Towards a just society where people and wildlife matter

A member of the statutory Karnataka Board for Wildlife is required to make public comments in a measured and carefully considered manner. This is because anything said in association with this official position could be, and should be, considered as though it were the voice of the official body itself. Viewed in this context, the article by the Board's member Sanjay Gubbi in Deccan Herald, 14 December 2011, entitled “In a just society, no justice for wildlife” falls way short of such expectations, and in fact promotes a deliberately skewed view of the idea of justice as promoted in law. This is not writing in naivete, but is part of a carefully constructed strategy to distort fact and create myth as the title of the article suggests.

Gubbi begins by making a claim: “Any move under the banner of wildlife conservation is today vehemently opposed, though not always from genuinely affected groups”. If this were taken at face value, and believed in, the presumption would be that anyone raising concerns over creation of protected or ecologically sensitive areas are implicitly opposed to the cause of protecting wildlife and their habitats. A charge that Gubbi buttresses by making another unqualified allegation: “Some politicians have even taken this as a subject to rabblerouse to gain political mileage”. He does not stop there, but follows it up with: “The forest department which is the sole authority to manage and implement law enforcement activities in Protected Areas (PAs) is already opposed in their day-to-day affairs”.

The finger pointing at “some” politicians interfering in general with all bureaucrats of the department, is probably an effort at feeding off current discontents that flippantly demonises politicians while valorising bureaucracy. This apart, it is gross misrepresentation of fact to claim that the forest department is the sole law enforcement agency in protected areas. There are others, such as Biodiversity Boards, who also have powers to carve out biodiversity rich areas as “heritage zones”, and thus protect them for posterity.

In addition, Gubbi promotes wildlife conservation as being engaged in by only a few: “Those seriously interested in conservation are also minority in voice and gain little mileage with people who could change things on ground. They are even looked as untouchables from the vast majority, even in the eyes of those who are in the vanguard of environmentalism.” Such reactions emerging out of a self imposed persecution complex speaks poorly of the belief the Board member has in democratic processes of negotiating contestations. Whats more, it is unfactual.

There are tens of instances across Karnataka where communities have challenged the dominant destructive pattern of development, with little or no support at all from groups exclusively focussed on wildlife protection. This is evident in the successful challenge against the siting of mega coal fired thermal power project in Chamalapura ensconced between the Bandipur and Nagarhole National Parks and the Wyanad Wildlife sanctuary, against illegal mining in Bellary, and in ongoing struggles to protect Karnataka's ecologically sensitive coastline of Karnataka from several illadvised investments promoting thermal power production, establishment of large refineries and industries, and unnecessary ports. Each of these activities will reduce the chances of survival of highly vulnerable wildlife (both terrestrial and aquatic) while also significantly eroding livelihood choices of natural resource dependent communities. The State Board for Wildlife is duty bound to support such just struggles, but is consistently shying away from taking position on such real issues.

The scheme presented by Gubbi to protect ecologically sensitive areas is based on a provision in the Environment Protection Act that allows the Centre to declare such zones. But he has done so in a skewed manner, making references to rights of forest dwelling communities rather pejoratively: “However (sic) rumours have been floated that livelihood practices of communities living on the edge of PAs would be literally halted...” This when he is aware, or ought to be, of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 enacted to set right historical injustices caused to tribals and other traditional forest dwelling communities and settling of their due rights to land and livelihood. The Parliament of India passed this law after substantial debate and also based on several public consultations it organised through a Joint Parliamentary Committee. When passing the law, the august body was well aware of the existence of the provisions of the Environment Protection Act and to ensure they were harmoniously implemented, brought the Forest Rights Act under the joint supervision of Ministry of Environment and Forests and the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. As reports reveal, Karnataka state is one with a poor record compliance with the mandatory provisions of this Act.

All things considered, it is imprudent for a representative of the Karnataka State Wildlife Board to misrepresent the Constitutional scheme of things based on sweeping accusatory statements. Such opinion makers must realise that biodiversity conservation and sustenance of livelihoods are not mutually exclusive. 

A “slap” that resounds with multiple meanings

I deeply respect Prashanth Bhushan. I was deeply disturbed, very deeply indeed, when he was attacked by some goons for expressing his views on Kashmir some weeks ago. This was a brutal attack against one's Right to Express.

I do not respect Sharad Pawar as a political leader at all. I believe he has worked largely in self interest and has abused his decades in power to advance his material and political profiteering. I believe we deserve a far better leader than Mr. Pawar heading the critical Agriculture Ministry, especially when official figures admit that over two lakhs of farmers have committed suicide due to farming distress over the past decade.  It is truly horrific to imagine that so many dignified farmers resorted to this extreme step merely to save their and their family's honour at not being able to repay really very small loans. ( I strongly feel that the thousands who have so died are victims of a crime, foisted  on the millions in rural areas by those who prepare farming polices that guarantee diminishing returns and cause irreversible hurt to families and society.)    

