|
|
|
NBA's letter to Oversight group |
|
Narmada Bachao Andolan
• 62 Gandhi Marg, Badwani, Madhya Pradesh 451551. Ph: 07290-222464
• c/o B-13 Shivam Flats, Ellora Park, Baroda, Gujarat 390023. Ph: 0265-2282232
• Maitri Niwas, Tembewadi, Dhadgaon, dist. Nandurbar, Maharashtra. Ph: 02595-220620
26th May 2006
To,
Mr. Shunglu, Chairman
Prof. Chadha & Mr. Jayprakash Narain, Members
Sardar Sarovar Oversight Group
Dear Sirs,
We, my colleagues and I, have, since the last few days been witnessing and assessing the survey work being carried out by the NSSO teams under the aegis of the Oversight Group (OSG), in the Sardar Sarovar affected villages of Nimad region, Madhya Pradesh. In spite of the inherent contradictions in the Committee's Terms of Reference, which we have already pointed out, we have been open to and dialogued with this Committee, and have cooperated with the process. However, some serious concerns have arisen out of the field-level experience and surveys of the last three days. We felt it is imperative to bring these to your notice immediately, in order for you to take corrective action, so that these issues do not undermine this entire process and the credibility of your effort.
These issues must be immediately considered and a serious review of the research (survey) methodology to the practical issues on the ground must be undertaken; otherwise the Committee and its whole survey exercise through the NSSO will be flawed and fruitless, and even incorrect. The truth will escape the endeavour, and the project affected people, in lakhs, who will anyway face devastation and destitution in the coming monsoon, will not be given justice through this Committee either. We, therefore, would like to express our strong feelings about certain undesirable processes, which would lead to unacceptable conclusions.
1. First and foremost, as we have already presented during our meeting with the Committee, unless there is a pilot phase and unless an interim conclusion is drawn, the submergence at 122 metres of the dam height would become a fait accompli, without rehabilitation. The aerial survey that we happen to know that was undertaken by Prof. Chaddha, must have given him a feel of thickly-populated villages and the already-submerged adivasi communities, all still residing in the place where flooding is to occur next month. Can this be permitted?
2. Secondly, the research methodology followed by the surveyors seems to be inadequately designed and not quite proper for an unbiased investigation into the legality of R&R work. The Action Taken Reports (ATRs) of the NVDA are the basis for survey, and most of the questions seem only to confirm the ATR. As you know, these ATRs have been challenged by the Applicants in Court and have been proved to be faulty. There is no other questionnaire, just the ATR itself being used with codes for answers. This surely cannot be appropriate for getting complete data. There are no open ended questions, the teams state that they have not been instructed to collect data on rehabilitation, the relevant information provided by families about how illegal the R&R process has been, is being only recorded as rough markings by the surveyors. Is this what the PMO, the Supreme Court and the OSG envisioned?
3. In most villages, surveyors are recording responses in pencil, which surely creates doubts in the minds of villagers on the reliability of the process, and they have questioned the surveyors about this.
4. NVDA is still conducting surveys of the impact of backwater level (BWL) at 121.92 m. If the Committee claims that it is collecting data on the number of families, then how and where will this increase in the number of families be recorded by the surveyors? For example, in one village where the surveyors went, only 53 houses are listed in the ATR to be affected at 122 m. However, while the survey team was there, there happened to be an NVDA official in the village who was putting markings on the houses which are to be affected at 122 m. He was requested to come before the survey team. When asked what he was doing, he told the villagers that the houses now being marked are affected by backwater at 122 m; by then he had already put markings on 558 houses and his work was still to be completed! This shows that the ATR leaves out hundreds of names in every village! If ATR is used as a basis for survey, this methodology is faulty. There is no survey with village as a unit, nor is there any dialogue with us as a knowledgeable people’s organization. The officials certainly will not inform the Committee of such a gross increase in the number of families beyond the ATR. But it was proved on the ground. The survey will thus remain as incomplete and faulty as the ATR.
5. Though the teams, in the name of transparency, have made it clear that no government officials would accompany them at all, especially NVDA officials, the reality is that there are patwaris with almost every team. In one village the NVDA patwari is with the team. On the other hand, the teams are not allowing any villagers (other than the ones they are surveying at that time) to be around and not letting them speak. This has resulted in not just impartiality but even miscommunication or partial communication and distorting the real information at many places, since the teams remain dependent on the translation by the patwari, which is creating a serious problem.
6. It has also come to our notice that the teams are going strictly by the ATR and not allowing for any other answers or details that PAFs provide. In one village, people tried saying that their lands were going in ‘tapu’ (would become marooned with no access), but the teams did not listen, as there was no column in their survey to deal with that. In the same village, another serious issue has come to light. One of the important questions that the Committee has to delve into, is whether people were honestly, and in a fair and transparent manner, offered good land, and whether they then voluntarily rejected that land and opted for the Special Rehabilitation Package (SRP). This is a very important issue that is also presented before the Court that people were given land only on paper. In one village, surveyors asked people if they were offered and shown the land which the ATR claims and whether they were ‘asahmat’ with it. People replied that they had not been offered or shown the land in reality. But the surveyors did not note this and instead just kept asking if they were ‘asahmat’ with it. This will obviously give the wrong message, that people rejected land that they were really offered, whereas people are saying they were not offered the land at all.
7. In another interior hilly adivasi village, 4 families have been badly cheated. They took the SRP and tried to purchase land with it. They gave the signing amount of Rs. 5 lakh and shifted to the village and started working on the land. However, for almost two years, they were not able to get a second installment from NVDA, perhaps due to corruption or other reasons. As a result, they have been thrown out of the village land by the owners there, they have lost their signing amount of Rs. 5 lakh and have, just ten days or so ago, shifted back to their original village with all their belongings, animals, etc. They were not even allowed to take the crop that they had worked on in the new village. When the survey teams reached this adivasi village on Wednesday, these families told them that their signing amount has sunk and they haven’t got the second installment of SRP and this is the brutality that has happened with them. The callous teams replied that they should take the second installment and now buy land! Indeed, it is a very serious thing that has happened with these families, which proves why SRP is problematic and should be cancelled. And the survey teams are supposed to investigate this issue deeply as per the TOR. But the survey teams have completely failed to note this example, proving the illegality of SRP and the trauma that these adivasis have gone through.
8. In other villages too, when PAFs are telling surveyors that they haven’t been able to buy land by taking SRP, surveyors are responding that the government will give them more money under SRP scheme and then they can buy land. In one village, the surveyors informed the people that the government would loan them as much money as they needed to buy land, which could be paid back in installments. Is this how the "unbiased" surveyors are supposed to survey? This is a very grave issue!
9. Also, in a village, one interviewee said that he had still not received compensation for his house going under submergence. Instead of noting this, the surveyor asked him if he had received a houseplot. He replied, yes he has on paper. Then the surveyor asked why he had not built a house at the site. The PAF reiterated that he had not been given the compensation for his house, how could he build a house at the site? He also said categorically that there was no electricity and other amenities at the site, how could he build a house? But the surveyor did not note these things, he just noted the fact that the PAF had been given a houseplot but had not yet built a house. This skewed data can then be made to show later that people have received their entitlements, they are not moving because of NBA pressure. These false statements have been repeatedly mentioned by the MP government in Court, so we know the rhetoric they use, whereas the reality is that people HAVE NOT got their entitlements and the surveyors completely failed to note this.
10. In one village, the patwari accompanying the survey team was telling the owners that since they are entitled to five house plots, they should take one plot and Rs. 50,000 for each of the rest. That way they would have Rs. 2 lakhs! The person responded saying that he wanted houseplots, not money. However, it is a serious issue that the patwari who is associated with this team is behaving in this manner, inciting people to take money instead of houseplots. Here, since people spoke out, the patwari was confronted on this issue and the teams were also told that we would complain if the accompanying patwari was behaving in this manner. The teams apologized and so did the patwari. However, this was possible because people confronted them, but this may and will happen in other villages as well. Are the survey teams being sent in these villages to do an independent impartial survey or to give a mouthpiece to the already-illegal policies of the state, which is exactly what the survey teams are being sent to assess?
11. In yet another village, another issue of concern is that one of the surveyors there, who just happened to be from Gujarat, was actually giving a speech (bhaashan as the villagers described) to the PAFs about how this was a project in the national interest and they should all support it and make a sacrifice for it. In another adivasi village, another surveyor who also happens to be Gujarati, was telling the adivasi villagers that they should move to Gujarat. Is this what the survey teams are being sent in the villages to do – to further the propaganda of the state? It is certainly not the job of surveyors to be giving speeches in the villages or to speak in this manner.
With all this witnessed, we feel strongly that an urgent meeting with all of you is essential and a review of the research tools, with due transparency, is a must. It is also necessary that if at all official agencies are involved, we, the PAFs’ representatives, also should be meeting the senior persons regularly.
The Committee members themselves must first visit the field at the earliest and understand the complex issues and situation, including the legal basis and the same must be reflected into the interview schedules/questionnaires.
Each family will have to be interviewed on all aspects at the same time as against what is told to them, the left out persons will be talked to later as a second phase of the survey.
We, therefore, feel with utmost seriousness our concern and doubts about the on-going work which can’t be relied upon unless the methodology is reviewed by a peer group of researchers. If you think other ways can be used to correct these glaring problems, we would welcome the same. Without all this and with a faulty survey, if the dam is going on, the Oversight Group will only be left to endorse the official position and be seen as a conspiracy by the State to avoid getting themselves exposed.
Awaiting your response urgently,
Medha Patkar
cc:
Dr. K.V. Rao
Director General
National Sample Survey Organisation
New Delhi
|
|
|
Narmada Rehabilitation - Fact and Fiction |
|
|
|
Rehabilitation in Narmada |
|
|
|
Copyright © 2003-2008 AID Inc. All rights reserved.
