INPUI: Hmar News & Info

By Jiten Yumnam

The rejection of "Forest Clearance" for the proposed 1500 MW Tipaimukh Multipurpose Hydroelectric Project to be built over Barak River in Manipur in India's North East, by the Forest Advisory Committee, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India in July and August 2013 for forest loss in Manipur and Mizoram laid bare the serious contradictions in development decision making in Manipur. 

The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC), while recommending the rejection of "Forest Clearance" for the mega project in its meeting from 11 – 12 July and 13-14 August 2013, observed that the forest land required for the project is simply disproportionate to the power generation plan of the project and the per-megawatt requirement of Sixteen (16) hectares of forest land for the project is extra ordinarily high. The total forest area to be affected in Manipur, as claimed by the project authorities, the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation, Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited already contains 7.8 million trees and 0.27 million bamboo columns. 

The project will also led to massive destruction of forest land and the livelihood of the Hmar people of Mizoram State. A total of approximately 14,634 trees including 11,306 trees below 60 cm girth and another 4.4 million of bamboo columns in 1063.4 hectares of bamboo forest will be permanently lost due to the project in Mizoram. The total loss of trees and bamboo groves in both Mizoram and Manipur due to the submergence by Tipaimukh dam is estimated at over 8 million trees and over 4 million bamboo groves, which is a disturbing and unacceptable figure by any count. Both Manipur and Mizoram falls in the Indo-Burma Biodiversity Hotspot , a globally recognized area with rich and diverse flora and fauna species and the Tipaimukh dam project will have direct impact on the extremely valuable and endangered faunal and floral species. 

The "Forest Clearance" rejection for Tipaimukh dam also brought into focus the legitimacy of the "Environment Clearance", conceded by the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India on 24 October 2008 despite peoples' objections to Tipaimukh dam in all the five public hearings held from 2004 till 2008. The rejection of forest clearance also confirms that the "Environment Clearance" is based on incomplete assessment of impacts of forest loss and especially on communities livelihood dependence, with due and rightful participation of all affected communities. 

The Government of India has been aggressively trying to construct the 162.8 meters high rock filled Tipaimukh dam, at about 500 meters downstream of the confluence of Barak and Tuivai Rivers, at a revised project cost of Rs. 8,138.79 Crores at September 2008 price level. In 2001, the Tipaimukh Dam Project was approved by the Governor of Manipur under President's Rule without peoples consent. On 28th December 2002, the Manipur cabinet approved the MoU signed between the Government of Manipur and North Eastern Electric Power Corporation. The then Power Minister of India, Mr. Sushil Kumar Shinde laid the foundation stone for the project on 15 December 2006. Later, a revised MoU was signed with the Government of Manipur, the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation and Sutlej Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited on 28th April 2010, reaffirmed on 22nd October 2011, without obtaining the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of all affected communities. 

The FAC recommendations against "Forest Clearance" reaffirms the longstanding concerns of affected communities that the loss of more than Three Hundred (300) square kilometer of forest land for direct submergence and another Six Hundred (600) square kilometres for compensatory afforestation would not only threaten their survival but would also irreparably devastate a rich ecosystem. Forest is source of life, water, food, identify for indigenous peoples of Manipur and that nothing can compensate the loss of 7.8 million trees and bamboos in over 25,822 hectares of community land due to Tipaimukh Dam. 

The FAC rejection also brought into focus the rationality of the formation of the India-Bangladesh joint technical survey team, in 2012 on Tipaimukh Dam. There are serious challenges as to whether the political decision makers would respect the recommendations of Forest Advisory Committee. Indeed, the Prime Minister of India, Mr Manmohan Singh, offered more stakes to the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh, Dipu Moni, on her visit to India in end July 2013 on the management of Barak River and also in the construction of Tipaimukh Dam even immediately after the FAC rejected Forest Clearance for the proposed Tipaimukh Dam. This is a clear disrespect of the rights, wishes and legitimate claims of all indigenous communities of Manipur, but also a desecration of the sanctity of the much hyped democratic polity of the Government of India. 

A serious concern with the sub group formation and the processes thereafter is the blatant failure to ensure participation of indigenous communities to be affected by the proposed Tipaimukh Dam in Manipur. One wonders what transpired in the Sub Group on Tipaimukh Dam. It will be highly ludicrous for a decision on Tipaimukh Dam construction be decided only by India and Bangladesh as the land, rivers, forests and resources in Manipur belongs to indigenous peoples of Manipur, and hence, their rightful rights to involve in all decision making processes affecting their land. 

The Forest Advisory Committee of MoEF already classified the proposed Tipaimukh dam as one of the most destructive projects in India as its forest submergence alone will be equivalent to 497 other hydel projects across India. One is left to ponder on the rationality of pursuing such highly destructive and unsustainable project. For India, the submergence plan of nearly thirty thousand (30,000) hectares of forest land negates the spirit of the Green India Mission and its commitments made at Rio+20 Global Conference on Environment and Development, Rio De Janeiro in June 2012. 

The sub group formation between the Governments of India and Bangladesh on 28 August 2012 for joint surveys to assess the impacts of proposed 1500 MW Tipaimukh Dam over Barak River in Manipur should respect and adhere to the recommendations of the key observations and recommendations of the Forest Advisory Committee of the MoEF, Government of India. The two countries should refrain from taking any exclusive and arbitrary decision for Tipaimukh Dam construction. The people of Manipur cannot accept any secretive and compromise deals between India and Bangladesh for Tipaimukh Dam construction. 

A holistic thorough assessment of the possible impact of the Tipaimukh Multipurpose Hydroelectric Project with the participation of the affected people both in Manipur, Assam and further down in Bangladesh should precede any decision on Tipaimukh Dam. The push for Tipaimukh HEP is amidst the absence of cumulative impact assessment on forest areas in the three districts due to proposed Tipaimukh HEP, proposed Oil Exploration, Trans Asian Railway and National Highway expansion all planned in the catchment area of proposed Tipaimukh dam. The decision making framework recommended by the World Commission on Dams, respecting rights of people, ensuring their participation, option assessment should guide the decision making process of Tipaimukh Dam. 

The Ministry of Environment and Forest and the Government of India should desist from granting Forest Clearance for Tipaimukh Dam and should respect the respect the recommendations of the Forest Advisory Committee on Tipaimukh Dam not to accord "Forest Clearance". The Ministry of Environment and Forest should revoke the 'Environment Clearance' for Tipaimukh dam on 24 October 2008 as it is confirmed that there is inadequate appraisal of forest impacts. It is also high time that the Government of Manipur revoke the MoU signed with National Hydroelectric Power Corporation and the Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited on 28 April 2010, reaffirmed on 22 October 2011. 

The Tipaimukh Dam has been aggressively pursued to meet power shortage in Manipur and other parts of India's North East. However, the definition of Manipur's power needs by outsiders without their consultation is a clear cut case of violation of indigenous peoples' right to self determination, to determine their development rights based on their needs, wishes and aspirations. The Government of Manipur should now embark on an alternative model of power generation in Manipur, based on the needs, wishes and aspiration of the people and to minimize impacts on environment. 

Manipur has long ceased to think for itself and rather serve as a loyal facilitator of wanton destruction of its natural heritages for the unscrupulous profit of corporations and their cohorts. It's time rife for the people and also the government of Manipur to start planning for itself and seek alternatives that should culminate into long term sustainability. Planners and those pushing for destructive, unsustainable development should be conscious that Manipur has people sensitive to the commitments and obligations of all concerned, for a sustainable world, centred on people and nature oriented development. 

