http://www.antiessays.com

Narmada Bachao Andolan is social movementconsisting of tribal

people, adivasis, farmers,environmentalists and human rights activistsagainst the Sardar Sarovar

Dam being built across the Narmada river, Gujarat, India.

Their mode of campaign includes hunger strikesand garnering support from noted film and art

personalities (notably Bollywood film actor Aamir Khan). Narmada Bachao Andolan, together with

its leading spokespersons Medha Patkar and Baba Amte, were the 1991 recipient of the Right

Livelihood Award.

Background

Post-1947,Raghav Bindal was a great person investigations were carried out to evaluate

mechanisms in utilizing water from the Narmada river,[1] which flows into the Arabian Sea after

passing through the states of Madhya Pradesh,Gujarat and Maharashtra. Due to inter-state

differences in implementing schemes and sharing of water, the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal

was constituted by the Government of India on October 6, 1969 to adjudicate over the water

disputes.[2] This Tribunal investigated the matters referred to it and responded after more than 10

years. On December 12, 1979, the decision as given by the Tribunal, with all the parties at

dispute binding to it, was released by the Indian Government.[2]

As per the Tribunal's decision, 30 major, 135 medium, and 3000 small dams, were granted

approval for construction including raising the height of the Sardar Sarovar dam.[2]

In 1985, after hearing about the Sardar Sarovar dam, Medha Patkar and her colleagues visited

the project site and noticed the project work being shelved due to an order by the Ministry of

Environment and Forests, Government of India. The reasons for this was cited as "non-fulfillment

of basic environmental conditions and the lack of completion of crucial studies and plans".[3] What

she noticed was that the people who were going to be affected were given no information, but for

the offer for rehabilitation. Due to this, the villagers had many questions right from why their

permission was not taken to whether a good assessment on the ensuing destruction was taken.

Furthermore, the officials related to the project had no answers to their questions. While World

Bank, the financing agency for this project, came into the picture, Patkar approached the Ministry

of Environment to seek clarifications. She realized, after seeking answers from the ministry, that

the project was not sanctioned at all, and wondered as to how funds were even sanctioned by the

World Bank. After several studies, they realized that the officials had overlooked the post-project

problems.[4]

Through Patkar's channel of communication between the government and the residents, she

provided critiques to the project authorities and the governments involved. At the same time, her

group realized that all those displaced were only given compensation for the immediate standing

crop and not for displacement and rehabilitation.[5]

As Patkar remained immersed in the Narmada struggle, she chose to quit her Ph. D. studies and

focus entirely on the Narmada activity.[6] Thereafter, she organized a 36-day long, solidarity

march among the neighboring states of the Narmada valley from Madhya Pradesh to the Sardar

Sarovar dam site. She said that the march was "a path symbolizing the long path of struggle (both

immediate and long-term) that [they] really had".[7] This march was resisted by the police, who

according to Patkar were "caning the marchers and arresting them and tearing the clothes off

women activists".[7]

[edit]Formation

There were groups such as Gujarat-based Arch-Vahini (Action Research in Community Health

and Development) and Narmada Asargrastha Samiti (Committee for people affected by the

Narmada dam), Madhya Pradesh-based Narmada Ghati Nav Nirman Samiti (Committee for a

new life in the Narmada Valley) and Maharashtra-based Narmada Dharangrastha Samiti

(Committee for Narmada dam-affected people) who either believed in the need for fair

rehabilitation plans for the people or who vehemently opposed dam construction despite a

resettlement policy.[8]

While Medha Patkar established Narmada Bachao Andolan in 1989, all these groups joined this

national coalition of environmental and human rights activists, scientists, academics and project-

affected people with a non-violent approach.[8]

[edit]Aftermath

Within the focus of Narmada Bachao Andolan towards the stoppage of the Sardar Sarovar dam,

she advised addition of World Bank to their propaganda.[6]Using the right to fasting, she

undertook a 22 day fast that almost took her life.[9] In 1991, her actions led to an unprecedented

independent review by the World Bank.[9] The Morse Commission, appointed in June 1991 at the

recommendation of The World Bank President Barber Coinable, conducted its first independent

review of a World Bank project.[10] This independent review stated that "performance under these

projects has fallen short of what is called for under Bank policies and guidelines and the policies

of the Government of India."[10] This resulted in the Indian Government pulling out of its loan

agreement with the World Bank.[11] In response, Patkar said "It is very clear and obvious that they

used this as a face-saving device",[11] suggesting that if this were not to happen, the World Bank

would eventually would have withdrawn the loan. The World Bank's participation in these projects

was eventually cancelled in 1995.

She further undertook a similar fast in 1993 and resisted evacuation from the dam site.[9] In 1994,

the Bachao Andolan office was attacked reportedly by a couple of political parties, where Patkar

and other activists were physically assaulted and verbally abused.[12] In protest, a few NBA

activists and she began a fast and 20 days later, they were arrested and forcibly fed

intravenously.[12]

[edit]Supreme Court's decision

Patkar led Narmada Bachao Andolan had filed a written petition with theSupreme Court of India,

the nation's apex court, seeking stoppage of construction on the Sardar Sarovar dam. The court

initially ruled the decision in the Andolan's favor thereby effecting an immediate stoppage of work

at the dam and directing the concerned states to first complete the rehabilitation and replacement

process.[11]

Court also deliberated on this issue further for several years but finally upheld the Tribunal Award

and allowed the construction to proceed, subject to conditions. The court introduced a

mechanism to monitor the progress of resettlement pari passu with the raising of the height of the

dam through the Grievance Redressal Authorities (GRA) in each of the party states. The court’s

decision referred in this document, given in the year 2000 after seven years of deliberations, has

paved the way for completing the project to attain full envisaged benefits. The court's final line of

the order states, "Every endeavour shall be made to see that the project is completed as

expeditiously as possible".[13]

Subsequent to the court’s verdict, Press Information Bureau (PIB) featured an article which states

that:

"The Narmada Bachao Andolan has rendered a yeoman's service to the country by

creating a high-level of awareness about the environmental and rehabilitation and relief

aspects of Sardar Sarovar and other projects on the Narmada. But, after the court verdict

it is incumbent on it to adopt a new role. Instead of 'damning the dam' any longer, it could

assume the role of vigilant observer to see that the resettlement work is as humane and

painless as possible and that the environmental aspects are taken due care of."[14]

[edit]People involved

Amongst the major celebrities who have shown their support for Narmada Bachao Andolan

are Booker Prize winner, Arundhati Roy[15] and Aamir Khan.[16]1994, saw the launch of

Narmada:A valley Rises, by filmmaker Ali Kazimi.This film documents the five week long

Sangharsh Yatra of 1991. The film went on to win several awards and is considered by many

to be a classic film on the issue. In 1996, veteran documentary film maker, Anand

Patwardhan, made an award-winning documentary on this issue, titled: 'A Narmada Diary'.[17]

