'Immediate Suspension Of Ongoing Dam Construction'

On 4th April 2006, Prof Saif-ud-din Soz, the Union Minister for WaterResources, visited the NBA dharna at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi and announcedthat as per the Prime Minister's directive, Smt Meira Kumarji, Union Ministerfor Social Justice and Empowerment and Shri Prithviraj Chauhan, Minister ofState in the Prime Minster’s Office and him, would visit some of the affectedvillages and R&R sites corresponding to 121.92m, to assess the veracity ofthe claims being made by the Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA) and theNarmada Control Authority (NCA) that all affected families have been resettled.The Ministers are expected to immediately report its findings to the PrimeMinister.

In their capacity as Observers, this team was accompanied by Shri PrashantBhushan, Advocate in the Supreme Court, Shri B.D. Sharma, former Commissioner ofthe National Commission on Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes and Shri DenzilSaldana, Faculty, Tata Institute of Social Sciences and member of theRehabilitation Planning Committee appointed by the Government of Maharashtra.

To this end, the Ministerial Team has visited few submergence villages andresettlement sites on the 7th of April 2006. These were:

1. Dharampuri R&R site, Dharampuri tehsil, Dhar district
2. Lakhangaon R&R site, Thikri tehsil, Badwani district
3. Borlai – 2 R&R site, Badwani tehsil, Badwani district
4. Piplud, Badwani tehsil, Badwani district
5. Avalda, Badwani tehsil, Badwani district
6. Nisarpur R&R site, Kukshi tehsil, Dhar district

Though NBA had strongly recommended that the Team also visit the 100% adivasivillages in Maharashtra, Gujarat and Alirajpur (Madhya Pradesh), where familieshave had to face illegal submergence every monsoon for over a decade now withouthaving been rehabilitated, the Team did not visit these areas. This is a matterof serious concern on at least two fronts. Firstly, these are villages wherehomes and agricultural lands have already been submerged and yet the PAFs arenot resettled. Secondly, visiting these regions would have given the team anindication of the destruction and devastation that awaits Nimad. Since the Teamwas unable to visit these areas, representatives from Bhadal (Akrani teshil,Nandurbar district, Maharashtra), Kakrana, Jhandana, Sugat, Bhitada, NadiSikhedi, Bhitada, Anjanwara (Alirajpur tehsil, Jhabua district, Madhya Pradesh)and Kharya Bhadal (Badwani district, Madhya Pradesh) travelled about 100kilometers to come to Avalda to make their voices heard.

This visit by the Ministers has truly turned out to be an eye opener forthemselves and the general public to the reality of rehabilitation claims by thegovernments. This is important since on the 10th of March, Prof. Soz stated thathe was not satisfied with the situation of rehabilitation and felt that theclearance was premature. His suspicion has certainly been confirmed by what hehas seen in the Valley. The Team was accompanied throughout the trip by a groupof electronic and print media, which have been giving live telecasts of theTeam's trip and all their interactions with the affected people.

The response to this visit and the manner in which the affected populationsparticipated in it is an indication of the need for an independent review of therehabilitation process. The Team was met by thousands of PAFs wherever it went.The anger, frustration, and still, hope, of the affected people took variousforms, from speeches to written applications, to slogan shouting and songs, todemands that the Team visit their village as well as that the NVDA officials,especially Vinod Kumar, be immediately suspended. Ultimately through the day,the Team witnessed that affected people were willing to challenge thegovernments who are hell-bent on submerging them without rehabilitation.

The Team was stopped en-route on numerous occasions, including at Khalghat,Datwada, Mandwada and Picchodi, by PAFs from various surrounding submergencevillages. The entire population of Chikhalda gathered on the road that leadsthrough their village, in anticipation of the Team passing by on its way toNisarpur. They wanted the Team to just drive through their large village of over700 families who have not been rehabilitated though they are affected at 95metres. However, they were denied the opportunity of meeting the Team and airingtheir views since the NVDA conveniently changed the route of the Team at thelast minute. (This was even as people stopped the Minster’s convoy and askedthem to take the route through Chikalda only to be forcibly roughed up andthrown aside by the accompanying police).

