Rising concerns

Houses in Domkhedi village in Maharashtra that were submerged temporarily during the monsoon in 2002. With an increase in the dam height, several villages will be inundated permanently. - BY SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT

Even as the rehabilitation and resettlement of tens of thousands of families displaced by the Sardar Sarovar Project remains incomplete, the Narmada Control Authority paves the way for a further increase in the dam height.

FOR 18 years, the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) has had one principal demand - the resettlement of people who have been displaced by the Narmada Valley Development Project under the terms and conditions of the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT) Award. However, on May 14, the Narmada Control Authority (NCA) gave its clearance to raise the Sardar Sarovar dam to a height of 100 metres, bringing to nought the NBA's efforts and proving that the government has no qualms about violating its own laws. Currently, the controversial dam rises to a height of 95 m, in addition to which there are three-metre-high concrete humps designed to break the flow of water.

The three-decade-old Narmada Valley Development Project involves the construction of 30 large, 135 medium and 3,000 small dams on the Narmada and its tributaries. The Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP), which involves the construction of the largest of the dams, the Sardar Sarovar dam, is being implemented by the governments of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. The dam is slated to rise to a height of 138.6 m. If it is raised to its full design height, a 214-km-long reservoir will be formed, inundating vast areas permanently apart from causing the flooding of agricultural lands during the monsoon season.

Provisions for the Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) of the displaced persons have been laid down clearly by the NWDT, which was set up in 1969 to settle the conflicting claims made by the States regarding their share of the Narmada water, the cost of rehabilitating displaced persons, the height of the dam and other issues. In 1979, the Tribunal gave its Award and laid down guidelines for the rehabilitation of the affected people. Initially, it was estimated that the project would affect about 50,000 families across 193 villages in Madhya Pradesh, 33 villages in Maharashtra and 19 villages in Gujarat. While all the affected villages in Maharashtra and Gujarat are tribal ones, 53 of the affected villages in Madhya Pradesh fall in that category. Although Gujarat will be the greatest beneficiary of the SSP, it is the least burdened in terms of R&R. Madhya Pradesh, on the other hand, will benefit the least, but has to resettle the greatest number of people. In view of the fact that the livelihoods of most of the displaced persons are linked to land, the Tribunal adopted a land-for-land R&R policy. The resettlement patterns and policies pronounced by the Tribunal for people affected by the SSP are seen as being progressive in comparison to those adopted in the case of other development projects, where the resettlement was largely cash-oriented.

Nevertheless, there are several loopholes in the Tribunal's Award. Under the provisions of the Award, only reservoir-affected people are recognised as displaced persons; those who lose their land to the vast canal network and other accompanying constructions cannot appeal for relief. Consequently, countless affected families are eligible for only a cash compensation decided by the government for their land.

Under the Award, "land-for-land" is the basis of rehabilitation, instead of a mere cash compensation, which is the norm under the Land Acquisition Act. According to the provisions of the Award, the affected population had a right to share the prosperity of the command area and was entitled to be rehabilitated on irrigable lands either in the command area or in its own State, with the cost of irrigation borne by the government. The affected people have a right to choose between Gujarat and their home States with regard to R&R, the Award says. Villages must be relocated as a community and `rehabilitation villages' should be set up with all the amenities necessary for a village. In order to facilitate the rehabilitation process, irrigable lands must be made available one year in advance. No areas in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra should be allowed to get submerged unless arrangements are made for the rehabilitation of the displaced persons and the information intimated to them, the Award states.

However, the facts on the ground are quite different. For instance, there is no village that has been completely resettled on land that can be compared in terms of productivity to that acquired by the government. Even if land is given, it is of such poor quality that agriculture is impossible. Resettlement sites are usually located in places with no basic infrastructure. The most startling violations of the Tribunal Award and the Supreme Court's order has been the decision of the Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra governments to distribute cash to the displaced. A 1999 Interim Order of the Supreme Court specifically directs States to comply with the land-based rehabilitation policy.

"The Award of the Tribunal is binding on the States concerned," the order said. Madhya Pradesh adopted cash distribution as its official policy in January 2001. At a review committee meeting of the NCA, Chief Minister Digvijay Singh categorically said that his State had no agricultural land to give to the displaced persons and that cash compensation would be the norm. In May, the Government of Madhya Pradesh wrote to the NCA: "According to GoMP [Government of Madhya Pradesh] there is paucity of cultivable government land in MP as pointed out at various fora; it is difficult to arrange more land for the oustees in the contingency of accepting change in their option exercised earlier. It may be recalled that Hon'ble Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh in the meeting of the Review Committee, held on 10th January, 2001, had very explicitly observed that if the PAFs [project affected families] are required to be allotted agricultural land and arrangement of land is to be made by the State, and the resettlement is to be village as a unit, then it will be very difficult to adhere to the time frame for the resettlement of the PAFs as approved by NCA." Sub clause IV (7) of Clause XI of the NWDT, which deals with the allotment of agricultural land, states: "Every displaced family from whom more than 25 per cent of its land holding is acquired shall be entitled to and be allotted irrigable land on the extent of land acquired from it, subject to the prescribed ceiling in the State concerned and a minimum of 2 hectares (5 acres) per family, the irrigation facilities being provided by the State in whose territory the allotted land is situated. This land shall be transferred to the oustee family if it agrees to take it."

Seven months later, at a meeting of the R&R sub-group, Madhya Pradesh formally proposed the amendment of the Tribunal Award. Ironically, the Digvijay Singh government filed a suit in the Supreme Court in 1999 seeking the constitution of a Tribunal to review the Sardar Sarovar Project. Madhya Pradesh had realised that it would have to rehabilitate the largest number of displaced persons while it would receive the minimum benefit from the project. Further, adequate agricultural land was not available to resettle the displaced. Later, Madhya Pradesh withdrew the suit.

In Maharashtra, events have moved at an even more rapid pace. On March 12, Chief Minister Sushilkumar Shinde assured representatives of the NBA that displaced would be provided land. But within a week, the Nandurbar District Collectorate was ordered to disburse cash compensation.

Controversy has surrounded the raising of the height of the Sardar Sarovar dam. In 1987, the Ministry of Environment and Forests gave conditional clearance to the SSP. But in 1992, the SSP was condemned by an independent review instituted by Bradford Morse, former Chairman of the World Bank. The report said: "Environmental and social trade-offs have been made, and continue to be made, without a full understanding of the consequences. As a result, benefits tend to be overstated, while social and environmental costs are frequently understated. Assertions have been substituted for analysis." The report advised the World Bank to "step back" from the project. However, the Bank refused to accept the report fully, stating that it disagreed with Morse's pessimistic views on resettlement.

The Bank believed that it was possible to "develop meaningful R&R packages and programmes in consultation with the affected people". In 1993, the Indian government withdrew from the loan agreement that it had entered into with the Bank even as work on the dam continued. In 1994, the NBA took the issue of R&R to court. Work on the dam was stayed from 1995 to 1999. In 1999, the court allowed the resumption of construction work and the dam height was raised from 80 m to 85 m. Citing safety reasons, the Gujarat government built three three-metre `safety' humps to streamline the flow of water. On October 18, 2000, a majority order by the Supreme Court cleared the way for further construction as per the NWDT Award. The order stated that the construction should be done in a manner that ensured "compliance with conditions on which clearance of the project was given, including completion of relief and rehabilitation work in... compliance with the scheme framed by the government, thereby protecting the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution."

As per the court order, which was based on assurances given by the R&R sub-group, the dam was to be raised to 90 m. Any further increase in the height "will be only pari passu with the implementation of the relief and rehabilitation measures and on the clearance given by the Relief and Rehabilitation Sub-group. The Relief and Rehabilitation Sub-group will give clearance of further construction after consulting the three Grievance Redressal Authorities," the court said. The pari passu prescription means that construction and rehabilitation should make equal progress. The NWDT Award requires that people be resettled at least one year prior to the monsoon when their acquired land will be submerged and says that they should be rehabilitated at least six months before that date. The Award states categorically that if this does not happen, the dam height should not be increased.

