On People & the Issues

POSCO's Orissa Project is not all about Steel

More than just industrialisation and economic development, POSCO's Orissa Project has become a political phenomenon with South Korean president trying to push it as an agenda in diplomatic talks and the Prime Minister’s Office in India expressing its support to the project undermining the public opposition on the ground since last six years. Even without a valid MoU, POSCO was given environmental clearances by the union ministry of India to go ahead with its project works at the proposed area near Paradeep and Orissa government started acquiring land for the POSCO Project. One has to check, if such things are possible in any other country across the globe just to honour a large foreign investment.

Challenges before Govt multiplied after Indian Maoists released Malkangiri Collector

With the abduction episode closed after the Collector made a safe return to his residence, many controversies are coming in to trouble the Naveen Patnaik government in Orissa. When union Home Minister P Chidambaram reportedly expressed his dissatisfaction over what the government did to release its IAS officer, leaders of opposition parties in the State condemned Orissa government’s actions terming it a bad precedent that may have far reaching consequences not only in Orissa but also in the neighbouring states already troubled by the Maoist movement.

Getting the IAS Officer – one of India’s powered civil servants – back from the Maoist camp might have been seen as a victory by the government, mediators and, more particularly, the most powerful bureaucracy in the state, but the series of events since the abduction till the final release left in their trail many questions to be answered.

The first and foremost among all is why the government maintained to be at the receiving end throughout the talk process between the mediators and the government? Earlier, there have been a few such cases like abduction of a Police ASI in Keonjhar, many grass root level political leaders and villagers in Sundergarh, Koraput and Malkangiri districts. But in no earlier case government was so submissive, so surrendering as in the case of R Vineel Krishna and the Junior Engineer Pabitra Mohan Majhi. However, in the cases of Police Officer Umesh Marandi and, also, in the recent case of Pabitra Mohan Majhi, the state government played with the tribal card against the Maoists. But the abduction of the collector became a thorn in the throat for the government and it had to accept almost all the terms dictated by the Maoists for the safe release of the IAS officer. What pressurised the government for this? Was it the growing strength of Maoists displayed through abduction of the head of district administration or the strong lobby of Bureaucrats who virtually enjoys the status of medieval nobility in India?

The later seems to be more logical for the Naveen Patnaik government because it is run by the bureaucrats than the elected representatives and the council of Ministers. Here again, People’s representatives and political leadership – two essential components of a democracy – were not taken into confidence. For a negotiation between the government and the Maoists who should represent the democratically elected government? Should it be the elected representatives and leaders from the public or the bureaucrats? Why representatives or leaders who have a better knowledge of people’s issues and the realities of the place in discussions were not included? It reminds of the statement made by veteran CPI leader Prof. Abani Baral who once said, ‘Bureaucracy has overpowered people and their representatives in Orissa during the rule of Naveen Patnaik’ which is completely against the spirit and the basic objectives of democracy.

The other important thing about the negotiation is that it went completely one sided with the Maoists dictating terms through the mediators and the Government of Orissa just accepting the most. While the Maoists demanded release of five persons put in different jails on charges of being involved in Maoist activities and also demanded to stop anti-Maoist operations, the government from its side didn’t pursue the demand of ‘No Violence’ by the Maoists. All fourteen demands were accepted by the Officers representing the government just to get their fraternity colleague freed by the abductors. During the process of mediation the government was exposed to be too weak against the bureaucratic lobby. In the end, the mediation set such a precedent that it would encourage the rebels to resort to the formula to get their demands fulfilled. Even the possibility of such abduction in future not only by the Maoists but even by mafias and hardcore criminals can’t be ruled out.

On the other hand, the demands made by the abductor Maoist rebels proved themselves to be the real welfare thinkers for the tribal and downtrodden communities and exposed the state and its elected government to be a no welfare body. Out of the fourteen demands almost all the demands, except a few like releasing cadres and sympathisers confined in different jails and to stop anti-Maoist operations, were for the welfare of the tribal communities and the other downtrodden communities living in remote forest villages and in the places of heavy mining and industrial activities. For example, the Maoists demanded extension of irrigation facilities to remote villages of Koraput and Rayagada districts. Paying compensation to the farmers living in areas cut-off by Balimela Reservoir and providing justice to the tribal people displaced by NALCO Project in Damanjodi are in the list of the demands made by the Maoists. All these demands placed by the Maoists are in fact the duties of the government that never desired to accomplish before they are dictated as terms against release of the abducted IAS officer.

In order to uphold the rights of tribal communities over the forest and forest land in the mineral rich zones, the Maoists demanded cancellation of mining lease and MoU with multinationals to which the state showed its inability without consent of the union government. But the government now promised to implement PESA, Forest Rights Act, Forest Conservation Act and Environment Protection Act in their true terms and spirit. Does this mean that the government has not yet implemented these acts even though these laws are there since long to protect the rights of tribal communities and other forest dwellers?

The issues raised by the Maoists in form of demands against release of the Collector and raised by the mediators during their discussion with the Orissa’s Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik are truly some issues that should have been addressed by the government much before. In fact, they are the duties of the government. The acceptance of the demands, sympathetically or under compulsion, by the Officers involved in the mediation and the Chief Minister’s positive response to the issues raised by the mediators suggest that the government grossly failed in protecting the genuine rights of the tribal and downtrodden communities. Is this what ultimately necessitated abduction of a high rank officer like the District Collector?

Now that the abduction episode is over, the impacts of the mediation and Orissa government’s stand throughout the process would become more a worry in future than the relief at the moment. The mediation that went completely one sided would now become an obvious reason for people to doubt, or underestimate, the power and potential of the State in maintaining law and order situation and ensuring safety to the ordinary man in the places of hostility. So the primary challenge before the State now is to win the confidence of people in the elected government and the administration. For this, the failures of the State in resolving the issues of common people must be looked at seriously and issue of people living at the grass root level be addressed sympathetically. Even though the challenge is enormous before the government at this time, there is hardly any other way to keep people away from looking at alternate options or join revolutionaries to protect their rights. The challenge is that the State must prove itself to be a welfare State than just a governing body.

