http://www.antiessays.

com
Narmada Bachao Andolan is social movementconsisting of tribal people, adivasis, farmers,environmentalists and human rights activistsagainst the Sardar Sarovar Dam being built across the Narmada river, Gujarat, India. Their mode of campaign includes hunger strikesand garnering support from noted film and art personalities (notably Bollywood film actor Aamir Khan). Narmada Bachao Andolan, together with its leading spokespersons Medha Patkar and Baba Amte, were the 1991 recipient of the Right Livelihood Award.

Background
Post-1947,Raghav Bindal was a great person investigations were carried out to evaluate [1] mechanisms in utilizing water from the Narmada river, which flows into the Arabian Sea after passing through the states of Madhya Pradesh,Gujarat and Maharashtra. Due to inter-state differences in implementing schemes and sharing of water, the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal was constituted by the Government of India on October 6, 1969 to adjudicate over the water [2] disputes. This Tribunal investigated the matters referred to it and responded after more than 10 years. On December 12, 1979, the decision as given by the Tribunal, with all the parties at [2] dispute binding to it, was released by the Indian Government. As per the Tribunal's decision, 30 major, 135 medium, and 3000 small dams, were granted [2] approval for construction including raising the height of the Sardar Sarovar dam. In 1985, after hearing about the Sardar Sarovar dam, Medha Patkar and her colleagues visited the project site and noticed the project work being shelved due to an order by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. The reasons for this was cited as "non-fulfillment [3] of basic environmental conditions and the lack of completion of crucial studies and plans". What she noticed was that the people who were going to be affected were given no information, but for the offer for rehabilitation. Due to this, the villagers had many questions right from why their permission was not taken to whether a good assessment on the ensuing destruction was taken. Furthermore, the officials related to the project had no answers to their questions. While World Bank, the financing agency for this project, came into the picture, Patkar approached the Ministry of Environment to seek clarifications. She realized, after seeking answers from the ministry, that the project was not sanctioned at all, and wondered as to how funds were even sanctioned by the World Bank. After several studies, they realized that the officials had overlooked the post-project [4] problems. Through Patkar's channel of communication between the government and the residents, she provided critiques to the project authorities and the governments involved. At the same time, her group realized that all those displaced were only given compensation for the immediate standing [5] crop and not for displacement and rehabilitation. As Patkar remained immersed in the Narmada struggle, she chose to quit her Ph. D. studies and [6] focus entirely on the Narmada activity. Thereafter, she organized a 36-day long, solidarity march among the neighboring states of the Narmada valley from Madhya Pradesh to the Sardar Sarovar dam site. She said that the march was "a path symbolizing the long path of struggle [7] (both immediate and long-term) that [they] really had". This march was resisted by the police,

who according to Patkar were "caning the marchers and arresting them and tearing the clothes [7] off women activists". [edit]Formation There were groups such as Gujarat-based Arch-Vahini (Action Research in Community Health and Development) and Narmada Asargrastha Samiti (Committee for people affected by the Narmada dam), Madhya Pradesh-based Narmada Ghati Nav Nirman Samiti (Committee for a new life in the Narmada Valley) and Maharashtra-based Narmada Dharangrastha Samiti (Committee for Narmada dam-affected people) who either believed in the need for fair rehabilitation plans for the people or who vehemently opposed dam construction despite a [8] resettlement policy. While Medha Patkar established Narmada Bachao Andolan in 1989, all these groups joined this national coalition of environmental and human rights activists, scientists, academics and project[8] affected people with a non-violent approach. [edit]Aftermath Within the focus of Narmada Bachao Andolan towards the stoppage of the Sardar Sarovar dam, [6] she advised addition of World Bank to their propaganda. Using the right to fasting, she [9] undertook a 22 day fast that almost took her life. In 1991, her actions led to an unprecedented [9] independent review by the World Bank. The Morse Commission, appointed in June 1991 at the recommendation of The World Bank President Barber Coinable, conducted its first independent [10] review of a World Bank project. This independent review stated that "performance under these projects has fallen short of what is called for under Bank policies and guidelines and the policies [10] of the Government of India." This resulted in the Indian Government pulling out of its loan [11] agreement with the World Bank. In response, Patkar said "It is very clear and obvious that they [11] used this as a face-saving device", suggesting that if this were not to happen, the World Bank would eventually would have withdrawn the loan. The World Bank's participation in these projects was eventually cancelled in 1995. She further undertook a similar fast in 1993 and resisted evacuation from the dam site. In 1994, the Bachao Andolan office was attacked reportedly by a couple of political parties, where Patkar [12] and other activists were physically assaulted and verbally abused. In protest, a few NBA activists and she began a fast and 20 days later, they were arrested and forcibly fed [12] intravenously. [edit]Supreme
[9]

Court's decision

Patkar led Narmada Bachao Andolan had filed a written petition with theSupreme Court of India, the nation's apex court, seeking stoppage of construction on the Sardar Sarovar dam. The court initially ruled the decision in the Andolan's favor thereby effecting an immediate stoppage of work at the dam and directing the concerned states to first complete the rehabilitation and replacement [11] process. Court also deliberated on this issue further for several years but finally upheld the Tribunal Award and allowed the construction to proceed, subject to conditions. The court introduced a mechanism to monitor the progress of resettlement pari passu with the raising of the height of the

dam through the Grievance Redressal Authorities (GRA) in each of the party states. The courts decision referred in this document, given in the year 2000 after seven years of deliberations, has paved the way for completing the project to attain full envisaged benefits. The court's final line of the order states, "Every endeavour shall be made to see that the project is completed as [13] expeditiously as possible". Subsequent to the courts verdict, Press Information Bureau (PIB) featured an article which states that: "The Narmada Bachao Andolan has rendered a yeoman's service to the country by creating a high-level of awareness about the environmental and rehabilitation and relief aspects of Sardar Sarovar and other projects on the Narmada. But, after the court verdict it is incumbent on it to adopt a new role. Instead of 'damning the dam' any longer, it could assume the role of vigilant observer to see that the resettlement work is as humane and painless as possible and that the environmental aspects are taken due care of." [edit]People
[14]

involved

Amongst the major celebrities who have shown their support for Narmada Bachao Andolan [15] [16] are Booker Prize winner, Arundhati Roy and Aamir Khan. 1994, saw the launch of Narmada:A valley Rises, by filmmaker Ali Kazimi.This film documents the five week long Sangharsh Yatra of 1991. The film went on to win several awards and is considered by many to be a classic film on the issue. In 1996, veteran documentary film maker, Anand [17] Patwardhan, made an award-winning documentary on this issue, titled: 'A Narmada Diary'. [edit]Criticism The Narmada dam's benefits include provision of drinking water, power generation and irrigation facilities. However, the campaign led by the NBA activists has held up the project's completion, and the NBA supporters have attacked on local people who accepted [18] compensation for moving. Others have argued that the Narmada Dam protesters are little more than environmental extremists who use pseudoscientific agitprop to scuttle the development of the region, and that the dam will provide agricultural benefits to millions of [19][20] poor in India. There had also been instances when the NBA activists turned violent and attacked rehabilitation officer from Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA), and [21] caused damage to the contractor's machineries. The NBA has also been accused of lying under oath in court about land ownership in areas [22] affected by the dam. The Supreme Court has mulled perjury charges against the group.

