It is being assumed that all the planning process necessary for the project including environmental clearance will be short-circuited, as the concerned authorities will be told that this is a Court directed project and is topmost on the national agenda. The project is being projected as the lifeline of India, in the same manner as the Sardar Sarovar project was projected as the lifeline of Gujarat. The governments of the day seem to have an uncanny ability to sell illusions and outright lies by using the media, for example, the manner in which the US government sold the war on terror to its citizens, has now emerged as one of the most serious threats to democracy in our times
Recent studies point out that the costs of large dams have been largely under-estimated and the benefits exaggerated. The absurdity of bringing water from long distances instead of harvesting rain water which is one-fifth its cost makes Prashant Bhushan wonder why the government is bent upon going ahead with the ruinous river linking project?
The clandestine and insidious manner in which a gargantuan project of interlinking of rivers has suddenly become the most important project on the national agenda is a great tribute to the ability of this government to use the President, the judiciary and the media to legitimise a project which was unthinkable a year earlier and will unquestionably be ruinous for the nation.
The precursors to the project for interlinking the rivers were the Ganga Cauvery link proposal mooted by K.L. Rao and the Garland Canal idea put forward by Captain Dinshaw Dastur in the sixties. They were both examined and found impractical, the former on the grounds of the very large financial and energy costs involved, and the latter because it was technically unsound. Moreover, since then, with an increased understanding of environmental and ecological connections, it has been realized that large dams and irrigation projects cause enormous disturbances to the environment and ecology. These include submergence of forests and agricultural lands, loss of biodiversity, changes in river morphology and water quality, disruption of habitats of wildlife, water logging and salinity, reduction in downstream flows, reduction of freshwater inflows into the sea and the consequent impacts on aquatic life.
The various movements and agitations on behalf of the oustees of such projects have also focused attention on the enormous injustice that has been done to them. They have been rendered homeless, landless and rootless by their involuntary displacement. Simultaneously, there has also been a realisation that rainwater harvesting or micro watershed development, are quicker and more economical ways of harnessing water.
Recently, the World Bank along with several other international agencies formed World Commission on Dams to do a retrospective study of the overall impact of large dams and irrigation projects globally. This commission had members from the dam construction industry as well as from environmental and social activist organisations, which had been opposing large dams. The commission gave a unanimous report, mainly pointing out that the costs of large dams had been largely underestimated and the benefits exaggerated. The environmental and social impacts of such projects had largely been left out in the cost benefit calculations. The India country study which had been conducted by some of the most eminent experts in the country concluded that, "It is evident that past (large dam) projects, in general, have not been comprehensively assessed in terms of their environmental, social and economic viability and optimality… Also, the distribution of most of the costs and benefits of large dams seems to accentuate socio-economic inequities." Despite all this, there seems to be a conspiracy at the top echelons of the government to somehow bring this massive river linking project on the national agenda. Last year, the President's Independence Day, had a paragraph added to it to the effect that interlinking the rivers could perhaps solve the problems of floods and drought. This paragraph was enough for a lawyer appointed by the Supreme Court as amicus curiae (to assist the court) in the Yamuna pollution case to file a short application praying that the court should direct the government to take up this project. As if on cue, the bench headed by the then Chief Justice B.N.Kripal issued notices to all the states and the Centre. On the next day of hearing, which was the day before the retirement of the then Chief Justice, an order was passed which is now effectively being treated by the Government as a direction by the court to undertake this project and complete it within the shortest possible time.
The order noted that only the Union of India and the State of Tamil Nadu had filed responses to the notice issued by the Court. It stated that the Union of India had pointed out that the project would cost Rs. 5,60,000 crores, would take 43 years and would need the consent of the states. The state of Tamil Nadu had filed an innocuous affidavit, virtually saying nothing. The Court noted that no other state had filed any affidavit and therefore it could be assumed that none had any objection to its implementation! After orally noting that funds cannot be a constraint for the Government for a project in national interest, the Court observed in its order that the project should be completed within 10 years! It also went on to advise the government that in case consent was not forthcoming from the states, the government should consider passing a legislation to obviate consent of the states for this project.
All this for a project, which requires funds equal to the total irrigation budget of the country for the next 43 years, if one goes by the Ninth Plan expenditure. This is planned without hearing any interested party, not even the states, without discussions or debates whatsoever, without completing even feasibility studies, leave aside the question of social, environmental, economic or optimality assessments! Such is the nonchalance with which this country is being pushed to a course which would have unparalleled and unprecedented, financial, social and environmental consequences.