While nobody else predicted the date with such pin-point accuracy, there was no dearth of people – and certainly not journalists – who sincerely believed in, bought or peddled the ‘deal’ theory.  Even paan shop gossip centred around the theory that the Naveen Patnaik government, through the seemingly omnipresent and omnipotent ‘Uncle’,  had entered into a deal with the Ramakrishna faction of the Maoists to take attention away from the Dal scam, which was getting too hot to handle for the government when the abduction happened.

In journalist circles, there was animated talk of a more mundane ‘deal’ – one involving payment of huge amounts of cash to the Maoists to stage the drama. Even a figure – Rs. 8 crore – was bandied about freely.

Proponents of the ‘deal’ theory raised a number of eminently pertinent questions. Why did the Collector venture into territory which is widely known as the Maoists’ den? Why was Swami Agnivesh cold shouldered by the state government though he was the first to offer his services as a mediator – especially considering the fact that he had played a key role as a mediator in securing the release of five abducted policemen in neighbouring Chhatisgarh just a few weeks before the hostage crisis in Orissa? Why did the Chhatisgarh government not pass on definite intelligence it apparently had a day before the abduction that the Maoists were planning to do precisely such a thing? Or, if it did, why was it not heeded by the Orissa government?

There were some impertinent – and in some cases, mischievous – questions as well. Why was Vineel Krishna chosen to be the target? The implication was that the state government wanted to bask in the reflected glory of the Malkangiri Collector, who clearly has earned the admiration of the people of Malkangiri in general and the so-called ‘cut off’ area, in particular. One commentator even went to the extent of suggesting that he was ‘chums’ with the annas and was very much a dramatis personae in the hostage drama. To prove his point, he pointed to the unfettered access allegedly given to Vineel Krishna during his period of captivity to communicate with his family and even get essential items like clothes and shaving kit delivered to him in the jungles.

A leading Oriya daily ran a front page story asking for ‘stringent’ action against the Collector for his utterly ‘irresponsible’ and ‘foolish’ act in venturing into an area where the proverbial angles ‘fear to trade.’ It did not stop at that and went on to demand that officers who organized processions in support of the popular Malkangiri Collector should lose their salary for the nine days when “all work came to a standstill”.

Another commentator wondered why Pabitra Majhi was chosen ahead of the other junior engineer accompanying the Collector to be abducted? The suggestion was it was a carefully crafted strategy to use the ‘tribal card’, particularly in view of the fact that he was released a day before the Collector. Another asked: why was the helicopter carrying interlocutors Prof. Hargopal and Dandapani Mohanty ‘deliberately’ delayed till late in the afternoon?  The unspoken suggestion: to ensure that they would not be able to reach Malkangiri in time to secure the release of the Collector. [No answers are available to the important question as to what material difference would it have made if Vineel Krishna had been handed over to the interlocutors and not to some local journalists because there is no way one can ask questions to those who have made a career out of raising questions without bothering to provide – or even suggest – possible answers! ]

The one question which has been the most puzzling for me personally is: when exactly did the government get the first information that the Collector had been released (or was being released)? Journalists who were present when the Collector was released say he was set free at about 4 pm. In that case, what does one make of the announcement by the third interlocutor (the other two having already left for Koraput) Prof. R Someswara Rao at 6.30 pm that Krishna “will be released by tomorrow”? Does that mean the government did not know, at least till two and a half hours after the release, that the Collector had already been released? If that is the case, then it is worrying. When the government of the day comes to know about the denouement of such a serious crisis that had paralysed the administration for nine days from the media, it is a clear signal that it is no more in control of things. If, as is more likely, it did know when the Collector would be released even while pretending that it didn’t and delayed the announcement sufficiently for the Assembly to adjourn, it’s even more worrying.  For it means that the Naveen government has nothing but utter contempt for the people of the state, for the media and above all for the august house called the Orissa Assembly.

Despite being very much in the thick of things in my capacity as a journalist – and despite the time since the release of Vineel Krishna to reflect on things at leisure - I am still not sure what to make of the ‘deal’ theory. Now, it appears so eminently plausible. Now, it sounds so utterly incredible and far-fetched. 

Governments, especially the ones centred around a single personality like the Naveen Patnaik government, have always been more than willing participants in deal-making. BJD’s deal-making skills were on full and vulgar display in the run up to the last Assembly elections in May 2009 and there is no reason why it would shy away from a deal with the Maoists to secure the release of one of the finest officers the state has – or, as the cynics suggest, to divert attention from the dal scam. But did the Maoists really play ball with the very government they are engaged in a fierce, no-holds-barred and bloody battle with? After all, as many as 20 Maoists were killed in the state by security personnel in January alone (although how many of them were really Maoists remains a matter of acrimonious debate).

But in the cynical times that we live in, nothing seems improbable. The new rules of the game provide ample opportunity to sleep and play footsie with the enemy. It is possible to do business with each other even while killing each other. [On second thoughts, it is an old – nay ancient – game, at least as old as the Mahabharat. Didn’t the Kauravas and Pandavas meet after sunset like friends after the day’s battle?] Some incurable romantics may imbue the Maoists with a halo – of an ideology-driven class war, blood and sacrifice. But the unpalatable truth is; they have left Mao far behind. [Why, even China has left the man who led the Revolution far behind!]

