Can't agree more on the headlines of the AT editorial of today pasted below. I notice Alpana also posted it.
But going thru better than half of the write-up, I was wondering where the linkage of OIL and GAS was to river-linking. Well it was on the protesters' slogans, the writer leads us to. Sure, slogans could be destructive. Protests could be disruptive. Valid complaints. But I question the comparisons. Here is why: ** First, is a protest against the river-linking scheme necessary ? Goswami writes "Mere slogan will not do, nor the matter can be left in the hands of a vocal section only". Again I agree, slogans won't cut it. However, the shrillest and loudest of these slogans however have been coming not from those whose lives are totally intertwined with these rivers, but from those who have made a political aim of 'inter-linking' these rivers, never mind what its ramifications might be. Have the proponents of these scam of a scheme consulted the people of Assam before floating the idea, complete with 'plans' to dam this river, dig that canal, which would have far reaching impacts like the author acknowledges? What was the basis, the justification, the demand -- for diverting waters out from Manas river; ostensibly to relieve Assam's flooding? Did the residents of the Marnas river valley contact the river-linkers to please come and take their 'excess' waters out and deliver them from perennial flooding? Should we not have asked that question, before we took to editorializing on the destructiveness on the slogans of protesters who, on one fine morning woke up to a scam, about to be foisted on their lives and livelihoods by imperial forces, who never took them into confidence on what their concerns might be, what their interests might be. And are these forces not the SILENT ones, on whom the author seems to want to rely on, as opposed to to the "vocal section only"? The problem, as I see it, is the SILENT ones, who scheme and connive, in secret, without transperency, to build national greatness on the backs of these people who are disenfranchised, over and over again. ** Therefore I submit, the premise of the editorial's complaint: the protesters and the tenor of their slogans; is misplaced to begin with. Had this scheme not been hatched by elite nationalists, in secret, with political calculations as the guiding principles; no such protest, nor such slogans would have been necessary. More later. cm River interlinking : logical approach needed -Subhash Chandra Goswami The clarion call has come again, "We will give blood, but no water from the Brahmaputra". At the drop of a hat why some organisations talk of bloody agitations? We have the results of bloody agitations in the past. But it looks like we are poor learners. People and community should learn from the past, from the history. A time has come, when politics of mob should stop, even by the so called non-political organisations. Devoid of scientific knowledge and analysis, nobody should be allowed to start something with sheer emotion only. Such things have happened earlier in this region, when saner section was gagged, intimidated and isolated, and results are all there to see. More than two decades back there was a call, "We will give blood, but no oil". If then somebody had said that there should not be a fourth refinery in Assam, he would have been identified as anti Assamese. Perhaps he along with his family would have been socially boycotted. Because during that period there was no atmosphere to discuss a subject beyond emotion and agitation, On the midnight of August 14, 1985 Assam got it's fourth oil refinery as a part of the historic Assam Accord. But was there enough crude oil to build another commercially viable refinery? When the movement of "blood and oil" was started, intentionally or due to ignorance, a picture was created that Assam is floating on oil and the State is exploited by taking oil out of Assam. Though the fact remains that even after discovery of Naharkatia oil fields, the crude oil production from 1981 to date is stagnating as around 5 million tonnes per year. Today, Barauni Refinery, flow of crude oil to which was intended to be stopped with blood, is no more dependent on Assam crude. Even then, presently the total refining capacity of the four refineries is 7.35 million tonnes per year against crude availability of about 5 million tonnes per year in the North East. Not surprisingly all the four refineries in Assam were running individually at a loss till crude oil from Andhra Pradesh started coming to Bongaigaon Refinery by the same pipeline which was once built to transport Assam crude to Barauni Refinery. Mercifully the people of Andhra Pradesh has not started an agitation, "We will give blood, but no oil". On Assam Gas Cracker Project also there is a threat of an agitation and people of Assam may be asked to come to the street to fight for the "just" cause. A lot of things have happened during the last one and a half year but light at the end of the tunnel is yet to be seen. That the Assam Gas Cracker is a distant dream is a view based on scientific analysis of facts available in hands and not on emotion or motivated intention. Instead of trying to find conspiracy in the issue one should try to findout with clear head and clear heart as to why the gas cracker project is not materialising even after a decade of its inception. One should try to find out, why from the very beginning private sector has not shown much interest in the project? Even after offer of capital subsidy and supply of gas at subsidised price by the Central Government, why the project is still a dream? If the project would have been financially viable and profitable, RAPL and gas supplying companies would have completed the project long back and would have started counting profits. There was no need of any threat or pressure on various parties for implementation of the project. Fact remains that gas available in the North East is about 5.5 MMCMD, whereas even a downsized gas cracker plant of 2,00,000 RPA ethylene will require 6.35 MMCMD of gas. This implies that in absence of new gas source, 2,00,000 TPA ethylene plant, which itself is not upto international economy of scale, may have to be further downsized. With gas position not so rosy, will it be a financially viable enterprise? This is the moot question. So what is to be done now? Throwing out Reliance Assam Petrochemicals as suggested by some will not solve the problem. One should not forget that not too many private parties were and will be now interested in the project. Financial viability is a must for any project. The time of building an industry to fulfil social responsibility is long over. Lately there is a suggestion to fulfil the shortage of gas by LPG, which will require a subsidy of Rs. 6000 crore annually for 15 years. Firstly in the new economic scenario the role of subsidy is diminishing, and if Rs. 6000 crore is available to Assam why invest it in an uncertain project. There will be many other projects with that kind of money for economic development of Assam. What is needed is less talk of agitation and conspiracy and more of scientific mind to look beyond the narrow selfish political goals. Let us come again to, "We will give blood, but no water from the Brahmaputra". As discussed above we can afford to make mistakes in the case of a refinery or a gas cracker. Such mistakes will not effect or harm a large section of people of Assam, but we cannot make any mistake in case of the Brahmaputra. Because the Brahmaputra is a part of every aspect of life in the valley. Mere slogan will not do, nor the matter can be left in the hands of a vocal section only. The estimated cost for interlinking major rivers of the country is Rs. 5,60,000 crore. However,, inspite of Central Government's positive attitude the whole idea is rejected by the Planning Commission as unrealistic. According to the Commission the project will never materialise because of geographical nature of the rivers and the cost involved. To study various aspects of the project a task force is formed with Suresh Prabhu, former Union Power Minister as the Chairman. The task force is also studying a similar projects undertaken by China. We all know this is a different project both technically as well as politically. One should not forget that in sharing river water, international accords have functioned more smoothly than interstate accords, even with Pakistan. Kavery water sharing dispute has reached the highest court of the country. So much of trouble in sharing water of one river only, there will be battles when all the rivers are interlinked, unless modelities for arriving consensus for sharing river water among the States are arrived. It is told that the task force is looking into these aspects also. In case of interlinking of Brahmaputra with other major rivers of the country, some foreign countries will also be involved. This is a difficult project requiring in depth studies including discussion with foreign countries. The project is still in embryo stage. Under such a situation on what basis a section of people have come to the conclusion at this early stage itself that interlinking of the Brahmaputra will have disastrous effect in the Brahmaputra valley? In absence of proper data based on scientific studies it is too early to accept or reject the project. Let the experts study all aspects of the project, because a project of such complex nature as interlinking of rivers demands a scientific approach and logic. Till then a clarion call for an agitation on the subject can wait, perhaps for better future of Assam. (The writer is a former GM of BRPL). _______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