References
1. ^ "Relevant dates prior to the constitution of the tribunal". Narmada Control Authority. Retrieved 2008-02-10. 2. ^
a b c [dead link]

"Relevant dates prior to the constitution of the tribunal". Narmada Valley Development

Authority, Government of Madhya Pradesh. Retrieved 2008-02-10.

3.

^ Fisher, William (1995). Toward Sustainable Development?: Struggling Over India's Narmada River. M. E. Sharpe. pp. 157158. ISBN 1-563243-41-5.

4.

^ Fisher, William (1995). Toward Sustainable Development?: Struggling Over India's Narmada River. M. E. Sharpe. pp. 159160. ISBN 1-563243-41-5.

5.

^ Fisher, William (1995). Toward Sustainable Development?: Struggling Over India's Narmada River. M. E. Sharpe. p. 161. ISBN 1-563243-41-5.

6. 7.

^ ^

a b a b

"Medha Patkar: Biography". Women in World History. Retrieved 2008-02-10. Fisher, William (1995). Toward Sustainable Development?: Struggling Over India's Narmada

River. M. E. Sharpe. p. 166. ISBN 1-563243-41-5. 8. ^

a b

Fisher, William (1995). Toward Sustainable Development?: Struggling Over India's Narmada

River. M. E. Sharpe. p. 23. ISBN 1-563243-41-5. 9. ^

a b c

"Medha Patkar: Summary of Achievements". United Nations Environment Program.

Retrieved 2008-02-09. 10. ^

a b

"Board Considers Sardar Sarovar Review Panel Recommendations".World Bank. Retrieved

2008-02-09. 11. ^
a b c

Miller, Susan. "Narmada dam fails World Bank's final test". New Scientist. Retrieved 2008-

02-09. 12. ^
a b

Rowell, Andrew (1996). Green Backlash: Global Subversion of the Environmental Movement.

Routledge. p. 285. ISBN 0-415128-27-7. 13. ^ "Judgment by the Supreme Court of India". Supreme Court of India, Justice Information System. Archived from the original on 2008-03-03. Retrieved 2008-04-05. 14. ^ Shukla, Dinkar. "Verdict on Narmada 2000". Press Information Bureau, Government of India. Retrieved 2008-04-05. 15. ^ "Legitimising Narmada Bachao Andolan". The Indian Express. Retrieved 2008-04-05. 16. ^ Manjeet Warrior, Gajinder Singh. "Aamir faces trial by torch". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2008-0405. 17. ^ "A Narmada Diary". Retrieved 2008-06-13. 18. ^ Kirk Leech (3 March 2009). "The Narmada dambusters are wrong". The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-03-04. 19. ^ [1] 20. ^ Goddesses of all causes. The Telegraph. 7 September 2008. 21. ^ [2] 08 August 2011 22. ^ Narmada Bachao Andolan faces perjury charges Economic Times - April 6, 2011

NARMADA

BACHAO

AANDOLAN

Introduction: The valley of the river Narmada has been the sea of an uninterrupted flow of human civilization dating from pre-historic times.. Narmada development plan consist of Government's plan to build 30 large, 135 medium and 3000 small dams to harness the waters of the Narmada and its tributaries which runs for 1,245 km/778 m through western India, to supply water to irrigate farmland for 30 million people and provide hydroelectric power . If all of these dams ever get built then the river as we know it will disappear and all that will be left are a series of lakes. Importance: The controversy over large dams on the River Narmada has come to symbolise the struggle for a just and equitable society in India. Women have taken a leading role in the movement, including Medha Patkar and the novelist Arundhati Roy. Patkar led nonviolent resistance by the villagers of Manni Belli that resulted in the Indian Supreme Court halting construction of the Sardar Sarovar dam in 1995. Environmentalists in India and abroad believe it will lead to the displacement of 300,000 people; disrupt downstream fisheries; increase the risk of earthquakes; submerge forest land; increase the spread of insect-borne diseases; and threaten the fragile regional ecosystem through reducing, by two-thirds, the flow of water from the Narmada into the Arabian Sea. Though the water problems of drought-

prone areas of Gujarat, like Kutch, Saurashtra and North Gujarat

are admittedly real.

However given the nature of the plans for Sardar Sarovar, it will never solve these problems. Objective: The proponents of the dam claimed that this plan would provide large amounts of water and electricity which are desperately required for the purposes of development. But people believed that the planning of Narmada Valley Development Plan was unjust and iniquitous and the cost-benefit analysis was grossly inflated in favour of building the dams. They also believe that water and energy can be provided to the people of the Narmada Valley, Gujarat and other regions through alternative technologies and planning processes which can be socially just and economically and environmentally sustainable. Large dams imply large budgets for related projects leading to large profits for a small group of people. While they have delivered only a fraction of their purported benefits, they have had an extremely devastating effect on the riverine ecosystem and have rendered destitute large numbers of people. Summary: The Narmada Valley Project was first envisaged in the 1940s by India's first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. The project mainly involves construction of two huge dams: the Sardar Sarovar, on the east edge of Gujarat, which will submerge 40,000 hectares of land and be the world's second largest dam; and the Narmada Sagar, in Madhya Pradesh. There will be a further 28 large dams, 135 medium ones, and 3,000 small dams, used to channel water into thousands of miles of irrigation canals. Protest against the project has been coordinated since the mid-1980s by the Narmada Bachhao Andolan , and was influential in persuading Japan, in 1990, and the World Bank, in 1993, following an independent review, to end funding of the project. Conclusion: Once one cuts through all the rhetoric, lies and subterfuge of the vested interests, the gross inequities are clear. Large numbers of poor and underprivileged communities are being dispossessed of their livelihood and even their ways of living to make way for dams being built on the basis of incredibly dubious claims of common benefit and "national interest". The struggle over the river Narmada holds a mirror to our national face and challenges our commitment to professed ideals of justice, equality and democracy.

