Draft National Tourism Policy

Limited Vision, Flawed Approach and Craving to Centralise

Places Central Bureaucracy and Corporates at the core

The new draft National Tourism Policy is really a mockery of the policy formulation process. For one the Government must be clear of what policy is and what are structures and process. While a policy needs to be a short statement of the of the intent of the government which follows up with the required legislative and procedural processes, the draft produced by the Ministry is clearly a “consultants” rambling on the basis of some wishful thinking and imagination and reads like a badly drafted project report. Poor understanding of the situation on the ground and the ways in which people and tourism are intertwined is as much an ingredient as is perhaps a vested interest to gain bureaucratic and corporate control.

Limited Vision

The draft document made available for a limited window for response states that the vision is to “Develop and position India as a “Must EXPERIENCE” and “Must REVISIT” destination for global travellers whilst encouraging Indians to explore their own country and realise the potential of tourism as a major engine for economic growth, employment generation and poverty alleviation in a responsible, inclusive framework”. This clearly points out that the Government has a limited vision of Tourism as a commodity to be sold and capitalised. This limited vision percolates down the entire fifty-page narrative. The environmental, social, ecological and tribal concerns as with issues of security and safety at the operational level and experience of travel with education, learning and human transformation has completely been missed or deliberately avoided.

Flawed Approach

Stemming from such a limited vision the policy states that “for effective delivery of the New Tourism Policy 2015, Tourism development has to effectively happen in a way that leverages all critical levers for tourism economy development, including:

·        Ensuring alignment of the States and the Union Territories based on a common agenda and a co-operative, synergized approach.

·        Creating a framework for engaging with local bodies productively.

·        Recognising that Tourism development is also synonymous with the growth of the trade and industry, making it necessary to effectively coordinate efforts for cross-sectoral benefit.

·        Activation of a responsible framework for growth that can be achieved by engaging with the larger civil society.

What translates out of this is a paternalistic and business mission. Further the policy is confused about what is a “mission” and objectives, and repeats a set of, if not contradictory, confusing signals. Most concerns of the community or civil society is more a mere after-thought. This is amply demonstrated by the last of the mission statement, “ensure meaningful, equitable community participation in tourism development “as well as in the avowed objective, “evolve a framework for tourism development, which is Government-led, private sector driven and community welfare oriented.”

Craving to Centralise

Not ever since the Sarkaria Commission reports, in the context of cooperative federalism being spoken about in loud tones, the need today is to accrete policies and programmes from ground-up. The failure of the state-corporate led economic development and its propensity to be virtually job destroying is clear from the current rural context. India’s cultural and natural diversity demands more creative ways of designing a variety of solutions. However the policy wants to usurp even the rights of State Governments as it says “Tourism should also be placed in the concurrent list of the constitution for effective legislation to make tourism into a national agenda. National prioritisation of the sector is critical to ensuring focus, investment, alignment and competitiveness needed as precursors to maximizing the impact of the tourism sector for the benefit of India at large.” It is unfortunate that the States are becoming mute spectators in the rough ride of the economy and the central government. However the policy itself concedes that peoples participation is critical in saying “ It is therefore necessary to build a robust partnership between the Centre, States and UTs, local bodies, Industry and the civil society to achieve sustainable growth in a Public – Private – Peoples Participation (PPPP) framework. “

Complete Relook is Necessary

Mere tinkering or cosmetic changes to the draft document is going to be hugely detrimental to the people involved in tourism and the communities where tourism activities take place. It calls for a wide-spread process of community oriented activities to participate in the design and development of the policy which definitely needs to move away from the current tendency of commodifying everything and controlling each rupee.

Coal Scam and new Legislation: A remedy worse than the disease

In late August last year, millions of poor Indians rejoiced a Supreme Court judgement on the allocation of coal blocks. It was a source of hope for many that the Court’s subsequent order categorically held all allocated coal blocks, except four, to be illegal. For those whose lives hung directly in the balance, it was a reprieve from forced displacement,loss of livelihoods and a life full of pollution and exploitation.