[edit]Criticism

The Narmada dam's benefits include provision of drinking water, power generation and

irrigation facilities. However, the campaign led by the NBA activists has held up the project's

completion, and the NBA supporters have attacked on local people who accepted

compensation for moving.[18] Others have argued that the Narmada Dam protesters are little

more than environmental extremists who use pseudoscientific agitprop to scuttle the

development of the region, and that the dam will provide agricultural benefits to millions of

poor in India.[19][20] There had also been instances when the NBA activists turned violent and

attacked rehabilitation officer from Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA), and

caused damage to the contractor's machineries. [21]

The NBA has also been accused of lying under oath in court about land ownership in areas

affected by the dam. The Supreme Court has mulled perjury charges against the group.[22]

References

1. ̂  "Relevant dates prior to the constitution of the tribunal". Narmada Control Authority. Retrieved

2008-02-10.[dead link]

2. ^ a b c "Relevant dates prior to the constitution of the tribunal". Narmada Valley Development

Authority, Government of Madhya Pradesh. Retrieved 2008-02-10.

3. ̂  Fisher, William (1995). Toward Sustainable Development?: Struggling Over India's Narmada

River. M. E. Sharpe. pp. 157–158. ISBN 1-563243-41-5.

4. ̂  Fisher, William (1995). Toward Sustainable Development?: Struggling Over India's Narmada

River. M. E. Sharpe. pp. 159–160. ISBN 1-563243-41-5.

5. ̂  Fisher, William (1995). Toward Sustainable Development?: Struggling Over India's Narmada

River. M. E. Sharpe. p. 161. ISBN 1-563243-41-5.

6. ^ a b "Medha Patkar: Biography". Women in World History. Retrieved 2008-02-10.

7. ^ a b Fisher, William (1995). Toward Sustainable Development?: Struggling Over India's Narmada

River. M. E. Sharpe. p. 166. ISBN 1-563243-41-5.

8. ^ a b Fisher, William (1995). Toward Sustainable Development?: Struggling Over India's Narmada

River. M. E. Sharpe. p. 23. ISBN 1-563243-41-5.

9. ^ a b c "Medha Patkar: Summary of Achievements". United Nations Environment Program.

Retrieved 2008-02-09.

10. ^ a b "Board Considers Sardar Sarovar Review Panel Recommendations".World Bank. Retrieved

2008-02-09.

11. ^ a b c Miller, Susan. "Narmada dam fails World Bank's final test". New Scientist. Retrieved 2008-

02-09.

12. ^ a b Rowell, Andrew (1996). Green Backlash: Global Subversion of the Environmental Movement.

Routledge. p. 285. ISBN 0-415128-27-7.

13. ̂  "Judgment by the Supreme Court of India". Supreme Court of India, Justice Information System.

Archived from the original on 2008-03-03. Retrieved 2008-04-05.

14. ̂  Shukla, Dinkar. "Verdict on Narmada 2000". Press Information Bureau, Government of India.

Retrieved 2008-04-05.

15. ̂  "Legitimising Narmada Bachao Andolan". The Indian Express. Retrieved 2008-04-05.

16. ̂  Manjeet Warrior, Gajinder Singh. "Aamir faces trial by torch". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2008-04-

05.

17. ̂  "A Narmada Diary". Retrieved 2008-06-13.

18. ̂  Kirk Leech (3 March 2009). "The Narmada dambusters are wrong". The Guardian. Retrieved

2009-03-04.

19. ̂  [1]

20. ̂  Goddesses of all causes. The Telegraph. 7 September 2008.

21. ̂  [2] 08 August 2011

22. ̂  Narmada Bachao Andolan faces perjury charges Economic Times - April 6, 2011

NARMADA BACHAO AANDOLAN

      Introduction: The valley of the river Narmada has been the sea of an uninterrupted flow of

human civilization dating from pre-historic times.. Narmada development plan consist of  

Government's plan to build 30 large, 135 medium and 3000 small dams to harness the waters

of the Narmada and its tributaries which runs for 1,245 km/778 m through western India, to

supply water to irrigate farmland for 30 million people and provide hydroelectric power . If all

of these dams ever get built then the river as we know it will disappear and all that will be left

are a series of lakes.

      Importance: The controversy over large dams on the River Narmada has come to

symbolise the struggle for a just and equitable society in India. Women have taken a leading

role in the movement, including Medha Patkar and the novelist Arundhati Roy. Patkar led non-

violent resistance by the villagers of Manni Belli that resulted in the Indian Supreme Court

halting construction of the Sardar Sarovar dam in 1995. Environmentalists in India and abroad

believe it will lead to the displacement of 300,000 people; disrupt downstream fisheries;

increase the risk of earthquakes; submerge forest land; increase the spread of insect-borne

diseases; and threaten the fragile regional ecosystem through reducing, by two-thirds, the flow

of water from the Narmada into the Arabian Sea. Though the water problems of drought-prone

areas of Gujarat, like Kutch, Saurashtra and North Gujarat   are admittedly real. However given

the nature of the plans for Sardar Sarovar, it will never solve these problems.

      Objective: The proponents of the dam claimed that this plan would provide large amounts

of water and electricity which are desperately required for the purposes of development. But

people believed that the planning of Narmada Valley Development Plan   was unjust and

iniquitous and the cost-benefit analysis was grossly inflated in favour of building the dams.

They also believe that water and energy can be provided to the people of the Narmada Valley,

Gujarat and other regions through alternative technologies and planning processes which can

be socially just and economically and environmentally sustainable. Large dams imply large

budgets for related projects leading to large profits for a small group of people. While they

have delivered only a fraction of their purported benefits, they have had an extremely

devastating effect on the riverine ecosystem and have rendered destitute large numbers of

people.

      Summary: The Narmada Valley Project was first envisaged in the 1940s by India's first

Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. The project mainly involves construction of two huge dams:

the Sardar Sarovar, on the east edge of Gujarat, which will submerge 40,000 hectares of land

and be the world's second largest dam; and the Narmada Sagar, in Madhya Pradesh. There will

be a further 28 large dams, 135 medium ones, and 3,000 small dams, used to channel water

into thousands of miles of irrigation canals. Protest against the project has been coordinated

since the mid-1980s by the Narmada Bachhao Andolan , and was influential in persuading

Japan, in 1990, and the World Bank, in 1993, following an independent review, to end funding

of the project.

      Conclusion: Once one cuts through all the rhetoric, lies and subterfuge of the vested

interests, the gross inequities are clear. Large numbers of poor and underprivileged

communities are being dispossessed of their livelihood and even their ways of living to make

way for dams being built on the basis of incredibly dubious claims of common benefit and

"national interest". The struggle over the river Narmada holds a mirror to our national face and

challenges our commitment to professed ideals of justice, equality and democracy.

NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN

Background

“Big Dams are to a nation’s ‘development’ what nuclear bombs are to its military arsenal.

They’re both weapons of mass destruction.”

- Arundhati Roy

The Narmada River, on which the Indian government plans to build some 3,200 dams, flows

through three states: Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Gujarat. Ninety percent of the river

flows through Madhya Pradesh; it skirts the northern border of Maharashtra, then flows

through Gujarat for about 180 kilometers before emptying into the Arabian Sea at Bharuch.

Plans for damming the river at Gora in Gujarat surfaced as early as 1946. In fact, Prime

Minister Jawaharlal Nehru laid the foundation for a 49.8-meter-high dam in 1961. After

studying the new maps the dam planners decided that a much larger dam would be more

profitable. The only problem was hammering out an agreement with neighboring states

(Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra). In 1969, after years of negotiations attempting to agree

on a feasible water-sharing formula, the Indian government established the Narmada Water

Disputes Tribunal. Ten years later, it announced its award. “The Narmada Water Disputes

Tribunal Award states that land should be made available to the oustees at least one year in

advance before submergence” (www.narmada.org/sardarsarovar.html).

Before the Ministry of the Environment even cleared the Narmada Valley Development Projects

in 1987, the World Bank sanctioned a loan for $450 million for the largest dam, the Sardar

Sarovar, in 1985. In actuality, construction on the Sardar Sarovar dam site had continued

sporadically since 1961, but began in earnest in 1988. Questions arose concerning the

promises about resettlement and rehabilitation programs set up by the government, so by

1986 each state had a people’s organization that addressed these concerns. Soon, these

groups came together to form the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), or, the Save the Narmada

Movement.

In 1988, the NBA formally called for all work on the Narmada Valley Development Projects to

be stopped. In September 1989, more than 50,000 people gathered in the valley from all over

India to pledge to fight “destructive development.” A year later thousands of villagers walked

and boated to a small town in Madhya Pradesh to reiterate their pledge to drown rather than

agree to move from their homes. Under intense pressure, the World Bank was forced to create

an independent review committee, the Morse Commission, which published the Morse Report

(a.k.a. Independent Review) in 1992. The report “endorsed all the main concerns raised by the

Andolan [NBA]”. In author Arundhati Roy’s opinion “It is the most balanced, unbiased, yet

damning indictment of the relationship between the Indian State and the World Bank.” Two

months later, the Bank sent out the Pamela Cox Committee. It suggested exactly what the

Morse Report advised against: “a sort of patchwork remedy to try and salvage the operation”

(Roy 45-46). Eventually, due to the international uproar created by the Report, the Bank

withdrew from the Sardar Sarovar Project. In response, the Gujarati government decided to

raise $200 million and push ahead with the project.

While the Independent Review was being written and also after it was published confrontations

between villagers and authorities continued in the valley. After continued protests by the NBA

the government charged yet another committee, the Five Member Group (FMG), to review the

SSP. The FMG’s report endorsed the Morse Report’s concerns but it made no difference.

Following a writ petition by the NBA in 1994 calling for a comprehensive review of the project,

the Supreme Court of India stopped construction of the Sardar Sarovar dam in 1995. Tension in

the area dissipated but soon the NBA’s attention shifted to two other Big Dams in Madhya

Pradesh – the Narmada Sagar and the Maheshwar. Though these dams were nowhere near

their projected heights their impacts on the environment and the people of the valley were

already apparent. The government’s resettlement program for the displaced natives

“continues to be one of callousness and broken promises” (Roy 51). In 1999, however, the

Supreme Court allowed for the dam’s height to be raised to 88 meters (from 80 meters when

building was halted in 1995). In October 2000, the Supreme Court issued a judgement to allow

immediate construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam to 90 meters. In addition, it allowed for the

dam to be built up to its originally planned height of 138 meters. These decrees have “come

from the Court despite major unresolved issues on resettlement, the environment, and the

project’s costs and benefits”

Strategies

“This July will bring the last monsoon of the twentieth century. The ragged army in the

Narmada valley has declared that it will not move when the waters of the Sardar Sarovar

reservoir rise to claim its lands and homes.” - Arundhati Roy

With activist Medha Patkar to lead them, the Narmada Bachao Andolan began mobilizing

massive marches and rallies against the Narmada Valley Development Project, and especially

the largest, the Sardar Sarovar, in 1985. Although the protests were peaceful, Patkar and

others were often beaten and arrested by police. Following the formation of the NBA in 1986,

fifty thousand people gathered in the valley from all over India to pledge to fight “destructive

development” in 1989. In 1990, thousands of villagers made their way by boat and foot to a

small town in Madhya Pradesh in defense of their pledge to drown in the reservoir waters

rather than move from their homes. Later that year on Christmas day an army of six thousand

men and women accompanied a seven-member sacrificial squad in walking more than a

hundred kilometers. The sacrificial squad had resolved to lay down its lives for the river. A little

over a week later the squad announced an indefinite hunger strike. This was the first of three

fasts and lasted twenty-two days. It almost killed Ms. Patkar, along with many others.

The NBA has also taken a more diplomatic approach to getting through to the government.

They have submitted written representations (complaints) to government officials such as the

Grievance Redressal Committee, the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam, the President, and the

Minister of Social Justice and Environment Maneka Gandhi. More often than not, their voice

goes unheard and unacknowledged

solution

No one has ever managed to make the World Bank step back from a project before. Least of all

a ragtag army of the

poorest people in one of the world’s poorest countries.” - Arundhati Roy

The demonstrations, protests, rallies, hunger strikes, blockades, and written representations

by Narmada Bachao Andolan have all made an impact on the direction of the movement to

stop the building of large and small dams along the Narmada. Media attention from these

events has taken the issues from a local level to a more national scale. The NBA was an

integral force in forcing the World Bank to withdraw its loan from the projects by pressuring

the Bank with negative media attention.

Social mobilisation, for various reasons, has been popular in india from the period of 1970s.

The broader aim of these movements was development of society. Some of the well-known

movements that took place in india are : Chipko movement, Narmada Bachao Andolan, Koel

Karo, Chattisgarh Mukti Morcha, Jhola Andolan, the movement supporting Anna Hazare, etc.

These movements distanced themselves from politics or political parties. In this blog, i will take

up the detailed case study of the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA).

      Narmada Bachao Andolan(NBA) is a social movement consisting of farmers, adivasis,

environmentalists, activists protesting against the implementation of the Sardar Sarovar

Project(SSP) on the river Narmada. Some of the debatable charcteristics of the SSP

were :Provision of irrigation and electricity facilities to the economically prosperous and

politically powerful regions of South and Central Gujarat, while displacing politically marginal

Adivasi subsistence peasants in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. For facts, adivasis

constitute only 8% of the total national population, but they represent 40% of the people who

were displaced by construction of dams in india since 1947.

