NGO COLLABRATION ACTION RESEARCH IN COMMUNITY HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT

Item

Title
NGO COLLABRATION ACTION RESEARCH IN COMMUNITY HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT
extracted text
RF_NGO_5_SUDHA

DRAFT

Conservation of Forests and Natural
Ecosystems Act
A Critique by ARCH-VAHINI

Arch-Vahini
Po. Mangro, TaL Rajpipla
Dist. Bharuch. Gujarat. 393150
Telephone: (02640) 82340
October 21, 1994

Background
India’s crisis of forests is now a widely accepted fact. Large areas named as ‘forests’ arc completely or largely

devoid of tree cover. Soil erosion from these large denuded land areas is a common place.
Fuel wood needs of rising population of rural areas and poor of urban areas arc mounting steadily. Despite all
the talks and claims of alternative fuels, very little headway has been achieved and it is unrealistic to achieve.

This fuel wood crisis itself is a part cause of deforestation and is getting worse, because of deforestation.
Timber and wood requirements for housing and for industrial use arc similarly mounting. Crisis of housing in

the rural areas and the urban slums is to be seen to believe.
The Forest Department (FD) apart from the fact for being mainly responsible for the mindless clear-felling of

the vast tracts of forests to earn revenues up to late seventies has compounded the crisis by its appalling
management strategy and tactics. It has failed miserably to reforest the vast degraded areas, it has failed to

enlist the support of local population in regenerating and preserving the forests. This failure, chiefly stems

from the fact that the FD considers itself as the sole owner of the forests which is a result of a mere historical

undemocratic manipulation. This frame of mind has led the FD to lay aside important sociological fact of local
people living in the midst of forest areas since millennium and their legitimate rights over the forest resources

- bio-mass, land, water etc. Britishers acting in an imperial manner, disregarding the established traditional

rights of the residents had arbitrarily curtailed or extinguished the rights of the people. Independent India’s
democratically elected Governments deriving their legitimacy from the Constitution, have overlooked this

violation of the democratic norms by the aliens and have in fact continued the line, principles and directives of
the Constitution not withstanding. The FD retains this non-dcmocratic bearing, believes it to be a sovereign

power and claims the authority of eminent domain and effectively treats the local residents as second class

citizens. Its role is not that of protector of the environment, but that of the police over the tribal people. Its

policies, attitudes and behavior are those of authoritarian tyrant. Until very recently, it has treated the forest
dwellers as the adversaries to the forest, essentially hostile to the task of forest regeneration and has taken upon
itself the task of preserving the forest from their ‘continuous nibbling and encroachments through honey­

combing’. The forest dwellers arc now treated as law-breakers in their own lands, thanks to the invidious
provisions of the Indian Forests Act 1927. They are continuously harassed by the petty forest officials, not to

speak of high-level officials. They beat, intimidate, extort and do whatever they please. They are state within a
state. Little has the FD considered where from the local people get their livelihood. Their living standard in

comparison to even poverty-stricken rural areas of India is abysmal. The FD is impervious to this gross

violation of civil rights and human rights. They arc busy policing the forest areas, while the forests are
disappearing because of the larger socio-political economic forces and the FD’s inept handling.
The realization in the last decade has dawned that the forest crisis of India cannot be resolved, if at all,
without willing and active participation of the local people. And this cannot be had without giving

meaningful access and rights to the forest produce to the local people. The perceptive amongst the FD
have grasped this central truth of the ecological crisis of India. Halting and half-backed attempts to enlist

2

the participation of local people to regenerate and preserve the forests have barely begun. This is known in the
parlance of the FD as Joint forest Management (JFM). Welcome as this first step is, it is still inadequate to
meet the real economic needs of the people and is still severely handicapped by Indian Forests Act 1927 and

other laws like Forest Conservation Act 1980 and Wild Life (Protection) Act 1970 and above all by the

bureaucratic style of the FD. Without wider and deeper reforms in the forest management strategy - JFM, there
is little chance that forest regeneration can take place, local people’s social, economic and political aspirations
are effectively met and country’s needs of forest resources including fuel wood and timber can be met. The

environmental crisis of India, rooted as it is in the forest crisis is far from resolution.

Given this background, one needs to examine the new draft forest bill titled ‘Conservation of Forests and
Natural Ecosystems Act’. The following characteristics stand out clearly:

1

FD remains the sole custodian of forests:

A.

There is little in the draft to show that the central truth of the forest crisis has been grasped and
assimilated. It retains its old analysis of the genesis and perpetuation of the crisis in that it seeks

to treat the local dwellers as a threat to the forests. As a result, their existing rudimentary rights

are sought to be curtailed even further.
Thus the FD has been given a more decisive say in the proceedings of the Forest Settlement Officer

(FSO) for declaring an area as reserved forest in Chapter IJ - Sections 3 to 28. A special provision
for the appointment of Presenting Officer (PO) from the FD has been added (Section 4(3)) and the

FSO is bound to take into consideration the opinion of the PO or the DFO at every stage of the
proceedings (Sections 10, 11,12 and 16), whereas no safeguards have been introduced for the

examination and recognition of the rights and claims of the people. If the drafters had taken into

account the ground level reality that in most of the eases in the past, the FSOs have not only not

informed the people about the proposed action but have also not eared to properly examine their rights
and claims they would have provided with more safeguards for the rights of the people.

In eases of claims of the local communities regarding pasturage, forest produce, right to way and

waterways, people’s needs are made subservient to the ecological considerations and that too on the
presentation of the FD! (Sections 12, 14 and 15). Section 12, for instance, mentions that "such claims
can be admitted or rejected after considering view point of the FD, and ifthe FSO is satisfied that

such claim is within the limits of the carrying capacity ofthe forest or natural ecosystem, as the case
may be, and conforms to the principles ofsustained yield on a long term basis.

", but is silent on

examining the needs of the local communities. FSO’s competence to assess as complicated an issue as

carrying capacity of the area is assumed to be of unrealistically high order. The result is the FD shall

have arbitrary powers extended wide and far. This provision is extraordinary, it dangerous and it must
be opposed.

