We need many A Wednesday to shake up the political class

It is a coincidence that a trend-setting movie, A Wednesday, was released barely a week before the last Saturday blast in New Delhi. The Delhi blast was, by all indications, orchestrated by Islamic jihadi groups. The debutante film-maker Neeraj Pandey’s A Wednesday is also about Islamic terror. While Pandey does not fight shy of identifying the terrorists in the movie as Muslims, he refuses to disclose the reel-religion of his protagonist, Naseeruddin Shah, who decides to wage a battle on the terrorists on his own.

Shah, representing the common man in the film, finds himself seething with anger at the impotence of the state to tackle the terrorist menace. He sees all around him a state of helplessness, constant fear of getting blown up while shopping for daily needs, or traveling by a train or a bus. What rankles him the most is that the privileged few go about their life without let or hindrance, as they are protected by the multi-layered security provided by the state at the tax-payer’s expense. His frustration propels him to take law into his hands.

Most citizens in the country today feel the same way as Naseeruddin Shah felt in A Wednesday. After the Delhi blast, the media went to town about the home minister, Shivraj Patil, changing his suits thrice in four hours at a time five blasts had left hundreds injured and scores dead in the heart of the national capital. That Patil was more concerned about his appearance than the plight of the victims was also evident in the photograph splashed all over the media in the aftermath of the Ahmedabad terrorist attack that showed the home minister, in a white suit and white shoes, worried about negotiating a rain puddle on the way to the hospital to console the victims.

 His deputy, Shakeel Ahmad, has the cheek to tell the media, “There is no harm in the home minister staying clean and tidy”. Yes, Mr. Ahmad, there is no harm, had the home minister been equally dandy in the job he is entrusted with. But has he? What has been his track record? Since Patil became the UPA’s home minister, terrorists have struck 14 times at 12 prominent cities of the country. Hyderabad and Delhi have come under attack twice. Reports say that India has lost 4506 lives to terror acts between April 2004 and March 2008. Is it then wrong to say, Mr. Ahmad, that the serial dresser is actually a serial killer, with the blood of thousands of innocent people on his hands?

If the prime minister has no option but to keep an incompetent Patil in the high office just because he is a favourite courtier of the 10, Janpath, then at least he should have got him some able deputies who could have kept his shortcomings under wraps and delivered results. But what kind of people are there to assist him? Sriprakash Jaiswal, who is so clueless about the enormity of the challenge of his office after a terrorist attack that he chooses to go away to his home town Kanpur to inaugurate a shop, just the day after the blasts in the capital? Ahmad, who jumped to the minister’s defence, has actually no work in the ministry. He is the Congress party’s official spokesman who issues banal statements from time to time. Then there is a third one, Radhika Selvi, wife of a gangster, whose only qualification for this position is that she touches the feet of her benefactor, the DMK boss, Karunanidhi, a hundred times a day.

If the entire bunch of politicians were so hopeless, then one thought that the steel frame of bureaucracy would be able to carry the burden of administration. But look at the response of Madhukar Gupta, the home secretary, after the blast: he says the more the blasts the merrier as the security forces would gain in experience.

<!– –>

He wants to garner more experience by sacrificing the lives of the common men and women while he and his family enjoyed fool-proof security!

Will Mr. Gupta answer: has his department acted upon the experiences already garnered during the myriad terror attacks in the past? One basic task was to install CCTVs in the crowded markets. Was it done? Even at the Sarojini Nagar market, which was the terrorist target in 2005, no CCTVs were installed by the police till July 2007. In sheer frustration, local market association raised donations and bought some CCTVs. It was left to the Delhi police to install and maintain them. When the bombs went off in Delhi on September 13, none of the cameras at the market were working.

 And what about metal detectors and metal corridors? Why is it that this exercise begins after every blast and then abandoned once things appear normal, the policemen are sent off to other beats and the metal doors remain unmanned?

This was exactly the case at all the three blast sites last Saturday. And a police officer was heard explaining on television: there is acute lack of resources, lack of resources to install the security appliances and maintain them.

