[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dam-l LS: Articles on the NBA, Arundhati and Pro-SSP Meeting
This email contains the following articles.
1) Romantics and Practical Solutions, Rediff on the Net, 8/26/99
2) Celebrities and the media, The Hindu, 8/25/99
3) Pro-Narmada Intellectuals Cup Hands, Times Of India, 8/23/99
**************
from Rediff on the Net, Aug. 26, 1999
Romantics and Practical Solutions
By Rajni Bakshi
Romantics are easy to dismiss. After all, they are impractical dreamers.
Surely they have no place in the rough and tumble of political struggles
that shape the future. So it seems like a fatal flaw when the Narmada
Bachao Andolan is charged with being a bunch of "eco-romanticists."
Yet civilizations are shaped by those who dare to challenge prevailing
notions of 'practical' and thus expand the frontiers of the possible. By
questioning the nature and modes of 'development' this is just what the
Narmada Bachao Andolan is doing. It is true, as some critics have
suggested, that the NBA's struggle is not merely about big-dams and water.
It is part of a larger agenda for global transformation which stretches the
limits of conventional wisdom and can thus seem fanciful to many people.
Amid rampant cynicism perhaps it is romantic to suggest that co-operation
should replace competition as the dominant social value. Similarly the
concept of a decentralised industrial economy, which empowers local
communities, seems unrealistic in a world where more and more power rests
with large global corporations. Then it also seems ridiculous to challenge
the Wall Street version of the ancient mechanism of 'markets.'
Yet, this perception may change in the future. Much of what is taken for
granted today was once considered impossible. For centuries many societies
accepted the buying and selling of human beings as slaves. Even at the
beginning of the 19th century those who fought to abolish slavery in the
Western world, were dismissed as unrealistic idealists. A determined and
dogged struggle changed that.
Similarly, those who today question vast, centralised projects which bring
destruction and displacement to one place in order to develop another are
condemned for being anti-progress or romantic. This attitude is now in the
process of being changed. Such struggles and processes are always slow.
There is often no fixed point at which an idea or value is transformed from
being 'romantic idealism' to an accepted norm.
Modern societies are far more excited by the ways in which human
technological ingenuity defies impossibilities -- be it flying machines or
the world wide web. Thus it is almost heretical to challenge the view that
modern technology can solve the many problems that are created by it in the
first place. This is a view that firmly dominates the main square of the
global market-place of ideas. For example, there is still very limited
space for the suggestion that we can learn from traditional societies and
gain by treating nature as sacred and not merely as a commodity.
However, the need to expand the space for such ideas is being acknowledged
by more and more people all over the world. This is largely because there
is now a vast amount of global data and dispassionate, non-romantic,
analysis to show that the prevailing modes of industry and resource use can
never provide for the needs of all human beings. Therefore there is need to
radically re-think not only the means but also the values by which we use
natural resources.
This understanding has been officially accepted by most governments and
international agencies since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. But the
seemingly universal slogan of 'sustainable development' covers a deep
divide.
Those at the nerve centres of the global economy do not see the challenge
of sustainable development as demanding a paradigm shift. They tend to see
it as a management problem and rely on the logic of the market to ensure
both economic and ecological balance.
On the fringes of the global economy and power structures are a wide range
of struggles which are calling for a change in consumption patterns, modes
of production and the pattern of natural resource use. This is the crux of
the global clamour for an alternative, more creative, model of development.
The clash between these two broad mind-sets could cloud the early 21st
century in much the same way as the contest between capitalism and
socialism dominated the dawn of the 20th century. This dispute over the
ways and means of 'development' cannot be neatly filed away under the
'environment' rubric. Extending across the economic, political and cultural
spectrum this is a tussle about the future of human civilization. The NBA
is only a small part of this multi-faceted, global struggle.
It has been alleged, most recently by the reputed scholar and social
activist Gail Omvedt, that the NBA represents the voice of the
"eco-romanticists of the world, not that of the Adivasis, Dalits and
bahujan farmers of the valley." This criticism has been made by others who
fear that a decentralised, village-centred economy will perpetuate old
patterns of feudal bondage. Several forums of the 'alternative development'
fraternity have attempted to establish a dialogue with Dalit groups on
these issues. But clearly, this concern needs to be addressed in a more
intensive and rigorous manner.
