Thanks Mr. Krishna for posting this account.
>The bench said that the project would not only give relief to the
>drought-prone areas but also be an >effective flood-control measure and
>help water harvesting. On the Attorney-General, Soli Sorabjee's
>>submission on negotiations and signing of agreement for consent of the
>affected States, the bench said >if a legislation under Entry 56 of List
>I of the Constitution was made, the need for consent would not >arise and
>the Centre would be in a position to undertake and complete the project.
>The Centre could >consider this aspect and, if so advised, could bring in
>legislation in Parliament.
>(Entry 56 says: "Regulation and development of inter-State rivers and
>river valleys to the extent to >which such regulation and development
>under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law >to be
>expedient in the public interest".)
*** Don't get me wrong here, I am no lawyer. But my curiosity about the
SC's authority to direct the executive branch to undertake the
river-linking scheme deepens.
Does the above imply, that since "Entry 56" seems to make a catchall
requirement, such as in the above paragraph as regards to "INTERSTATE
RIVERS" and river valleys, the CENTER, in an imperial fashion , can decide,
quite unilaterally ( WITHOUT CONSENT) to do whatever it might decide to be
in the "national interest"?
Even as a layman I find the above atrocious. Allow me to elaborate:
* The notion totally ignores the possibility that it is a license
to promote and abate
even thoroughly politically inspired actions.
* It trashes the idea of a democratic REPUBLIC, ignoring the rights
of the components of
the union.
What would prevent a politically motivated Center to go thouroughly
destroy a pristine
river valley in Chattisgarh, or Arunachal in the name of national
interest, never mind whether
the inhabitants of the place want it or need it or not? Big brother
wants it, under whatever
the pretext be, and it gets it, because it is sanctioned by Entry 56?
I notice that the offending Entry 56, SEEMS to limit such wanton authority
of a Center to impose its whim
on INTERSTATE RIVERS. If that is true, how does that give the river-linking
scam a carte-blanche, allowing to make a secret decision to divert waters
from a STATE river system, such as the Manas of Assam?
Should that not be questioned?
In my humble opinion, there ought to be a parallel movement undertaken by
those oppose this riverlinking scam, challenging the VAGUE law established
by Entry 56. The SC ought to be petitioned to either throw out such a
catchall, undefined, vague 'law' all together, or rein it in by
establishing boundaries and definitions to it.
I would submit, just because a "LAW" has gone unchallenged, it does not get
engrqaved in stone. The SC ought to be approached to establish boundaries
to it. It holds the potential to forestall future foolish and destructive
imperial schemes, if not put a brake on the current riverlinking scam.
cm
>Linking of rivers-the story so far
>
>
>
>The Supreme Court on 31st October 2002 asked the Government of India to
>set up a high-level task force to work out the modalities for
>inter-linking of rivers within 10 years and to bring consensus among the
>States for completion of the project. A three-Judge Bench, comprising the
>Chief Justice B.N. Kirpal, Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Justice Arijit
>Pasayat, brushed aside the Centre's argument that the project, estimated
>to cost Rs. 5,60,000 crores, could be completed only by 2043-45.
>
>
>
>The Bench said it was difficult to appreciate that with the available
>resources there would be a further delay of 43 years for completion of
>the project to which there was no objection and whose necessity had been
>acknowledged. These interim orders were passed on a public interest
>litigation (PIL) petition. The PIL petition, filed by amicus curiae
>Ranjit Kumar, was based on the speech of the President, A.P.J. Abdul
>Kalam, on the eve of Independence Day, suggesting inter-linking of
>rivers.
>
>
>
>Honorable President in his speech on 14th August 2002 said, let us now
>look at a long-term problem. It is paradoxical to see floods in one part
>of our country while some other parts face drought. This drought flood
>phenomenon is a recurring feature. The need of the hour is to have a
>water mission, which will enable availability of water to the fields,
>villages, towns and industries throughout the year, even while
>maintaining environmental purity. One major part of the water mission
>would be networking of our rivers. Technological and project management
>capabilities of our country can rise to the occasion and make this river
>networking a reality with long term planning and proper investment. In
>addition, the vast sea around us can help by providing potable water
>through desalination as a cost effective technology. There are of course
>short-term techniques such as water harvesting by revitalizing rural
>ponds, water recycling to water conservation. Such programmes should have
>a large-scale people participation even at the conceptual and project
>planning stages. The entire programme should revolve around economic
>viability leading to continued prosperity for our people with larger
>employment potential, environmental sustainability, grass root level
>motivation and benefit sharing.