People hoped that the breathing time given by the Court before setting up a new coal allocations framework and a catena of laws passed over the last decade would enable the focus to shift to the gross irregularity of field-level operations in each of these coal blocks. It is an undeniable fact that a huge backlog of legacy issues of compensation, resettlement and rehabilitation still exist, not to mention false cases filed against human rights defenders protesting these illegally allocated coal blocks.

It was also redemption for a number of people who have been pointing out that the entire direction of development being pursued in the last decade has been undermining the basic tenets of the Constitution. The process of allocation of natural resources to companies has been under the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India and the Supreme Court. In the coal scam alone, CAG’s estimates varied between nearly two lakhs to over ten lakh crores of undue gain to companies.

The Coal Mines Ordinance promulgated on 24^th October, exactly a month after the Supreme Court’s judgment so completely undermines the Constitution by legitimising all illegal players.  The Government’s persistence and political jugglery of different kinds through two rounds of the ordinance- finally finding form in an Act-has reinforced the general belief that political parties professing good governance are not aiming at human development but “keeping conflicts to manageable limits”.

In doing so, they have persisted with furthering a dependencyon oligarchs with track records of violations, not unlike the British and the land-owning zamindar class. The State in India is in a terrible bind. The fallout of the scam was a huge debt given by state institutions to profligate corporates. The State Bank of India claimed close to Rs 70,000 crore exposure to miners and downstream power projects. The RBI Governor indicated that the top companies were to repay debts of nearly Rs 2,36,000 crores in the last five years and have so far deposited only  Rs 31,000 crores. So to save itself, the State has given the same corporate responsible for this vulnerable financial situation more resources and perhaps more debts, forget the people who would be uprooted.

However, aside from the mind-boggling numbers of what some quarters called ‘notional loss’, justice in India, as all over the modern judicial systems, hinges on the questions raised by a petitioner. In the coal scam case, since the Article 14- that talks of equality before the law and Article 39 A- on equal justice and free legal aid- were invoked at some stage, stewardship demanded that the questions of equity, environmental soundness and self-reliance were also addressed by the court.

The tribal and particularly the poor are to face the greatest inequity of these en masse allocations.

The massive number of people who will be displaced for this climate-unfriendly ambition is stupendous. In Odisha’s district of Angul alone, over  lakhs of people will be displaced. These are the original inhabitants and perhaps the first stakeholders. In Jharkhand, the fresh proposals add to a whopping 70,000 families to be displaced for coal mining and related projects. The ordinance which was brought under the guise of the court order and new Act want this process of alienation of land to continue and do not have even a single line about the fate of these communities.

Making it easier for the defrauders, the Act says that the new bidder will have all rights and no liabilities. This must be the law in the country where the defrauders are bestowed with rights and the right holders of the local area are being pushed into a corner with no recourse to justice. Even the past sins of these companies are absolved and only those who have a conviction and have been imprisoned for three years will be ineligible, which means all the people who indulged in malpractices are being accommodated by a so-called clean government.

The Supreme Court, in a historic judgment (Criminal Appeal No/ 11/2011), observed how many Indians treat the Scheduled Tribes, or Adivasis, stakeholders of a large number of these blocks that just went under the hammer.

“Since India is a country of great diversity, it is absolutely essential if we wish to keep our country united to have tolerance and equal respect for all communities and sects. It was due to the wisdom of our founding fathers that we have a Constitution which is secular in character, and which caters to the tremendous diversity in our country.Thus it is the Constitution of India which is keeping us together despite all our tremendous diversity, because the Constitution gives equal respect to all communities, sects, lingual and ethnic groups etc. in the country.The Constitution guarantees to all citizens freedom of speech (Article 19), freedom of religion (Article 25), equality (Article 14 to 17),liberty(Article 21) etc.”

The Act and the rules,provide no space for affected communities, even those who live in Constitutionally-protected areas, to raise their concerns. The outcome of this legislation and recently concluded auctions will no doubt, be a cause for restlessness and conflict amongst communities in already troubled and marginalised regions..

As the bidding process has unfolded, it is becoming clearer that crony capitalists can also collude. The oft-hailed ideal of transparency that was supposed to have been ushered in by the new Act is limited to the state and the bidders but not to the community at large who will bear the consequences.

Further, the transfer of environmental and forest clearances without even ensuring that the companies were complying is a mockery of the governance systems.

While the CAG is globally spearheading bold initiatives on environmental audits, it would be a great service if the CAG also conducts a concurrent audit of the ecological damages and social equity issues associated with the coal block allocations,and look at the current Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act from the larger prism of sustainability.

As Gandhiji once said, “An unjust law is itself a species of violence.”

---

Sustainable Development - Politics of Practice

“Sustainable Development” has become a cliché. The world has realized that the current models for development are untenable – both in terms of resources and social conflict. The free market economy is going to progressively shift the control of resources in larger and larger measure from the communities and the state to the market forces. The real effects are at least three fold:

1. Denial or defeating the purpose of rights and egalitarian legislations, which are the hallmark of democracy.
2. Loss of control of the state in managing critical natural resources by transferring their management to corporates particularly the MNCs
3. Progressive abstraction of the real value of natural resources based on global market speculation and cartels adding to consequent vulnerability of the local and larger economy.

Therefore the future ought to renegotiate the ground and pragmatic mechanisms have to take shape to structurally transform the economy.  While the new economy needs to be efficient, it also needs to meet the other non-orthogonal attributes – environmental soundness, equity and endogeneity or self-reliance. Sustainable Development at the functional level could be conceived as a process of using resources that do not deplete the options for the future generation – more specifically – it means generating more alternatives while conserving existing options.  Communities will be sustainable only when they are in harmony with the ecosystems.

It is also widely recognised that all these principles have to be concurrently adhered to and addressed at various scales (individual through community to the global scales) and different levels of human intervention (policy, programme and practices).

The current impasse we are really faced with arises out of the precarious situation where ongoing developmental activities have had a massive impact on deepening widespread poverty, squalor and environmental degradation, but a feeble impact on sustainable development of local communities and have contributed very little to their capacities to maintain and improve their environment and well-being.

The real challenge that stares us in the face is the challenge to hone our skills, choose our technologies and build our resources in such a manner that it provides for the human needs of Food, Clothing and Shelter and enhances the quality of Water, Energy and Biomass systems. The challenge beyond the basic needs is that the Community, Government and the Market should be able to provide the human institutional inputs - health, education and occupation - for societal development. While one can deterministically say that more closer the resolution of basic needs, more sustainable would a community be, but in the case of the basic human institutional inputs the scales could be more complex.

The moot question is whether the existing vested interests would be overcome by a determined effort by the communities with greater local control of institutional inputs rather than be dependent on distant speculative processes.

This demands that we walk beyond institutions and sectors, even nation-states and regions to seek solutions. And, it is becoming clear that this can only happen as an accretionary process. The future politics will have to lie in its practice.

Handbook of Climate Change and India Development, Politics and Governance Edited by Navroz K Dubash - A Review

This handbook has 28 papers in five parts covering a wide spectrum of issues with a comprehensive introduction by the editor and a foreword by the then Minister of Environment and Forests Mr Jairam Ramesh reflecting the Government’s recent approach and current perspectives.

The first part comprising five papers address the science of climate change and implications to India through macro-perspectives and micro-examples. While issues of sea-level raise and adaptation of horticulture in the Himalayas are indicative, this section could have included some work on the implications to arid zones in India which hosts the maximum number of people and is already in an agrarian crises. The concluding paper in this section by Ramachandran is very useful to understand the complexity of collaborative scientific research and the pitfalls in the process as adopted by the IPCC and the Indian Government.

The second part is short comprising two articles of this short history of climate science. The first one being excerpts from Centre for Science and Environment’s pioneering attempt to bring per-capita emissions to the centre stage by taking the then prevailing notion head-on. The first person account of Chandrasekhar on the making of UNFCCC reflects the tensions that go on behind the negotiations and clearly indicates the polarization among developed and less developed countries since its origin.

The third part focuses on the process and concerns of international climate negotiations presenting views from within and outside. Sandeep Sengupta traces the history and India’s role and Lavanya eloquently articulates the complex principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’ (CBDRRC), which has been often talked about by the Government. The next long paper Jayaram et al, exhaustively describe the carbon-budget approach and the need for a transition to such a regime. The utility of such an approach in providing a temporal dimension to the CBDRRC merits deeper work and understanding to provide for actual entitlements from global to local levels. The next article by Rao, touches upon the equity and ethical issues. This is an area where the handbook could have covered more ground, especially as Indian CSO’s were among to recognise the ethical aspects of climate change and not just because reviewer himself being a part of the network that was established in 1994. As the article points out, unless there is a common ethical basis, the negotiations will continue to be jockeyed around.  The article by Pradipto Ghosh on India’s position is more a clichéd attempt at justifying the stand of the State and its unsustainable development pathway with a feeble attempt to garner technology and resources while the next paper by Raghunandan points out how such a position has outlived its utility and reflects upon the continuing adhocism of the State and call for a coherent framework based on more positive approaches that can also translate into domestic action. The reflections of outsiders on the position of India seem predictable. The view from Europe dismisses the idea of per-capita emissions and rather tame in including the fact that the implications were unknown in the past.  The view of Bangladesh and Philippines seeking a focus on embarking on new development path is understandable but seems aspirational rather than pragmatic as all the countries continue to develop in the same model of high material use. The important highlight of the reflection from China is the need to ward off the isolating tendency of the west, as the development needs of both countries are similar. In contrast, the view from USA focuses more on the differences between India and China and pushes for bilateralism with the USA.

The next long section, Part IV of the handbook looks at the domestic politics of climate change and begins with an article by the editor who provides an excellent overview to capture the trends. Lele’s paper on the Indian environmental movements and their approaches to climate change reflects the diversity and rather tricky position while approaching the responses and highlights the dilemma faced by people from different initial positions in using climate change as tool to critique the current growth paradigm. Chakravarty and Ramana elucidate the debate on ‘hiding behind the poor’ and how the intra-country disparities are only the ‘latest manifestation’ of the disparities between the rich and poor in India. Suresh Prabhu points out to important lacunae in our Parliamentary democracy where the Executive has all powers vested in them in international engagements. The excerpts from the Parliamentary debates indicate a rich understanding of the parliamentarians. The party biases and contextual reflections in the situation of global events strengthen the contention of Raghunandan of adhocism at the highest level. Two articles by Tarun Das and Simone Pulver address private and corporate sector views. It clearly indicates how well entrenched corporate India is in the echelons for power and how co-benefits drive the agenda rather than a deeper concern for climate change. Jogesh provides a statistical and deeper content analysis of the trends in reportage in print media. He alludes to how from a small number of spokespersons there is a diverse and more nuanced reporting on climate.

The Part V of the handbook explores sectoral views for integrating climate change and development, a focus of the various Climate missions being evolved by the Government. The first article on energy Girish Sant (whom we unfortunately lost recently) and Gambhir, addresses the two major areas of energy and climate concern namely power and transport. It elaborates on the two sectors and warns of consequences of accepting emission limits in the next two decades or buckle to pressures of declaring a “peaking year”. Mukhopadhyay and Revi reflect upon urbanization as an inevitable consequence of growth and suggest a variety of institutional and operational mechanisms. Rajeswari Raina poses the question whether sustainable climate friendly systems for agriculture is possible. While reiterating agriculture as a sector that is a net energy producer and an ideal carbon capture medium, the ultimate goal can be achieved only by re-building the human and ecological systems in rural India. Kulkarni and Thakkar wade through the complexities of water resources in the context of climate change and seek to peg this as an opportunity to the failing water management regime in the country. It is redeeming in the vast handbook to find them reflect that solutions to water management just do not lie within the sector alone and the need for wider integration is absolutely essential. Gopalakrishnan posits the question whether the climate talks over reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation of forests (REDD) and its extended version including afforestation are real solutions for mitigation or they are another instrument in the continuing saga of exploitation of the poor in the name of conservation. He clear analysis indicates that this might be more of a false solution. Patwardhan and Neharji broadly analyse the S&T situation in India and draw up a brief agenda for multilateral processes in the introduction and adoption of climate friendly technologies.

The section could perhaps have a critique of whether such sectoral approaches are themselves tenable for integration and as it unfolds, the missions themselves seem to repackaging of the current activities of the different sectors.

The last part comprises two articles by very senior bureaucrats who have been thickly engaged with the debate and reflect their deeper understanding. Shyam Sharan writing on mainstreaming climate change clearly argues that despite a shift from disposability to durability, we are not irretrievably locked into the high energy and resource intensive path and should build upon our civilizational legacy and lead in redefining the path lest we hit the dead end. Looking at the geopolitics of climate change, Nitin Desai concludes that while there is a significant debate, climate diplomacy is unlikely to shift the global balance of power but might be useful in forging cooperation in other areas.

The subject itself is vast and opinions often diverse as the editor himself states “there is certainly no intent to paper over the disagreement or seek premature consensus, but rather to promote dialogue by deepening understanding within India, and with its international interlocutors”.  Thus the volume is more for a climate change buff, rather than on a general reader for whom it would be difficult to easily understand and assimilate the range of issues. The editor and authors must be complimented for meeting the objective to cater to the demand for informed and knowledgeable perspectives.

Finally, the cost of the book (Rs 1250), is high for the poor Indian researcher but a book which should be an essential collection of all the libraries catering to climate researchers.

Vedanta in Niyamgiri – Decade of Obfuscation

After the farcical public hearing conducted on the project on the invitation of local people and a fact finding by our team from mines minerals and PEOPLES, we visited the area in late 2003. We realized that lands, including village forests and grazing land and even protected forests were already acquired and even encroached upon by the refinery and other related activities. The State and the Central Government and particularly the Company and the District Administration were at their devastating best. Villagers had very little clue about the vastness of the destruction. Today the entire world knows about it and people in Niyamgiri have been relentlessly demonstrating against the project which is floating on violations.

 Over this decade, the Vedanta Aluminium Projects have had their legal twists and turns and has entered its second decade of litigation when in the order dated 06/12/2012, the Supreme Court put this up for further hearing on 11.01.2013 in the WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 180 of 2011.

Suppresio veri Suggestio Falsi - 

The group has been obfuscating the facts since the beginning and to its convenience stating in different affidavits that the mining and the plants are integrated or stand-alone. In reality the impact of the project extends across all the components for which the group has initiated regulatory engagement. The various components and the manner in which each one has been presented is a classic example of the definition of untruth – suppresio veri, suggestio falsi!

The Niyamgiri Mines entails the following downstream actions and the total land and fresh water resources that will be consumed in the next 20-30 years is as follows:

	Project	Original	Expanded	Area Now (Ha)	Area Expanded	Total
					(Ha)
1	Bauxite Mine at Niyamgiri Hills	3 MTPA	15.48 MTPA	660.75		664
2	Alumina Refinery at Lanjigarh	1 MTPA	6 MTPA	664.69	1343.2	2007.89
3	Red Mud Pond		Will need further land	473	2200	2673
4	Ash Pond			264	541	805
5	The Captive Power Plant at Lanjigarh	75 MW	150 MW
6	The Smelter Plant at Jarsuguda	0.25 MTPA	1.6 MTPA	192	375	507
7	Captive Power Plant at Jharsuguda	675 MW	1350 MW
Total Land Area Legally Taken Away in Ha						6656.89
		Per Day Now	After Exapansion	Yearly in ML
8	Water Pumping In Tel River for Lanjigarh	15 MLPD	56 MLPD	4500	16800
9	Water for Jharsuguda from Hirakud		112		40600
Total Water Consumption Per Year in Million Liters						57400
10	Forest Land for Refinery & Mining (CEC)	58.943	672.018			730.961
11	Forest Land at Jharsuguda	Claim no Forest Land is required (Violations Reported)				0
Total Forest Land						730.961

It is unfortunate that neither the executive nor the judiciary is able to appreciate the cumulative impacts that are caused by such a decision. This table does not include the coal mines for the captive power plants as they will also entail a significant impact.

The November 2007 order by the Supreme Court was based on the understanding that the project will be handled by an Indian entity as Vedanta Resources was not a reliable company. The current and proposed structure of Vedanta clearly points out the total control of Vedanta on the projects.

Tryst with other Regulators not revealed

Orissa High Court’s rejection of the plea on the expansion of the illegal expansion of the refinery was categorical. It was here too that the company argued on the expansion and availability of bauxite.

 

 and after losing out at the National Environmental Appellate Authority and failing in the review petition in the NGT the company is currently trying to shift attention on the violation under the Forest Rights Act.

The December 6 Order of Supreme Court

“The Solicitor General, appearing for the Union of India has submitted that the decision of the Central Government and the impugned order  passed  by  the  MoS,  Environment  and  Forests, Government of India, are mainly based on  the  provisions  of  the  Scheduled   Tribes   and   Other   Traditional   Forest   Dweller (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.

              

In view of the stand taken by the Solicitor General, the provisions of the aforesaid Act have come under consideration and it would be necessary for this Court to examine the import and reach of the Act.  Any decision of the Court on the construction of the Act will have a bearing not only on the proposed project and the mining operation in the bauxite mines at Niyamgiri Hills, but is likely to have a widespread impact on the economic and social life of the country.

                

We, therefore,  direct  the  Union  of  India  to  file  an  affidavit making clear its stand  on  the  Act  and  spelling  out clearly how it understands the provisions of the Act.” (emphasis added)

Also before proceeding further in the matter,  we  wish  to know the status of the proceedings under  Section  6  of  the  Act before the Gram Sabha for the villages on the slopes of  Niyamgiri Hill that are likely to be affected by the  proposed  project  and the  mining  operations  on  the  top  of  the  Hill.   The State Government is directed to file a detailed affidavit bringing on record the steps taken by the Gram Sabha under Section 6 of the Act.

The State should also have the original records of those proceedings available for our perusal when the matter is next taken up.

The Legal Standpoint – The Bare Act

The Section 6 (1) of the Act as rightly pointed out by Hon Justice Aftab Alam wrests the sole authority of vesting rights to the gram sabha. Perhaps this is the real import of the reversal of the historical injustice to this republic. The Forest Acts progressively consolidated the powers to decision making over forests and its use to the Central Government and the Forest Rights Act directly vests it to the smallest unit of self-governance. Any other interpretation would render it hollow and completely undermine the process.  The section reads

6. (1) The Gram Sabha shall be the authority to initiate the process for determining the nature and extent of individual or community forest rights or both that may be given to the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers within the local limits of its jurisdiction under this Act by receiving claims, consolidating and verifying them and preparing a map delineating the area of each recommended claim in such manner as may be prescribed for exercise of such rights and the Gram Sabha shall, then, pass a resolution to that effect and thereafter forward a copy of the same to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee.

Therefore the Union of India is duty bound to ensure that these rights are respected irrespective of the number of projects and has no role in the vesting of the rights per se as would be the status of the State Government.