But, then, can the common man ask the government mandarins: How is it that you have enough resources when it comes to providing expensive security gadgets and high-tech security vehicles for the so-called VIPs but when it comes to protecting the ordinary people, you have no money to install the inexpensive CCTVs and the metal doors?

How is it that the government has enough security personnel to provide multi-layered security back-up to hundreds of political wheeler-dealers, but it finds shortage of men when it comes to manning and monitoring the security needs of the common man?

This is because the ruling establishment cares two hoots for the common man. It goes by the logic: what can the ordinary man or woman do except wait for five years to throw out the government of the day? Then make as much money as you can and enjoy the period as long as it lasts. At the end of the term, even if you lose power, nothing to worry; the same electoral logic will ensure that your rivals are thrown out and you bounce back to power in the next election.

But does the logic hold even today? The political class needs to see the writing on the wall. People have no more the patience to wait for five years. The day is not far off when the common man will take unto himself the job he expects the state to do for him to mete out justice, just as Naseeruddin Shah did in A Wednesday. Or he may go a step further and eliminate the very leaders who are the root cause of all his problems – just as Aamir Khan did in Rang de Basanti.

And, this is not mere film fantasy. Rang De Basanti established a chord with the common man who empathized with the rebels against the system. A Wednesday is also creating an emotional bond with the people – members of the audience are clapping and endorsing the sentiments of Naseeruddin Shah in cinema halls all over the country.

These films are reflecting the new angst, the new sense of defiance of the men on the street. If they rise in revolt, then it would be like live bombs ticking away. When they explode, our leaders would just get blown away, and no state machinery would be able to protect them.

nrmohanty@yahoo.com

Will Nitish Kumar take responsibility for Kosi Calamity?

There are many who would say that this is not the time for nit-picking, finding faults. This is a time for one and all to rise above the accusation mode and mobilize support to help the suffering millions.

 In the face of it, it does appear a sensible proposition.

But there is another side to the story. While it is imperative to do everything possible to ensure that people in the remotest villages get access to relief, there should be no shying away from fixing accountability for the criminal negligence that led to this colossal tragedy. Otherwise, Bihar will be perennially in the relief and rehabilitation mode, which is what the politician-bureaucrat-contractor nexus wants in the state.

In fact, it serves the interest of the state administration to make flood relief, rather than flood control, as its raison d’ etre. The state officials can get away doing cosmetic job for the maintenance of the institutional structure (afflux bunds, spurs, embankments, barrages, river beds) for flood control. That way, they would be able to embezzle the money earmarked for the flood control activity; again a ‘good’ flood would attract a lot of money and material from outside the state for relief purposes. The bigger the relief aid, the larger will be the booty for the state officials. So it is a double whammy for them. That explains why the floods have become an annual ritual in Bihar.

Not a single year has passed by without the state administration coming to a standstill for a couple of months, except doing relief work. But the ferocity of the floods this year is such that the state may remain tied down to attending to the displaced people for over six months. It is not as if that every thing will be hunky-dory once the flood water recedes and those in relief camps return to their respective villages. The possibility of their land having been rendered uncultivable by being sand cast or on account of excess moisture is a grim reality. Will large parts of Bihar be in the relief mode for, say, five years, till the vast tracts of land turn cultivable? This is the big question.

The Kosi flood has pushed the state behind for several years. The Nitish Kumar government had made grand promises about creating a network of motorable roads across the state within three years. Just as the deadline was approaching, all the roads, real or fake, have been washed away in seven districts of the state. So also the houses built under the Indira Awas Yojana or the other projects under the NREGA.

Floods come as a saviour for all government construction agencies, be it for the road, or the bridge or the low-cost houses. These are often built (or claimed to be built) just before the onset of the monsoon and then shown to have been washed away by the strong rains and the floods. That paves the way for another round of construction activity after the monsoons; thus the annual cycle goes on.