Over the last ten years the revived interest in traditional sciences and
technologies has involved a wide range of scholars, technologists and
activists of varied hues. It is true that there is a small stream, within
this fraternity, which tends to exalt traditional systems as a
comprehensive solution for today's problems. This view rests on an idyllic
vision of times when humans lived in near-complete harmony with nature. But
the vast majority of people engaged in these struggles are realists.
The realists know that there is no pristine past. The present and future
have to be built using all the knowledge and wisdom now at our command. It
would be foolish and irresponsible to claim that traditional methods alone
could cater to the present density of human population. But it is equally
daft to dismiss the practical worth of values that accompanied notions of
sacredness. This has been the lament of all those who have struggled to
save or rejuvenate the village commons.
In recent years there has been a wide variety of ground-work and research
which combines traditional knowledge with modern innovations. Much of this
work is in the areas of water, energy and organic, or natural, farming. Yet
there is still no dynamic public debate, let alone dialogue, about these
options.
Both the central and state governments have lent support to many of these
micro-level projects. But, they have refused to review and accordingly
re-orient their macro-policies in any meaningful way. Similarly, the
corporate sector is still largely unaware that these alternatives hold the
promise of far more cost-effective ways of addressing major infrastructure
areas like water and energy.
There is an urgent need to alter this situation. But this is not happening
partly because the creative vision which propels the alternatives-seekers
has still not managed to capture the public imagination. The NBA's decade
long struggle has generated a wide public awareness about the problem of
displacement. But it has failed to convince enough people that the
multi-dam Narmada Valley project is, in itself, a flawed proposition.
In this context, the charge of 'eco-romanticism' may be unfortunate if it
causes more people to ignore the NBA or even condemn its activists as
anti-progress hell-raisers. When 'eco-romanticists' is used as an
allegation it implies a sentimental attachment to some pure ideals matched
with an indifference to the actual needs of diverse sections of society.
Those who are dubbed 'romanticists' may well dismiss critics like Gail
Omvedt as part of the backlash against the environmental movements in the
West. In recent years several critics have contested the "purist Green"
claim that Western industrial civilization is inherently dangerous. Many of
these critics have accused environmental activists of preventing the ''poor
and backward'' people of developing nations from realising the benefits of
modern industry.
We, in India, should not limit ourselves to the terms of the debate in the
West. Instead we must foster a constructive and rigorous dialogue which
involves various shades of activists, policy makers and leaders of the
corporate sector. Such a dialogue would not be intended to gloss over or
obliterate basic differences in outlook. But it may be a solid means for
respective segments of our society to fine-tune their understanding of the
challenge of development.
A wide variety of technologists and social activists have already spent
decades building a more than prima facie case for alternatives that are
socially, economically and ecologically more cost effective. The dynamic
participation of a much wider range of people will be required before
visionary ideals are translated into reality. Therefore, it would be tragic
if most of us to cling to whatever is 'given' at the moment and fail to
closely examine processes of radical, even 'romantic', questioning.
***************
from The Hindu, Aug. 25, 1999
Celebrities and the media
By Kalpana Sharma
IN RECENT weeks, thanks to the celebrated writer, Ms. Arundhati Roy, taking
up the cause of displacement in the Narmada Valley, there has been
considerable media discussion on the value of celebrities associating with
causes. Have Ms. Roy's essay on the Narmada dam and her subsequent ``Rally
for the Valley'' helped or harmed the issue that the Narmada Bachao Andolan
(NBA) has
raised for over 15 years? Do such high-profile events make any difference
to the lives of people whose villages are facing submergence?
There are two separate aspects to the debate that need to be addressed.
First, does the participation of a celebrity in an issue help or harm the
cause?
By and large, Ms. Roy has helped the cause of the NBA. Her intervention
came when the NBA felt considerably discouraged by the Supreme Court ruling
permitting the construction on the Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) up to 85
metres. The stay on construction during the previous four years had reduced
the visibility of the movement as there were few demonstrations or mass
actions. A media not interested in quiet processes had failed to notice
that instead NBA activists were working with the oustees of other dams
scheduled to be built on the Narmada and in constructive work such as
providing education to children living in villages within the submergence
zone.
Ms. Roy's decision to travel to the submergence area, talk to the people
and read the history of the controversy and then write on the issue have
brought the problems into the public arena once again. She used her
position as a well-known writer to extract from the press adequate space so
that her long essay which addresses many different aspects of an issue that
has been debated for a decade and a half could be published. People may
quarrel with the style, or even the content, of her essay, ``The Greater
Common Good'', but few will dispute the advantage of a piece of writing
that puts together the main arguments on what is an extremely complex
problem. Certainly, journalists who have followed the debate over the
Narmada issue have never managed to put together in one piece all these
arguments. Even if they could, few newspapers or periodicals would give
them the space.
