Why Don`t You Ring Me?

Why Don`t You Ring Me?
Suicidal Detachment Would Lead to Greter Tragedies Like Polavaram

Indian Holocaust My Father`s Life and Time - Thirty two

Palash Biswas


Were my late father Pulin Babu living today, he certainly would have reached Malkangiri and would have visited adjoining all Chhattishgargh and Andhra areas which have to be submerged in Polavaram Dam. He could do any damn thing to save his people! He met all the prime ministers from Pdt. Jawahar Lal Nehru to Atal Bihari Vajpayee during his life time and voiced the Dalit Bengali Refugeees scattered countrywide. Unfortunately, I may not do that. He invested his property for Dalit Refugee movements. He encounterd statesponsered violence and repression accross the border not only as a refugee leader but also as a peasant leader in Uttarakhand. I have no property to invest as I only inherit the lifelong struggle from him. I have to work as a professional for my biotic sustenance! I face sever crunch for time, space and money. But I may not be detached from the plight of my people simply because I bear the destined legacy of my dead father.
Every month my wife Savita complains of heavy Telephone and Internet Bills pending and crunch for money to run the home. But I am not able till this date to discontinue my adventure with the destiny of the enslaved eighty five percent masses of this country and beyond.
In my home district, Udhamsingh Nagar, in the district town more than three hundred officials belonging to Bengali dalit refugees live together in different posh colonies. They organised under UP- Uttarakhand Bengali Employees` association. They have no financial crunch. They financed and mobilised the Bengali Refugees resistance aginst denial of citizenship by then BJP government led by Nityanand swami. At that time , everone happened to be in close touch with me. Now no one cares to ring me up or giving any followup. But whenever they face a serious crisis , they never forget to get me involved immediately.

This is the trend amongst SC ST Tribal Minority communities suffering from lack of social interaction and communication gap altogether!
I never get a regular feedback from anywhere. I have to write. I have to ring them. Well, I called on every refugee and sc Leader and intellectual in Bengal and Orrissa. Only today, my wife warned me of phone and Net billing. She complained , no one rings you or recalls you why you are so involved!
In Salt Lake , Kolkata a host of intellectuals and IAS officers, engineers, scientist, professors, doctors cave in within an Arena of Post Modern Brahminical Consumer arena. Only I name a few of them, Dr Upen Biswas, former joint Director of CBI and a leader Bengali Namoshudras, IAS officer rtd. Income Tax commissioner Mr Amar Biswas, a poet and backbone of Bangla dalit Sahity sanstha, Mr Kumud Biswas, another Rtd. IAS officer. My wife`s MaUSA, MY uNCLE iN Law, IAS Sudhir Kumar Biswas, former chairman of UP employees Selection Board reside in Lake Town. None of these gentleman is anyhow concerned with the problems of the community. They encashed Ambedkar and dalit origin to get the job thanks to quota and reservation. They have been very very successful by profession. They have enough money, time and space to invest for the community. Many of them may turn up as whole timer. But non of them is ready to expose themselves belonging to Dalit Community.
That is how, no national Dalit movement is possible despite individual attempts like that of VT Rajshekhar!
My Father was a whole timer and he invested his life for the community. Why others are so detached?
This suicidal detachment would result in greater tragedies as our people have faced during Partition Halocaust, during Marichjhapi Genocide and Have to face in Polavaram Submergence in Malkangiri!
Pl read Ambedkar`s Life and works once again! If you believe in other ideologies, plese go through the theories and history once again!
B. R. Ambedkar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._R._Ambedkar

The Polavaram reservoir submerges an area of 63,691 ha comprising of 60,063 ha in Andhra Pradesh, 2,398 ha in Chattisgarh and 1,230 ha in Orissa. Out of the total submergence area, the area under cultivation is about 30,650 ha and the forest area 3,705 ha. The reservoir submergence will affect 250 villages and a total population of about 1.45 lakhs in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Chattisgarh and Orissa.
http://nwda.gov.in/index3.asp?sublink2id=12

SHRI ARJUN SETHI: My actual problem or concern arises only when the implementation of a project by a State affects the interests of other States. As I have stated, I would like to be very brief in my intervention.