The Government of India and the Government of Manipur should take the Free Prior and Informed Consent of all affected peoples as recommended by the UN CERD Committee specific on Tipaimukh Dam in 2007. The Government of India should recognize the inherent rights of the people of Manipur to determine its right to development based on the needs, wishes and its aspirations. Any forced and arbitrary development pursued goes against principles of rights and sustainability. 

By David Buhril, Chairman, SIHPRO

A Daniel come to judgement.- Shakespeare (The Merchant of Venice)

Sande sikula hming lam ang ela hming hung lam a, ‘compensation’ (zangnadomna) hmu el ding ni awm taka a sehriet lo se ri chawt chawt pawlhai ta ding chun tu lai hnai ela Ministry of Environment and Forests hnuoia Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) hai report khan chu lawmna khuong le dar vawpek naw top a tih. ‘Compensation’ ringot buoipuituhai ta ding chun, ‘ei saiser tawrnamen rèk hi chu, goal chanve khom a lut zo ta naw ding khom a ang ta ie’ ti naw ruol an nawh. Rangkachak thri inchawk hma khoma a hlì dan ding leh a hlì phak chin dinga inngaihai lo inse khekna, uicho anga saru kol inchùna khawvela hin indikna le ringumna Pathien lem chu Golgotha râl daih, bohmangna tlangah ei khengbet zing a lo ni lem.

Eini laia insuk bengvar thei, inti che thei le inhman deu pawl chun ‘Tipaimukh Dam’ ei hril phat leh nawchizor, puonbil hlìm inrang thiemhai angin ei hlim olsam taluo a; tu hai vok damlo sa zor ang deuin tuk khat thil thua inzor fai vong ei tum nghal a. Inphal na ná nà chu suollui khom nghak hman loin ei hang hlìm insîng rak a, sienkhom chak tham khom ei ni naw lei ni loin, FAC-haiin Tipaimukh Dam bawlna ding le inzoma phalna (clearance) lo um ta hnung an hung thriek bur el taa inthok hin ei hang chăk thlawn nasat dan dingzie chu hmu le hriet thei dingin a um. A poi de aw! tia imu intuo thei lo pawl ei lo um pal chun natna trium tak ei pâi der an tah ti naw ruol a’n nawh. Poisa chu ka dit ve, mihriem ka nih; amiruokchu, a thra am, a tluontling thei ding am, a’n dik am ti ruok chu Siemtuin lungvar ami pek po po hmanga inngaituo hmasa zet chu thil makmaw lem a nih.

Hmar biela (Manipur le Mizoram) hin voi tam dams, development le a keihnok issue dang dang buoipuiin, ram le hnam damna lampui dapin, journalist, activist, human rights advocate, researcher le writer ka nina le inzom ni bokin awareness campaign, social audit, fact finding, research le documentation thawin, thral rum, furpui le thlasik hnuoiah, ke lawngin a ram dung le khang ka lo hrŭt ta a. A ram deltu, hmasawnna trongsephur tuortu ding haiin thil chinchang (information) ieng khom ei hriet naw bakah, tuiting, kor le vai le hrillawk le hmu lawk el thei lo tha dang dangin an mi chimral el ding ngaituo mang loa kum khat khom dai lo ding sum tlawmte intêl tuma intelhel, nei po po inzor fai thrak ngam ei tamzie ei hang hmu chieng zet chun, ‘Pathien hnam thlang’ ei inti vet khom hi ka ringhla naw chuong nawh.

Zan khat khan FAC hai report ka tiem chu an thutlukna po po ka amen seng naw a. Ka dit khop nawna ruok chu a um. Pi le pu huna inthoka ei del le ei inthlasawng rama um thing le ruo, lung le pil, tlang le vadung, sa le va hai an ngai poimaw hle lai zingin, a rama cheng, “Hmar” tia inkohai hming voi khat khom an lam thrak nawh. Indiaa hin ei inlang le ei inlang naw khom hi hriet a la ni meu nawh ti hriltu a ni leiin chu chu lungrila thlasietpuiin ka lo nuorpui a. Derthawng tak ngirhmuna um ramsa (endangered species) iemani zat an hriet fuk hlura chu “Hmar” hai ruok chu an hriet fuk naw réng rèng. Hmarhai hi “endangered species” ei lo ni lem el am an tah ti ruok chu mani le mani ka lo indonna hi a sawt tah hrim a nih. Sinlung Hills (Mizoram) a lem chu ei del rama vadung po po ting a, ‘dam-a’ siem dingin riruongna a um vong ta a. Hieng thil hi hmasawnna hming chawiin hung lut de hai sien khom ei ram dela inthoka mi hnot suoktu râl trium an niziie chu hril tam khom a ngai nawh. Sinlung Hills-a Hmar khuo tam tak lem chu ‘dams’ an bawl ding le inzomin, ‘dams’-in a suksiet ding rampuihai ang ramngaw dang siem le ruohmang a trul a, ei khuo le tlanghai chu eini mi rawn thrak loa “wildlife sanctuary” a inlet dinga riruong a ni leiin hun iemani chena inthok khan ei ram del hai suoksan dingin sorkarin sum tlawmte te leh an mi hnaw dê dĕr an tah. Sum laa suok hmasa sa chu a bo hmasa ni zat zat pei an tih.

“Development” hming chawia sorkar le company chi hrang hrang hai hmalakna hi ei inken vai chun dawkan zawm le bielah voi za tam inbe-in, ieng “district” khom ngen inla, tak ramah takbo ni chuh ei chan ni zing a tih. Tui hi ei dampuia chu, khawvela hin tui chunga khawpui rema dam khawsuok hnam hril ding an um der nawh. Um ngai naw bok an tih.

Tu hin, ei thupui tak, FAC Report kha zuk bi chieng vak ei tih. July 11-12, 2013 khan FAC chun Tipaimukh Dam le inzomin fumfe deuin ei vadung, Tuiruong le Tuivai, hai ting thei ding le ding naw thu ngun takin an bi chieng a. A tawpah hieng hin ngaidan le thutlukna an siem a: Tipaimukh Dam hin Manipur-a ram ngawpui (forest land) 22,777.50 hectares le Mizoram (Sinlung Hills) a 1551.60 hectares a chimral ding a nih. Arengin, ram ngawpui 24,329 hectares chu tui hnuoia um ding tina a ni chu. FAC hai hmu dan chun, India pumpuia dams (hydel project) 497 a bawl tah poa hin ram ngawpui a suksiet zat chu 1, 18, 184 hectares a ni a; chuong dams 497 in ram ngawpui a suksiet hmun ngaa threa hmun khat (one fifth) chu Tipaimukh Dam-ringot hin a suksiet ding a nih. Sienkhom an hisap nek daia lien lem le tam lem a suksiet ding a nih. FAC sŭt dan chun, India hmun hrang hranga dams-in a suksiet/ chimral rampuihai le tekhi chun hmun danga dams-in hectare khat a suksietna peiah Tipaimukh Dam ruok chun hectare za pei a suksiet ding a nih. Chu chauh chu ni loin, suksiet/chimral dinga um ramngawpui sungah thingkung puitling 78,16,931 le ruo bul (bamboo) 0.27 lakh  a suksiet sa bok ding a nih (Mizoram –Sinlung Hills- tieng pangah thing le ruo a suksiet ding ruok chu tiem le hriet a la ni nawh).

