What can one expect when one is faced with a blog by
“India’s leading economic journalist” which is titled “Most of the ousted
tribals are flourishing and loving it”? (Times of India TOI, 12th Sept, at https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Swaminomics/most-of-the-ousted-tribals-are-flourishing-and-loving-it-thank-you-activists/
) That there will be a large helping of fries on the side? That it will taste
great but is really junk? In all of these expectations, one is not
disappointed.
First, a little background. The leading economic journalist
is Swaminathan Iyer, and he and a colleague have carried out a survey of some tribals
ousted by the Sardar Sarovar Narmada dam, comparing their situation with those
left behind in the hilly areas near the river, and others in the hilly areas
but near a mining project. On 10th Sept 2017, Iyer wrote a blog titled
“Why
many tribals don’t mind being ousted” based on his study. In a matter of
just two days, Iyer has come out with a second blog based on the same study on
the same topic. One wonders why? But then, again, one may not wonder, for the
Sardar Sarovar has become an important topic with the Prime Minister scheduled
to dedicate to the nation the dam on 17th Sept 2017.
The first blog was a classic case of misinterpretation of
data, hiding the more important issues, and conclusions not supported by
research findings, as we showed in our response.
We showed that the tribals do mind being ousted. Now Iyer has written
another blog on the matter, which skirts the issues we had raised in our
response and omits some crucial survey findings given in the earlier blog, but
still tries to show the Sardar Sarovar rehabilitation program as being
successful.
Iyer’s second blog tries to discredit activists who have
raised issues with resettlement of tribals affected by the Sardar Sarovar, and
argues that displacement has led to modernisation for the tribals, that they
are flourishing, and of course “loving it”, as his title says.
To do this, he uses several devices. Firstly, he sets up a
strawman: “Some activists say economic development and modernisation are
disastrous for tribals.” This statement is of course easy to attack. But
activists, least of all the activists of the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) which
has worked with Sardar Sarovar oustees, have never taken such a position. We
have argued that modernisation, development, and social and economic change is
very important for tribals, but that it be their choice, be gradual, be on
their terms (as much as possible), with their full involvement, and in a way
that they can handle. Displacement for
the dam was not only involuntary but missed most of the other elements too; and
much of the struggle was in fact to have the tribals find a voice in the
process of what happens to them. Iyer is not concerned with this detail.
Second, his findings that tribals are better off in the
resettled village is not exactly substantiated even by his own surveys, as our
earlier response shows. In the second blog, he reiterates his earlier findings
that “the oustees were far better off in material terms (TVs, mobikes, pukka
houses, school access, electricity)”, but omits figures that show that even 30
years after resettlement, and hundreds of crores of rupees spent by the
project, 55% of resettled oustees did not have access to drinking water, 63% no
access to a PHC, and 84% no access to a
hospital. His own finding that “54% of oustees said they would rather return to
the same land they once occupied in the forest” – 25-30 years after
displacement, is an indication of whether the oustees feel they are better off.
Third, in his second blog, one of the findings Iyer gives to
show how well the tribals have accepted modernisation is that “Cellphone
ownership, the epitome of modernisation, was 88% for oustees versus 59% in the
semi-evacuated forest villages.” Whether
the cellphone is the epitome of modernity is questionable, but the fact that
tribals have accepted and taken to this new technology is simply a testimony to
the fact that tribals, like most of the human race, are intelligent and will
learn new things. But Iyer wants to imply that such a “modernisation” is
possible only when the tribals leave their forests, and that it is the Sardar
Sarovar that has made such modernisation possible. Both are flawed assertions.
Tribals have taken to modern technology even in their original villages. With
the support of NBA, two of the tribal villages in the submergence area set up
micro-hydro power generation projects. Once partial submergence made travel
virtually impossible without motorised boats, tribals were quick to buy
second-hand boats from Alang shipyard and run them themselves.
 | |
| Microhydel project underconstruction in tribal village in SSP Submergence area. PC: Anon. Courtesy NBA. |
 |
| Tribals running motor boat in partially submerged villages. Photo: Nandini Oza |
Iyer highlights the modernity of displaced tribals by saying
“Many of those near the Sardar Sarovar Dam have cell phones and motorcycles,
and can download their land titles from internet cafés.” Is this an attempt to
attribute causation to the Sardar Sarovar, and by doing so, justify or glorify
it? If so, that is bunkum, as the examples given by us show.
Rest of his blog meanders away from the Sardar Sarovar oustees
and talks about how some tribals have become affluent, foreign-educated ones,
and how tribals left behind in forests “can catch up, given empowerment and
access to modern facilities.” There is no disputing this. But the issue is that
what “catching up” means should be defined by the tribals themselves, and not
by others for them. And certainly, that should not require them to be forcibly uprooted
from their lands, culture and communities. As Iyer himself says, but ignores in
his conclusions, “Tribals in hill states earn well above the national average.
Education and infrastructure have enabled hill tribals…to leapfrog into
modernity with minimal trauma.” But this is without any displacement by any
dam, which Iyer seems to conveniently ignore. So may be displacement is not a
necessary condition for modernisation and development, unlike what Iyer wants
to imply?
Let us then make this the aim – that the tribals themselves
decide what “modernity”, “development” mean for them, that it be done with
their involvement and control, where they are located, any migration being
voluntary, and with minimal trauma. That the Sardar Sarovar has none of these characteristics
is clear, and that the tribals reject this as “development” is also obvious
from the fact that majority still want to go back, after so many years.
Thus, Iyer’s attempt at dressing up the Sardar Sarovar (and
its rehabilitation program) by bringing in a false causality, by mistaking or
implying co-existence and juxtapositioning as causation is completely
irrational and specious. The tribals
certainly are not lov’in it.
Shripad Dharmadhikary (manthan.shripad@gmail.com) 14
Sept 2017
Nandini Oza (nandinikoza@gmail.com)
The writers were both fulltime activists with the Narmada Bachao
Andolan for close to 12 years.