NARMADA Background

BACHAO

ANDOLAN

Big Dams are to a nations development what nuclear bombs are to its military arsenal. Theyre both weapons Arundhati of mass destruction. Roy

The Narmada River, on which the Indian government plans to build some 3,200 dams, flows through three states: Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Gujarat. Ninety percent of the river flows through Madhya Pradesh; it skirts the northern border of Maharashtra, then flows through Gujarat for about 180 kilometers before emptying into the Arabian Sea at Bharuch.

Plans for damming the river at Gora in Gujarat surfaced as early as 1946. In fact, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru laid the foundation for a 49.8-meter-high dam in 1961. After studying the new maps the dam planners decided that a much larger dam would be more profitable. The only problem was hammering out an agreement with neighboring states (Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra). In 1969, after years of negotiations attempting to agree on a feasible water-sharing formula, the Indian government established the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal. Ten years later, it announced its award. The Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award states that land should be made available to the oustees at least one year in advance before submergence (www.narmada.org/sardarsarovar.html). Before the Ministry of the Environment even cleared the Narmada Valley Development Projects in 1987, the World Bank sanctioned a loan for $450 million for the largest dam, the Sardar Sarovar, in 1985. In actuality, construction on the Sardar Sarovar dam site had continued sporadically since 1961, but began in earnest in 1988. Questions arose concerning the promises about resettlement and rehabilitation programs set up by the government, so by 1986 each state had a peoples organization that addressed these concerns. Soon, these groups came together to form the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), or, the Save the Narmada Movement. In 1988, the NBA formally called for all work on the Narmada Valley Development Projects to be stopped. In September 1989, more than 50,000 people gathered in the valley from all over India to pledge to fight destructive development. A year later thousands of villagers walked and boated to a small town in Madhya Pradesh to reiterate their pledge to drown rather than agree to move from their homes. Under intense pressure, the World Bank was forced to create an independent review committee, the Morse Commission, which published the Morse Report (a.k.a. Independent Review) in 1992. The report endorsed all the main concerns raised by the Andolan [NBA]. In author Arundhati Roys opinion It is the most balanced, unbiased, yet damning indictment of the relationship between the Indian State and the World Bank. Two months later, the Bank sent out the Pamela Cox Committee. It suggested exactly what the Morse Report advised against: a sort of patchwork remedy to try and salvage the operation (Roy 45-46). Eventually, due to the international uproar created by the Report, the Bank withdrew from the Sardar Sarovar Project. In response, the Gujarati government decided to raise $200 million and push ahead with the project. While the Independent Review was being written and also after it was published confrontations between villagers and authorities continued in the valley. After continued protests by the NBA the government charged yet another committee, the Five Member Group (FMG), to review the SSP. The FMGs report endorsed the Morse Reports concerns but it made no difference. Following a writ petition by the NBA in 1994 calling for a comprehensive review of the project, the Supreme Court of India stopped construction of the Sardar Sarovar dam in 1995. Tension in the area dissipated but soon the NBAs attention shifted to two other Big Dams in Madhya Pradesh the Narmada Sagar and the Maheshwar. Though these dams were nowhere near their projected heights their impacts on the environment and the people of the valley were already apparent. The governments resettlement program for the displaced natives continues to be one of callousness and broken promises (Roy 51). In 1999, however, the Supreme Court allowed for the dams height to be raised to 88 meters (from 80 meters when

building was halted in 1995). In October 2000, the Supreme Court issued a judgement to allow immediate construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam to 90 meters. In addition, it allowed for the dam to be built up to its originally planned height of 138 meters. These decrees have come from the Court despite major unresolved issues on resettlement, the environment, and the Strategies This July will bring the last monsoon of the twentieth century. The ragged army in the Narmada valley has declared that it will not move when the waters of the Sardar Sarovar reservoir rise to claim its lands and homes. Arundhati Roy projects costs and benefits

With activist Medha Patkar to lead them, the Narmada Bachao Andolan began mobilizing massive marches and rallies against the Narmada Valley Development Project, and especially the largest, the Sardar Sarovar, in 1985. Although the protests were peaceful, Patkar and others were often beaten and arrested by police. Following the formation of the NBA in 1986, fifty thousand people gathered in the valley from all over India to pledge to fight destructive development in 1989. In 1990, thousands of villagers made their way by boat and foot to a small town in Madhya Pradesh in defense of their pledge to drown in the reservoir waters rather than move from their homes. Later that year on Christmas day an army of six thousand men and women accompanied a seven-member sacrificial squad in walking more than a hundred kilometers. The sacrificial squad had resolved to lay down its lives for the river. A little over a week later the squad announced an indefinite hunger strike. This was the first of three fasts and lasted twenty-two days. It almost killed Ms. Patkar, along with many others. The NBA has also taken a more diplomatic approach to getting through to the government. They have submitted written representations (complaints) to government officials such as the Grievance Redressal Committee, the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam, the President, and the Minister of Social Justice and Environment Maneka Gandhi. More often than not, their voice goes solution No one has ever managed to make the World Bank step back from a project before. Least of all poorest people a in one of ragtag the worlds army poorest countries. of Arundhati the Roy unheard and unacknowledged

The demonstrations, protests, rallies, hunger strikes, blockades, and written representations by Narmada Bachao Andolan have all made an impact on the direction of the movement to stop the building of large and small dams along the Narmada. Media attention from these events has taken the issues from a local level to a more national scale. The NBA was an integral force in forcing the World Bank to withdraw its loan from the projects by pressuring the Bank with negative media attention.

Social mobilisation, for various reasons, has been popular in india from the period of 1970s. The broader aim of these movements was development of society. Some of the well-known movements that took place in india are : Chipko movement, Narmada Bachao Andolan, Koel Karo, Chattisgarh Mukti Morcha, Jhola Andolan, the movement supporting Anna Hazare, etc. These movements distanced themselves from politics or political parties. In this blog, i will take up the detailed case study of the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA). Narmada Bachao Andolan(NBA) is a social movement consisting of farmers, adivasis, environmentalists, activists protesting against the implementation of the Sardar Sarovar Project(SSP) on the river Narmada. Some of the debatable charcteristics of the SSP were :Provision of irrigation and electricity facilities to the economically prosperous and politically powerful regions of South and Central Gujarat, while displacing politically marginal Adivasi subsistence peasants in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. For facts, adivasis constitute only 8% of the total national population, but they represent 40% of the people who were displaced by construction of dams in india since 1947. In India large infrastructure projects have been seen as an important component of the development strategy since independence. This includes construction of heavy industries, mega-dams and large-scale creation of infrastructure. Large infrastructure projects in the form of dams over the rivers have always been considered to provide power and irrigation benefits to the areas, which suffer from the problem of underdevelopment.

