The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : Narmada project: clearing the confusion

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Apr 17, 2006

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Narmada project: clearing the confusion

Ramaswamy R. Iyer

The factual answers to ten relevant questions are clear. Now the Prime Minister needs to act justly and responsibly, in line with the Supreme Court's judgment.

WHEN I wrote my earlier article on the Sardar Sarovar Project and Medha Patkar's fast ( The Hindu , April 13, 2006), I thought I had said whatever needed to be said on the subject. Now several more questions have arisen and the situation has become murkier. The Review Committee has met but has been unable to come to an agreed conclusion. The matter has gone to the Prime Minister, but he seems disinclined to act. The fast by three persons enters the 18th day. Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi proposes to go on a retaliatory fast. There seems to be a feeling that the matter must be left to the Supreme Court, which is going to hear the case on April 17. The present article aims at putting these matters in the proper perspective, in the form of questions and answers:

Q: Why does the Narmada Bachao Andolan not confine itself to talking about rehabilitation? Why is it asking for stoppage of construction?

A: The answer is that in terms of the Narmada Tribunal's Award, the conditions of clearance of the Project, and the Supreme Court's judgments of October 2000 and March 2005, construction is not allowed to outpace rehabilitation work. That is the meaning of the pari passu principle. There is no question of proceeding beyond the height of 110 metres already reached until the failures and deficiencies in rehabilitation work with reference to that height have been remedied, and the prescribed advance steps have been completed with reference to the proposed further increase in height. The NBA is not asking for something new. It is merely asking for compliance with prescribed conditions, not imposing its own.

Q: Is the NBA anti-project, anti-development, as alleged by the Chief Minister of Gujarat?

A: Medha Patkar may have certain views about big dams and `destructive development,' and not everyone may agree with those views, but that is not the point at issue in the present case. The current protest is about failures in rehabilitation, non-compliance with conditions, denial of human rights, and infliction of injustice and suffering.

Q: Have the NBA's allegations of deficiency and failure been established?

A: Many who have studied the matter think so, but leaving that aside, the Minister of Water Resources has found the rehabilitation work to be wanting. That is clear corroboration of the NBA's contentions.

Q: Is the deadlock in the Review Committee warranted?

A: If, in fact, rehabilitation work is lagging and deficient, then the suspension of work until the failure is remedied is a logical corollary, and follows from existing legal requirements. There is no scope for any disagreement here. Political considerations seem to have prevailed over legal and human ones.

Q: What happens next?

A: If there is disagreement in the Review Committee, which is a Ministerial Committee, the issue must necessarily go to the Prime Minister. That disagreements at the Ministerial level must be resolved at the Prime Minister's level is a political statement. It is also a legal one, as the Supreme Court's judgment of October 2000 specifically casts this responsibility on the Prime Minister. (I had then questioned the propriety of clothing the Prime Minister with judicial authority, but that is what the judgment does, and as the pronouncement of the apex court it is law.)

Q: Should the Prime Minister leave the matter to the Supreme Court, which is going to hear it on April 17?

A: No. The judgment of October 2000 clearly requires the Prime Minister to decide in the event of a disagreement in the Review Committee, and the Prime Minister cannot refuse to discharge that responsibility and throw the issue back into the lap of the Supreme Court.

Q: What is the Supreme Court going to hear on April 17?

A: The hearing is only about the admission of the petition. If it is admitted, hearings on the substantive issues will follow, and all this will take a good deal of time. If the Prime Minister is able to resolve the issue, none of this may be necessary.

Q: What is the rationale of Narendra Modi's retaliatory fast?

A: Without entering into a discussion of the use of fasts as a form of protest, let me merely say the following. The fast by three NBA persons (including Medha) is a protest against failures in rehabilitation work and the resulting hardship and injustice. There are only two possible answers to that protest: remedy the failure, or show that the protest is based on wrong facts. A counter-fast is a wholly inappropriate answer. It trivialises the issue. If Medha's fast is a fast against injustice, then Modi's fast is a fast for injustice. He is virtually saying: "Rehabilitation is all very well, and I will do what I can, but I cannot be excessively bothered about it. My priority is dam-construction, and I will allow nothing to come in the way of that priority."

Q: What can be done now?

A: We can only hope that the Prime Minister will discharge the responsibility cast on him.

(The writer is a former Union Secretary for Water Resources.)

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

People's needs over party politics

Securing our cities

A new kind of history textbook

GoM's confidential report

Narmada project: clearing the confusion

The child, the media and the law

The cost of 3ºC global rise in temperature