[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

dam-l LS: Just. Krishna Iyer in Hindustan Times edit page, July 28,1999.



            Development for whom?
             (V. R. Krishna Iyer on the Narmada issue)

             Long years ago Indians made a tryst with destiny to wipe
off every tear of every
             tribal brother and sister because they too are equal
humans. That was a historic
             moment of hope.

             A semi-centennial of illusion has passed since; but the
adivasis, with each passing
             day, face the traumatic portent of mass submersion as the
mercilessly rising
             waters of the holy Narmada drown whole habitations and rare
arboreal wealth in the
             process of impounding the perennial river!

             Why does this Operation Thanatos happen in the land of
Buddha and Gandhi,
             constitutional guarantees of protective legal egalite and
right to life, forbidden from
             deprivation save by just, fair and reasonable procedure?
Compassion and
             humanism are writ into the suprema lex as fundamental
duties.

             But yet, the pity of it! Is there no pity sitting in the
Ministry that sees into tribal
             grief? Justice has a human heart and ‘development’ a human
face if the
             Constitution is not counterfeit. When I wrote a sympathetic
piece in a leading daily
             based on fundamental values, there was a rejoinder by the
spokesman for the
             Gujarat government. I am grateful to the government for the
courtesy and
             responsiveness shown to me. Nevertheless, certain grave
issues remain to be
             answered, in the name of Indian humanity.

             True, development is a necessity of the Third World. But
development for whom
             and why? The bells of the Constitution, from the Preamble
to the Fundamental
             Rights and Duties, toll for the millions in misery, the
have-nots in thousands of
             hamlets huddled in sub-human conditions. Kulaks and tycoons
and their
             aggrandisement cannot, shall not, override the basic needs
of the bitter but
             voiceless victims of ‘illth’ (illiteracy, ill-health,
ill-clad homelessness). It is a
             question of values — has every human, be he landless, the
same value?

             The World Bank, after an independent inquiry, dismissed the
claim of rehabilitation
             of the displaced Sarovar ragtag and withdrew its support.
But die-hard vested
             interests would not halt. The dam construction passionately
persisted, rose to
             dangerous levels, reached the Supreme Court and is pending
before the High
             Bench. Justice is what Justices do. But papal infallibility
is not an attribute of the
             judiciary. Pragmatism makes its verdict final and if it
goes wrong and afflicts
             humble humans in colossal numbers it is final, like other
natural calamities in a
             world of unwitting errors, even egregious blunders.

             Of course, learned judges will, with impartiality,
intelligence and professional
             training, examine the issues involved subject to
sub-conscious forces at work in
             every human being which do not pass the judges by. The
great Justice Cardozo of
             the United quoted with approval President Roosevelt: “The
decisions of the courts
             on economic and social questions depend upon their economic
and social
             philosophy”. So the height of the Sarovar dam, decided by
the judges, depend a
             wee bit upon the social philosophy of the robed brethren.
Judges are more objective
             and immune to extraneous factors than politicians but
because judges are men,
             not disembodied spirits, their judgements are inevitably
influenced by their judicial
             character and experience. Such ‘bias’ necessarily affects
all judges, as Cardozo,
             in his Judicial Process, felicitously cautions.

             The Sarovar height will turn, in some measure, on the value
assessment by the
             brethren on the bench as between the mass martyrs of
rising, raging, surging
             floods and the latifundists with dreams of heavy harvests
and hydro-power-hungry
             industrialists. Who are ‘We, the People of India’? Is there
graded inequality and
             gross disparity among them? Whose interests invisibly
influence the
             sub-conscious of the decision-makers, executive or
judicative? We can only hope
             that the humane wisdom of the court helps the right to life
and effective, just
             rehabilitation.

             The court is the last refuge as the defender of human
rights and must also consider
             the development role of rivers and the humanist parameters.
A lofty moral-jural
             perspective, where the lowliest human, is of central
concern in the Supreme
             Court’s functional focus. Let us trust the judicature for
the nonce. Can we put faith
             in the assurances of rehabilitation by the politicians in
power? I hesitate.

             The Bargi was among the early dams on the Narmada with
profuse promises of
             rehabilitation and planned prosperity. Now, vis-a-vis the
families displaced and
             hamlets under water, it is unmitigated sorrow, it is said.
Innocent villagers, after the
             turbulent impoundment and submergence, are in distress and
witness to
             environmental calamity. Not a soul should be thrown out
until complete restoration
             is a reality. The claim of drinking water to Kutch is a
daring bluff, according to
             critics. Alternatives to huge dams are feasible, given an
open mind and readiness
             to examine and review. Indeed, experts have suggested such
schemes. Good faith
             of the governments granted, better projects need not be
rejected.

             In the Gandhian vision, Small is Beautiful and Big can be
Barbaric. I stand for no
             dogma except the right to life of the least and the last
Indian. Gargantuan or
             Gandhian — quo vadis India? For over half of a century we
have believed that big
             dams would deliver the people of India from hunger and
poverty. The opposite has
             happened. Big dams have pushed the country to the brink of
a political and
             ecological emergency. They have uprooted 40 million people,
most of them tribal
             and Dalit, from their forests and rivers, from lands and
homes where they and their
             ancestors have lived for thousands of years. They have lost
everything.

             Everything. It is their children that you see begging on
the streets. It is they and
             their children who pay our food and electricity bills. Not
a single big dam in India
             has delivered what it promised. Not the power, not the
irrigation, not the flood
             control, not the drought-proofing. Instead, big dams have
converted huge tracts of
             agricultural land into waterlogged salt wastelands,
submerged hundreds of
             thousands of hectares of prime forest, and pushed the
country deep into debt. The
             era of big dams is over. All over the world they are being
recognised as
             technological disasters. As big mistakes. I plead with the
managers of State
             power: do have the charity to give the benefit of doubt.

             A final thought, the court in its eclectic wisdom, I feel
confident, will give serious
             thought as the sentinel of developmental justice to what I
have spelt out with
             reference to that great institution to which I once humbly
belonged.