Concerns over Shunglu Committee's mode of operation]

1 view

Skip to first unread message

initi...@riseup.net

unread,

May 29, 2006, 6:38:24 AM5/29/06

to initiat...@googlegroups.com

URGENT

29 May 2006

Narmada Bachao Andolan
• 62 Gandhi Marg, Badwani, Madhya Pradesh 451551. Ph: 07290-222464
• c/o B-13 Shivam Flats, Ellora Park, Baroda, Gujarat 390023. Ph:
0265-2282232
• Maitri Niwas, Tembewadi, Dhadgaon, dist. Nandurbar, Maharashtra. Ph:
02595-220620
_____________________________________________________________________________

• NBA concerned about Sardar Sarovar Oversight Group's mode of operation
• Letter sent to Oversight Group chaired by VK Shunglu raising concerns
about undesirable processes
• Call for serious review of survey methodology and immediate redressal of
critical issues

In spite of the long struggle by the people in the Narmada Valley and the
nation wide support, the work at the Sardar Sarovar Dam site continues.
Refusing to intervene with the authority and the responsibility granted by
the Supreme Court in its major judgement of 2000, the Prime Minister kept
silent, bypassed the report by three ministers who visited the Valley in
April, and refused to take a stance on the obvious situation of
displacement of thousands of adivasi and farmer families, with submergence
without rehabilitation, allowing the dam height to be raised to 122
metres. The ongoing construction of the dam is thus going to be fatal for
the Valley where farms and houses are to surely face devastation with the
coming monsoon, the number being dependent on the rainfall and likely to
reach anywhere up to 35, 000 as per the official contour maps.

The only initiative by the PM office and all authorities allied with them
has been to appoint a committee led by Mr. VK Shunglu, the former CAG of
India. The committee of three former bureaucrats with its limited term of
reference, not without contradictions, is to conclude on compliance with
the resettlement and rehabilitation (R&R) policies and Court orders by
30th of June, that is not before the onset of monsoon and without
questioning the impending threat of submergence. The Supreme Court
unfortunately avoided any order ensuring compliance, for example
suspension of dam work till rehabilitation, referring to nothing else but
the Shunglu Committee and its upcoming work.

Large number of our supporters must have felt relieved that someone is
looking into the ground level reality. However, the NBA oustees and
activists had to be cautious and assess carefully the survey work by the
National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) during the first few days
itself. Our findings gathered from different villages where the survey
teams had reached, are certainly not very promising but rather shocking.
While you watch and remain concerned about peoples’ struggle and the
response of the State, we forward to you our letter to the committee and
NSSO, which speaks for itself.

Please do remain active in raising the issue, condemning the betrayal by
the State and the courts. Do join us by writing to the committee and
spread the message to other people.

Write to the Prime Minister, Sonia Gandhi, the President, condemning the
lack of intervention against such a serious situation. You could also
write to Mr. Shunglu with your own thoughts and advice.

Thank you,

Medha Patkar, Ashish Mandloi, Dipti Bhatnagar, Deoram Kanlera, Pema Bapu,
Mohan Patidar, Ranvir Singh, Kailash Awasya

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the following letter sent to the Sardar Sarovar Oversight Group
chaired by Mr. VK Shunglu
______________________________________________________________________

26th May 2006

To,
Mr. Shunglu, Chairman
Prof. Chadha & Mr. Jayprakash Narain, Members
Sardar Sarovar Oversight Group

Dear Sirs,

We, my colleagues and I, have, since the last few days been witnessing and
assessing the survey work being carried out by the NSSO teams under the
aegis of the Oversight Group (OSG), in the Sardar Sarovar affected
villages of Nimad region, Madhya Pradesh. In spite of the inherent
contradictions in the Committee's Terms of Reference, which we have
already pointed out, we have been open to and dialogued with this
Committee, and have cooperated with the process. However, some serious
concerns have arisen out of the field-level experience and surveys of the
last three days. We felt it is imperative to bring these to your notice
immediately, in order for you to take corrective action, so that these
issues do not undermine this entire process and the credibility of your
effort.

These issues must be immediately considered and a serious review of the
research (survey) methodology to the practical issues on the ground must
be undertaken; otherwise the Committee and its whole survey exercise
through the NSSO will be flawed and fruitless, and even incorrect. The
truth will escape the endeavour, and the project affected people, in
lakhs, who will anyway face devastation and destitution in the coming
monsoon, will not be given justice through this Committee either. We,
therefore, would like to express our strong feelings about certain
undesirable processes, which would lead to unacceptable conclusions.