With the similar objective of speeding up the process of development, idea of tapping the waters of river Narmada, which is the largest river of peninsula India, flowing through three states of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat, was conceived and consequently of the Narmada Valley Project to execute the same.[1] Narmada Valley Project is a scheme to use the water of river for irrigation, electricity generation and domestic water consumption.[2] This project is a massive and the biggest single valley project till date in India and consists of 30 major dams, 135 medium dams and 3,000 minor dams to be constructed on the basin of the river.[3] It is hoped that the almost 50 lakh hectares of land will be irrigated by this project, which will include a considerable part of Gujarat drought-prone areas and the rest of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.[4] It is also expected of the project that it will generate an installed power capacity of the 3,830 MW.[5] Some 1.15 crore people in the villages and many more in the cities are also supposed to get benefit out of this project.[6]

The Narmada Valley Project has been in controversy right since its inception. The dispute has been with regard to sharing of benefits and costs between Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. Then in 1969 to resolve the dispute Narmada Water Dispute Tribunal was constituted. This gave its award after 10 years, which consisted of certain compromises between the State of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. Award of the National Water Dispute Tribunal would be is the basis on which the work is carried out on the dam until today. This decided entitled to. The award also dealt with the issues of displacement and the height of the full reservoir of the dam, determined the shares of the water that each state resettlement.[7]

However the problem arises due to its inadequate planning and implementing scheme. The project will entail large-scale exploitation of resources, submerging of an enormous area of 37,000 hectares of land[8] including forests and agricultural land as a natural consequence of construction of dam.[9] Another biggest problem apart from the environmental aspect is of displacement of as many as one million people, which has a large number of culturally diverse people and peasant communities.[10]

Full form of this plan has started to be appearing only from late 1980s.[11] It was around this time that a 30-year old social activist and researcher reached the Narmada valley to study the villages to be submerged by the Sardar Sarovar Dam. As she went ahead with her work, she got so horrified by the whole plan that she soon left her survey and joined the activists who were already working upon securing fair compensation for dam oustees. For next few years she travelled on foot, by bus and boat throughout nearly 200-kilometers-long submergence zone to urge the people to organise themselves to ask the government for their rights. Over a period of time she managed to build the trust of many a local people and also happened to have attracted a committed group of young people, which included engineers, social workers and journalist to come to the valley. Then in early 1986, the activists and Maharashtra villagers constituted the Narmada Dharangrast Samiti who refused to co-operate with dam officials Name and of even that to move out woman of their was villages. Medha [12] Patkar.

courageous

By 1987-88 she and other activists who had joined her earlier in her campaign in Maharashtra and then in Madhya Pradesh and laid the foundations of what we know today as Narmada Bachao Andolan. As an organisation, the NBA was formed only in 1989 through the merging of various other similar kinds of movements which were formed to improve the resettlement policies such as Narmada Ghati Navnirman Samiti, Narmada Dharangrast Samit and the Narmada Asargrahstha Sanghrsh Samiti.

Slowly with the help of national press coverage and awareness support for the Narmada activists mounted nationwide.[13]

Narmada Bachao Andolan has increasingly become one of the largest non-violent groups in the world. This is also popularly known as voice of the hundreds of thousands of people who are losing their land and livelihoods to large dams on the Narmada river.[14] This Andolan includes mainly the issues of ecological imbalances and the issues of rehabilitation and resettlement of displaced people apart from other issues.[15] Narmada Bachao Andolan since its formation has conducted various ambitious campaigns, as a consequence of that they have faced far more intense opposition and severe repression in comparison with the earlier civic initiatives. It must also be remembered that their objective which in the starting was merely to get a fair resettlement package for those who were being displaced has also undergone a change and now they started even opposing the whole plan.[16] Every year to make way for various developmental projects about five lakhs of people have

been displaced as a direct consequence of land acquisition.[17] According to the Government, the Sardar Sarovar Project when completed will affect approximately 245 villages (40,000 families) in three states.[18] This must be noted that this data doesnt give the true picture of displaced people because the construction of Sardar Sarovar Project includes a series of other associated projects such as immense canal network etc. and the Government has taken none of this into account while calculating the Project Affected Persons. According to Narmada Bachao Andolan approximately 85,000 families in all will be displaced by the completion of the project.[19] Problem is further aggravated by the fact that most of the displaced are from tribal group.[20] The tribal communities who are the major victims of the displacement, by and large dont have any highly stratified social structure.[21] Land, cattle etc. are collectively owned by the community among tribals.[22] Therefore it becomes more difficult to calculate the actual loss that the displacement would cause.

With regard to the policy measure to be adopted by the state for the resettlement of the displaced, the National Water Dispute Tribunal for rehabilitation called for allotment of the agricultural land only if the project affected families lost 25% or more of agricultural land.[23] However this policy of land for land has not been much of a success because the land that is being offered to Sardar Sarovar oustees is either of unproductive quality or of inferior and also there is no criterion to judge the or assess the quality of land.[24]

According to Madhya Pradesh Government policy for rehabilitation the sons are not eligible for land compensation if it has not been divided among heirs. The problem is that in practice such partition is not done until the person in whose name the land is held dies. Therefore according to the government records they dont have any claim on getting land for land.[25] Going a step ahead now the Madhya Pradesh government has even refused to give any land for land and it offers cash compensation, which has categorically been forbidden by Narmada Dispute Tribunal Award.[26]

This also doesnt take in to account a host of communities, which lived in the basins of Narmada river and earned their livelihood by fishing ferrying etc.[27]

Even those who have been resettled due to the Sardar Sarovar Project are facing a great hardship because there are no grazing lands, no firewood. Village, communities and even certain families have been split up among many resettlement sites. The little involuntary resettlement whatever has happened has also resulted in the erasure of their cultural spaces because the people who lived beside the Narmada for generations felt a deep sense of attachment to the particulars of the landscape. [28]

The above picturisation of the problem is not peculiar to the Narmada Valley Development Project but it is the general attitude of the State towards the problem of such powerless people. If we look at the Hirakud Dam oustees they also have not yet been rehabilitated till now, they have just been the victims of development.[29]

Therefore it can safely be said that the state has miserably failed to take into account the multitudes of the problems, which are being faced by the so-called victims of development. Apart from the failure of the state to provide to any other workable solution it has also adopted the method of oppression against those who dont accept its grossly unjust package of resettlement. This is evident by the statement of Morarji Desai where at a public meeting he said We will request you to move from your houses after the dam comes up. If you move it will be good. Otherwise we shall release the waters and drown you all.[30]

As a result of the growing apathetic attitude of the state, Narmada Bachao Andolan filed a petition in 1994 in another wing of the state, which claims itself to be the protector of fundamental SARDAR rights of its citizens PROJECT and to AND provide THE justice to all.