7* ’ ,

Most importantly Section 22 A is inserted which makes all the rights and claims taken into account

and granted by the FSO in above sections redundant and gives wide powers to the State Government
to review and commute all such rights. It reads: ‘Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing

section, the State Government may at any time after the publication of the notification under section

20, review any or all the rights in respect ofpasturage or to forest produce admitted in the notified
reservedforests with regard to carrying capacity id such forests and commute those to such an extent

as it may consider necessary to prevent degradation ofthe said reservedforest
Also under Section 21 A, on the recommendation of the FD, the State Government can redefine the
limits of the reserved forests in certain cases without following the procedure from Sections 4 to 19.
This gives wide and unlimited power to the FD which has proven record of misuse of power.
B.

The arbitrary and unchecked powers of the forest officers have been further strengthened. The
powers of the DFO have been strengthened without regard to rcdressal and rights of the local

people. The human rights situation can only deteriorate.
Wide and sweeping powers of seizure, confiscation and arrests without warrants have been given to
the forest officers and other officers in the reserved forests violating the basic human and civic rights
of the local people. Even cultivating old lands in the reserve forest area will be considered an offense

under Section 26 (1) (g). A Range Forest Officer, Sub Inspector or Tchs Idar can summarily evict any

person and remove his house and crops who either kindles or leaves any fire burning,, or cultivates
land or fishes or poisons water v ithout prejudice io any other action that may be taken against him

under other provisions of this Act (Section 26 (4))\ The crops and houses on forest land arc also liable
to confiscation by an order of DFO (Section 26(5)), Under Section 52 when (here is reason to believe

that a forest offense has been committed in respect of any forest produce (which now includes crops)

such produce together with all the equipment, tools, ropes, chains, boats, cattle, vehicles etc. used can

be seized by any forest, police or revenue officer and the authorized officer of the FD (not below the
rank of DFO) can confiscate and permanently dispose of the same whether or not a prosecution is

instituted for the commission of such offense and whether or not the person is found guilty by the

Judicial Magistrate before whom the trial is conducted! In fact under this provision together with
Section 52E(I) the Court of the Judicial Magistrate which conducts the trial for the original forest

offense cannot pass any orders regarding the property seized for the same offense. Gujarat amendment
of 1973 has already made similar provisions but this cannot be an argument in its favor. Moreover all

offenses under this Act have been made cognizable and all forest officers, police officers or revenue

officers have been given power to arrest and detain in custody without warrant any person who they
think has committed or is concerned in any forest offense (Section 64) and all forest offenses for

which a minimum imprisonment is prescribed have been made non-bailable and the courts are barred

from granting bail unless it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person
is not guilty of such offense (Section 65). Under Section 78 severe penalties have been imposed for

various forest offenses. Thus a person selling or bartering the forest produce which he has legally

4

acquired for use would have to pay a fine of up to Rs. 2000 and a person committing any offense
under Section 26 (causing or kindling fire, cultivating land etc ) shall face three years imprisonment

or a fine of up to Rs. 10000 or both and if the damage caused to the forest exceeds the value of Rs.

10,000 he will face a fine of minimum Rs. 25,000 up to Rs. 2,00,000/- and imprisonment of
minimum 6 months up to 5 years!
C.

As a corollary to this, there is no recognition of the participatory role of the people in
preservation and regeneration of the forests. Not only there is no deepening and widening of the

Joint Forest Management (JFM) thinking, in fact, the provisions exclude JFM from the areas
where it is needed most, i.e. the reserved and protected forests.

Thus Section 38(E) states that 'whenever the State Government '-onsiders it expedient to involve
individuals in afforestation of any land which is the property of the said Government or over which it
has proprietary rights, it may, in accordance with the rules made in this behalfassign the same or
part thereof to an individual; provided that no reserved or protectedforest shall be assigned to any

person for this purpose...

Thus it is amply clear that the drafters of the Bill arc patently partisan, have not taken into account
the important lessons learnt in last decades and have sought to gloss over the serious weaknesses and

deficiencies of the FD. The drafters have shown little regard for the welfare of the local people and
therefore for the welfare of the forests and for the integrity of the environment.

2.

Tree-growing
One would have thought that the FD’s prime concern would be to increase the tree cover and that the

FD would realize that it is beyond its means and capacity to raise trees, let alone in the non-forcst

areas but also in the forest areas. This is, however, not so. The FD has assumed that only it can protect
the trees everywhere and the people working in their own interest would only cut down the trees not
only in the forest areas but in their private lands as well. Coupled with this is another untenable

assumption that given right incentives, people will still not be interested in raising trees. Incredibly

enough, given the disaster of existing policy of policing in the forest areas, the FD has sought to
extend its police role well beyond the confines of traditional forest areas.

Thus Section 38(G) under the heading ‘Prohibiting felling, cutting, damaging, destroying any class of
trees in any urban or rural area’ provides that '... the State Government may, by notification in the

official gazette, prohibit from the date specified in such notification, cutting, damaging, destroying.

felling or removing of any class or kind of trees in any urban or rural area or part thereof.... ’. Then

elaborate provisions for establishment of urban and rural Tree authorities and Tree officers arc made.
It is provided that from the date on which these provisions are brought into force in any urban or
rural area

no person shall fell trees of any specified species or cause any such trees to be felled

5

in any land whether in his ownership or occupancy or otherwise,... except with the previous
permission of the Tree Officer
This is simply a recipe for disaster. Given this analysis and resultant provisions, it is difficult to
believe that the FD is interested in resolving the ecological crisis of India, that it really believes in

genuine involvement of the people towards the crisis resolution and that the forest management is

integral to environmental protection and people’s needs. These provisions arc symptomatic of ivory

tower mentality, if not the besieged mentality, of the mandarins of the FD and high priests of
environmentalism.

3.

Right to Development
The Forests Conservation Act 1980 is itself a major stumbling block to the extension of the
infrastructure facilities like roads, electricity, drinking water, minor irrigation schemes etc. This draft

accentuates this tendency further.

4.

Primacy of the Central Government
As a culmination of the whole non learning exercise of the FD arc the key provisions to effectively
transfer the powers of the state to the dictates of the Central Government. This is effectively to

change the subject list of the Constitution The process initiated with the enactment of Forest
Conservation Act 1980 of encroaching on the state subject has been carried much further (Sec

Sections: 3(2), 5(2), 23, 28

40 A (a). This overt and covert centralization militates directly with the

ideas of leaving more and more things to the people who arc directly involved in the management of
their resources, the crisis can only deepen. This time there will be an added dimension of massive

social unrest in the tribal areas and even in rural areas.