1. First and foremost, as we have already presented during our meeting
with the Committee, unless there is a pilot phase and unless an interim
conclusion is drawn, the submergence at 122 metres of the dam height would
become a fait accompli, without rehabilitation. The aerial survey that we
happen to know that was undertaken by Prof. Chaddha, must have given him a
feel of thickly-populated villages and the already-submerged adivasi
communities, all still residing in the place where flooding is to occur
next month. Can this be permitted?

2. Secondly, the research methodology followed by the surveyors seems to
be inadequately designed and not quite proper for an unbiased
investigation into the legality of R&R work. The Action Taken Reports
(ATRs) of the NVDA are the basis for survey, and most of the questions
seem only to confirm the ATR. As you know, these ATRs have been challenged
by the Applicants in Court and have been proved to be faulty. There is no
other questionnaire, just the ATR itself being used with codes for
answers. This surely cannot be appropriate for getting complete data.
There are no open ended questions, the teams state that they have not been
instructed to collect data on rehabilitation, the relevant information
provided by families about how illegal the R&R process has been, is being
only recorded as rough markings by the surveyors. Is this what the PMO,
the Supreme Court and the OSG envisioned?

3. In most villages, surveyors are recording responses in pencil, which
surely creates doubts in the minds of villagers on the reliability of the
process, and they have questioned the surveyors about this.

4. NVDA is still conducting surveys of the impact of backwater level (BWL)
at 121.92 m. If the Committee claims that it is collecting data on the
number of families, then how and where will this increase in the number of
families be recorded by the surveyors? For example, in one village where
the surveyors went, only 53 houses are listed in the ATR to be affected at
122 m. However, while the survey team was there, there happened to be an
NVDA official in the village who was putting markings on the houses which
are to be affected at 122 m. He was requested to come before the survey
team. When asked what he was doing, he told the villagers that the houses
now being marked are affected by backwater at 122 m; by then he had
already put markings on 558 houses and his work was still to be completed!
This shows that the ATR leaves out hundreds of names in every village! If
ATR is used as a basis for survey, this methodology is faulty. There is no
survey with village as a unit, nor is there any dialogue with us as a
knowledgeable people’s organization. The officials certainly will not
inform the Committee of such a gross increase in the number of families
beyond the ATR. But it was proved on the ground. The survey will thus
remain as incomplete and faulty as the ATR.

5. Though the teams, in the name of transparency, have made it clear that
no government officials would accompany them at all, especially NVDA
officials, the reality is that there are patwaris with almost every team.
In one village the NVDA patwari is with the team. On the other hand, the
teams are not allowing any villagers (other than the ones they are
surveying at that time) to be around and not letting them speak. This has
resulted in not just impartiality but even miscommunication or partial
communication and distorting the real information at many places, since
the teams remain dependent on the translation by the patwari, which is
creating a serious problem.

6. It has also come to our notice that the teams are going strictly by the
ATR and not allowing for any other answers or details that PAFs provide.
In one village, people tried saying that their lands were going in ‘tapu’
(would become marooned with no access), but the teams did not listen, as
there was no column in their survey to deal with that. In the same
village, another serious issue has come to light. One of the important
questions that the Committee has to delve into, is whether people were
honestly, and in a fair and transparent manner, offered good land, and
whether they then voluntarily rejected that land and opted for the Special
Rehabilitation Package (SRP). This is a very important issue that is also
presented before the Court that people were given land only on paper. In
one village, surveyors asked people if they were offered and shown the
land which the ATR claims and whether they were ‘asahmat’ with it. People
replied that they had not been offered or shown the land in reality. But
the surveyors did not note this and instead just kept asking if they were
‘asahmat’ with it. This will obviously give the wrong message, that
people rejected land that they were really offered, whereas people are
saying they were not offered the land at all.

