The Union and State governments modify their financial assistance packages and housing schemes for the rehabilitation of the fishing community affected by the tsunami in Tamil Nadu and pave the way for the restoration of its livelihood.
THE relief and rehabilitation programme for tsunami victims on the Tamil Nadu coast ran into rough weather hardly four weeks after the disaster on December 26, threatening to delay the resettlement and the restoration of livelihoods of about 1.5 lakh fisher families. This was caused by two controversial moves, one by the Union government and the other by the State administration. The first related to the proposed financial assistance in the form of a subsidy-cum-loan package from nationalised banks to the fisherfolk for purchasing fishing vessels. Chief Minister Jayalalithaa, who has been pressing for a 100 per cent subsidy, protested. She contended that the Central assistance, as in other cases, should be routed through the States. The Union Home Ministry conceded the demand, though partially, and accordingly modified the Finance Ministry's directive; the subsidy was raised a bit and its distribution through the State government ensured.
The other development was the State administration's directive in February to the Collectors of the 13 tsunami-affected districts that all fishing settlements be kept 500 metres away from the high tide line. This sent shockwaves among fisherfolk, who saw in the instruction a sinister move to rob them of their right to live close to the sea. There were protest rallies at many places. The government's instruction, in fact, was only in keeping with its declared stand on resettlement at that point of time. However, a month later, the State government allayed their fears by modifying its housing scheme for the victims. Both modifications satisfied significant sections of the affected community, paving the way for the third and most important phase of the rehabilitation programme - the construction of permanent homes for the victims and the total restoration of their livelihood.
R. Santhanam, State Relief Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, told Frontline on April 14 that already about 50 per cent of fishermen had returned to the sea and the rest would follow suit, hopefully in the next two months. He expected the construction of houses to start within a month. The modalities were being discussed at various levels and negotiations with the funding agencies had also reached a definite stage. Self-help groups (SHGs) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) would also be involved in this massive exercise, he said.
Activists working among fisherfolk in Chennai, Cuddalore, Nagapattinam and Kanyakumari say that although substantial numbers of fishermen, particularly those who use mechanised boats, were yet to resume fishing, there has been a slow but steady increase in the number of those returning to the sea, mostly those using catamarans and small boats. Activists say that the aid package for livelihood restoration has now been made more attractive and the community's fears have also been allayed under the modified housing scheme. The resistance in the fishing community has, therefore, been gradually diminishing, they say. Many of the boat owners have come round to the view that even if the assistance package is not sufficient, they cannot afford to stay back any more.
Considering the fact that Tamil Nadu was the worst affected among the Indian States and the unprecedented nature and magnitude of the calamity, the way the State administration, particularly its relief machinery, handled the most challenging first phase of the relief and rehabilitation programme received wide acclaim from across the country. This phase involved making brave attempts to save lives wherever possible, removing the bodies caught beneath debris, cleaning up debris, providing for the food and stay of the survivors, arranging for medical assistance and preventing possible outbreak of epidemics. Explaining the operations of the relief machinery, Santhanam said the very fact that the people were protected from any outbreak of epidemics was a big achievement.
Nine lakh people, in all, were affected by the tsunami in the coastal districts of the State. A little more than 8,000 people, most of them women and children, were killed; about 3,500 injured; and nearly 5,00,000 people rendered homeless; and 17,000 head of cattle perished. Thousands of hectares of land, covered with sand and salinated, turned unfit for cultivation.