In large swathes of Maoist controlled areas in India, lower and middle level cadres have become a law unto themselves. They kill people at will; run extortion syndicates targeting corporates, mining lords and other rich people; charge hefty protection money from companies, government officials and even educational institutions (Remember the seizure of Rs. 12 lakh meant for the Maoists seized  from two senior staff of a leading engineering college in Rayagada a couple of years back?]. In some places, they have now started, like corrupt government officials, demanding a cut even in welfare schemes meant for the poor and children. In the backdrop of all this, entering into a secret pact with the state government is not really as preposterous an idea as it initially appears, especially considering that the Maoists have held all the aces in this case since day one. They have got what they wanted (the release of key Maoist leaders); they have brought the state government to its knees and sent out the right signals by showing their concern for the tribals. [May be – just may be – they have also laughed all the way to the bank, (although the ‘deal’ has been allegedly transacted in hard cash)!]

The issue, however, is not whether a ‘deal’ had actually been struck by the government and the Maoists, but the number of people willing to believe this seemingly absurd theory. We are indeed living in cynical times.

Journalists of India should have greater access to quality training – Sam Miller

Basudev Mahapatra (BM): So, when I came to know that you are in Bhubaneswar, I thought it would be an opportunity to have an interaction with you.

Sam Miller (SM): My pleasure!

BM: I wanted to discuss about the kind of journalism that is being practiced in India at present...

SM: As you know, journalism has expanded very very rapidly in this country and India has a huge number of very good journalists. Most of them, in my view, have not had enough opportunity for training. And, what the BBC World Service Trust hopes to do is to be in a position to provide training to working journalists. . I think the feeling is that there is not enough access to training for working journalists.

Here in Orissa, at the moment, we are working on a project that’s really about feature journalism. And, it’s funded, the project, with a very specific aim of giving greater coverage to tobacco related issues; so issues to do with tobacco industries, to do with advertising, to do with public health, to do with child labour and trying to raise the profile of those issues in the Indian media generally. And, obviously, since we are here in Orissa this week to raise it in Orissa now.

And, we do that by providing local journalists with a course in feature journalism and we hope in that endeavour that they will do some features on tobacco issues. But we also think we help them in their everyday work. As I said, there is not enough training for journalists, there is not enough opportunity for them to sit and discuss their work - to say, this kind of story worked, this one didn’t work so well, and we help in a way to provide a forum for that.

BM: How do you compare journalism as practiced in India with that of Europe? And, particularly, how useful such courses by BBC World Service are?

SM: I think there are bad examples from almost everywhere, you know! I can think of some bad examples in my country, I can think of bad examples from the rest of Europe and obviously I can think of bad examples here. So I don’t think it’s about me saying this place is worse, this place is better or whatever.

I think it’s more about how journalists, as a professional, go about dealing with that in the changing scenario.

Indian journalism has got a huge amount to be very proud of.  But I think there are lots of problems. And a lot of them, as I have mentioned, have been due to lack of training. It’s not bad will, it’s not as if journalists who make mistakes are   evil. So the real need is for high quality training of India journalists in-service, for working journalists. There is a strong emphasis on journalism courses before you join journalism, and almost no talk about training for working journalists, and working journalists actually need training far more.

I am happy to talk about this project by BBC World Service specifically. Which is a project that is trying to get a particular issue covered more in the media. We are not saying it needs to be covered in this way or that way. We don’t want the issue to be covered by plugging a particular line. But we are saying, this issue - tobacco control needs more and better quality coverage in the Indian media.

I think there has been an obsession with high politics, and business, but there aren’t enough social, health, people’s stories. And, that’s what we are trying to change here.

I picked up one newspaper here today and didn’t see any good feature story. The kind that tell you about someone’s life and make you think, or make you do something differently. And, that’s what I think is lacking and we are going to encourage more of. And, that we do across the country. These are human interest stories which have an issue at their heart. Issue based journalism is a good thing so long as it stand in human terms.

If you want to talk about child labour, you don’t need to write an essay about it. You go and meet a child or an employer, and get that story, bring it out. At the end of the story, you might have your conclusions and your more analytical points. Actually, journalism in my view is about telling stories, telling true stories. They need to be read like stories, look like stories rather than like post-graduate essays. And, you know, it should be about journalists going out, meeting people, coming back and filing stories, this is how journalism use to be. It can’t all be done on the mobile phone and the Internet. That’s what we are working on in our courses.

BM: In your view, where do most Indian Journalists lack or, in the other way, where should they improve?

SM:  There need to be more and better feature stories, more human-centred, person-centred stories which begin with a part of someone’s life story. And, for me not only is it right that you should be doing those stories, most readers, most viewers will remember those stories. If you ask an ordinary member of the public to tell you about the story they remember over the last year, it will usually be a slightly off-beat, interesting, different story. It won’t be the interview with the leader of the opposition because people are fed up a lots of the time with politics. They want stories; they want things that tell them about people and the world. They do not want this party or that minor party might split if such and such happens.

I think there are some good feature writers around, particularly in the magazines where there is more time to report. And, that’s one of the hardest things for a journalist. To do a good feature story you need time, you need to work  on the story, you need to follow up from different angles, you need to think about how you are going to write it, how you are going to begin the piece… whereas, with daily news journalism, you know, we can do several stories in a day. But that carefully written feature story - that isn’t a hard news item, it could run tomorrow or the next day, doesn’t need to go today; these stories somehow feel lower priority to the newsrooms. But it’s these pieces that the audiences remember.

BM: But In India, don’t you see journalists are more interested in reporting politics than issues of people living at the grass root level.

SM: I think that’s partly about the status of politics within journalism. The higher up you go the more you want to do the big political story and you go and interview the Chief Minister etc. And I think that’s the problem. I would love to see more senior journalists take up social and economic features, health, environment, these kinds of stories. And, they often don’t do these. You know, they often get given to the junior person in the office. 

BM: In a country of one billion people where over 70% do lead a miserable life, how do you see the role and responsibility of journalists in bringing them up?

SM: I think, the responsibility on Indian journalism is to tell their stories, make sure people know their story and define interesting ways of doing and telling their story. And, you tell the stories of the rich as well. But, ordinary lives can be interesting. You can meet anyone around here, you can plan a story, spend sometime with them, they trust you, you speak to them in common language, there is a story they can tell! They can be a part of your next feature!