When some months ago Anna Hazare was preemptively arrested for his decision to go on an indefinite fast against the Union Government's lethargy on instituting a Lokpal (all ruling parties over the past four decades are indicted here for similarly not taking up this issue seriously), I was livid. Hazare's arrest had strong resonance with Emergency days, a comparison some perceive as needless exaggeration. I disagree.  I believe that we lose our fundamental rights and freedoms incrementally, and especially when we overlook or ignore instances of exigence and abuse, considering them to be incidental and minor. All these add up with mathematical accuracy and with disastrous consequences.  

To slap Pawar unprovoked is very wrong. In this context, I am very very disturbed with what Anna Hazare has said about this terrible incident: “Yek ee Maraa?” (Just one slap?). I believe Hazare expressed his honest feelings for the senior politician when he so retorted on learning of the slap Sharad Pawar received from a goon. That he later tried to make amends to live up to his “Gandhian” credentials, and actually condemned the “slap” was too little too late.  

What is surprising in such behaviour of Mr. Hazare anyway? Only a few days ago he unequivocally stated that alcoholics must be publicly flogged. Then justified it by saying alcoholics themselves begged for such harsh treatment as it reformed them. It is thus rather ironical that Anna Hazare has become an icon of morality, against corruption and for good citizen behaviour.  

Intolerance hurts. Whether it is in a school, an office, the Parliament or society, intolerant responses to a person's views are all fundamentally wrong and smacks of absolute disrespect and disinterest in humanism and humanistic discourse. Where divergence of views aren't celebrated and tolerated, condemnation and punishment follows: banishment, extermination, distancing in close relationships are some typical responses. All these are very hurting and gnaw at the very core and purpose of being human.  

To me, the Right to Express is, therefore, intertwined with the Right to Live. Without the former, the latter is meaningless - a sterile existence. Living in conformity with an intolerant society is an aberration to being human. For the freedom one experiences with free expression is absolutely more precious than the comfort one could draw materially and socially by not protesting intolerance; which could easily translate into tolerating harsh hegemony itself.  

A terrible void results in such situations. A deathly silence invades. Soon this void is filled with bitterness, fear and distrust. A very deep and aching feeling of hurt, despair and sadness follows. Sometimes this reality is masked by laughter and smiles. But such deception cannot cure these deep wounds.  

To give in to this void is to give up on living fully. More effort is needed to overcome this hurt. Resistance against intolerance is essential to overcome intolerance. Resistance draws its strength from a deep respect for humanity, while intolerance causes a cold, dreadful hurting.  

A “slap” be it against Bhushan, Pawar or an alcoholic, are equally condemnable. I prefer to be alert about such matters. I do not want to take lightly the fact that Prashant Bhushan was attacked for his views and that Sharad Pawar was attacked for whatever be the attacker's reasons. And thus, Hazare is to be condemned as well for his retort on both the Pawar “slap”, and promoting the brutal attack on alcoholics, without forgetting for a moment that he had even advocated capital punishment for the corrupt.

In such a climate of intolerance, I am distressed that Hazare is the hero of progressive reforms in governance. Can a society be happy if it is rid of monetary corruption alone? While it believes strongly that alcoholics and politicians, or progressive lawyers for that matter, can be slapped and beaten? What will this add up to?  

As Bob Dylan famously sang, “The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind. The answer is blowing in the wind”.

The New "Brahmins"*

I have always wondered what it must have been to be Ekalavya. What does it mean to defer to the demands of a scornful 'Guru' who demands the ultimate price? It must hurt immensely when all that is learnt by observation and self practice is claimed as a commodity imparted by the 'Guru' and his unilateral claims to that knowledge. What a price to pay as an "offering": one's thumb! The swell of pain reverberates in a disastrous end to all that was learnt by sheer hard work and persistence, and no tutoring whatsoever – in Ekalavya's case the science was archery. 

Subservience and subordination disguised as humility to the "Guru" makes for a potent pathway of ownership of the ultimate asset – the privileging of knowledge.  Seeking, gaining and possessing knowledge is like treading in treacherous terrain. It leads to various forms of ownership, not least of which is commodification of knowledge and proprietary control over its contents. It happens all the time in our world. In some ways it is akin to the absolute control 'brahmins' had (and some perhaps still have) over knowledge in times past. The new scientific 'brahmin', though casteless, uses similar methods.