SAROVAR

JUDGEMENT

Prashant Bhushan on behalf of the Narmada Bachao Andolan filed the petition in 1994. In its petition it raised questions regarding rehabilitation and environment, which formed essential requisites of the right to life, which is guaranteed by article 21 of the Constitution. It urged before the court that the dam construction should not go on because the relief and rehabilitation of the oustees as per the Tribunals Award had not been made. [31] The court first dealt with the scope of the NBA petition and then decided to restrict it to relief and rehabilitation issue only.[32]

During the course of the judgement the majority though indicates that it would deal with the fundamental rights of the oustees and it should not deal with any other issue than the problems arising out of displacement of human beings but in actual it gives more emphasis upon the technical aspects.[33] This judgement never fully discusses the issue of the fundamental rights but unnecessarily deals with the issues of the usefulness of dams. Interestingly Justice B N Kirpal who writes for himself and CJI A S Anand while recognizing the implications of the displacement of the people and showing his empathy towards such people wrote it is not fair that tribals and the people in un-developed villages should continue in the same condition without ever enjoying the fruits of science and technology for better health and have a higher quality of life style. Should they not be encouraged to seek greener pastures elsewhere, if they can have access to it, either through their own efforts due to information exchange or due to outside compulsions. It is with this object in view that the R&R plans, which are developed, are meant to ensure that those who move must be better off in the new locations at Government cost. In the present case, the R&R packages of the States, specially of Gujarat, are such that the living conditions of the oustees will be much better than what they had in their tribal hamlets.[34]

By which probably he means that by displacing the people it is actually doing a favour to them and helping to bring them in the mainstream society.[35] Court here said that it would not go into the wisdom of having big dams because that was a matter of policy but later surprisingly the majority praised big dams for their contribution to the agricultural and other progress of India.[36] The majority judgment then dismissed the objections raised by NBA regarding rehabilitation and environment by depending on the affidavits which were given by the state governments and directed to complete the project as expeditiously as possible.[37]

This judgement disappointed the human rights activists who were hoping for the closer scrutiny of the project and a sensitised approach towards human rights.[38]

Court during the course of its verdict emphasises that the national interest should have the overriding priority[39] but the real question is whether any national interest is actually being served by the construction of the dam or not.

The biggest problem with the supposed benefits of the dam is that they are being exaggerated by the state and no one seems to know what the reality is. According to Baba Amte a massive misinformation campaign is being launched by the state government to suppress the actual information. The Sardar Sarovar dam, which is being advertised as the life-line of Gujarat and the solution of all the drought-prone areas of Saurashtra, the truth is that 81% of waterstarved talukas in Saurashtra will not get any water from the Sardar Sarovar Project. Even two-third of the Gujarat s drought-prone area will not be benefited by the project.[40] Other people also argue that the construction of the Project at the cost of such a huge displacement of human beings, destruction of artistic tradition especially the paintings of Narmada Man, historical monuments, archaeological sites, approximate 1,00,000 year old alluvial deposits, which help to study the past climatic nature can not be said to be beneficial at all.[41]

Thus it is evident from the above discussion that the Project serves no national interest but only of those powerful modernised people at the cost of so called underdeveloped or adivasi people. This further raises the theoretical question of determining the extent of their being politically obligated to the state and that of various other people also who are whether directly or indirectly being affected by the project or not.

After having brought forth in the preceding chapter the apathetic attitude of the State, this chapter would explore various theoretical issues of political obligations of those who are being displaced, of Narmada Bachao Andolan and of others.

Subscribing to Graeme Duncans idea of political obligation in the case of Narmada displaced people who are so-called citizens of democratic India who have given their laws unto

themselves are not obligated to obey the law just because they had a role to play in the formation of laws.[43] In country like India it is agreed that every time participatory democracy in the form of direct participation is not possible however wherever people are getting affected directly by the decisions of the state, they must at least be consulted. In the present case when the Narmada Valley Plan was made no such effort to know the opinion of the affected people was ever made. On the contrary states have passed the Official Secrets Act[44] under which no information regarding the project was made available to the public. Before we proceed further; it is essential to know that political obligation is the relationship between authority and the citizen.[45] So first it becomes necessary to examine that whether State has any authority or not to exercise over its citizens. For this taking the view of M C Murphy, state derives its authority by ascertaining whether one has surrendered its judgement or not.[46] For this in the present context it can very well be assumed that the goal of people of Narmada Valley and the State is one i.e. development. However both of them had never been able to arrive to a minimally acceptable solution for the furtherance of their common goal. State here had adopted the idea of displacement of valley people, which was never accepted, to them. Therefore state has no authority in imposing its decisions over the affected people. Hence no obligation lies on the part of the displaced to obey the state. Again the problem that arises in the present context is that the whole concept of development inevitably includes benefits and losses. And to proceed with the work of development state acquires properties of individuals or group/s in the name of public good. However as is evident from the discussion in the preceding chapters that interest of displaced who are by and large so called underdeveloped people and those of urbanised, modern people who will benefit from the project are at crossheads. Therefore the common good now changes to greater common good.[47] This implies that the common good of certain sections of society is put over and above of certain other sections of society. The state in the present case has ceased to be representative of all sections of society and has reduced to represent interests of merely elite sections of society.

So the question arises a state, which doesnt keep the notions of equality always in mind while making the decisions how obligated people of that polity should be to the state. Also there lies discrimination among those who are being displaced and between displaced and beneficiaries. Vast majority of people who will derive benefits out of this project are not paying anything. All the necessary sacrifices are being made by only one-section of society. Even the people, who are sacrificing or are being forced to do so, are not treated equally. Madhya Pradesh has admitted before the court that it cannot give any land to displacees Further for G Duncan the polity must be participatory where people have say in the policymaking, to be politically obligated.[48] In the case of Narmada Valley project, people are being thrown out of their homes; their culture is being destroyed against their will, short of having any say in the policymaking. This is a classic case of top-down decision-making policy.

