FACTS againest MYTHS V0L-VII-3-2002.pdf
Media
- extracted text
-
4? ( v v /\
©.(
~o
...-/■
VIKAS ADHYAYAN KENDRA
Vol VII #3/2002
INFORMATION BULLETIN
Endangering Peoples’ Right to a Natural Resource:
The Myths behind Water and “Water Scarcity” - II
“Natural resources, meant for public use, cannot be converted to private ownership”.
— Supreme Court of India, 1996
"There is enough for everyone's need, but not for everyone's greed1'
— M. K. Gandhi,The Constructive Programme, (1945)
COMMENT
rrigation in India has historically always been central to agriculture since rainfall is confined
to just a few months, often uncertain, and also because part of the country lies within
the rain shadow region. Various types of irrigation works had been maintained. Dams
were constructed on the major rivers from around 2nd c. CE onwards, channeling water
to extensive paddy growing tracts. These systems often relied on controlled innovation,
involving the flooding of land, which spread silt over the fields and saturated the soil with
water, allowing for the production of rich crops. This was a major feature of the irrigation
systems in South India, the Bahawalpure State in the 18th c. and early 19lh century, and
in the plains of North India that used water flowing from off the Himalayas. The other
characteristic feature was that the management of natural resources was communitycontrolled even amongst despotic regimes of the period. However, with colonial occupation
these indigenous irrigation systems were discredited as being backward and outdated.
The colonial administrators maintained that they could transcend the limitations of these
traditional systems through their
superior scientific know-how and
technology. They also emphasized that
nature could be mastered, transformed
and made more productive, allowing
agrarian products to be sold
competitively in a rapidly expanding
global market. However, a major
downside of their policy was that by
substituting a subsistence form of
agriculture with high-input commercial
agriculture this proved disastrous to both
humans
and
nature.
With
Independence, however, the post
colonial governments followed the same
policies on the management of natural
resources, reinforcing the colonial
paradigm.
FACTS against MYTHS - Vol Vn # 3/2002^Bi^^^^P^
( FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION ONLY
)
Governments since then have consistently failed
to see the need to change many of these archaic
laws governing water use, etc. A cursory look into
the practice of water use reveals that water
resources, like forest resources, have mainly
benefited the rich and the powerful, as before. Till
today the right of access to the numerous tanks,
wells, etc., is reserved for the upper castes and
out of bounds for for Dalit communities.
Water resources continue to be under the control
and domination of the upper castes, which grow
water-intensive crops like sugarcane even at the
height of the summer season while denying
drinking water to Dalits by mixing cow dung in the
well water, fearing caste contamination. Besides,
watershed management systems as well have
become sites for discriminating. The rural kulak
also ensures the digging of bore wells mostly in
upper caste localities. This form of caste
discrimination is also a manifestation of
privatisation in that these water resources are
privatised by the high caste. Moreover, thousands
of canals and dams have since been constructed
without sufficient consideration to a whole range
of water rights of the people. Irrigation continues
to benefit the rich farmers. Clearly, dams and
water supply in urban areas have changed the
use of water — to supply electricity to urban areas
and industries—at the expense of the poor. Today
there are frequent floods in areas which did not
experience floods earlier due to dam bursts or
release of excess water, and drought in what once
were fertile lands e.g.the Kutch region of Gujarat.
Floods and droughts are therefore the
consequence of a water, land and forest use policy,
which are not only inconsistent with each other
but also ecologically unsound.
With the framing of the Indian Constitution a
number of policies governing natural resources
were introduced — the Directive Principles such
as such as Art.39 (b) and (c), the Fundamental
Duties as well as the Preamble and the Five-Year
Plans. At the same time a national policy on water
had also been formulated by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
the main architect of India’s Constitution between
1942 and 1944. Dr. Ambedkar had stressed way
back then the need to conserve water water and
to focus on environmental safeguards. Inspite of
his enormous contribution, however, an overall
national policy on water failed to materialise. It
was only as late as September 9,1987 that a
National Water Policy of India was established and
officially recognised.The policy mandates not only
equitable distribution of water resources but also
a sustained-yield use. However, in the Indian
FACTS against MYTHS-Vol VII #3/2002
statecraft policy statements these policies are not
inding on any government or administration. This
new Policy is also no exception and has since been
revised as the “National Water Policy - 2002”.