It is one thing to expect rigour and discipline in gaining knowledge, but an altogether different matter when it gets privileged. If one feels one is in the "know-how" business, then already the journey away from the world of the ordinary has begun. Its a bit like a balloon floating in the air. Everyone notices it, but there is clearly a limit to such existence. A lot of gas is demanded to be up there, but that is also its limit.

Two instances in Bangalore come to my mind about how such privileging can be risky. One is with the Government of Karnataka calling for a 'consultation' on potential field trials of food GMOs, but only inviting those with the required 'knowledge'. As the invitation letter reveals, only representatives of biotech companies are welcome, and the meeting is to be held in Vidhana Soudha, the invincible fortress from where the Government keeps people and democracy out in the streets. There are protests against such 'consultations' and not surprisingly only from the often derided farmers, 'activists', etc., who are also perceived to be 'un-knowledgeable' of such complex issues.

At about the same time several 'scientists' have signed up a statement against tree felling and road widening in Bangalore. There are many facts and analyses cited, which is to be expected coming from this self formed 'class'. Not surprisingly at all the statement has received good press coverage. After all in a 'science city' (which ironically has the highest density of millionaires but not one decent public library) scientists rule the roost.

Several of my friends have signed up this statement, and in all sincerity to help the cause. But I have a problem with such privileging of scientists.

Just like the Karnataka Government is consulting with only those who are 'knowledgeable' and thus causing a huge gap in decision making between those who farm and eat and those who now claim the capacity and knowledge of the ultimate systems of food production, our scientist friends have similarly made issues relating to urban environment unnecessarily complex and 'scientific'. Both efforts create gaps and are rather undemocratic pathways to follow.

Instead, I would argue that our scientists must step out of their proverbial 'ivory towers' and 'enclave' mentality, and throw their rationale and might into the common cause by striking the right cord with commoners. Knowledge, then, will actually become an useful instrument of democratisation and aid in the movement away from the privileging of the 'scientist' and thus the creation of the 'new brahmin'.

Last year when participating in public consultations on the Bt Brinjal issue, that then Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh had organised, I found very few 'scientists' present there. I had expected Bangalore's scientists to come out in large numbers actually and was very disappointed that they did not care to wear their scientific zeal in a very public manner. Similarly, I have been rather disturbed that our scientists do not always step out and help in organising communities affected by road widening and participating in debates on such issues in ordinary public fora. Begs the question if our scientists are inimical to such democratic and civil actions?

Use all the scientific methods and capacities at one's disposal and produce good reports, papers, notes,... whatever. All such efforts will aid the development of good science and sound public policy. Make sure that such contributions are also formulated in a way that can contribute to ongoing street actions, litigative efforts and administrative decision making. But please do not fall into a trap of creating a new class out of knowledge.

Consider this: what if all contractors got together and made a similar statement that road widening is good for the city, for instance? And similarly, all agro-biotechnologists proposed that the only way forward with agriculture is the GMO route?

I am sure this proposition will disturb my scientist friends who have signed up the statement. But that would only be good for science and sound public policy no?

* The term 'brahmin' has been used here not to denigrate any community, but as a social metaphor of consciousness of distinctiveness. 

POSCO loot of our mineral wealth and environment is far worse than the 2G scam

Jairam Ramesh's disastrous decision favouring POSCO comes a day after CBI exposes A. Raja's shocking loot when heading Environment Ministry

Mr. Jairam Ramesh, Minister of State with independent charge for Environment and Forests in the Government of India, cleared the diversion of 3,000 acres of forest land comprising a major part of the 4,000 acres required for the POSCO Steel-power-port project in the ecologically sensitive Jagatsinghpur district in Orissa. Jairam Ramesh's pro POSCO decision was released on the evening of 2^nd May on the Ministry's website. He thus paved the way for acquisition of land for a most controversial project. However, the current decision does not take into account massive additional demands of land required for the project's industrial township and associated water, road and rail infrastructure, and also the most controversial iron ore mining component proposed in the thickly forested and mountainous Kandadhar region which is now a subject of litigation.

This project has been peacefully resisted by local communities for six years now; their staunch resistance to the project demonstrated in their refusal to allow entry of any State or company official into the affected villages. The reaction of the State has been brutal and has involved harsh police action against women, children and men, and the filing of false criminal charges against most adults in the project affected villages – some leaders have been wrongfully arrested and others falsely accused of over 40 crimes, most with serious implications to their normal day to day functioning. All this in a vain attempt to break a fantastic peoples movement, which has resolutely remained peaceful in its methods, in a landscape that is otherwise known for violent resistance to the State's hegemonic efforts to dispossess communities from forests and farms to favour highly questionable projects benefiting the rich and large corporate houses.