FAC hai thil hril hi eini rawi taptebul gawp ang mei mei chu ni naw nih. Ei pansak panthlangah vadung an ting tum el leia ei puonbil hnuoia ei thup thei po po ei thup trăt angin mi threnkhatin ngai mei ei ta chu, Tuithaphaia inthoka Hmarkhawliena inzin tah haiin a pangzatumzie ei lo ngaituo non theina dingin hang hril sap met inla. Nungba khelah Barak (Tuiruong) ei kăn a, darkar iemani zat tlang ei kai trèng trêng hnungin thiphuhâkin Kaimai tlang ei kai trawk a, sienkhom hi tlang dung po po khom hi Tipaimukh Dam chun a chim pil vong ding a nih. Hmar Biela inti pa deuhaiin “Ngakuoi kamna ding a hnai ting el ding an nawm” ei ti hlak kha chu inngaituo non thra’ng a tih. Vaitin pa pakhat lem chun “Tipaimukh Dam an bawl zo phat chu durbin (enhlatna) inchawn’g ka ta, saruoka sap nunghak hung insil lai ka lo en ding a nih” a ti ve thung. Mei mei a! Hung inhlip naw top an tih! Dam bawl ta reng sien khom, a kama inthoka kilometer khat vel pei chu sipai veng himna hnuoiah sie la hung ning a ta, hmun remchangna po po hi sipai hmunpui hung ni rêk tho a tih. A nal, a mawi, a’n hoi, a thra le a hadam dan ding takin ei ngaituoa chu mani rama ‘dams’ inbawltir lo hrim hrim hi damna a ni lem. Mani hmun le hmaa dam inbawltirhai ngirhmun ei bi chieng chun, ‘dams’ leia dam nekin ‘dams’ leia dam ta lo vong, Rengreng vadunga pil hmang vong tah an lo ni lem. Hremhmuna inrum ri sie sie lai thrang nawng an tih ti khom tuin am hril thei a ta?

Tipaimukh Dam-in meivar/eng megawatt khat a her suokna dingin ram ngawpui hectares 16 pei a trul ding a ni lai zingin India hmun hrang hranga ruok chu megawatt khat her suokna dingin ram ngawpui hieng zat lawm lawm hi a suksiet ngai nawh tiin FAC hai chun an hril. Forest Conservation Act dungzui chun, “development project” leia thing kung 100 phur/suksiet ding a ni chun a let sawm phun pei ding ti a nih. Tipaimukh Dam-in a suksiet le chimral ding huom sungah thing kung 78,16,931 le ruo 0.27 lakh a um a, Manipur sorkar le Mizoram sorkarin an ram sung chitah Tipaimukh Dam-in a suksiet le chimral let sawm thing le ruo phunna ding khawlam, iengtin am hmun le hma nei belsa tang an ta? 78,16,931x10? Ngaituo tham a nih.  Chuong hlola lien ding ram ngawpui son le siem (Diversion of forest) ding ti chu thil thei lo hulhuol a nih tiin FAC chun thutlukna a lo siem a nih.

Churachandpur (town) a thingkak beiseitu mi tlawmte thingkak mamaw khom Forest Department-haiin an pek thei le! Tipaimukh Dam an bawl ding lo ni ta sien la, khaw la’m thingkak an lak ding; tuin am, iengtin am an inso ding, khaw la’m an inso ding; khaw lai ram sorkar pain am a phun ta ding? ti zawna hi chu zawna khir tak a nih. FAC chun ram chuong tiet suksiet ding a ni chun, danin a phŭt ang hrimin Manipur le Mizoram sorkar chun an hmalak nawkna dingah khaw lai, tu ram am la tan’g an ta? Tipaimukh Dam-in a tawk siet lo State dang an naw leh district dang hai ram them sa a ngai ding a nih, an tih. Eini rawiin tapte bulah, sathu bur lien rak lo hmaah, awma inthoka thuok la a, kepui tha leh thrang a, “Khawbon (Assam) tlangah ei inpêm el ding an nawm” ti ringot dam chu, a kai lo dinghai van ram inkaitir phet tum ang mei mei ei nih. Gawp gawp naw mei nih. Thi le hring ruomah pasalthra khom an gawp ngai nawh.

Assam sorkarin Tipaimukh Dam le inzomin hlawkna chite khom intel dingin thuthlung a a la siempui naw karah, ben dara um (environmental refugee) Hmarhai ta dinga hmun le hma, an “reserved forest” an min ken el ding chu ka la mangphan phak nawh. An sakhawmi nina leia thratna le tlawmngaina insang tak an insuo thut khom lo ni ta reng sien, “Khawbon” ram an pek el chu Mosie-in Kanan ram a hmu naw ding ang hlola chiengah ka ngai. Zawlnei chu ka ni nawh; amiruokchu ei khawvel thara hin râltlân amanih hnot suoka umhai ta dingin tu khomin ram an pek ngai nawh; “Reserved forest” lem chu ei thralaihaiin an ti ang deuin “No Te” a ni ringot.

Chu bak chu ni loin, FAC hai chun derthawng taka khawsa ramsa (endangered species) iemani zat an tarlang a; anni chauh ni loin thing le ruo chi dang dang, India khawmuolpui hmun hrang hranga hmu ding um ta lo tam tak chu humhim neka an dam khawsuok theina hmun inchimraltir tum chu ieng zangnadomna (compensation) khoma intlan thei a ni nawh, an tih. An lungkham lai chun a thawi zawng khomin “Hmar” chu an hril sa thrak nawh.  Ei insuklien le inngai ropui rep rep vei leh! Kum za khat zet Chanchin Thra mansapui inthep ei pai ta vei leh! A ram neitu pa le Vai pa “compensation” lo thlir dan chu a lo inang naw rep rep khop el. Surbur le Superman tekhi ang ni tang a tih. An naw leh bu thleng khata rohluotu nina zortu Esau le a lo inchawtu Jakob ang.

Tipaimukh Dam hi a puitling thei a ni chun thoktu 826 an sor ding a nih. FAC hmu dan ruok chun, Tipaimukh Dam-in a suksiet ding ram, thing le ruo, tui le vadung hai bakah, fak le dawn zongnaa hmang a tam lem daih an ni leiin, hi project hin fakzongna kongah hmasawnna intlun thei naw nih, an ti ve thung.  MGNREGS hnuoiah “Job Card” tlawmte ei hmu hmanin ei khingpuihai ring ei at ngam vang vang zing laiin, hmasawnna hming chawia ke lien lem min lirpuinaah hnampa Mahatma Gandhi lim chuongna tel, thruoihruoi iemani zat inpêm tum le inkeibât lim ni awm tak chu hmu sen kar thei lem inla chu, “Ka thlarau ta dingin a thra ie” ti nuom pawl pung sawt hleng ei tih. Pulpit tuolah sawma pakhat le thawlawm pung a ta chu, ram ropui ruok chu min tlun chuong naw nih.