And, you know, as a journalist sometimes you become obsessed by getting an interview with this big famous person, and then when you get the interview, they say what they have said in every previous interview. But those other people has never been interviewed in their life, they may have an interesting story to tell!

BM: In India, Journalists working at grass-root level and bringing out the issues are being targeted in the recent years. Even here in Orissa many of the Journalists have been harassed while doing their job! How do you think that the government and administration should take it?

SM: Any attempt to censor, or to harass media would usually backfire. The media is quite powerful so long as it’s broadly united; then it’s an incredibly powerful force. And, a government that takes on the media as a whole is being very foolish. What they are trying to do is, pick off one or two people whom they see as trouble. Then they complain, you did the story about such and so. And, which is why having some kind of media solidarity is so important.. And, I would also say, to be honest being a journalist is not a risk free job. It’s your job as a journalist to tell the truth as you find it and telling the truth involves risks if you are exposing people, if you are embarrassing people. That’s part of being a journalist! I think while going into the profession one should realise that it’s not totally risk free.

BM: There has been a boom in Indian media sector. How do you see this boom? Has it helped improving the quality of journalism in India?

SM: I am not convinced it helps. It doesn’t necessarily hinder either. And, part of the problem at the moment is too many of the channels and newspapers are copying each other. They are not willing to stand up and be different. Or, from a business point of view, they should aim for different segments of the market rather than all reach out for the same segments and end up copying each other. I would love to see more innovation and more difference in Indian media.

You know, there is some superb journalism and some very fine journalists working here.  I would wish and, I think, many of them would wish that they got more training. They should also get more opportunity to discuss their work, more training to improve their technical skills and their editorial skills.

You know, I worked for many many years for the BBC. One of the best things as an employee has been every year there has been some kind of professional training. It’s seen as part of being a Journalist; that, being a journalist isn’t just about doing a story, but it’s about learning and developing and improving your own skills in a word.

BM: What will you say about ethical standards in Indian Journalism today?

SM: Every organisation should have its editorial guidelines which it’s willing to publish, which it is willing to adhere by. I think it has been a good development that The Hindu has a readers’ editor. I think that kind of person who is half inside, half outside the organisation is a very good way of checking on the extent to which editorial guidelines and other guidelines kept. So, I would recommend that.

In the end, it’s the job of the editors to ensure that their editorial guidelines are met.

You know, I come from an organisation which is neutral. It tries to be objective. Where as, other media organisations which are quite open that they support such and such a party. I am not saying that’s wrong so long as they are open about it.

If you think of American Fox News, I don’t like its content and the style of journalism. But I will support its right to exist because it’s absolutely clear where it stands. It says, it supports the right wing conservatives in America.

BM: Yes. In fact, you know, during these days, there has been lot of changes in the practice of journalism. Like, in India particularly, sting operation kind of journalism is becoming popular even though it’s still controversial to say whether it’s good or bad. So, how do you see the changes in practice of journalism in India during your stay in this country?

SM: There are certainly lot more stings and they are of variable quality. But, when there are so many of them, people stop paying attention. They stop being the big news they should be. 

I think there is also an obsession with breaking news. And often it is not really very breaking, it’s just news! I think the idea of breaking news should be reserved for a major event, a major story that’s just emerging. And, we have sometimes seen breaking news which turns out to be someone from that same channel winning an award. That’s the worst.

BM: People from non-news background are now coming into news business and are controlling not only the business but the editorial aspects as well. How do you see to this trend?

SM: What is most important among   journalists is that there is a common understanding of what journalism is, what its core values are. And, obviously, the danger is, with more people who haven’t come from a journalistic background that common understanding be diluted. My point, I will keep repeating is that no one was born a journalists. We learn to be journalists. And, if someone stops being a lawyer and decides to become a journalist, it’s good, bringing their outside experience to the profession. But it is absolutely critical, when there are people who join the profession, that they understand the profession and get training in the profession.

BM: But in India, you must have observed, people without any understanding of the profession are coming in and are using Journalism as a tool to achieve their other goals!

SM: As I said, it’s a part of the business relationship. I think, that happens in most countries around the world. Obviously I deplore it. I think it’s very important that the media regulates itself. Otherwise governments do it, but governments regulate it very badly and often for selfish reasons. So, the problem is if media begins to lose its credibility, and it will if it doesn’t keep to journalistic standards, everyone loses.

Even for those people you are talking about and who aren’t really journalists they will still see a longer term business interest in them maintaining the credibility of their organisation. Because if they don’t, in the long run, they will lose viewers, they will lose readers.

(Sam Miller is a senior journalist associated with BBC for long years. His first book Delhi: Adventures in a Megacity was published by Penguin India in January 2009 and became a best-seller. He now runs media training projects in the subcontinent for the BBC World Service Trust.)

Democracy in danger as Bureaucracy overpowers people in India

Has Indian democracy gone worse than British administration? The question is obvious with senior leader of Communist Party of India (CPI) Abani Baral’s presentation of a few documentary evidences that confirm ownership of people over the land that is being grabbed forcefully by the Orissa government in India for the POSCO India project.

With a project cost of $12 million, POSCO India is the largest foreign direct investment (FDI) in India planned near Paradeep Port town in Orissa state. As farm lands and betel vines make most part of the project area, there has been strong opposition from people to POSCO steel Project. Citing that the land area where betel vines have been grown belong to the State, the government of Orissa headed by Naveen Patnaik has applied force and sprayed rubber bullets and teargas cells at agitating people just to grab the land and make the project move ahead against the will of the people.