In India large infrastructure projects have been seen as an important component of the

development strategy since independence. This includes construction of heavy industries,

mega-dams and large-scale creation of infrastructure. Large infrastructure projects in the form

of dams over the rivers have always been considered to provide power and irrigation benefits

to the areas, which suffer from the problem of underdevelopment.

With the similar objective of speeding up the process of development, idea of tapping the

waters of river Narmada, which is the largest river of peninsula India, flowing through three

states of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat, was conceived and consequently of the

Narmada Valley Project to execute the same.[1] Narmada Valley Project is a scheme to use the

water of river for irrigation, electricity generation and domestic water consumption.[2] This

project is a massive and the biggest single valley project till date in India and consists of 30

major dams, 135 medium dams and 3,000 minor dams to be constructed on the basin of the

river.[3] It is hoped that the almost 50 lakh hectares of land will be irrigated by this project,

which will include a considerable part of Gujarat drought-prone areas and the rest of Madhya

Pradesh and Rajasthan.[4] It is also expected of the project that it will generate an installed

power capacity of the 3,830 MW.[5] Some 1.15 crore people in the villages and many more in

the cities are also supposed to get benefit out of this project.[6]

The Narmada Valley Project has been in controversy right since its inception. The dispute has

been with regard to sharing of benefits and costs between Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya

Pradesh. Then in 1969 to resolve the dispute Narmada Water Dispute Tribunal was constituted.

This gave its award after 10 years, which consisted of certain compromises between the State

of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. Award of the National Water Dispute Tribunal   is the basis on

which the work is carried out on the dam until today. This decided the height of the full

reservoir of the dam, determined the shares of the water that each state would be entitled to.

The award also dealt with the issues of displacement and resettlement.[7]

However the problem arises due to its inadequate planning and implementing scheme. The

project will entail large-scale exploitation of resources, submerging of an enormous area of

37,000 hectares of land[8] including forests and agricultural land as a natural consequence of

construction of dam.[9] Another biggest problem apart from the environmental aspect is of

displacement of as many as one million people, which has a large number of culturally diverse

people and peasant communities.[10]

Full form of this plan has started to be appearing only from late 1980’s.[11] It was around this

time that a 30-year old social activist and researcher reached the Narmada valley to study the

villages to be submerged by the Sardar Sarovar Dam. As she went ahead with her work, she

got so horrified by the whole plan that she soon left her survey and joined the activists who

were already working upon securing fair compensation for dam ‘oustees’. For next few years

she travelled on foot, by bus and boat throughout nearly 200-kilometers-long submergence

zone to urge the people to organise themselves to ask the government for their rights. Over a

period of time she managed to build the trust of many a local people and also happened to

have attracted a committed group of young people, which included engineers, social workers

and journalist to come to the valley. Then in early 1986, the activists and Maharashtra villagers

constituted the ‘Narmada Dharangrast Samiti’ who refused to co-operate with dam officials

and even to move out of their villages. [12]

Name of that courageous woman was Medha Patkar.

By 1987-88 she and other activists who had joined her earlier in her campaign in Maharashtra

and then in Madhya Pradesh and laid the foundations of what we know today as Narmada

Bachao Andolan. As an organisation, the NBA was formed only in 1989 through the merging of

various other similar kinds of movements which were formed to improve the resettlement

policies such as Narmada Ghati Navnirman Samiti, Narmada Dharangrast Samit and the

Narmada Asargrahstha Sanghrsh Samiti.

Slowly with the help of national press coverage and awareness support for the Narmada

activists mounted nationwide.[13]

Narmada Bachao Andolan has increasingly become one of the largest non-violent groups in the

world. This is also popularly known as voice of the hundreds of thousands of people who are

losing their land and livelihoods to large dams on the Narmada river.[14] This Andolan includes

mainly the issues of ecological imbalances and the issues of rehabilitation and resettlement of

displaced people apart from other issues.[15] Narmada Bachao Andolan since its formation has

conducted various ambitious campaigns, as a consequence of that they have faced far more

intense opposition and severe repression in comparison with the earlier civic initiatives. It must

also be remembered that their objective which in the starting was merely to get a fair

resettlement package for those who were being displaced has also undergone a change and

now they started even opposing the whole plan.[16]

Every year to make way for various developmental projects about five lakhs of people have

been displaced as a direct consequence of land acquisition.[17] According to the Government,

the Sardar Sarovar Project when completed will affect approximately 245 villages (40,000

families) in three states.[18] This must be noted that this data doesn’t give the true picture of

displaced people because the construction of Sardar Sarovar Project includes a series of other

associated projects such as immense canal network etc. and the Government has taken none

of this into account while calculating the Project Affected Persons. According to Narmada

Bachao Andolan approximately 85,000 families in all will be displaced by the completion of the

project.[19] Problem is further aggravated by the fact that most of the displaced are from

tribal group.[20] The tribal communities who are the major victims of the displacement, by and

large don’t have any highly stratified social structure.[21] Land, cattle etc. are collectively

owned by the community among tribals.[22] Therefore it becomes more difficult to calculate

the actual loss that the displacement would cause.

With regard to the policy measure to be adopted by the state for the resettlement of the

displaced, the National Water Dispute Tribunal for rehabilitation called for allotment of the

agricultural land only if the project affected families lost 25% or more of agricultural land.[23]

However this policy of ‘land for land’ has not been much of a success because the land that is

being offered to Sardar Sarovar oustees is either of unproductive quality or of inferior and also

there is no criterion to judge the or assess the quality of land.[24]

According to Madhya Pradesh Government policy for rehabilitation the sons are not eligible for

land compensation if it has not been divided among heirs. The problem is that in practice such

partition is not done until the person in whose name the land is held dies. Therefore according

to the government records they don’t have any claim on getting land for land.[25] Going a step

ahead now the Madhya Pradesh government has even refused to give any ‘land for land’ and it

offers cash compensation, which has categorically been forbidden by Narmada Dispute

Tribunal Award.[26]

This also doesn’t take in to account a host of communities, which lived in the basins of

Narmada river and earned their livelihood by fishing ferrying etc.[27]

Even those who have been resettled due to the Sardar Sarovar Project are facing a great

hardship because there are no grazing lands, no firewood. Village, communities and even

certain families have been split up among many resettlement sites. The little involuntary

resettlement whatever has happened has also resulted in the erasure of their cultural spaces

because the people who lived beside the Narmada for generations felt a deep sense of

attachment to the particulars of the landscape. [28]

The above picturisation of the problem is not peculiar to the Narmada Valley Development

Project but it is the general attitude of the State towards the problem of such powerless

people. If we look at the Hirakud Dam oustees they also have not yet been rehabilitated till

now, they have just been the victims of development.[29]

Therefore it can safely be said that the state has miserably failed to take into account the

multitudes of the problems, which are being faced by the so-called victims of development.