6

A'

UP-^enT

Action Research in Community Health & Development
ARCH-VAHINI Po. Mangrol. Tai. Rajpipla, Dist. Bharuch Gujarat (India).393150.
Tel. (02640) 82340 and (0265)421246
11 January, 1995

The Forest Department (FD) and the J. K. Group’s Central Pulp Mill (CPM) of Songadh have now started
adopting ugly means to crush the tribal movement against the Shoolpancshwar Wildlife Sanctuary in
Dediapada, Bharuch.

Disregarding the protest of the local tribals and the Wild Life (Protection) Act the FD has once again issued
orders allowing the powerful mill to cut away thousands of tonnes of bamboos from the sanctuary area. While
doing this it has not even bothered to acknowledge the questions raised by the local tribals: “how can it allow
such bamboo cutting in the sanctuary area when the basic rights of the local tribals are taken away, what about
preserving bio-diversity and if all such activities are to be allowed why continue the facade of the ‘sanctuary’?
The tribals organisation had decided to stage peaceful protest against these activities until these questions are
satisfactorarily answered by the FD. In stead of resolving the issue, the FD and the CPM decided in collusion
to use ugly muscle power to break the peaceful protest.
On January 7 1995 they brought outside labourers with police force to start bamboo cutting in village Dabka,
where the local villagers had resisted this work. High level Forest officers moved around in the villages
threatening the people of dire consequences. Two forest officers and some guards were specially stationed at
Motisingloti check point to prevent Ms. Trupti Parekh of Arch-Vahini from entering the sanctuary area. This
officer stopped her vehicle and told her that he had specific instructions of not allowing her to go inside the
sanctuary. This, despite the claims of the FD that no restrictions on peoples movements are being enforced in
the sanctuary area. After she declared a firm resolve to start Satyagrah there and then, She was finally allowed
to go in after heated arguments for about an hour. But a much uglier show was waiting for her at Juna Mozda.

There, the FD and the CPM had kept ready about 50 to 60 persons in a fiilly drunken state. These persons were
the watchmen and the leaders of the forest committees of the FD. They were brought there from different
villages in the tempos hired by the CPM and were provided about two gallons of free liquor. In fully drunken
state they stopped Trupti and started abusing her. The same persons had earlier gheroed and roughed up two
leaders of Sankli. They threatened Trupti of breaking her legs if she dared to come back in the area and did not
allow her to go inside. She tried to persuade them but to no avail as they were all in a higly drunken state. In
the evening the tempos that were waiting there took them back to their villages.
Next day, on 8th January these persons were again assembled to prevent Trupti from going inside. But this
time about 500 men and women from organisation had also decided to assemble to see how Trupti was
prevented from visiting their villages. On seeing this development the hired hoodlums of the FD and the CPM
went away. Trupti had a long meeting with the people and resolved that they would not be browbeaten by such
dubious tactics. They also accepted that despite these provocations from the FD and the CPM, they would not
give up the path of peaceful resistance. In the evening, Trupti’s vehicle was again stopped on the way by the
hoodlums when she was going back from the meeting. She was again abused and told that she should give a
written committment that she would never come back in the area and only then they would allow her to go.
She told them that there was no question of giving such committment and it was fine if they did not allow her
to go, she would willingly go to their villages and stay with them. On hearing this they finally allowed her to
go after two hours. A few stones were also pelted during this heckle.

By adopting such repulsive means against the peaceful movement of the tribals the FD and the CPM have only
shown their true colours. This will only further strengthen the people's resolve to continue their fight against
the arbitrary and partisan imposition of the sanctury laws on them, curtailing their basic human rights.

We request you to do whatever you can against these tactics of the FD and CPM and continue your support to
this struggle.
Thanking You,

Action Research in Community Health & Development
ARCH-VAHINI Po. Mangrol. Tai. Rajpipla, Dist. Bharuch Gujarat (India).393150.
Tel. (02640) 82340 and (0265)421246

The Struggle in Dediapada Continues: The FD unmasked.
Seemingly sleepy villages of the Surpaneshwar Sanctuary, Dediapada, Gujarat are
going through a rapid but peaceful transformation.

When the struggle began seven years ago, the situation was heavily loaded against
the tribals. The Forest Department’s (FD) rule was total and unchallenged. As usual in
all tribal areas, the struggle began for the rights on forest land. The tribals were being
evicted ruthlessly from the forest land they were cultivating for years. The fearful
tribals had no other choice but to take on powerful FD. ARCH-Vahini’s assistance in
this uneven struggle was sought. After initial hesitation ARCH-Vahini decided to join
the battle. Earlier we had obtained a very useful experience and knowledge in the
tangled issue of tribals’ rights on forest land. In 1984-85 because of the timely
intervention of the then Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court Mr. Potti we had
succeeded in preventing arbitrary eviction of hundreds of tribals in the tehsils of
Rajpipla, Naswadi and Chhota-Udepur. Then to our best knowledge, the FD had for
the first time come up with the startling argument that the tribal interests and the
interests of the forest preservation and the environment were antithetical. The
commission appointed by Mr. Potti had virtually endorsed the argument in its report.
Almost single-handedly, we endeavoured to refute this pernicious thesis. Mr. Potti' ’
ruled that whereas environmental interests were vital, they need not be and cannot be
achieved by evicting tribals without providing decent means of livelihood. Experience
gained was usefully employed in Dediapada and the first wave of evictions was halted
through fresh public interest petitions in the Gujarat High Court.
The FD apparently decided to teach a lesson to the tribals for having dared to,
organize and pose such a challenge. A wave of beating, intimidation, midnight raids,
extortions and arbitrary evictions defying High Court’s interim injunctions followed.
The senior workers of ARCH-Vahini were threatened with physical violence. A spate
of litigations, counter-litigations ensued.
The FD declared the area of about 61,000 hectares as sanctuary without as much
informing the tribals. The Surpaneshwar Sanctuary was created in lieu of 11,000
hectares of forest land going under submergence in the Sardar Sarovar Project. This
decision is full of anomalies and absurdities. The submerging forest land has lost its
tree cover longzbefore the project began. There is no wild life left. There is no primafacie case, therefore, to create wild life sanctuary to compensate for the imaginary wild
life. This has been amply supported by the M.S. University study. Moreover
Surpaneshwar Sanctuary has no connection with the submergence zone. The forests in
the sanctuary area are good. There is no logic why for the loss of degraded areas a
good quality forest be converted into Sanctuary endangering the livelihood and civil
rights of 40,000 tribals. Challenged before the Gujarat High Court, the FD has yet to
come up with credible rationale. There is little doubt that the FD is out to seek the
applause of rich, powerful and urban based lobby of national and international
environmentalists. The tribal interests could be easily undermined without any protest,
the FD must have reckoned.