As far as Godavari Water Dispute Tribunal is concerned, the hon. Minister has already stated that it has recommended for FRL/MWL 150 ft project. The hon. Minister has not said anything and has stuck to the award given by the Godavari Water Dispute Tribunal. It is now reported that the concerned States had held inte-state meeting in the year 1997. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has intimated that the water level may go up to FRL/MWL 182 feet due to back water effect, by adopting design of 36 lakh cusec, and as a result seven villages and 1026 hectares of territory in Orissa are likely to be affected.

We have no problem if they adhere to 150 ft. FRL/MWL because that has been agreed to by the concerned State. It is now reported that they have intimated in a meeting that they are going to have FRL/MWL 182 feet, as a result a number of villages, especially in Malkana district of Orissa, are going to be affected. As you know, Sir, especially in those areas a large number of adivasis live and their homes will be submerged due to this.

The State Government of Orissa has a number of times written to them and they should not go up to 182 feet FRL/MWL. A number of times, meetings have been held under the aegis of Central Water Commission also. So far as I remember, three times, that is in the year 1997, 2000 and 2001, the CWC held meetings to resolve the issue. In every meeting both the CWC and the State Government of Orissa have requested the concerned State of Andhra pradesh to give details of back water effect. Both the CWC as well as the Government of Orissa wanted to have a detailed study report as well as back water profile up to FRL/MWL 182 feet for examination[R13] .

The State Government of Andhra Pradesh has not given the details. As a result of this, the particular issue is still pending before the CWC. I would like to know from the hon. Minister whether the State Government of Andhra Pradesh is having this particular project at the FR level 150 feet or they have increased it to 182 feet.

Secondly, I have asked a number of questions in this particular Session itself regarding the details of this project. Today also in his statement he has not given any details as to whether the particular State Government is going for 182 feet FR level. I would like to have the details. Similarly, I would like to know from the hon. Minister whether the Government has any information now in this regard. In response to an unstarred question on this subject, he avoided giving the answer. The State Government of Andhra Pradesh has not reported the status of construction of Indira Sagar or Polavaram Project. This is the answer given by the hon. Minister to the House.

Another thing which I would like to bring before the House is that the hon. Minister has stated in his statement that the environment clearance has already been given. You will be surprised to know the time taken to give the environment clearance. The report was submitted to the Ministry on Environment and Forest on 10.10.2005 and the clearance was given on 25.10.2005. Within 15 days, the environment clearance was given. I am surprised how the environment impact of having this particular project can be studied in 15 days only, whereas a number of such other projects are lying for months and years together. For those projects, they have not been given the environment clearance.
PART II PROCEEDINGS OTHER THAN QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (XIV LOK SABHA)
http://164.100.24.208/debate14/debtext.asp?slno=5759&ser=&smode=

Red Listed plants threatened by Polavaram Dam- ANTHRA Sanyasi Rao et al.pdf
394K View as HTML Download

Polavaram Dam makes Godavari Nadhi an item for consumption Sunday, Jun 24
http://mbbhushan.wordpress.com/2007/06/24/polavaram-dam-makes-godavari-nadhi-an-item-for-consumption/

Bachawat Award is outdated and makes the Polavaram project hazardous



According to the Central Empowered Committee appointed by the Supreme Court to examine the implications of the Polavaram project proposed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh strong objections were raised by Orissa and Chattisgarh state Governments and several individuals against the project and they wanted it to be revised.

Agreement were entered into in 1978 by the 3 states of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa regarding an FRL/MWL of +150ft on the condition that the back water curve due to the project during floods should not exceed +150ft above mean sea level. Ultimately the agreement was revised on 2-4-1980 and it was accepted by the tribunal on 3-4-1980 and the Government of India accepted this agreement.

Polavaram Dam is controversial and is opposed by varied sections in Andhra Pradesh and elsewhere in the country. The claims of Andhra Pradesh government are questioned and the manner in which it has carried out the works has raised serious doubts about the importance it gives to any national norms and transparency in a project that would have irreversible implications to ecology and people.

It threatens to displace a Koya tribe that’s no less than cultural genocide.



Displacement underestimated and scope for social justice displaced
http://mbbhushan.wordpress.com/2006/10/10/polavaram-dam-need-for-national-debate/
AP government mentions of 299 villages (276 in AP, 7 in Orissa & 16 in Chattisgarh) displacing a total population of 1,95,357. Villages forming part of the scheduled area are 297 villages. Eexcept 2 villages in East Godavari of AP all other villages threatened of submergence are in the Scheduled Areas of Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Orissa. The data of AP government is old and many villages have not been included in the submergible villages. The data provided by the AP is contested by activists and scholars. Studies of M Bharath Bhushan & R Murali, CESS, among others have found AP govt has underestimated and underplayed the the losses.