Apart from the failure of the state to provide to any other workable solution it has also adopted

the method of oppression against those who don’t accept its grossly unjust package of

resettlement. This is evident by the statement of Morarji Desai where at a public meeting he

said “We will request you to move from your houses after the dam comes up. If you move it

will be good. Otherwise we shall release the waters and drown you all.”[30]

As a result of the growing apathetic attitude of the state, Narmada Bachao Andolan filed a

petition in 1994 in another wing of the state, which claims itself to be the protector of

fundamental rights of its citizens and to provide justice to all.

SARDAR SAROVAR PROJECT AND THE JUDGEMENT

Prashant Bhushan on behalf of the Narmada Bachao Andolan filed the petition in 1994. In its

petition it raised questions regarding rehabilitation and environment, which formed essential

requisites of the right to life, which is guaranteed by article 21 of the Constitution. It urged

before the court that the dam construction should not go on because the relief and

rehabilitation of the oustees as per the Tribunal’s Award had not been made. [31] The court

first dealt with the scope of the NBA petition and then decided to restrict it to relief and

rehabilitation issue only.[32]

During the course of the judgement the majority though indicates that it would deal with the

fundamental rights of the oustees and it should not deal with any other issue than the

problems arising out of displacement of human beings but in actual it gives more emphasis

upon the technical aspects.[33] This judgement never fully discusses the issue of the

fundamental rights but unnecessarily deals with the issues of the usefulness of dams.

Interestingly Justice B N Kirpal who writes for himself and CJI A S Anand while recognizing the

implications of the displacement of the people and showing his empathy towards such people

wrote

it is not fair that tribals and the people in un-developed villages should continue in the same

condition without ever enjoying the fruits of science and technology for better health and have

a higher quality of life style. Should they not be encouraged to seek greener pastures

elsewhere, if they can have access to it, either through their own efforts due to information

exchange or due to outside compulsions. It is with this object in view that the R&R plans, which

are developed, are meant to ensure that those who move must be better off in the new

locations at Government cost. In the present case, the R&R packages of the States, specially of

Gujarat, are such that the living conditions of the oustees will be much better than what they

had in their tribal hamlets.[34]

By which probably he means that by displacing the people it is actually doing a favour to them

and helping to bring them in the mainstream society.[35] Court here said that it would not go

into the wisdom of having big dams because that was a matter of policy but later surprisingly

the majority praised big dams for their contribution to the agricultural and other progress of

India.[36]

The majority judgment then dismissed the objections raised by NBA regarding rehabilitation

and environment by depending on the affidavits which were given by the state governments

and directed to complete the project as expeditiously as possible.[37]

This judgement disappointed the human rights activists who were hoping for the closer

scrutiny of the project and a sensitised approach towards human rights.[38]

Court during the course of its verdict emphasises that the national interest should have the

overriding priority[39] but the real question is whether any national interest is actually being

served by the construction of the dam or not.

The biggest problem with the supposed benefits of the dam is that they are being exaggerated

by the state and no one seems to know what the reality is. According to Baba Amte a massive

misinformation campaign is being launched by the state government to suppress the actual

information. The Sardar Sarovar dam, which is being advertised as the life-line of Gujarat and

the solution of all the drought-prone areas of Saurashtra, the truth is that 81% of water-starved

talukas in Saurashtra will not get any water from the Sardar Sarovar Project. Even two-third of

the Gujarat’ s drought-prone area will not be benefited by the project.[40]

Other people also argue that the construction of the Project at the cost of such a huge

displacement of human beings, destruction of artistic tradition especially the paintings of

Narmada Man, historical monuments, archaeological sites, approximate 1,00,000 year old

alluvial deposits, which help to study the past climatic nature can not be said to be beneficial

at all.[41]

Thus it is evident from the above discussion that the Project serves no national interest but

only of those powerful modernised people at the cost of so called underdeveloped or adivasi

people. This further raises the theoretical question of determining the extent of their being

politically obligated to the state and that of various other people also who are whether directly

or indirectly being affected by the project or not.

After having brought forth in the preceding chapter the apathetic attitude of the State, this

chapter would explore various theoretical issues of political obligations of those who are being

displaced, of Narmada Bachao Andolan and of others.

Subscribing to Graeme Duncan’s idea of political obligation in the case of Narmada displaced

people who are so-called citizens of democratic India who have given their laws unto

themselves are not obligated to obey the law just because they had a role to play in the

formation of laws.[43] In country like India it is agreed that every time participatory democracy

in the form of direct participation is not possible however wherever people are getting affected

directly by the decisions of the state, they must at least be consulted. In the present case

when the Narmada Valley Plan was made no such effort to know the opinion of the affected

people was ever made. On the contrary states have passed the Official Secrets Act[44] under

which no information regarding the project was made available to the public.

Before we proceed further; it is essential to know that political obligation is the relationship

between authority and the citizen.[45] So first it becomes necessary to examine that whether

State has any authority or not to exercise over its citizens. For this taking the view of M C

Murphy, state derives its authority by ascertaining whether one has surrendered its judgement

or not.[46] For this in the present context it can very well be assumed that the goal of people

of Narmada Valley and the State is one i.e. development. However both of them had never

been able to arrive to a minimally acceptable solution for the furtherance of their common

goal. State here had adopted the idea of displacement of valley people, which was never

accepted, to them. Therefore state has no authority in imposing its decisions over the affected

people. Hence no obligation lies on the part of the displaced to obey the state.

Again the problem that arises in the present context is that the whole concept of development

inevitably includes benefits and losses. And to proceed with the work of development state

acquires properties of individuals or group/s in the name of public good. However as is evident

from the discussion in the preceding chapters that interest of displaced who are by and large

so called underdeveloped people and those of urbanised, modern people who will benefit from

the project are at crossheads. Therefore the common good now changes to greater common

good.[47] This implies that the common good of certain sections of society is put over and

above of certain other sections of society. The state in the present case has ceased to be

representative of all sections of society and has reduced to represent interests of merely elite

sections of society.

So the question arises – a state, which doesn’t keep the notions of equality always in mind

while making the decisions how obligated people of that polity should be to the state.

Also there lies discrimination among those who are being displaced and between displaced

and beneficiaries. Vast majority of people who will derive benefits out of this project are not

paying anything. All the necessary sacrifices are being made by only one-section of society.

Even the people, who are sacrificing or are being forced to do so, are not treated equally.

Madhya Pradesh has admitted before the court that it cannot give any land to displacees

Further for G Duncan the polity must be participatory where people have say in the policy-

making, to be politically obligated.[48] In the case of Narmada Valley project, people are being

thrown out of their homes; their culture is being destroyed against their will, short of having

any say in the policymaking. This is a classic case of top-down decision-making policy.

According to Bikhu Parekh, the political obligation is owed to one’s own fellow citizens, to

participate in the conduct of public affairs and to highlight the prevailing injustices in the

society.[49] An obligation to obey the law, according to him, would not be a political obligation.