The tribals fixing their attention on the forest land, trying to tenaciously cling to the
land they were cultivating were slow at first to grasp the meaning of sanctuary and the
danger of Wild Life (Protection) Act hanging over their heads. The FD proceeded
methodically to extinguish their rights on the forest land as well as on other traditional
rights on forest and their civil rights.

Two large rallies, one in 1989 and another in 1993 were organized to demand
rights over land, forest wealth, for de-notification of the Sanctuary and to restore their
civil rights. These seemed to provoke the FD even more, and more repressive
measures followed. Scores of false cases including a serious criminal case of robbery
were levelled against a senior woman member of ARCH-Vahini and the other workers
of the Organization.
The decisive moment of awareness came this August-September in the wake of
series of meetings to protest against the false cases and to discuss the actions of the FD
in the name of Sanctuary. In a collective flash of insight as it were everyone saw clearly
that whereas their elementary rights of grazing, cultivating traditionally owned forest
lands and their right to have good roads were being trampled upon in the name of
sanctuary and the Wild Life Act, the same Department was allowing a paper mill
situated down in south Gujarat to cut away thousands of tons of green bamboos
without any consideration of wild life, forests or bio-diversity. The meetings noticed
the decimation and degeneration of bamboo-stock which could only threaten their
future. In the 7th November, 1994 meeting a decision was taken that it was time to
halt this charade of sanctuary. It was decided that no more bamboos will be allowed to
be taken away without the approval and knowledge of the people. It was also decided
that the ugly game of sanctuary should be stopped immediately.
Soon after, the village Sankli organized a 24 hour vigilance to block the transport
of the bamboos. The peaceful blockade has lasted for more than 1 month. The Forest
Department was duly informed about decision. It has simply disappeared from the
scene. The paper mill management tried all techniques to lift the blockade including
threats of filing false criminal complaints and using police force, Undettered, the tribal
men and women have quietly decided to cany on. A midnight attempt to stealthily take
away a truckload of bamboos was foiled by the determined people on the night of 11th
December. To the simple question of the tribals as to whether this indeed is a sanctuary
or not, the FD has adopted an evasive tactics. Their aim is to ignore the protest,
exhaust the tribals who are weathering cold wave, and to hope that they will simply
disappear without outside world knowing about it.

Finally the FD has revealed to some discreet enquiries that the papermill under the
agreement with the Gujarat Government in 1988 has a right to bamboos. The state
Government declared to make the sanctuary in three phases- from 1982 to 1987, and
entered into agreement with the papermill in 1988 without as much as a fear of
contradiction Such a cynical use of power, such a cynical view of tribal wellbeing and
such a cynical view of biodiversity!
In another parallel spontaneous move, a few interior villages Vandri, Mathasar,
Kanji, Dundakhal decided to construct 15 km. long road on their own which the
district authority was refusing on the spacious ground that this was a Sanctuary area!
More than 500 men and women did labor on their own without wages for 25 days to

construct this road. The villagers want the state transport buses to go up to their
villages and the hand-pump rigs to reach their falias so that their drinking water
problem may be solved.

The villagers of Vandri and Mathasar found out a few weeks ago that a handful of
persons in a next village Mokhadi - a dam site submergence village- of the Sardar
Sarovar Project have been illegally cutting hundreds of trees with great impunity and
without fear of law in the sanctuary area. The villagers of Vandri and Mathasar
decided to oppose this illegal felling. The FD was informed about this 2 weeks ago
with a request that such cutting and destruction of forest be stopped. Nothing
happened. Several more requests by ARCH were made to the FD, others were
informed, but no action followed. The inaction of the FD, known for its ruthless action
in a situation much less serious than this, was conspicuous. The gang of wood cutters
apparently well connected were boastful of their high connections and the money they
could spend. Confident of their powerful political and financial backers, the handful of
them have been threatening the whole village. Some of the villagers have been hitlisted
and given serious warnings including loss of life. Many persons were beaten up. Their
claim that they are above law sound quite credible to fearful villagers who are also
fearful that if the distraction of the forest of their villages is not stopped, what will be
left for them in future? Cought in this double fear and completely stunned by the FD’s
inaction, they are still determined that they will not allow such destraction of forest
wealth on which their future rests.

In other two villages ofPankhala and Shisha, villagers disallowed the FD to set up
a nursery in which they are traditionally employed as laborers. They declared that they
will make their own nurseries and plant trees and look after them so that they get all
the benefits in the future.
Further down in village Patavli the villagers found out that 'environment
conscious’ FD has marked out four large coups with thousands of trees to be felled.
Large proportion of these trees are immature. The villagers have set up a committee
which will g'.ard the forest and prevent such massive felling. They fear that their future
is in danger.

In this whole area, the people have woken up to the fact that forest department
says one thing and does another thing. They have also clearly grasped that they have
real stake in the forest wealth, which can never be realized as long as the Sanctuary
stays, as Joint Forest Management, which would permit sharing of forest wealth with
the local communities, is not permitted in the Sanctuary areas. They can not be a mute
witness to such cynical game plans of the forest department. It is incredible but true
that the FD thought that they would not be challenged in their double-speak. The
tribals are now determined that the FD’s name must be exposed, the sanctuary must be
denotified and the legitimacy of their rights over the forest wealth including timber,
land, bamboos, fruits, seeds etc. must be recognized. The straggle for land has rapidly
and peacefully widened into the struggle for their development based on their rights on
the forest wealth. The FD has been unmasked.

December 15, 1994
Dediapada.

ARCH, Mangrol,
Date831/8/'85
Dear Dhruv,

This is not an attempt to give you full details of
the Sevagram meeting on Bhopal study.