“Faith and Trust” over-rides the need for rationale in decision making:

Ramesh's decision is based on an unprecedented claim of the need for “Faith and trust in what the state government says (a)s an essential pillar of cooperative federalism” (emphasis in original). The rationale he offers in taking such a position is that “(b)eyond a point, the bona fides of a democratically elected state government cannot always be questioned by the Centre” (emphasis added). This even when Ramesh expresses what can be termed as very serious doubts about the capacity of Orissa Government to protect the interest of the State of Orissa and the people of India when he says that the POSCO “MOU had provisions for the export of iron ore which made me deeply uncomfortable with this project” (emphasis added). He also admits that he “could well have waited for the MOU to be renewed and for a final decision of the Supreme Court” which is hearing an appeal on the decision of the Orissa High Court cancelling the Orissa Government's allotment of out of turn (ignoring over 200 applicants waiting for long) and large iron ore mining permits benefiting POSCO.

The simple and plain question that cries out for an answer then, is why did he not wait? Especially considering that the mining component of the project is an integral part of the overall scheme of POSCO? This also raises serious questions if he respects the Orissa Government more, and the Supreme Court less? What was the compelling need for him to rush to clear a project that has failed to comply with any of the conditions imposed in the clearances accorded by the Ministry in 2007? And this when the project is without sufficient legal support as the MOU of 2005, based on which most clearances are being secured, has lapsed and has not been renewed yet.

True Federalism is to respect Local Governments as equals:

Speaking in favour of POSCO and comprehensively rejecting serious well documented contestations over the legality of environmental, coastal and forest clearances accorded, Mr. Ramesh has spoken in many ways for the Government of India. After all the forest clearance was perceived as the last major hurdle for this mega project as all other Ministries (such as Coal, Mining, Finance, etc.) were merely waiting for him to make up his mind. In deciding for POSCO, Jairam Ramesh has gone with the Orissa Govenment's claims that the Palli Sabha¹ resolutions of Dinkia and Govindpur Gram Panchayats are “fraudulent” and even invested a lot of paragraphs to ensure that the Sarpanch Shishir Mohapatra who is accused by the Orissa Government of perpetuating this fraud is punished, else “the state government's argument will be called into serious question”. Thus, admitting he is really not sure about the facts of this critical matter involving forest rights.

His unseemly haste to clear POSCO based on his innovative argument of “faith and trust” as an “essential pillar of cooperative federalism” also flies in the face of his recent (14^th April) rejection of the Orissa Government's repeated claim that it had fully complied with and implemented faithfully the provisions of the Forest Rights Act. His argument then was “(i)gnoring.. two Palli Sabha Resolutions and not allowing them to be subjected to a due process of law as enshrined in the Forest Rights Act, 2006 would be tantamount, in my considered opinion, to violating the very essence of this legislation passed unanimously and with acclaim by Parliament”. By so endorsing the legality of Resolutions, this position was consistent with the findings of the two independent investigative committees that he had appointed. These committees had established beyond any doubt, and on the basis of extensive legal evidence, that Orissa State had fundamentally flouted the Forest Rights Act, and other statutory procedures, in its enthusiasm to secure POSCO's interests. His latest and now unconditional “faith and trust” decision now rests on a spectacular speculative argument that simply has no place in environmental decision making, or for that matter any legal decision at all.

In the federal structure of governance in India, local elected governments are in no way inferior to the elected bodies at the State level. Ensuring such separation of powers and autonomy in functioning is the whole purpose of the Panchayati Raj Act, the Forest Rights Act and such other such provisions in the Constitution. When such is the law of the land, a Minister does not enjoy privileges of over-rating the State's position over that of a Panchayat.

Legal evidence loses out to “faith and trust”:

By such arguments, the Minister has not only exposed his prejudice against claims of forest dwelling and dependent communities, operating as they are in a climate of fear, but also his utter incapacity to rigorously enforce the due process of law on the basis of uncontestable facts. He abandons this critical exercise by saying “I have already examined the legal issues... and therefore there is nothing to be gained by seeking further legal opinion. Similarly the facts of the case... are too obvious to require any further enquiry or verification” (emphasis added). Surely, Mr. Ramesh is aware that the environmental laws are based on criminal procedure code, and that he is duty bound to spare no effort in ensuring that material submitted in seeking clearances are valid in law. The decision has to also satisfy the test of being beyond any reasonable doubt as it directly and irreversibly affects the livelihoods of hundreds of farming and fishing families who have a very weak possibility of restarting their lives, will devastate beyond repair sensitive ecosystems and could annihilate critically endangered species. A dispute in fact must be fully and legally resolved, and should not become subject to mere opinion of the Minister. Ramesh's decisions fails on all these grounds.