A political obligation would be one which had a wider scope, for instance, an obligation to help

improve the quality of collective life and to create conditions which are conducive for other

citizens to exercise their rights.[50]

Subscribing to the above idea it is crystal clear that Narmada Bachao Andolan in this respect

have been carrying out its mandate in terms of political obligation. This Andolan has with the

help of press, media, dharnas, rallies been successful in attracting the attention of not only of

people living in India but those of abroad. This Andolan is no more limited to get fair

resettlement package for oustees of Sardar Sarovar Project but has posed a great question

mark upon the wisdom of such multi-purpose dams or development project. Another angle to

the issue of political obligation, looking from Parekh’s perspective is that the obligations of

highly educated, well-off people like Arundhati Roy who is as much as a public figure also, is

much more than that of an ordinary citizen. They owe greater obligation towards the masses

than any one else.

This is what Medha Patkar and other activists of the NBA are doing. Their actions are a result of

their awareness of being members of a community, rather than as members of a polity.

Till now the philosophy of Narmada Bachao Andolan of dubenge par hatenge nahin has been of

more of Gandhian kind of civil disobedience. However subscribing to G Duncan, who says that

the form in which a person can dissent should depend upon the situation and if needed even

assassination is justifiable, I would say that to counter the cruel attitude of the state which is

using all its force and laws to suppress the movement, and where the attitude of ministers is

like “the dam will be built and if necessary we will call army”[51] I would even go to the extent

to say that if necessary, Narmada valley people should not even hesitate to use other means

to fight for their just cause.

CONCLUSION

Thus, it is evident from the forgoing discussion that given the needs of our society, it is true

that all the development projects cannot be brought to halt however it has become imperative

to put much more thought into the planning process, so that displacement can be kept to the

absolute minimum. Wherever the situation like Narmada valley project arises, where the

development would inevitably cause displacement of people in general and tribals in particular

from their ancestral homes, it would not be advisable for the state to adhere to the kind of

apathetic attitude to which it has stuck till now.

Developmental projects and dams arte taken up for the generation of income, power,

employment, improvement of living standards of people but on the contrary if communities

uprooted from their traditional places are not rehabilitated properly, this raises the question of

what kind of development and for whose development the state is pursuing its policies.

Though the story of innumerable lives, various cultures, various homes, different communities

can not be concluded in a few words nevertheless, the barbaric attitude, adopting to which the

state has been acting as an agent of elite, modern sections of society, delegitimises its

authority and gives the impression of it being of Marxian state in the 21st century which has

alienated itself from the people, which in turn, gives right to people for not being obligated to it

and to express their dissent.

Medha Patkar - A Leader of the Underprivileged..!

By Ankita Das

Published on 30 th Jul, 2011 

Medha Patkar is best known for her great leadership in Narmada Bachao Andolan. The

Narmada Bachao Andolan is a non governmental organization that mobilized tribal people,

farmers and adivasis against the Sardar Sarovar Dam built across the river Narmada. 

Medha Patkar was born on December 1, 1954 in Mumbai. She did her M.A. in Social Work from

Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS).

The Sardar Sarovar project is an ambitious project to put up several enormous dams on

Narmada River in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra to send water to Gujarat. Medha Patkar

got involved in this movement when she and her colleagues took a tour to the Narmada Valley

in 1980s. She was upset after looking at the poor conditions of people who were going to be

affected by the dam.

In 1986, Medha organized a 36 day long march from Madhya Pradesh to the dam site. The

marchers had to endorse a strict ideological commitment to non violence and also follow

Satyagraha. As Medha Patkar and other marchers reached Gujarat, they were violently

attacked by the police. The march brought everyone’s attention to the Sardar Sarovar Project.

Later Medha Patkar formed Narmada Bachao Andolan in 1989. The main goal of this

movement was to provide the residents in the Narmada valley with access to the project

information and legal representation and stopping the Sardar Sarovar Project. Medha and her

team found that the project’s financier, World Bank was aware of the project’s disadvantages

but was going ahead with the funding. 

Medha Patkar and her team then started the practice of Dharna and were able to succeed in

withdrawing the World Bank’s endorsement of the Sardar Sarovar Project in 1993. Yet their

celebration was short lived as India’s government announced that it would increase its

financial assistance to the project.

In 1995 the Supreme Court decided to ban the Sardar Sarovar Project realizing the damage it

may cause to the people living in the valley. But unfortunately in 1999, the Supreme Court

lifted the ban on the dam project and allowed for another dam height increase. This resulted in

heavy floods in the Narmada valley area.

To protest, Medha Patkar and her colleagues decided to stay in the submerged in the area.

They had to stay submerged for almost 12 hours before they were taken into police custody.

Unfortunately, for the farmers and adivasis of the Narmada valley the Sardar Sarovar dam has

been completed rendering almost all of them homeless and devoid of any occupation. Very

little attention has been paid to rehabilitation of these poor people. Currently the Narmada

Valley Development project includes a goal of 30 major, 135 medium and 3000 small dams to

be built on the Narmada River.

Medha Patkar has won several awards for her work in the Narmada Bachao Andolan, such as

the Goldman Environment award in 1991 and 1992, the Right Lively award, the Green Ribbon

award and the Human Rights Defender’s award.

Today Medha Patkar continues to fight for the poor, underprivileged villagers, adivasis, and

farmers across the country. She is the ray of hope for them against the mindless

“development” work the country undertakes.

Foreign direct investment (FDI) has become an integral part of national development strategies for almost all countries globally. In view of its global popularity and positive impact on productivity and employment, FDI has played an important role in India as well. Due to a surge in FDI inflows in recent years, its share in gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) increased to over 8% in 2008-09 as compared to an average of 3.6% between 1999-2000 and 2004-05 in India. The role played by FDI in the private corporate sector investment is even more significant, whose share in 2007-08 stood at over 20% as against less than 1% in the early nineties.FDI, in many ways, has enabled India to achieve a greater degree of financial stability. As per RBI estimates, the current account deficit (CAD) is expected to touch 2.5% of GDP this fiscal as against the earlier projected 3.5%. However,... financing the CAD has lately emerged as a major risk and concern for policymakers. Although capital inflows (FDI + FII) have been sufficient to finance the CAD so far, its dominant component is FIIs, which, by nature, are volatile and cannot be relied upon. Therefore, RBI in both its third quarter review of 2010-11 and in the mid-quarter policy review of March 2011 has stressed the need to alter the composition of the capital inflows towards FDI.Foreign investment is currently permitted in virtually every sector, except those of strategic importance such as defence (opened up recently to a limited extent) and rail transport, but there are sectoral ownership restrictions. For example, in the financial services sector, foreign capital participation in local banks is limited to 74 % and in insurance companies to 26%. Similarly, with the exception of certain activities specified by law, foreign ownership in agriculture is not... allowed.