During the second phase, the State government, in cooperation with NGOs and others, constructed temporary shelters and also arranged for the relief and rehabilitation of people other than the fisherfolk, who were affected by the killer wave, such as agricultural workers (most of them Dalits), petty traders, small businessmen and students. Some compensation was paid to petty traders. Books, notebooks and uniforms were supplied free to the students in the affected regions. Examinations were postponed and educational institutions were instructed to waive tuition, special and examination fees. However, there were complaints that many of these institutions ignored the government directive and refused to refund the examination fees already paid. It was also pointed out that the benefit was not extended to the children of tsunami-affected people studying in educational institutions in districts not affected by the tsunami. Assistance was provided to orphaned children, and women who lost their husbands in the tsunami attack. Fixed deposits ranging from Rs.3 lakhs to Rs.5 lakhs were created for the orphaned, depending upon their age. Orphanages were opened at Cuddalore, Nagapattinam and Kanyakumari, to provide education, shelter, training and other basic needs. All the agricultural workers affected were also provided benefits on a par with the fisherfolk, Santhanam said. He denied any discrimination between the fishing community and others in the matter of relief. "It is quite possible that a few people here and there might have been left out, but there was absolutely no discrimination from the government side," Santhanam said.
During this period the government also initiated the process of restoring the livelihood of the affected fisherfolk. In many villages, NGOs gave a helping hand. The government sanctioned Rs.65 crores from the Calamity Relief Fund to meet the immediate needs in this respect. Funds were also provided to get the damaged outboard motors/inboard engines repaired, at the rate of Rs.5,000 an engine.
The owners of big mechanised boats were, however, reluctant to take the government assistance, because they wanted the entire cost of the boats, which runs to several lakhs of rupees, as subsidy. The Union government scheme in that respect provides for 35 per cent of the cost, subject to a maximum of Rs. 5 lakhs as subsidy, provided they take a bank loan to meet the remaining 65 per cent of the cost. The boat owners were not eager to go in for bank loans and the State government has offered to give the subsidy portion alone, without insisting that they take any bank loan for the balance amount. Many boat owners have now agreed to receive Rs.3 lakhs alone given as subsidy and have their damaged boats repaired. "In respect of boats, the total damage, fortunately, has not been as high as we feared earlier. It is much less and therefore manageable," said Santhanam.
Not only the form and mode of financial assistance to the fisherfolk for the purchase of fishing craft, but also the question how the Union government's relief funds should be canalised to the victims of the tragedy has been a bone of contention between the Union Finance Ministry and the Tamil Nadu government from the early stages of the relief operations. Considering the extent of damage caused to the fishing vessels and also the need to restore the fisherfolk's means of livelihood at the earliest, the Chief Minister was convinced that the assistance to the affected people should be liberal and substantial.
On January 29, the Union Finance Ministry issued a direction that loans and subsidies for fishermen intending to purchase new fishing boats would be disbursed only through public sector commercial banks as part of the Rajiv Gandhi Rehabilitation Package for Tsunami-Affected Areas. (The very naming of the package was seen as giving the aid package a political colour.) Jayalalithaa opposed the direction on the grounds that it went against the State's demand that the Centre provide 100 per cent subsidy for restoring the livelihood of the fisherpeople and that it sought to bypass the State government in routing the relief to the beneficiaries. Besides, the Chief Minister had also by that time announced in the State Assembly a fresh package for the rehabilitation of the livelihood of fishermen "on the specific understanding that the assistance from the Government of India would be given to the State/Union Territory to take up the rehabilitation programme of fishermen".
The Chief Minister reiterated, in the Assembly, her demand that the Union government provide 100 per cent subsidy for rehabilitation of the fisherfolk. The Union Finance Ministry's move was seen as a violation of the federal principles and also a breach of political faith. An order from the Union Home Ministry that came subsequently, however, was at variance with the Finance Ministry direction and made it clear that the Union government's subsidy to the tune of Rs.356.54 crores would be routed through the State government. The Union government had also informed the State that the remaining portion of assistance would be disbursed to the beneficiaries through banks in the form of a loan. It was on the basis of this order that she launched her aid package to provide full subsidy for the purchase of new wooden catamarans and nets at Rs.32,000 a unit. Jayalalithaa told the Assembly that the fishermen were not satisfied fully with the Central scheme because they expected that the entire assistance would be in the form of subsidy.
Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram raised a controversy over the State government's response to the Centre's aid package, again in the last week of March. Accusing Chidambaram of hindering the flow of the Centre's assistance to the tsunami-hit people in Tamil Nadu, Jayalalithaa said in a statement: "Only if the beneficiaries request a bank loan can the application be forwarded to the bank concerned." She said that there was no response from fishermen to the offer of bank loans for a variety of reasons and added, "This is not the time to coerce them into obtaining a loan, which they are not happy with."
FOR the resettlement of the homeless, the Chief Minister unfolded in the State Assembly on March 24 a Rs.1,950-crore project. "About 1.3 lakh families will be provided with concrete houses at an approximate cost of Rs.1.5 lakhs each. The houses will have 300-325 sq ft of built-up space," said Jayalalithaa. What surprised many was that the project showed a clear deviation from the government's familiar stand that no houses be located within 500 metres from the sea, in accordance with the Environment Act and connected rules relating to the Coastal Regulation Zone. Even the government's guidelines for reconstruction of houses for the people affected by the tsunami had insisted on compliance to this provision and there were protests from fisherfolk, who had been resisting the move for a long time. And that is why they were shocked when they learnt that the State government had initially instructed the Collectors of the tsunami-affected districts to get the coast cleared of the fishing colonies all along the coast. They feared that the government was trying to deprive them of the coast, taking advantage of their bad plight.
"The fisher people's fears are not unfounded," said T.S.S. Mani, adviser to the Fisher Movements Coordination of Tamil Nadu. He said that it was a known fact that the State government had an eye on the Chennai coast for a long time. In 1985, when the State government attempted to rob the fishing community of its customary rights over the coast, there was massive protest from the fisherfolk. Five persons were killed when the police opened fire on the protesters. Mani also recalled that in 2002, fisher people numbering over one lakh staged a protest when there was reportedly a State government move to clear the coast of the fishing colonies to construct buildings for multinational companies and the consulates of many countries, in collaboration with a Malaysian firm.
That was why many people were surprised that the government retracted from its known position. There has been much speculation about how this change happened. One possible explanation is that finding land for this massive construction work in Chennai and many other places is difficult. In fact, officials of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, which has been entrusted with the job in Chennai, had expressed their difficulty in locating a suitable place for the purpose.
The government, according to one perception, thought it wise not to give room for the complaint that it sought to realise its long-time dream by taking advantage of the fisher people's helplessness. In fact, the background note prepared by the United Nations Recovery Team, India, says: "It is vital to follow the non-negotiable principle of not further victimising the victims of the tsunami. It is very important to safeguard against any moves to convert the disaster into an opportunity to displace the local communities living along the coast."
"It is heartening to note that the Chief Minister had bowed to the wishes of the affected community," said Mani. "When it was represented to the government that the built-up space in the houses be raised from 230-odd-sq ft, it readily agreed," he said.
B. Karunanidhi, general secretary, Tamil Nadu Fishworkers Federation, said the government's decision against removing the fisher people from the coast was most welcome. It should also give an assurance that no big hotels or high-rise buildings would be permitted close to the sea, he said.
According to the government's plan, all houses would have disaster-resistant features and the colonies all infrastructural facilities, such as water supply, street lights, roads, rainwater harvesting structures, and a community centre. A progressive feature of the project is that the title of the house will be given in the names of both the wife and the husband, and if one of them is not alive, in the names of the survivor and the eldest child. The houses cannot be alienated/marginalised for 10 years. Any transfer of the share of the wife's property to the husband will be declared void.
The construction work in the districts will be entrusted to the SHGs. Funds are expected to flow from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, besides local agencies. "The Rome-based International Fund For Agricultural Development (IFAD) has come forward to assist us. It will work in the fields of restoration of livelihood for the fisherpeople, agriculture and horticulture. This organisation was initially responsible for starting the self-help movement in the State," said Santhanam.
COMMents
COMMents
SHARE