Save Dehing Patkai Campaign: Need to broaden the conversation on the illusion of nature-destroying economic model

In the present time of COVID19 pandemic, we are in the midst of contradictons. On one hand, there is a realisation of the importance of ecological sustainability. But on the other hand, we are still stuck on the growth orientated economy which heavily relies on the exploitation of natural resources. This nature destroying growth orientated economy does not have space for the conservation of natural resources. However, in the same time period there resides many communities who live with nature.

Some political decision in the time of countrywide lockdown has yet again shown the nature devouring practice for the attainment of growth-oriented economy and this has directly impacted negatively on the fragility of the Eastern Himalayan biodiversity hotspot. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) has loosened the strictness of clearance process for developmental projects under the banner of Environment Impact Assessment rules of 2020; the approval of the coal mining project in Saleki area near Dehing Patkai Wildlife Sanctuary falling under Dihing Patkai Elephant Reserve on April 7, 2020 by National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) along with the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC); there is a green clearance again by MoEFCC for oil drilling by Oil India Limited (OIL) in areas under Dibru Saikhowa National Park in Tinsukia district of Assam, on May11, 2020. These steps reflect political class’s interest towards the illusion of growth-oriented model of generating wealth not towards the wellbeing of the people.

Protest and illusion

In the context of overwhelming participation of netizens in ‘Save DehingPatkai’ e-protest clearly shows how in the continuous process of flowing narratives; the essence has got blurred. Here the concern is the blurring of certain core facts. Media reports say that the NBWL has given post-facto approval to the North Eastern Coalfields of Coal India Limited for an open cast mining project in 98.59 hectares area in Saleki proposed Reserved Forest Area that falls in the Dehing Patkai Elephant Reserve.

Of the total 98.59 hectares, 57.20 hectares forest land has already been broken and mined. Of the remaining 41.39 hectares described by the NBWL to be “unbroken”, 9 hectares has already been broken and mined and forest has been cleared in another 7 hectares. While the official reports claim that the southernmost tip of the open cast mining project site is located just on the boundary of the 10-km radius of the national park. There is ambiguity on the extent of notified Eco Sensitive Zone of the national park. However, many participants in the e-protests were distracted by debates if the open cast mining site is located inside Dibru Saikhowa National Park and not by the larger issues of fallout of the mining activities in the elephant reserve. Dehing Patkai Wildlife Sanctuary with a total area of 111 sq km is a part of this elephant reserve (937 sq km).

Photo : Ratna Bharali Talukdar

The motive of this criticism of netizens’ effort of raising voice against the mining project is not to ignore the fact of conservation of nature. Indeed, the ongoing e-protest has shown the consciousness among people about conservation. Instead, this is just a preliminary trial to broaden the conversation around it.

To attain a satisfactory implementation of conservation demands around this issue, the ecological milieu has to be understood from a broader geo-regional framework. The hydropower projects in and around the pristine forest area of Dibang valley of Arunachal Pradesh, ongoing open cast mining in the places of upper Assam as well as Meghalaya, recent approval for oil drilling in Dibru-saikhuwa wildlife sanctuary are very much related. The primary relation comes from the narrative around so-called development model. However, it is quite visible the promise of employment generation for the native indigenous people around these kinds of project areas is myths. It is a crafted illusion not a reality. On the contrary, what indigenous people keep on loosing because of the flawed development model is enormous and proliferate more displacement from cultural heritage practices.

If we consider the forested vicinity around Patkai region, this region is known for its rich Biodiversity falling under the Indo-Myanmar bio-geographic region. It comes under foothills of Eastern Himalayas, represents vibrancy in terms of the number of indigenous communities residing here. Tangsa Naga, Singpho, Tai Phake, Khamti, Ahom, Sema Naga, Mishing, Nepali etc. One of the significant characteristics of this milieu is that the same indigenous community lives in different political vicinity under this ecological umbrella, whereby, there is a persisting ecological social network among people residing in different political boundaries.

This persisting network mainly exits due to similar traditional practices around bio-resource management among these indigenous communities. One such prominent community is Singpho who are historically known for their traditional practice of tea cultivation, which was imbibed and capitalised by Britishers later. Among Singpho villages, there are 18 village forests. Moreover, they have a traditional practice of rice cultivation and they have 11 varieties of rice seeds cultivation. This area is also a rich belt of agroforestry, the highest production of orange of Assam happen in this region. Through these examples, the intention is to trace the focus on the discussion around the relationship between people and forest.