It is hardly surprising that year after year when the floods ravage parts of north Bihar, the state government comes out with a routine excuse, making Nepal the fall guy. The Congress governments did this for many years, the Lalu and Rabri government did it for 15 years. And now the Nitish government is doing the same.

In fact, the spin doctors of the Bihar government have gone a step further. They are giving an impression that it was beyond the state government to prevent the catastrophe as the river Kosi chose to adopt a different course – an eastward journey that it had earlier taken 150 years back. So the accusation that the state administration was caught napping is wrong, says the publicists of the state government.

 N K Singh, who is the chief media manager of the Nitish administration at New Delhi, dwelt at length, in an edit page article in The Times of India, on the need for a high dam in Nepal to prevent such calamities. He conveniently glossed over the fact that the present calamity is largely due to the acts of omission and commission of the state government.

After all, the embankments had been created to prevent a meandering river like Kosi from moving east or west. And it is the responsibility of the Bihar government to ensure that embankments are maintained properly to withstand the onslaught of a river in spate. Mother Kosi took to a different course only because man-made structures were found wanting. The man-made structures were found wanting not because there was a high intensity rainfall in the catchment area of the river. The fact is that the time when the breach took place on August 18, the water discharge was just about 1.44 lakh cusecs, when the embankment and the barrage are supposed to have a designed capacity of 9.

5 lakh cusecs. That tells the story of rapacious intent (defalcation of maintenance money) and criminal neglect (lackadaisical attitude towards the plight of the millions).

But the biggest failure of the Nitish government was when it came to watching and patrolling during the flood season. The surveillance against flood during the flood season has much to do with the quality of the personnel managing it and the communication mechanism at all levels.

Having been a witness to the depredations of the Kosi in the year 1993 while visiting Supaul during a reporting assignment, it was amazing to see the senior engineers of the government – executive engineers, superintending engineers and chief engineers – working day and night with a huge workforce to reinforce the embankments with Gabions, which are essentially huge heaps of heavy stones held together in iron nets. Overseeing the work was then water resources commissioner V S Dubey. He was taking rounds and rounds to ensure that all the contingencies were provided for and work went on unimpeded. The staff there said that Dubey had not gone back to sleep at the guest house for more than 10 days. He was catching on the sleep in the car while taking rounds. One was told that the commissioners and senior engineers reached the site by helicopter within four hours of the reporting of the erosion. Others arrived in less than 24 hours to wage the war against the ravaging Kosi. The Minister, Jagdanand Singh, was constantly monitoring the situation from Patna and making sure that hundreds of trucks laden with stones took off from Siliguri to reach the site on time. This was a spectacle to be seen to be believed. The untiring efforts and the meticulous planning yielded results. The war was won and the Kosi was tamed.

But what was the preparation this time?  Just two months before the onset of monsoons, the state saw a new water resources minister and a new water resources commissioner. Both of them presumed that all precautionary measures regarding flood control must have been taken in due course and they did not find it necessary to see the preparations themselves. But what was more important, they did not try to educate themselves about the enormity of the challenge that more than 3000 kms. of embankments pose before the state.

Even when the messages reached them about the erosion, they treated it as a routine matter. None of them rushed to the site, nor did they mobilize resources to undertake anti-erosion work on a war footing. Even when the 400 metre breach was reported on August 18, the chief minister made an aerial survey and talked about relief measures. It was only when the breach became 1.7 km. wide and 800 villages came under the swirling waters of Kosi that the state government woke up to the enormity of the calamity.

The Bihar government has now blamed the Nepalis for not allowing the construction work in the upstream of the river in Nepal territory. But that is a lame excuse. If there are inter-state conflicts within India over migration of labour and extent of wages, it was bound to happen in an international territory. The matter could have been resolved with some degree of flexibility and accommodation by the Bihar government — which is the executive authority for carrying out the maintenance for the Kosi project — especially when the lives and the property of the millions were at stake. But the Bihar officials exposed their incompetence as administrators by abstaining from work rather than finding a solution to the crisis.