About 3,30,000 people with Scheduled Tribes constituting around 60% are likely to be affected with the contemplated backwaters level of + 183 feet. It is estimated that about 400 villages will be affected. Massive displacement of adivasis is bound to have irreversible ecological losses with uphill migration of the adivasis and deforestation in the Eastern Ghats. Ecology of Orissa, Chattisgarh and AP is threatened of the uphill migration by displaced tribals. Media reported of the tribal villages already identifying pockets in forest as alternative sites.

It is in sensitive area and displacement of adivasi in large numbers is bound to make the situation volatile in “dandakaranya”.

Ecological concerns Wildlife and biodiversity concerns of Eastern Ghats are beyond state boundaries. There are approximately 10 tigers in the Papikonda sanctuary and about 5 tigers in the affected area as there is abundant water even during the summer. This is the richest forest area in AP in terms of biodiversity and is mostly moist deciduous forest. This forest forms a contiguous forest corridor with the forests in Orissa and Chattisgarh

Flood disaster is underestimated

Much against the AP government’s submission to the GWDT that severe floods of 25 lakh cusecs occurs once in 48 years, it is seen such floods occur within twenty years with such floods occurring in 1986 and 2006! Flood water level (Back water level) at Badrachalam has reached at RL 172 this year with a flood discharge of 20 to 23 lakh cusecs without any Dam. If the proposed Dam is constructed with the height off wall about 84 ft. above the River Bed Level at Polavaram obstructing the Flow would, create heading of the levels which may reach more than +200 ft., at Badrachalam and same may be at Konta of Chattisgarh and Motu of Orissa. Owing to which the submergence of Forest, private land, and villages adversely affected and people displaced would be far above the estimates of the AP government.

Central agencies failing to ensure norms

The Government of A P has commenced the Head Works and the Canal Works before the Site Clearance that was granted on 19-09-2005 and Environment Clearances were obtained on 25-10-2005. Public Hearing was conducted on 10-10-2005 and within 8 days, the A.P. Pollution Control Board has given “No Objection Certificate” on 18-10-2005. The very next day i.e. on 19-10-2005 the Expert Committee of MOE&F has granted Environmental Clearance. It was approved by the MOE&F on 25-10-2005, after the construction of the Project commenced in the Month of March, 2005.

As per the norms the Government is required to hold the Public Hearings in all the areas of submergence due to construction of the Project. But the Public Hearing were not held in the submergence areas of Chhattisgarh and Orissa till date and as on today the Pollution Control Boards of those two states have not given “No Objection Certificate”.





CM takes dam issue to Centre

Statesman News Service
BHUBANESWAR, July 12: Union environment and forest minister Mr A Raja has reportedly assured chief minister Mr Naveen Patnaik that he would ask the Andhra Pradesh government to redraw its Polavaram project proposal to meet the stipulations set by the High Court.

Official sources here said Mr Patnaik had met Mr Raja in New Delhi today and expressed concern over the environmental clearance accorded to the Polavaram project. The project will adversely affect 6,000 tribals of Malkangiri district in the state, he said.

The chief minister pointed out that over 100 hectares of forest land in Orissa will be submerged if the AP project was implemented. He also informed the Central minister that the Orissa High Court had directed the AP government to reformulate the project in such a manner that there is no submergence in Orissa.

Mr Patnaik also requested Mr Raja to clear the proposals submitted by the state government for regularisation of eligible pre-1980 forest encroachments. The state government had submitted proposals in respect of 17 districts, of which clearance has been received for regulararisation of encroachments made prior to 1972 in nine districts.

The chief minister requested Mr Raja to clear the balance proposals, in respect of the nine districts, viz, Jharsuguda, Sambalpur, Khurda, Nayagarh, Rayagada, Boudh, Kalahandi, Koraput and Kandhamal (ie, up to the cut off year of 1980) and also to clear all the proposals in respect of the remaining districts viz, Baragarh, Cuttack, Deogarh, Dhenkanal, Gajapati, Jajpur, Nuapada and Sonepur.

Later the CM met the Union minister of mines, Mr Sis Ram Ola and apprised him of the investments taking place in the mineral-based industry sector in the state. The chief minister, emphasising the value addition principle for allocation of mines on preferential basis, sought the support in providing such raw material linkage to the mineral-based industry.
Mr Ola stated that some of these issues have been addressed in the Hoda Committee Report, which will be duly considered by his ministry.