The Team, not only heard the testimonies of people, but also receivednumerous written complaints and applications from the affected people. Prof.Sozji had through the day, on numerous occasions, promised that theseapplications would be looked into and not thrown into wastepaper bins.

The Team had a meeting with Shri Prashant Bhushan, Shri B.D. Sharma, ShriDenzil Saldana, Ashish Mandloi and Clifton D’ Rozario (the last two beingmembers of Narmada Bachao Andolan) at about 3.30 p.m. at the NVDA rest-house inBadwani. The observers and NBA activists took this opportunity to brief theMinisters on the legal implications and gigantic scale of human tragedy thatwould befall the villages affected at and under 121.92m, were the constructionof the dam not suspended immediately. The Team was shown the relevant extractsfrom the Narmada Award and Supreme Court judgments that stipulated completion ofacquisition, payment of compensation and rehabilitation as a necessaryprecondition to grant clearance for further construction. Shri Bhushan detailedthe legal ramifications of the present violations in rehabilitation while ShriB.D. Sharmaji talked about the need for the Gram Sabhas to be an integral partof the rehabilitation process especially the formulation of the Action TakenReports (ATRs). Shri Denzil Saldana referred to his role in the RehabilitationPlanning Committee set up by the Maharashtra government and the need for thesame in M.P.

During the meeting, Smt. Miera Kumarji queried about the figure of 35,000families being quoted by NBA. In response, Ashish and Clifton brought to hernotice that in Maharashtra the Yashada report has claimed that about 3300families are affected, in Gujarat there are around 1000 families in the originalvillages, while in Madhya Pradesh there are more than 30,000 families affected(from the Minutes of the R&R Sub-group dated 12th September 2006 shown tothe Minister Smt. Miera Kumar). They added that considering the number of PAFswrongly shown as affected at higher levels, the yet-to-be completed enumerationof major sons, inclusion and enumeration of tapu – affected, etc. indicatesthat at least 35,000 families remain to be rehabilitated. Ashish added thatwhile around 4500 families are claimed to be resettled in Gujarat, 75% haveactually returned to their original villages due to various irresolvableproblems and hence cannot be considered as resettled. In fact, through aconsultative process, some new rehabilitation plan needs to be worked out forthem. Some of the villages where PAFs have returned after having opted forresettlement in Gujarat include Rajghat (Kukra), Kasrawad, Bhavti, Pendra,Jangarwa, Sondul, Kotbandini, Dehar, Dasana, Nadi Sirkhedi, Ekkalbara, etc.

The clear facts that emerged are:

I. Regarding R&R Sites

a) Vania from Jhandana (Alirajpur, Madhya Pradesh), made the point that therewere no R&R sites for the 100% adivasi villages from Jalsindhi to Kakranathat have repeatedly demanded land in Madhya Pradesh. Pemabhai from Avaldastated that though there was no R&R site for his village, the government, inits ATR, claims that all affected families at 121.92m have been rehabilitatedand that all have been given house plots.

b) The R&R sites are not ready as was seen in Dharampuri and Lakhangaon.Even basic services like drinking water, electricity, sewage lines, etc. are notprovided. This compliant was also received from that small number of familieswho have shifted to Lakhangaon R&R site, who stated that they do not haveelectricity, nor are there toilets or sewage connections. They also stated thatthe hand pumps provided were not functioning; just one was repaired the previousevening in anticipation of the Team's visit.

c) Further all these R&R sites are uninhabited, except for a fewfamilies. The Team also noticed the other R&R sites on the road that theytraveled that were also barren and uninhabited.

d) One major compliant made by many was that there was no agricultural landat the R&R sites. This was stated by Rameshbhai in Piplud, Pemabhai inAvalda and Bhagirathbhai (from Chikhada, while speaking at the Nisarpur hearing)among others. They also made the point that shifting to these sites is not anoption for them for this very reason. They demanded that R&R site beestablished with all civic amenities, adequate houseplots and cultivable andirrigable agricultural lands.