In the 27th morning

session, among other thing, ICMR report was discussed. I
outlined the major methodological flaws of the report.

I

argued that ICMR report could be destroyed in the court by
the Union Carbide Lawyers.

There was therefore an urgent

necessity to undertake a new comprehensive and methodologically
more rigoEOus epidemiological study.
In the post-noon session, however. Rave Hazari of

Lawyers' Collective pointed out that the LC which was going

to file a suit in the court on behalf of gas victims needed
well-documented dossiers of about 100 determined and committed
gas victims.

These dossiers will contain the information on

the extent of economic and health damages, on the basis of

claims of compensation and damages will be made.

He said that

before he eame to Sevagram Meet, the LC had a meeting in
which this decision was arrived at.

He was sent to Sevagram

meet precisely to’find out whether the activists based in

Bhopal would be able to identify 100 or less such households

and compile a solid documentation of each of them.

He said

that the law of Evidence in India does not require an epide­

miological evidence (the way it was discussed in the meeting)
to establish cause-effect nexus.

ensued.

A huge discussion on this

Swaroop Sarkar from West Bengal, his friends and

others contested Ravi's claim vigorously.

Their argument

was that cause-effect relationship between MIC gas (or

mixture of toxic gases) and marbidity was not established so
far.

Therefore mere statements of victims that they were

exposed to gas on 3rd December, 1984 and that they were

suffering from certain disabilities and symptoms would

not

be accepted as the latter being caused by the former.

The

lawyer was firm and said that the way the law of Evidence in

..2..

..2..
Indian courts worked, a more averment that plaintifs were

present in the localities where foxic gases reached on the
3rd December night and that they wore suffering now and that

they had sustained economic loses is enough.

In this conne­

ct! n, a case of Thalidimode babies was discussed at length.
According to Ravi, all the women who had malformed babies

(not only typically deformed ones) and who could prove

that they had consumed Thalidimide when pregnant were

awarded damages.

There was no need to furnish epidemiogi- .

cal evidence that all these manifestations were caused by
(associated with) ingestion of Thalidiomide.

Ravi in later

part of the discussion also said that according to him
(and LC) there was no clarity as to whether epidemidogical

evidence would be. needed, could be used and if so in what
way.

The crux of the matter was that legal evidence and

epidemiological evidence were two different thing s and as

the matter stood there was no definite and established way

-

in which epidemiological evidence could be furnished to
5j± bolster legal evidence.

would be enough.

Moreover, a® mere averment

Thereafter, I took a stand which was

<

supported by you that we had to accept Ravi Haza-t-i’s
assessment of the legal situation in India a^- his judgement

regarding the value and place of epidemiological evidence.

There were quite a few misgivings about J/ivi Hazard's
assessment, but nobody amongst present nad legal knowledge,

background and experience to counter Ravi’s position which

according to him, had -a full backing of LC.

A direct

consequence of this was that under present circumstances

since the legal value of epidemiological evidence was not.
clearly established, MFC as a group could not participate

in an epidemiological study.

I made it ^repeatedly clear

to the meeting (this was necessary becuuxe unintended and
unflattering meanings were being attached to MFC and

me by one or two participants) that the MFC after a long

debate at D®lg.li Raj h ara had decided to actively support

- ?\

*.3..
the study only and if only the epidemiological
th« study was going to be of direct use in legal case.

The discussion that took place after this decision
is of interest, but since it has no relation to MFC's

stand, I am not expanding on it.
After we returned to Mangrol, in the 2nd week of

August I received a letter from Anil Sadgopal who unfor­

tunately could not remain present at Sevagram meet that
although LC had taken this stand re epidemiological evidence
he was of the opinion that a kind of epidemiological

evidence would be needed in the courts.

In the last couple of months I have came across

a few very interesting and relevant articles which precisely
deal wi-fcH these problems,

(legal evidence-epidemiological

evidence in the courts of law).

Since, however these

pertain to the situation in the U.S., its relevance and
application to Indian situation is not clear to us.

Our

group vaguely feels that in all probability the LCs position

requires modification which in any case Ravi Hazari has

accepted in principle.

The real question is in view of

Judge Heenan's judgement which sets same condition on UC
as well as on GOI, what kind of epidemiological evidence

is/will be needed (if and when) and what sort of study
design will be needed.

In this connection I met clearance Dias, an Indian

lawyer who is based in New York and whose group is taking
keen interest in Bhopal.

He seemed to share our group's

perception and suggested that a meeting between interested

and concerned lawyers, epidemiologists and activists of
India & U.S.should be held where the whole range of issues
ot the interface of law and epidemiologes in U.S. and

India on the one hand and the interface between the legal
situation in the U.S. & India on the other hand must be

4

..4..
thrashed <. ut thoroughly.

Only after this has happened we

will clearly have an idea of the place of epidemiolojical
evidence and the manner of compiling this evidence and
the manner of compiling this evidence in Bhopal case,

He

is going to meet Daxa in New York to initiate the process.
He was asking for the presence of permanent group of

Bhopal) India who will continue to follow the problem.

This is all for the moment.

We await your reactions.

With regards & love,

Yours sincerely.
(Anil Patel)

VAHINI - ARCH
Post: Mangrol, Tai.Rajpipla,
List: Bharuch, Gujarat.
Pin : 393 150.

1

Date: 21/5/1988.