The contentious issue of divestment of Nalco also figured in the discussions and the Central minister reportedly told Mr Patnaik that the proposal for disinvestment in Nalco has been clearly withdrawn. Mr Ola stated that some of these issues have been addressed in the Hoda Committee Report, which will be duly considered by his Ministry.

http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=9&theme=&usrsess=1&id=123032

POLAVARAM DAM kills Lakhs of People in Godavari Delta -5
http://profshivajirao.googlepages.com/polavaramdam-5

The opponents are arguing that on the basis of the latest spillway design criteria used for dams in other countries the Central Water Commission is also following their own standards as presented in the above tables. They argued that the normal rule of thumb is to design the spillway for a peak flood that is 1.5 to 2 times more than the previously recorded flood and this thumb rule is not followed in the case of Polavaram. The opponents argued that the peak flood discharge recorded in 1970 and 1966 varied from 20 to 22 lakhs cusecs and on this basis the engineers of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa advised their Chief Ministers to incorporate in the agreement of 2-4-1980 , 36 lakhs cusecs as the peak flood discharge recorded in August 1986 in Godavari was 35 lakhs cusecs and hence the peak flood for spillway design of Polavaram project must be fixed at about 54 lakhs cusecs. It is reported in the News papers that on the advise of the A.P.State Government has recently revised the spillway design flood to about 48 lakhs cusecs. Consequently the revised peak floods is increased by about 30 to 33% of the previous figure of 36lakhs cusecs for which the 3 states of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa have entered into an agreement on 2-4-1980 as accepted by the Bachawat Tribunal. In view of this enormous increase in Probable Maximum Flood being used for spillway design, the whole nature of the project has completely changed and all the previous estimates made for back water curve, number of villages likely to be submerged and extent of Forest lands under inundation and the population to be resettled and the costs of rehabilitation have to be completely enhanced on a substantial scale with the result that the cost of the project will abnormally exceed as compared with the benefits will be conferred by the project and hence the costs far exceed the benefits and make the feasibility of the project unacceptable even from the point of view of Economy. The opponents argued that although the dam break analysis has been done by one of the wings of the Union Ministry of Water Resources namely, the National Institute of Hydrology at Roorkee, their work as presented in the Environmental Impact Assessment report is drastically reduced upto a length of about 30km downstream of the Polavaram dam upto Rajahmundry. But the catastrophic damage due to an inevitable collapse of the dam due to bombing by terrorists, earthquakes, construction and foundation failures or human failures or collapse of dams in the upstream side of Polavaram will result in inundation of dozens of cities and thousands of villages covering a population of about 45 lakhs in most fertile deltas of East Godavari and West Godavari districts. If a risk analysis is made the A.P.State Government will come to understand how difficult and almost impossible it will be to plan for an effective disaster management plan to protect the lives of billions of animal and human population and save the most valuable crops, industries and human habitations of inestimable value. Since the state Government is refused to take the responsibility to prepare these crucial reports they can never arrive at a meaningful cost benefit ratio and consequently they can not think of alternate project proposals which can be implemented to attain the same economic goals of agriculture developments by supplying the Godavari water for drinking water and agricultural needs of millions of farmers and farm labourers in the drought prone regions of Rayalaseema and Telangana besides stabilizing the existing irrigation systems of Godavari, Krishna and Pennar deltas. Hence the opponents of the Polavaram dam are demanding for a fresh appraisal of the Polavaram project to utilize the enormous quantity of river waters wastefully joining the Bay of Bengal for diversion to all the regions of Andhra Pradesh including North coastal Andhra, Telangana and Rayalaseema. If the present engineers and officials of the state Government are found to be non-cooperative with the state Government to chalk out new projects in place of the Polavaram project for optimal utilization of Godavari waters the independent engineering experts and the intellectuals of the state will come forward to help the state Government for this purpose.

Large numbers of people show their opposition against the Polavaram Dam.

RAIPUR, India (AWW) - A mammoth dam and river inter-linking project in eastern India has sharply raised environmental concerns and propelled neighbouring states into a bitter dispute over the costs and benefits of water. The case highlights the kind of future battles that will increasingly be fought over water, one of the world’s most precious resources.
The dam and river inter-linking project, called Polavaram project, straddles the eastern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh (AP). The AP government is promoting the project over objections from its neighbours Orissa and Chhattisgarh states that decry the project’s adverse impact on local communities.