Thu dang chu thu dang ni sien; FAC hai hi Ministry of Environment and Forests-in ram leilung le a sunga thil umhai le sik le sa le inzoma kakhawk nei project a ieng khom a fe thleng le fe thleng lo ding endiktu dinga a sie a nih. Tipaimukh Dam le inzoma an thlutlukna siem anga det le khauh hi India le rambung hrang hranga khom a vang hle. ‘Hmar’ inti ding ei la um lem chun FAC hai thutluknaa inthok ringot khomin ei ngirhmun inbi thar a, harpui tham a nih. Tu khom, ieng hnam khom zangnadomnaa (compensation) inthokin an inkăng suok ngai nawh. Sawtnawteah zangnadomna chun thlăn thimah a bûk thluk lem hlak. Eini khomin inkăngpui bik naw mei nih. Ei hmakhuo le hmathlir her danglam a hun tah! (July 31, 2013, Bethel)

Pu, Ruonglevaisuo le a sevelah mi tamtakin Tipaimukh Dam a hung puitling phat chun eini Hmarnauhai tadingin hmasawnna kawt hung hawngtu ning a ta. Electrict, Lamlien, Damdawiin, Thiem inchukna run, Bank le sumdawngna hai hung nei thain, khawpui hai hung indinin, hung changkang duok duok ei ta, tiin, Tipaimukh Dam I nghak hla thu an hril nasa khawp el a, hieng ang a ei mi-le-sahai an hung changkang ding chu lawm a um tak zet.

Pu, Tipimukh Dam leia changkangna ding I hmathlir hai hi a tha tak zet. Amiruokchu, kawng dang ah, eini Hmarnauhai, Ruonglevaisuo le a sevela chenghai, Gospel Chanchintha Mansapui inbangna intihai tadinga Tipaimukh Dam puitling hnung kum 100/ 200 vel hung liem hnung a ei Hnam, ei tawng, ei sakhuo le ei hnam nunphung ding I hmathlir lunginsiet taka mi hril/ ziek pek dingin ka ngen che.

Hmar hnam tadinga I thahnemngaipui,

Ngurrivung,
Parbung.
9612514841

This video forms a series of discussions on the proposed Tipaimukh Dam in India's northeastern states of Manipur and Mizoram. The speaker is Mr L.Keivom, a retired Indian Foreign Service official and well-known writer and social commentator. He is also a columnist for Inpui.com and has contributed 60 articles in two years to this website.

This video forms a series of discussions on the proposed Tipaimukh Dam in India's northeastern states of Manipur and Mizoram. The speaker is Ms.Zothanchhingi Khiangte, research scholar from Manipur University.

This video forms a series of discussions on the proposed Tipaimukh Dam in India's northeastern states of Manipur and Mizoram. The speaker is Mr.Joseph Joute, a freelance journalist from Manipur.

This video forms a series of discussions on the proposed Tipaimukh Dam in India's northeastern states of Manipur and Mizoram. The speaker is Mr. David Buhril, Chairman of SIPHRO.

This video forms a part of a series of videos on the controversial Tipaimukh mega dam project in India's northeastern states of Manipur and Mizoram. The speaker is K. Prongo, the first Sub-Divisional Officer of Tipaimukh Sub Division

This video forms a part of a series of videos on the controversial Tipaimukh mega dam project in India's northeastern states of Manipur and Mizoram. The speaker is from a Hmar tribe who are the inhabitants of Tipaimukh Sub Division and here Pu Joseph shares his experiences and nostalgia.

This is one of the videos from National Seminar on Tipaimukh Dam which was held on Dec 12-14, 2010 at Rengkai, Churachandpur, Manipur.

Watch the video and please share your views.

“Dialogue on Tipaimukh Dam” is going to be released by the Vice-Chancellor of Manipur University Prof. H.N.K Sharma at MU Campus on 24^th August, 2011.

The book is edited by Prof. Lal Dena and contains insightful views by various social activists and professionals.

Prof Gangmumei Kamei, Ex-Minister and RS Jassal, Comdt. (Retd.) and Prof. Amar Yunam DEAN, SSS will grace the occasion as Guest of Honor and Functional President respectively. Pradip Phanjaubam, Editor, Imphal Free Press and Prof N. Joy Kumar will speak about the book.

The book has highlighted both the positive and the negative aspect of the controversial Tipaimukh dam. Majority of the contributors are the local intellectuals from Tipaimukh area, who have freely expressed their opinions on the dam.

It is an essential reading for concerned ministries under the Government of Indis and the state governments in Noth East India including the implementing agencies, NGO’s and scholars seeking an historical insight into the dam and it’s ecological, environmental, socio-economic and political impacts.

IMPHAL: CSIR, North East Insitute of Science & Technology, Jorhat hmalaknain DNA Clubs, DBT-TERI Mentoring Schools of North East hai kuoma Equipment Distribution Programme chu
zanikhan Officer’s Club, Lamphelpat, Imphal hmuna nei a nih. Hi programme-a hin Manipur Chief Minister, Pu O.Ibobi Singh khuollienin a \hang a, School hmangruo (Equipments) chi tum tumhai a sem a, Pu L. Nandakumar Singh, MLA le Dr P.G Rao, Director, CSIR, NEIST, Jorhat, Assam hai chu Guest of Honour le Functional President in an \hang.

Zanita hmangruo siemsuokhai lai hin Microscope, Binocular, Computer le Camera hai a \hang. Hieng hmangruo sema um hai hi Rs. 1 Crore manhu vel a nih. Hmangruo chi hran hran hai hi DNA Clubs School-a inzieklut Manipur a Schools 57 hai kuoma sem a nih. Hi Programme hi National Bio-Resource Development Board, Department of Biotechnology, New Delhi, Govt. of India sponsored, Prime Minister’s 100 Days Programme hnuoia mi a nih.

Hi Programme hin NE biela School hran hran 361 a huop sa a, Manipur State a inthawk Schools 57 an \hang ve. NE biela Bio-Resource le inzawma Bio-Technology Sustainable Utilization a hung um theina ding inthuk lem a hung rasuok beisei a nih.

Pu O.Ibobi Singh in hi huna thuhrilna a neinaa chun hieng thuhai hi a hril: Vawisuna School hmangruo chi tum tum sema um hai hin Manipur State sunga Schools 57 haia Technical hmangruo tlaksamna sukkiem a ta, chu baka Natural Resource le inzawma Educational kalhmang indik le \ha a hung inumtir ding a nih.

Hi Programme hin Natural Resources le inzawm hin inchuklaihai hrietna le thiemna chi hran hran hung pe belsang a tih. India hmarsak biel mihai damsuokna ding Ecology le Natural Resources ah an nghat leiin ei venghim tlat a \ul a nih. Manipur in electric power supply a tlasam hle a, Tipaimukh Multipurpose Project hi sukpuitling a hung ni pha leh Manipur ram mipui hai le a ram ta dingin thil \angkai takel hung intlun a ta, Manipur a electric power harsatna le tlaksamna hi a hung hlipkieng ding a nih tiin Pu O.Ibobi Singh chun a hril.

Courtesy:- Hmasawnna Thar

By Timothy Z. Zote

As far as access to water by the majority is concerned, the water policy in India appears to benefit the powerful and the rich. At present in Manipur Loktak Project Khuga Dam & Tipaimukh Dam are planted by water policy. During the British rule, this was in favour of the imperial powers. Later, after Independence, the development planning evolved strategies for increasing productivity, which, in turn, meant major benefits of development going to the rich and the affluent.

THE BRITISH POLICY

The Water policy of the British was limited to the aspect of irrigation. One cannot state with any certainty that they had a policy concerning drinking water. The irrigation policy itself was closely linked to the British land settlement system which was mainly for revenue and not for production. The permanent settlement of 1793 in most of eastern India was to ensure permanent revenue to the British. Hence the land revenue was fixed once and for all. As a result, the government had little interest in encouraging irrigation as such. It was left to the zamindars. However the zamindar concern for water for all practical purpose is only as a tax collector who did not have interest in developing the land under his jurisdiction. The tenant could not perform much on their land since the system of tenancy was share-cropping. Whatever the production, 50 to 65 per cent of the produce went to the land-owner, leaving no surplus to invest in the land.

