Yogesh Snehi
In the past one month there has been a spurt in the debates surrounding the issue of dams in
We thus come across this entire new debate on the question of dams where on the one hand there is this question of right to determine development and ensure adequate rehabilitation and on the other hand there is this issue of nationhood, which can go to the extent of violently chasing any attempts to undermine it, as seen during an attack on NBA office in Vadodra and Modi’s reaction on Supreme Court’s Judgement on 8 May 2006. The point that I am trying to make is that we are locked into a very serious confrontation between civil rights and nationhood. The principle of justice and fair play for the oustees has been undermined in the hands of an authoritative state which thinks that majoritarianism has the right to determine the course of development and the rest have to just follow the way.
This debate raises some very critical issues on the question of rehabilitation; its nature, its course, role of the state and plight of the displaced. There have been arguments that rehabilitation has been a non-issue in any dam projects earlier and it is precisely because of NBA that the process of rehabilitation has become difficult. But if people displaced by earlier dam projects have not been able to raise their voice it might be because of the fact that those displaced remained voiceless. In the recent times we are listening to the protests of oustees of Pong dam in Himachal Pradesh. Interestingly, Himachal Pradesh government has alleged that
In the case of NBA, thousands of people from three states- Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra have been displaced and rehabilitation has become a mere paper work in the hands of these governments. Can we justify any such state policy which uproots people from their fertile irrigated assets and in the name of rehabilitation provides them with barren pieces of land or any such unrealistic compensation? The question remains that who decides the course of development. If NBA raises its voice against increasing the height of dam until complete rehabilitation, its activities are classified as an anti-progress and anti-nation movement. Critics of NBA go to the extent of describing its activists as ‘professional agitators’.
Dams per se are certainly not irrational, but we will have to decide at what human costs and which benefits will these dams be constructed? Interestingly, check dams or bands have been significant since ancient times, but most of these were localised in terms of cost and benefits. Even if benefits outdo human costs, we will have to rethink as to how long will Eklavyas be forsaken for Dronacharyas of development? The role of the state and courts has been biased in these matters. While the state has constantly been trying to enhance its control over common property resources by displacing farmers and tribals, the judiciary is equally biased in the favour of dams.
The reaction of government over Medha’s fast also raises many questions on the future of non-violent protests in India। By referring to Medha’s fast as an ‘attempt to suicide’, the government has made a mockery of Gandhian ways of protests. Do we have a place for non-violent protests in Indian democracy today? The reaction of government has shown that protest against the policies of the state will now be categorised as criminal acts. The space for democratic dissent is shrinking. It is high time that the policy makers and government realise that biased development will only lead to others forms of violent resistance. And what will be the nature of democracy then? Dr. Manmohan Singh will have to answer these questions when he comes out with the report on the committee formed by him to look into the question of rehabilitation; perhaps before it is too late for the arrogant state to respond and respect the rights of its ‘lesser’ citizens.
No comments:
Post a Comment