THE 14TH MAY, 1988 VADGAM CONVENTION
BEFORE AND AFTER
(1)

BACKGROUND:

On 27th December, 1987, the Chief Minister of Gujarat,
Mr. Amarsinh Chowdhari travelled more than 250 Kms from the
capital city of Gujarat to the Sardar Sarovar (Narmada)
Project (SSP) head-quarter Kevadia Colony to address a
specially convened meeting of Gujarat oustees of SSP. He
came specially to announce the new Rehabilitation and
Resettlement (R and R) policy for the Gujarat oustees. We
had received officially copies of the new Government
Resolutions (GRs) - the December, 1987 GRs only two days
before. After reading these GRs carefully, we realised
that these were the very policies for which we were
fighting for years. Seemingly, an incessant and nerve­
wrecking phase of the struggle of the oustees for better
and acceptable Rehabilitation and Resettlement policy was
coming to an end. Even we were not prepared for such a
dramatic end to the struggle for the new Rehabilitation
and Resettlement policy. We were, in fact, preparing
ourselves for the long, drawn-out battle for the rights
of the encroacher oustees. We publically endorsed the
policy. We knew it very well, however, that the Government
of Gujarat had not announced this policy because of the
genuine concern and sympathy for the welfare of the tribal
oustees. Throughout the 8 years old struggle, we had come
across several turns and twists given by the Government
of Gujarat (GOG) to the Rehabilitation and Resettlement
policy which were all designed to undermine and hurt the
vital interests of the oustees. We had to fight each of
2

..2..
such turns and twists, tooth and nail. The fact of the
matter is that because of our organised struggle and other
powerful forces coming to the rescue of the SSP oustees
(a brief summary of this struggle and other aspects of
Rehabilitation and Resettlement policy-has been documented
by us in a draft form and circulated to some. A final
story will soon be ready for circulation), the Government
of Gujarat was forced to concede the new Rehabilitation
and Resettlement policy. The new Rehabilitation and
Resettlement policy has emerged after a long dual of words,
phrases, hard, arguments and hard bargaining. So many
concerned people have put in their heads to obtain clear
wordings of .the GRs. The Government of Gujarat may not be
any good in .properly rehabilitating the oustees, but it is
a past master at indulging in word-game of ambiguities and
double-meanings. All the supporters-of the SSP oustees
learned this crucial lesson hard way, and made sure that
the Government of Gujarat did not play such unfair game of
words in formulating the GRs, We were all satisfied, with
the GRs in this regard barring a few exceptions about which
clarifications were sought and obtained further clarifica­
tions asked for.

But we knew very well that there was still a huge task
ahead of getting this policy correctly translated in actual
practice. We did not believe that there was a change of
heart of the Government of Gujarat. What we did believe,
however, was that we will not have to fight as bitterly and
dodgedly as we had to fight to obtain the new and clearly-,
worded Rehabilitation and Resettlement policy. What we
really expected was petty hindrances and obtuseness at the
lower level of rehabilitation machinery. Many friends
cautioned us against going too far in co-operating with the
Government. Many critics criticised us for naively believing
that the new Rehabilitation and Resettlement policy was
equivalent to an acceptable and implemented Rehabilitation
and Resettlement. The points were well taken.
3

.‘.3..

For the next three months, we did our best to
co-operate with the Rehabilitation Office at Kevadia
Colony. Inevitably and predictably the Kevadia Office took
very cautions and conservative view.. So we madetwo trips
to Gandhinagar to meet the highest officers concerned of
Narmada Development Department (NDD) to clarify and to
facilitate the rehabilitation process. Several letters were
exchanged between us in a cordial manner. However, at the
heart of the rehabilitation process, there was something
disturbing and disquietening. The Deputy Collector,. Mr.J.M.
Patel, in-charge of the rehabilitation was continuously
and consistently dodging the heart of the Rehabilitation
and Resettlement policy. He was refusing to prepare cases
to obtain the land on the basis of minimum 5 acres per
faniily. He was prepared to give land only to those who had
compensation money deposited in their Bank accounts and,
this too, to the extent that could be bought from the
compensation money. His tactics was that of evasion. We
pursued and pursued. Finally, on 4th April, 1988, he was
pinned down. He admitted that he was prepared to give land
only to the land-holdings and not to the families. He
further said that if we wanted further clarifications on
the policy, we should meet the Additional Collector,
Rehabilitation Mr. Joshipura. On 6th April,, 1988 this we
did. He bluntly told us that he concurred with Mr.Patel
and proceeded to point out from the relevant GR of 1.11.85
that since land was being acquired of the land-holding,
only land-holdings were entitled to minimum 5 acres of land
and not all the families (major sons - married or unmarried).
This was a bomb-shell. The Government was again at it. It
was clear to us that the Government was trying to wipe out
all the crucial gains we had obtained through such grotesque
and absurd misinterpretation. The old anti-tribal policy
was back again. On 8th April, 1988, we sent long letters
complaining bitterly of such somersault to Mr. Krishnamurthy,

4

4..
Secretary, Rehabilitation, NDD and Mr.P.A. Raj, Additional
Chief Secretary, NDD. We also issued a press note on the
same day explaining "what the Government had done and what
we intended to do, Mr. Joshipura had told us on 6th April
that he .was aware that we were persistently demanding
minimum 5 acres of land per family and that he had written
to Gandhinagar about 'our interpretation' of the GRs and
that he was awaiting further instructions. There was neither
any reply, nor any reaction from Gandhinagar. On 24th April,
1988, leaders of all the villages met at Kevadia Colony. A
decision to fight back was taken. Both Gujarati and English
Press carried this news. Two programmes were decided:
(a)

Patrika Rally:- The Government of Gujarat has brought
out a coloured booklet in Gujarati and English for the
information of Gujarat oustees. It summarises all the
December, 1987 GRs together with 1; 11 i 1985 GR, However,
at the end of the booklet in the last para, it is
stated that no oustee can make any claim on the basis
of this booklet. Sharp oustees had themselves noticed
these paragraph. They saw it for what it was-a fraud.
A suggestion came from one of the enraged oustees
himself to send this booklet back to Mr.Amarsinh
Chowdhari after drawing an arrow from the mouth of..
the photograph of Mr.Chowdhari which was printed on
the front page to the last, damaging paragraph. This
was instantly named as patrika rally. We now believe
that the CM received such hundreds of Patrikas by post.
Such thing has never happened before. A mail campaign
to the highest authority.in Gujarat by illiterate
tribals is a novel innovation of this struggle. So
effective was the campaign, that Mr.Chowdhari' publi­
cally reacted to it four days after the convention.
That day, the oustees' struggle attained a new height.

.5

...5..
(b)

Decision to call a Convention of Gujarat Oustees
on May 14, 1988:- Those who were present at the
meeting of April 24 knew it fully well that we were
in the middle of the' hottest month of the. year. The
coming month was going to be even hotter. But this
did not deter anyone. The tempers were running high
and a determination to fight out this distortion of
the policy was equally high. The choice fell upon
14th May, because we knew that on 15th May the Narmada
Control Authority (NCA) was meeting at Kevadia Colony
to discuss Rehabilitation and Resettlement issues of
Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. And on 25th May the
World Bank Mission was arriving, A Press-note, was
immediately released which soon appeared in the Press.
We heard nothing from the Government. There was no
apparent response from the Government to, the problems
raised by us.