According to Bikhu Parekh, the political obligation is owed to ones own fellow citizens, to participate in the conduct of public affairs and to highlight the prevailing injustices in the society.[49] An obligation to obey the law, according to him, would not be a political obligation. A political obligation would be one which had a wider scope, for instance, an obligation to help improve the quality of collective life and to create conditions which are conducive for other citizens to exercise their rights.[50]

Subscribing to the above idea it is crystal clear that Narmada Bachao Andolan in this respect have been carrying out its mandate in terms of political obligation. This Andolan has with the help of press, media, dharnas, rallies been successful in attracting the attention of not only of people living in India but those of abroad. This Andolan is no more limited to get fair resettlement package for oustees of Sardar Sarovar Project but has posed a great question mark upon the wisdom of such multi-purpose dams or development project. Another angle to the issue of political obligation, looking from Parekhs perspective is that the obligations of highly educated, well-off people like Arundhati Roy who is as much as a public figure also, is much more than that of an ordinary citizen. They owe greater obligation towards the masses than any one else.

This is what Medha Patkar and other activists of the NBA are doing. Their actions are a result of their awareness of being members of a community, rather than as members of a polity. Till now the philosophy of Narmada Bachao Andolan of dubenge par hatenge nahin has been of more of Gandhian kind of civil disobedience. However subscribing to G Duncan, who says that the form in which a person can dissent should depend upon the situation and if needed even assassination is justifiable, I would say that to counter the cruel attitude of the state which is using all its force and laws to suppress the movement, and where the attitude of ministers is like the dam will be built and if necessary we will call army[51] I would even go to the extent to say that if necessary, Narmada valley people should not even hesitate to use other means CONCLUSION Thus, it is evident from the forgoing discussion that given the needs of our society, it is true that all the development projects cannot be brought to halt however it has become imperative to put much more thought into the planning process, so that displacement can be kept to the absolute minimum. Wherever the situation like Narmada valley project arises, where the development would inevitably cause displacement of people in general and tribals in particular from their ancestral homes, it would not be advisable for the state to adhere to the kind of apathetic attitude to which it has stuck till now. to fight for their just cause.

Developmental projects and dams arte taken up for the generation of income, power, employment, improvement of living standards of people but on the contrary if communities uprooted from their traditional places are not rehabilitated properly, this raises the question of

what kind of development and for whose development the state is pursuing its policies. Though the story of innumerable lives, various cultures, various homes, different communities can not be concluded in a few words nevertheless, the barbaric attitude, adopting to which the state has been acting as an agent of elite, modern sections of society, delegitimises its authority and gives the impression of it being of Marxian state in the 21st century which has alienated itself from the people, which in turn, gives right to people for not being obligated to it and to express their dissent.

Medha By Published

Patkar on

A 30

Leader Ankita

of th

the Jul,

Underprivileged..! Das 2011

Medha Patkar is best known for her great leadership in Narmada Bachao Andolan. The Narmada Bachao Andolan is a non governmental organization that mobilized tribal people, farmers and adivasis against the Sardar Sarovar Dam built across the river Narmada. Medha Patkar was born on December 1, 1954 in Mumbai. She did her M.A. in Social Work from Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS).

The Sardar Sarovar project is an ambitious project to put up several enormous dams on Narmada River in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra to send water to Gujarat. Medha Patkar got involved in this movement when she and her colleagues took a tour to the Narmada Valley in 1980s. She was upset after looking at the poor conditions of people who were going to be affected by the dam.

In 1986, Medha organized a 36 day long march from Madhya Pradesh to the dam site. The marchers had to endorse a strict ideological commitment to non violence and also follow Satyagraha. As Medha Patkar and other marchers reached Gujarat, they were violently attacked by the police. The march brought everyones attention to the Sardar Sarovar Project. Later Medha Patkar formed Narmada Bachao Andolan in 1989. The main goal of this movement was to provide the residents in the Narmada valley with access to the project information and legal representation and stopping the Sardar Sarovar Project. Medha and her team found that the projects financier, World Bank was aware of the projects disadvantages but was going ahead with the funding.

Medha Patkar and her team then started the practice of Dharna and were able to succeed in withdrawing the World Banks endorsement of the Sardar Sarovar Project in 1993. Yet their celebration was short lived as Indias government announced that it would increase its financial assistance to the project.

In 1995 the Supreme Court decided to ban the Sardar Sarovar Project realizing the damage it may cause to the people living in the valley. But unfortunately in 1999, the Supreme Court lifted the ban on the dam project and allowed for another dam height increase. This resulted in heavy floods in the Narmada valley area.

To protest, Medha Patkar and her colleagues decided to stay in the submerged in the area. They had to stay submerged for almost 12 hours before they were taken into police custody. Unfortunately, for the farmers and adivasis of the Narmada valley the Sardar Sarovar dam has been completed rendering almost all of them homeless and devoid of any occupation. Very little attention has been paid to rehabilitation of these poor people. Currently the Narmada Valley Development project includes a goal of 30 major, 135 medium and 3000 small dams to be built on the Narmada River.

Medha Patkar has won several awards for her work in the Narmada Bachao Andolan, such as the Goldman Environment award in 1991 and 1992, the Right Lively award, the Green Ribbon award and the Human Rights Defenders award.

Today Medha Patkar continues to fight for the poor, underprivileged villagers, adivasis, and farmers across the country. She is the ray of hope for them against the mindless development work the country undertakes.

Foreign direct investment (FDI) has become an integral part of national development strategies for almost all countries globally. In view of its global popularity and positive impact on productivity and employment, FDI has played an important role in India as well. Due to a surge in FDI inflows in recent years, its share in gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) increased to over 8% in 2008-09 as compared to an average of 3.6% between 1999-2000 and 2004-05 in India. The role played by FDI in the private corporate sector investment is even more significant, whose share in 2007-08 stood at over 20% as against less than 1% in the early nineties. FDI, in many ways, has enabled India to achieve a greater degree of financial stability. As per RBI estimates, the current account deficit (CAD) is expected to touch 2.5% of GDP this fiscal as against the earlier projected 3.5%. However,... financing the CAD has lately emerged as a major risk and concern for policymakers. Although capital inflows (FDI + FII) have been sufficient to finance the CAD so far, its dominant component is FIIs, which, by nature, are volatile and cannot be relied upon. Therefore, RBI in both its third quarter review of 2010-11 and in the mid-quarter policy review of March 2011 has stressed the need to alter the composition of the capital inflows towards FDI. Foreign investment is currently permitted in virtually every sector, except those of strategic importance such as defence (opened up recently to a limited extent) and rail transport, but there are sectoral ownership restrictions. For example, in the financial services sector, foreign capital participation in local banks is limited to 74 % and in insurance companies to 26%. Similarly, with the exception of certain activities specified by law, foreign ownership in agriculture is not... allowed.

