[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

dam-l LS: Omvedt Discussion Part 1/6 - Omvedt Letter



Dear Friends,

As you might be aware, there has been quite a lot of discussion generated
from an open letter sent by Gail Omvedt to Arundhati Roy. In case you have
not seen the original letter or responses written by Ashish Kothari and
Himanshu Thakker, I am sending these to you. This discussion takes up 6
emails.

Best wishes,
Susanne
----------------------------------------------

July 21, 1999
FYI
(South Asia Citizens Web)

From:  Gail Omvedt

AN OPEN LETTER TO ARUNDHATI ROY

Dear Arundhati,

I'm sorry to have to write a critical letter to you. I very much liked The
God of Small Things.  I also appreciated your intervention on the nuclear
issue. I was impressed on reading in Indian Express that you had decided to
donate some royalties to
the Dalit Sahitya Academy.

However, when it comes to the issue of "big dams," I can understand the
urgency you feel for the people of the valley and the victims of misguided
development projects everywhere, but I feel that you're missing many
things.  There are important questions not only regarding the dam-afflicted
but also the drought-afflicted, issues of water for agriculture, and of
democracy in peoples' movements. I would like to share with you some of my
experiences, mainly in Maharashtra, on drought and water issues, on
movements for opposing eviction and for building small dams, among farmers
and agricultural labourers of various castes and among adivasis in northern
Maharashtra, near theNarmada.

The first time I even heard of the Narmada dams was around 1984.  The
CPI(M), the Shramik Mukti Dal (SMD) and the Shramik Sanghatana-an
organisation of adivasis in Dhule district-had organised a demonstration in
Akkalkuva, where they presented a petition to the government demanding
mainly that Maharashtrian evictees be given alternative land in Maharashtra
itself and calling for alternatives to the Sardar Sarovar.  I remember that
it was during the monsoon season; we walked miles afterwards through
drizzling rain to enjoy discussions, intellectual puzzles with matchboxes
and a simple meal in one of the many remote villages of the area.

A little after that, in 1986, many of the same activists of the Shramik
Sanghatana and SMD organised an "Adivasi-Forest
Conference" in Shahada.  I had come to Dhule to help in rallyingsupport
among the social and political activists of the district.This was just
after Medha had made her first visit to thedistrict.  She had crossed the
Narmada with Achyut Yagnik ofAhmedabad; their boat had capsized but somehow
they had made theirway down through the district, stopping off at Shahada
to meetShramik Sanghatana people-the main organisation of adivasitoilers in
the region-and then coming to Dhule where she formeda support organisation.
All this was fine. There were only twocritical questions raised.  One was
mine: Medha at that time wasfollowing the guidelines of the World Bank in
demanding justicefor evictees, and these guidelines identified only male
heads offamilies as eligible for alternative land.  We were at the
timealready starting to raise the question of land for women, and Ifelt it
was too bad that the landlessness of women was beingneglected in the
process of rehabilitation and building anew.

But that was minor.  Looking back, probably a more importantnegative
reaction came from Waharu Sonavane, at that time theleading young adivasi
activist of Shramik Sanghatana.  Waharu hadbeen in the movement since
1971-72,working with AmbarsinghMaharaj, a truly unique indigenous leader
and with the ShramikSanghatana and Shramik Mukti Dal, a Maharashtra-wide
organisationof Marxist activists.  Waharu is a poet and an
intellectual-though he has never had the opportunity to learn English, and
Iwill quote for you a few lines of one of his poems which came outof his
years of experience with movements.  It is given as a titlethe English word
(a word that also has come in Marathi) -"Stage."

We did not go on to the stage,
Neither were we called.
We were shown our places,
told to sit.
But they, sitting on the stage,
went on telling us of our sorrows,
our sorrows remained ours, they never became theirs.