Such documents, therefore, have had little to do
with enforcement and ultimately remain just that
- Grand Statements. However, a highly disturbing
feature of the new Policy is the provision for
'Private Sector Participation’! This provision is
bound to result in the corporatisation of India’s
water resources and render ineffective the
community-based approach that various
environmental groups have been demanding
which the new Policy fails to consider. Those who
drafted the National Water Policy continue to
believe in the redundant paradigm of mega dams,
irrigation canals, electric and diesel pumps, and
borewells that over-draw groundwater. They also
view themselves as the real custodians and
guardians of natural resources like water rather
than duly recognizing the community as the
primary authority.
The basic issue in resource utilization, then, is onew
of power over access and distribution of resources.
Irrigation systems like the Narmada Dam take this
power away from the people - the type of control
they have over local ponds, tanks, wells, etc.—
their control over water resources. Channeling
water through such technologies is, therefore, also
channeling power or control over community
resources unless it is ensured that the
redistribution of the control over resources does
not result in inequities or a skewed separation of
powers as is the present situation. Ultimately, it
is the engineers — seeing their dreams translated
into reality — the civil contractor envisioning a
business goldmine — the politician anticipating
massive scope for minting money — and TNCs
seeing an opportunity to repatriate huge profits
out of the country — who all end up as the “real®!
beneficiaries”. Meanwhile water rights of those in
the recent past and those existing, let alone the
future generations, continue to be grossly violated.
If future generations have a right to inherit an
ecologically stable and naturally endowed world,
and live with the marvels of the natural world in
the same way as we, or our past generations, have
lived, is the introduction of especially inappropriate
technologies ranging from electric pump sets to
the harebrained proposal - currently on the
drawing boards — to link all Indian rivers into one
mega river-network that permanently damages the
natural eco-system and life of a river, justified?
As a vital resource the deprivation of water to
communities is a violation of human rights. The
2
pursuit of water rights is, hence, also
simultaneously the pursuit of human rights. Linked
to this issue of rights is the World Bank
conditionality of water privatisation.This representsa fundamental shift in the nature of the water
privatisation. In the past, private operators were
mostly individuals - individual farmers in the case
of tubewell based water markets, or contractors
in the case of tanker water-supply. Many of the
tankers operated under contracts from civic or
government authorities and were in a sense a part
of the public sector and had no private control.
Today however the players are increasingly TNCs
backed by the World Bank who influence
government policies to adopt greater privatisation
of all utility services.
Other institutions backing privatisation include the
Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the
Department for International Development (DFID)
of the British Government. Banding together with
industrialists, financiers, and insurance agencies,
™among others they have together launched the
“new approach” to resolving the water crisis viz.,
the Public-Private Partnership in Management of
Water Resources, (see box on pg. 7) The driving
force behind this effort is profit covering many
thousands of crores. Estimates of investments
needed to upgrade the urban water and sewerage
services in the near future range up to Rs.30,200
crores per annum at 1996-97 prices over the Ninth
Plan period (1997-2002). Water privatization'4
involves any or all components from the source
of water, filtration and distribution, to the collection,
treatment and disposal of wastewater and sewage.
Hence, the term, Water Supply and Sanitation
(WSS).The supply of clean drinking water is also
a vital component in Government projects on
“poverty alleviation”, social policy and healthcare
^with the common refrain: “Drinking water provided
"for 100,000 people”. Contrary to such claims,
however, many of these projects end up as
failures due to gross mis-management, atrocious
planning and outright violation of people’s rights.
As a result, Adivasi and rural communities
abandon their habitation because of non
availability of water. Hence, the issue of water
rights, especially the right to fresh water takes
priority. Further, when MNCs take control of public
utilities demanding these be viewed as
commodities and rejecting water as a basic human
right, calling for Private Public Partnership
approach to the “water crisis” must be rejected. It
is essential threrefore to challenge some of the
grandiose schemes on water and water resources
and dismantle the myths that justify such claims
under the facade of Sustainable Development.
(f FACTS against MYTHS - Vol vn # 3/2002
MYTH: The management of water resources
in India is efficiently maintained as is evident
from the country having achieved selfsufficiency in food-grain output.
FACT: Self-sufficiency in food grain production
implies, first, the capacity to produce all food
necessary to feed the entire population of the
country at an acceptable level of nutrition.