>
>
>
>The bench said that the project would not only give relief to the
>drought-prone areas but also be an effective flood-control measure and
>help water harvesting. On the Attorney-General, Soli Sorabjee's
>submission on negotiations and signing of agreement for consent of the
>affected States, the bench said if a legislation under Entry 56 of List I
>of the Constitution was made, the need for consent would not arise and
>the Centre would be in a position to undertake and complete the project.
>The Centre could consider this aspect and, if so advised, could bring in
>legislation in Parliament.
>
>
>
>(Entry 56 says: "Regulation and development of inter-State rivers and
>river valleys to the extent to which such regulation and development
>under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be
>expedient in the public interest".)
>
>
>
>Tamil Nadu is the only State which filed its reply to the notice sent to
>all the States on the PIL, recalled the various letters written by the
>Government since 1982 requesting the Centre to declare inter-State rivers
>as national and to bring in legislation to ensure their proper
>utilisation. The affidavit said that in a letter written by the Chief
>Minister, Jayalalithaa, in September last to the Prime Minister, she had
>pointed out that the National Water Policy had recognised the need for
>making available water from surplus basin to water-shortage areas taking
>into account the national perspective. The State urged the court to issue
>a direction to the Centre to nationalise all the inter-State rivers by
>bringing forward a suitable legislation.
>
>
>
>The apex court orders on Writ Petition(Civil) No.512/2002 on Networking
>of Rivers have been passed on following dates: 31 October 2003, 16
>December, 2002, 20 January, 2003 and 5th May, 2003. Pursuant to order
>dated 20th January, 2003, an affidavit was filed on 5th May, 2003 Mr.BP
>Pandey, Deputy Commissioner, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of
>India, which included a resolution dated 13 December, 2002 constituting a
>Task Force, time table for interlinking of rivers, other resolutions
>nominating part time and full time members of the Task Force.
>
>
>
>Till the date of hearing, in last about four months there has been three
>meetings of Task Force on 6th January, 2003, 27th March, 2003 and 28th
>April, 2003. In its 28th April meeting the first Action Plan as per
>Government Resolution was considered and adopted. As per Action Plan-I
>the schedule for implementation is 10 years from the start. It
>stipulates that the work on the links can be started from 2007. It is
>envisaged to be completed by say end of 2016.
>
>
>
>According to Action Plan -I the said Task Force is laying emphasis on
>demonstrative value of starting work on a link or two, as soon as
>possible. The process of preparation of Detailed Project Report for an
>inter basin link need to cover also, Detailed Environmental Impact
>Assessment, Environmental Management Plan and R&R Plan for project
>affection persons.
>
>
>
>The bench said in its last order that We find no substance in the
>apprehension that the Task Force will not implement the law. We have also
>no doubt that in case the other experts in the field provide necessary
>inputs to the Task Force, it will give it due consideration the same
>deserves. The next date of hearing is on 5th November 2003.
>
>
>
>According to the just released first-ever World Water Development Report
>of the UN, the linking of world's worst polluted rivers may spread
>disease and misery amongst the unsuspecting population. Indian rivers are
>the most polluted in the world, with three times as many bacteria from
>human waste as the global average. Further, these rivers have 20 times
>more lead than those of the industrialised countries. The Task Force is
>silent on this issue.
>
>
>
>The Finance Minister Jaswant Singh, has allotted Rs 400 crore for the
>Task Force for the year 2003-04. Despite major developments in the
>water resource sector since Independence, the country has not really come
>out of the flood-drought-flood syndrome. This is principally on account
>of, among other reasons, three major factors, faulty water management
>practices, unbalanced development of irrigation sources in the country,
>and a highly uneven distribution of water resources. To expedite the
>proposal for inter-linking of rivers, the Prime Minister has appointed a
>Task Force, which will suggest modalities of taking water to deficit
>areas and for identifying the priority links, which could be implemented
>early, as well as mechanism for their clearance and funding. Adequate
>outlay is being provided to support this Task Force, said Singh.