Photo : Ratna Bharali Talukdar

The traditional knowledge among these indigenous people is being shaped by the ecological milieu and the very traditional knowledge defines their livelihood and other practices. However, there is no denial of the fact that in this period of neoliberal economic structure, the consumerist behaviour has also managed some places among these indigenous people and there is an aspiration for development. At the same time, there cannot also be a denial of the fact that there is always a practice of misusing the sentiment of aspiration of these people to benefit the corporates. Thus, on the contrary to this kind of development projects, these areas lack certain basic facilities. There is a lack of adequate facilities for fulfilling basic needs like drinking water, sanitation, health facilities, education, facilities and inputs for agriculture, transport and communication, the reliable market system for agricultural produces etc.

However, one significant advantage of online protest can be the initiating the process of lobbying for emphasising on a certain alternative model. Here, one can think of lobbying around the framing of the region-specific economic model. At the same time, there is a need to address this issue with the help of a legal structure.

The approach of impact assessment – what is the stake of the local community:

The plight of indigenous people is accelerated by the sheer negligence in terms of understanding their situations. This negligence is being reflected in many of the recent environment related policies. The question needs to be asked from the core of the approach.

The approach of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has certain major loopholes. The EIA is overwhelmingly concretised as a scientific process of measurement and mapping. The process is mostly limited to sketching a map of the proposed area to figure out whether human settlements come under this area or not, which is mostly done through Geographical Information System (GIS) and for that practically visiting these areas becomes unimportant. Moreover, in another sense, there is ample scope to say that the EIA process is a profit-making business for many consultancy firms under the name of the scientific approach. Since it comes under the calculation of profit and loss, such consultancy firm’s emphasis on the maximisation of profit through minimisation of time allotment and the number of labour powers. Thus, citizen’s participation and scientific based assessment is a rare phenomenon.

Photo : Samsul Huda Patgiri

Leopold Matrix is a qualitative impact assessment method, which helps in identifying the impact of various practices of a particular project on the environments, where there is the scope of participation of local dwellers to put up points regarding the importance of various environmental assets in their lives. But this method is rarely used.

Moreover, in the overall approach to EIA should be one which priority on the participation of people and participation does not mean involving only certain institutions like, panchayat. The approach should be sensitive enough to consider the fact that the societal milieu is framed through structural inequalities existed in the form of caste, class, gender-based hierarchies. To discuss through the perspective of a societal milieu of the political boundary of Assam, if reliance is poured on the institution like Panchayats for socio-economic impact assessment, the space to raise the voice of many minorities (in numbers) indigenous communities is very meagre.

The minute ground-based assessment keeping in mind the existing societal structural inequalities become more important in the context of an area where open cast mining practice is very prominent. The intensity of exploitation of mineral resources along with the lack of accountability impacts hugely on the ecology. The radius in terms of the impacted region is broadened in this context that the open cast mining transforms the whole ecological system.

Moreover, the dilemma of this kind where there is ambiguity of the stake of local dwellers in the so called scientific approaches of development model, it is quite prevalent that the indigenous communities across world have been losing their space of autonomy and their dignity as communities cohabiting with nature. The implementation of rights provided by international indigenous rights’ forums of United Nations is important. The implementation of the process of ‘free point consent’ can make a suitable place for indigenous people to participation in the EIA process. But what is inevitable here is the fact of existence of imbalance of power dynamics, so sensitively incorporating a sociological lens is important.

The process of dichotomy and illusion get accelerated with the absent of the voice of actual suffers, in this context they are indigenous community. To incorporate their voices and concerns, the change has to come in the structural level. Moreover, the scientific rationality which are considered as the integral part of environment-based policy making processes, the amalgamation of a sociological lens with it is an utmost necessity. Moreover, though community-based discussion regarding this kind of policies are conducted, sheer use of technical language in those policies has distanced the aim of those community-based conduct from the actual fulfilment of its aim.

It is the time to develop a region specific alternative economic development model, along with initiative of a grass root movement to establish the process of ‘Ecological Democracy’.

Trishita Shandilya

(Trishita Shandilya is a Postgraduate student in Sociology at Delhi School of Economics. She can be reached at [email protected]. The views expressed are the author’s own.)