However, this concept has been mis-used to mean
that India today does not have to import food
grains to keep the Public Distribution System (PDS)
running. In reality, the PDS has failed. It has not
been able to address the needs of particularly 30
to 40 percent of the people who are extremely
poor to buy essential food grains from even the
subsidised ration shops of the Government. In
other words, the water resources in the country
are not at all managed efficiently let alone in a
sustainable manner. Consequently, the country
continues to experience severe problems e.g.
desertification, floods, droughts and water
shortages for irrigation, industries and domestic
use.
MYTH: Dams are the only effective means to
solve the water crisis.
FACT: This is both a mechanical and knee-jerk
response to trap, conserve and utilize rainwater.
Such an approach will merely lead to further
extraction and exploitation thus resulting in a net
depletion of this rapidly depleting resource.
Nevertheless, some problems do get addressed
through this approach like increasing flows of
water to urban, industrial or agricultural areas. But
in the long run it causes major problem in the
catchment area in terms of submersion,
displacement as well as loss of bio-diversity. It also
adversely affects downstream tradition water
users who previously enjoying unrestricted access
now have to be content with greatly diminished or
non-existent flows.
Furthermore, even if one were to accept this as a
legitimate response, notwithstanding the
associated problems (often of a cruel and
inhuman kind when one considers the abysmal
record on rehabilitation and the resultant fate of
the outstees and conflicts that arise) such a
response is highly specific to the hydrological flows
as well as to geographical locations. It is not a
response that can be widely implemented across
a region or a country experiencing water
shortages. It is estimated that if all the rivers in
the country were dammed and all the potential
fully exploited, even then it would not irrigate more
than 30 percent of the arable land, thus leaving
3
70 per cent beyond the application of such a
technology.
Further, technically sophicated interventions
through such technologies to impound water and
the like require the interventions of specialized
agencies, intensive inputs, professional
maintenance and huge resources for operations
as well as skilled management. And, finally, awhile
solving to an extent the problems of a particular
locale, they fail to remotely address similar
problems affecting a far greater number of people
and communities elsewhere.
Finally, new research commissioned by WWF has
warned that dams built with the promise of
reducing flooding can often exacerbate the
problem with catastrophic consequences, as
some recent floods have shown. It shows that
dams are often designed with very poor knowledge
of the potential for severe flood events. Where
data does exist it may fail to consider current risks
such as increased rainfall due to climate change
or increased run-off of water from land due to
deforestation or the drainage of wetlands.The loss
of these natural sponges for floodwater within the
river basin increases the risk of severe floods.
WWF maintains that many of these problems could
be avoided if the recommendations of the first
World Commission of Dams (WCD) were applied
to future dam projects. Further according to
another researcher , (see also box on pg. 5 of
Part I) lack of adequate information means that
dams are often built without adequate spillways
to cope with severe floods. In a 1995 study of 25
dams in India, World Bank engineers themselves
calculated the amount of water that these dams
should have been able to release at the height of
a flood. In each case, they found the expected
floods were greater than those that the dams had
been built to discharge over their spillways. Only
2 had been able to cope with 1 /7th of the expected
peak discharge!
x
The Brahmaputra-Ganga Link Canal was
rejected by Bangladesh for a number of
reasons, few of which continue to hold valid
to this day. A tentative link canal passing
entirely through Indian territory (the Siliguri
chicken-neck) will involve massive lifts
even if it is physically achievable and
funding is available;
x
The Garland Canal or the Ganga-Kaveri
link projected to cost (then) Rs.24, 025
crores. Two expert committees on
examining the proposal rejected it finally
on ground of it being technically unsound
and economically unviable with global
implications. And this holds very true even
today. Under the Indo-Bangladesh Treaty
(1996) on the sharing of the Ganga water,
India has undertaken to protect the flows
arriving at Farakka, which is the sharing
point. How will a diversion of waters from
the Ganga to the rivers in South India bej A
consistent with this? Will the flows at
Farakka be left intact, and water diverted
from (say) whatever is now being used in
UP and Bihar? Bihar has already a major
grievance that its interests have been
overlooked. Above all, in the context of
the Indo-Bangladesh talks, both agree that
the Ganga today is water-short and needs
to be ‘augmented’, through both sides
interpret the notion of augmentation
differently: one has reservations of that
proportion, but if that is correct, then where
is the scope for diversion from the Ganga?
x
Such illusions of grandeur - long-distance
transfers of water from one basin to
another - have blinded its avid
proponents - the engineers — them to a
simple fact that we have failed to even
persuade neighboring states to agree
upon a sharing of water (e.g. Ravi-Beas,
Kaveri). The National Water Development
Agency has been studying the possibilities
of linking the peninsular rivers (MahanadiGodavari-Krishna-Pennar-Cauvery), but
Orissa does not agree that there is a
surplus in the Mahanadi, and A.P. does not
agree that there is a surplus in the
Godavari.
MYTH: The long-term solution to the water
crisis is to interlink or network of Indian rivers
as this will i) help in transferring water from
surplus rich to deficient poor rivers,
agumenting the flows of the latter, ii) obviating
disputes over the sharing of rivers iii) help in
controlling droughts and floods and iv) boost
agricultural production
FACT: This grandiose plan along with similar
proposals is an old one which was rejected as
way back in the 70s but is being resurrected today
as the Government contemplates its
implementation. These earlier plans include the
following:
Q FA CTS against MYTHS-Vol vn# 3/2002
Finally the Union Ministry itself has raised major
hurdles over this claim:
x
on funding. The National Commission on
an Integrated Water Resources
Development Plan (NCIWRDP) will
o
consume Rs. 180,000 crores over the next
10 years to complete these projects.
i
Water in the Indian Constitution
(Excerpts)15
In India, most river systems are inter-State
responsibilities and the regulation and
development of its waters is a source of inter
state differences and disputes. In the
Constitution, water is a matter included in
Entry 17 of List II i.e. the State List category
(Union List I and the Concurrent List III are
the other two categories). The specific
provisions are as follows:
ART. 262 - In case of disputes relating to
waters,
1)
A
V
2)
j
j
I
Parliament may by low provide
for the adjudication of any dispute or
complaint with respect to the use,
distribution or control of the waters
of, or in, any inter-State river or river
valley;
Notwithstanding anything in
this Constitution, Parliament may, by
law provide that neither the Supreme
Court nor any other court shall
exercise jurisdiction in respect of any
dispute or complaint as is referred to
in Clause (1).
Entry 56 of List 1 of Seventh Schedule provides that
“Regulation and development of Inter-State
rivers and river valleys to the extent to which
such regulation and development under the
control of Union is declared by Parliament
by law to be expedient in the public
• A interest”.
i
(
;
I
i
*
Entry 17 Under List II of Seventh Schedule provides that “...water supplies, irrigation
and canals, drainage and embankments, and
water power subject to the provisions of
Entry 56 of List I”.
As such, the Central Government is
conferred with powers to regulate and deved
develope inter-state rivers under Entry 56 of
List I of Seventh Schedule to the extent
declared by the Parliament by law to be
expedient in the public interest.
It also has the power to make laws for the
adjudication of any dispute relating to waters
of Inter-State river or river valley under
Art.262 of the Constitution.
FACTS against MYTHS - Vol VII # 3/2002
x
states are highly apprehensive of the
Project’s impact on the already
implemented inter-state river dispute
tribunal ruling on sharing of water
x
since a number of canals would have to
pass through national parks and
sanctuaries, clearance is essential from
the Ministry of Environment and Folrests
(MEF), and
m
The crucial issue of R & R for the
thousands of people that will necessarily
be displaced and even dispossessed by
these canals.
On the claim that such a scheme will eventually
help in preventing disasters like drought and
floods, the most likely possible reality will be one
in which drought will be instead transferred where
one did not exist!
MYTH: Bottled water is the only protection
against water contamination and adulteration
as well as being eco-friendly and a healthy
lifestyle
FACT: However, the very industry that champions
the cause of bottled water—providing “pure” water
to the elite in society - contributes, ironically, to
the destruction of public water resources through
the generation of non-renewable plastic water
containers. Apart from this, complaints are now
frequently arising on the questionable nature in
the quality of these bottled water!. In 1999 the
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) in the
US noted that much bottled water is no safer than
tap water and some decidedly less so. One third
of the103 brands of bottled water studied
contained levels of contamination, including traces
of arsenic and E.coli and at least 174th of bottled
water is actually bottled tap water. Similarly, in
2002 a consumer awareness publication, Insight,
from Ahmedabad, in its July issue reported that
the Ministry of Health prohibited the sale of bottled
mineral water, Perrier, product of the MNC, Nestle,
as it had failed to observe the notification of the
guidelines laid down in the Prevention of Food
Adulteration (PFA) Act. The product contained pH
and calcium content and is therefore not water.