>
>When the government knows that the flood-drought-flood syndrome is a
>result of faulty water management practices and unbalanced development of
>irrigation sources in the country, why is it undertaking a massive
>project to correct water management practices and to ensure balanced
>development of irrigation sources to address the issue of highly uneven
>distribution of water resources, instead of creating and funding a faulty
>taskforce which lives in a fools paradise where community wisdom of water
>management has no takers.
>
>The relevant portion under National Water Development Agency (NWDA) says,
>provisioning Rs. 400 crore has been kept for Task Force for advising and
>suggesting modalities for inter-linking of major rivers in India. It is
>noteworthy this Rs 400 crore, is not for the actual construction of the
>links. It is only for the Task Force. This budget is in all likelihood
>meant to co-opt and blunt the protesting voice of the community and make
>it community proof.
>
> Nevertheless, the Suresh Prabhu led advocates of the project cite the
>attempts at interlinking of some rivers throughout our country and
>world-wide interlinking cases as if citing these cases of inter linking
>of rivers provides enough rational to subvert our ecological space, the
>federal structure of our country and to create conflicts for centuries to
>come. Nowhere do they mention, the ecological and social consequences of
>these projects. Their inferences about river inter-linking idea being
>neither novel nor a disaster are flawed. The proposal is novel in its
>insanely unsustainable obstinacy to undertake this catastrophic task. As
>far as the issue of task force consulting people from all walks of life
> is concerned this consultation is just an eyewash because come what may
>taskforce s brief is to get the rivers linked across the country.
>
>R.K. Pachauri, Director, Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI), K.
>Kasturirangan, Chairman, Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), K.V.
>Kamath, CEO, ICICI Bank, Deepak Dasgupta, former chairman of National
>Highway Authority and G.C. Sahu, former chief engineer, Orissa Government
>besides Suresh Prabhu, C.C. Patel, who was a former chairman or Sardar
>Narmada Nigam Limited and Shri C.D. Thatte who is Secretary-General,
>International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage, are members of the
>panel. None of these members have the track-record of being sensitive to
>our ecological space. They have failed to understand why communities of
>rural India and concerned organizations from cities are vehemently
>opposed to this mindless idea.
>
>
>
>When the Ganga is water deficit according to the controversial
>Indo-Bangladesh water treaty, how can it be shown as water surplus in the
>new plan, questioned Ramaswamy Iyer, former water resources secretary.
> He said, all future studies are suspect since government is not at all
>transparent about it.
>
>Himanshu Thakkar of South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People (SANDRP)
>questioned, "without the availability of basic information, transparency
>and accountability of the water resources establishment, how can there be
>a dialogue? No area of the country needs such schemes for water needs".
>
>
>
>"The political consensus on the issue of interlinking of rivers is a
>myth. Already states like Assam, Bihar, Kerela, Punjab, Orissa, Goa, W
>Bengal and Maharashtra have raised objections to it," said Dr Sudhirendra
>Sharma, director of The Ecological Foundation. It is a populist plan that
>will drag the country into severe debt, he remarked. The country's
>current outstanding debt is US$ 100 billion.
>
>The presentation by the government shows that it would conduct detailed
>project report on 30 river links like Par-Tapi-Narmada but it does not
>answer whether people living on the banks of Tapi and Narmada are willing
>to allow the linking of their river with the heavily mercury contaminated
>water of Par, a query raised by Toxics Link. In total absence of any
>credible Post facto assessment of any of the water resources development
>project over the past there is no accountability.
>
>
>
> Diversions of water from Himalayan rivers are fraught with serious
>difficulty and may not happen; and that if they are attempted we may run
>into inter-State and inter-country problems, says Iyer.
>
>
>
>Radha Singh, Director-General of the NWDA who is an ardent advocate of
>interlinking was earlier responsible for irrigation department in Bihar.