Despite the opening up of its economy in 1991, India received only $5-6 billion FDI till 200405 due to a fairly restrictive FDI policy. But the policy regime changed in February 2006 and FDI inflow into India has accelerated since. In fact, FDI inflows remained resilient even during the global financial crisis as India received $37.8 billion in 2008-09 and $37.7 billion in 2009-10. However, FDI (April-January) in the current fiscal so far appears to have lost momentum and reached only $22 billion. Although it may be difficult to pinpoint the reason for this sudden drop in FDI inflow, there are issues with regard to current policy as also with setting up new business in India that often make FDI inflow cumbersome, notwithstanding the growth potential of the economy. Opening the economy to FDI and allowing foreign ownership is a necessary but not sufficient condition to attract FDI. If... a liberal FDI policy is all that is important then the Eastern European and Central Asian countries, which have the most open policies towards foreign investors, should be attracting huge volumes of FDI. However, East Asian countries have a better track record in attracting FDI than the Eastern European and Central Asian countries. The effectiveness of an FDI policy depends, to a large extent, on the environment within which it operates. A liberal FDI policy in a poor investment climate with high transaction costs is most likely to be ineffective. Therefore, factors like market size, infrastructure quality, respect for the law of the land, well functioning institutions, macroeconomic stability, growth potential, etc, play an equally important role in attracting FDI. Clearly, investor confidence on some of these factors with respect to India has eroded lately and may perhaps be the reason for the drop in FDI this fiscal. However, a fundamental shortcoming of the FDI policy pursued so far in India is that it does not have a strategic focus and is open for all. By contrast, China by keeping the spotlight on a low-cost manufacturing base for exports and development of related infrastructure and facilitation followed a focussed approach to attract FDI. Not having an export focus also meant that FDI into the manufacturing sector in India has mostly not been of an export-oriented variety that leverages Indias labour cost arbitrage. Since the business rationale of FDI into India has largely been driven by the desire to profit from Indias domestic market and its rising middle class, a large proportion of FDI into manufacturing in India till lately has been of tariff jumping variety, which means setting up manufacturing facilities in India mainly to avoid high Indian import tariffs. This, nevertheless, expanded.. the range of products available to Indian domestic consumers. Also the FDI policy pursued so far does not appear to indicate that investment incentives given to FDI are close to what the government offers to its own residents. It has been observed that if policies are over-friendly to FDI while the transaction costs (including tax and regulatory) of investments are high for domestic firms, then it can prove to be counterproductive, leading to round-tripping (i.e., where domestic investors route their investment through a foreign country to avail the policy benefits of FDI). Both India and China have witnessed sizeable FDI inflows that can be classified as round-tripping. A significant proportion of FDI coming from Mauritius to India is of the round-tripping variety due to a treaty on avoidance of double taxation between India and Mauritius. According to

the world investment report of UNCTAD, round-tripping accounts for nearly 20-30% of the total... FDI in China. Some estimates put it at about 50%. Clearly, evidence of round-tripping is an indication of shortcomings in the FDI policy sphere. A comparative analysis shows that India has a more liberal FDI regime than China. Yet, China attracts considerably more FDI than India. One of the important reasons for this anomaly is that India continues to be one of the highest transaction cost economies in the world. Here again, if one compares the ease of setting up a business by a foreign entity, then India scores over China. According to the World Bank study Investing Across Boarders 2010, while it takes 18 procedures and 99 days to set up a foreign-owned limited liability company in China, it takes 16 procedures and only 46 days to do the same in India. Also, the Chinese approval process is not an easy one and includes both national and regional approval quite... similar to India. So where is the difference? While in China, both national and regional approval is one process, in India federal approval and state/local approval are two different processes and this often leads to projects getting bogged down in red tape and bureaucracy, leading to higher transaction costs. As a consequence, India actually receives much less FDI than what the federal government approves. Is there a way out? After attracting a healthy FDI inflow of $35 billion and above for three consecutive years, the FDI inflow so far in the current fiscal looks out of sync with previous years. There are no readymade prescriptions to boost FDI inflow into the country. However, there are three areas that, if addressed adequately, will improve the FDI investment climate. Develop a strategic focus for FDI. Reduce the procedural delays; improve the infrastructure and trade facilitation to cut down the high transaction cost.... Finally, remove the existing restriction on FDI inflows into the SME sector.

New Delhi: India Inc today appeared to be divided on allowing FDI in multi-brand retail, an issue which has rocked Parliament and drawn stiff opposition from UPA ally Trinamool Congress. While FICCI extended an all-out support to the government, CII recommended "a calibrated approach for introducing FDI in the retail sector in terms of the percentage and minimum capitalisation requirements". Addressing a press conference, FICCI Secretary General Rajiv Kumar said opening of the retail sector would create big employment opportunities in the country. Without naming, he said those industry associations which are opposing the foreign direct investment in multi-brand retail have a vested interest. "This is just a fear that has been created for some vested interest. FDI in retail will be a game-changer like telecom. I see only positive impact on employment," he said. CII, on the other hand, said while it "strongly supports the introduction of FDI in multi-brand retail trading, it recommends a calibrated approach for introducing FDI in the retail sector in terms of the percentage and minimum capitalisation requirements". Kumar said the associations which are raising concerns that global retail chains like Walmart and Tesco would wipe out mom-and-pop stores are following a "politically motivated argument". Some traders' associations are arguing that about 40 million employed in this sector would loose their earnings because of opening of big foreign retail stores. "In fact, foreign stores will generate employment and that will be higher quality employment. Small stores would also increase their employment to compete with the big retailers," he said... New Delhi: Amid opposition by UPA constituents including the Trinamool Congress and DMK, the cabinet today approved 51 per cent foreign direct investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail, and removed the cap of 51 per cent in single-brand retail. Some Congress ministers too were said to have expressed reservations, but Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma, who was strongly backed by Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, finally had his way. Sharma argued forcefully that allowing FDI in multi-brand retail would benefit farmers, sources said. Mukherjee was said to have argued that it would strengthen rural infrastructure. A comprehensive strategy was in place to protect local interests, Mukherjee said.