e) One constant compliant that was heard was that of insufficient houseplotsat the R&R sites. For instance, Jaganbhai from Picchodi (at the Avaldahearing) stated that there are 480 families in his village while the R&Rsite being established only has 62 houseplots. Nisarpur is also facing the samesituation with insufficient houseplots being available.

f) Rameshbhai from Picchodi and Shantilalbhai from Bhawariya (in Nisarpurhearing) both made the point that the NVDA was establishing R&R siteswithout consulting the Gram Sabhas and it disregards resolutions of the GramSabha in which the affected villages have rejected the sites being established.

g) The Team also heard the manner in which some PAFs are facing doubledisplacement due to the SSP. On the one hand, they are submergence-affected,while on the other hand, their balance agricultural lands are being forciblyacquired for making house plots at R&R sites for the PAFs' own villages.This came through in one of the testimonies heard in the Nisarpur hearing wherehe stated that there were people in Nisarpur who were affected by submergencei.e. house or land or house and part of land, while his agricultural land isbeing acquired for the establishment of R&R site for his own village. This,he mentioned, has been taking place in several villages and demanded that anorder be passed that land would not be acquired from a PAF for any other part ofthe same project, including establishment of R&R site.

II. Regarding land for land

a) A large number of people made the demand for cultivable and irrigableagricultural land to be offered by NVDA. They claimed that the NVDA only offersuncultivable land to dissuade PAFs from demanding land for land.

b) People have strongly objected to cash compensation in any form, includingthe new Special Rehabilitation Package (SRP). Sajjanbai from Pipri (at thePiplud hearing) said that for her the choice is not between money and land, butbetween a bottle of poison and land. She also added that this policy is againstthe stipulations of the NWDTA and the Supreme Court verdicts, which mandateland-for-land. Sanovar Bi from Chikhalda village, while speaking at the Nisarpurhearing made a strong plea for land for land and added that they would notaccept anything less. All the speakers at the Piplud and Avalda hearingincluding the representatives from Maharahtra, Mangliya Kaaliya (village Bhadal)and those from Alirajpur, Vania (village Jhandana), stated that they have beenrepeatedly demanding land for land.

c) Motilalbhai of Chotta Barda (in Piplud hearing) stated that the NVDA wasforcing people to accept SRP by not offering them land at all or by offeringuncultivable land or by threatening them of not receiving anything is they didnot accept cash compensation.

d) What also emerged from the numerous testimonies was that people are notable to but land with the SRP amount. Motilalbhai of Chotta Barda is a goodexample of this, while he is entitled to 5 acres of agricultural land, when hetried buying it himself using SRP he found that the 5 lakhs he received fell farshort of the 12 lakhs he needed. It was also pointed out that as per the ATRsthemselves, the PAFs who have accepted SRP have not received land as per theirentitlement (column 34 of the ATRs of M.P. titled 'balance land still needed tobe purchased as per entitlement')

e) Ashish Mandloi of Chotta Barda (in Piplud hearing) stated that NVDA isforcing people to take SRP in other ways as well. Firstly, they only offeruncultivable land, and, secondly, allotting uncultivable lands to them throughex – parte. Pemabhai of Avalda stated that he had submitted a list of 202families of his village who demanded land for land. In response, NVDA hasallotted 56 families uncultivable land ex-parte and taken no action on thedemands of the remaining.

f) Deverambhai Kanera (in Avalda hearing) pointed out that most who opt forSRP are doing so due to pressure of existing debts and fear that they will notreceive anything at all if dam is built. Thus most of the money is utilised inclearing off existing loans. Since they are supposed to show registries to getthe second installment of SRP, they are producing fake registries but no landtransfer either in title or possession. Thus mass corruption is taking place.

g) Clifton from Narmada Bachao Andolan, on the basis of the ATRs, made thepoint that the NVDA offers the same piece of uncultivable land to all PAFs andthen claims that they opted for SRP on rejection of this offer. In Manawar, forexample, from the ATRs of 14 villages, it is seen that about 550 PAFs were alloffered 7 hectares of land! The village-wise breakup has been given to Prof. Soz.