But there are innumerable cases which testify to the fact that the rehabilitation of people affected by the raising of the dam height to 90 m has not been completed. The cases reflect a progressive disregard of the rights of the project-affected people and the Supreme Court's order. The findings of the Justice Daud Committee, which was formed by the Government of Maharashtra in response to agitations by displaced persons, are revealing. After a series of hearings and visits, the committee, whose brief was to assist in providing R&R to persons affected by the SSP, released a report indicting the R&R process in Maharashtra. It said that a large number of affected families had not been rehabilitated as per the provisions of the NWDT Award. The committee recommended that no further construction of the SSP be permitted until all the affected families were surveyed and resettled. In response, the government set up a Task Force, whose survey revealed staggering discrepancies. Although Maharashtra had claimed that only 17 families remained to be resettled, it emerged that there were 1,295 families. Admitting to a failure of R&R, Maharashtra called a halt to construction until the displaced persons were resettled. In the wake of the Daud Committee report, the State government agreed in principle that no further construction would be permitted until issues of R&R were resolved.

However, Maharashtra has given its nod to the NCA to proceed with the construction of the dam. The State assured the NCA that it would rehabilitate the displaced before the monsoon. It is not clear how the State will keep its promise as there are more than 10,000 families to be resettled. Since all the displaced are tribal people, issues relating to land documents and so on might be complex. Activists of the NBA fear that the State government might dismiss the rights of the tribal people on the grounds that they have no proof of land ownership.

Commenting on the situation in Maharashtra, NBA leader Medha Patkar said:

"Sushilkumar Shinde had a very open mind to the problem. A few days before the declaration of the increase in height, district officials were showing us possible land for resettlement. Now, suddenly the Chief Minister has turned away and the State is forcing people to take cash."

The court seems to have distanced itself from the issue by stating that the GRA is the appropriate authority to approach. In 1999, the Supreme Court mandated the setting up of the GRA for Gujarat and in 2000 the one for Madhya Pradesh. The purpose of this authority is to address rehabilitation-related grievances. Each GRA is headed by a retired Supreme Court or High Court Judge. But the GRAs lack the means to rectify the problems that petitioners approach them with. About the GRAs, Medha Patkar said: "There is a political conspiracy between the three State governments and the GRAs. There is no channel for redress." The Madhya Pradesh GRA is faced with the highest number of displaced persons, but it has not been given the infrastructure required to investigate complaints independently. The Government of Madhya Pradesh has largely ignored the GRA. For example, in June 2002, even as GRA experts were holding meetings with displaced people in Khedi Balwari village, the police evicted people by force before closing the sluice gates of the Maan dam, as a result of which the village was flooded.

Luharia Shankariya from Jalsindhi village said: "They think that they fool us by setting up committees and then disobeying their own laws. The committee is not there to help us. It is just there for one committee member to tell us `go to that committee' and when we go there another man tells us to `go to that committee'. Meanwhile our fields and homes are washed away."

The release of the Narmada water to Kutch district in Gujarat on May 18 has been variously described as a "gimmick", a development that has caused "false euphoria", and so on. According to Himanshu Upadhyay, a researcher at the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People, the so-called Narmada Festival, when the river water reached Bhachau taluka in Kutch district, was something that "could have happened six years ago". According to him, the provision of water to Kutch is unviable since it is a capital-intensive project whose impact will be felt in the form of steep water tariffs. While water is supposed to be flowing in the canal to 70 Kutch villages, the government has said that in one year 600 villages will receive water. It is not clear how this will be achieved. The Gujarat government has said that people have been resettled keeping in mind a dam height of 110 m.

Of the Narmada Valley development projects, the SSP has displaced two lakh families from 245 villages and created a submergence area of 37,690 ha. The Maan project has displaced 5,000 families of 17 villages and created a submergence area of 865 ha. While the Bargi project has displaced 1,14,000 families of 162 villages and formed a submergence area of 26,797 ha, the Maheshwar project has displaced 35,000 families in 61 villages, and created a submergence area of 5,697 ha. Scarcity of food and drinking water, and human and livestock deaths that result from the sudden appearance of mud banks are just some of the problems that villages in the submergence zone face.