CONSULTATION ON RIVER BASINS

(In The Context Of Proposed River Linking Project)

VENUE: NATURE EDUCATION CENTRE

MUNNAR, IDUKKI (KERALA)

ON 21^ST - 22^ND JUNE 2003

T

Participants of Goa Swaraj presenting cultural song at the ‘Consultation on river Basin’ at Munnar on 21 June 2003.

he Workshop began on the morning of 21^st June 2003. At first the National Convener of the Swaraj Forum, called for expectations from the participants. These included: -

To develop a deeper understanding about the pros and cons about the proposed project;

1. What will be the extent of Displacement from village to National Level;

2. The Ecological Impact;

3. How to organise ourselves to protect the Human Rights of the people;

4. More documents and feedback from the field;

5. People’s opinion on the proposed project;

6. Facts about the impact on Bihar and

7. Alternatives.

A FEEDBACK FROM INDIAN RIVER VALLEYS NETWORK (IRN)

- Jeevan Jagannath – The proposed Inter linkage of Rivers is a response to shortage in water and electricity generation. However, it would lead to large-scale displacement and replace sustainable agriculture and water would become will be become a business instead of a natural right.

- Bhagwanji Pathak – The project is based on the original thinking of linking of Himalayan Rovers. It will lead to privatisation of water. Besides, lives of more than 4,000 villages and five to seven million people would be adversely affected.

- Bageshwar Bagi – It would be a wasted effort.

- Ravindran – It would be wasted effort.

Intervening in the discussions, the National Convener of the Swaraj Forum and the Indian River Valley Network (IRN), Kumar Kalanand Mani averred that scientists had not taken proper care to investigate into the proposed project thoroughly. They had only nodded to what the government had proposed. This had happened before when at the beginning of independence they had nodded to what the then ruling party, Indian National Congress, under the leadership of Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru had proposed.

He disagreed with the contention that the media had supported the proposed project. “Media had been the biggest protester!” he said.

He also pointed out that the government was avoiding a debate on the proposed project and was bypassing the state governments.

He said: -

1. Linking of 30 rivers as proposed in the project would create more bogs and mires and wetlands that would prove dangerous to the mass of the population in terms of disease and habitat.

2. It is supposed that there would be surplus water to drought-prone areas. But was it the only ways? And would there be surplus?

3. What about the hydrology of the region to be covered by the proposed project? Has Nature’s balance in the area been considered?

4. It is stated that 112 towns/cities/metropolises will get water – At what cost and for whom?

5. It is state that it will generate 35,000 MW of power – How? How much of it will be used for the project itself for lifting water from the hill ranges that come on its way? For whom will the electricity be? For Industry Captains and the elite?

6. It is supposed to create many white collared jobs. But what about those who already have a self-sustaining employment?

7. What about the rising costs? These occur as implementation the project gets delayed? In fact, cost escalation has already started!

8. Have the project supporters thought of the eco-sensitivity of the zone through which the proposed project passes?

9. Will it not be a fact that there will be no surplus water available when it is most need, that is, from July to September of every year?

10. From where the massive concrete come from? Jharkhand and Orissa? Drawn from the homes, hearths and land of the indigenous people?

11. No environmental impact studies are to be undertaken? This provision is being bypassed?

12. These victims of the proposed project, who are they?

13. Where will the funds come from? The project requires at the current costs Rs. 600,000 lakhs!

14. Are there no alternatives?

As far as water for 109 towns and cities and to five metropolises is concerned, Kumar Kalanand Mani said that this had been done in previous cases too. In most cases river projects were constructed for irrigation and power purposes for the benefit of the rural areas. However, after a few years these projects served to benefit industry and for urban drinking water purposes.

Added to this the move of the government of recent to withdraw from social welfare programmes and to turn them into private enterprises. Water was such social welfare programme that is being turned into private enterprises, as dictated by the WTO and international finance agencies. He asserted that rivers were the cultural properties of the people and it was imperative that the Gram Panchayats were given the power to maintain watercourses and provide water to the villagers for all purposes.

