Like many fellow reporters in Orissa, I too suffer from Posco fatigue and am really at a loss when someone asks me about the future of the eight-year-old embryo which has been struggling to attain a full-fledged life. Will diplomatic pressures work? Can the project take off in the face of such stiff, reason-based opposition by the locals and civil society? Will it need a gory surgery of the Kalinga Nagar kind to liberate it from the walls of the womb?
I keep my fingers crossed.
Ever since the South Korean steel behemoth signed an MoU with the Orissa government in June 2005 for a $12 billion port-based integrated steel plant project, the drama over its implementation has seen so many twists and turns that never seem to end. And there is no hint yet as to when really the denouement will arrive. That explains why Posco is not celebrating even after the central and the state governments were generous enough to grant the much-delayed green clearance for its steel plant near Paradip port.
The obvious reason behind the great hurry is South Korean president Park Geun-hye’s four-day visit to India, on since January 15. But is it only that? Any grant of big concessions to private players ahead of elections is bound to arouse suspicion, however far-fetched it may sound. One surely needs to know what made the governments in Delhi and Bhubaneswar rise from their deep slumber suddenly and act in unison. There is good reason why one tends to smell a rat every time a government goes out of its way to bat for a particular big-ticket project. When the MoEF ordered a halt to the land acquisition drive for the Posco project in 2010, the Orissa government did not react. But when the Centre rejected the Stage 2 forest clearance to Vedanta’s Niyamgiri mining project, the ruling Biju Janata Dal declared war against the UPA government and even staged a protest rally in front of the Vedanta alumina refinery near Niyamgiri, accusing the UPA and Rahul Gandhi of conspiring against Orissa.
One does not know what inspired the new boss of the MoEF, Veerappa Moily, to revisit the Posco files that were gathering dust and grant green clearance to only one component of the mega project—the steel plant. But what begs an answer is: why did the minister allow Posco to segregate the integral components of the huge project? Although the steel plant is the core component, the Posco project includes a captive port, a captive mine, a power plant, two townships, railway link, water supply channels and so on.
Why was POSCO not asked to wait till it gets clearance for each of these segments and not rush into construction at its controversial plant site? The MoEF says the steel plant was granted green clearance only after it was delinked from the port project. But why accept such clever ‘delinking’ meant to dodge green laws?
Posco officials have time and again told us that the captive mine and the captive port are non-negotiable. They have also refused to accept an open offer from the Paradip Port authorities, who are willing to give them two dedicated berths for their use. What happens if the port proposal fails to get green clearance? Or do they take it as fait accompli? If Posco believes it can get away with this delinking technique, it may be inviting undue trouble.
But all that does not seem to have any effect on the MoEF bosses. Ironically, the same ministry that rejected Vedanta’s claims over the ‘delinked’ Niyamgiri mining project has now given the go-ahead to Posco’s ‘delinked’ steel plant. Double standards have been the hallmark of the MoEF. The Forest Rights Act applies to Vedanta’s Niyamgiri because the local tribal people’s rights have to be respected. But when it came to Posco, the rights of the Other Traditional Forest Dwellers, the second category of people who enjoy special rights under the FRA, were simply overlooked.
Moily has been saying the panchayats will decide the fate of projects coming up in their respective areas and they have the right to reject. One wonders why the same yardstick has not been applied to the Posco project area, where panchayats have passed resolutions objecting to the location of the proposed plant and port. Despite recorded evidence, the state government told the Centre that the panchayat resolutions were fake documents and the Centre accepted this “in good faith”.
What is it about this big steel project that would ‘change the face’ of Orissa and facilitate India’s growth as a superpower in the international steel bazaar? If the Posco project is indeed for the larger public good, why is it that it has failed to win the confidence of the people it promises to benefit? And why have the governments at the Centre and Orissa—which have been referring to it in glowing terms—taken so long to accord it the necessary approvals and grants?
The devil is, in fact, in the details. There isn’t much scope to go into all that in this article. But let us ask ourselves certain basic questions. First of all, why should India look for foreign direct investment in the steel sector when 90 per cent of its requirements for various steel products are being met by domestic producers, which include world-class steel makers? If we are worried about catering to the niche segment in the steel market, the kind of 12 million tonne steel plant that Posco is trying to push through will surely not fill that void.
There is no doubt in anybody’s mind that Posco is in Orissa because it can lay its hands on huge amounts of high-grade iron ore at a throwaway price. If it gets a captive mine in Khandadhar, it will get super grade iron ore at the rate of Rs 1,200-1,300 per tonne (including the ad valorem royalty, extraction and transportation cost), which is by all accounts Rs 2,000-2,500 less than the price in the open market. The profit that the company would make on the ore alone would be not less than two times the total amount it promises to invest in India.
There is nothing wrong in that, you would say, because other steel makers have also been enjoying that privilege for years. However, although it may sound a tad jingoist and protectionist, one would like to know: what are the pressing reasons to assist Posco in getting an edge over our desi steel makers and at this point in time? Thanks to the series of mining scams that have surfaced, there is greater public and media scrutiny now. The overall national consensus is that our scarce mineral resources should not be exposed to plunder and that the exploitation of minerals must be regulated in a transparent manner. So, why do we still have to grant prospecting and mining licences to private players outside the auction route?
However, one must give the devil its due. In this long and exacting game of patience, Posco has beaten everybody else, hands down. Even in the face of a host of obstacles like an aggressive agitation by the Posco Pratirodh Sangram Samiti (PPSS) at the proposed plant site, an insouciant administration, long-drawn court cases and problems like acquiring land as well as official clearances, the company has steadfastly refused to call it quits. You can describe this as a great example of perseverance, doggedness and an exceptional sense of commitment if you like.
Or, you can also call it the great survival skill of a predator who won’t give up until the prey is between its jaws!
(Sampad Mahapatra is a senior journalist based in Orissa.)
Apropos Sampad Mahapatra’s piece The Behemoth Came Calling, Sinking Teeth First (Jan 27), the delinking of the Posco project is a complete farce. We all know that eventually the MOEF will grant approvals for the captive port, power plant and all that remains. A $12 billion investment for an integrated project is not small, and botching it can have serious ramifications. In any case, I feel Orissa will benefit hugely from the investment and the MOEF should not be stringent in giving the necessary clearances/approvals. I only hope they’ll exercise the necessary caution so that the natural resources of the country are not over-exploited.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Sell iron ore at Rs.1500/tonne and buy processed steel at Rs.25000/tonne! Dont kill the environment please.
Natural resources must not be given away to private companies in general and to foreigners in particular. The govt should develop them after analysing all issues including the rights of forest people. Efficiency does not matter as much as fairness to all parties. A govt monopoly is best for handling natural resources.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT