An Unjustified Resentment

Ramaswamy R. Iyer

The Hindu, 1 Oct 2013

The 1960 Indus Waters Treaty is not perfect but represents the best that was possible in the circumstances that prevailed then. It cannot be changed till the time India-Pakistan relations improve

This is not a comment on Rohan D’Souza’s very interesting article in The Hindu (September 13, 2013), but seeks to provide a somewhat different and supplementary perspective on both the Indus Waters Treaty and on the dissatisfaction with it in Jammu & Kashmir.

The most striking feature of the Indus Waters Treaty 1960 (IWT) was that it performed a drastic surgery on an integrated river system, dividing it into two segments, one for Pakistan and the other for India. There will be universal agreement that this was a bad way of dealing with a living, integral whole. The second striking characteristic of IWT is that it is overwhelmingly an engineering document: it was a treaty between two sets of engineers. It is easy enough to criticise these features or characteristics, but in doing so we have to avoid the danger of anachronistic and ahistorical judgment.

Second best course

Yes, there is hardly any doubt that the living, integral, organic whole ought to have been dealt with as a unity and not cut up into two segments. As a matter of fact, David Lilienthal of Tennessee Valley Authority fame did advocate the joint management of the total system in an integrated manner, but such a course was not found practical for obvious reasons. Given the bitterness of Partition, the horrendous bloodshed that followed, and the implacable mutual hostility in which the two new countries were locked, it would have been naïve to expect that they could jointly, constructively and harmoniously manage the Indus system as a whole. (Such a possibility might have been difficult to reconcile with the logic of Partition.) When the ideal course is not possible, we have to settle for the second best course, and that was what the treaty represented. Once the land was partitioned in 1947, a partitioning of the waters was bound to follow, and it happened in 1960. Unfortunately, that history continues to plague us. It can hardly be said that a good, constructive, friendly relationship prevails between the two countries today, and that the IWT can now be replaced by a better and more holistic treaty.

Let me turn now to the other and more difficult point. All of us agree now that water is not a matter for engineers alone, and that it is a complex, multi-dimensional substance (avoiding the economist’s language of ‘resource’) that demands an inter-disciplinary study. We stress hydrology, ecology, sociology, anthropology, economics, law, history, tradition, custom, culture, and so on. All this is familiar talk now and is almost becoming conventional wisdom, but it was quite unknown in the 1950s when the Indus Waters Treaty was being formulated and negotiated.

From the advent of modern engineering with colonial rule up to the 1950s or even later, water was indeed regarded essentially a matter for engineers. Even the constitutional entries on water (Entry 17 in the State list and 56 in the Union List) show the strong influence of engineering thinking. Water use largely meant irrigation, irrigation meant canals, canals meant dams, barrages, weirs, gates, sluices and so on. It is therefore hardly surprising that when Partition forced the two new countries to negotiate a treaty on the Indus waters, the negotiation was largely entrusted to engineers on both sides; and it must be noted that the two opposing groups of engineers shared similar orientations, lexicons and concerns. Besides, Pakistan was anxious not only to secure a share of the waters but also to protect itself against the twin dangers of denial of water and flooding. The IWT was thus not merely a water-sharing treaty but also a water-control treaty.

Certainly, the authors of the IWT wanted the waters used for development but ‘development’ then meant projects for irrigation and hydroelectric power. ‘Projects’ were taken to be wholly benign; Environmental Impact Assessments were unknown; the possible human and social impacts of projects were even less recognised. The idea of a ‘minimum’ or ‘ecological’ flow would have been incomprehensible. Naturally, IWT is silent on these matters. As for climate change, that concern emerged several decades later. We must indeed go beyond IWT today and take these matters on board, but eventually IWT needs to be replaced by a very different, holistic, wise and harmonious treaty. Unfortunately, that will have to wait for a time when the relations between the two countries have ceased to be pathological.

Let us consider now the strong resentment against the IWT in J&K. There is a widespread feeling that while negotiating the treaty with Pakistan, India failed to keep the interests of J&K in mind. At one stage, the J&K Assembly even passed a resolution demanding the scrapping of the treaty. While one must take note of the negative feeling about the treaty in J&K, it would be unfair to say that the Indian negotiators ignored J&K's interests. Water-sharing by itself is only a small part of the treaty. The bulk of the treaty — the large and dense annexures and appendices — is about Indian projects on the western rivers, both storage and run-of-the-river. All those projects will be in J&K. Therefore, the substantial part of the negotiation was about projects to be located in J&K. How then can anyone say that J&K’s interests were ignored?

True, while India proposes to build a number of hydroelectric projects on the Jhelum and the Chenab (and their tributaries) in J&K, it does not follow that J&K will necessarily benefit from those projects. J&K may well feel that the power generated in the State will be taken elsewhere for use. Other States also have similar feelings about projects in their terrain. This, however, is a matter between the J&K State and the Government of India; it has nothing to do with the Indus Treaty.

What puzzles me is the following. When J&K complains that the treaty prevents it from utilising the waters that pass through the State, it appears that it is thinking of the restrictive provisions that limit the storage that can be built and impose several stringent conditions even on run-of-the-river (RoR) projects. India has so far not built the 3.6 MAF of storage that it is allowed to build. As for RoR projects, despite all the stringent conditions, it has built or is building several projects, and is planning a total of 33 projects. Assuming that the treaty was less restrictive, or non-existent, India could perhaps have built many more projects in J&K, both storage and RoR. (I am not going into the question of whether they would have been built by Central or State agencies.) Is that what the State wants?

Impact on ecology

We are talking about pristine, mountainous, seismically active, and ecologically sensitive areas. Does the State want 50 or 60 dams and reservoirs to be built in this area? What will such a massive intervention do to the ecology of the region? Elsewhere in the country, say in Assam, Kerala, Karnataka, Odisha, and so on, there are strong movements against hydroelectric projects. A study has been undertaken of the cumulative impacts of a large number of projects on the Ganga. The recent catastrophic floods in Uttarakhand have been partly attributed to mismanaged, mis-operated projects. In a recent case, the Supreme court has expressed concern about the cumulative impact of many projects on the Alaknanda, the Bhagirathi and on the Ganga as a whole, and has directed the MoEF as well as the State of Uttarakhand not to grant any further environmental clearance or forest clearance for any hydroelectric power project in Uttarakhand until further orders. Is there no similar concern in J&K? Are the people of that State quite easy in their minds about as many as 33 projects being built on the Jhelum and Chenab in their State? Undoubtedly, the energy needs of the people of the State, wisely estimated, must be met. Are massive dams the only answer? Assuming that to be the mainstream view, there must be other voices; but one does not seem to hear them.

(Ramaswamy R. Iyer is a former Secretary, Water Resources, Government of India)

Victims question Centre on delaying Plachimada Bill

Date:Mar 22, 2013

Environment ministry says compensation claims from Coca-Cola diluted by time limit

It has been more than two years since the Kerala Assembly passed a Bill to set up a tribunal to secure compensation for people of Plachimada village who suffered the ill-effects of ground water depletion and pollution at the hands of beverage giant Coca-Cola. But the tribunal is yet to be set up because of delay by the Centre. A memorandum regarding the constitution of the Plachimada Coca-Cola Victims’ Relief and Compensation Claim Special Tribunal was submitted to the Union home ministry on March 15.

Home minister, Sushil Kumar Shinde, who said he was unaware of the case, assured them that he would look into the matter.

People’s organisation Plachimada Anti Coca-Cola Struggle Committee, who submitted the memorandum, questioned the two-year-long delay in approving the Bill. The committee and other social organisations have been agitating since 2002 for people of Plachimada in Kerala who allege that the soft drink plant of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Company in their area depleted more than 64 wells and polluted their groundwater. In 2004, the cola giant’s Plachimada unit was closed down. In 2010, an expert committee assessed and slapped Rs 218 crore damages on the cola company.

The Plachimada tribunal Bill was unanimously passed by the Kerala Assembly on February 24, 2011.  Once it becomes an Act, it would legitimise the constitution of a special tribunal for securing the compensation for the people of Plachimada. The Bill was sent by the state governor for presidential assent via the home ministry end of March 2011. In March 2012, the state government sent a reminder to the MHA, enquiring into the inordinate delay in forwarding the Bill to the President.

Other ministries approve Bill

According to the memorandum, the home ministry had forwarded this bill to various ministries for comments on April 13, 2011. The four related ministries of agriculture, water resources, rural development and law have categorically approved this Bill and some recommended even stronger measures than mentioned in the contents of the Bill. The Union Ministry of Environment and Forests, however, has not given positive comments  on the bill.

As per the memorandum, the present the Bill in its present form has set a time limit of 10 years from the time damages were incurred for demanding compensation from the company. The environment ministry stated that this provision is against the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act which set a time restriction of five years. Hence, in accordance with the NGT Act, the claims of the residents of Plachimada have already been diluted.

“The environment ministry has been repeating the argument of the cola company,” says K V Biju, convener of Plachimada Anti Coca-Cola Struggle Committee. “The Plachimada Bill is in fulfilment of the State's obligation in terms of Article 21 as interpreted by the Supreme Court and based on the polluter-pays principle that has become an integral part of our jurisprudence,” he adds.
 

Source

Draft Bill seeks right to water, 25 litres daily for each

 Tue Jun 25 2013

The Centre on Monday unveiled the draft of its contentious National Water Framework Bill which seeks to provide "right to water", while stating that water allocation and pricing should be based on "economic principles".

"Every individual has a right to a minimum quantity of potable water for essential health and hygiene and within easy reach of the household," states the draft. "The minimum quantity of potable water shall not be less than 25 litres per capita per day," it says, adding that the quantity must be fixed by the "appropriate government".

"The state's responsibility for ensuring people's right to water shall remain despite corporatisation or privatisation of water services, and the privatisation of the service, where considered necessary and appropriate, shall be subject to this provision," says the draft bill, which also mandates that governments should specify the "quality standards" of water supply for various uses like drinking, livestock, irrigation and industries among others.

While noting that the government remains the trustee of water resources, the draft bill gives it the flexibility of roping in a "private agency" for "some of the functions of the state". In this context, it stipulates that "allocation and pricing" should be based "on economic principles to ensure its development costs", and "so that water is not wasted in unnecessary uses and... utilised more gainfully and water infrastructure projects are made financially viable."

For this purpose, "an independent statutory water regulatory authority shall be established by every state for ensuring equitable access to water for all, and its fair pricing for drinking and other uses such as sanitation, agricultural and industrial," it says, adding that the decision of this authority will be subject to judicial review.

The regulatory authority will be entrusted with fixing the water price and its periodical review, and formulating a "principle of differential pricing for water for drinking and sanitation".

The draft bill, prepared on the basis of a report by a committee headed by Y K Alagh, also mandates protection of "ecological integrity necessary to sustain ecosystems dependent on water", that may include restrictions on water usage to maintain minimum natural flow in rivers to meet the ecological needs and regulated groundwater use.

It seeks to make river basins the mandatory basic hydrological unit for planning, development and management of water resources, while stipulating that governments should come up with "specific legislations" for developing, managing and regulating basins of intra-state rivers. Besides, it says, there should be a river basin masterplan.

"All water resources projects shall conform to the river basin masterplan under section 7(7)... and shall take into account all social and environmental aspects, in addition to techno-economic considerations of the project, in consultation with project affected and beneficiary families," it says. Local bodies, including panchayats, municipalities, corporations, and even water users associations will have a say in planning and management of the projects.

The National Water Framework Bill has already drawn criticism from several states, including Congress-ruled ones like Kerala and Haryana, which have claimed that it amounts to infringing upon their rights as water is a state subject.

The draft bill gives time till July 31 for comments.

Source

Activists Occupy Coca-Cola Factory In Kerala

By NAPM

17 December, 2011
Source: http://countercurrents.org/napm171211.htm

New Delhi, December 17 : About twenty two members of Plachimada Coca-Cola Virudha Samara Samithi and Plachimada solidarity forum including Vilayodi Venugopal, Sri N. P. Johnson, N Subramanyan, Fr. Augustine, M N Giri, Sahadevan and ors, walked in to the premises of the Coca Cola Factory in Kerala state, India and courted arrest. When produced the Magistrate ordered their release on furnishing personal bond but activists refused to take bail in protest against apathy on the part of state government and the delaying and subverting tactics in favour of Coca Cola. NAPM hails the action of these activists and salutes their courage for choosing to do this to bring home the dire need for quick passage of the ‘Plachimada Coca-Cola Victims’ Relief and Compensation Claims Special Tribunal Bill, 2011.

It needs to be noted that based on the report submitted by Plachimada High Power Committee appointed by Goverment of Kerala, ‘Plachimada Coca-Cola Victims’ Relief and Compensation Claims Special Tribunal Bill, 2011’ was passed by the Assembly on 24 February 2011. The Bill sent by the Governor of Kerala to the President via the central Ministry of Home Affairs on 30 March, and the Home Ministry in turn has sent it to various related ministries for their comments on 17 April. They were then supposed to forward the Bill to the President with the consolidated comments.

The decision to send the Bill to the President was taken by the State Law Department, although there was no issue of repugnance and hence there was no need for Presidential assent. There is no question of repugnance as the law deals, in its operative part, with entirely state subjects, namely, losses in agriculture, health care, animal husbandry, job loss and groundwater contamination.

Very recently, the Union government has referred the Bill back to State government but till date State Law Ministry has not done anything on this. We fail to understand this delay, when in the State as well as at the Centre Indian National Congress Party is in power in coalition. Is this delay part of a larger design ? Is the government trying to serve the interests of the Coca Cola Corporation ? It is extremely shameful that the governments at the State and Centre are neglecting the demands of the suffering communities and the elected Gram Sabha. We all know that continuous Satyagraha has been going on since earth day in 2002, which has now completed almost a decade. How long are they expected to wait ?

Amidst all this Kerala government is planning to give distribution rights to Coco - Cola for providing drinking water to government hospitals in Kerala. Union Minister of State for Food Sri K.V. Thomas declared that months back. It was after sustained people's movements and pressure from the groups across the country which forced the government to enact this special tribunal Bill. It is high time government brought this enactment to force and justice is done to the suffering communities and Coke is held responsible for their Corporate Crimes and made to pay for this. Our struggle to hold the corporations accountable will continue until justice is done to the people.

Medha Patkar, Sandeep Pandey, Gabriele Dietrich, Prafulla Samantara, Geo Josh, Hussain master, Gabriele Dietrich, Suniti S R, Rajendra Ravi, Ramakrishna Raju, Anand Mazgaonkar, Vimal Bhai, Madhuresh Kumar.

Blood spills in water war - 4 farmers die in protest against urban drinking water project

JAIDEEP HARDIKAR

Aug. 9: Four farmers were killed in police firing as a protracted farmers’ agitation against an urban water-supply project in Pune district turned violent on Tuesday afternoon. Several farmers and 20 policemen were injured, two of them seriously. More than 300 protesters were rounded up. A strong crackdown restored traffic on the blocked Pune-Mumbai expressway, Pune rural police said. Around 1.30pm, more than 400 villagers, agitating for years against an urban water supply project they fear will divert water meant for farming, clashed with police. Encircled by the mob, a police officer opened fire, the superintendent of police (Pune rural) Sandeep Karnik said. “We fired in self-defence,” he said. “There was unfortunately no option…. When our men pleaded with them to disperse and lift their blockade, some of them pelted them with stones from behind.” The dead, who include a woman, have been identified as Moreshwar Sopan Sathe, 40, Shyam Waghu Tupe, 40, Maruti Barku Khirode, 35, and Kantabai Ankush Thakar, 45. Karnik said an inspector and an additional SP were among the policemen injured. The farmers of Gahunje village, 40km from Pune, have been opposed to the project since 2008 when work on it started. They stepped up their resistance recently when it emerged the authorities had been working silently on the project that will ensure 24-hour drinking water supply to urban dwellers under a civic body run by Sharad Pawar’s Nationalist Congress Party. The project of the Pimpri and Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC), two industrial townships near Pune, is one of the pet ventures of Pawar’s nephew and deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar. It envisages laying two underground pipelines from the Pavna dam to the PCMC water pumping station. The civic body goes to the polls next year and Ajit wants to showcase the project as a trophy in a bid to retain power. The Congress, an ally of the NCP in the ruling coalition, is a bitter rival in the municipal corporation. The farmers, most of them loyalists of the local BJP legislator, are also opposed to giving land for pipelines and are upset the matter of compensation is hanging fire, though their anger is more about the diversion of irrigation water. For the last couple of years, Maharashtra has been witnessing violent protests against diversion of irrigation water for industry and urban drinking water purposes. The police said the BJP legislator, Sanjay Bhegade, had addressed a meeting of the farmers this morning and led a march on the construction site where the protesters allegedly smashed equipment and tried to torch government vehicles. They later blocked the Mumbai-Pune expressway. The firing rocked the Assembly, where the Sena-BJP combine stalled proceedings demanding an explanation. Home minister R.R. Patil, who is from the NCP, justified the firing and said it was in “self-defence”. Pune collector Vikas Deshmukh has ordered a judicial probe into the firing. Mandar Sathe of Pune-based NGO Prayas said the project would hit agriculture in the area as much of the land, irrigated by the Pavna river, is used for multi-crop farming. “Farmers have been lifting the water from the Pavna for generations. It is a prosperous sugar belt,” he said. Others feared losing their plots. “Some of us will lose land but everyone’s farming will be affected…. We won’t allow this project,” said Balasaheb Pingale of the BJP-affiliated Bharatiya Kisan Sangh.

Source: The Telegraph

Water ‘vision’ for villages

DEEPANKAR GANGULY
Calcutta, June 26: The Mamata Banerjee government has taken up a scheme to supply 70 litres of safe drinking water daily to each household in rural areas by 2020.

The chief minister has asked public health engineering (PHE) minister Subrata Mukherjee to draw up a detailed report on the project — named Vision 2020 — and submit it to her by the end of this month.

Mukherjee said the programme planned to supply safe drinking water to every village from a source not more than 50 metres from a household. “If we can achieve our target by 2020, it will also help improve the general health of villagers, many of whom suffer from water-borne diseases and the effects of arsenic contamination. The estimated cost of the project is Rs 1,095 crore,” the PHE minister said.

According to the draft Vision 2020 document, the government will try to bring about 55 per cent of the rural households under the scheme by 2015. Kiosks will be set up in every village where water will be stored after purification from treatment plants. Villagers will be able to collect water from the kiosks, Mukherjee said.

“We will also try to supply piped water directly to 33 per cent of these 55 per cent households by 2015,” the minister said. “All schools will have access to adequate drinking water. Panchayats and self-help groups will be tasked with maintaining the water-supply network.”

“It is a shame that in many villages, the residents still have to collect drinking water from ponds,” Mukherjee said.

PHE officials said several small water-treatment plants would be set up. Water from various sources such as rivers, canals and ponds will be brought through pipes to the treatment plants. After purification, the water will be piped to the kiosks. The officials said rainwater harvesting was also being considered.

“We want to avoid the use of underground water as much as possible, particularly in Bankura, Purulia, West Midnapore, Birbhum and Burdwan. In these districts, the arsenic level in groundwater is high. There are problems of fluoride contamination too,” a PHE official said.

PHE sources said a separate scheme was being considered for the Sunderbans, but they did not mention the specifics. For the Darjeeling hills, the Terai and arid regions, water will be carried to and from the treatment plants through large pipes as local water sources are insufficient in these regions.

Mamata will approach the Centre for funds once the Vision 2020 document is ready, the sources said. The PHE department is “giving final touches to the document”, they added.

PHE minister Mukherjee has formed a 12-member expert committee to prepare the document.

Source: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110627/jsp/bengal/story_14164309.jsp

Cola Bill by R. Krishnakumar

THE road ahead seems to be a difficult one for the Bill passed recently by the Kerala Assembly for the establishment of a special tribunal to “make the polluter pay” and recover compensation for the people affected by the activities of Coca-Cola's controversial bottling unit at Plachimada in Palakkad district. “The Plachimada Coca-Cola Victims Relief and Compensation Claims Special Tribunal Bill, 2011”, proposed by the Left Democratic Front government at the fag end of its term, was passed without discussion on February 24, the last day of the last session of the 12th Assembly, while members of the LDF and the opposition United Democratic Front (UDF) were busy trading corruption allegations.

Amidst criticism that a Bill on an issue that falls under the residuary powers of legislation of Parliament (Article 248) may not be within the constitutionally mandated jurisdiction of a State Assembly, the Kerala government has decided to send the Bill for the President of India's assent, before it can become law and rules can be framed on its basis.

Under the proposed law, the tribunal is sought to be established “for the adjudication of disputes and recovery of compensation for the damages caused” by the company “by entertaining original applications” (from the affected people) and “by transferring cases pending before the various courts and other authorities to the tribunal”. The tribunal can also entertain grievances regarding violation of laws relating to the environment and air and water pollution or the implementation of such laws.

The three-member tribunal is to have all the powers and authority of a civil court and is to decide its award by applying the “principles of sustainable development, precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle”. All cases involving local residents arising out of violations of laws relating to the environment and air and water, in which the company is a party, and are pending before any court, except the High Court or the Supreme Court, have to be transferred to the tribunal as and when it is established by a government notification. The High Court can also refer “any matter pending before it relating to the company” on which the tribunal is empowered to adjudicate.

Some organisations that had participated in the agitation against the Coca-Cola unit described the Bill as “a historic victory for the people of Plachimada”. Others, including former Law Minister K.M. Mani (a prominent leader of the UDF), described it as “an election gimmick” and said the Assembly had passed a Bill on an issue over which it did not have jurisdiction. The Coca-Cola company said it was “disappointed in the Plachimada Tribunal Bill and the flawed process on which it is based”.

The company claimed in a press statement that none of the scientific studies conducted by various government bodies had found its operations responsible for any of the instances of damage alleged in the Bill. It said the Bill “is devoid of facts, scientific data or any input from HCCB” (Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages) and that “at no time was HCCB offered an opportunity to present facts, engage in dialogue around this issue or share independent data before the Bill was tabled or approved”.

The company also argued that “any government committee or panel reviewing claims should have first determined, through scientific study and established process of law, whether any damage was caused to the local residents. And, second, if such damage was caused, who or what was responsible” (for it). Currently, HCCB is reviewing all available options, but remains willing to engage with all stakeholders on the issue. It is likely that the people of Kerala may soon realise that any action against the soft-drink giant is easier said than done.

Source: http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2806/stories/20110325280611600.htm