august 3, 2013

A Glimmer of Hope
The environmental referendum in Niyamgiri should set an important precedent.

he nal outcome of Indias rst environmental referendum is not yet known but the very fact that it is taking place in the thickly forested and remote region of Niyamgiri in Odishas Kalahandi and Rayagada districts provides a small glimmer of hope. Despite logistical problems of reaching the 12 out of over 100 habitations in the area, gram sabhas or palli sabhas have been held. And the voters, the majority of them from the Gondhia Kondh and other tribes, are being asked to decide whether the bauxite mining project (BMP), a joint venture of the Odisha Mining Corporation (OMC) and Sterlite Industries, a subsidiary of the multinational Vedanta Aluminium, should be allowed to do open cast bauxite mining in the forested land covering these hills. At the time of writing, in what will surely be seen as a precedent setting move, four out of these 12 villages conducted palli sabhas as required under the Panchayat (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act or PESA, and all four voted unanimously to reject the mining operations. What if all the 12 villages do vote against the project? Will this mark the end of a decade-long struggle against the Vedanta Aluminium Renery at Lanjigarh, which began functioning in 2007 despite strong local opposition, and the proposed mining operations in Niyamgiri? Given the story so far, it is unlikely that the Odisha state government, which has worked overtime to ensure that the multimillion dollar investment of the Vedanta corporation is not wasted, will throw up its hands and withdraw in the event of a rejection. In fact, the Odisha governments decision to hold the palli sabhas in only 12 villages instead of the 100-odd habitations in Niyamgiri has already given rise to doubts about its sincerity in conducting the exercise. We must also remember that when the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) recognised that forest dwellers must have a say as mandated by the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, (FRA) 2006 and PESA, it did withdraw its earlier clearance to the mining project that will consume 660.75 ha of forested area. However, it did not insist on holding gram sabhas. And one can quote several other instances from around the country where it has failed to recognise the rights of forest dwellers. In fact, the referendum is only happening because the Supreme Court, in its judgment of 18 April 2013, in a case led by the OMC challenging the withdrawal of environmental
EPW

clearance by the MoEF, concluded that nal clearances could not be given without the concurrence of the forest dwellers. The Court wanted the tribal palli sabhas to examine whether the proposed mining area Niyama Danger, 10 km away from the peak, would in any way affect the abode of Niyam-Raja, which they consider as their deity. It ruled that if they concluded that this was so, that right has to be preserved and protected. Given this ruling, if all 12 palli sabhas conclude that the mining will affect what they believe is the abode of their deity, the result should be an unequivocal rejection of the mining project. Regardless of the nal outcome of the referendum, what is remarkable about the rst four palli sabhas is the manner in which those voting articulated their opposition. These ostensibly unlettered tribal men and women were able to tell the district judge appointed to oversee the vote what the mountain and the forests meant to them. If anyone needed lessons in understanding how you live with the environment instead of following a path that destroys it, you just had to listen to these voices. The fact that these men and women were united in their opposition also illustrated not just the depth of their beliefs but that they had understood the importance of standing up for their rights even in a ght that appears unequal. Can we expect this small but signicant example of consultation to set a precedent across India? One would like to believe this but given the past record of governments, state and centre, there is reason for scepticism. The vote in Niyamgiri has happened not just because the law was on the side of tribal people but also because they had been organised over many years to articulate their opposition to these projects. In the absence of such an intervention, these tribal groups would probably have remained ignorant of their entitlements. Certainly, no government would have exerted itself to inform them about their rights. All over India, we are witnessing trenchant battles for control in regions like Niyamgiri that are repositories of natural wealth, both above and below the ground. Repeatedly, government and industry, working in tandem, have succeeded in riding roughshod over the objections of tribal people and ignored the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution. The battle for Niyamgiri has yielded several important lessons for the future. It highlights the fact that unless ordinary people 7

Economic & Political Weekly

august 3, 2013

vol xlviII no 31

EDITORIALS

are informed about their rights, even the most progressive laws fail to make a difference. It underlines the signicance of organising the marginalised. And unfortunately, it also illustrates that even if such struggles are hard fought over decades,

sometimes the odds are simply too great against people who have survived for generations without disturbing the earth. But if Niyamgiri survives, so will the hopes of the many who are engaged in similar struggles.

august 3, 2013

vol xlviII no 31

EPW

Economic & Political Weekly