Critique of the Sardar Sarovar Project Relief and Rehabilitation Oversight Group Report.

The oversight group (OSG) consisting of Prof G.K. Chadda, Dr. Jayaprakash Narayan of Loksatta, and chaired by Shri V. K. Shunglu was charged with the responsibility of ascertaining the status of rehabilitation of Sardar Sarovar dam affected people, and recommending processes to ensure that all affected families receive the relief and rehabilitation package within 3 months of April 2006. It submitted its shocking report in July 2006 that is totally dishonest in its analysis and insensitive to the plight of the displaced families. Below we use their data and correct their faulty analysis.

Number of Project Affected Families:

The OSG uses the Action Taken Reports (ATRs) of Madhya Pradesh Government which recognize 24,421 project affected families (PAFs) below the height of 121.92 metres, of which 5,456 have been rehabilitated in Gujarat. Thus as per the ATR, 18,965 families need to be rehabilitated in Madhya Pradesh. However in the section “Requirement of Resettlement and Rehabilitation Facilities,” it only presents 14,947 as being the total requirement and for whom the rehabilitation sites are being developed. Thus it omits more than 4,000 families without any explanation.

Of the 14,947 families, it says that 14,391 have been allotted house plots, of which only 1,451 have actually constructed houses, and 757 families have shifted. The OSG notes that only 46% of the allotted sites are good and suitable for families to shift. The remaining sites need, according to the OSG, “a program of upgradation.”

The OSG fails to note the enormity of the discrepancy, where only 6620 (46% of 14391) suitable sites have been allotted while there are 18,965 affected families. Thus the vast majority of the affected families are still living in the submergence zone. This is in violation of the Narmada Tribunal Award and the Supreme Court Orders.

Further, the OSG completely ignores the timeliness of rehabilitation as stipulated by the Tribunal award. A mere plot does not suffice, and a family cannot shift unless the house is constructed, which takes several months. Hence the plots need to be allotted one year in advance of submergence. However the Oversight Group does not take NVDA to task for not readying house plots in time so that house construction could be completed by December 2005, by which time, as per the Tribunal award, the resettlement of families should have been completed. Instead the OSG finds the fault with the people, and claims “most of them chose not to relocate as they did not feel threatened by inundation.”

Persons claiming to be affected by SSP

In addition to the 18,965 families, already recognized by Madhya Pradesh, the NSSO received claims from 6,485 families that they have not yet been recognized as being project-affected. The OSG investigated 5,118 of these claimants. The OSG has reported that 3620 families were from 22 villages that “demonstrated an extraordinary increase between the two censuses (of 1991 and 2001), by as much as 140% in respect of population and 162% in respect of households.” It concluded that the data would seem to suggest population movement in search of compensation, and thereby dismissed these claimants. The OSG does not have the mathematical expertise or the competence to draw this conclusion. In fact, a closer look at data points to no correlation between population increase of villages and claims of being missed in the PAF count.

OSG provides the list of 22 villages where it claims that there was population increase. Of these, six villages actually have population decrease from 1991 to 2001. These are Malangaon (1422 in 1991, and 766 in 2001); Karondiya (1050 in 1991 and 970 in 2001); Sharikpura (2056 in 1991 and 711 in 2001); Piplod (1010 in 191 and 985 in 2001); Pipri (2888 in 1991 and 636 in 2001) and Khedikhurd (594 in 1991 and 553 in 2001). Additional claimants in Malangaon are 105, in Korondiya 52, in Khedikhurd 53, in Pipri 78, in Piplod 114 and in Sharikpura 52. Thus even in villages where population has decreased, there are additional claimants and therefore the population increase argument, based on census data, is spurious and cannot be used to penalize households who have not yet been recognized as project-affected.

Additionally, consider the village of Mandwada. Here the population increased from 515 in 1991 to 4424 in 2001, as per census data. The number of households in the village increased from 82 in 1991 to 836 in 2001. However the number of additional claimant families is only 57. Thus we have over 700 “new” houses, but less than 10% are claiming rehabilitation, so we cannot conclude that people moved to Mandwada to take advantage of the promised rehabilitation package which has so far anyway not materialized. Census data of a village has a wide margin of error and cannot be used as a benchmark for denying rehabilitation to families. In fact, the gram sabha and the panchayat have a much greater local and accurate knowledge of who belongs in a village. It is these that need to be used to verify families eligible for rehabilitation. Like Mandwada, villages of Nisarpur (190 households in 1991, 1401 households in 2001, but only 471 additional claimants), Dharamrai (124 households in 1991, 672 households in 2001, but only 64 additional claimants), Chikalda (12 households in 1991, 571 households in 2001, but only 218 additional claimants), all have a huge increase in the number of households between 1991 and 2001, but only a small fraction of these are claiming to be PAFs.

Zero Population Villages! OSG fudges census data

In the village Anvali, another of the 22 villages, the population in 1991 was listed by the OSG as zero. While in 2001, the population was 1206. In this village, there are 374 PAFs already recognized by Madhya Pradesh and 69 additional claimant families. The lands of this village were acquired in 1991. A village with zero population in 1991, had land acquisition going on in that year. How is this possible? Clearly the village did exist in 1991, people did live there, but the census did not record the count. Instead of saying that the correct population count of a village was not available, the OSG misrepresents census data by claiming that the population of the village was found to be zero by the 1991 census, and that families moved there in 2001 merely so they can claim rehabilitation!

Further, OSG names 23 villages whose population it claims the census has recorded as zero in either 1991 or in 2001. Actually, neither census 1991 nor 2001 records the population of these 23 villages to be zero. It is just that data of the villages is not available to the OSG. For example, OSG claims that as per 2001 census, populations of Dasana and Dabhani villages are zero, while the 2001 census data actually lists a population of 338 for Dabhani village and 1209 for Dasana in District Dhar.

(Ref: http://www.mp.nic.in/energy/mpseb/web-data/dhar.htm)

Land for Land Rehabilitation

The OSG was charged by its terms of reference to ascertain whether offers of alternate land to eligible oustees were made in a fair and transparent manner. The OSG notes that the quality of land offered by the government “was not irrigable and cultivable,” and that “considerable efforts would be needed to bring it to standard of cultivable and irrigated land.” In fact, the OSG states why most of the PAFs rejected the government land: “while it is true that the offer of government land was made to an overwhelming majority of the PAFs, but it is also equally true that most of them expressed unwillingness to accept the land because it could not be directly put under the plough...”

Considering that the Narmada Tribunal Award required the government to offer cultivable land with irrigation facilities, the OSG should have concluded that the land was not given in a fair and transparent manner. However, the OSG fails to draw this conclusion. Instead, it claims that the oustees were accepting cash compensation through the Special Rehabilitation Package (SRP) and “in terms of choices open to them at that time.” If the choice of cultivable land was not open to them, then it cannot be concluded that the oustees voluntarily refused land and preferred cash. However, the conclusion the OSG draws about SRP is, “Its acceptance has been voluntary.”

According to the OSG, the first installment of the SRP is paid to the oustees to enable them to identify private land to purchase. Thereafter, “when the person completes the purchase, the balance is paid directly to the seller.” It gives us the impression that such a process ensures that land is actually purchased. However, the data shows that there is a large gap between signing up for the SRP and actually completing the purchase of land. While the OSG says, “NSSO found 1137 persons had drawn the second installment and purchased land,” the NSSO data in fact shows that only 652 have been paid the second installment (Table 9 of OSG report). This number is only a small fraction of the 3727 families who were promised the SRP.

The reasons why the remaining families have not received the second installment are very revealing. 54% of them have not been able to purchase land due to “high cost escalation”, which the Narmada Bachao Andolan had always pointed out as one of the key problems with the SRP.

While this analysis clearly points out that the SRP has not been successful for a majority of those who opted for it, the OSG has no solutions or recommendations to offer except observing that “SRP has picked up significantly in recent weeks.”

Major Sons

Though the OSG concludes that there are 34,000 families yet to be rehabilitated in Madhya Pradesh below FRL (with 19,000 of them below 122 m), these numbers are much larger because several thousand families have not yet been recognized as project-affected, and the OSG also does not identify the numbers of major sons who need to be included. It leaves this for the governments to estimate by saying, “Supreme Court had directed that all major sons should also be entitled to land where the PAFs are entitled to land. NVDA should confirm to NCA that this exercise has been completed, even in respect of major sons whose cases were rejected earlier, in view of a different interpretation.”

Contempt for the People

It is clear from the above that rehabilitation of the vast majority of the 35,000 families already recognized by the Madhya Pradesh government and thousands yet to be recognized is still pending. However, the OSG has at every point criticized the affected people and civil society groups, while praising the government. It sees affected people as those who will not move until they are threatened by submergence. It sees the common people and villagers of India as being opportunistic who would move to submergence villages merely to benefit from a rehabilitation package, while ignoring that simple living and honesty are hallmarks of rural families. On the other hand, while the government has completed barely 20% of the rehabilitation arrangements satisfactorily, the OSG is happy to give it a clean chit and recommends continuation of business as usual.

The OSG is happy to fudge census data, and to praise itself while it rebukes and puts down civil society groups. For example, a couple of IIT faculty had pointed that the OSG conduct sample surveys as per its terms of reference, so that it can quickly ascertain rehabilitation problems in view of the urgency of the situation. Instead, the OSG took more than two months to submit its report allowing the dam construction to proceed, and in its report responds by saying, “Some even felt that survey of all PAFs was not necessary and a sample survey should be enough. On the contrary, the OSG felt that all the families should be surveyed to ascertain the facts as comprehensively as possible and to ensure that there is fair and full rehabilitation of all genuinely affected families.” These are lofty words of self-praise while it should have pointed that its terms of reference were, “estimate on the basis of sample checks the number of PAFs who may not have received so far in full measure the R&R package as per the norms laid down by the Award and the orders of the Supreme Court.” The answer to this question is an appalling 34,000 plus families, and the OSG, despite doing an extensive survey and finding this answer, is happy to present a rosy picture that the government wanted to hear.

Ravi Kuchimanchi
Aravinda Pillalamarri
Kirankumar Vissa

Contact:  khiyali@gmail.com or kiranvissa@gmail.com

For OSG Report please see:
http://wrmin.nic.in/SSP_RR_FinalReport.pdf