>According to the official estimate, the project is expected to provide
>irrigation for 160 million hectares and it can be able to generate 34 MKW
>of hydropower. These claims are absurd and baseless because NWDA has never
>shared the information regarding the input quantity of water on the basis
>of which these wild claims about output are being made.
>
>
>
>Acadmecians say, river Linking is a technological fantasy. The project is
>grand and its grandiose nature borders on megalomania. It is an
>imposition of dream under the misconception that it s a vision. A dream
>becomes vision only when it s a shared dream. The citizens of the
>country do not share this dream. What happened to Indira Gandhi Canal?
>Who does not know its environmental consequences? The project seeks to
>introduce further inequity in the society. Is the project answering
>equity question? Is it solving inter state disputes?
>
>
>
>Who has done the impact assessment before embarking on the proposal of
>tinkering with the river system? It s a ploy to invite multinational
>companies and the civil engineers and local contractors await
>subcontracting from them. Civil Engineering is in any case not an upcoming
>engineering branch.
>
>
>
>Has there been any discussion before the proposal? What will happen to
>the people who are dislocated? It is a rhetorical stance. It is akin to
>shock and awe policy of US. How can such massive interference be
>tolerated with nature? The project entails enormous digging, excavation
>and blasting.
>
>
>
>There is an attempt to strike a balance of convenience. In the year of
>International Fresh Water, there seems to be a sinister design to declare
>our rivers as world s common heritage to be exploited by the
>multinational corporations.
>
>
>
>The images of interlinking rivers are being invoked to delude citizens
>from reality. All our villagers know that whenever and wherever water is
>bound it stinks. The proposal is against the common wisdom of our
>villages. It is unsuitable aesthetically, philosophically, ecologically
>and morally. All our big projects remind us of the story of the elephant
>and the blind men and the effort of the citizens to deal with it is akin
>to they being cursed like Sisyphus.
>
>
>
>The colonial rulers recognized the customary rights over land but our own
>government has usurped that right and the same is being done in the case
>of water. There is lack of awareness about the fact that river linking
>will affect the lives of the affluent as traumatically as it does to the
>poor and the usually invisible sections of underprivileged citizens.
>
>
>
>National and class interests more often than not eclipse the rational and
>the equitable. The concerned citizens are becoming wary of the conduct of
>ongoing river linking negotiations and are getting perilously
>desensitized by the sanitised information. There is an urgent need to
>train and nourish environmental leadership particularly in the context of
>globalisation and the consequent commodification of natural resources. The
>premise of the project on the fact that there are Surplus Rivers and there
>are Deficit Rivers is flawed. The assignment of responsibility for the
>mishap is missing in our polity. Description- narration, scientific
>interrogation, explanation, accusation, and justification are entwined in
>a very complex manner.
>
>
>
>A National Meeting on River Linking Proposals concluded that River Link
>Proposals ill conceived, not in national Interest. Critical position on
>the proposed US $ 120 billion `Interlinking of Rivers' by the civil
>society notwithstanding, the Task Force constituted by the government has
>carefully meandered its way through the growing opposition. L C Jain,
>former planning commission member was of the firm opinion that
>endorsement by the President of India to the project may have been based
>on inadequate information presented before him. Medha Patkar says, the
>need for bringing the riverine populations together through awareness
>generations in the language they are comfortable with.
>
> Civil society reiterates the social, environmental, fiscal, economic,
>legal and constitutional impacts but how does such a submission weigh
>against a politics of short-term electoral gains and a bureaucracy of
>guarded opportunists? How does sustained rejections of the project from
>several platforms measure against the `force' that isn't transparent in
>its functioning? And, where does the critical views on mass water
>transfer project stand against an air of optimism in the drought-like
>situation prevailing in several parts of the country? These are some of
>questions, citizens of India are confronting with. Gopal Krishna
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
><http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.3551198.4824677.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705291771:
>HM/A=1663535/R=0/SIG=11ps6rfef/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=30504&medi
>a
>=atkins>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.
_______________________________________________
Assam mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