Investigative Committees appointed, and their uncomfortable reports sidestepped:

When Jairam Ramesh appointed very senior and widely respected former bureaucrats and experts in two fact finding committees to investigate into all aspects of the coastal regulation, forest diversion and environmental clearances accorded to the POSCO project, there was widespread hope that he would not keel over to any pressure in this critical decision. But this hope lasted only for a short duration. As the Committees returned with reports exposing extensive illegalities and fraud in the environmental decision making processes, Ramesh chose to sidestep these reports in his 'speaking order' of 31 January 2011. He thus supported the earlier clearances accorded by his scam tainted predecessor in the Ministry, Mr. A. Raja, who is now in Tihar Jail on corruption charges instituted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Of course Ramesh had laboured to justify his claim to being a socially and environmentally conscious Minister by adding dozens of additional conditions. But on close scrutiny these conditions appear to be mere window dressing and rely largely on rhetorical commitment from the investor towards safeguarding peoples' rights and the environment. Experience in India has repeatedly shown that such conditions are rarely complied with and violators even more rarely punished. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, many of these additional conditions articulate the need for thorough assessments and comprehensive studies into environmental and social impacts of the project. Thus exposing the widely known and undeniable fact that the earlier clearance decisions were accorded almost entirely on the lack of any relevant material.

For instance, one of the conditions speaks of the need for evaluating the high risks involved from cyclones and tsunamis in the coastal site selected for steel plant, a point not to be taken lightly following the recent Japanese experience. This is critical considering the fact that 1,000 acres of the 4,000 acres for the steel plant will be only for dumping fly ash and sludge. Nothing is known about how POSCO proposes to contain the regional impacts of such massive storage of ash and that too in an area with super high wind energies. And there is the fundamental concern that the massive port is proposed in the Jotadhar creek, a highly sensitive area known for nesting habitats of critically endangered Olive Ridley Turtles and Horse Shoe Crabs, and as spawning grounds for fishes. A little known fact about the port is that it will have 6 kms. long and 25 metres deep channel into the sea, whose width ranges between 250 to 500 metres. This means a lot of dredging, and almost all the time through the life of the port, as the region is known for a very high accretion of sand. What would happen to all this dredged material? What, if any, are the chances for turtles to navigate a busy shipping lane, involving the movement of the largest commercial ships ever built – as POSCO proposes to build a port allowing the berthing of 170,000 DTW carriers, known as Capesize ships because of their inability to make it through the Suez Canal and thus have to go around the Cape in South Africa. Each of these ships is a quarter of a kilometre long!

Not to be overlooked also is the fact that POSCO proposes to raise the base height of the steel plant from 0 MSL to 6 MSL. This is because it wants to protect its plant from any serious impact from anything like the 5.6 metres tidal wave that slammed this very region with wind speeds exceeding 250 kmph in the super cyclone of 1999 that left a trail of destruction and misery tens of kilometres inland. Historical evidence points to the fact that the Jagatsinghpur region has been the epicentre of many intense cyclones, and thus this is exactly the kind of area that constitutes very high risk for shipping and industrial activity and is a site that must be avoided. There remains then the other serious issue of where all the mud and silt to raise such a large area over so many metres will come from? If it is the dredged material from the sea, clearly it will devastate the wetlands in land supporting very high productivity in paddies, prawn cultures and paan kethis (betel vine). Not to be forgotten, of course, are consequences to the local communities when they have to stare up at a steel plant towering tens of feet over them, with its smoke, ash and dust billowing all around. Their tranquil life in harmony with nature, as they now know it, will end.

In a travesty of the well-honed science of environmental decision making, the single largest steel-power-port-township and potentially mega mining project ever conceived in the history of India, and also the largest industrial project conceived in recent decades world wide, has now got the push forward on the basis of faith. By this decision Jairam Ramesh has chosen to ignore, perhaps even ridicule, the findings of the POSCO Investigative Committee appointed by him with former Environment Secretary Ms. Meena Gupta as chair. The recommendations unanimously made by 3 of the 4 member committee, educate us on how little is actually known about the impacts of this massive project:

1. “....(T)hat in view of the glaring illegalities which render the clearances granted illegal, the EIA and CRZ clearances dated 15.5.2007 for the port and the EIA clearance dated 19.7.2007 for the steel plant should be revoked after following the due process of law.
2. The project proponent if it so desires may prepare a comprehensive EIA for both the port and the steel plant in accordance with the notifications now in force including all the various components of the project such as rail and road transportation, pipe line, township, mining, etc. for the full capacity of the plant and its components.
3. If the project proponent applies, a fresh public hearing may be conducted on the basis of the new comprehensive EIA to be prepared by the company.
4. In the meantime no body should be dispossessed of their land and since all clearances are ..prior to the commencement of construction no alterations of any nature should be permitted on ground.”