7. In another interior hilly adivasi village, 4 families have been badly
cheated. They took the SRP and tried to purchase land with it. They gave
the signing amount of Rs. 5 lakh and shifted to the village and started
working on the land. However, for almost two years, they were not able to
get a second installment from NVDA, perhaps due to corruption or other
reasons. As a result, they have been thrown out of the village land by
the owners there, they have lost their signing amount of Rs. 5 lakh and
have, just ten days or so ago, shifted back to their original village with
all their belongings, animals, etc. They were not even allowed to take the
crop that they had worked on in the new village. When the survey teams
reached this adivasi village on Wednesday, these families told them that
their signing amount has sunk and they haven’t got the second installment
of SRP and this is the brutality that has happened with them. The callous
teams replied that they should take the second installment and now buy
land! Indeed, it is a very serious thing that has happened with these
families, which proves why SRP is problematic and should be cancelled. And
the survey teams are supposed to investigate this issue deeply as per the
TOR. But the survey teams have completely failed to note this example,
proving the illegality of SRP and the trauma that these adivasis have gone
through.

8. In other villages too, when PAFs are telling surveyors that they
haven’t been able to buy land by taking SRP, surveyors are responding that
the government will give them more money under SRP scheme and then they
can buy land. In one village, the surveyors informed the people that the
government would loan them as much money as they needed to buy land, which
could be paid back in installments. Is this how the "unbiased" surveyors
are supposed to survey? This is a very grave issue!

9. Also, in a village, one interviewee said that he had still not received
compensation for his house going under submergence. Instead of noting
this, the surveyor asked him if he had received a houseplot. He replied,
yes he has on paper. Then the surveyor asked why he had not built a house
at the site. The PAF reiterated that he had not been given the
compensation for his house, how could he build a house at the site? He
also said categorically that there was no electricity and other amenities
at the site, how could he build a house? But the surveyor did not note
these things, he just noted the fact that the PAF had been given a
houseplot but had not yet built a house. This skewed data can then be made
to show later that people have received their entitlements, they are not
moving because of NBA pressure. These false statements have been
repeatedly mentioned by the MP government in Court, so we know the
rhetoric they use, whereas the reality is that people HAVE NOT got their
entitlements and the surveyors completely failed to note this.

10. In one village, the patwari accompanying the survey team was telling
the owners that since they are entitled to five house plots, they should
take one plot and Rs. 50,000 for each of the rest. That way they would
have Rs. 2 lakhs! The person responded saying that he wanted houseplots,
not money. However, it is a serious issue that the patwari who is
associated with this team is behaving in this manner, inciting people to
take money instead of houseplots. Here, since people spoke out, the
patwari was confronted on this issue and the teams were also told that we
would complain if the accompanying patwari was behaving in this manner.
The teams apologized and so did the patwari. However, this was possible
because people confronted them, but this may and will happen in other
villages as well. Are the survey teams being sent in these villages to do
an independent impartial survey or to give a mouthpiece to the
already-illegal policies of the state, which is exactly what the survey
teams are being sent to assess?

11. In yet another village, another issue of concern is that one of the
surveyors there, who just happened to be from Gujarat, was actually giving
a speech (bhaashan as the villagers described) to the PAFs about how this
was a project in the national interest and they should all support it and
make a sacrifice for it. In another adivasi village, another surveyor who
also happens to be Gujarati, was telling the adivasi villagers that they
should move to Gujarat. Is this what the survey teams are being sent in
the villages to do – to further the propaganda of the state? It is
certainly not the job of surveyors to be giving speeches in the villages
or to speak in this manner.

With all this witnessed, we feel strongly that an urgent meeting with all
of you is essential and a review of the research tools, with due
transparency, is a must. It is also necessary that if at all official
agencies are involved, we, the PAFs’ representatives, also should be
meeting the senior persons regularly.

The Committee members themselves must first visit the field at the
earliest and understand the complex issues and situation, including the
legal basis and the same must be reflected into the interview
schedules/questionnaires.

Each family will have to be interviewed on all aspects at the same time as
against what is told to them, the left out persons will be talked to later
as a second phase of the survey.

We, therefore, feel with utmost seriousness our concern and doubts about
the on-going work which can’t be relied upon unless the methodology is
reviewed by a peer group of researchers. If you think other ways can be
used to correct these glaring problems, we would welcome the same. Without
all this and with a faulty survey, if the dam is going on, the Oversight
Group will only be left to endorse the official position and be seen as a
conspiracy by the State to avoid getting themselves exposed.

Awaiting your response urgently,

Medha Patkar

cc:
Dr. K.V. Rao
Director General
National Sample Survey Organisation
New Delhi

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages