Jayanthi Natarajan cleared 289 projects in the 30-month period between Jul 2011 and Dec 2013. In two segments, though, her actions run contrary to the perception that her ministry was an obstacle.
Coal mines in 2012
Coal mines in 2013
Hydropower projects between April 2003 and December 2013
Thermal power projects in 2012
Thermal power projects in 2013
Research by the Delhi-based EIA Resource and Response Centre using data on coal mines and thermal power projects; and by the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People on hydropower.
The man responsible for granting environment clearances today is someone who not long ago had demonstrated just how much he disregards them. As minister for power, Veerappa Moily laid the foundation stone for the 85 MW Mawphu Stage II hydropower project in Meghalaya in September 2012 even before it had received statutory clearances from the ministry of environment and forests (MoEF), the very ministry he now heads along with the ministry of petroleum. With such a track record and a flagrant conflict of interest between the two portfolios under his charge, is Moily really the right man to protect our ecology?
His first few weeks at work reinforce those fears—he has so far cleared over 70 projects. His statement vaunts his clearance of projects worth Rs 1.5 lakh crore. “What have we come to? Are we going to judge the performance of a minister by the number of clearances he issues? Is the ministry there only to clear projects?” asks environmental lawyer Ritwick Dutta, pointing to data which shows that there are only a few projects that have been denied environment clearances (see graphic).
While many of the clearances Moily issued in a matter of days since he assumed charge on Christmas eve 2013 are being contested, what has also caught attention is his interest in an Anil Ambani-owned Reliance Power hydel project in Arunachal Pradesh. Tato-II, to be built on the Siyom river by Tato Hydro Power Pvt Ltd, a Reliance Power subsidiary, is seeking clearance for diversion of 313.88 hectares of forest land for the project. The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) has rejected its plea five times already because of inadequate impact assessment details. An interim cumulative impact assessment of dams on the Siyom river basin to be conducted by the ministry of power is also yet to be completed.
All this, however, hasn’t stopped the project from coming up for discussion again at the FAC. The FAC agenda note, issued on January 6, reads, “Hon’ble mef, after examination of the recommendation of the FAC, as given above, has desired a discussion in the matter.” Is Moily then seeking to ensure its passage by bringing it up again for the sixth time? Says Himanshu Thakkar, the convenor of the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People, “Despite conditions prescribed earlier not being met and clearance rejected five times, it is being pushed on the agenda. This is clear pressure tactics and a case of conflict of interest.”
While more details of the projects cleared by Moily are yet to emerge, the clearance granted to two dams—Teesta IV in Sikkim and Tawang II in Arunachal—is now being hotly contested. A cumulative impact assessment of dams on the river basins that these two are coming up on is still to be completed. This is a necessity for them to get clearances.
“Teesta IV is going to come up on what is today the last free-flowing stretch of the main Teesta river in Sikkim between Chungthang and the West Bengal border,” says Neeraj Vagholikar of environmental NGO Kalpavriksh. “Don’t we want at least one stretch of the main river to be free?” Even the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) has raised serious objections to the impact on local flora and fauna and has asked for a comprehensive study of other dams too in the vicinity. According to a Supreme Court ruling, NBWL clearance is necessary for projects located in a proximity of less than 10 km from ecologically sensitive zones. Teesta IV is coming up 4 km from the Fambonglho Wildlife Sanctuary and about 6 km from Khangchendzonga National Park boundaries. Yet, Moily has granted the project clearance.
Jayanthi Natarajan’s replacement with Moily, months before the 2014 election, followed by speedy clearances, are reminiscent of what another environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, had termed the “MoU virus”, referring to the high number of hydel agreements in Arunachal. An RTI in 2009 found that the state had signed 108 MoUs for hydel projects with a total capacity of 30,000 MW since February 2006. Thirty-one of these were signed in less than five months before the 2009 Lok Sabha polls. Under pressure to match Narendra Modi’s pro-industry overtures and to generate funds ahead of Election 2014, are we seeing a “clearance virus”?
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.
Manmohan Singh is himself the greatest block to progress, employing servants in ministries, where ministers are an 'obstacle' to his nefarious MoUs.
He must resign. Will Rahul speak up for the masses, or continue to be pus*y whipped by his mother?
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