Sardar Sarovar Project

29/11/2000

Dear Chief Justice Anand and Justice Kirpal:

I read with great pain the Supreme Court judgement about going ahead with the Narmada dam, without satisfactorily sorting out the problem of rehabilitation of the oustees. You are both honorable men, and I believe that in giving the judgement you had the good of the country in mind.

But in your various discussions and deliberations did you ever think of applying Gandhiji's talisman to your very difficult problem? Let me quote the talisman for you. "Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man whom you may have seen, and ask yourself if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him. Will be gain anything by it? Will it restore him to a control over his own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to self-reliance for the hungry and the spiritually starving millions? Then you will find your doubts and yourself melting away.'

Has Gandhiji's talisman any meaning for you?

I am haunted by the faces of the poor man, woman and children who will be forcibly displaced from their homes, their communities, and from the sounds and smell of the earth on which they live. I am haunted by their fears, oppressive, strangulating fear, fear of the police, moneylender , homelessness, fear of living with all the uncertainties and indignities.

Thinking of the oustees, I was reminded of a letter Nehru wrote long time ago, from the prison, to his daughter, Indira: "There can be few sights that are sadder than the sunken eyes of our villagers, with the hunted, hopeless look in them. What a burden our peasantry has carried these many years. And let us not forget that we who have prospered a little have been a part of that burden. All of us, foreign or Indian, have sought to exploit that long-suffering villager and have mounted ourselves on his back. Is it surprising that his back breaks?'

Has not the Narmada judgement deepened the hunted, hopeless look in the oustees? Do you not agree that the Narmada oustees are paying more dearly with a degradation both deeper and more lasting?

I remember a meeting organised by Ismail Sergeldin, vice-president for the World Bank, in Washington, a few years ago. About 15 person from all over the world were discussing the impact of dams on the environment. Jacques Yves Cousteau, the famous environmentalist, was among the participants, so was Yunus Mohamed,of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, and several other well known names in the development field. I was afraid that in such an international meeting there would be only one or two sharing my views and concerns on dams. I was astounded at the discussion and found only one strong voice supporting the building of dams, an engineer from Chicago. Jacques Cousteau was brilliant, he explained how dams were a long term disaster for the well being of the Earth. It became clear to all of us how the river's plunder and pain, in time becomes humanity's plunder and pain. This discussion was recorded and I do wish you had heard the tape as part of your inputs tha have led to decision making.

I am also reminded of the case when London was looking for a site to build its third airport. The cost benefit analysis conclusively showed that, of the two final alternatives, it would be better to locate the airport near village A than village B. A recommendation to this effect was made by the commission to locate the airport at the cheaper site which also involved the demolition of the village and an ancient church. Fortunately, the government rejected the Commission's recommendation. The preservation of the village, the voices of the villagers, and the ancient church were the compelling factors.

How do we determine the value of the dam or the airport? What about the beauty of the river, or of ancient church? What about the sacredness that the river has acquired over centuries? How do you quantify

Tags:
- Supreme Court

India Environment Portal Knowledge for change

Browse by subjects