Over the top

Image: www.thehindu.com

By Shazia Nigar

It was a day to remember. After all, American movies with images of black hats flying up in the air while smiling happy people hug each other have created quite an euphoria around what we call the convocation ceremony. However, around 15 students at Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, did not partake in this merry making. The boycott resulted out of the decision of the administration to invite Mr Jairam Ramesh, Minister of Environment and Forest as Chief Guest at the convocation. Mr Ramesh, has in the recent past cleared controversial projects that raise grave concerns over human rights, environmental degradation and violation of constitutional laws.

As Mr.Ramesh stepped out of his polished posh car he was greeted with students in bright yellow t-shirts that carried anti-nuclear messages. Several others, as they received their certificate, handed out anti-nuclear badges in return. The students had a clear message to get across to our ‘Minister with a sympathetic ear’ (courtesy the Bt brinjal lok adalats): ‘NO JAITAPUR’ and ‘NO POSCO’.

Later, in an interactive session with the students Mr Ramesh stated ‘For the economic development of the country at a GDP of 8% to 9%, we need to rely on energy sources such as coal, gas, hydel and nuclear power. We, of course, need to invest in renewable energy sources but they will not be able to sustain our growth.’ Yes, we are a growing economy. There is a need for greater infrastructure. But is growth the only trajectory we should be aiming for. Isn’t equitable allocation of resources, not the only, but an essential part of the solution? Secondly, growth, but at what cost?

The Jaitapur nuclear power plant is set to displace 40,000 people, their economy and a thriving ecosystem. Further, the site is rated by scientists as Zone 3, which is prone to high seismic activity. Jaitapur witnessed an earthquake rated 6.3, which left 9000 dead, in 1993. The lessons we should learn from Japan’s recent nuclear debacle only warn us against the impending disaster. Further the power requirement for Ratnagiri and Sindhurgh, project affected sites, is a mere 180 MW above which 4663 MW is exported out of these areas. It is not clear as to what use the electricity generated will be used for. Most likely, it will be sold of to industrialists at subsidized rates.

Interestingly, the report brought out by TISS on Jaitapur was refuted by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited, on the basis that it consists of people’s opinion and is ‘not scientific’. This reflects a complete disregard for concerns of the very people at whose cost the project will come up.

Similarly, the POSCO steel plant in Orissa threatens the very identity of the project affected people adamant to stick to their ‘paan, dhan, meeno’ (beetle leaves, rice and fish) which sustain them. The project is set to affect 22,000 people in Dhinkia and several others in the adjoining Gram Sabhas of Nuagaon and Govindpur. This clearance violates the Forest Rights Acts which states that the consent of the affected Gram Sabhas is absolutely necessary for the establishment of any new project.

Both of these projects are not isolated developments. The advent of liberalization has led to the intensification of a development that functions on an economics that benefits a few while impinging on the rights of many. The call of the time is for structural changes. One that ensures benefits flow to all and which ensures that growth is not a term of exclusion. The protesting students of TISS are assurance of the fact that there is scope for these changes. It is the very students dubbed as the ‘Cola generation’ who are disturbed by what they see around them. And being disturbed by status quo is always the beginning of a new trajectory. The thoughts here are not new. But the spate of recent disturbing events compel me to repeat them again.

–Shazia Nigar is a student of  Media and Cultural Studies,TISS. She is presently interning with Himal Southasian.

Meher Ali on Jairam Ramesh’s apology for the government’s role, 23 years ago, in the clandestine transportation of toxic waste from the Union Carbide plant to a TSD.

Jairam Ramesh, India’s Union minister of state for environment, apologised on Sunday. ‘Whoops!’ he said. The Madhya Pradesh government secretly transported 40 tonnes of toxic waste from the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal to a Treatment, Storage and Disposal (TSD) facility in Indore in 2008, at a time when the curfew was imposed on the riot-affected city, the Times of India reported.

What do you say to that? ‘Go Ramesh!’ ‘Champion of transparency!’ ‘Of course you are not to be blamed. We agree, you were not the environment minister at that time, so environment was probably not one of your concerns.’

So what if 23 years ago, the country shook from the impact of the Bhopal gas tragedy. So what if the government that you work for has treated the victims of the tragedy with little more than contempt. So what that the state and central governments have both tried, with all their might, to brush Union Carbide’s role in the environment disaster, under the carpet?

You probably knew about it though didn’t you? For how long?

What happens now? Another Bhopal in the making, because we know it’ll probably take you another 20 years to shift the waste (clandestinely) to some other obscure place, or maybe you’ll wait for a riot to do the trick.

The UPA-II, it seems, is getting more arrogant by the day. Instead of chalking out a clear plan of action for disposing of toxic waste which has been in the country since 1984; instead of holding those responsible for the disaster accountable; instead of using this environmental disaster as a lesson in how to avoid similar tragedies, the government says, ‘Sorry! Whoops!’