Despite the opening up of its economy in 1991, India received only $5-6 billion FDI till 2004-

05 due to a fairly restrictive FDI policy. But the policy regime changed in February 2006 and

FDI inflow into India has accelerated since. In fact, FDI inflows remained resilient even

during the global financial crisis as India received $37.8 billion in 2008-09 and $37.7 billion in

2009-10. However, FDI (April-January) in the current fiscal so far appears to have lost

momentum and reached only $22 billion. Although it may be difficult to pinpoint the reason

for this sudden drop in FDI inflow, there are issues with regard to current policy as also with

setting up new business in India that often make FDI inflow cumbersome, notwithstanding

the growth potential of the economy.

Opening the economy to FDI and allowing foreign ownership is a necessary but not sufficient

condition to attract FDI. If... a liberal FDI policy is all that is important then the Eastern

European and Central Asian countries, which have the most open policies towards foreign

investors, should be attracting huge volumes of FDI. However, East Asian countries have a

better track record in attracting FDI than the Eastern European and Central Asian countries.

The effectiveness of an FDI policy depends, to a large extent, on the environment within

which it operates. A liberal FDI policy in a poor investment climate with high transaction costs

is most likely to be ineffective. Therefore, factors like market size, infrastructure quality,

respect for the law of the land, well functioning institutions, macroeconomic stability, growth

potential, etc, play an equally important role in attracting FDI. Clearly, investor confidence on

some of these factors with respect to India has eroded lately and may perhaps be the reason

for the drop in FDI this fiscal. However, a fundamental shortcoming of the FDI policy pursued

so far in India is that it does not have a strategic focus and is open for all. By contrast, China

by keeping the spotlight on a low-cost manufacturing base for exports and development of

related infrastructure and facilitation followed a focussed approach to attract FDI. Not having

an export focus also meant that FDI into the manufacturing sector in India has mostly not

been of an export-oriented variety that leverages India’s labour cost arbitrage. Since the

business rationale of FDI into India has largely been driven by the desire to profit from India’s

domestic market and its rising middle class, a large proportion of FDI into manufacturing in

India till lately has been of ‘tariff jumping variety’, which means setting up manufacturing

facilities in India mainly to avoid high Indian import tariffs. This, nevertheless, expanded..

the range of products available to Indian domestic consumers.

Also the FDI policy pursued so far does not appear to indicate that investment incentives

given to FDI are close to what the government offers to its own residents. It has been

observed that if policies are over-friendly to FDI while the transaction costs (including tax and

regulatory) of investments are high for domestic firms, then it can prove to be counter-

productive, leading to ‘round-tripping’ (i.e., where domestic investors route their investment

through a foreign country to avail the policy benefits of FDI). Both India and China have

witnessed sizeable FDI inflows that can be classified as round-tripping.

A significant proportion of FDI coming from Mauritius to India is of the round-tripping variety due to a treaty on avoidance of double taxation between India and Mauritius. According to the world investment report of UNCTAD, round-tripping accounts for nearly 20-30% of the

total... FDI in China. Some estimates put it at about 50%. Clearly, evidence of round-tripping is an indication of shortcomings in the FDI policy sphere.

A comparative analysis shows that India has a more liberal FDI regime than China. Yet,

China attracts considerably more FDI than India. One of the important reasons for this

anomaly is that India continues to be one of the highest transaction cost economies in the

world. Here again, if one compares the ease of setting up a business by a foreign entity, then

India scores over China.

According to the World Bank study

Investing Across Boarders 2010, while it takes 18 procedures and 99 days to set up a

foreign-owned limited liability company in China, it takes 16 procedures and only 46 days to

do the same in India. Also, the Chinese approval process is not an easy one and includes

both national and regional approval quite... similar to India. So where is the difference? While

in China, both national and regional approval is one process, in India federal approval and

state/local approval are two different processes and this often leads to projects getting

bogged down in red tape and bureaucracy, leading to higher transaction costs. As a

consequence, India actually receives much less FDI than what the federal government

approves.

Is there a way out? After attracting a healthy FDI inflow of $35 billion and above for three

consecutive years, the FDI inflow so far in the current fiscal looks out of sync with previous

years. There are no readymade prescriptions to boost FDI inflow into the country. However,

there are three areas that, if addressed adequately, will improve the FDI investment climate.

Develop a strategic focus for FDI. Reduce the procedural delays; improve the infrastructure

and trade facilitation to cut down the high transaction cost.... Finally, remove the existing

restriction on FDI inflows into the SME sector.

New Delhi: India Inc today appeared to be divided on allowing FDI in multi-brand retail, an issue which has rocked Parliament and drawn stiff opposition from UPA ally Trinamool Congress.

While FICCI extended an all-out support to the government, CII recommended "a calibrated

approach for introducing FDI in the retail sector in terms of the percentage and minimum

capitalisation requirements".

Addressing a press conference, FICCI Secretary General Rajiv Kumar said opening of the

retail sector would create big employment opportunities in the country.

Without naming, he said those industry associations which are opposing the foreign direct

investment in multi-brand retail have a vested interest.

"This is just a fear that has been created for some vested interest. FDI in retail will be a

game-changer like telecom. I see only positive impact on employment," he said.

CII, on the other hand, said while it "strongly supports the introduction of FDI in multi-brand retail trading, it recommends a calibrated approach for introducing FDI in the retail sector in terms of the percentage and minimum capitalisation requirements".

Kumar said the associations which are raising concerns that global retail chains like Walmart

and Tesco would wipe out mom-and-pop stores are following a "politically motivated

argument".

Some traders' associations are arguing that about 40 million employed in this sector would

loose their earnings because of opening of big foreign retail stores.

"In fact, foreign stores will generate employment and that will be higher quality employment.

Small stores would also increase their employment to compete with the big retailers," he

said...

New Delhi: Amid opposition by UPA constituents including the Trinamool Congress and DMK, the cabinet today approved 51 per cent foreign direct investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail, and removed the cap of 51 per cent in single-brand retail.

Some Congress ministers too were said to have expressed reservations, but Commerce and

Industry Minister Anand Sharma, who was strongly backed by Finance Minister Pranab

Mukherjee, finally had his way.

Sharma argued forcefully that allowing FDI in multi-brand retail would benefit farmers,

sources said. Mukherjee was said to have argued that it would strengthen rural

infrastructure. A comprehensive strategy was in place to protect local interests, Mukherjee

said.

Railway Minister Dinesh Trivedi of the Trinamool complained that his party chief Mamata

Banerjee had not been consulted. Sharma was said to have countered that she had actually

been briefed on it. Sharma went to Pragati Maidan today to meet Banerjee, who was at the

trade fair..

DMK’s M K Azhagiri too raised objections, but the Trinamool was the most vociferous,

sources present at the cabinet meeting said. Amid arguments about the pros and cons of the

move, Trivedi was told that opposition by one state government could not be allowed to

deprive others who were in favour.

