile land, they have a forest that provides
them with fruit, medicine and fodder for their cattle. They don’t have
pinstriped suits, but they are at least insured against famine and
drought. Resettlement will rend the social and ecological links that
help them survive. It can only impoverish them further. Is it possible
that Mr Verghese really believes that they can be better off in a city
slum?
If Mr Verghese is right about the State having the well-being of tribal
people uppermost in its mind, why is it that for 50 years there have
been no roads, no schools, no clinics, no wells, no hospitals in the
areas where they live? Why is it that for all these years the State
didn’t bother to take steps to equip the people they care so deeply
about, for the world they were going to be dumped in? Why is it that the
first sign of ‘development’—a road—brought only terror, police,
beatings, rape, murder? Why must the offer of ‘development’ always be
conditional, ie: you give up your lands, your homes, your fields, your
language, your gods, and we’ll give you ‘development’. Why doesn’t the
State help people in the Narmada Valley and the people of Kutch and
Saurashtra to harvest their rainwater and recharge their groundwater?
Let’s not be coy. Let’s give this a name. It’s not social engineering
that Mr Verghese is after. It’s garbage disposal. It’s not even a
particularly sanitary method. Occasionally people die in the bins
they’ve been dumped in. Like the seven not so long ago, in the
Rameshwarpuram site. Of contaminated drinking water. Of chronic
malnutrition. (Publish the report!)
He claims that 88 per cent of the families that will be affected when
the dam is 85 metres high have already been resettled. (This, when the
governments of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh are giving out mixed,
muddled signals about the availability of land for this purpose). Never
mind that the dam is already 88 metres high if you include the hump.
Never mind that in May ’99, two months before the monsoons, the Narmada
Control Authority was still waiting for the various states to report to
it on the progress they had made on assessing land availability for
those whose villages are likely to be submerged! Never mind that the
calculations of which village will be submerged when, are invariably
wrong. For instance in the monsoon of ’94, when the dam was only 69
metres high, a village that was slated for submergence at 90 metres,
came under water.
Here we are, 15 years after the project began, still scrabbling around
for land to offer people being displaced by this one dam when it’s still
far from its final projected height. What about the rest of the three
thousand several hundred serial dams planned on the same river? What
about the millions of potential ‘oustees’? Are our cities ready to
receive them?
It’s so sad to see a man of Mr Verghese’s stature work so hard to elide
the main argument of the essay he takes issue with. His silence on the
big things is more eloquent than his specious arguments about the small
ones. How gratefully he grasps at government statements, government
statistics, government promises. This when dam after dam has shown how
benefits are inflated, costs deflated and the number of displaced people
consistently, grossly, underestimated.
He doesn’t even address the issue I raised about the government’s
definition of who it considers ‘project-affected’—of how the number of
people actually affected is more than double what they say it is.
The truth is that our differences have little to do with technical data.
They have to do with a fundamental difference in worldview. Here is a
man who believes that mammoth, State-supervised engineering projects are
the solution to human problems.
I disagree. With its philosophy and method. With the scale of the
operation. With its fundamental premise.
Fifty years on, hard as it may be for some of us, we have to admit that
Big Dams have let this country down. They are monuments to political
corruption and social inequity. Big Dams are just not what they promised
to be when B.G. Verghese was a young man.
India is the world’s third largest dam builder with 3,600 large dams,
3,300 of them built after independence, a 1,000 more are under way. Yet
today, there are more drought-prone and flood-prone areas than there
were in 1947!
Big Dams have generated electricity, certainly. Yet more than 80 per
cent of rural households have no electricity. 250 million people have no
access to safe drinking water, and over 350 million live below the
poverty line.
Food production has risen, but according to a paper presented to the
World Commission on Dams by Himanshu Thakker, Big Dams can claim the
credit for only 12 per cent of this.
Since Independence, Big Dams alone have displaced between 33 and 40
million people. Most of them are either Dalits or tribal people. (Yet
India does not have a National Rehabilitation Policy).
What Big Dams have done is to sequester resources from the vast majority
of the people who live in rural India and divert them to the cream of
the crop that lives in urban India.
Anybody who wants to defend this position should not hold back.
Let them say that this is the way things ought to be. That villages
should subsidise cities. That the poor must subsidise the rich. Let them
say that it’s acceptable for forty million people to be driven from
their homes in order that we, the metropolitan elite, continue to have
an unlimited supply of electricity and running water. Let whoever wants
to defend Big Dams drop this comfortable mask—this civilise-the-savage
missionary position—and come right out and stand up for feudal values.
The climate seems terrifyingly right. Soon somebody just might. The
savagery of the civilised.
I can’t let this go without commenting on Mr Verghese’s snide remarks
about my essay on the nuclear tests. I don’t know this for a fact, but
I’m assuming from his tone that he doesn’t lose sleep over the bjp
government’s programme of nuclear weaponisation. To a man who is
comfortable with the idea of a wasted world, what’s a wasted valley?
Source: Outlook, July 12, 1999.
If you want to see the article in proper format with pictures and all,
please visit Outlook website: outlookindia.com