CPI Leader Abani Baral showed a few revealing documents confirming that the ownership of land with betel-vines had been given to the farmers during British days. And, the farmers were entitled to own the lands till they grow betel vines on it. Baral showed a bunch of copies of land record documents dated back to 1922 where in the settlement officer clearly declared ownership of farmers over the land till they grow betel vines on it. But the land is being forcefully acquired by the government on the claim that they are all no man’s land.

It’s ironical that the democratically elected Naveen Patnaik government in Orissa is all set to make the POSCO Project over the same land given to the farmers by the British administration. Doesn’t it mean that the governments of free India give less priority to the welfare of people in compare to the colonial administration of the British days?

However, the leaders from left parties could be successful in pursuing the CM to have a meeting with people who are opposing the POSCO Project. If held, this will be the first meeting in last five years between the CM and representatives of communities that are going to be affected by the project. But, again, CPI Leader Abani Baral is quite apprehensive about the results of such talks as he still doubts that the powerful henchmen (bureaucrats) would come on the way alleging that Bureaucracy is already hand in gloves with POSCO Company.

‘We are having a bureaucracy in the state that is much more powerful than the political part of it. The political parties do not have much reluctance but the bureaucrats are not allowing the government and the Chief Minister to interact with people who are going to be affected by the POSCO Project. The bureaucrats are also opposing to stop the survey works till the issues of people are properly discussed and sorted out’, said Abani Baral.

In a democracy, this is really a matter of concern when the people’s power gets overshadowed by the power of the bureaucracy. Such a situation is definitely fatal to the spirit of democracy.

In the name of Development: Rights and Livelihood sources of Tribals sacrificed for Vedanta Aluminium

Vedanta Aluminium Ltd., an industry set by London based Vedanta Resources Plc and partnered by its sister concern Sterlite Group, both owned by Anil Agrawal, is always in controversy for clear violation of law - be it to ensure the rights of tribals living in and around Niyamgiri Hills or protection of forests and environment. The industry is set in lanjigarh of Kalahandi district in Orissa.

As the company is given Niyamgiri Hills for bauxite mining, the project has been opposed by the local habitats – mainly Dongria Kondh and jarenia tribal communities – since its inception. The tribals oppose the project to avoid any kind of displacement and ruination of their hill god 'Niyamgiri' for bauxite mining.

However, nobody has yet responded properly to the issues of tribal people and the Alumina refinery is now operative to cause further trouble to the tribals living in the niches of the hill range.

Supreme Court imposed conditions on the company to make a comprehensive plan for proper rehabilitation and all-round development of the affected tribal families before displacing them. And, as per the instructions of the apex court, this was to be monitored by Orissa government. But as the government is almost maniac to see corporate owner smiling, tribal communities’ voice still remains unheard and their livelihood sources are being sacrificed.

On the other hand, since the plant has gone operative, emission of toxic elements into air and water by the refinery is badly polluting the water and air. The springs and fountains that have been an integral part of the tribals have gone toxic causing skin, kidney and cardiac ailments to the tribals. Not only adult members, even small babies are suffering from bronchial asthma, lungs problems, scabies and other skin ailments caused due to the pollution of air and contamination of water. Many have died also due to various water borne diseases. 

‘My father took a bath in the river. Returning from there, he started vomiting and died releasing toxic foams through his mouth. The company talks big and loud to the world but, in fact, gave us nothing but the caustic water, dust and pollution’, said Delia Harijan of Chhattarpur who lost his father.

‘Complaints before authorities make no meaning as the total machinery has been working to protect the interests of the industry. Even the state police force is being used for the purpose and tribal people have been harassed by state police. Many have been booked in false charges’, Delia added.

A similar kind of victim is Rudma Dongria of Chhattarpur who lost her husband in the toxins emitted by Vedanta Aluminium Industry. ‘My husband took a bath in the river. By the time he came home, his skin started itching and peeling. He died after a lot of suffering. I complained to the police and company. Nobody helped me. To calm down the situation, the company gave a job to my son but again expelled him after a month, said Rudma.

Rudma and Delia are not a few lone cases, People living in and around Niyamgiri hills are terribly suffering due to pollution by Vedanta Aluminium Company. Even children and babies are suffering from scabies and other skin ailments caused by the toxic emissions that contaminate the water streams.

A committee delegated by Environment Ministry of Government of India has recently given in its remarks that environment laws are openly violated by Vedanta. But, nothing of this kind is still visible either to Orissa’s Chief Minister and Steel and Mines Minister who blindly pursues the project.

Citing that the project is directly working against the life, livelihood and culture of the innocent tribal communities living in and around the Niyamgiri hills of Kalahandi, Norway government and recently Church of England have withdrawn their stake from Vedanta project. In spite of all negative remarks from international groups, Orissa government still supports the project against the rights of the tribals telling that these are all internal matters of the company.

Responding to a question - ‘instead of going for a rescan after critical remarks from world bodies, why the government is so persuasive about the projects of Vedanta group’ – Orissa’s steel and mines minister Raghunath Mohanty said, ‘Government is taking all care to see that all laws are followed in case of Vedanta Aluminium Project. And, about the withdrawal of stake by Norway government or Church of England, they are company’s internal matters and we have nothing to do about that’.

The statements of Orissa’s steel and mines minister clearly indicates the government of Orissa is taking special care to see that there is a law to justify every act of Vedanta Aluminium Company.

When the government says the project would benefit the tribals, the tribal communities are against the development as planned by the government and are opposing the project. ‘But, overlooking the grievances placed by the tribal people and neglecting their demands, the government rather uses its force to suppress the tribal opposition and make the project move ahead. At times, police behaves like corporate goons and humiliate the tribals’, said Prafulla samantara, a leading Human Right Activist.