Is 'strategic significance' any ground for clearing POSCO?

Enormous volumes of public monies and resources were invested in these investigative efforts, and they were meant to assist the Ministry, and the Minister, in ensuring a fair, just and correct decision was made in this mega project. But Jairam Ramesh decided to dump all this into the trash cans of the Ministry raising serious questions about his credibility in his pro-POSCO decision of 31 January 2011 in which he claims that “(u)ndoubtedly, projects such as that of POSCO have considerable economic, technological and strategic significance for the country” (emphasis added). Despite all of Mr. Ramesh's best efforts to avoid the risk of being accused of “filibustering”, which he claims to avoid in his 2^nd May pro-POSCO decision, he seems to have done exactly that. By overlooking relevant facts, and choosing to rely on the uncertain claims of the Orissa Government that it has complied with key statutory provisions, he now hopes to distract attention from the shocking finding of the Investigative Committees that serious illegalities and fraud backed key environmental clearance favouring POSCO. These are not ordinary or simple accusations for they are often the type of material for investigation into possibilities of corruption.

Such argumentation also raises serious questions about his jurisdiction in so deciding for India, when his job essentially is to ensure that Ministry of Environment and Forests is environmentally sensitive, non-corrupt, efficient and just in its decisions, and protected from extraneous influences of such factors as 'strategic significance', scale or nature of the project, who the investors are, etc. A terrible consequence of such subjective reasoning is that it can now be applied to almost all projects: Jaitapur Nuclear power plant, Lavasa, Gundia power project, some windmills in a forest and so on. By this POSCO decision, Mr. Ramesh has irreversibly lost the opportunity of demonstrating his much proclaimed unyielding commitment to ensure the implementation of rule of law, and lack of corruption and transparency in environmental decision making. Mere sharing of documents backing his decisions does not make for a good and transparent decision. He has to demonstrate the legal and scientific rationale by which he arrived at such a decision, and this has to be on the basis of supportive evidence from subject review committees as per the law. Ramesh has chosen to overlook all these statutory requirements. This is clear demonstration that he has indeed yielded to pressures, whatsoever they might be and wherever they emerged from. The rule of law has been sacrificed on the altars of “faith and trust” and based largely on one man's belief that the project is of “strategic significance” to India, disregarding the widely held perception that the POSCO project constitutes a loot of India's natural resources to benefit a foreign corporate.

Cleared by Raja, is POSCO not scam tainted?

A major development is that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has begun to investigate the decisions of Mr. A. Raja in according environmental clearances during his term (2004-07) as Union Minister for Environment and Forests. The allegation is that Raja liberally gave environmental clearances to 2,016 projects in a little over two years! His front man in this operation was Mr. R. K. Chandolia, then director of planning and coordination in the environment ministry. Today both are implicated in the 2G scam and are in Tihar jail.

POSCO was one of the mega projects that Raja cleared, specifically its captive port component. This decision was taken on 15^th of May 2007, exactly a month after the controversial statutory Environmental Public Hearing on the project was held, which the MOEF Investigation Committees have revealed involved major human rights violations. Reports of this tainted Hearing were rushed to Delhi to fulfil a legal requirement and the port was cleared by Raja in the final hours before he transited from the Environment Ministry to his new role as Union Minister for Telecom and Communications. Normally, when such big decisions have to be taken on mega projects, no Minister risks approving them on the eve of his transition, largely to avoid accusations of corruption. But Raja was made of a different mettle, clearly.

The unseemly haste by which Raja cleared the port component of the massive POSCO project was a strong indicator of favourable decisions that were meant to follow. Ms. Meena Gupta, who took charge as Secretary of Environment Ministry on 1^st June 2007, ensured that the environmental clearance to the steel plant was accorded on 19^th July 2007 without much ado. At that time the Environment Ministry was without a Minister and was directly under the supervision of the Prime Minister of India – thus with little possibility of a close watch over executive decisions and accountability to the public. Despite all this evidence, or probably because of which, Ramesh appointed Meena Gupta to officiate over the Investigation Committee into POSCO that he instituted, resulting, not surprisingly, in her single dissenting note which favoured her earlier pro-POSCO decisions that she made on the basis of weak and fraudulent evidence.