However, north India was annexed, the British found many functioning Irrigation systems. Besides, based on the lessons of the Permanent Settlement of Bengal, they did not fix the revenue once and for all. Hence, it was not possible to maintain the canals in some cases to extend them. In the south and west, smaller areas were annexed gradually and then joined to the Madras or Bombay Presidency. The land settlement in these areas was different from that of East and North. Instead of zamindars (which give land to the highest bidder who sublet to the tenants), the state entered into direct contract with individual cultivator (ryots), who had to pay the rent directly to the Government. This was the rotary system. The state had to intervene to ensure the maintenance of common resources like tanks and canals, since they could not be handed over to individuals. Besides, the Grant Anicut and other irrigation systems, already existing, had to be maintained. In Madras Presidency alone, more than 50, 000 kilometres (kms) of embankments had to be maintained.

To ensure this, the British form a department of irrigation, as they would not recognise the traditional irrigation communities. However, in order to maintain the Grand Anicut, the British engineers had to learn indigenous technology; they had to involve the local people. Hence, there was the possibility of a model with people’s participation evolving in the south.

However, between 1860 and 1921, irrigation was declared a central concern (not a state or provincial). During these years, irrigation in the north was taken over by the British Government engineers who view maintenance only as a technical problem, and did not think of either local technologies or the involvement of the people. During these years this model was imposed on the whole country. With this, focus shifted to what was considered “scientific management” of water, and access of the majority to water decreased. Also the involvement of the people decreased and maintenance continued since the people needed the tanks. Only a few of the more than 30,000 tanks suffered every year. But the effect began to accumulate, and the access to their source of water by small farmers began to be reduced.

WATER POLICY AFTER INDEPENDENCE

With independence began what is known as the era of planned development. The industrial, land forest and water policies had to be changed accordingly. Higher productivity was one of the principles on which all these policies were based. The Five Year plans kept repeating that productivity and distributive justice had to be combined in national development. Drinking water, Drought-Prone Area Development, small farmers’ development, became parts of this double approach to water management.

As in other resources, so also in water, the policy reflects the pressure coming from different sectors. And where there is pressure from contradictory forces, there is often an inclination to choose the strongest. This has happened in the forest policy, in land management and was bound to happen also in water management. Higher productivity was essential. Only 9 per cent of the country’s cultivated land was irrigated in 1950, and it was important to increase the area under irrigation. Moreover, other forms of energy, mainly electricity, were needed and water had to be exploited for this purpose too.

In this quest for fast development, it was assumed that the western model was the only one available. The technology was, therefore, imported and major dams were build in order to make the natural resources and productive as possible. Little efforts was made to study indigenous systems and to update them rather then replace them

Slowly but surely, focus shifted towards the big farmers, since production had to be increased. This was done through the hybrid seeds, fertilizers, irrigation and mechanization. Since dam water could not be made available to everyone, the farmers were encouraged through subsidies to develop their own irrigation systems. Tube-wells became the norm for the farmers, who could afford them. India has a ground water potential of 42.3 per cent and only 23.73 per cent of it is used. But what has happened in recent decades is overexploitation of deep tube-wells and neglect of shallow sources. The number of tube-wells bored has increased from around 5,000per year in the1950s to around 2, 00,000 per year today. Because of this, the water table has decline in many parts of India and open wells have dried up. The Central Water Board has identified 645 blocs where this has reached serious proportions.

LOW ACCESS TO WATER BY THE MAJORITY

One finds that the over exploitation of water and of forest has combined to reduce the access to water by the poor and by the women. Since many more tube-wells are bored, the water table has gone down considerably. Consequently open wells and tanks are drying up. At the same time, also the village tanks previously maintained by the panchayat are neglected. Most of the panchayat leaders were big farmers, who can afford their own tube-wells. As a result, they have lost the vested interest in the maintenance of the local drinking water and irrigation systems. As a result the poor do not have access not only to irrigation but also in many cases even to drinking water

It was assumed by the policy-makers that productivity and justice could be combined. However, priority has been given to productivity and the policies have gone in favour of the big earners. Around two-thirds of the Indian farmers are engage in dry farming and irrigation-based farming. This has resulted in a decline in overall agricultural productivity.

Displacement: Who pays the Price?

The big earners and the better-off classes have gained access to water, and in the process, have deprive the small farmers, the poor and the housewives of access to the resource. The price of the big dams has been paid by the rural poor, particularly the tribal, the scheduled Castes and the other landless category of people. They have paid the price in terms of their dislocation and consequent dispossession in the event of meager compensation by the state for their losses. The exact figures of the numbers displaced are not available. But preliminary estimates indicate that around 140lakh persons have been displaced by dams alone between 1951 and 1990. And, out of 845 Million people, it comprises of 1.66 per cent of the country’s total population in 1991.

The displaced are rarely the beneficiaries of the schemes. More than 40 per cent of those displaced by these schemes are the tribal, who form only 7.85 per cent of the total population of the country. Another 40 per cent are from the scheduled castes and other landless categories. None of them benefits from the dams and other development schemes that has come to displace them

It is not merely that they do not get the benefit of these schemes but also that their situation deteriorates. All these studies indicate that fewer than 30 per cent of the persons displaced by these schemes has been rehabilitated even 30 years after their displacement. Most of them are forced to rehabilitate themselves. Some of them do it by resorting to environmentally destructive practices, such as, cutting trees for sale as firewood, for charcoal and timber. Many others migrate to the cities to fill the slums and are exploited further. A large number of them become bonded labourers. It is estimated that such bonded labourers form more than quarter of the 5 million construction workers in the country. Thus those who pay the price of the development are deprived not merely of access to water, but also of their freedom and of their right to live as human beings

Strategy for the strong

When it comes to planning a strategy, it concentration seems to be primarily on irrigation and hydropower, i.e., on what the British called” scientific management” of water whose benefits have till now reach only the powerful. The policy statement speaks of the needs to exchange water between the rivers, and to utilize the existing resource to the maximum. Not once are women mentioned in the statement. Though, in the division of labour in the country, they are responsible for ensuring the regular supply of water to the family.

Similarly, focus is on irrigation dams, most of which will be in the forest areas, particularly in those areas inhabited by the tribal. While passing references made to the need, to give priority to the development of the tribal no concrete policy has been worked out either in this document or elsewhere for the rehabilitation of the displaced persons. Finally, the policy statement does not give any importance to dry and arid zones. Water utilization is, thus, only for those who can afford irrigated lands.