Very often the government says that the project would take the tribal communities on the road of development. If so, why the tribals are opposing to the project? When this question was asked to a development resource person of Church of North India Synodical Board of Social Services (CNISBSS) Bibhudutta Sahu during his visit to Bhubaneswar, the reply was – ‘whose development is it’ and ‘who needs industries’? As to him, ‘20% of India need industry for their requirements and rest 80% are still fighting for a minimum living. Go to the communities living in Niyamgiri, Kashipur and other pockets where tribal communities live in and ask them what they really need. Ask them, if they are interested in Industrialisation over their land, their forests that have been associated with their life since generations. If they say yes, then proceed with industrialisation. But why are we imposing our perceptions of development on them?’

Bibhudutta rather came with a reverse question – ‘we are pushing the earth to the brink of collapse through our ‘greed’ and not ‘need’. Consumerism is driving us beyond sustainability. But, why the tribals are being sacrificed for this? Why should we invade the land of the tribals and grab them in the name of development? Why should we force them to leave their land and forests for our needs? Isn’t it there right to decide how they want to live their life with simple dignity? If tribal people of Niyamgiri are happy there and are living life peacefully, why are we forcing them to leave the place and move to the colonies? Do the planners think that converting a self-sustained tribal community into an industrial labour community is true development? Now, the government has to rethink over these questions and plan for the development of tribal communities. In fact, what the tribals of India need is ensuring and protecting their right over the resources they have been enjoying since generations. Neither the government nor the profit monger corporates should impose their selfish idea of development on the innocent tribals.’

All these appeals don’t make any sense for the local administration or the government of Orissa. ‘The tribal rights are simply sacrificed to ensure all benefits to a company that sets an industry to make profit, not charity. It’s not development but hijacking of resources that the tribal communities have been living on since generations’, said Prafulla Samantara.

‘Don’t the tribals have a right to decide how they want to live? Are they subjected to live on the desires of non-tribals and outsiders who always think the tribals worthless third class citizens? Is it what our planners and government want? Then why these hollow slogans of tribal development and empowerment?’ Bibhudutta raises all these questions citing at such attitude of a government to the issues of tribal communities, their rights and livelihood.

In a democracy if the elected government doesn’t protect the rights of communities whom they will tell? Are such situations making places like Niyamgiri heavens for Maoists because they can instantly get support of the communities that have been overlooked by the government for years together?

Welcome to the killing fields of Orissa: Farmers' plight seen as a Political Phenomenon only!

Everyone agrees about the erratic monsoon that is the mainstay of the Orissa’s agriculture; everyone agrees that cultivation no longer remains remunerative for the farmers in the state; no one also disagrees about the unavailability of ‘convenient’ farm credit for the farmers, but when a farmer commits suicide in distress, we are still not ready to agree that he did it under duress. We are not even ready to agree with the wife of the dead farmer.

“Yes my husband died after crop loss. He was publicly humiliated by bank officials for not paying up the debt he had taken. He was not in a position to pay up the debt he had taken from the bank this year. He was under tremendous pressure (which he told day before the fateful day) before he decided to hang himself before my own eyes,” said an emotional Hema Kujur the wife of Francis Kujur of Sundergarh district who committed suicide ‘after crop loss’.

But the state agriculture minister was in denial. Unaware of the Hema’s presence in a state level meet, `Farmers Suicide and Reforms in Mining Sector of Odisha’ organized by Janata Vikas Manch (JVM) in association with Sahabhagi Vikash Abhiyan (SVA) and Centre for World Solidarity (CWS) on 22nd December 2009, the state agriculture minister blatantly claimed that Francis Kujur did not die after crop loss nor he did he have any trouble in paying up his bank debt.

“I have checked about Francis Kujur myself through my officers. I have gathered information on my own. He did not have any problem of paying up his debt nor was he under duress,” said Damodar Rout unaware of the presence of Francis Kujur’s wife there.

Even Francis Kujur’s job card furnished which scores zero work days since allotment of card. A copy of his bank statement was furnished for record. But that even failed to convince the minister.

“I myself have gone to Francis Kujur’s village. Here is his empty job card which proves that he has not got a single day work under NREGA. His three acres of land had not enough produce this year to feed his family forcing him to work as a daily labourer. When he was under duress, the bank officials acted like proverbial greedy Shylocks,” said Pravin Patel a social activist and Director (East Zone) of Tribal Welfare Society.

Not ready to buy the claims of the deceased farmer’s wife, Mr Rout, however, asserted that farmers in the state have not committed suicide due to loan burden or crop loss as propagated by a section of media and opposition political parties.

“Those who committed suicide might incidentally be farmers, but they have certainly not committed it due to crop loss; rather, may be, due to other reasons than crop failure,” Rout asserted.

The minister’s assertion is at variance with the emotional narration of the deceased farmer’s wife herself - not to speak of the 'other farmers who have committed suicide’ since the cases of farmer suicide has been reported in the state.

Though ostrich government official claims to know better than the deceased farmer’s wife, the experts believe that the farmers have been under tremendous pressure and severe stress in the state. Unavailability of suitable farm credit, reducing land holding, escalating input cost, freaky monsoon add to the distress of the farmers in the state.

“Pilling up debt and loss of crops are major reasons for farmers’ suicides in the state. There is also a mismatch between the input cost and the selling price. Though the prices of firm products have gone up, the profit hardly goes to farmer’s pocket leading to the distress’ said Sudhakar Panda, the Chairman of Third State Finance Commission.

In the wake of the reports of farmers’ suicide, Orissa government has formed a Farmer’s Commission to look into the problems of the farmers and mooted a 5000 crore plan for non-farm sector to supplement the income of the farmer ‘which has no longer remained remunerative’.

But some experts are of view that more needs to be done to address issue than just ‘a package’.

“Farmers have turned into milching cows in the state. Farmers in the state hardly get return of the investment. Sometimes the return is pretty less than the investment. Faulty Minimum Support Price has added to the woes of the farmers. Lack of institutional support like free electricity, cheap loan for buying pump set and other machineries for cultivation has ceased farming a least remunerative,” said Jagdish Pradhan, a member of Former National Farmer’s Commission suggesting implementation of Farmers’ Commission.