Would it have been too much to expect the environment minister to have a plan of action on how he plans to now get rid of the toxic waste in Pithampur accompany his apology? Would it have been too much to ask him to explain how exactly he came to know of this and when? (Of course he would have to tell us the truth, which may be a stretch).

We want to know why the central and state government were working so hard to cover this up, not just in the 1980s but until 2008. We want to know how many Indian citizens’ lives equal that of Warren Anderson? We want to know if the government will take environmental hazards seriously or if it is waiting for another one to happen. When will it chalk out a clear plan of action with regard to compensation for victims of environmental disasters, protocols for cleaning up and emergency responses to such disasters?

We want to know if the government is serious about governance and if it values people over profits. The last point is important, because if it does not, as we have seen in the past; if the government is callous and irresponsible towards its people, if it treats corporations as kings and the people as ‘collateral damage’ in its quest to become a ’superpower,’ then the people may not accept. Whoops!

— The writer is the Assistant Editor (print) at Himal Southasian.

An Allegory for Niyamgiri and the Dongria Kondh.

Green Ants is a movie that can be interpreted at various levels- it can be constructed as a classic tale of the human and environmental costs of human greed, as a study of the encroaching tides of western rationality upon profoundly different ways of thought or as an indictment of a civilisation that respects no other. At its heart is a question: can you really consider yourself civilised if you cannot understand another person’s perspective, or at the very least respect it?

The story of green ants is a tale about corporate profit clashing with aboriginal beliefs. It is, in some ways, the story of advancing capitalism. Capitalism has always laid waste what came before it- whether it was the “red” Indian or the brown one, the yellow man or the black one. The white man, they say, was blind to his own history and imported his blindness to the colonies. This was done by subordinating, undermining and dividing cultures with the ruthlessness only the religion of profiteering can muster. How can it be otherwise? If all is fair where money is to be made, how easy it must be to poison societies where wealth is respected but not worshipped. Historically, imperial ambitions have always mixed well with religious fervour: the only difference in the modern world is that money is the new false god.

In Herzog’s movie, a mining company wants to excavate the holy ground of a group of Australian aborigines: they believe that the land that is to be mined is where the green ants, upon whom existence depends, dream; and upon that dream rests reality. On the face of it, it is irrational and absurd, but really is it any more absurd that ordering existence for the benefit of the unqualified zeal for profit? Than unrestrainedly exploiting resources, when the finiteness of them is beyond question? The “American dream” is today what constructs reality- and it is no more tangible (and some would argue possible) than the green ants’ dream. This film, to some extent, exposes it for the myth it is by deconstructing other myths that have sustained other cultures in their fight for survival.

The sharpest voice protesting capitalism today says that it steals from the poor to reward the rich. The latest recession, for instance, will hit aid to dependant Africa and the sundry poor of the world worse than anyone else, because they are the most expendable. It was caused because of the recklessness of big business and banks; yet they received a trillion dollars in stimulus packages. This is a story about how stealing from the poor, the unrepresented, the helpless, is the easiest and quickest crime in history and one that has always borne rich dividends. It is made easy by dismissing their qualms and their claims as irrational, backward, irrelevant and placing them against “real” truths, like the fact that the world needs to mine constantly to support a wasteful and extravagant system. It is made easy by the fact that the privileged of the world- economically, culturally, socially privileged- are so few and yet so powerful, and the only ones that have the resources to be able to stick together. And the fact that they disguise their minority so effectively by forcing the majority to fight between themselves for scraps. In fights for survival, metaphysical questions about the “system” and its validity are a luxury. It is only when one’s basic beliefs about existence are questioned that one begins to consider actually fighting, and by then it is often too late.

The multitude of other issues aside (such as, Do people really like brinjal/ aubergine/eggplant that much in the first place? Ok, the USD 2 billion annual sales in India alone notwithstanding) it was heartening to see the proudly temporary end to the debate over biotech (Bt) brinjal in India come about with such right-headed vacillation. “If you need long-term toxicity tests,” said much-pilloried pointman Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, “then you must do it, no matter how long it takes.” Seemingly simple enough, and Ramesh had more common-sense wisdom: “There is no [freaking] hurry. [Not one of you idiots can point to any] … overriding urgency or food-security argument for [releasing] Bt brinjal [– and you know it].” (Additions by the writer.)

This kind of slow, steady decision-making, with an eye firmly on the long term and the safety (in every sense of the word) of the populace, is exactly what how government needs to engage on highly complex issues such as those surrounding the use of biotechnology in food products. (Most importantly, the new variety of brinjal is aimed at making it less tasty for the bugs that routinely ravage Indian crops.) And although Ramesh has been roundly criticised since his 9 February announcement that New Delhi was overruling a panel that had dubbed Bt brinjal safe for human consumption, the fact of the matter is that his ministry’s reasoning should also have been (at least this writer hopes) taken as a subtle rap on the knuckles to some of the overly strident anti-biotech activism that has bubbled around brinjal and cotton in the past. Far from the idea that Ramesh is purportedly being ideological in his decision-making – rejecting biotech because it is a ‘Western’ import – the fact of the matter is that the minister is keeping the door wide open for a subsequent re-appraisal of the issue.