Possible Alternatives

Alternative to this situation of marginalization are possible. Only the Western model of sophisticated technology and engineering marvels is so far taken as the norm in planning development strategies in India. Dams are thought of as the only possible source of water. Consequently, the tribal and other rural poor are displaced in order to supply irrigation. Water to the farmer in the coastal area, to the industry and for household consumption in cities. The following are some of the suggestions.

i) Desalinisation of water explanation

A suggestion is that as India has a 6,000 km. long coast-line, it should be possible to desalinate water for use in the coastal areas or even in its immediate hinterland. The present desalination technology is extremely expensive because it belongs to the 1950s. There is no reason why research should not be done on new low-priced technology for desalination which can solve the water problem of most of the coastal areas and several other regions in the hinterland.

ii) Increase Use of Solar Energy

Similarly, another suggestion is that most regions in India have 300days of sunshine in a year. But the solar energy has only marginal importance in today’s energy policy today. People are displaced since the electric power is generated through hydel dams and thermal plants. The present solar technology is expensive. In fact, in 1988 the creation of the infrastructure for 1 megawatt (mw) of solar electric power coast Rs 4 crores as against Rs. 3 crores for thermal plants and Rs. 2 crores for hydel power. But very little research is being done on solar technology meant for the 1990s. What we have belongs to the 1970s. Instead of displacing more people and depriving the poor of access to water and livelihood itself, it is importment to invest on energy saving devices such as, solar power.

iii) Diversion of Polluted Water as Fertiliser

The pollution of water, too, is preventable. The industrial, as well as, human wastes are diverted to rivers and to the sea, thus, polluting the water that human beings need for their survival. Instead, it can be treated and use as fertilizer, resulting in both savings of foreign exchange and unpolluted water. Quite a bit of the foreign currency wasted for importing fertilizers either in its finish form or as raw material can thus be saved while reducing water pollution.

iv) Ban on wastage of Water

Much water that can be made available to the poor is wasted in the cities to water its gardens, to clean middle class houses, etc. electric power is wasted for street lighting. Do not think that we are against watering a garden, cleaning a house or lighting a street. All this is necessary and must be done. They suggest that it should be done in a more environment-conscious manner. One sees no reason why sewage treatment plants, should not become the norm, why biogas thus produced should not light the city street. All this is necessary and must be done

Tipaimukh and Barak River

(Ruonglevaisuo & Tuiruong River)

As we all know that, the proposed Tipaimukh Dam would be a hungry lion, the people inhabiting the Hmar Area would, automatically be victimized by the construction of the Dam .The Barak River (Tuiruong) is really the life line and their mother who gives them all domestic needs in season and out of season. For the Hmars and other tribes living on the bank of this river for the last more than 200 years or so, the river has been the carrier of uncountable source of income and wealth to the people, an in return this river carries away poverty . As then Nile serves Egypt, Thames in England, the Barak serves the Hmar Area and it can rightly be called ‘the Gift of the Hmar Area’. The people sell their agricultural products in Silchar and carry their domestic needs through this river; their economic activity entirely depends on this river. Therefore, the construction of Tipaimukh Dam means the destruction of the economy of the Hmars.

The MoU was signed between the Government of Manipur and the NEEPCO, Shillong on January 9, 2003, another MoU with NHPC in 2010. Some people living the Barak valley specially enlightened and educated groups know the fact that they should face a big problem, but they can not stand against the strong current of the Barak river. Above everything what concerns the Hmars most is the treasured land ‘Hmar Area ‘ which is inhabited by their forefathers from time immemorial. The Government’s final decision for the construction of the Timaimukh Dam is really a knell the to the affected people of Tipaimukh Sub Division. Economically or politically, the Hmars, inhabitants of Tipaimukh Sub-Division will certainly be exploited by the outsiders who are more advanced. Half of the population will leave the place for some economic and political reasons, almost half of the land, orchards, gardens and public jhum land will either be submerged by water or will be acquired for township, colonies or other types of construction.

The people in Tipaimukh Sub-Division fear that most of the jobs thus generated will be technical in nature which requires special skill which they do not possess... After a lapse of maybe 20 years, people in this area will be economically or politically exploited by the influx of the outsiders who are more advanced then them. Thangsawihmang, Adviser, Affected Area Committee and Writer said that,

“This would certainly take place as rain comes in June every Year. This prediction to the Hmars is not probability but certainty”

Once again if the concern company neglected who the victims are, the Tipaimukh Dam Project will not succeed. Even happening in the same District the Khuga Dam Affected people do not get proper compensation likewise is the future of the inhabitant of Tipaimukh. So, the said company and the victim to be should have a proper common understanding, since it is partly based on the people living in the area.

Rengkai: A national seminar on the proposed Tipaimukh Dam was held from December 13 to 14, 2010, here in Churachandpur district of Manipur.

Prominent personalities from the Hmar tribe and other stakeholders participated in the event discussing various aspects of the mega project.

Aptly titled, “Dialogue on Dam and Development”, the North EasternCouncil-sponsored two-day event organised by the Manipur University witnessed floods of ideas with regard to the controversial Tipaimukh dam on Tuoiruong (Barak) river. Resource persons from various walks of life talked about the past, present and future of the project.

“The proposed Tipaimukh dam can create avoidable misunderstanding,” said L Keivom in his speech on the opening day of the seminar. The retired foreign diplomat who graced the occasion as chief guest also opined that the project “needs to be reviewed” from all angles.

Inpui.com brings you video clips from the seminar (English Session).

NEW DELHI, Oct 26: Clearing the confusion, Union Power Minister, Sushil Kumar Shinde said the Inter Ministerial Group (IMG) on hydro power development has submitted its report and Action Taken Note to the Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR).

The IMG was constituted to evolve a suitable framework to guide and accelerate the development of hydro power in North East. The Group has Secretary MoWR as the chairman and Secretaries in the Ministry of Power, Environment and Forest and Development of North Eastern Region (DoNER), as members, besides Principal Secretary in the PMO.

Replying to a question, the Minister said Tipaimukh Project is on and various clearances including the Forest Land acquisition, Environment clearances have been obtained. “I don’t think there would be any problem in construction of Tipaimukh Project,” he assured.

About capacity addition to the Loktak Project, the Minister said Loktak Project – II is under active consideration of the Government.

Shinde, who was addressing the Economic Editors Conference here on Tuesday, said that the IMG submitted its report in Februaruy. The Action Taken Note on the recommendations of the IMG Report was sent to MoWR.

The report was discussed in Prime Minister’s Office on August 12 and the Action Taken Note was also discussed, the Minister added.

The Ministerial-level meeting on the hydro power projects of North East, however, ran into trouble and the PMO deferred it indefinitely. The meeting after being postponedtwice was finally put on hold on October 18.

Shinde, meanwhile, strongly advocated harnessing hydro power potential of the Himalayan rivers. The Himalayan Range that includes, the North- eastern region, Himachal Pradesh and Uttrakhand has the capacity to generate 1.50 lakh MW of hydro power. But till now only 35,000-36,000 MW have been tapped, he said.

The Minister, who described hydro power as cleaner and cheaper source of power, however, acknowledged the dangers posed by construction of tunnels in high seismic zones. Shinde’s reply was in connection with dangers of construction of hydro power projects on Alakananda river.

Assam Tribune

Aizawl: Hundreds ofpeople representing villages to be affected by the proposed five hydel projects in the northeastern part of Mizoram staged a protest rally against the dams in Aizawl yesterday.

The rally was organised under the banner of Sinlung Indigenous People Human Rights Organisation (SIPHRO), which has been actively spearheadingthe proposed 1500 MW Tipaimukh dam, to be built on the river Barak in Manipur.

The activists also submitted a memorandum to the Governments of Mizoram and Manipur and theGovernment of India, urging them to rethink before implementing the projects.

The memorandum bore the signatures of village council presidents, NGOs and political parties of all the affected 14 villages.
”All our the small and big rivers (Tuiruong and Tuivai – Tipaimukh Dam 1500 MW, Tuivai-210 MW, Serlui-12 MW, Tuivawl-40 MW, Tuirail-60 MW) in Mizoram’s Sinlung Hills Development Council areas are proposed to be dammed,” the memorandum stated.

”When Mizoram requires only 160 MW for its own consumption, the imposition of these projects clearly points to the extermination of our land and people in the name of development,” the memorandum said.

Moreover, these projects are without the knowledge, consent and approval of the Sinlung Hills Development Council (SHDC) and the Hmar people, it said.

More pictures Here

UNI

Submitted by Sinlung Indigenous Peoples Human Rights Organisation (SIPHRO) and Sinlung Peoples Collective

To, 28^th September 2010

Shri Lal Thanhawla
Hon’ble Chief Minister of Mizoram

Subject: Implement Moratorium on Dams in Sinlung Hills, Mizoram.

Sir,

All our small and big rivers (Tuiruong and Tuivai - Tipaimukh Dam (1500 MW), Tuivai (210 MW), Serlui- (12 MW), Tuivawl ( 40 MW), Tuirial (60 MW) in Mizoram’s Sinlung Hills are proposed to be dammed. When Mizoram requires only 100-160 MW for its own consumption, the imposition of these projects in our small land clearly points to the extermination of our land and people in the name of development. Moreover, these projects are without our knowledge, consent and approval. We were never informed, consulted or intimated in any manner regarding these destructive projects that are already threatening us in our ancestral land. These projects are undemocratic and imposed upon us.

Serlui B hydel project has already pushed our people out of our land, alienated our people from their stable livelihood system and deprived us of our citizenship and democratic rights. Villages affected by the Serlui B Hydel project are already in a state of environmental refugees. Worse, the major share of compensation out of Serlui B project and Tuirial Multipurpose Hydro Electric Project were bagged by the rich, influential and powerful lots from Mizoram’s Aizawl; people who were never affected by these projects. These projects are indiscriminate and inhumane in all its form. They should never be allowed to take shape in the name of development. Our experiences with small hydel projects show that there is lax or near absent regulatory mechanisms, which in turn cause environmental degradation and large-scale displacement of people. The implementing agencies, both the State as well as non-State agencies, are merely institutionalizing injustice in the name of development. The deprived tribals should not be allowed to be further marginalized from their land and of their Constitutional rights.

The proposed projects failed to be transparent in all its planning process. All information’s about these dams that, otherwise, are supposed to link, inform and educate the affected people did not reach them. Information has become a costly property in the hands of the few powerful groups who will never be affected by the dam, but who sought monetary compensation, contract job and other benefits from the project. The entire covert practice is a negation of the Fundamental Rights of the marginalized tribals who will be affected by these projects.

Despite the high-risk the proposed projects embody, it not only fails to inform the threatened people about the possible adverse impact, but also fails to represent their approved consent. In short, these projects did not take into consideration the existence of the tribals/indigenous peoples and their rights. The tribals have no role or say in any stages of the decision making process that, otherwise, should require their active participation. The entire evolved process has made it evident that the proposed projects are not people friendly projects.

Instead of informing and educating the threatened tribals, the implementing agency, the State actors as well as non-State actors, took advantage of the ignorance of the information deprived tribals who will be severely impacted by these projects. The unwanted conduct is a discrimination and negation of the Fundamental Rights of the tribals.

The Government of Mizoram’s experiences with Dams is marred with failure. This is evident with the cases of Serlui ‘B’ project, Kau Tlabung and Tuipang Hydel Project. The Government of Mizoram should withdraw from its adventurous attempt to dam all our small and big rivers in Sinlung Hills, in the name of development, when it severely failed to achieved good practices with the small projects. It is our humble request that the Government of Mizoram reconsiders its policy on dams and focus on the welfare of its people, their citizenship and democratic rights.

Similarly, with a poor and failed record of implementing policies on dams and any development projects, breakdown of law and order and governance, the Government of Manipur does not qualify to be one of the implementing agencies to dam our rivers by playing with the lives of its citizens, forests, rivers, and rights in the name of development. When the Government of Manipur is incapable of reforming its governance, law and order, it should rather review its existing practices with development projects before taking up Tipaimukh Dam. The Government of Manipur should not exploit the strength of its militarized State to built Tipaimukh Dam. We cannot bear to afford militarization taking over the destructive project, our land, rivers and forests. The Government of Manipur should not conveniently exploit the draconian Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) to pursue the controversial project. There can be no compensation for the social, human, security and environmental cost and crisis that it will create for the tribals who will be affected. The controversial project is increasing social, economic and political exclusion and injustice for the tribals. The Government of Manipur is institutionalizing injustice to the Hmars and other affected communities by the project. Furthermore, it will alienate the people and their rights from their ancestral land, forest, rivers, and natural resources.

We, the people of Sinlung Hills, do not give our consent and approval to the recently signed (April 28, 2010) Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Government of Manipur, National Hydro-electric Power Corporation (NHPC) and Shimla-based Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited (SJVN) for the construction of Tipaimukh Dam, by damming our river Tuiruong and Tuivai. Besides destroying hundreds of kilometers of our virgin forest and jhum land, the proposed project will directly affect fourteen (14) villages in Sinlung Hills, Mizoram: Sawleng, Darlawn, New Vervek, Sailutar, Sakawrdai, Khawlek, Vaitin, Vanbawng, Khawpuar, Suangpuilawn, Ratu, Phullen, NE Tlangnuam, and Lungsum. We shall not allow these projects to ruin, plunder and rob our right to life. We shall not allow the Government of Manipur to capitalize its militarized power and invade our land and rivers, our dignity and freedom.

The implementing agencies of these projects did not disseminate any information regarding these destructive structures. We have no confidence in any of the implementing agencies who will plunder and ruin our land, rivers and people for their profit driven interests.

We would like to draw your kind attention to NHPC’s track record with hydro-power which is alarmingly poor in all the important aspects. If one looks at NHPC’s performance, in case of Indira Sagar and Omkareshwar in Madhya Pradesh, Chamera I and II projects in HimachalPradesh, Loktak project in Manipur, Koel Karo project in Jharkhand, Lower Subansiri project in Arunachal Pradesh, Teesta Low Dam stage III project in North Bengal, Salal and Uri projects in Jammu and Kashmir, Dul Hasti project in Jammu and Kashmir, Baira Saul project in Himachal Pradesh and Tanakpur and Dhauliganga projects in Uttaranchal, Rangit project in Sikkim, it is evident that NHPC severely failed in good practices, creating irresponsible disaster to land, people and resources, displacing people without proper relief, rehabilitation and resettlement measures, violating human rights, huge cost and time overruns, causing construction related disaster, poor social and environmental standards. In many cases NHPC did not even have an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Social Impact Assessment as well. Worst, NHPC have also, in many cases, failed to avail free, prior information for the affected people. Many times, NHPC pursue its projects without informing the targeted people about public hearings. In short, NHPC has been involved in severe violations of current Indian environment norms. We shall not allow such irresponsibility and inhumane activities to repeat in our land.

Moreover, the only safe areas that will not be affected by these dam projects are targeted to be converted into Pualreng Wildlife Sanctuary. In this pursuit, the authorities are doggedly scheming to purchase the community and private land and forests of four villages- Khawdungsei, Mauchar, Zohmun and Palsang. These villages have been asked to received their share of “compensation” and vacate their villages. These villages have taken resolution to live on their ancestral land and not to take any such “compensation”. Despite strong protest lodged by the authorities of these villages, the State authorities failed to take heed of their humane stand.

We are strongly against the indiscriminate attempt of the State authorities to push the villagers out of their land to make way for a wildlife sanctuary. It is our humble demand that the concerned authorities immediately stop its inhumane activities and allow our peopled to peacefully co-exist with our land, forests and rivers.