The consequent tragedy is there for all of us to see. Will anybody be held accountable for the death, destruction and damage caused by the criminal negligence? Where must the buck stop, at Ajay Nayak, the commissioner? Vijendra Yadav, the minister? Or Nitish Kumar, the chief minister himself?

The common refrain among most of the Bihar bureaucracy and the ruling political establishment, even those who are in the close coterie of the chief minister, is: Nitishji is well-meaning and trying hard to improve things but the only negative attribute of his personality is that he does not want to give credit to any of his colleagues. If he wants to appropriate all credits for any good work, then he must take the entire blame for the disaster that has struck the state.

Will you, Mr. Nitish Kumar?  Then what is the punishment? Since political and bureaucratic high-ups are never punished for criminal negligence by our law-enforcing machinery, it should be left to the victims to decide the nature and quantum of the punishment.

Lalu Yadav’s Personal Branding at Public Expense

Lalu Yadav has been using public money to do personal branding. What was his contribution to the success of Sushil Kumar in Beijing Olympics? Did he, as railway minister, provide special facilities to equip Kumar to take a stab at an Olympic medal?When Sushil Kumar was languishing in a room shared by 20 people, two to a bed, in Chhatrasal Stadium in Delhi to do his training, did the minister offer him more humane living conditions so that he could physically and mentally prepare to compete honourably in the biggest sports event in the world? The Minister was not even aware of Kumar’s existence.

But when Sushil managed to get the coveted medal, defying all odds, Lalu Yadav lost no time in taking credit that a railway employee has made India proud. Even then it would have been understandable had he sent a letter congratulating Sushil and \or offering some rewards. But, as is his wont, he wanted to derive personal mileage at public expense. His ministry brought out advertisements in newspapers with a smiling Lalu Yadav’s photograph in bold relief and the man to be honoured, Sushil Kumar, relegated to the bottom.

Here is a Minister who has the temerity to bask in borrowed glory and we, the taxpayers, are condemned to pay for it!

But then this man has been doling out public resources as personal largesse with impunity.

He ladled out railway jobs to people who gave witness in courts to bail him out in the fodder case in Bihar.

But then these beneficiaries who have jumped to his defence in lieu of a job here or some money there are people of modest means. One can very well understand why they become willing accomplices in Lalu Yadav’s grand design for self-promotion.

But when a premier institution like the IIM-Ahmedabad too becomes a party to the fraudulent branding exercise of an unscrupulous politician, it is a matter of deep shame and sorrow for the people of this country.

All those who thought IIM-Ahmedabad symbolizes the acme of professional excellence in this country were in for a rude shock to learn that it had taken money from the railway ministry to do a hatchet job – to tell the world that Lalu Yadav’s visionary and messianic leadership resulted in the exemplary turnaround in the performance of the railway ministry.

Even if there was a genuine turnaround, it was not expected of the IIM-A to take on the role of the public relations agency for Lalu Yadav. For, that is precisely what it became when it accepted money from the railway ministry to create hype about the great success story.

Had the IIM-A done a review of the performance of the railways on its own it would still have been credible. But the fact that its services were paid for was starkly evident in Prof G Raghuram’s review report that talked of ‘railways as a sunrise industry’ and Lalu Yadav as an “inspiring leader”. It was, pure and simple, a public relations exercise.

One would still have not taken strong exception to the IIM-A doing a genuine public relations job for earning some extra buck. But what was most appalling was that it was in collusion with the railway ministry to do a fraudulent exercise.

Its report corroborated the railways’ claim that it made a profit to the tune of Rs 22,000 crore. But, contrary to what was tom-tomed in the report, the net investible surplus of the railways was just Rs 11,000 crore, almost half of what was touted as profits. What was shown as profit was what was actually part of a suspense account: money promised to the railways but not yet given to it. No credible accounting system would cite it as profit.

Then the money accrued to the Railway Pension Fund which accounted for Rs 9,000 crore of the Rs 21,578 crore profit was shown as cash surplus but this was the money the railway could not invest and could not be shown as profit.

It was with IIM-A’s expert advice, that the railways under Lalu Yadav altered the way the balance sheet is presented that resulted in revenues getting inflated artificially.

