Express Focus -- SARDAR SAROVAR PROJECT -- by Indian Express

October 19, 2000

Judgement Day for Gujarat

DARSHAN DESAI gives a lowdown on the Sardar Sarovar Project, arguably India’s most controversial dam

For drought-prone Gujarat, October 18, 2000 is a day that will be etched in stone. The day the Supreme Court cleared the cobwebs around the multi-crore Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) and breathed new life to a project conceived by Sardar Patel in 1946 will long be remembered years after the celebrations and mourning has faded away.

For this is a project that has been at the centre of controversy for over 20 years now. From the question of providing water supply to parched throats and fields, to larger ones on development and economy, human rights, environment and politics, the very existence of the dam has been debated.

The SSP, India’s third highest concrete dam of 163 metres with the longest conceived main canal in the world, is to irrigate 17.93 lakh hectares covering 3,360 villages of 62 talukas and 14 districts in Gujarat. It will also irrigate 75,000 hectares of land in the desert districts of Barmer and Jallore in Rajasthan and 37,500 hectares of hilly tract in Maharashtra. Two powerhouses will generate 1,450 MW of hydel power, of which Madhya Pradesh will get 57 per cent, Maharashtra 16 per cent and Gujarat 16 per cent.

Gujarat has called the SSP its lifeline, and not for nothing. The project promises to supply potable drinking water to 8,215 villages and 135 towns in arid areas of Saurashtra, Kutch and North Gujarat. The water will be supplied through the 458 km main canal with a network of 42 branches. Gujarat will get nine million acre feet (MAF) water from the dam; Madhya Pradesh 18.25 MAF and Maharashtra 0.25 MAF.

Sardar Patel’s idea to put a dam across the country’s fifth largest river Narmada took shape in 1979 through the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award, and work started in the late eighties. Dissent started emerging soon after 1979, but it was voiced most forcibly after Medha Patkar came to the Narmada Valley in the mid-eighties.

Patkar, a student of the Tata Instiitute of Social Sciences (TISS) in Mumbai, single-handedly pieced together disparate groups into the Valley into the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA).

Patkar’s agitation, centring around the displacement of thousands of tribals because of the dam, its environmental impact, seismic dangers, sustainable development, and ‘‘the bane of big dams’’ made the World Bank pull out of the project in the early nineties. Her allegations of poor rehabilitation of project oustees made several Parliamentary committees and other agencies visit the Valley. On several occasions, Patkar even threatened jalsamadhi in the Narmada waters, but was often prevented by the police. Finally, in March 1994, the Supreme Court issued a stay on further construction on the dam in response to a public interest ligitation by the NBA.

The NBA sought a complete review of the dam, but the Supreme Court narrowed down the issue to rehabilitation. Work was stalled on the dam at 80 metres, with each day’s delay costing eight crore. In the late eighties, the estimated cost was Rs 6,400 crore; now, it’s over Rs 37,000 crore. Early last year, the Supreme Court permitted further construction up to 85 metres even as it simultaneously appointed a Grievances Redressal Authority to ensure proper rehabilitation of the dam oustees. Hearings were wrapped up by June this year.

The Gujarat Government remained at loggerheads with Madhya Pradesh, which was against construction upto 455 feet, for at that height, it would imply greater displacement of MP’s tribals. MP even filed a separate petition in the Supreme Court. Gujarat stuck to its guns, saying the height was necessary if the water was to reach scarcity-hit areas. However, Patkar has maintained that the whole of Saurashtra and Kutch will not benefit from the dam. Smalle checkdams, water harvesting structures and efficient water management were better alternatives, he said. This argument was forcefully challenged by Gujarat and successfully articulated in the international arena by the savvy Narmada Development Minister of the State, Jaynarayan Vyas. Vyas points out that Gujarat has seen 23 years of drought in this century. Rainfall has been scanty and erratic, while the drought-prone areas of Saurashtra, Kutch and North Gujarat have no perennial river. There is no answer to the State’s perennial water crisis other than an inter-basin transfer of water from water-surplus areas to deficient areas. Vyas recognises the importance of checkdams and water-harvesting structures, but argues that they could replace the Narmada dam as a solution. Without rains, there is little that can be done with those checkdams and watershed projects.
Of course, it will take a while before Gujarat sees the back of water shortage. It might take at least two years for the Narmada dam waters to flow in the canals, for the canal network joining the main canal is yet not complete and requires Rs.4,700 crore. The World Bank had refused a loan to the Gujarat State Drinking Water Supply Company recently to implement the canal-based pipeline network. The government is still trying its luck with the Asian Development Bank.

Besides, the government still hasn’t formulated a comprehensive water policy. The checkdam scheme initiated last year drew overwhelming response, but the State Government still needs to work out an effective water conservation system.
Chief Minister Keshubhai Patel is elated with the Supreme Court verdict and claims credit for his government. ‘‘We have never politicised the Narmada issue, nor have we tried to extract any electoral mileage out of it. It is a major victory for Gujarat,’’ he says.