Resisting a dam project

An agitation in Chhattisgarh against the construction of a dam on the Kurkut river by Jindal Steel is representative of many such popular struggles going on across the country.

ANNIE ZAIDI in Kurkut

IN Chhattisgarh's Raigarh district, a pitched battle is being fought across the river Kurkut over the construction of a dam. The might of the administration and the government machinery combined with the money and influence of a big industrial group is pitted against the anger and resistance of the local populace. Though neither side has won, the status quo is in place for the present.

The scene of conflict is Rabo, a village near Kurkut, where Jindal Steel and Power Limited (JSPL) proposes to build a dam for a 1,000 megawatt (MW) hydel power project. The dam will cater to the power needs of the company in Raigarh district. A move to dam the river in October 2004was thwarted by the villagers with the help of a non-governmental organisation (NGO) called Lok Shakti.

There have been a series of demonstrations since August 2004, but the high point of the agitation came on January 29 this year, when nearly 15,000 people took part in a demonstration at Raigarh. Earlier, on January 4, a public hearing had turned violent, with the District Collector being roughed up by angry tribal women.

What agitates the villagers is the fact that the proposal suggested that the company would own the dam and therefore, indirectly, the river as well. Rajesh Tripathi, an activist with Lok Shakti, said: "The Jindals are trying to assume control of all the local natural resources. The land, the coal mines, and now the water. Trees are being cut indiscriminately. We estimate that no less than 40,000 trees have been destroyed. The Environment Ministry has not cleared the power project, except in principle."

A mud embankment has been built more than half-way across the river but the contractors' machinery is lying idle now as the villagers do not allow work to progress; they have threatened to set fire to the machinery if the construction is taken up.

Ramesh Agarwal, another Lok Shakti activist, explained: "There is no transparency. The State government has not clarified what purpose the dam will serve and whether it will irrigate tribal lands. At public hearings, they don't let the poor people see the relevant documents. The villagers don't want to vacate their lands to convenience industrialists. Also, environmental pollution is a big issue here. There is black fly dust, emanating from the Jindal plant, in the grain and the vegetables grown in the fields. Nobody wants industrial expansion here."

Rakesh Jindal, vice-president, JSPL, said that the agitation was uncalled for. "We shall not be owning the dam. But we are expanding and we shall need more power. Besides, nobody is getting displaced. In fact they will all be adequately compensated for the takeover of the land. Near the dam, we propose to create a tourist spot in a five-acre area. It is all in the interest of the development of the region."

According to District Collector R.S. Vishwakarma, in the case of the dam projects, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. "Since 1995, the need to build a dam here was felt, but the government did not have the funds for such a big project. The Jindals offered to build it instead. The State Pollution Board is checking the project's viability. What is guaranteed is that no villages will be submerged and hence there will be no issue of rehabilitation," he said.

The claim is strongly refuted by local activists. They believe that 355 hectares of forest land and 1,000 ha of agricultural land will be swallowed up by the project and that 6,000 families from 15 villages will be affected. The dam is estimated to be 1,729 metres long and 18.5 m high.

The State Water Resource Ministry has issued a notice saying that the dam water will be owned by the State and that the profits will be used in the development of the surrounding region. It also claims that the residents will not be affected by the dam, and that groundwater levels will rise and villagers will have a perennial source of water supply.

It also promises that those affected will be encouraged to form a fishing cooperative so that they can take up a new source of livelihood. The notice even promises that those rendered landless by the project will be provided barren land and help to make it cultivable.

But in a letter to the Chief Secretary, Chhattisgarh, the District Collector noted: "According to the conditions laid down at the time, the dam would be owned by Jindal Steel and Power Ltd, who would construct it. Only the technical support and operational control would remain with the Water Resource Ministry." The letter further stated that the company had already bought land from the villagers and begun work. "The company has offered to pay Rs.20,000 for acquiring irrigated land. 261 families' lands will be submerged, and the compensation offered is very low. Rs.50 crores (as quoted in the 1996 proposal) will not be sufficient. At least Rs.300 crores will be required." He recommended that one member of each family affected by the dam should get a permanent job with Jindal Steel and that this should be set down as a precondition in the project proposal.

Vishwakarma admits in the letter that JSPL did not wait to obtain all the necessary clearances from the Government of India and the Environment Ministry. He concludes by saying that the whole proposal needs to be re-evaluated, that the dam needs to be State-owned, and that the water left over after meeting industrial needs should be released for irrigation.

Officials in the local administration point out that JSPL plans to invest Rs.7,000 crores in industries in Chhattisgarh; of this, about Rs.4,500 crores has already been invested in a thermal power plant. Hence it needs to build the dam at any cost, they aver.

Medha Patkar, who has been agitating against big dams in Madhya Pradesh for years now, explained that the administration's attitude to dams had been a defensive one earlier, but now it is turning aggressive. "All these decisions (to build dams) are contractual decisions, not rational or scientific ones. The monitoring agencies are not working. The poor are left to face mighty political forces and private parties, who use their money power and, increasingly, their muscle power. Our experience - from Enron to Jindal - proves that. The environment impact assessment is also done in a partisan manner, which is pro-corporates and anti-people."

THERE are many similar protests against dams going on across the country. Fear of displacement, in the absence of concrete plans for rehabilitation, is pushing people to protest against dam projects at Rabo and elsewhere.

Himanshu Thakkar of the South-Asian Network on Dams, Rivers and People says: "There are agitations against projects on the Tipai in Manipur, at Athirapalli on the Chalakudy river in Kerala, on the Narmada, at Tehri in Uttaranchal, at Karcham-Wangtoo on the Sutlej river in Himachal Pradesh, on the Sonbhadra in Orissa, on the Koel-Karo in Jharkhand, on the Teesta in West Bengal, at Polavaram on the Godavari river in Andhra Pradesh, at Uchhangi in Maharashtra and so on. Most of these agitations are very localised, and are small and uphill struggles. As per Government of India and World Bank data, about 4.3 million people have been displaced because of large projects. The problem is aggravated because the administration is non-participative, non-transparent and non-accountable."

He adds: "We must realise that dams are not an end by themselves. The needs of society are sacrosanct. The projects are not. In the case of Kurkut, we must look at the needs of the people and prioritise. Then, the decision would have socio-political acceptance."