Banning the Media not a Solution in Democracy

The Jammu & Kashmir government banned two TV stations in Jammu in thefirst week of August, 2008 charging them with arousing inflammatory passions. In the last week of August, two TV stations in Srinagar were shut down on similar charges. The government was of the view that their partisan conduct was a slur on the freedom of the media and they did not deserve the privileges available in a democracy.

The J & K High Court intervened to lift the ban on the Jammu TV stations and the same may happen in the case of TV stations in Srinagar.

But the legality apart, is there a case for media ethics?

No doubt, J & K is witness to an explosive situation today, with the conflict between two regions and two religions enmeshed with each other. The ethical issue is, how should this conflict situation be portrayed in the media? Is it a free for all or should the media be governed by some ethical concerns?

The basic ethical standard for the media is the representation of truth. But then who defines what the ‘truth’ is? For the TV channels in Jammu, or for that matter, in Srinagar, the texts and visuals that they showed represented the truth. After all, the Jammu channels said, they reflected the grievances of the people of the area following the government’s decision to withdraw the land transfer to the Amarnath Shrine Board and the subsequent police brutality on the agitationists. And the Srinagar-based channels claimed that they reflected the sufferings of the Kashmiris due to the blockade imposed by the Jammu region and also due to the crackdown by the armed forces on the hundreds of thousands of protesters.

They were representing the truth, they said. But the government argued that they were representing only the half-truths. The Jammu-based channel never showed the harrowing condition of the people of Kashmir and the channel operating from Srinagar never bothered about the sentiments and sufferings of the people of Jammu. Even in their region-specific presentation, they were selective in their telecast. They did not show any visuals that pinned down the rioters’ act of vandalism. If they provoked the police by attacking them, it was not shown. But the police counter-attack became the lead news. Thus the channels on both sides of the divide did not conform to the basic norms of journalism. It was, therefore, necessary to prevent them from doing greater damage to the social fabric, the government averred.

The government advanced another logic which appeared rather convincing: the national channels also covered the developments in Jammu and Kashmir but they did not face any problem from the government because they were even handed in their approach. They reflected on the issues, concerns and tribulations of both the
regions, which is how it should be.

Who was right, then? The government or the regional channels? Perhaps both. The government was right in its contention that these channels indulged in partisan journalism. The channels were right because, being regional channels, they could only propitiate, not vilify, their audience which was confined to their respective regions.

It is a constraint imposed on the small media players — because of the reasons of limited resources and limited audience – that they find it difficult to portray the larger reality. That does not mean that small players are invariably partisan. There are some media organizations which, though small, do not hesitate to put the complete truth on the table, in a conflict situation, even if it entailed huge risks. But then such media outfits are founded by people with a missionary spirit. Not many media institutions can measure up to that standard.

What should be the government approach vis-à-vis these media organizations? Banning them is no answer in a democracy. If the government gets the power to decide who conforms to the truth and who does not, then the freedom of the media is in real danger.  What is to be done, then? It is a challenge for the bigger media, which are not tied down by the resource crunch or the territorial limitation or the ideological affinity, to present the larger truth before the public so that propaganda journalism does not succeed in vitiating the environment.

And the bigger media have, by and large, lived up to the expectations in this kind of conflict situation.

Let us consider another major conflict situation in the country: Naxalism. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh described the Naxal menace as the biggest internal security threat in the country. This is because Naxal groups have taken on the government security forces as their biggest enemy. How have the media portrayed this conflict situation?

One way has been to report the depredations of the Naxalites as and when they take place. They most often focus on the ruthless, blood-thirsty ways of the Naxal groups. These are accepted as ‘objective’ representation of reality. But the trouble arises when a journalist argues, on the basis of field visits, that Naxals have popular support base. That journalist is perceived to be sympathetic to the Naxal cause and is made out to be a case of ideological deviation from mainstream journalism.