At the heart of the squabble lies significant environmental and human rights concerns. Project critics say, construction of the dam is already inducing tribal villagers, called Adivasi, to flee to higher ground to escape inundation, taking with them a particularly unsound farming practice called ‘podu’. This practice entails burning up a patch of forest, farming it for 2-3 crop cycles, and moving on in search of another pristine patch for the same purpose, scarring the earth and destroying forest cover.

BIG PROJECT…

Concerns have begun to grow in recent months as the AP government pursues construction of the mammoth US 3-3.5 billion dollar project. First envisaged by the British in 1941, the Polavaram project aims to construct a dam on the mighty Godavari river and divert large quantities of water 174 kilometres through a link canal to the Krishna river. The dam is expected to produce 960 megawatts of power and irrigate 291,000 hectares of land in 15 of AP’s 23 districts, according to a study done by India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF). The total land requirement for the project is 46,060 hectares. Authorities claim that the project will also provide drinking water to 2.5 million people in 540 villages on the project’s route.

…BIGGER CONCERNS

Clearly, a massive undertaking such as this is bound to raise just as massive controversies. The project’s critics claim that human and environmental costs make the project too expensive to construct.

Environmentalists are particularly concerned about the adverse effects of the project. A study by the MoEF estimated that a combined total of nearly 200,000 people would be affected by Polavaram in AP, Orissa and Chhattisgarh states. Studies carried out by Independent groups, such as a 1996 report by Godavari Krishna Vijaywada Link (GKVL) and National Council for Applied Economic Research (NCAER), found that the project would submerge an area of 63,691 hectares, mostly in AP but also in the nearby two states. Half the estimated inundated land will be agricultural, and about five percent will be forests.

With numbers like these, the controversy is hardly likely to go away. Already, there have been reports that the local Adivasis have been moving uphill, axing more forests for farmland and homesteads. Tribals who remain in their traditional villages have put up notices to discourage AP government officials from visiting. One such notice states: "This is our village and we do not allow any body from the Government."

P. Shivaramkrishna of Shakti, an organization fighting for the rights of the tribal, said, “The government should give a second thought on decreasing the height of the dam to minimize the sub-mergence level.” He added, “Besides, an alternate model could be find out for safeguarding the lives of the Lakh people coming under the sub-mergence zone.”

Most recently, the major irrigation minister P. Lakshmaiah has informed that the state government has decided to retail the dam height at 150 feet as per the recommendations of the nine-member committee of experts headed by Preetam Singh, former Chairman of the Central Water Commission (CWC), which was mandated to study the issue of submersion of land under the project.

Non-governmental organizations have found that uphill migration of the Adivasis has contributed to deforestation. A 1994 study by NGOs had estimated that 153,000 acres of forest cover would likely lost due to such uphill migration. Even that rate is now considered conservative. M. Bharath Bhushan, one of the authors of the 1994 study who is associated with of Aranyika, a network of NGOs from the three states affected by Polavaram, says," the rate of deforestation observed in October 2005 indicates that earlier estimates are far small and do not show the real danger."

CONTROVERSY CONTINUES

The Polavaram project has been controversial since the very beginning. Decades after the British mooted the idea, the federal government’s Central Water Commission (CWC) granted hydrological clearance to the project in 1982. But opposition from activists stalled the project for years. In 2005, the AP government took up the matter seriously and declared its intention to complete the project in five years.

But it has not been smooth-sailing. Public protests and litigation brought the project to a standstill as the AP High Court stayed work till the MoEF granted environmental clearance to the project. That clearance was contingent upon public hearings in the affected areas. Accordingly, a series of such public hearings were conducted by the state, ultimately helping it win clearance from the MoEF in October 2005.
But critics charge that not only will the project threaten indigenous tribes, but the October 10, 2005 public hearings too were conducted haphazardly. They point out that the MoEF clearance was granted in haste after the AP government conducted such hearings in only five places - Khammam, West Godavari, East Godavari, Visakhapatnam and Krishna districts. None were held in neighbouring affected states of Orissa and Chhattisgarh.

According to Bharath Bhushan, tribal communities that are hardly literate were not provided the executive summaries of the project in their local language before the hearings. Nor were they allowed to raise their voices during the hearings. Besides, he adds, they were not aware about the rehabilitation packages being offered.