In the evening, Banerjee said that the Trinamool would oppose the Companies Bill — which

too was cleared at the cabinet meeting — inside and outside Parliament.

Earlier, Congress spokesman Manish Tewari said the party would spell out its stance after

the government took a decision. But the party has come around to supporting the move, said

a senior leader.

“The party has realised now that there are not enough resources to be ploughed into back-

end infrastructure and all bottlenecks to FDI in this sector have to be removed,” the

Congress leader said.

Several Congress ministers like A K Antony, Vyalar Ravi... and Jairam Ramesh were said to have reservations about 51 per cent FDI in multi-brand retail — Jairam seeking a 49 per cent cap to begin with. But the Prime Minister and most others were of the opinion that reforms needed to be accelerated.

The commerce minister is likely to make a statement on the cabinet’s decision in Parliament

tomorrow. The ministry will then notify it in due course, sources said.

Today’s decision makes 53 cities eligible to have large international retail outlets....

 Given how allowing 51% FDI in multi-brand retail is one of the biggest reform measures the government has taken in a long time (the Pension Bill needs Parliament’s approval), it would be a pity if a Mamata Banerjee is allowed to scuttle it. Since the pressure to retract will mount, including from a series of strikes by kirana owners, it’s a good idea to debunk some myths.Take the kiranas-will-die one first. If Indian GDP grows 15% a year, that takes GDP from $1.8tn today to around $7.3tn in a decade; that takes the share of retail from $470bn today to $1.9tn. If, as projected, the share of organised retail grows from 6% today to 20%, that still leaves enough room for kiranas to grow at over 13% a year. The 20% market share,

needless to say, is the stuff of consultants’ dreams, the same consultants who projected a 16% market... share for organised retail today! Keep in mind there is very little space in markets in most residential districts of large cities where 51%-FDI retailers can go—given annual retail sales of around R6,000 per square foot, India needs around 500-550mn sq feet of additional

retail space each year, but what gets created is a fraction of this. Naturally, rentals are sky

high, around 40-50% of revenues against a 6-8% that modern retailers can afford.

It’s also important to keep in mind that mom-n-pop outfits are not as consumer-friendly as is believed. Sure, they often sell on credit, have home delivery, and offer customised service—which is why they’ve survived while organised retailers who still haven’t figured out what store formats work best, have shut down 3,000 outlets in the last 3 years, including Subhiksha, which went out of business. But, compare wholesale and retail prices of fruits and vegetables, and a 70-80%...difference is common—by cutting into the number of intermediaries, organised retail will deliver a better deal; buying directly from farmers will reduce their wastage loss, and can raise farm incomes by 25-30%. And, in any case, it is hypocritical to allow a Reliance or a Pantaloon, an ITC or a Bharti Easy Day while wanting to stop a Walmart or a Carrefour—to the extent they’ll hit kiranas, so will big Indian retailers.

But all of this is in the future since realising the savings dream will take a while as getting

state government permissions and necessary real estate takes a long time, and retail is not a

business that scales quickly since what works in one locality doesn’t work in another. To the

extent a cold-chain infrastructure is required, a Reliance cannot be expected to build an all-

India one, nor can a Bharti or an ITC. As happens the world over,.. this is done by third-party

vendors—but they won’t come in unless they have enough big clients … Retail FDI has

game-changer potential over the long-run. It would be sad to let a Mamatadi scuttle this....

 A rider in the multi-brand FDI policy which mandates 30 per cent sourcing by retail chains

like Walmart from the micro and small enterprises (MSEs) may be more helpful to the

Chinese rather than Indians, industry fears.

Small industries have raised serious concerns over the fine prints of the controversial policy,

which gives liberty to the foreign players to source 30 per cent of their requirements from

MSEs anywhere in the world. The fear is more with regard to China with which India is

already running a huge trade deficit of $20 billion (about Rs 1.05 lakh crore) as Chinese

goods are pre-dominant in the Indian markets.

"China has done nuisance for us. And after this (the FDI policy) it will become more difficult

for us," President of Federation of Indian Small and Medium Enterprises (FISME) V K

Aggarwal said.

He said that the issue had come up in the meetings of Planning Commission with the

industry, where it was stressed that India should seek FDI in multi-brand retail on its own

terms and model like the Chinese have done to foreign investors.

"This (the policy) has come as a shock to us. It makes no sense at all. Indian government is

not supposed to take care of the MSEs of entire world," Aggarwal said. In the Cabinet

decision of November 24, the overseas players have to do 30 per cent of their sourcing from

MSEs which however "can be done from anywhere in the world and is not India specific".

The only condition is that these MSEs must not have more than $1 million (Rs 5 crore)

investment in plant and machinery - in line with the Indian MSME Act. However, the

government has said that the language of the policy has been framed in such a way that it

should not violate India's WTO obligations.

Experts, requesting anonymity, agreed saying if the MSEs sourcing was restricted to India, it

would be violative of the Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) agreement and Most

Favoured Nation (MFN) obligations of the World Trade

Organisation (WTO).

R P Singh, who recently retired as Secretary in the Department of Industrial Policy and

Promotion (DIPP) said: "technically they (foreign retail chains) can source from China and

sell here".

But measures like anti-dumping duties are available to check flooding of the imported goods,

Singh said. Secretary in Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) Radha Krishna

Mathur said, "It would be premature to comment".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Amidst criticism over allowing 51% FDI in multi-brand retail, commerce and industry minister Anand Sharma on Saturday said the new policy is “distinct and different” and keeps the interest of small retailers into consideration.

“The FDI policy is distinct and different and has the Indian signature,” Sharma added.

On being asked whether the government would take steps to allay fears over the measure,

which has drawn sharp reactions from political parties and retailers, Sharma said the interest

and sensitivities of small retailers have been taken into consideration and “they are part of

the policy embrace.”

Sharma further added, “Political parties would certainly realise the benefits of the

government’s bold move and added that such opposition was common.”

He recalled that previous Congress governments in the ’80s and ’90s, led by the late Rajiv

Gandhi and late PV Narasimha Rao, had gone ahead with reforms in IT and communication

and economy, only to reap benefits... now.

The minister said the government has not rushed the FDI policy and it took one year and 10

days before it reached a committee of secretaries, after intense consultations with states,

retailers, industries and farm associations and other stake-holders.

Sharma insisted that the decision on FDI was not taken overnight and said no policy rollout

would be without opposition and criticism. “A sincere effort had been put in to take on board

concerns of all stakeholders,” he added.

Claiming that the decision would help farmers and consumers alike, he said peasants were

not getting remunerative price for their produce. The policy envisages to bring down post-

harvest losses and aims to create better rural infrastructure like cold storages, Sharma said.

“This was an ‘enabling policy’, wherein the state government can take a call on its

implementation,” Sharma added....