When a reporter goes into a Naxalite territory with the knowledge and the approval of the area commanders and comes back and reports about what he saw or heard, does that portray the reality of the given situation? Many would argue that it is an ‘imposed’ reality, a reality constructed by the Naxalites. Since the reporter did not have access to an unstructured reality, which is a basic pre-condition for the search of truth, his reports could not be treated as ‘objective’, they would say.

But the reporter can legitimately argue that the reality is often contextual. What one sees and hears in a given situation is the reality in that context; and the reality may change if new developments appear in the reporter’s horizon. So the contextual reality cannot be brushed aside as half-truth.

This was the position taken by Peter Arnett, Pulitzer-prize winning war correspondent of CNN, whose broadcast during the Gulf War (1991) made headlines all over the world. He was unlike most other Western journalists who were only critical of the Iraqi regime and saw nothing wrong with the actions of the American forces. But he made his point forcefully: “I speak what I see and hear. I do not argue with people who is right and who is wrong’.

If a Red-cross hospital was bombed and hundreds of patients died, it was advisable to skip the story, the Pentagon pleaded with him. But if Peter was insistent on reporting it, he ought to tell the audience that Saddam Hussein had resorted to biological and chemical wars to kill his enemies, the White House advised him.

Peter Arnett was asked to present the immediate developments in the larger, historical perspective. But he held forth that it was not his job, as a journalist, to balance his reports on the sly. He was lucky that he worked for a proprietor, Ted Turner, who stood by him to present the other ‘truth’ of the war.

But then there are not many Ted Turners in the world who would not mind showing the mirror to their own country engaged in a war with another. After all, there is only one standard that has historically been accepted as a restraint on media coverage during war: information that jeopardizes the operation of the troops. Ted Turner broke this legacy, not because he wanted to uphold the greater principle of truth, but because, as he himself admitted, he saw in it the possibility to make big money by attracting a larger audience.

There are thus myriad considerations in reporting conflicts, be it between regions, sects or nations. It is not for the governments to decide who is truthfully representing the reality and who is not. It must be left to the consumers of the media messages to make their own decision. But that would presuppose that we have more active, not passive, consumers. To make this presupposition a reality, we need to make media literacy an integral part of our education programme.

Powerful Friends of Posco & Sterlite

Wealth maketh many friends, says the Bible. This saying has a universal ring to it. Across continents and centuries, the wealthy have succeeded in winning over many who are crucial to their larger designs. In today’s world, where the real wealthy are the corporate tycoons, it is hardly surprising that they are using their wealth not just to win friends but also to buy loyalty.

The brazen manner in which the Posco and the Vedanta (Sterlite) have bought the friendship of Naveen Patnaik administration in Orissa and the Manmohan Singh government at the Centre is a testimony to the bourgeoning influence of the money power. Both the corporate entities have spoken, for public consumption, about the huge financial benefits that would accrue to the state and the country if the projects were operationalised. But what is obviously not for public consumption is the unholy deal among the authorities of the state, the centre and the corporate giants to parcel out the mineral wealth of the state. For a consideration, of course.

Mind you, Posco has a Rs. 51,000 crore project and if the gratis is a meager two per cent (which is conservative by any standard), then it works out to a whopping Rs 1,000 crore for the deal-making minions of Naveen Patnaik and Manmohan Singh, two supposedly honest men of Indian politics.

But these gentlemen claim that their governments have given full support to these projects because they agree with their broad vision: that these industries will bring about all-round development of the people of the region.

How hoax is this claim can be judged from the following facts:

Take the case of the Posco project first. Posco claims that it would create 18,000 new jobs in its steel plant. While the top officials will be deputed from its headquarters, the middle rung will be recruited from among the Indians and the local displaced people will find jobs in the lowest rung. So far so good.

But how authentic is the figure? There was a time when setting up a steel plant led to the growth of a city because of the huge employment it involved. In 1961, a one million tonne steel plant at Rourkela employed 40,000 people and the Rourkela steel city became a big landmark of the Orissa state.