Copenhagen also failed to bring smile in the face of Severn Suzuki

‘I am afraid to go out to sun now because of the holes in the ozone. I am afraid to breathe in the air now because I don’t know what chemicals are in it’ said Severn Suzuki in 1992 at Rio expressing her concern over the issue of climate change across the globe. ‘Now we hear of animals and plants going extinct every day, vanishing forever. Now, in my life, I have dreamt of seeing the great herds of wild animals, jungles and main forests full of birds and butterflies. But now I wonder if they were even exist for my children to see’, said Severn Suzuki asking delegations from across the globe, ‘Did you have to worry of these things when you were of my age?’ This was the concern of Severn Suzuki when she was 12-13 years old.

There was a request and an appeal also when Severn said, ‘you don’t how to fix the holes in our ozone layer; you don’t know how to bring the salmon back upon a dead stream. You don’t know how to bring back an animal now extinct. And you can’t bring back the forests that once grew where there is now a desert. If you don’t know how to fix it, please stop breaking it’.

It’s already 17 years and the speech of the little girl is still a hit for climate change activists, environmentalists, scientists and leaders who work in the field of climate change. But the appeals made by Severn have still not received a sympathetic consideration of the global leadership except a few applaud. With this the appeal of billions of people, who have been suffering terribly due to climate change, went almost unheard or unconsidered even if heard by the leaders and participants.

And, we have the COP-15 closed in Copenhagen with severe deadlocks and almost no specific action plan to save the earth. Somehow, at the end of the UN Climate Change Conference, US President Obama helped broker a climate deal but without setting any global target for cutting greenhouse gases, and no deadline for reaching a formal international climate treaty. The deal considered to be the outcome of the much hyped summit falls far short of the expectations of many countries and thousands of communities living at risk due to change of climatic pattern and rise of sea level thereof.

It’s not only Seven Suzuki who represented the children and young generation across the globe almost 17 years back, but the global leaders and delegation of COP-15 were also well aware of the fact of climate change and the imminent dangers it poses to communities, nature and wildlife. Scientists have warned the leaders about the dangers and consequences if the carbon and GHG emission continues to grow at the current rate.

Few sensitive findings of Climate Change Research: What more could make the leaders move!

According to the report released on December 9, 2009 in the climate change summit at Copenhagen, most part of earth is becoming highly vulnerable to disasters as an effect of climate change. The Global Climate Risk Index featured in the report says, Bangladesh is the most vulnerable nation to extreme weather events which, many scientists say, are being exacerbated by climate change. As per statistics given in the report, from 1990 to 2008, Bangladesh has lost 8,241 lives on an average every year due to natural disasters. Rising sea level further threatens millions of Bangladeshis living along the coasts.

After Bangladesh—among the top ten vulnerable—come Myanmar, Honduras, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Haiti, India, Dominican Republic, Philippines and China. Even though, no developed or industrialized nations are in the top ten, Italy, Portugal, Spain and the United States appear in the top twenty vulnerable countries.

However, the report is made on the basis of disaster casualties and property damaged due to climate change. As per experts like Dr. Saleemul Haq, chief of the climate change cell of the International Institute of Environment and Development, ‘Millions of people, who survived extreme weather events and who are suffering across the globe, were not taken into the account’, claiming that ‘African nations would certainly appear in the list of most vulnerable if survivors were included in the study’.

A study by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program recently brought before world policy makers reveal that the sea would rise by 0.5 to 1.5 meters by 2100, threatening coastal cities and flooding island nations. This is double the predicted rise estimated by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change (IPCC) in 2007, which did not incorporate sea level rise due to the melting of Greenland and Antarctica's ice sheets.

Again, the study found that discharge from Greenland had increased by 30 percent over the last decade jumping from 330 billion giga-tons in 1995 to 430 billion in 2005.

Maldives – the island nation – has already been highly vulnerable to the disastrous impacts of climate change and sea level rise. Made up of twenty-six atolls, it is estimated that a one meter rise in the world's sea levels could swamp the country, forcing the exodus of over 300,000 people.

‘Global warming and environmental issues are issues of major concern to the Maldivian people. We are just about three feet above sea level’, Ibrahim Hussein Zaki, Mr Nasheed's spokesman, told the BBC's World Today program almost a year back banging the alarm that, ‘any further sea level rise could have a devastating effect on the people of the Maldives and their very survival’.

Situation in the Island nation is well understood as Maldivian government is planning to acquire land outside for alternate shelter. Disgusted with the differences between global leaders in mitigating climate change impact, Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed told The Guardian that, ‘We can do nothing to stop climate change on our own and so we have to buy land elsewhere. It's an insurance policy for the worst possible outcome’.

Even US is experiencing imminent danger from the trend of global climate change. A new study shows that sea levels along the United States' north-eastern coast will rise nearly twice as fast during this century than previous predictions. By 2100 the waters around New York City could rise as much as 18 inches, leaving Manhattan particularly vulnerable to flooding from hurricanes and winter storm surges.

Using 10 climate models from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) researchers including Jianjun Yin from the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies (COAPS) at Florida State University calculated that there was a 90 percent chance that sea levels along the north-eastern coast of the United States would exceed global sea levels by the end of the century.

Apart from the above facts, global leaders are also aware that the green cover over the earth is vanishing rapidly; large scale industrialisation, concrete cover and deforestation have grouped together and pushed many parts of the earth towards desertification. And, the reasons are very clear – uncontrolled CO2 and GHG emissions across the globe! It’s not only the developing or under-developed nations, but the developed nations have a great share in carbon and GHG emission.