It would be specious to believe now that Raja and Chandolia began their corruption racket only in the Telecom Ministry. The CBI's investigative guns are now trained on their long and corrupt politician-bureaucrat alliance, as the agency has discovered that these gentlemen favoured many projects of DB Realty with environmental clearances, a cash rich corporate house accused of benefiting enormously from the telecom scam. Raja's reliance on Chandolia was so acute that he took him as his personal secretary to the Telecom Ministry. When it was pointed out that such an appointment of an Indian Economic Services bureaucrat was violative of law, Raja elevated him as Economic Advisor to the Minister, next only to the position of Secretary of the Ministry.

Could it be at all possible that their corrupt practices were strictly limited to benefit only DB Realty? Not POSCO or any other project?

POSCO sets a new 'race to the bottom' standard in environmental and economic regulation:

The Korean/US TNC POSCO project proposal (Warren Buffet who recently toured India has a major stake in the project) has a capital outlay of Rs. 51,000 crores (by 2005 prices) and involves production of 12 mtpa of steel. It also includes iron ore mining rights of a stupendous 600 million tonnes over 30 years, 60% of which is allowed for export to POSCO's Korean steel mills. As studies reveal, POCSO is likely to recover all of its capital investment in less than a decade, and that too only from profits from iron ore.² With a captive port accommodating the movement of the largest commercial ships ever built, and also of a captive power plant in the steel plant, this is undoubtedly a peach of a deal for any industrial house. The unprecedented nature of profits that accrue from such a mega project demands without any doubt a rigorous and serious scrutiny, at many levels of the Union and State governments and by independent regulators as well; far more seriously than efforts are now under way to uncover the scam in the Commonwealth Games, 2G telecom deal, Bellary mining, etc. Most regulatory agencies, though, have inexplicably chosen to not subject this project for their examination.

A review of the Environment Ministry's clearance records reveal that no other project has been accorded such hasty and favourable treatment as the POSCO project in recent times. There are tens of small, medium and large projects that have fully complied with procedural requirements, and yet do not secure environmental clearance within weeks of a Public Hearing. POSCO must have been of 'strategic significance' to Raja, else why would he rush its clearances through with such haste when so little was known of the project, its outcomes and its impacts? Now that Jairam Ramesh has endorsed Raja's decision, it won't be long before Karnataka's Chief Minister Yeddyurappa accuses Ramesh of bias for rejecting the Gundia power plant which the former would claim is of 'strategic significance' to the state. Similarly, Goa will make a case that mining in the Western Ghats is of critical economic importance and Ramesh must have “faith and trust” in the State's assessment of its needs. Mr. Sharad Pawar, Union Agriculture Minister, has for some time now been berating Ramesh's moratorium on Monsanto's Bt Brinjal, claiming this first food GMO in India is critical to secure the future of Indian agriculture! Narendra Modi of Gujarat will spare no words in attacking the Union Government were any of his pet projects rejected.

India could have done well to avoid such propensity of pandering to investor induced pressures and the unsustainable competition between States to secure investments; at the very least in projects that have massive, serious and irreversible environmental, economic and social consequences.

CBI enquiry into POSCO is a must now:

There is simply no option now but for the CBI to completely examine all decisions taken by Raja during his time in the Environment Ministry, thus not limiting the exercise to those relating to DB Realty decisions alone. This is of strategic importance to our country in light of the fact that none less than Mr. Jairam Ramesh has expressed discomfort over the unprecedented “export of iron ore” involving Capesize super tankers that POSCO proposes to employ in shipping out the ore it mines in India. Unprecedented profits are to be made from this virtually business-risk free POSCO project, and it is not an accident that there is so much cooperation between so many different political parties and levels of governments to usher it through.

As revealed in the unbelievable iron ore mining scam in Bellary, there is far too much money to be made from mining iron ore alone in the POSCO deal. The POSCO kind of loot of non-replenishable natural resources, associated with the destruction of thousands of natural resource dependent livelihoods and the environment, is a far worse scandal than the 2G scam. Airwaves are ambient, can be reallotted and the perceived loss is essentially in money terms. Iron ore, forests, coastal areas, livelihoods, critically endangered species simply aren't renewable resources.

Jairam Ramesh was aware that the CBI had begun investigating Raja's possible corruption while in the Environment Ministry and could well have waited for the CBI to review Raja's role in the POSCO decision. But he chose not to, and announced his pro-POSCO decision the very next day after CBI began the investigation. All these circumstances demand that the POSCO project decisions must be thoroughly investigated by the CBI. It is high time that our Parliamentarians also spare some of their time in scrutinising the POSCO decisions, while also attending to the politically juicy spectrum allotment (2G) and other scandals.

