A Report And A Decision – More Than Meeting The Eyes
By Joe Athialy
22 June, 2014
Countercurrents.org
Modi is in a hurry. Reminiscing his election campaign which clocked 300,000 km by air, addressing 437 rallies since he kicked off his campaign in September, he wants to keep up with that pace in realising his dream plans for fast-track development - 100% FDI in key sectors, bullet trains, 100 new cities, industrial corridors, mega coal and nuclear power projects, opening up coal sector for private players, inter-linking of rivers, 'Diamond Quadrilateral' of high-speed trains, a 'Sagar Mala' project to connect ports and plans to develop low-cost airports in small towns. The list is incomplete.
While the India Inc. and sections of the media are celebrating, Modi knows for projects of this magnitude, which involves massive physical and economic displacement, destruction of environment and clearing off forests, could face opposition from two quarters – people who are aggrieved by the impacts of these activities, and NGOs who support local people in their struggle, bring to the notice of general public and media the impacts and human rights violations emanating and in some cases where foreign corporations / financiers are involved, seek international support for local resistances.
Modi chose to check the preparedness of affected communities, often coming together in the form of people’s movements and big NGOs by permitting the construction of the Sardar Sarovar (Narmada) Dam to its full height and ‘leaking’ a classified IB report “Impact of NGOs on Development”, taking up the names of a large number of known NGOs and activists in the country accusing them of thwarting country’s grand march towards ‘development’ by impacting the GDP growth by 2-3%, an estimate made by an institution whose job is intelligence gathering.
May be the best known people’s movement post-independence, Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) have been waging a strong resistance since ’85, exposing the shoddy rehabilitation, lopsided planning and distribution of water and power generated, highly exaggerated benefits and understated costs. A project involving Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat, built at the border of Maharashtra and Gujarat and hence the beneficiary state of Gujarat having to pay the least human and environmental cost, hit road blocks year after year due to successive governments’ inability to properly rehabilitate the affected communities as required by the Narmada Tribunal Award.
NBA’s perseverance against hostile governments resulted in World Bank, the financier of the project, admitting to gross lapses in rehabilitation and final withdrawal from the project. A Five Member Group appointed by the Narsimha Rao government reconfirmed the lapses at multiple areas. Supreme Court, since the time a PIL was admitted in ’94, have expressed concern at the pace of rehabilitation over and again, and for long periods suspended the construction of the dam for want of proper rehabilitation. In 2000, the majority judgement of Supreme Court authorised Narmada Control Authority (NCA) to monitor the progress of rehabilitation and allow permission for construction only after satisfactory rehabilitation of the oustees. NCA is under the Central Water Resources Ministry and its Chairperson is the Secretary to the Ministry.
There are an estimated 2.5 lakh people in three states whose rehabilitation is not done yet. Out of this a majority is in Madhya Pradesh, a state ruled by BJP. The protests for this permission, the ways in which the protests will be confronted by the state and how will NBA and their supporters react to the efforts to suppress the protests will tell Modi government a lot about how to deal with similar situations elsewhere.
By taking head on with Greenpeace, (crediting them for doing a lot of things which they might not have even thought of doing) Modi government is checking their capacity to stand up to this challenge. Will Greenpeace and other organisations supporting local resistances buckle under the pressure of ‘leaked report’? How will the international community respond to such efforts to muzzle dissent? How effectively can their efforts of resisting the impacts of ‘development’ projects be diverted by making them run after one notice to another, one enquiry to another?
Indications are that Modi’s attempt to stifle dissent is facing resistance from many quarters. It has pulled different actors together. Even the pro-market columnists feel that to paint all NGOs with one colour is absurd. That, a vigilant NGO sector is required for a vibrant democracy.
Condemning the decision to increase dam height, Communist Party of India (Marxist) said in a statement, “The decision of the Modi government to go ahead with raising the height of the Narmada dam to 38.5 metres goes against the spirit of the SC judgement of 2000 which had made any such step conditional on putting into place relief and rehabilitation measures for those who will be affected.”
Aam Aadmi Party called the IB report “an attempt at criminalising any dissenting voices”. In a statement they said: “AAP condemns this dishonesty and vindictiveness of the security agencies and believes that such attempts needs to be nipped in its bud itself … People's movements and NGOs, considered critical of government policies, are necessary for a healthy democracy and peaceful society.”
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan said, “The "leaked" Intelligence Bureau report is an unjustified and mischievous attempt to muzzle free speech and expression and undermine the Indian citizens right to make informed choices.” It further said, “Environment groups like Greenpeace, human rights organizations like PUCL, anti-nuclear groups such as NAAM, other peoples’ organizations like NAPM, PMANE, Gene Campaign, Navdanya and many others named in the report have been fighting to protect the environment, bio diversity and the rights of people that are being usurped by multinational corporations with a huge profit motive, whose concern is not the people of India.”
ASHA (Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture), named in the report said, “What is objectionable is that the IB report is not just about foreign-funded NGOs. It is about quelling of dissent and opposition, including of groups which are not NGOs, or funded or foreign-funded; this is apparent from some of the details included in the Report of some non-funded outfits.”
Greenpeace and Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (CNDP), other organisations named in the report, have reacted strongly to the IB report. One was heard asking, “If a top secret report from IB to the PMO is not safe, how can the nuclear installations be?”
In the past when governments ran out of reason, to discredit, divert resources and attention, and mount human rights abuses, it often resorted to accusations of taking foreign funds against all kinds of organisations. During the cold war period, ‘CIA funded’ was more fashionable. This time, the same arguments and intend is redeployed, but to test the ground as well. It’s sure to face stiff resistance.
Writer is a former activist with Narmada Bachao Andolan
Comments are moderated