What’s needed after Sompeta

Two aspects need follow-up in the sequel to the police firing on villagers agitating against the proposed thermal power project of Nagarjuna Construction at Sompeta in Andhra’s Srikakulam district. One is the detail in the National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) order which quashed the ecology clearance to the project. It is a pity it came after, not before, the firing which claimed two lives. As reported in this paper, the NEAA upheld all the objections against the project as factual — that the public hearing of those affected wasn’t done fairly, that the official minutes of the meeting suppressed the fact that the overwhelming majority opposed it, that the environmental impact assessment study lied when it said the area was not a typical wetland of ecological importance, that the impact report had done a shoddy job on the pollution study and so on. In sum, the company, the official agencies and the experts hired by the former to do a scientific study all were, to put it politely, economical with the truth. This is, unfortunately, the norm in most such cases. Punishment for those who lied and bent the rules is needed; we demand it.

Two, we return to a theme we have stressed earlier, the imperative of restoring the fundamental right to property in the Constitution. Its deletion was done in the name of the poor and the public welfare, with defenders of the move saying such rights were meant to benefit the rich and powerful. The opposite is true: it is the poor and vulnerable who pay the price, as at Sompeta. Bear in mind that residents of two dozen villages in the region had been agitating against the project for six months, with numerous objections, none imaginary or fanciful; our reports have detailed these. They desperately tried to get the authorities to understand how it would hit their livelihood and their lives. None of it mattered, since India gives no right to citizens in such matters. If the state decides that any land or property will be taken over in the greater public interest, none can stand in the way. In this case, those speaking up for the villagers were able to get NEAA and politicians agitated because there were too many short-cuts, compounded by the blood of innocents. We go further, to insist that the right to say ‘No’ is fundamental, unless compensation is to the satisfaction of those affected. Restore the fundamental right.