|
|
Online edition of India's National Newspaper on indiaserver.com Wednesday, September 01, 1999 |
|
|
|
Front Page National International Regional Opinion Business Sport Miscellaneous Classified Employment
|
Opinion
| Previous
| Next
A buzzword named 'development' - II
By Nirmal Sengupta
A BIG dam can be constructed only at a location where the course
of the river has a steep slope. The kinetic energy of the falling
water is then converted into electrical energy. The higher the
fall, the higher the energy. Naturally, locations suitable for
big dam sites are rare. The fall generates energy but does not
retain water. For retaining water, valleys just before the fall,
are inundated. The major part of the dam height is due to the
steep fall of the selected location. A few metres at the top are
meant for converting valleys into reservoirs. Per every metre of
increase at the top, several additional square kilometres of the
valley are inundated; the storage capacity of the reservoir
increases. There is a considerable element of choice about the
topmost metres of dam height.
Dam construction is restricted to the margins of hill ranges
where alone steep slopes are found. Valleys are the only possible
populous sites within the undulated terrain of hill countries.
Inundation of these valleys are, therefore, part destruction of
the cultures of ethnic hill people. In the past, the planners
were far more considerate about this destructive impact on the
resident population. In the DVC era, the most acute problem was
at the Maithon dam site. But still the displacement was in the
range of some thousands. The dams constructed later were far more
damaging. Worst is the Sardar Sarovar project where the planners
have shown unabashed aggression, that may put bomb-makers to
shame - to push for increases in dam height again and again. I am
not opposed to big dams in general, I am opposed to the ethnocide
being committed today at Sardar Sarovar, an inhuman act that can
be stopped by showing some restraint about the last few metres of
the dam height.
Development is a word that was not there in economics till the
Thirties. The general concern was ``growth'' - in the Sixties,
the United Nations fixed a target growth rate of five per cent in
national income for the developing countries. The actual
experiences of growth were often accompanied by increasing
inequality, unemployment and poverty. The term ``development''
originated in this context. There still exist ``experts'' who
would repeat their college texts of the `Sixties: ``Goal of
industrialisation remains necessary and the need for major
irrigation projects continues.'' A more serious student of
development, like I.M.D. Little of cost-benefit analysis fame,
wrote instead, ``Anyone who writes that such-and-such a policy
would further economic development is making a value judgment...
With such words, there is liable to be a competitive struggle to
get one's definition accepted... If a definition gets accepted,
it tends to deemphasise considerations not included in the
definition.''
Concerns of our times are many. Some of those have already been
adopted in our national and state policies, some others await
acceptance. The professed developmental goal of India at present
is not just growth and industrialisation, but also that of
distribution and sustainability. The activism of the NBA is not
to get its own definition of development accepted, but to compel
the nation to honour its own definition of development. The
organisation has thrown up a serious challenge by not only
showing that the declared parameters of development are being
violated but also competently contesting the massive state
resources to establish their arguments. So scared is the state to
allow them a hearing that it had cancelled the sitting of the
World Commission on Dams a couple of days before the meeting in
violation of normal courtesy. If I don't believe that struggles
such as the one waged by the NBA will ultimately win, in the
recent or distant future, I will lose my faith about the
developmental potential of India - development as professed, not
just the growth of income of some of its citizens.
Those who read the debate on dams as ``small vs. big'' are,
indeed, persons with limited perceptions. They cannot understand
intricate network effects beyond the physical realities of small
tanks. If well laid, small units together can systematically
manage the whole of the water resources flowing through a very
large country. Not a single drop of water flowing through
Ramanathapuram district in the past could reach the sea.
Following a lead by a flood inquiry committee, I had once
calculated the storage capacity of the forgotten tanks of central
Bihar. Together it was equal to the capacity of the massive
Hirakud dam and is certainly an eligible alternative to big dams
for flood control.
Big-small and traditional-modern are dichotomies devised for
legitimising ignorance about complex principles of many water
management techniques practised by the ancient people. Until the
other day, terms like ``rainwater harvesting'', ``rooftop
harvesting,'' etc., were unknown in irrigation terminology. So
were `canals' and `dams' in the last century. Some great
personalities of modern engineering had discovered the potentials
of canals, wells and dams and created appropriate niche for those
within modern knowledge. In each single case, the inspiration was
an ancient work, a Yamuna canal or a Grand Anicut. Today, these
are modern and far more developed than what the ancients could
aspire to.
How long will it require for ``rainwater harvesting'' or ``roof
harvesting'' to be christened as modern and immensely improved?
Those do really have the potential to replace the mega dams. The
reason those are not extended systematically is the technocratic
and bureaucratic distrust of the people - the designs need
extensive support from the people. What the modern establishments
dislike is not small or traditional. they do not like the tough
task of involvement of the people. The biggest of all designs
made by the irrigation establishment, the Garland Canal scheme,
which could supply water to many water-starved regions of India
without the aid of destructive technologies, has been shelved
because its success depends on a massive participation of the
people. The need is for political will to force the irrigation
departments to abandon the hackneyed path and to allow thereby
some room for innovative, imaginative works by scientists and
engineers.
Bid dams are planned for a hundred years. They lose their
capacities from silting and age. Some of our old dams have
already lost considerable storage capacities and developed cracks
and the scope of renovation is limited. The accumulated silt
cannot be carted away at any reasonable cost. The only meaningful
alternative is to abandon the old ones and build new ones. But
where are the sites? Most of the suitable sites for big dams have
already been exhausted.
Who bothers? The project approval policy of the country does not
demand much consideration about the future, even about the
not-so-distant future. By taking advantage of mathematical
jugglery, this fact has been conveniently hidden from public
scrutiny. Projects are chosen if they pass the tests of cost-
benefit analysis. The analytical method requires that costs and
benefits streams include all future costs and benefits. If a
project functions for, say, 60 years, producing every year the
same amount of benefits and demanding the same cost for
operations and maintenance, then obviously the total net benefits
of the first and the last 30 years will have 50:50 shares in
total benefit from the project. The cost benefit analysis method
permits some extra weight to benefits received in the near
future. Towards this end some discounting of the future benefit
is allowed. The discount rate used in India is around 12 per
cent. At this rate the contributions of the first half and last
half of the above project is in the proportion of 97.3 - if a
project planned for 60 years collapses after just 30 years, the
net total benefit will be reduced by a nominal 3 per cent. Why
would the proponents of big dams bother about the dead ends they
are about to meet after the expiry of dam lives? They may not -
but do we?
(Concluded)
Section : Opinion Previous : Neglect of rehabilitation Next : Two-party system Front Page | National | International | Regional | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Classified | Employment | Copyrights © 1999 The Hindu & Tribeca Internet Initiatives Inc. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu & Tribeca Internet Initiatives Inc. Back to indiaserver.com Copyright © 1999 Tribeca Internet Initiatives Inc. All rights reserved worldwide. Indiaserver is a trademark of Tribeca Internet Initiatives Inc. |