Furthermore, Ms. Roy's involvement has opened up the debate, once again, on
dams, development and displacement. These are issues that need to be
debated not just once but constantly in the media. They touch on the
direction of the economy, on the lifestyles of the rich and the penury of
the poor, on who will pay the real price for development which benefits a
few and on whether it is possible to attempt to build a just and equitable
society.
Apart from addressing the larger question of displacement, Ms. Roy's essays
- on the Narmada as also the earlier ones on nuclear arms - have reached an
audience which any number of well-argued, erudite pieces appearing on the
editorial pages of mainstream newspapers would not have reached. Today,
there is a visible interest in the younger generation on these issues which
has not been seen for many years. Ever since Ms. Medha Patkar began her
satyagraha at Domkhedi in Maharashtra on June 20, college students from
many cities have been making their way, at their own expense, to the
Narmada Valley to see for themselves what is going on there.
Ms. Roy has done what she is best at doing, writing. But she is not the
first well-known person to have given her support to a cause. In Mumbai,
Ms. Shabana Azmi has been known for years for her open support to the cause
of slum-dwellers facing the municipal corporation's demolition squads. Like
Ms. Roy, she too was accused on using the issue to project herself or of
romanticising the problem. But Ms. Azmi's involvement did force the
authorities to pay serious attention to the question of slums.
What is more important in both instances is that the movements they have
backed are not dependent on whether Ms. Roy or Ms. Azmi continue to
associate with them. These existed before they were involved and will
continue even if they are not involved. That is the crucial difference
between this kind of celebrity association and that which involves cutting
ribbons or appearing at functions. The latter is no different from
celebrity endorsement of products. Indeed, we have it on good authority
that Ms. Roy was approached by more than one company to endorse their
product after she won the Booker Prize, offers which she firmly refused.
But even if she had accepted them, few would have criticised her. Also, if
she had just lent her name to ``good causes'', she would not have drawn any
flak. The fact that she chose to stick her neck out on two unpopular
causes, the nuclear question and the Narmada, is what has made her the
target of media criticism.
The second aspect is the fact that when celebrities take up causes, they
tend to become the focus rather than the issue they are addressing. As a
result, they are accused of using causes to project themselves. But who is
really to blame, the celebrity or the media? In the case of Ms. Roy, the
media is squarely to blame. Every move she makes is recorded. Even if she
tries to draw attention repeatedly to the issue, her pleadings are brushed
aside and she becomes the focus of the cameras and media attention.
In Varanasi, where Ms. Roy participated in the concluding-leg of the Global
Peace March on August 6, Hiroshima Day, she had to hide from the press to
ensure that the people who organised the march, and who valiantly
travelled, mostly on foot, over 1500 km to register their protest against
nuclear weapons, were heard by the media. At the concluding meeting, most
reporters left as soon as Ms. Roy had spoken even though several important
speakers followed. The next day's newspapers quoted the few words she had
spoken and missed out completely on other relevant points made by many
distinguished speakers. Was that Ms. Roy's fault or the media's?
It is the media's obsession with personalities that is harming not just
causes but the public's understanding of any number of issues. The media
continues to focus on personalities at the cost of processes and issues,
because the definition of what is news remains limited to event. It is
determined by immediacy, proximity, the size of the event. News is not
about all people, but only ``important'' people.
This definition, however, must necessarily change as we enter the new
millennium because processes, many of which go by us unnoticed, are far
more significant than the pronouncements of a few ``important''
individuals. If the definition of what constitutes news does not change,
then the channels of ``news'', electronic or print, could lose their
audiences. Often, we hear the people say these days, ``I am sick of the
news''. A survey of what interests consumers of ``news'' might well reveal
that news about ordinary people doing extraordinary things is far more
popular than the what the media considers ``news''.
Unfortunately, the media's focus on personalities has trivialised and
obscured the real questions that ought to be discussed following the Rally
for the Valley. It is extraordinary to hear people say that Ms. Roy should
not be spending her time writing about social issues like the Narmada;
that, instead, she should have taken up some other, more worthy, cause such
as child labour, child abuse and domestic violence. If people of conscience
and talent do not write about social issues, what should they be doing?
Should they just make their millions and forget about the society in which
they live?
