From Dr. Nandini Sundar To Digvijay Singh

June 15th 2002

Dear Mr. Digvijay Singh,

Further to our conversation of the 12th, in which you said that you would do something to meet the demandsof the Man project oustees, I am extremely pained to learn that the "something" amounted toarresting the oustees, while those on fast are in an increasingly critical condition. One really had more hopefrom the Congress Government in Madhya Pradesh.

These activists have been peacefully protesting since May 15 and four of them have been on hunger strikesince May 21. As you are aware, they are in an extremely dangerous state - the acetones in their blood havereached risk levels and Ram Kuar has malaria to boot. When a government does not want to negotiate with peoplewho are willing to suffer for the justice of their demands, it forces people to adopt more violent methods.

I understand from the letter that you have sent Ms.Roy (along with Mrs. Gandhi and Ms. Soni), and which hasnow been made public, that you have made no new concessions. Instead, you have reiterated the stand that madethem go on hunger strike in the first place. What is worse is that this has been accompanied by arrests and acomplete refusal to negotiate.

According to your figures, there are 993 families who will face partial submergence. The whole idea ofpartial submergence=92 ignores the reality of flooding, the damage to both houses and the inability tocultivate land for that year. Moreover, this figure of 993 families is somewhat surprising given that the NVDDreport of 20.10.2001 estimates it as 1156 families. As the IPT report (p. 21) makes clear, the number offamilies to be displaced varies in government records.

Anyway, even going by your latest figures, the rehabilitation package you have announced is just notenough. You state that only 448 families are eligible for alternative land, having lost more than 25% of theirholdings.

The MP Rehabilitation Policy for the Narmada Valley Oustees, 1992 clearly states that Every displacedfamily will be allotted a minimum of 2 hectares (ha) and a maximum of 8 ha in lieu of land acquired. (Clause3.2b)

The government will assist displaced families in providing irrigation by well/tube well or any other methodon the land allotted, provided such land is not already irrigated. In case the allotted land cannot beirrigated, the displaced family would be allotted a minimum of 4 ha of land. (Clause 3.2 c)

Grant-in-aid would be paid to cover the gap between the amount of compensation and the cost of allottedland in these cases where the cost of allotted land is more than the amount of compensation. (Clause 5.4)

If these 448 families were to be given compensation at the rate of irrigated land in Dhar tahsil (a minimumof 2 ha), the figure would amount to approximately Rs. 19 crores. The special rehabilitation package youannounced amounts to only Rs. 13 crore.

Even taking into account the compensation which was paid in 1991, there is still a gap of some Rs. 5 crore.The oustees have been on hunger strike precisely for that extra Rs. 5 crore (or land amounting to that much).The oustees have been able to identify irrigated land in Dhar tahsil for sale if your government can identifycheaper irrigated land for sale elsewhere (e.g. Gandhwani tahsil), by all means do so, and give it to theoustees.

Your letter to Ms. Roy states that the government policy "does not allow the state government topurchase land and give it to the tribals". In fact,the 1992 policy (Clause 3.2 b) states that everyone isentitled to a minimum of 2h, "regardless of whether they are to be given government land or whetherprivate land is to be purchased and given to them".

In the case of adivasi oustees, the 1992 MP policy clearly provides for due enquiry by the Collector whoneeds to certify that cash compensation will not harm their interests, before cash can be substituted forland. As the IPT report makes clear (a copy of which is with you), due process was not followed at that timevillagers were forced to accept cash compensation, and that too, at rates which were not sufficient to buyland even then. Villagers have repeatedly submitted in writing to the MP Government that they would ratherhave land. The oustees have also repeatedly asked for evidence that due process was followed, which has notbeen forthcoming.

Your letter also asks the oustees to put their case before the Grievance Redressal Authority. As you areaware, this authority is not distinct from the NVDA and the MP Government. The oustees have been repeatedlytold at various levels -- the local district collector, NVDA officials -- that only the Chief Minister cansolve their demands.

Finally, while the MP government's desire to fell trees and demolish buildings so as not to waste timberand building materials is indeed very commendable, one must point out that people are still living in thesevillages, since they have nowhere else to go. Forcing people to leave by sealing hand pumps and depriving themof drinking water is particularly inhuman. The Rehabilitation Policy states that oustees should be properlyresettled at least six months prior to submergence rather than unceremoniously evicted some six days beforesubmergence.

I trust that you will recognize the truth in this presentation of the facts. There can be no doubt thatunder the rehabilitation policy the government is obliged to give adivasis land for land. There can also be nodoubt that the policy is not being followed on the ground, or else four activists would not be on hungerstrike for 26 days, which could possibly extend to a fast to death. Irreparable physical damage has alreadyset in, and if anything happens to them, the world will hold you personally responsible.

All it would really take is for you to go to Dhar personally for a day or two and enquire into the matteryourself. Or else, given that as a Chief Minister, you must have several constraints on your time, appoint acommittee to undertake verification of the facts, such as whether due process was followed, and how much extraland or money would be required for proper rehabilitation. I believe this option should be acceptable to boththe NBA and the Government. Why have a policy if the government has no intention of following it?

Yours sincerely,

(Dr.) Nandini Sundar
Centre for the Study of Law and Governance
Jawaharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi - 67