Developed Versus Developing Nations: Nature and the Earth divided

The statistics presented in the report entitled ‘America's Share of the Climate Crisis’ hold US responsible for emitting huge carbon and other GHG. As per the report, ‘in the past 150 years, the United States has emitted more greenhouse gas emissions than any other nation in the world, according to data by the World Resources Institute. In fact, US emissions account for 29 percent of the world’s total since the mid-1800s. The US emitted 328,264 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (MtCO2) in the past 150 years, which is over 3 times the amount emitted by China in the same century-and-a-half.

The US also leads in per capita emissions. In 2005 the US emitted 23.5 tons of greenhouse gases per person the country, this was four times greater than China’s (5.5 tons per person) and over 13 times greater than India’s (1.7 tons per person).

The US and the developed European nations together contribute to more than half of the carbon emissions across the globe. But, ironically, the deal that was signed under pressure from Obama at Copenhagen targeted the developing nations only to take steps for cutting emissions. Why only developing nations? Why not the developed nations as well? Is nature ruled by our definition of development? Is nature divided by the political and economic measurement of developed and developing?

When the temperature around the earth is rising, arctic ice and the glaciers are melting faster, sea level is rising at an alarming rate to submerge many island nations and whole of the earth is undergoing a terrible geographical change, how can the developed nations see the poor and developing countries as only vulnerable and count themselves as safe from the consequences of climate change?

Just before a few months of the Copenhagen summit, Nasheed further warned the leaders about the future of the earth that is now experiencing a destructive climate change pattern saying that ‘if the world can’t save places such as the Maldives today, we won’t be able to save places such as London, New York, and Hong Kong tomorrow. What we need to do together is nothing short of de-carbonizing the entire world economy’.

Almost a month before the summit was held, a group of nations especially vulnerable to the effects of climate change released a declaration calling for developed countries to keep CO2 emission below 350 parts per million (ppm) and to give 1.5 percent of their gross domestic product to aid developing nations in adapting to the myriad impacts of climate change.

The declaration, supported by the member nations who attended the summit including Maldives, Bangladesh, Nepal, Vietnam, Kiribati, Barbados, Bhutan, Ghana, Rwanda, Kenya and Tanzania, said that ‘Anthropogenic climate change poses an existential threat to our nations, our cultures and to our way of life, and thereby undermines the internationally-protected human rights of our people," the declaration states, which is supported by nations attending the summit, including the. These countries have already been severely impacted by rising seas, extensive droughts, and melting glaciers.

Ian Fry, climate-change representative for Tuvalu, which may be submerged by rising sea in a matter of decades, appealed in the summit itself that ‘the science tells us we must act now, and urgently’.

However, all the appeals remained just appeals only for the leaders of the developed nations who didn’t even bother for the people and the total ecosystem of many island nations that are struggling to escape the wrath of climate change. What came out of the great Copenhagen summit was a deal to bring the developing nations into the umbrella of strict climate change action without any specific time frame and a few pledges and promises of unspecified action by US, European Nations and other developed nations to prevent Earth’s temperature from rising.

Deal of disagreement and dissatisfaction

In fact, instead of chalking out a common action plan to save the earth, save billions of people, millions of species and the total ecology, the outcome deal bears disagreement of many nations, scientists and research organisations, leaders and groups that are working with the vulnerable communities.

Media communities across the globe, who were vigilant and expecting a legally binding treaty at the end of the summit, termed the result as frustrating, though not complete failure. ‘There was almost no deal in Copenhagen at all. The contentious talks appeared to break down at several points with rich and poor countries at odds over nearly every issue. A group of developing nations staged a temporary walk out and on the last day of the summit the talks seemed on the verge of collapse’, said Washington Post adding that, ‘in the deal, spelled out in a three-page document, each country needs only to list its current domestic pledges for emissions reductions and to promise to allow monitoring of their progress’.

The differences were on promises to cut carbon emission according to the nation’s actual share, meaning an equal percentage for each nation – be it developed, developing or underdeveloped. Because if we want to save the earth, its ecology and the species for the future generations, and if we truly wish to offer them with a world where they can grow ample food and live happily then we have to work collectively.

So, if the promises made by developing countries are to be monitored, the developed countries must also be given a target to fulfil and an international body must be there to monitor the progress of every nation. Nature never goes by the differences of opinions, the difference between the rich and poor. If one part of the globe suffers from the destructive impacts of climate change, the other part is certainly going to experience its rippling effects.

Reacting to the reluctance of rich nations for giving a clear cut promise of reducing GHG emission, Mohamed Nasheed made his stand very clear that, ‘if the Maldives a small relatively poor country can achieve a big reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions, there can be no excuse from richer nations who claim that going green is too complex, too expensive, or too much bothersome’.

‘We do not have another year to negotiate. Nature does not negotiate’, said UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon after seeing the differences between the rich and poor nations in coming to a concrete, conclusive deal to control the rise in temperature and save the earth by reducing emissions. He urged the member nations to act seriously and promptly saying that, ‘Time is running out. There is no time left for posturing or blaming. Every country must do its part to seal a deal in Copenhagen. No one will get everything they want in this negotiation. But if we work together and get a deal, everyone will get what they need’.

If we really want to see the world as a global village, we must act collectively by sharing our resources to save the earth and see everybody living happily and peacefully. This is what Severn Suzuki also wanted the world leaders to decide and agree upon at Rio in 1992. She tried to awake this feeling by explaining her experience with a few street children. “You will be shocked when we spent some time with some children living on the streets. This is what one child told us – ‘I wish I were rich, and if I were, I will give all these street children food, cokes, medicines, shelter and love and affection’. If a child on a street who has nothing is willing to share, why are we who have everything still so greedy?” – told Severn Suzuki in her speech before the world delegation.

But Severn would have been frustrated with the outcomes of the COP-15 and would have been filled with anger for her emotion being disrespected since long and, may be, a bit of pity for the leaders who might have lost their heart in the complexity of politics to feel and understand her plead for the coming generations. She will have to wait for one more year to get a response to her appeal. But by then, she would have lost many more species and the damages due to climate change would have been multiplied.