The easiest thing in the world is for famous people to take up comfortable,
non-controversial ``good'' causes. They will be lauded and feted for their
social involvement. And no one will question their motives. But famous, or
not-so-famous, if you dare to assert a view on unpopular issues, everything
about you is questioned. We are already familiar with charges of being
unpatriotic if you question India's nuclear programmes or raise questions
about the conduct of the Kargil operations. The discomfiture caused by Ms.
Roy's involvement in the Narmada issue is not very different from that.
Everyone loves a ``good'' cause; it is the bad ones that should not be
touched.
**********************
from Times Of India, 8/23/99
Pro-Narmada Intellectuals Cup Hands
Gandhinagar : Top pro Narmada academics of Gujarat have finally succeeded
in breaking their long-drawn silence by holding their first major meeting
in years in Ahmedabad last week to work out a strategy to counter the
rather concerted and heightened criticism by the NBA on the very basis of
big dams.
Senior academics of the Indian Institute of management, School of planning,
Institute of Developmental Research, Gandhi Labour Institue, Sardar Patel
Institute of Social and Economic Research and the Centre for Developmental
Alternatives decided at the meet to shun their apathy by making a joint
effort to "objectively" bring out the benefits which the Narmada dam would
accrue to different parts of Gujarat.
Organised by Prof. Sudershan Iyenger, acting director of the GIDR and held
at the Sardar Patel Institute in Ahmedabad last week, there was a general
consensus at the meet that Ms Arundahti Roy's critique of the narmada dam
is not as dangerous or difficult to answer as that by Ms J Whitehead, a
Canadian scholar, who has made a philosophical and methodical attack on the
rehabilitation of the narmada oustees.
Published in the Economic and Political Weekly, Ms Whitehead's research
analysis, 'Statistical Concoction', followed by two other serious articles
by Mr Micheal Cernia, a World Bank expert on rehabilitation issues, and Ms
Amita Baviskar, a Delhi based sociologist, it was agreed, needed a serious
reply.
"Ms Roy is populist", said Pro. Vidyut Joshi of the GLI. "Ms Whitehead, on
the other hand, critcises the concept of modernisation itself from the
post-modernist angle. She stresses the methodology used by the Centre for
Social Studies, Surat, in calculating the enrichment of the rehabilitation
oustees is flawed. The development paradigm of the CSS, sponsored by the
officialdom, too has been criticised saying that the tribal oustes' choice
is ignored. It ahs been argued that in human development index terms, the
ousteed have actually lost in qualitative terms."
Held against the backdrop when the Gandhinagar based Narmada Planning (NPG)
remains defunct and State officials have had little time to rise beyond
emotionally reacting to NBA attacks, academics argued in favour of
maintaining objectivity while bringing out the benefits of the Narmada dam.
Said Prof. Indira Hirway, director, CDA, Ahmedabad, "For a rational
critique of the antidam lobby, it is necessar to change the atmosphere for
discussion. Anti-Narmada criticism should begin to be tolerated." The NPG
was in the past intrumenatl in triggering academic discussion in favour of
the Narmada dam.
Currently involved environmental accounting of the State with the help of
the Gujarat ecology Commission, Prof. Hirway stresses, "We must concede
that Narmada is not a panacea. It's not a lifeline for Gujarat. Yet, it is
an important solution to the water and ecological problems of some arid
regions. For a lasting solution, it would be necessary to transfer south
Gujarat's access waters to North Gujarat and the Saurashtra-Kutch region."
According to Prof. S S Mehta, a visiting faculty at the School of Planning,
few know that only three villages out of a total of 237 are being fully
submerged because of the dam. "Going beyond the Land Acquisition Act of
1894, the oustees are being given not just monetary compensation but land
for land."
Prof. Ravindra Dholakia of the IIM sharply criticised Mr. V Paranjpayee's
widely-quoted "research work", by saying tha the latter's "cost benefit
analysis" had a large number of factual errors and was nothing more than an
effort to run down the dam. The top IIM economist emphasised that he had
yet to see a "serious cost benefit analysis, challenging the Narmada
project. Even the World Bank's technical report says that the rate of
return per annum as a result of the dam would be above 12%." Appreciative
of the academic initaitive, he hoped the group would reach a consensus.
Also participated by the IIM's Morris Sebestian, Rakesh Basant , School of
Planning director H S Shivanandswamy and SPI's Rohit Desai, the meeting
decided to give a concerted reply to the academic critique of the dam after
a seminar based on a paper prepared by CSS scholar D C Sah on the
correctness of the methodology of the CSS criticised by Ms Whitehead.