The Development Debate in India is marked by two antagonistic extremes. After the era of liberalization started a strong stream of thought has been advocating a market oriented approach. On the other hand equally strong is the viewpoint which opposes this approach and emphasizes the `people centric ` development.
It has not been possible to resolve these differences. In fact the devide is getting wider and the recent Bhopal incident has further sharpened the contours of this Debate.
If real progress is to achieved, it is essential that more nuanced model of developmnt, which tries to take into consideration real concerns of the people and at the same time gives enough incentives to the investors, is the need of the hour.
For example there is a raging controversy going on in Maharashtra about a atomic power project at Jaitapur in Sindhudurg district of Konkan region. There is a strong opposition to the project from local people and the state government has been acquiring land ignoring this oppostion. This has created a tense sitiation in that area. If anybody strikes a dialogue with the people it becomes clear that basically they are not per se opposed to the project. Their real grouse is that government has not taken them into confidence and it is not paying the market rate for the land. The government has also not made any serious efforts to address their concerns about `nuclear pollution`. On the other hand the activists opposing the project have been campaigning and trying to convince the people that the project would not only affect their livelihoods, but ruin them physically because of the `radiation effect`. Since the governmnt is not listening to them, the local population has veered towrds the activists. The stand off is going to delay the project with cost overruns and other problems.
This could have been avoided easily if the government as well as the Nuclear Power Corporation along with its French partners had taken people into confidence, provided them with all the facts about nuclear energy, educated them about the risk factors and how they can be minimized. Most important, the locals could have been assured about the proper compensation.The compensation package should have included not only proper price for the land, but shares also in the joint venture along with a job per family in the ancillary works of the Project. Similarly an assurance should have been made by the government that the part of electricity generated by the project would be supplied to the area. These measures would have helped the government to wean away people from the protesting lobbies.
Such a nuanced aprroach needs to be taken while setting up new units and also for running the established industrial units. It is essential to acknowledge that the agitations and movements that oppose such projects or demand certain norms represent a developmental opportunity. If addressed appropriately in choherent and comprehensive manner they provide opportunities to make the communities to accept the Project.
It is incumbent on the owners of the Project to seek participation of the surrounding communities directly or through formal or informal leaders or NGOs. It would help in understanding the needs and preferences of the communities, prevent costly mistakes and reduce the sense of insecurity related to the Project among the communities.
To achieve this objective the emphasis should be placed.on the structural determinants of local level decision making and also on the local social resources. The different socio-political dynamics within and surrounding the communities, the enviornmental context and the historical experiences of the communities about the state level development should also be taken inti consideration.
With regard to the issue of engaging and empowering the communities for sustainable disaster risk management, it is utterly essential that all activities must be totally transperent. There should not be any hidden components in the activities or any inducements also. What is `accepted by the communities` is more important than `what is necessary`. The attempt has to be made to synergize the Corporate Values and Community Values. This would help in creating a genuine feeling in the communities that `this is our project` A holistic secure livelihood approach would help in enhancing this feeling. Ultimately institutionalizing these processes between the Project and the communities would result in permanent sustainable disaster management programme.
No comments:
Post a Comment