Enablement – The real role of the State

The State’s role would be in providing the requisite tools and techniques to undertake various tasks envisaged under the section of the act. The State however has usurped this role and on the contrary given an impression that some largesse is being bestowed upon them. Instead of enabling the communities, Gramsabhas the States have been using Section (6) Clause 3 Independent of Section 2

The section 6(2) presents a case for the aggrieved and the grievance redrressal system. This authority of appeal has usurped the role of the vesting authority. The section reads as follows:

(2) Any person aggrieved by the resolution of the Gram Sabha may prefer a petition to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee constituted under sub-section (3) and the Sub-Divisional Level Committee shall consider and dispose of such petition:

Provided that every such petition shall be preferred within sixty days from the date of passing of the resolution by the Gram Sabha;

Provided further that no such petition shall be disposed of against the aggrieved person, unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity to present his case.

And the Section 6(3) reads

(3) The State Government shall constitute a Sub-Divisional Level Committee to examine the resolutions passed by the Gram Sabha and prepare the records of forest rights and forward it through the Sub-Divisional Officer to the District Level Committee for a final decision.

This is definitely the most singular cause for the delay in delineation of areas covered by rights vested by gram sabhas by Scheduled Tribes and other Forest Dwellers.

Thus by highlighting the issues of global economy some specific constitutional and legal issues are involved and it narrows down the perspectives of a case that has entered its second decade of litigation. There are other important and key clauses in this act itself, such as consent for any change in land use or access beyond the fundamental aspect of vesting itself that has been pinpointed by the Hon Court.

Unequivocal Statement of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs 

Further in his recent letter to the Environment Minister, the Minister for Tribal Affairs has unequivocally mentioned that the provisions of the act will have a bearing on the Vedanta Judgement and hence should not be diluted at any costs.

Complete Violation of Environmental Laws and their failure of the groups appeal in relevant forum

So far the case has been heard on the issue of the Forest Rights. The number of violations in relation to the other laws that the group must comply with have also got to be taken into account in any decision on the matter. The entire proceedings in the NEAA and NGT were on the EC which was granted in April 2009, which was not a subject matter of the earlier decision by the Supreme Court as the cause of appeal arose because of a fresh decision by the MoEF.

After several hearings, appeals for revision by the group the NEAA finally delivered this order

“14.        From the submission of the Appellants and the Respondents, it is clear that the Vimta Lab EIA of 2005 on the basis of which the EC was granted, was never in public domain for people to express their views/concerns during the two Public Hearings held in Raigada and Kalahandi during 2003, leading to non-compliance of Ministry’s Notification. Further a perusal of rapid EIA by Vimta Labs reveals that it lacks analysis in respect of human miseries which the project is likely to inflict. However, except for some minor variations, there is a marked similarity in the two reports and whether the Tata AIG report could have provided some basis to the Ministry to incorporate additional safeguards or mitigative measures can best be assessed by the Ministry itself through its expert arm viz the Expert Appraisal Committee.

                The Authority therefore remits the matter to the Ministry with direction to revisit its Environment Clearance including the aspect of public hearing and take appropriate action. Till this process is over, the Environment Clearance stands suspended. The appeals are disposed accordingly. No Costs.” (Emphasis added)

 

When the group preferred a review with the National Green Tribunal, the Tribunal ordered on 28thJuly 2011

The continuing violation of the FC Act also indicates that the group has no interest in remedying the situation.

 

Human Rights cannot be ignored

A number of human rights violations have taken place and continue. Amnesty International has brought out a series of reports indicating how blatant and persistent the violations have been and are being conducted at the behest of the company.

 In 2013 any nation aiming to be high on the League of Nations cannot turn a blind eye.  Though the NHRC has been investigating a number of them, including one in which the company has filed a fabricated case on five women of stealing scores of tonnes of steel and metal. The irony is these women, two of whom had feeding babies in their arms, were in prison for months only to be later found that this was at the instance of the company’s contractor in response to the demand of these women for fair wages.

Thus a group which has become a veritable “periodic-table” of illegalities must be made to realize that the judicial system though prone to delays will not deny justice to the people affected.

The next hearing on the case is fixed for 18^th of Febraury, 2013.