[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dam-l LS: Excellent piece in Hindu, Sept. 13, 1999, in reply to Gail Omvedt
A bitter pill, but for whose health?
Hindu, Sept. 13, 1999
THIS IS with reference to the article by Ms. Gail Omvedt (August 4-5) and
Mr. Ashish Kothari (August 17) on the Narmada Bachao Andolan. Ms. Omvedt
has chosen to write on behalf of all the persons who feel threatened by Ms.
Arundhati Roy's book on the NBA. They are eco-romanticist and
anti-development, she says. And development, according to her, is equal to
dams. Because dams help production - which is development. So the neat and
tidy circle is complete - without any shabby, untidy and crumpled
``people''. Big dams mean big production and big development. Big dams are
development-friendly. So what if they are not people- friendly? If one
talks about dam-induced adversities caused to the people - one is accused
of obstructing development.
It is romance to highlight the plight of the adivasis and wisdom to
proclaim human sacrifice for the dams! Mind you - there is no denial or
dispute of Ms. Roy's vivid presentation of the heartrending and avoidable
hardships caused to the people displaced by the big dams. Yes, Ms. Omvedt
is kind enough to accept and acknowledge that the bitter pill has to be
swallowed (by whom?) in the broader interest of national development. What
specious and cruel logic! Who takes the pill and who gets well! But don't
ask these uncomfortable questions because you might end up obstructing
development.
What is this development god we are so fond of - the overbearing idol we
are subject to? Is there only one kind of development as Ms. Omvedt seems
to imply or are there alternative strategies and paths? Her writings
pre-empt the positing of these questions.
Who takes decisions? Who makes technological choices? What is produced? How
is it shared? How is economic conflict resolved or intensified? How are
people divided into classes? These are the pertinent points, which a
development paradigm has to address. The dominant paradigm at the present
historical juncture is the capitalist one. This reproduces itself by
production for the sake of production driven by the profit motive. What is
produced has to be sold - therefore, we have manipulation of needs through
advertising. The questions raised above are decided in consonance with this
driving force of unbridled production. ``Need'' is secondary and
subservient to the pressure to produce ad infinitum. ``Requirement'' can be
artificially generated ex- post.'' The working out of this development
model typically takes the form of polarity of opposites - the rich and the
poor.
Economic discrepancy is the hallmark of the paradigm. There are rich and
poor countries, regions and people. Development breeds
underdevelopment concurrently as its alter ego. If Kalahandi records
starvation deaths, it is not because of lack of development, as Ms. Omvedt
would like us to believe, but because of underdevelopment linked to
development elsewhere. That is, it is a created and modern condition and
not a natural legacy of the pre-capitalist era.
The understanding of large dams has to be situated in the context of this
development paradigm. If the overriding objective is production and not
people (they are the means) and interest of the two conflict production
takes precedence. The agenda however is not always clearly specified. Here
starts the camouflage. ``Production is all for people,'' goes the saying.
If people have to be sacrificed for people - that's fine. Slippery
arguments. Who gets sacrificed for whom? They are not from the same class.
But you don't see `classes' - separated by socio-economic distance - if you
talk of `people'. Hotch-potch collection of people. So Ms. Omvedt and
company join in the game of ``confusion perpetuation'' by talking of
development of the people, for the people, by the people.
Unequal distribution
Could we perhaps read it as development of the rich, for the rich by the
poor? No. All talk of rich and poor is sentimental, romantic and emotional
and, therefore, unscientific. But dams for everyone including the poor is
acceptable. More irrigation and electricity will give us more food and
industry with which we can feed our poor and give them jobs, runs the
argument. What about the classic paradox of surplus foodgrains in the
country along with persistent malnutrition of the masses? The name of the
game is unequal distribution of resources. People starve and are
undernourished not because they are too many, but because the money they
have is too little. We have therefore `surplus food' and `over-population'.
Class bias of over-population is also missed out in the popular and
fashionable theory of population causes poverty. Or is it poverty that
breeds high population? So how do we treat poverty or population? There is
no space for asking these questions where it is taken for granted that dams
are required to produce food for ``over-population''. Since the population
is `surplus' anyway, a few of the surplus category could be dispensed with
for producing more food, which ironically will be beyond the reach of likes
of them! The poor should sacrifice and work very hard to generate their own
poverty - runs the specious logic.
Next Ms. Omvedt observes how `people' (dam-displaced) have not been allowed
to talk to `people' (dam-demanding). So that a reasonable compromise could
evolve. Random talking of people has never resulted in action. Organisation
is a pre-requisite for social change and organisations have leaders. Is the
author trying to imply that the NBA leaders have prevented the free
interaction of people? Any substantiation? No. The Gujarat Government has
the backing of the people of Gujarat who are demanding the dam. Does Ms.
Omvedt refuse to recognise the economic and political nexus of most
Governments? Are the poor farmers of Gujarat aware of the hidden agenda of
the political/corporate clique or are they fed on the fiction manufactured
to extract political mileage for the powers that want to push the dam
through to its unwarranted height?
The NBA does not explore alternatives, says Ms. Omvedt (Mr. Ashish Kothari,
in his August 17 article has rightly dismissed this as a travesty of
truth). Quickly, however, she discounts the ``magic cure'' of rainwater
harvesting and watershed-based development approaches cited by the NBA as
technically unviable in low rainfall areas! Is it too much to expect basic
logical consistency from a supposedly serious writer? May be there is too
much anxiety to run down the book or else someone might actually read it
before it is burnt. That rainwater harvesting is indeed viable in low
rainfall areas has been underlined with examples by Mr. Kothari. Ms. Omvedt
then expresses touching concern for the dry parched areas of the South. Is
she aware of the massive watershed programme being implemented there under
the Drought Prone Area Development scheme, which have made an impressive
impact in some of the worst hit districts of Mahabubnagar and Kurnool in
Andhra Pradesh.
The issue is not that there is less water, but what is done with it, how
its use is regulated. Do you allow big landlords to guzzle it for their
rice and sugarcane? Or do you enforce less water consumption cropping
pattern by mobilising the entire community, as was done in Ralegaon Sidhi
and Pani Panchayat of Maharashtra? Water deficiency is artificially created
when limited resources are monopolised by a few.
Well, if nothing else is left, let us attack the NBA for its `middle class'
and `international' links. Is the reference to CIA or ISI? Or is it the
various organisations and individuals across the world who feel strongly
about environmental issues and seek to network to facilitate hearing of the
voice of adivasis over and above the attempts to muffle them. Is this a
crime? Any more fault-finding?
Finally, why the need to burn Ms. Roy's book? Why is there no attempt to
confront the data, which speaks volumes? Why no
eye-to-eye, point-by-point meeting? Why are the responses so hysterical and
ridiculous? Is it the fear of truth? Why don't the opponents of the book
make a serious attempt to question her findings - which should be the
challenge? Let the critique be sensible and cogent, so that a meaningful
discourse can emerge. Distortion, mutilation, cutting and burning are only
irrational responses born out of frustration of being forced to face the
bitter truth.
JASVEEN JAIRATH