Article Show Details Disput over the dams of disaster Ranen Kumar Goswami
Electoral victory for the third time in a row has gone to the Congress government's head. As if the voters have given it a blank cheque to do anything it wants. Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi brandishes the victory as a license to build big river dams. He says river dams are not a big issue in north Assam. Because, he reasons, had it been so, the Congress would not have been voted to power with such a convincing margin. This necessitates a dissection of the Chief Minister's concept that equates victory at the hustings with a verdict for anything the victor stands for. In our country, electoral victories are guided by a first-past-the-post system. Such victories do not necessarily prove majority support for the winner. A victory usually reflects a fraction of the people's support. The person or the party that gets the biggest fraction emerges the winner. Most often it is seen the fractions received by the losers taken together are greater than the fraction received by the victor. A look at the Assam Assembly poll results in 2006 and 2011 could be a case in point. In 2006, the Congress got 31.08 per cent votes, Asom Gana Parishad got 20.39 per cent, Bharatiya Janata Party 11.98, Asom United Democratic Front (AIDF) 09.03 per cent, and others got 27.52 per cent. In 2011, the Congress received 39.38 per cent, AGP got 16.30 per cent, BJP 11.46 per cent, AIUDF 12.58 per cent and others got 20.28 per cent. It is clear the fraction of votes the Congress received was greater than the fractions the rival parties individually received. On the other hand, the fractions of rival votes taken together are greater than the one the Congress got. The sum total of votes the anti-dam AGP, BJP and the AIUDF received in 2011 was 40.32 per cent. Using Tarun Gogoi's argument, we can say the number of dam opponents is greater among the voters than the dam supporters. Yet, we must say this kind of jugglery of electoral statistical cannot be a proper guide to the welfare of the State and its people. If you go by the Chief Minister's argument, we must also submit ourselves to the conclusion that the people, by giving their highest fraction of the votes to the Congress, have welcomed the Government's failures like rising prices, the scam in the North Cachar Hills (now Dima Hasao), which, in reality have pained them. Such misinterpretation of the electoral mandate can land the elected representatives in a misguided territory of complacency. The Brahmaputra Board had conducted surveys and other related studies for the Subansiri project way back in 1983. A Brahmaputra Board project means its goal was flood control. Because, flood control is its primary responsibility, not power generation. But in 2000, the goal of the project was changed to hydro-power generation and handed over to National Hydro- power Corporation (NHPC). At that time, Prafulla Kumar Mahanta led AGP Government was in power in Assam and at the Centre it was the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) Ministry. To top it all, it was Bijoya Chakraborty from Assam, who was the Central minister of State for water resources. Today, both the AGP and the BJP have opposed big river dams. Sounds good. But to earn people's confidence, they should admit to their earlier mistake. Not that they did not know earlier that flood control is not NHPC territory, its primary responsibility is power generation. But the incumbent Government tries to justify its pro-dam stand hiding behind this decision of the then AGP and BJP Governments. On July 13, 2011, water resources minister Rajib Lochan Pegu said in the Assam Assembly that the anti-dam movements had started from 2009 only, no voice of protest had been heard before then. The Government stand amounts to saying that if you made a mistake in the past you have no right to correct it in the present. It was, however, the Congress Government, which gave the no-objection letter in 2002. Pegu is somewhat right that the anti-dam movements started gaining momentum from around 2009. But conveniently he did not mention that the Arunachal Government started rushing into memoranda of understanding (MoUs) at random from around 2006. The neighbouring Government signed 103 MoUs for generation of 30,000 mega watt power from February 2006 to 2009. Of them, 31 were signed just five months before the 2009 Lok Sabha election. This information was received through an RTI application made by the Arunachal Citizens Rights, a non- governmental organisation. Union Minister Jairam Ramesh referred to this phenomenon as an MoU virus in May 2008. Spreading fast, in those five months preceding the 2009 polls, the MoU virus included big corporate houses like Jindal's and Reliance. Jindal's signed agreements for two projects for 4,500 MW in December 2008 and paid an advance of Rs 297.5 crore to the Arunachal Government. Reliance Energy Limited signed agreements for four projects totaling 2,520 MW in March 2009 and paid an advance of Rs 98 crore. Earlier in 2006, Reliance had already signed two agreements, one of which (1,000 MW Siyom) was taken away from NHPC. The two projects worth 4,500 MW signed by Jindal's had also earlier been awarded to National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC), but snatched away as they could not pay upfront advances sought by the Arunachal Government. Mind it, NHPC and NTPC are public sector companies, that too owned not by the State Government, but by the Central Government. It can be mentioned here that, Karnataka Lokayukta report on the illegal mining scam, submitted on July 27, 2011, indicted Jindal-owned South West Mining Company for paying crores of rupees as bribe for earning contracts. And Reliance, as pointed out by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India, was the main beneficiary of the Krishna-Godavari basin gas exploration scam. An unholy alliance between political leaders, bureaucrats and big companies is called the dam lobby by observers. It's hard to believe Assam's Power Minister Pradyut Bordoloi does not know this, though he frequently says there's no such thing called dam lobby in the State. What does signing of MoUs after taking hefty sums as advance imply? Does it not amount to a recognition of all possible negative impacts even before making a proper assessment? Such suspicious moves are bound to trigger fear among the people. The House Committee of the Assam Assembly constituted to study the impacts of big dams, in its report submitted on July 17, 2010, said: “The concerned Governments and agencies associated with hydel power generation should desist from constructing mega dams which may pose a grave threat to the life and property of the people of Assam.” A similar suggestion was made by the committee comprising experts from Gauhati University, IIT Guwahati and Dibrugarh University. On October 8, 2010, the Ex-General Secretary Forum of the Gauhati University Post Graduate Students' Union organised a conference on dams of Arunachal Pradesh at Vivekananda Kendra, Guwahati. The views of this organisation resemble those of the ruling dispensation in Assam. They also justify big dams taking shelter in the slogan, “we need dams because we need electricity.” The meet was attended by eminent personalities like Professor N. K. Choudhury, former Neepco chairman S. N. Phukan and Professor Nayan Sarma of IIT, Roorkee. And what was its outcome? Its recommendations advocated big dams. But in its recommendation number 2) it says: “It is recommended that all hydro-power projects be planned and designed as multi-purpose projects for all possible additional benefits like flood control, irrigation, navigation, water supply, tourism and storage of water for augmenting the depleting water resources of the country. And as if to defeat the purpose of the conference itself, the recommendation number 3.C) says: “The construction of the Lower Subansiri Dam be temporarily stopped till all reasonable doubts about its safety are removed.” The Assam Government is trying to influence public opinion by talking about experts from outside the State. But it is yet to manage an expert who has blindly joined its pro-faulty dam chorus. Robbed of all scientific justifications, the Government is now trying to colour the anti-dam agitation as a Maoist move. The NHPC has launched an advertisement campaign against the conclusions of the State's experts without naming them. But the All Assam Students' Union (AASU) and the Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti (KMSS), who are at the forefront of the anti-dam agitation, have demanded discussions among the experts of the State and those from other parts of the country on the feasibility of the Lower Subansiri dam. Is this not a proper way to resolve a bitterly-disputed issue? Let's welcome the AASU-KMSS suggestion. (From The Assam Tribune, February 01, 2012) Reply to:Send _______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