A curious and intrigning development was taking place
in Kevadia Colony and. in the submerging, villages. Mr. Sanat
Mehta, the newly appointed Chairman of Narmada Development
Corporation (NDC) came to Kevadia Colony in a Shibir
organised by an organisation called "Shramik Vikas Sansthan"
a registered trust. It is interesting to note that Mr.Sanat
Mehta is very closely associated with this organisation.
Sometimes in the last quarter of 1987, the Government of
Gujarat issued a special GR recognising this organisation
as an NGO to help the Government of Gujarat carry out Reha­
bilitation and Resettlement of Narmada oustees, because the
Government rehabilitation machinery would prove to be in­
adequate to the task. This, to say the least, ...was strange.
This Baroda-based organisation had never set foot in this
area before. Nobody in the area knew about this organisa­
tion. And yet, it was not only accorded official recogni­
tion by the Government of Gujarat, but even given a sizable
amount of grant to carry out the programme of Rehabilitation
. .6

..6..

and Resettlement. Mr.Sanat Mehta spoke to the participants,
nearly 3 weeks after the Additional Collector had announced
his destructive interpretation, after the issue had made an
appearance in the Press and the top-most officers were
officially informed by us. He spoke at length, but studi­
ously skirted the heart of the issue i.e. minimum 5 acres
of land per oustee family. Instead he made grandiose
promises to the oustees that in 10 years time when the dam
is built Kevadia Colony will be a ghost town, we will
resettle you in this town, the Government will set up new
industry in the area, all the adult persons will be absorbed
by this industry. Grand vision, indeed ,' Incredible it
might appear, but it is a fact that he spoke in this manner,
the December 1987 GRs, the specific terms of the Agreement
with the World Bank notwithstanding. The. oustees imme­
diately saw through the game, promptly challenged him and
protested strongly. This was not an end. In a subsequent
series of village level shibirs organised by "Shramik Vikas
Sansthan" and attended by the responsible officers, varia­
tions of the same strange and disturbing theme were
repeated. In Limdi - Navagam, the organisers said : 'let's
not talk about 'family', but talk about 'farmer'.' To the
alarmed and alert oustee-ears, it seemed suspiciously close
to the Government's latest stand of land to the land­
holding only. In-another shibir at village Katkhadi, the
Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation frightened the oustees by
his rehe-tarical question : 'why do you want land ? why
don't you start lari-galla ?'

On the other hand, the Rehabilitation Office at
Kevadia Colony grew bolder and bolder as days passed by.
At first in whisper and then loudly, the officers at Reha­
bilitation Office startedin'timitading the oustees that there
was no way the oustees were going to get 5 acres per family,
that they had better accepted whatever they could buy from
the compensation. There were open criticisms of Vahini.There
.7

. .7..
were open attempts to divide the oustees and to drive a
wedge between oustees and Vahini, Some oustees in Vadgam
buckled under the barrage of such pressure. Panic, fright,
anxiety and anger gripped the oustee villages-. The scene
was set for the 14th May Convention of Vadgam. Women and
men, young and old, came to Vadgam in a large number from
all the oustee villages,barring a few. The burning sun did
not deter them. The atmosphere was charged, feelings were
running high. At 11 a.m. sharp, the convention began.
(2)

THE CONVENTION;
About 1500 oustees gathered together to register their
loud protest against the Government of Gujarat’s heartless
policies. To stand in solidarity with the oustees of
Narmada, braving the heat wave of May came friends and
supporters from all over Gujarat. Ramesh Desai, Kirit
Panwala, Lanci Lobo, Amit Mitra from Surat, Meera Desai
and Rajesh Mehta from Sewa Rural, Jhaghadia, Swati,
Michall and Anand from 'Prayas' Mangrol, Raju Purohit,
Fr. Joseph, Dilip Pandya, Jayantibhai Gandhi from Rajpipla,
Indubhai Shelat, Prof. Bandukwala and from the Press
Shailesh Pandya PTI and TOI, Kirit Bhatt Loksatta and IE,
Praful Hirwani - Gujarat Samachar and Sukhdev Patel,
Madhusudan Mistry, Indu Jani, Harshad Desai from Ahmedabad.
A rather pleasant surprise was in store for us. The repre­
sentatives from MP oustees who had come to Kevadia Colony
to present their case to the NCA also came to the Conven­
tion to express their.solidarity with the oustees of
Gujarat and to bless the Convention.

Continuing the tradition we had set in the March 1984
Convention, the Convention did away with all the formali­
ties. Nobody chaired the Convention, there was no' Chief
Guest and there was no inauguration. About 30 representa­
tives of different, villages, including women spoke vividly
.8

,8..

and precisely about the problems they were facing. A
strong call to maintain unity of the organisation to get
what is due to them was given. This was endorsed lustily
and greeted with loud cheers. If there was any calcula­
tion of the Government or of a section of it that the
oustees could be isolated, divided and brow-beaten into
meek submission, it was set at naught. The call of the
unity of the organisation given by the Convention was loud
and clear. Enthusiasm filled the atmosphere. The friends
and supporters of the organisation also spoke, backing to
the hilt the demands of the Convention, criticising the
Government for its reactionary policy.,, offering an un­
conditional support to the cause of the oustees and urging
the oustees to remember that they were not alone in their
fight and that they should maintain the unity at any cost.
The Convention passed unanimously a set of 7 Resolutions
(based on a note entitled 'Sardar Sarovar Oustees :
Struggle,Continues'). An announcement was made unanimously
that if Rehabilitation and Resettlement of not only oustees
of Gujarat but also those of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh
was sought to be down-graded or diluted, by the State
Governments, the oustees of Gujarat will not tolerate this
transgression. They shall fight shoulder to shoulder with
their brothers and sisters of Maharashtra and Madhya
Pradesh, They will not allpw dam to be built, if there
. was not going to be Rehabilitation and Resettlement
, . acceptable;, to the oustees. The final slogan of the Conven-tion ’if no Rehabilitation and Resettlement, no dam', rent
the air.
(3)

AFTER THE CONVENTION:

On 15th May morning, all the newspapers in Gujarat
both Gujarati and English carried the message of Conven­
tion - 'no dam, if no rehabilitation' on their first pages.
..9

..9..