But with the increasing automation of the technology, modern industries are becoming less and less labour intensive. No wonder that when Tatas held a press conference in Gopalpur in 1997 to announce their 10 million tonne steel project, they admitted that they would be able to provide direct employment to only 750 people while 5000 people could find sustenance in an indirect manner.

How could Posco, a technologically leading steel-maker of the world, provide 18,000 direct employment in its 12 million tonne factory in Orissa is a question that begs for an answer.

But what is a matter of bigger concern is the eagerness of the state and the union government to allow Posco not only exclusive mining rights but also rights to swap iron ore from the mines in its custody in Orissa. The game plan is clear: take out the best quality ore from the mines here, sell it at 100 times higher the cost of mining in the international market.

Since in large parts of the world, iron mines have become captive, there is a desperate rush among steel makers to get their footprint in the very few untapped mining regions. That explains why the bidders are ready to bankroll the decision-makers to any extent to push their project through.

Posco has bought Naveen Patnaik’s loyalty to such an extent that his government has agreed to allow Posco to build a captive port near Paradip, completely under the corporate body’s jurisdiction, so that it could freely export or import goods without the usual encumbrances.

Naveen Patnaik’s answer to this charge is: there will be officers of government of India posted there to oversee things. But then if Posco has been able to buy the loyalty of the leaders of the state and the centre, will it have any problem in commanding obedience from petty officials?

Will Naveen Patnaik explain: if Tatas, Mittals, Jindals, Bhusans and Essars can build comparable steel plants without asking for captive ports, why this special consideration for the Poscos?

The answer is obvious. Money buys loyalty. The bigger the money, the greater is the loyalty.

Bauxite mining lease given to Vedanta alias Sterling in Niyamgiri hills in Orissa is another stark example of what big money could do to the conscience of the decision-makers of the country. Niyamgiri is recognized as an area of extraordinary natural beauty and is protected under the Indian Wildlife Act. Even the Ministry of Environment and Forests had proposed to protect it as a wildlife sanctuary as recent as in 1998. But enter the Vedanta and the entire concerns of our government for flora and fauna just disappear. There begins the discourse of development: the poor tribes of the area must not be deprived of the benefits of the modern age.

Pray, what needs to be done to bring them under the ambit of modern civilization? The answer of Naveen-Manmohan duo is: hand over their land to Vedanta so that it could set up an alumina refinery plant.

And what has the plant done to the people? Although the refinery is not yet in full operation, it is already damaging local life.

Filmmaker S.Josson spoke to the people of the area in March 2008. Sample one quote: Mukta a woman living in the vicinity of the refinery says: “The water has become bad. When we bathe the skin itches. When we drink we get sores in our mouth. Our hair is falling rapidly. The air quality has also become terrible. It is difficult to breathe. We get sores in our throat. The body itches at night. Our cattle are dying”

Her husband adds: We had lived here for generations and we had no such problems before. We are facing these problems after the plant has come up.

The bad air is because of the uninterrupted trail of black smoke billowing out of the chimney of the bauxite plant, day in and day out. The bad water is because the plant is releasing most of its toxic waste into the Vansadhara River, which is a lifeline for the people of the region.

And this is how Naveen Patnaik and Manmohan Singh are bringing the experience of modern living for the tribal people of Orissa.

What is even more pernicious is that the government representatives pleaded before the Supreme Court to allow Vedanta\Sterlite to mine bauxite atop the Niyamgiri hills. Sterlite wanted permission to dig open cast mines on a 660-acre site to feed the refinery it has built at the foothill. The decision-makers of the country refused to pay heed to the expert advice that strip mining of bauxite at the top of Niyamgiri would have a devastating impact on the flora, fauna, river systems and food production capacity of the mountain region. The warning by the government-run Wildlife Institute of India (WII) that mining could trigger ‘irreversible changes in the ecological characteristics of the area’ also did not cut ice with the corrupt government leaders.

But it is amazing that the Supreme Court, which has often taken cudgels with the state to uphold the rights of the common people, also bought the logic advanced by the Sterlite group.

But, then, as the Bible said, wealth maketh friends, indeed powerful friends.