The National Convener called for building up pressure through state governments to collect all information on the proposed project and an all effort to organise the people. He pointed out that judicial interventions had its limitation as the judiciary itself has become a part of the Establishment and in this case it was siding with the goals of the Global Water Forum, which as way in 1978-80 has decided to privatise and commercialise water everywhere.

He cautioned the participants not to expect the masses to struggles against the proposed project on their own. He added, that as far as NGOs were concerned they could be expected to go along with the proposed project.

“We would have to develop a liaison with political leaders and the bureaucrats, at least those who are thinking independently to help us to rouse state legislatures. We would also have to think in terms of raising the issue through gram panchayats. The latter should write to the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers and other concerned seeking full information before implementation of the projects!” he asserted.

Regarding intervention in courts, Kumar Kalanand Mani said that the lower courts would not go against the apex courts. Besides, a people’s struggle should be the aim.

On viability of alternatives, there were plenty of them. Internet should be used to find such material. He called for state level consultations to discuss the issue. These consultations should be open sessions. “We have nothing to hide. There are no business secrets with use!” he asserted.

The participants were divided into two groups. One of them represented ‘the old Bengal Province’ comprising Bihar, Jharkhand and Orissa chapters of Swaraj Forum, where the initiation of the proposed project would take place. The other one represented the ‘Western Ghats’ region comprising Maharashtra, Goa, Kerala and Tamil Nadu.

The first region comprised the Ganga and Mahanadi Basins. The representatives of the Ganga Basin included the Koshi, Gandak and Ganga Consortiums. The others included those representatives who could give information about the Damodar and the Mahanadi basins – Swaraj Jharkhand and Swaraj Orissa. The other group comprised of those who could gather information on the Godavari, Krishna, Cauveri and Idukki Basins.

The first group felt that the proposed project would only aggravate the situation. So far none of the big projects had succeeded in their claims of 1 controlling floods and mitigating drought. Drinking water would go to urban areas but for whom? “Definitely not the poor!” their members stated.

The second group felt that the process that was being undertaken for the proposed project was undemocratic, unscientific and anti-national. It called for pursuing alternatives, which were scientific, cost effective, environment friendly and people centred. These alternatives would be in the interests of the nation.

The second group felt that there was need collect data to verify the claims regarding: -

1. Control of Floods and mitigating droughts;

2. Drinking Water to 101 town and 5 mega cities and

3. Generation of 25,000 MW of electricity.

These they felt were doubtful claims.

In fact, they felt that the project would lead to desertification, changes in agricultural pattern and creation of wasteland.

On the morning of 22^nd June 2003, the two groups came together and agreed to undertake the following programmes in the next four months, that is, from July to October 2003 as

The Way Forward for the struggle against the proposed project to link rivers from Ganga to Cauveri: -

1. Formation of group (core group) for developing commonness with other like-minded forums and groups contesting the proposed project;

2. Collection of factual documents on the Interlinking of Rivers Project for weighing its pros and cons and projecting other alternatives;

3. Considering the concentration of action in Bihar, Jharkhand and Orissa and

4. Organising River area consultation in October 2003

The question then arose as to how to go about it?

The four W’s and the one H was discussed.

The following was decided upon: -

5-W’S & 1-H	DOCUMENTATION	CONSULTATION
WHAT	Document in Folders and Booklets	Consultation
WHERE	Goa and Ranchi	a) River Areas b) Regional c) National
WHEN	August/September	September/October
WHY	Basic Information/ Suggestions	Sharing Information Commonness
WHO	Kumar Kalanand Mani /Arun Vinayak	Kumar Kalanand Mani/ Ghanshyam/ Prof. Prakash /Shafique
HOW	Research/Study/Translation/Compilation/Editing	Consultation with like-minded groups

It was decided that the Core Team for the Way Forward should comprise the following: -

1 Kumar Kalanand Mani, 2 Ghanshyam, 3 Shafique, 4 Prof. Prakash, 5 Arun Vinayak and 6 Soter D’Souza.

Report: Arun Vinayak

<< >>