|
Raising the dam
The Supreme Court judgment clearing the construction of the Sardar Sarovar dam at least has the virtue of removing all legal obstacles to a project whose foundation stone was laid, unbelievably, in 1961. But that does not mean that the agitationists will
quietly slip out of sight or that the intense, and often bitter, arguments between pro-dam enthusiasts and their opponents will die down.
The sharpness of the reaction by the two high-profile critics of the dam, Medha Patkar and Arundhati Roy, has given enough hint of their determination to carry on their ‘struggle’. Although they might not achieve much in practical terms since the project
has been cleared, their reference to the ‘anti-people’ nature of the ‘shocking and disgraceful’ verdict is suggestive of the deep divide which separates the two sides.
To those who are not emotionally involved in the dispute, it is not easy to come to firm conclusions. The crux of the argument against the dam relates to the problems of displacement and environmental damage. But all development projects attract such
criticism. Since an ideal balance between leaving the earth in its original pristine state and the evidently unattractive and often destructive demands of development cannot be found, one has to adjudge which of the two is preferable. The advantage of a
big dam is its huge irrigation and power generation potential. Punjab is an example of how a state can attain prosperity as a result of such a project. Little wonder, therefore, that the verdict has been welcomed with considerable elation in Gujarat which
expects to be a major beneficiary. To say that only the rich farmers will benefit at the expense of the poor tribals who will lose their land is to give an unwarranted ideological twist to an essential economic issue. It has to be realised that prosperity,
notwithstanding its uneven distribution, benefits all and not only one section.
Instead of such arguments, which are undoubtedly useful in a poor country, what is of greater relevance is to ascertain the environmental aspect and the longevity of such gigantic projects. The rehabilitation of displaced persons, despite the ‘slackness’
of which the Madhya Pradesh Government has been accused, can be expected to be completed after a period of time. But the jury is still out on the two other issues. That the environmental angle remains a cause for concern is evident both from the dissenting
judgment and the restriction placed on raising the height of the dam beyond a point unless it is approved of by the environmental and rehabilitation authorities. Perhaps the agitationists will now shift their focus from the oustees to the impact of the dam
on nature.
|
|