Leo F. Saldanha

Coordinator

Environment Support Group

leo@esgindia.org

www.esgindia.org

02 May 2011

1 As Gram Sabhas are known in Orissa)

2Iron and Steal, by the Mining Zone Peoples' Solidarity Group, published in October 2010, provides a rigorous analysis of the super-normal profits that POSCO will make from the mining/steel project. This report is accessible at: http://miningzone.org/

Beyond the Lokpal Bill

The recent success of the Anna Hazare led movement for legislating the much delayed Lokpal Bill, considered a major requirement to tackle corruption in public life, has energised public confidence in protests. The middle class that played a major role in this movement now believe protests work, this even in a country like India where democracy is "celebrated" mainly during elections.

An interesting feature of this movement has been that it was largely active in large metropolitan areas, was strongly driven by corporate workers and corporates too, and found resounding support of the growing Indian middle classes. Interesting to note is the fact that the large farming population and the informal working sectors were not so engaged with this movement, as were not trade unions and other large public interest networks.

The media's acute support for the movement, particularly the electronic media, was essentially based on the claim that the people of India had risen to tackle the spectre of corruption, and this had happened under the inspiring leadership of a "Gandhian". Suddenly, it was right to be a Gandhian, and to even fashionably dress as one.

Contrast this with the India of the 1990s, shining as it were, impatiently waiting to jump out of the sluggish Hindu rate of economic growth. The media that drummed up support for liberalisation of the Indian economy, found extraordinarily innovative ways to communicate to the wide public then, that the days of being Gandhian were passe. The consumer was king, and the culture this king produced was the new way forward. Clearly, therefore, it was time to hang up our desi boots and get used to the global way of walking and running, with Nike and Reebok to boot. Just do it! Never matter how!

A couple of decades later, we now have the spectre of corruption being tackled by the same classes that promoted and benefit from such economic liberalisation. And these influential classes widely believe that institutions such as the Lokpal and Lokayukta, can and will tackle the malaise of graft. A somewhat corporate solution has been discovered and is being aggressively promoted to sustain the belief that heroes can fix the maladies of the governance system crippled as it were by corruption.

True, it is possible to contain the damage done to our governance systems and public order by exposing and punishing the corrupt. After all, is this not the corollary purpose of enforcing the rule of law? But such measures ought to be perceived more as a remedy to attend to an injury, like a 'band aid' to a wound. For corruption, after all, is a mere symptom of the diabetes afflicting the body of governance. A festering, septic wound may be cured, by taking harsh measures when needed. But that will not prevent the next wound from occurring, and turning septic, sore and stinking. So just like a diabetes patient has to undergo a lifestyle change to restore balance of various chemicals in the human body, and adopt ways that will attack the core of the disease, similarly engaging systemically to affect positive change in governance is the real cure; to secure which the Lokpal and Lokayukta institutions are worthwhile, but small, beginnings.

True reform is only possible when the public everywhere systemically engage with all public decisions. Some examples of what it takes: each and every project decision must be based on deeply consultative mechanisms that practices the Principle of Prior and Informed consent; power must genuinely devolve to local governments without being remote controlled by State (para-statals) and Central (Eg. JNNURM) schemes; intransparency in decision making, except only when involving genuine defense and security issues, must become history; executive officials, elected representatives and judicial members must be personally accountable to their decisions; public projects must only be financed if they have been legitimately subscribed to in the proposal of the District Planning Committee as required in the Constitutional 73rd (Panchayat Raj) and 74th (Nagarpalika) Amendments (thus projects like Commonwealth Games, Metro, airport developments, etc. cannot be foisted on the public by surprise, as reactionary measures and as political legacy initiatives); implementation of public projects and schemes must mainly be undertaken by elected local governments, with State and Central agencies playing supportive and guiding roles; all departmental financing and expenditure details must be publicly accessible by regular quarterly reporting and made available suo moto online.

Similarly, all corporate bodies must become subject to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, a privilege now limited to shareholders and members under the applicable laws.

Now these are measures that cannot be implemented through popular uprisings and movements. Instead they can only be implemented through systemic engagement with public administration. This kind of change does not rely on an informed public (such as the ones trained in schools and colleges) but more on an involved public (those with an innate understanding of the true nature and moral underpinnings of public governance). What is more important is the need for deep rooted awareness that the exercise of adult franchise must be followed by systematic and regular engagement with all public officials and authorities to ensure promises are delivered and defined tasks are implemented genuinely.

Nothing less can work in ensuring the festering wounds of the maladies of governance in India, evident through the scandalous scale of corrupt practices being revealed almost everyday, will become a thing of the past. It is only with such deliberate and involved engagement with governance that we will be able to ensure that the need for "Swiss" accounts are unnecessary. For no bureaucrat, contractor, politician, corporate honcho, etc. can accumulate so much slush wealth and need to hide it overseas in secret and tax free havens.