MYTH: As a commodity and an economic
asset water is not a domain for human rights
activities
FACT: On the contrary! As argued earlier (in this
issue) water is a public asset and access to water
5
for the satisfaction of the vital needs of every
human person and community is of vital
importance, a basic obligation for human beings
whatever the cost.
Basic access to water for all refers to the quality
and quantity of water necessary to satisfy
collective needs and to ensure the basic socio
economic well being of all. Access to water is a
fundamental political, economic and social right
for one and all, since the biological, economic and
social security of every person and community
depends upon the enjoyment of this right. Such a
right therefore cannot be bought and sold, quoted
in stock exchange, traded or swapped.
Indeed, as part of Earth’s heritage water must be
preserved as a public domain - for all time protected by local, national and international law
- rather than be viewed as private property. Such
a claim puts at risk the whole notion of 'the
commons’ that must be preserved for future
generations. Instead of this vital resource being
transformed into a commodity it must be easily
accessible and as an essential human need. It is
for this reason that water has been recognised
as an important component of human rights. A
vast body of covenants and internal agreements
already exist that formally identify and declare a
whole range of human rights in which access to
clean water has been duly recognized as a
precondition in many of them.
more of the newer national constitutions discuss
water. The Republic of South Africa has moved
strongly in this direction. The Bill of Rights of the
new Constitution of South Africa, adopted in 1994,
offers a clear example of State practice relevant
to an explicit human right to water. Section 27
(1 )(b) states: “Everyone has the right to have
access to sufficient food and water”
References:
1.
Waslekar, S.(et al). Rethinking India’s Future:
Prosperity of the Periphery, Strategic Foresight Group,
Mumbai, 2002.
2.
Bhangar, N. Water Wars, www.indiatogether.com
3.
Dividing the Water: Food Security, Eco-Systems and
New Politics of Scarcity, World Watch Institute,
September 1996.
4.
Nikolaieff.G.A. The Water Crisis, The H.W. Wilson
Company,New York, 1967.
5.
Laptev, I. The Planet of Reason, Progress Publishers,
Moscow, 1973.
6.
Chopra, R. and Sen, D. natural Bounty and Artificial^
Scarcity: Population and Water Resources in Indis y
Paper prepared for inclusion in “Science, Population
and Development to be released at the Indian Science
Congress, January 1992.
7.
Henderson, C. Eau Dear, The Ecologist Asia, No. 5,
Bombay, 2000.
8.
Martin, B. Privatisation and Globalisation, The
Ecologist Asia, No. I, Bombay, 1997.
9.
Chatterjee, P. Consumers Give Thumbs Down for Water
Privatisation, TWN Features, Goa.
10.
Petrela, R.The Waler Manifesto, Books for Change,
Bangalore, 2001.
11.
Hardiman, D. The Politics of Water in Colonial India
South-Asia, No. 2, New South Wells, 2002.
12.
Singh, C. Waler Rights & Principles of Water Resources
Ma nagement, N.M. Tripathi Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, 1991.
Specifically, these rights15 are explicitly mentioned
in the 1989 Convention of the Rights of the Child,
viz., Art. 24 paralleling Art.25 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Among the
measures States are obliged to secure this right
are those to “combat diseases and
malnutrition...through, inter alia, ...the provision
of nutritious food and clean drinking water”.
Interpreted, Art.8 of the Declaration on the Right
to Development adopted by the UN General
Assembly in 1986 explicitly includes water as a
basic resource when it states that the persistent
condition of under-development in which millions
of humans are “denied access to such essential
as food, water, clothing, housing and medicine in
adequate measure” representing a clear and
flagrant, “mass violation of human rights”.
Although few States have made formal
commitments in providing right to water, more and
C FA CTS against MYTHS-Vol vn# 3/2002
Biswas, A.K.(Ed) National Water master Plans for
Developing Countries, Oxford University Press,
Mumbai, 1997.
14. Dharmadhikary, S. Water. Private, Limited, Mantha'W
Adhyayan Kendra, Badwani, M.P., 2002.
13.
15.
Water, Advocacy Internet, #4, NCAS, Pune, 2001.
16.
Vohra, B.B. Agenda for Water: Myth & Reality, Survey
of the Environment, 1994, The Hindu.
17.
Upadyyaya, D. Privatisation of Waler, Lok Samvad,
Novcmber,2000 . Raina, V. War Over Water, Combai
Law, #3, Mumbai, 2002.
18.
Ward, C. Reflected in Waler, Cassell, London, 1997.
19.
Liquid Assets: Is Water Privatisation the Answer to
Access? Panos Briefing, #29, London, 1998.
20.
Ehlers,K.E. Drinking Waler Projects - Blockades,
Myths, Illusions, D+C, Development and Cooperation,
#l,Bonn, 2003.
Private Sector Participation:Three Models17
T
he South has been offered three models to select from in adopting the privatisation
formula viz., the Partnership Model, The French Model and the British Model.
The British Model. In 1989 the water in England and Wales was privatized. In the 80s
the UK faced demands from European Commission to clean up its environment. Delaring
it was unable tomake the investments needs to improve efficiency in water services
while keeping public spending down, Margaret Taatcher’s Conservative government
privatized water services. Today the water sector controls the biggest construction
businesses in the UK. High profits have seen large dividends and bonuses paid out to
investors, while users have been placed at a disadvantage and paying more than then
they should or need to.
The Partnership Model. This model is a more common approach than the British model.
It has been used in France and Spain for nearly a century, and the success claimed for
these ventures has made the idea of water privatisation more attractive. But a number
of questions remain unanswered viz., on ownership; on design, construction,
infracture,etc. Different answers to these and other related questions lead to variations
in formulating the model. At least 5 different forms of public-private partnership have
been identified viz.,
Management contract is awarded and a fee paid for a private firm to operate aspects
of water and sewerage services for (say) 5 years. It is followed in Mexico;
•x
A lease contract, under which the private company operates the water and sewerage
system for a period of 10 to 15 year4s in return for the right to a share of the revenue
from customers. Common in France, this approach has bee adopted in Senegal in
West Africa and in Adelaide in Australia. Under this arrangement, the private operator
has a performance incentive built into the contract while the state provides working
capital;
x
A concession contract, under which the private operator operates and maintains
the facilities, awhile also being responsible for agreed new investments. These
contracts are usually for 25 to 30 years and are common in parts of France, in Abidjan
in the Ivory Coast, among others;
x
A build-operate-transfer (BOT) contract, under which the government sells its stake
in the monopoly to investors, who are granted a license to operate the system for
their own profit for a fixed term, normally up to around 25 years. In return, investors
must agree to invest a minimum amount in developing the infrastructure; once the
license has run out, ownership reverts to the State;
■x
Cooperatives can be used as successful way or organising urban water systems.
The French Model. In 1993, the utility services of the Buenos Aires (Argentina) area
was transferred into private companies and local investors led by Lyonnaise des Eaux
the largest global water TNC; it builds, co-owns and operates water facilities in 20
countries. The government of Argentina retained ownership of the asserts and granted
a 30-year full concession for operating, maintaining and managing the system.
In 1997, however, the official audit body of France, the Cour des Comptes, produced a
damaging report on this model. For instance, among other things, it reported that
there was lack of transparency, “the lack of supervision and control of delegated public
services, aggravated by the lack of transparency of this form of management, has led
to abuses” in one major city, Metz, the private company failed to submit any accounts
to the city council for 20 years; in Bandol-Savary (near Toulon) the MNC Vivendi charged
the Council twice over the same treatment, every year.
C FACTS against MYTHS - Vol VII # 3/2002
The Water Manifesto10
The World Contract
Our website is launched and operation. Kindly visit it at http://www.vakindia.org
We shall be grateful for your comments and suggestions.
Please feel free to reproduce material from this publication but with due credit.
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
Facts Against Myths is a monthly bulletin offactual
information on a number ofdevelopment myths and
fallacies, etc, including information against alien
development models, paradigms and false concepts
on caste, creed and gender.
11
'J
Fax : 889 8941
Design & Layout: Kartiki Desai
BOOK-POST
I
u
I
Printed by : Omega Offset, 4574, Shetty Gaily
Belgaum 590 002. ® 0831-424124 / 433429
[
■
Produced and Published by:
i
Vikas Adhyayan Kendra
u
D-1 Shivdham, 62 Link Road,
Malad West, Mumbai 400 064, INDIA |
S : 882 2850 & 889 8662
Email: vak@bom3.vsnl.net.in
printed
1(
s
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
i
Position: 5484 (1 views)