Quiet flows the Narmada

Patkar8217;s insistence on immediate stoppage of work on the dam is perverse. Work on the SSP dam has been suspended off and on for approximately six or more years at the instance of the NBA. This itself has complicated issues by weakening the oustee8217;s resolve to move, swelling numbers and preventing rehabilitation, which entails steady emotional adjustment to the new dispensation after the initial phases of relocation and resettlement. In the confused parlance of R038;R debate, the last phase is treated as coterminous with the first two. Ask even a sophisticated family how long it takes to settle down when it moves house, to say nothing of moving station. It is fallacious to imagine that R038;R in the case of many tens of thousands of villagers, spread over three states will be instantly accomplished without a glitch.

The broad facts are that the NCA, chaired by the union water resources secretary, cleared the enhanced height of 121.92 m on March 8. This was done after action taken reports on R038;R had been vetted by the high level Grievance Redressal Authority, set up in Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh respectively at the instance of the Supreme Court, and thereafter approved by the Narmada R038;R and environmental sub-groups of the NCA. This is not to say that physical or perceptional gaps and flaws might not still remain in some minds. But these are all subject to review and correction. Indeed the new Water Resources Minister had himself said that he needed to be fully satisfied and had announced his intention of convening a meeting of the ministerial level Review Committee of the NCA to go over the ground again.

There was accordingly no need for an ultimatum to halt raising the height of the dam immediately. There is a limited working season remaining within which to raise the dam to the newly approved height and take defensive measures for protection of the structure at this level before the July floods. Therefore stoppage of work would be unwarranted and expensive, especially as the dam at 121.92 m will irrigate an additional 3.6 lakh ha, provide drinking water over a longer reach of Narmada canal offtakes, and generate up to 1450 MW of power at the river bed and canal head hydel stations. These are no small gains and will benefit millions, including small and marginal farmers, and trigger further employment and income generation. Special provision can be made, including a compensation package for those 8212; if any 8212; eligible for R038;R but inadequately provided for, or not at all, should they suffer submergence.

The NBA asserts that Madhya Pradesh has been forcing cash compensation on oustees in lieu of land-for-land as stipulated, on the ground that land is not available. When the Narmada Award was made, degraded forest land could be used for R038;R. But passage of the Forest Conservation Act in 1985 barred all such diversion. The patent untenability of the land-for-land formula was compounded by the terms offered for eligible 8220;oustees8221;. This provided, with some variations, for a minimum of two ha for each 8220;oustee8221;, or as much as the holding lost; two ha for each coparcener, two ha for each major son, two ha for every encroacher and two ha for each landless labourer employed. Where was all this land to come from? In addition, each 8220;oustee8221; is entitled to a 500 sq m homestead plot and to be settled in clusters.

The persisting promise of land-for-land is misconceived as an absolute right and only credible form of R038;R. Distress migration from the Narmada Valley, as elsewhere, on account of lack of development or employment opportunities has led to hundreds of thousands moving from farms or the countryside to non-farm, non-land occupations. Where land is available, let land be given by all means. For the rest, and for the most part, supervised cash compensation with training and micro credit for asset-creation and self-employment around homestead plots or flatted factories would be a better answer.

As the SSP dam rises, submergence will be partial and seasonal, sometimes only for a few days in a year of high flood. Many millions of farmers all over the country live with such a regime and practice draw down farming or cultivate char lands richly fertilised by receding floods. To treat all of this as total or permanent 8220;submergence8221; is to misunderstand and exaggerate the problem. Differential compensation is in order here.

Medha Patkar is not specifically opposed to the Narmada dam or any specific aspect or impact. The target varies. She is opposed to all large dams, thermal projects, mines and, indeed, all large projects at all times. For her, small is beautiful; big is bad. Her objection is ideological. Yes, R038;R must be humane and just. At the end of the day those displaced must be at least as well or better off than before. Let us all join hands to achieve that objective.