There is more but that is the main point.  Waharu's main objectionwas that
in all her discussions on the anti-dam movement, Medhanever gave credit to
those who had organised on the issue beforeher.  More recently also it was
Waharu who raised the question toSanjay Sanghvi of the NBA, "Why is it that
there is no top rankingadivasi leadership in the NBA?"  This was at a
seminar organisedby the Pune university women's studies centre.  Sanjay
could notanswer except to say "But all our village leaders are
adivasis."This is no answer, I hope you understand, when you are
dealingwith villagesthat are nearly 100% adivasi. Why are all the leaders
from theurban elite, and how democratic exactly is their relationship tothe
rural poor they are organising?

There were and are real questions about the way in which theleadership of
the NBA relates to-and "represents", uses, itsadivasi and nonadivasi farmer
following.  One of these has to dowith an area you should be an expert in:
words.  Why the term
"tribal"?  I know, nearly every English speaker in India,apparently
including supporters and activists of the NBA, uses"tribal" for adivasis
when speaking in English.  (In Indianlanguages all now use "adivasi" or
some equivalent).  But, thoughestablished now, the term "tribal" is an
insulting and demeaningword, inaccurate even from a social-scientific point
of view; andI don't know of any group of indigenous people the world over
whowould accept it for themselves. (I won't here go into the debateabout
whether or not "adivasis" should be called "indigenouspeople.")  The only
reason it survives in India is that because ofthe abysmal state of
education in general among adivasis and evenworse state of English
education, there is no one really in aposition to protest.  Otherwise there
would be massive objections,just as Dalits have thrown out the term
"harijan."  Thoseclassified as "scheduled tribe" in northeast India -
people likeMr. Sangma-made clear long ago their feelings about beingcalled
"hill tribes."  The fact "tribal" is still a widely usedword in English, I
think, has something to do with the way peopleare a little careless about
the identities and real feelings ofthose they represent.  And if this
includes you and the NBA, then
you should think about it.

In any case, Waharu's earliest objection was in terms ofnon-recognition of
what they had done before; and this was veryearly on in the anti-Narmada
movement, when there was no NBA assuch and Medha and others were still
talking mainly ofrehabilitation and not of total opposition to big dams as
such.But the tendency of not recognising the work of others, or reallybeing
willing to admit that there has been a history of struggles,has remained.
You write very easily of "people's organisations"in different states coming
together to form the NBA.  These wereorganisations set up by Medha and her
associates.  In Maharashtrathe largest "peoples' organisation" or alliance
working onrehabilitation issues is the Maharashtra Rajya Dharangrast
vaPrakalgrast Shetkari Parishad (Maharashtra. state conference ofdam and
project affected farmers), which has been working sincethe 1970s. It has
been a broad platform in which various localstruggles have united.  Its
leaders from the beginning were peoplelike Baba Adhav, a socialist and also
a man very much involved inanti-caste campaigns; Datta Deshmukh, a
communist of the LalNishan Party (now deceased); Naganath Naikaudi, an
independentMarxist and freedom fighter from southern Maharashtra;
BharatPatankar of the Shramik Mukti Dal; many others.  These have nearlyall
been involved on issues or irrigation and water as well as
problems of dam evictees.

The Meaning of Water

People in these organisations were concerned about the socialjustice of
dams and the sustainable use of water from very early.But they never
opposed dams as such.  The main slogan of thepeople involved in their
struggles was "first rehabilitation, thenthe dam."  Later this was linked
to "equal water distribution"-the demand that irrigation projects should be
restructured toprovide water to every family in every village in a
watershedarea.  Movements are going on for this, for example in regard
tothe Krishna Valley dams.

Bharat Patankar (my husband, to keep things in perspective)and others were
involved in a fight for one rather well-known peasant built small dam in
Sangli district in Maharashtra, theBali Rajya Memorial Dam, irrigating two
villages. This was eventaken as a kind of model of the type of dams the NBA
would approveof. But they, we, have never opposed "big dams" as such.
Bharat,at the time when Medha turned from simply agitation
forrehabilitation to opposing big dams as such, was also active in
amovementof Koyna dam evictees-working with farmers who had lost theirland
decades back at the time of construction of the Koyna dam.He very simply
felt that there were at least some big dams-Koyna was one-which were not by
any means inherentlydestructive and which did not submerge significant
areas offorest.