Jawaharlal Nehru is credited with having called large dams'temples of modern India'. But no textbook recalls what he said soon thereafter. He said, 'For some time past, however, I have been beginning to think that we are suffering from what we may call disease of gigantism'
This order from the Court was all that the government required to immediately go on a public relations offensive to bring this project on the national agenda, characterising it as a Court approved project. A task force was formed, consisting mainly of civil engineers who had been involved in dam construction or officials who had been connected with the water resources ministry, to draw up detailed plans for the implementation of this project. Such is the speed with which the task force has proceeded, that it has submitted a report to the Court recently, saying that it will begin work on one or two links at least this year itself. The work starts sans feasibility study or a detailed project report. The effort seems to be to somehow make this fait accompli before the issue becomes a topic for a serious debate on the pros and cons of taking on such a massive undertaking, which is more than 10 times the size of any project ever undertaken in this country.
It is being assumed that all the planning process necessary for the project including environmental clearance will be short-circuited, as the concerned authorities will be told that this is a Court directed project and is topmost on the national agenda. The project is being projected as the lifeline of India, in the same manner as the Sardar Sarovar project was projected as the lifeline of Gujarat. The governments of the day seem to have an uncanny ability to sell illusions and outright lies by using the media, for example, the manner in which the US government sold the war on terror to its citizens, has now emerged as one of the most serious threats to democracy in our times.
It does not take much technical knowledge to understand why the interlinking of rivers is such an absurd idea. Before bringing water from long distances, one should learn to store what is immediately available - rain water. It has been found that the cost of rainwater harvesting is on an average one-fifth the cost of harnessing the same water by bringing it across large distances after storing it in large dams. Therefore it makes far more sense to save and utilise the rainwater falling in the area. Moreover, besides the enormous social and environmental upheaval that such a project would involve, it would lead to massive conflict between states. If the Cauvery dispute, which is only between three states on the sharing of water of one river, is any indication, imagine what will happen when water from several rivers is taken to other rivers across several states. It will also be an administrative nightmare.
It is ironical that the Centre wants to push a project, which requires not only the country's total irrigation budget for more than 43 years, but also plans to do without any public debate or planning. Moreover, this is being done at a time when India is unable to put together Rs. 1,00,000 crores to complete long overdue irrigation projects. Neither has the government been able to maintain and optimally use existing irrigation infrastructure or harvest rainwater.
It is easy to comprehend the motivations of those who rule. If Rs. 5,60,000 crores is to be spent through a centralized pipeline, as will be the case in this project, the potential for huge kickbacks are enormous - 10 percent of which is Rs. 56,000 crores. Even if one were to spread it over 20 years, it means Rs. 2,800 crores a year! Not small pickings even from today's standards. Why else is there such an unseemly hurry to undertake such a massive project? Why else short-circuited the normal planning process? Why else would the task force say that it will begin work on one or two links this year without knowing which link and without doing even a feasibility study of the links that it wants to take up?
On an average, if Rs.10 lakhs was given to each of the less than 1 million villages in the country for rainwater harvesting on the lines pioneered by the Tarun Bharat Sangh in Rajasthan, much of the agricultural land in the country could be irrigated. This would mean a total outlay of less than Rs. 1,00,000 crores for the country (less than 20 percent of the cost of this project). Such a project could be implemented in two years if the funds and technical knowledge were made available to each village. Those who head the government are aware that they can hardly take 10 percent from these funds without being caught. Large kickbacks are possible without being caught only when the funds go through a central pipeline and through a few large contractors. That is why large centralised projects are given preference. If the Rs. 14,000 crores spent on the Sardar Sarovar Project in Gujarat, had been spent on rainwater harvesting instead, every single village in Gujarat would have been drought proofed long ago. Even after 24 years, the project is nowhere near completion. It is likely to take another 25 years and will cost at least Rs. 30,000 crores more. During this period, there has been and will be no funds left for other minor or micro irrigation projects or for maintenance and repair of existing infrastructure in the State.
Jawaharlal Nehru is credited with having called large dams, "temples of modern India". But no textbook recalls what he said soon thereafter. He said, "For some time past, however, I have been beginning to think that we are suffering from what we may call, "disease of gigantism". We want to show that we can build big dams and do big things. This is a dangerous outlook developing in India…. the idea of having big undertakings and doing big tasks for the sake of showing that we can do big things is not a good outlook at all…We have to realise that we can also meet our problems much more rapidly and efficiently by taking up a large number of small schemes, especially when the time involved in a small scheme is much less and the results obtained are rapid. Further, in those small schemes you can get a good deal of what is called public co-operation, and therefore, there is that social value in associating people with such small schemes."
We have traveled long and far since Nehru. The manner in which the government is pushing the project leaves little doubt that the lure of gigantism is more in the prospect of large and easy kickbacks. Unfortunately, the future of the country and its people has been mortgaged to these base considerations.
Prashant Bhushan
Prashant Bhushan is a lawyer practicing in the Supreme Court of India
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें