It is evident that the
wildlife conservation paradigm in India has failed to consider those
affected in the process.
For those living in the submergence area of the proposed Indira Sagar
Project (Polavaram Dam project) in Andhra Pradesh, the writing appears
to be clearly on the wall. To be executed at a cost of nearly Rs 13,000
crore, the project will submerge more than one lakh acres of
agricultural land and the lives and livelihood of nearly two lakh
people in about 290 settlements and villages. In line with history and
earlier experience, nearly half the people to be impacted are scheduled
tribes. Another 17.5 per cent are scheduled castes and nearly 15 per
cent are from the backward classes.
The issue of the Polavaram dam clearly has multiple implications and
significance. One that stands out starkly is the ongoing acrimonious
debate over the Scheduled Tribes and other Forest Dwellers (Recognition
of Forest Rights) Act that was recently passed and now stands
challenged in the courts by ‘conservation organisations’ and ex forest
officers on grounds that its implementation will be the final nail in
the coffin of the India’s remaining forests.
One of the key issues of concern for those supporting the Act is the
historical injustice, displacement and harassment caused by forest
reservation and the creation of wildlife sanctuaries and national parks
(protected areas) for the conservation and protection of India’s
increasingly threatened wildlife. Experiences of the last couple of
decades have resulted in articulations from a tribal perspective that
put dams, mining projects and protected areas in the same category on
account of the forced displacement and as the cause of untold hardships
and misery. It is evident that the wildlife conservation paradigm in
the country has failed to take into account, leave alone include, those
affected in the process of ensuring conservation. Local communities
that could have been the biggest supporters of conservation are today
one of its most bitter critics.
The case of the Polavaram Dam only reinforces that reality. The
specific issue in this context is of the forest land to be submerged by
the dam - this is about 37 sq km of reserved forest land and another 17
sq km inside the Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary that is itself spread
over 590 sq km in the West Godavari, East Godavari and Khamman
districts of Andhra Pradesh. The matter has been before the Supreme
Court for a while and one of the important submissions to the court in
the matter is the November 2006 report of the court’s own Central
Empowered Committee (CEC). It can only be a considered powerful
reinforcement of the conflicts and contradictions that have come to
underline wildlife conservation in the country.
Among the conditions suggested by the CEC for the final approvals to be
granted to the dam is that nearly 500 sq km of forests adjoining the
Papikonda Wildlife Sanctuary be added to the sanctuary and this then be
declared a national park. According to India’s Wildlife Protection Act
no one is allowed to live inside a national park and all traditional
rights and livelihood dependencies on the forests are completely
extinguished. The contradictions are painfully evident. Additional
displacement is being created as a condition to ensure that the main
displacement will take place in the first instance. “The state
(government) has also agreed in principle,” the CEC report says,” for
the relocation of the isolated villages falling within the sanctuary
and notifying the sanctuary as a national park. This notification would
be a pre-condition to any clearance to use/divert sanctuary land.”
While there is no respite for the two lakh-odd people who will be
directly displaced because of submergence caused by the dam, an
additional category of displacement is being created in the name of
wildlife conservation, a “conservation offset,” and the justification,
ironically, is that this will create a well preserved water catchment
for the region.
It is well known that Polavaram is not an exception. A slew of such
projects are being proposed, pushed and approved across the length and
breadth of the country. In Orissa, for instance, thickly forested
hills, sacred to the local tribals and rich in diverse species of
wildlife, are being handed over for mining; in the south a huge
‘scientific’ project with an investment of a few hundred crores might
come up amidst prime tiger habitat and in the North East, huge dams are
slated to submerge pristine forests in a region that is seismically
very volatile.
The conservation debate in India has often slipped (even dragged) into
being a tribal versus tiger one. The blame for the destruction of
India’s forests and the decimation of its wildlife has willy-nilly and
repeatedly been placed at the door of the tribal.
What’s happening with the Polavaram Dam project in Andhra Pradesh, in
Niyamgiri (and other parts) in Orissa, in the Mudumalai forests of
Tamil Nadu, in the thickly forested river valleys on North East India
and in numerous such situations elsewhere will hopefully provide us a
window into a slightly different reality.
http://www.deccanherald.com/CONTENT/Jul182008/editpage2008071779401.asp