At Kevaaia Colony, had gathered all the top brass of the
NEC. They were also stunned into silence. One of the major'
purposes of the Convention was served. The mighty help of
the Press helped deliver a shock treatment to the Govern­
ment of Gujarat.
In the morning hours of 15th May, we managed to meet
the NCA. The Chairman of the NCA avoided to listen to our
complaints against the Government of Gujarat. The NCA went
beyond. The Chairman categorically asserted that the NCA's
duty and responsibility was limited to the Award given by
NWDT. If Gujarat Government was found guilty of violating
NWDT Award, the NCA will listen to the complaint, and no
more. The corollary of this was that if the Government of
Gujarat defaulted seriously on providing land to the
encroad her oustees or landless oustees according to rele­
vant December'87 GRs, then the NCA was helpless, because
the NWDT Award does not even mention the encroacher and
landless oustees. This was shocking. Earlier on, in a
heated debate with the representatives of Madhya Pradesh
and Maharashtra oustees, the NCA had said the same thing
and had even enlarged this theme by saying that they could
not and will not force the Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh
Governments to extend the same or similar benefits to the
encroacher and landless oustees as given by the Government
of Gujarat. These benefits are in fact, based on the LA
with the World Bank which is binding to all the State
Governments and the Central Government. This is strange.
We understand that it is NCA's legal responsibility and
duty to see that Rehabilitation and Resettlement according
to LA is carried out properly in all the States. The NCA
cannot abandon its responsibility in this manner.
Soon after the meeting with NCA, the leaders of all
the villages of Gujarat who had come to the meeting with
the NCA met together. The news coverage was discussed. Its
10

10..

implications were noted, and the future line of action was
worked out. We explained to the leaders how little we could
expect from the NCA, since the NCA seemed to take a shelter
. behind the technicalities and legalities. We also explained
as to how fictitious in reality this cover was. We decided
to take time to explore the possibilities of pressurizing
the NCA. The meeting decided that Mr.Sanat Mehta, whose
meeting was organised on 19th May will be boycotted by the
oustee villages. The meeting also decided that the oustees
will now stage a series of Satyagrahas before the Rehabi­
litation Office at Kevadia Colony to seek immediate relief
and redressal of the grievances which have remained neg­
lected and ignored for a long time by the Rehabilitation
Office and which were included in the Resolutions passed
by the Convention. First such Satyagrah will be launched
on 23rd May, 1988.

Thereafter, we had a meeting with the representatives
of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh oustees. We agreed that
.we should not allow the Governments and the NCA to divide
us and treat us separately. The issue of Rehabilitation
and Resettlement of SSP oustees concerns all the oustees.
An understanding was reached that if any of the States
defaulted in carrying out the right and just Rehabilita­
tion and Resettlement policy, all the oustees will fight
together, and the work on dam will not be allowed to go
. ahead. A joint letter signed by all the representatives
was immediately delivered by hand to the NCA stating that
henceforth NCA should invite all the States simultaneously
and not separately as has been the practice so far.
That afternoon in Kevadia Colony, we managed to
obtain a reliable information that a massive show of
organised strength of the Gujarat oustees in the Convention
of 14th May and a wide-spread publicity it has received
has shattered the authorities. Never before during the
.11

..11..
course of our struggle, the oustees had threatened to stop
the dam. Never before the oustees had secured so many
vital rights legally. And the Supervisory Mission of the
World Bank was imminent. These were all the factors that
went against the Government's calculations (or gamble ?).
the whole thing had back-fired and back-fired badly. We
believe that this miscalculation or gamble had taken place
at the highest policy-making level.

All of us waited with a baited breath for 4 days. On
19th May, all the newspapers carried the story prominently
that the CM, at a public meeting, made an announcement that
each of the oustee families will get minimum 5 acres of
land as demanded by the oustees at the Vadgam Convention.
He acknowledged that he had received many Patrikas from the
oustees. At last, the Patrika Rally had succeeded, the
arrows had hit him. He went further and ascribed the
bunglings, the Government had made, to some over cautions
Government Officers only. He also publically chided us for
not taking the matter to him and instead for organising
convention of the oustees. Mr.Sanat Mehta, who spoke after
him, repeated what the CM"had said. Obviously, on both of
these counts, he is patently wrong. As we have described
in detail above, the evidence is exceptionally strong to
show that this was not and could not be a decision taken
by a middle-level bureaucrat. More than a month before the
Convention took place, the top officers and, one presumes,
the CM had the information about the happenings at Kevadia
Colony, our letters of 8th April, 1988 and the Press
release had seen to it. Besides, the Deputy Collector and
even the Additional Collector could not have touched the
heart of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement policy in as
cavalier a manner as they did. They knew that Rehabilita­
tion and Resettlement of SSP was' too volatile and contro­
versial an issue to tamper with single-handedly. Indeed,
.12

..12..

Mr.Joshipura, the Additional Collector, who was the target
of the adverse press .publicity admitted that he was made
a scapegoat. Obviously, the CM was trying to pass a buck,
which he could not do without admitting that Gandhinagar
had lost control on the lower level bureauracy. His was
a belated and flabby.attempt. He must have known that no
one would buy it.
(4)

WHAT NOW ?
The way the Government of Gujarat tampers so thought­
lessly and even heartlessly with the Rehabilitation and
Resettlement policy and when the oustees rose in a great
defiance, the way the Government of Gujarat seemed to yield,
trying to make someone scape-goat, chiding others and
shifting the buck, it appears that there is still no
respite for us. The Government, unaccountable as it has
grown accustomed to, will learn no lesson and we can rely
upon it to repeat the performance. But the struggle has
definitely moved a step further. It is impossible now to
reverse the advances made by the oustees. More than ever
before, the Government is vulnerable. The oustees are so
awakened and so alive to their hard-won rights and so well
organised, that it will be nearly impossible to over-ride
them, unless, of course, they are ruthlessly suppressed.
They have clearly, grasped the alternative available to
them i.e; if no Rehabilitation and Resettlement, no dam.

*********
Media
RF_NGO_5_SUDHA.pdf

Position: 1555 (4 views)