And while the anti-biotech activists’ warning against predatory corporations and their potential future cornering of India’s endlessly lucrative seed market are not only warranted but a critical element of future decision-making, they are not the sole criteria for that process. Indeed, the longstanding complaint that enough long-term testing simply has not been possible on biotech foodstuffs remains the single most important element in that discussion – and is precisely what Ramesh is now giving voice to. Should the minister’s “long-term toxicity tests” ultimately come back with a clean chit for Bt brinjal, or anything else, it will be interesting to see how the activist line changes. After all, human tinkering with nature, while potentially frightening, has also given the world such stable ‘inventions’ as the delicious apple, the beautiful tulip and, well, the whole of agriculture and its subsequent impact on human civilisation’s ability to relax and dream a bit.

Meanwhile, the most worrying of criticism of Ramesh’s announcement has come from the scientific community. Whether this is due to indignation that the findings of the scientific committee that gave the green light to Bt brinjal’s safety have now been semi-rejected, or whether this response can be explained by the circulating rumours of hidden interest, is unclear. Either way, however, the sanctity of scientific rigour is exactly what is being upheld by this decision: there is no scientist around who can honestly say that, in the decades since biotechnology has been used on foodstuffs, there has been adequate time to say, with acceptable scientific surety, that any biotech crop is safe for widespread human use and pervasive contact with the natural world. As such, any scientist that claims to be outraged by Ramesh’s even-keeled response – that’s you, Sajiv Anand, director of the All India Crop Biotechnology Association – is not being true to his or her scientific groundings.

Of course, governments around the world are regularly denounced for not having the backbone to make difficult decisions, and hence pushing them down the road for another government to deal with. Thus, it will be similarly important to make sure that this Ramesh-style vacillation is indeed only temporary. Eventually, the time may well come that the introduction of certain biotech foods will be generally agreed-upon as a positive move, and perhaps will be hailed as a true – rather than hoped-for – victory of humankind. But until then, leave the brinjal, a native plant to the Subcontinent, along with its dozens of smallish, uniquely formed, bug-ridden, rather tasteless varieties, alone.

– Carey L Biron

As Copenhagen withered and the world woke up to it as a failure, most who believe in Climate Change turned to a familiar deer in their sights; the west.

The industrialised world it seemed had hijacked the talks against  poor nations, like China (?!?). Which heads the G77 grouping of developing nations. This is a line which should be familiar to anyone who knows the climate discourse in Europe and the west. But China’s positioning as both a ‘developing’ nation and a UNSC seat holder and big player/super power just don’t seem to work that well.

It was apparently China who refused to include targets in the resolution angering many leaders and refusing along with India to set a target of limiting temperature rises to 1.5 c. Further there is a claim that they have a ‘right’ to emit in order to grow. Yet in the next breath they will berate western nations, who 300 years ago decided to burn coal in order to power machines. There appear double standards that attempt to hide an apathy towards the victims of climate change.

If it is all the west’s fault because they did something bad, then China and India shouldn’t follow suit and copy them by demanding a ‘right to emit’, if we all have a ‘right to emit’ then sorry, the recourse to historcism that the west should pay is ludicrous as they had a right to do so. If we consider Chindia’s population and combined economic growth, when they at some point consider themselves ‘developed’ who are they going to have to ‘pay’? A ridiculous notion…

If we accept the science that climate change will destroy the progress and life of our planet we need to accept that change needs to come from all who want to industrialise as well as those who are already industrialised because China, as the world’s largest emitter as it stands will be key as it grows at such a rapid rate. ‘Chindia’ will also hold millions of people who will suffer immensely from the ravages of climate change, as we have already seen in India where a lack of water and flooding are causing severe problems, that will only get worse.

It is not to say that western leaders are not at fault Australia has struggled as has the US, but Obama it seems was by no means entirely at fault having put his neck on the line for the issue. The growth paradigm that Chindia now seems enthralled by is a western notion and it is this which is at fault, but it is a notion adopted and phased into enormity by Chindia.

It may be that Chindia’s leaders, like many right wing western leaders don’t believe in climate change, in which case we are all doomed for there is no hope of seeing the back of them anytime soon or any real civil society pressure and lobbying as in the west, but it is a shame that super powers are shirking the responsibility they have towards their own citizens and those of the world in such a manner, which plays between one moment pleading under development and the next utilisng their status as ’superpowers’.  In the next decade China’s economy could double in size and island nations such as the Maldives could disappear, ie no economic growth, no economy-no life. If Chindia are serious about their super power status’ they should show leadership instead of just blaming the west, leadership and innovation to solve the problem for the century which should ‘belong’ to them but could very well be the century in which the earth ceases to be the benign home we now enjoy.