"How can the project get environmental clearance when the views of tribal villagers who are going to be affected were not taken into consideration and when no proper public hearing was held?" asks Medha Patkar of the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM) which had presented a joint memorandum to the AP chief secretary, demanding that construction of the Polavaram dam be stopped.

NEIGHBOURING STATES ALARMED

Manish Kunjan, former state lawmaker from Chhattisgarh’s Bastar district was equally enraged over the MoEF clearance without consent from his state. "The project will submerge at least 30 villages in our state and we are not going to let that happen," he declares.

The Chhattisgarh state government has asked AP state government to review the project, making it clear that it would not allow inundation in its territory because the benefits accrued to it is so minimal.

Meanwhile, Orissa state’s chief minister Navin Patnaik also wrote a letter to his counterpart in AP, objecting to the latter’s decision to go ahead with the project without consulting Orissa. He has sought a review of the entire issue and sent a similar letter to the Central Water Commission expressing his displeasure at clearances given without his state’s approval.

But the protests have fallen on deaf ears, and it is easy to see why. India is a huge country with pockets of prosperity amid grinding poverty. So is the case with water. While parts of the country have abundant water, others remain dry for long spells. For politicians and technocrats, the obvious answer lies in technology, especially those that can bend nature to the will of "development experts" in government departments. Tellingly, politicians are loathe to oppose a project that is touted to have such wide benefits. A meeting of all political parties in January this year also gave its tacit approval to the project, though the Communist Party of India (Marxist) asked the state government to reduce the size of the dam to minimize submersion.

R Ajayan, convener of Plachmeda Solidarity Committee commented, “It is very unfortunate that all the political parties are in favour of the dam. Though the communist parties speak about safeguarding people’s interest, in this case they are also supporting the government.”

Ajayan also said that under the Panchyati Raj Act, It was the Gram Sabha that has got the power to decided what should be done. “But in this case,” he said, “the Gram Sabhas have been completely sidelined.”

PROJECT SUPPORTERS SEE BENEFITS

Project supporters say, the river inter-linking is crucial for irrigation. They point out that long distance inter-basin transfer of water from surplus basins to deficit areas has been mooted for a long time. A National Perspective Plan (NPP) formulated in 1980 by the federal government and CWC identified a number of inter-basin water transfer links to connect both peninsular and Himalayan rivers across the country. The inter-linking of Mahanadi, Godavari, Krishna, Pennar and Cauvery rivers is one of the four parts of the Peninsular Rivers Development Component of the NPP.

OTHERS SEE HIGH COSTS

However, the benefits of Polavaram have been hyped out of proportion, claim critics. They point to a 2005 survey by GKVL and National Water Development Agency (NWDA), the project would displace at least 250 villages affecting around 20,000 houses. Other studies have put the number of likely-to-be-displaced villages at more than 300, predominantly tribal villages. (ENDS/AWW/RM/SP)

‘No’ to dam

We are disappointed with your coverage of the resistance to Polavaram dam. People’s resistance to such large projects is necessarily complex and subtle. While the article ‘Get out’ (Down To Earth, November 30, 2005) makes a passing reference to the protests against the dam by Adivasi communities in Khammam, West Godavari and East Godavari, the coverage in the December 31, 2005 issue of dte, is a complete misrepresentation of the movement against the dam.

By saying that the Andhra Pradesh government has finally bowed to pressure from families to come up with a modified rehabilitation package for the project-affected families, thereby implying that this has fulfilled peoples demand, is a far cry from reality. Their demand is not for a better rehabilitation package but a strong “No” to the dam. The following points illustrate the vibrancy and strength of the movement:

l Strong grassroots mobilisation by youth groups in Khammam district has forced the Communist Party of India (Marxist) to reconsider its ambivalent position on the dam. Local leaders of the party are now completely opposed to the dam while state and national level leaders continue to play around with demands like height reduction and complete rehabilitation

• People’s committees in Khammam, East and West Godavari districts are raising larger questions about the purpose of the dam and its relationship to the growth corridors along the coast where massive domestic and foreign investments in industrial and tourism infrastructure are being made at the expense of fishing communities.

The Polavaram dam cannot be understood outside its geohistoric specificity. While Narmada Bachao Andolan raised many important issues, resistance to Polavaram is moving ahead very creatively and attempting to articulate a new sets of questions.

Anantha Krishna and Sagari R Ramdas
sagari.ramdas.gmail.com