Why does anybody need "big dams" or "big irrigationprojects"?  Arundhati,
there is a very simple issue here thaturban people-I hope this doesn't
sound too sarcastic-findhard to understand.  Water is needed, not only for
drinking, butfor agriculture.  NBA documents have talked a lot about
drinkingwater, but they have not had much to say about water
foragriculture.  You cannot grow crops without water, and when thereis only
500mm of water per year-this is true of three-fourthsof the Krishna valley
area in Maharashtra and of much of Gujaratincluding Saurashtra and
Kutch-then some external water,provided by canals, is necessary to
supplement rainfall."Rainwater harvesting" is not enough in such areas of
lowrainfall.  The millions of people living in such areas are
thedrought-afflicted, suffering from years of parched earth anddamaged
crops; they are driven off their lands to the cities tolive, or migrate to
work as labourers, for instance sugar canecutters, in areas of irrigation.
But they would prefer to be ableto prosper in their homes just as much as
those threatened by damand project eviction want the alternative of not
moving.  You saythat the thousands of dams built in India since
independence havesimply led to eviction on one hand and waterlogging on the
other,but this is not true.  So many farmers have benefited fromirrigation
water, and millions who have not can see this, and wantsuch benefits also.
Our arguments are not against big irrigationprojects as such, but against
badly conceived ones; big projectscan be sustainable and work in a
decentralised manner.

It may well be that, hundreds of years ago when the lowrainfall regions
were mainly occupied by pastoralists, peoplecould carry on traditional
livelihoods.  That is no longer true.Population has multiplied, and the
ways of using naturalresources, converting them into food and materials for
living,have to be developed.  Productivity has to be increased, and
thismeans that some form of irrigation projects as well as other kindsof
technological development are necessary.  In areas of very lowrainfall,
even villages which have become famous for "watersheddevelopment" and using
rainwater-such as Ralegan Siddhi inAhmednagar district of Maharashtra-are
supplementing this withcanal water.

In any case, most of those who stand to lose their lands fordam projects
are farmers, whether adivasis or nonadivasis, whounderstand the need of
water for agriculture..  Their refusal tobe victims of development does not
mean an opposition todevelopment; they would like a share in it; they would
like it tobe just and sustainable.  (Indeed, one of the achievements of
theMaharashtra Rajya Dharangrast-Prakalgrast Shetkari Parishad was towin
acceptance of the principle that those losing their land inthe catchment
area of dams should get alternative land in thecommand area - a share of
the water of the dam).

I visited Ferkuva in early 1991.  I had come from the Gujaratside, from
Surat-along with a representative of a farmers'organisation which would be
considerd a "rich peasant"organisation by most of NBA supporters.  He was
staunchly for thedam, and when I brought up the usual objections, he
simplyresponded, "there's is a cup of water which is half full. You sayit's
half empty, I say it's half full."  Gujarat so badly neededthe water, he
felt, that it could deal with flaws.  He, like mostGujaratis I know, was
adamantly against any compromise, and couldnot be argued with.  However, he
was an old Gandhian and wanted tovisit Baba Amte and Medha, both of whom he
knew.  We approachedfrom the Gujarat side, -- where the government had
organiseditself large rallies both of adivasi and nonadivasi farmers.Well,
they were "brought there" I suppose.  On the Maharashtraside, where the NBA
was camped out, were a band of adivasis andalso some farmers from the
Niphad area.  Medha's fast had started.I talked a bit to the Niphad
farmers-I suppose they are theones who call themselves "Rajputs," though
this honorary title ismainly a claim to status and they may not be much
different fromthe mainly Kunbi-Maratha families in the Maharashtrian
villagewhere I live.  They said, "people of both sides should sit down and