Fwd: victory for Prof. G.D. Agarwal as govt shuts Bhagirathi power project - hope for athirappilly
geedha geedha
From: sudhir devadas <sudhir_...@yahoo.co.in>
Date: Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM
Subject: victory for Prof. G.D. Agarwal as govt shuts Bhagirathi power project - hope for athirappilly
Chunk=Ar01602&ViewMode=HTML&GZ=T
The Times Of India Delhi; Date: Aug 21, 2010; Section: Front Page; Page: 1
In rethink, govt shuts Bhagirathi power project
Nitin
Sethi | TNN
New
Delhi: After the intervention of the Congress leadership, the Centre on Friday
reversed its earlier decision and ordered closure of the 600 MW Loharinag Pala
hydroelectric project on the Bhagirathi river, a tributary of the Ganga.
Citing ecological impacts, the government’s
concern for religious sentiments attached to the Ganga and the demand for
unbroken flow of the river, Union ministers Sushil Kumar Shinde (power) and
Jairam Ramesh (environment and forests) together announced the ongoing
controversial project would be wound up.
The decision to shut down the hydel project comes
after the Congress leadership showed it was ready to lend more political
credence to environmental concerns. The political dividend of ‘being
sympathetic’ to socio-religious feelings attached to the Ganga evidently helped
tip the decision.
Green Twist
3-member GoM had decided to continue project
as Rs 650cr had already been spent on it. But with
Congress high command intervening, the GoM reversed its decision.
Entire 135km Gaumukh-Uttarkashi stretch will now
be declared ‘environmentally sensitive’ area.
‘PM
sought review of Bhagirathi project’
The three-member GoM, which was headed by finance
minister Pranab Mukherjee and included Union ministers Sushil Kumar Shinde
(power) and Jairam Ramesh (environment and forests), had earlier decided that
the project would continue as Rs 650 crore had already been spent on it and
shutting it down would be too expensive. But with the Congress high command
intervening in the matter, the three met on Friday morning and reversed the
decision.
In a press release issued late in the evening, the
two ministers said that though the GoM had recommended continuation of work,
the Prime Minister held consultations with a wide range of people and asked the
GoM to review the project from the environmental, financial and social angles.
With political clarity emerging in Congress to
shut down the hydroelectric project, the GoM sat down for a rethink. A
scientific committee earlier had already pointed out that it was technically
possible to shut down the project mid-way though it would require some more
expenses to make the unfinished construction safe in the seismically active
area.
While Ramesh had batted for closure of the project
after the government had rejected the proposal for two other dams — the 381 MW
Bhaironghati project and 480 MW Pala Maneri project on Bhagirathi — Shinde had
pointed out that besides the Rs 650 crore already invested in the project,
another Rs 2,000 crore were locked because of the supplies and orders in the
pipeline.
The Uttarakhand CM, in a politically deft move, had written to the Centre demanding that the project be shut down.
Prof.
G.D. Agarwal
G.D. Agrawal, a former dean of IIT-Kanpur, was sitting on a fast for over a month - it began Jan 14, 2008 - near Birla temple in the capital, protesting the construction of the Lohari Nag Pala hydro-electric project in the Uttarkashi region. According to environmentalists, the project is likely to dry up the 125 km stretch of the Ganga between Gangotri and Uttarkashi in Uttarakhand. Prithviraj Chauhan, minister of state in the Prime Minister's Office, Friday sent a letter to Agrawal apprising him about the government's decision to suspend work on Lohari Nag Pala project.
"For all of us, the Ganga is a symbol of India's faith and culture. And
the construction work on the Lohari Nag Pala was destroying the natural flow of
the holy river to a great extent. I am thankful to the central government for
taking this into cognisance and stopping the project immediately," said
Agrawal.
He was the secretary of the Central Pollution Control Board in
the early 1980s, has been credited with shaping India's policies for
improving environmental and pollution regulatory mechanisms. For the past
few years, he has been living in Chitrakoot and teaching students at the
Mahatma Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramodaya Vishvavidyala. A bachelor, he is known
to follow a spartan, Gandhian lifestyle,
living in a cottage, where he cooks his own meals, wears homespun khadi and travels by bicycle.
On April 14, he wrote a letter to some associates in which he outlined how
the quality, quantity and flow of the Ganga between Gangotri and
Uttarkashi were being disrupted to generate hydro-electricity.
"Already, long stretches of the Bhagirathi Ganga remain waterless for
long periods. In the near future, this may become the state of the entire
river. At least the Bhagirathi, upstream of Uttarkashi, should be spared
of any works that disturb its natural flow, ecology, purity or piety.
After brooding over it for several months, I have decided to oppose
such works with all the might that I have," he wrote.
Mr. Agarwal warns about the long-term changes that would be brought about in
the ganga water that will subsequently affect the aquatic and terrestrial
ecology, land use and the overall environment. "Since these are
subtle changes and take a long time to become visible, they are generally
ignored both by project planners as well as environmental impact
assessment consultants," he says.
There are specific impacts on vegetation and wildlife as well as those
brought about by construction and quarrying, which would become
immediately visible in the fragile mountain region, says Agarwal.
"Most herbs of medicinal value are found in these pockets of
sensitive vegetation. Many important fish species like ‘ hilsa’ are known
to migrate to Himalayan uplands for spawning. Those pushing these projects
have conveniently stated that earlier projects have already disrupted this
migration. Also, no thought has been given to wildlife, which is already
under threat. Wouldn't the blasting and tunnelling in the Himalayas drive
the wildlife further away from their present hideouts? And, if
wildlife cannot survive in the jungles of the Himalayas, where else can
they survive?" he asks.
(from The Times of India dtd. June 29, 2008)
--
geedha