The unbridled pursuit of monetary profit by few individuals at enormous environmental, social and human cost will inevitably lead to the growing alienation and deprivation of our people in our own land. The implementing agencies, without the prior, informed consent of the affected people, had breached obligations to respect and protect the Constitutional and democratic rights of the Hmar people and other communities. Moreover, we are not aware of any of the mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Social Impact Assessment (SIA), and our entitlements. These projects, by destroying our rivers, forests, land and people, will only benefit few, but influential and powerful coterie.

The proposed projects are not people’s friendly projects and stand against any democratic principles. It is our sincere request to the Government of Mizoram to respect the time honored Hmar- Mizo tribal customs, rights, traditional land holdings system and not to give its approval for any clearance to any of these projects.

In the pursuit of justice, fairness, respect by realizing our Constitutional rights, the marginalized peoples of Sinlung Hills,Mizoram demands that:

1. The implementing agencies, State as well as non-State actors should immediately rethink, implement moratorium and withdraw from pursuing these destructive projects and save our land and people from irreparable destruction. The State as well as non-State actors ought to know that our land, rivers and forests are the backbone of our existence and survival. Our citizenship and democratic rights that are integrally embedded with our land, forests and rivers must be safeguarded and protected for all time to come.

2. The haves and influential coterie from Mizoram and Manipur should stop their selfish quest for securing contract job and compensation by negating the ancestral dwellers.

3. There should be Constitutional Safeguards for securing and developing our land, our people, our rights and our future.

Copy to:

Mizoram

1. His Excellency MM Lakhera, Governor of Mizoram.

2. Home Minister of Mizoram.

3. Minister of Environment and Forests.

4. Press.

5. NGOs.

Centre

1. Prime Minister of India

2. Shri P Chidambaram, Union Home Minister.

3 Jairam Ramesh, Union Minister for Environment and Forests.

4. Shri Naveen Verma, Joint Secretary, North East, Ministry of Home Affairs.

Others

1. Chief Minister of Manipur

2. CMD, NEEPCO, Shillong, Meghalaya.

3. CMD, NHPC, Faridabad.

RENGKAI: A National Seminar titled “Dialogue on Dams and Development: The Case of Tipaimukh Hydro-electric Multi-Purpose Project” would be held on from December 13-15 at Churachandpur, and from 16-18, December, 2010 at Tipaimukh, Churachandpur, Manipur, according to organizing officials.

Several experts from diverse fields - social workers, environmentalists, journalists, politics and cultural organisations - have already confirmed their participation in the proposed North Eastern Council-sponsored seminar.

Below is the concept of the Seminar released by the organising committee.

CONCEPT NOTE

One cannot deny the fact that dams accelerate socio-economic growth and mitigate the miseries of a large population of the world suffering from the vagaries of floods and droughts. Dams also contribute significantly in meeting some of the basic human needs like water for drinking and industrial use, irrigation, flood control, hydropower generation, inland navigation and recreation. In one of its key messages, the World Commission on Dams conveys that “dams have made an important and significant contribution to human development and the benefits derived from them have been considerable.” At the same time, it may also be pointed out that an unaccountable price has also been paid to secure those benefits especially in social and environment terms by people displaced, by communities downstream, by tax payers and by the natural environment. The question is the proper balancing of the heavy cost or loss in terms of land and environment and the direct as well as indirect benefits of dams.

Therefore one of the most controversial issues has been on the impacts of large dams. Advocates of large dams have contended that such large structures are essential to meet the increasing water demands of the world, and that their overall societal benefits far outweigh the costs. On the other hand, critics have argued that social and environmental costs far exceed their benefits, and that the era of construction of large dams is over. Citing the US-Japanese experiences where more than 100 dam projects were scrapped, the idea of constructing big dams is being discarded, they argued. As a matter of fact, USA and Japan are the two countries which have the highest number of large dams. USA alone has built more than 6375 dams and Japan more than 2475 large dams. Recently China has come out with a very ambitious plan of constructing Three Gorges Dams on the Yangtse river which is believed to displace more than a million people, apart from causing an unimaginable environmental hazards. It appears that the China’s State Environmental Protection Agency will not be able to withstand the political and market forces behind the proposed massive project. This has further intensified the controversy over the impact of big dams. In the absence of objective, authoritative and comprehensive evaluation on the problem, there is still no consensus on the overall benefits of large dams. When such reliable objective assessments are not available, controversy over the impact of dams has naturally continued.

What is therefore urgently needed is the updating of existing knowledge on the impacts of large dams through reliable collection of social, economic, environmental and technical data from different projects. In the absence of observed facts and figures and scientific analysis on the contributions of existing large dams, dogmatic and emotional debates between the proponents and the opponents are likely to be counterproductive. In this connection, the Conference Report: International Workshop on impacts of Large Dam, Istanbul, Turkey, 25-27, October, 2004 has emphatically suggested thus, “the future discussions should be based on what are the specific water needs of a region in question, and how can these societal needs be met within a reasonable timeframe, in a cost-effective, socially acceptable and environmentally friendly way. Such a logical approach will invariably conclude that large dams are necessary for some regions, and equally in other places alternatives like rainwater harvesting or small dams may be appropriate. These are not necessarily “either-or” issues. When constructions of large dams are warranted, all direct and indirect benefits and costs should be considered in technical, economic, social and environmental terms. Analysis should be carried out on the nature of the beneficiaries, which is at the heart of any decision-making process in all democratic societies. The people who are likely to pay the cost must be explicitly made beneficiaries of the project”.

It is within this given perspective that we have to approach any proposed dams or hydro-electric projects in the country. In North East India alone, there are more than 20 hydro-electric projects. The most controversial one is the Tipaimukh multi-purpose dam which envisages construction of a 390 m. long, 162.8 m high earthen core rock-filled dam. This will be one of the biggest dams ever planned in India. Briefly stated, there is a mixed reaction among the directly affected local people against the proposed high dam: anti-dam group mostly represented by NGOs and student bodies, pro-dam group comprising cross section of society and neutral groups comprising mainly intellectuals. The project of such magnitude is bound to make tremendous impacts. What is urgently needed is to pinpoint and identify the specific positive and negative impacts of the dam and what can be done to maximize the positive impacts and to minimize the negative impacts. Let us deliberate on these points without being carried away by sentiments and passions.

The outcome and recommendation of the proposed seminar will, it is hoped, be an eye-opener for other on-going projects in North East India too because the issues which have been spelt out here have global, national and regional dimensions.

Specific Issues to be focused on:

The two days’seminar/workshop at Churachandpur, and two days interactive workshop with the local people at Tipaimukh will focus, among others, on the following issues:

1. Tipaimukh: Past, present and future .

2. Land use pattern among the Hmars of South Manipur. Past and Present.

3. Towards the protection of Indigenous land rights.

4. Environmental issues as reflected in Hmar-Mizo folk tales.

5. Socio-economic issues of Tipaimukh dam.

6. Environment and Ecological Issues: Global perspective.

7. Indigenous Knowledge System, Identity, Freedom and Tipaimukh Dam

8. Displacement and rehabilitation: Global experiences of resettlement.

9. Towards the scientific management of forest along the Barak river.

10. Tipaimukh dam: Development or disaster?.

11. Hydroelectric projects in Manipur with special reference to Tipaimukh Dam.

12. Financing dams: Role of World Bank.

13. Lesson from the Loktak Hydro-Electric Project.

14. Towards updating of existing knowledge on the impacts of large dams.

15. Tipaimukh Dam: An emerging issue in Indo-Bangladesh relationship.