|
Dear Kumar I have known Medha for 20 years and know that she began her agitation against the Narmada dam but spread it to other places later. She began by opposing the dam, not on environmental issues but as displacing people. After it became obvious that the dam would come up she shifted her focus to rehabilitation in order to reduce the damage. She also asked that the height of the dam be reduced in order to reduce displacement by about 30,000 persons. You may be aware that the Narmada Board has decided a couple of weeks ago not to raise the height of the dam. While she worked mainly in the Narmada area, when she went to other places, her main theme was that we need another type of development that will not do such damage to people. So she is not anti-developmental but wants another type of development whose benefits will reach all. After doing studies on all development-induced displacement 1947-2000 in 12 states of India and realising that 60 million persons have been affected, 40% of them tribals, 20% Dalits and 20% weakest of the backwards like quarry and fish workers, I too believe that we need the type of development whose benefits reach all. The communities of the weak should not be impoverished and marginalised further for the good of the middle and upper classes. Walter |