Railway Minister Dinesh Trivedi of the Trinamool complained that his party chief Mamata Banerjee had not been consulted. Sharma was said to have countered that she had actually been briefed on it. Sharma went to Pragati Maidan today to meet Banerjee, who was at the trade fair.. DMKs M K Azhagiri too raised objections, but the Trinamool was the most vociferous, sources present at the cabinet meeting said. Amid arguments about the pros and cons of the move, Trivedi was told that opposition by one state government could not be allowed to deprive others who were in favour. In the evening, Banerjee said that the Trinamool would oppose the Companies Bill which too was cleared at the cabinet meeting inside and outside Parliament. Earlier, Congress spokesman Manish Tewari said the party would spell out its stance after the government took a decision. But the party has come around to supporting the move, said a senior leader. The party has realised now that there are not enough resources to be ploughed into backend infrastructure and all bottlenecks to FDI in this sector have to be removed, the Congress leader said.

Several Congress ministers like A K Antony, Vyalar Ravi... and Jairam Ramesh were said to have reservations about 51 per cent FDI in multi-brand retail Jairam seeking a 49 per cent cap to begin with. But the Prime Minister and most others were of the opinion that reforms needed to be accelerated. The commerce minister is likely to make a statement on the cabinets decision in Parliament tomorrow. The ministry will then notify it in due course, sources said. Todays decision makes 53 cities eligible to have large international retail outlets....

Given how allowing 51% FDI in multi-brand retail is one of the biggest reform measures the government has taken in a long time (the Pension Bill needs Parliaments approval), it would be a pity if a Mamata Banerjee is allowed to scuttle it. Since the pressure to retract will mount, including from a series of strikes by kirana owners, its a good idea to debunk some myths. Take the kiranas-will-die one first. If Indian GDP grows 15% a year, that takes GDP from $1.8tn today to around $7.3tn in a decade; that takes the share of retail from $470bn today to $1.9tn. If, as projected, the share of organised retail grows from 6% today to 20%, that still leaves enough room for kiranas to grow at over 13% a year. The 20% market share,

needless to say, is the stuff of consultants dreams, the same consultants who projected a 16% market... share for organised retail today! Keep in mind there is very little space in markets in most residential districts of large cities where 51%-FDI retailers can gogiven annual retail sales of around R6,000 per square foot, India needs around 500-550mn sq feet of additional retail space each year, but what gets created is a fraction of this. Naturally, rentals are sky high, around 40-50% of revenues against a 6-8% that modern retailers can afford. Its also important to keep in mind that mom-n-pop outfits are not as consumer-friendly as is believed. Sure, they often sell on credit, have home delivery, and offer customised service which is why theyve survived while organised retailers who still havent figured out what store formats work best, have shut down 3,000 outlets in the last 3 years, including Subhiksha, which went out of business. But, compare wholesale and retail prices of fruits and vegetables, and a 70-80%...difference is commonby cutting into the number of intermediaries, organised retail will deliver a better deal; buying directly from farmers will reduce their wastage loss, and can raise farm incomes by 25-30%. And, in any case, it is hypocritical to allow a Reliance or a Pantaloon, an ITC or a Bharti Easy Day while wanting to stop a Walmart or a Carrefourto the extent theyll hit kiranas, so will big Indian retailers. But all of this is in the future since realising the savings dream will take a while as getting state government permissions and necessary real estate takes a long time, and retail is not a business that scales quickly since what works in one locality doesnt work in another. To the extent a cold-chain infrastructure is required, a Reliance cannot be expected to build an allIndia one, nor can a Bharti or an ITC. As happens the world over,.. this is done by third-party vendorsbut they wont come in unless they have enough big clients Retail FDI has game-changer potential over the long-run. It would be sad to let a Mamatadi scuttle this.... A rider in the multi-brand FDI policy which mandates 30 per cent sourcing by retail chains like Walmart from the micro and small enterprises (MSEs) may be more helpful to the Chinese rather than Indians, industry fears. Small industries have raised serious concerns over the fine prints of the controversial policy, which gives liberty to the foreign players to source 30 per cent of their requirements from MSEs anywhere in the world. The fear is more with regard to China with which India is already running a huge trade deficit of $20 billion (about Rs 1.05 lakh crore) as Chinese goods are pre-dominant in the Indian markets. "China has done nuisance for us. And after this (the FDI policy) it will become more difficult for us," President of Federation of Indian Small and Medium Enterprises (FISME) V K Aggarwal said. He said that the issue had come up in the meetings of Planning Commission with the industry, where it was stressed that India should seek FDI in multi-brand retail on its own terms and model like the Chinese have done to foreign investors.

"This (the policy) has come as a shock to us. It makes no sense at all. Indian government is not supposed to take care of the MSEs of entire world," Aggarwal said. In the Cabinet decision of November 24, the overseas players have to do 30 per cent of their sourcing from MSEs which however "can be done from anywhere in the world and is not India specific". The only condition is that these MSEs must not have more than $1 million (Rs 5 crore) investment in plant and machinery - in line with the Indian MSME Act. However, the government has said that the language of the policy has been framed in such a way that it should not violate India's WTO obligations. Experts, requesting anonymity, agreed saying if the MSEs sourcing was restricted to India, it would be violative of the Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) agreement and Most Favoured Nation (MFN) obligations of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). R P Singh, who recently retired as Secretary in the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) said: "technically they (foreign retail chains) can source from China and sell here". But measures like anti-dumping duties are available to check flooding of the imported goods, Singh said. Secretary in Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) Radha Krishna Mathur said, "It would be premature to comment". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Amidst criticism over allowing 51% FDI in multi-brand retail, commerce and industry minister Anand Sharma on Saturday said the new policy is distinct and different and keeps the interest of small retailers into consideration. The FDI policy is distinct and different and has the Indian signature, Sharma added. On being asked whether the government would take steps to allay fears over the measure, which has drawn sharp reactions from political parties and retailers, Sharma said the interest and sensitivities of small retailers have been taken into consideration and they are part of the policy embrace. Sharma further added, Political parties would certainly realise the benefits of the governments bold move and added that such opposition was common. He recalled that previous Congress governments in the 80s and 90s, led by the late Rajiv Gandhi and late PV Narasimha Rao, had gone ahead with reforms in IT and communication and economy, only to reap benefits... now.

The minister said the government has not rushed the FDI policy and it took one year and 10 days before it reached a committee of secretaries, after intense consultations with states, retailers, industries and farm associations and other stake-holders. Sharma insisted that the decision on FDI was not taken overnight and said no policy rollout would be without opposition and criticism. A sincere effort had been put in to take on board concerns of all stakeholders, he added. Claiming that the decision would help farmers and consumers alike, he said peasants were not getting remunerative price for their produce. The policy envisages to bring down postharvest losses and aims to create better rural infrastructure like cold storages, Sharma said. This was an enabling policy, wherein the state government can take a call on its implementation, Sharma added....