III. Regarding number of affected families

a) Clifton from Narmada Bachao Andolan pointed out that NVDA is playing gameswith regard to the number of families affected at 121.92m. According to theMinutes of the R&R Sub-Group meeting held on 12th September it is shown thatthere are 30,690 families affected upto 121.92m of whom 13,402 families areentitled to land. It is important to note that post this meeting, the cumulativenumber of affected families is not reported anymore and instead the NVDA onlyreports about those families affected between 110.64m and 121.92m. According toProf. Soz’s letter to Shri L.C. Jain dated 6th March 2006, there are 17,255affected families between 110.64m and 121.92m. According to the Minutes of theR&R Sub – group meeting held on 8th March, there are 16,156 affectedfamilies between 110.64m and 121.92m. Clearly over two days, the number ofaffected families dips by 1099 families.

Game of Numbers continues! It was 17,255 families on 6th March 2006 per Prof.Sozji’s letter to Shri L.C. Jain, but only 16,156 families on 8th March 2006Minutes of the R&R Sub – group meeting

There is more to this. On 12th September in the R&R Sub – group it isreported that the backlog is 13233 PAFs. This implies that as on 6th March, is17255 – 13233 = 4022 i.e. only 4022 families are affected in Madhya Pradeshdespite the raise in dam height being nearly 12m! On 8th March this numberreduces further to 2923 families affected in M.P. due to 12m raise in damheight. This is blatantly incorrect. In 2005 the Supreme Court held that; "…Weare not oblivious of the fact that the river valley of Narmada is shaped like aninverted cone and the area of submergence increases exponentially for the eachmetre of height raised...". Given this reality how is it possible that thenumber of PAFs between 110.64m and 121.92m is a mere 2923 families afterexcluding the backlog of 13233 PAFs?

b) Ashish from Chotta Barda made the point that while the ATR for his villageshows 146 as affected at 121.92m, in reality the full village is affected atthis level. He also stated that the same is the case in Chikhalda and othervillages as well.

c) Haribhai, a dalit, from village Aowli, further exposed the discrepanciesin enumeration of PAFs by the NVDA. He stated that he was affected at 100m andthat his full land is in submergence. However, of the 18 co-sharers on record,the NVDA had only provided entitlement to 5 of them. Thus 13 co-sharers,including himself were not being provided entitlement to land. He also addedthat, as per official records, his house is in submergence, hence he wasentitled only to a houseplot when, as per the awl, he was also entitled to land.He made a demand for land for land.

IV. Regarding those who returned back to M.P. from Gujarat

a) Motilal from village Jangarwa and Khanaksingh from village Rajghat (Kukra)stated that they had initially opted for resettlement in Gujarat and had beenallotted land there. While in the case of those from Jangarwa (90m affected)these lands were allotted to several other PAFs so they had to leave it andreturn back to their village. They made representations for change of land andfinally sat in a month-long dharna in Badwani making the demand that they wantland in MP itself, but to no avail. This sage of theirs is on since 1993. Thecase of those from Rajghat, as stated by Khanaksingh. All these families, likeall those who have returned from Gujarat, live in their original villageawaiting proper rehabilitation, though on paper they are rehabilitated.

V. Regarding Land acquisition

a) Ashish from Chotta Barda and Rameshbhai from Piplud showed the recentnotifications under Section 6 for the acquisition of the properties in theirvillages coming under submergence. Ashish stated that this was illegal since theTribunal does not allow for submergence of property that has not been acquiredand compensation paid.

b) Smt. Sarita Prasad made the point that they had objected to the surveysand hence the process of acquisuition was delayed. To this Rameshbhai repliedthat the survey was carried out more than 2 years ago and still they had notcompeted acquisition proceedings. Ashish added that the reason for objecting tothe surveys was that since acquisition and rehabilitation are linked they haddemanded for the resettlement plan for their village before surveying. Onfailing to receive any such plan they were forced to object to the surveys sinceonce their land was acquired their bargaining power would reduce.

VI. Regarding Government claims

a) The statement of the NVDA officials, and the assurances recorded in theminutes of the R&R sub – group meeting, indicate that the work at theR&R sites would be completed by 31.05.2006. This is illegal since accordingto the NWDTA and the judgment of the Supreme Court in 1005, these should havebeen made ready 1 year ago.