A dam is not a canal

Explore Business Standard

| Going by the official claims""disputed by the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), which mounted a protracted agitation to stop its construction""the project will irrigate 1.8 million hectares of land and meet the drinking water and other needs of some 20 million people in the four states. For this, it envisages laying a vast, 86,000-kilometre network of canals. Besides, it will generate 1,450 MW of power through its 11 turbines. However, these benefits would accrue in full measure only on the completion of the whole infrastructure, which is still a long way off. At present, not even 23 of the proposed 38 branch canals have been constructed; ideally, this should have been done simultaneously with the construction of the dam. The laying down of such a network is unlikely to be an easy task as it involves working on no fewer than one million civil structures of various types all over the project command area, spanning four states. |
| What is particularly disquieting about the project is the poor progress on the most controversial issue, which is the resettlement and rehabilitation of dam oustees and other project-affected people; their number is reckoned by the anti-dam lobby at 320,000. Though Madhya Pradesh is believed to be the most laggard state in this respect, the record of others is far from satisfactory. Even interventions by the Supreme Court and the Prime Minister have failed to produce the desired results on this vital front. Reports indicate that a sizable number of the oustees are still to be properly rehabilitated and many of those who have been resettled at alternative sites have been given poor- quality land with meagre irrigation and other facilities. Cases of malpractice in the allotment of land and provision of other amenities have also come to light. It might be argued that the NBA agitation had led to frequent interruptions in project implementation, but the blame for this rests largely with the project authorities. If they are to be judged on the basis of their record of actions, they had no intention to be fair and just to those being displaced by the project, and no one should complain if the Supreme Court cracks down on them for repeated and perhaps intentional failures on this front. |
First Published: Jan 03 2007 | 12:00 AM IST