Saving Loktak ?
- Hueiyen Lanpao Editorial :: November 24 2011 -

Loktak Phumdi dwellers evicted by state government :: 15 November 2011 - Pix :: Rameshchandra / Karnajit Maibam - Hueiyen Lanpao

The eviction of phumdi dwellers in the Loktak lake, an exercise which began on November 15 has evoked angry protest from the affected while many have expressed indignation and condemnation at the dislocation of the fisherman from their environ.

The manner of the displacement - forceful eviction accompanied by burning down of phumdi huts also came in for much criticism from various quarters.

The plight of the fisherfolks who have been part of the the loktak environment - living in and with it and earning their livelihood is understandable.

The eviction will also leave a huge impact on the women and children, affecting their day to day life and also leave them staring at a bleak future.

And the Compensation amount of Rs 40,0000 per family is bound to prove too little to start a new life. Even if the government's claim that all the phumdi dwellers need to be evicted is accepted, the resettlement and rehabilitation should have been done with much more understanding of the problems which the fisherfolk will be facing.

Monetary compensations, it is a well known experience, rarely brings a life back on track thrown topsy turvy by dislocation.

The eviction was carried out under section 20 of the Loktak Protection Act 2006 which prohibits among other things, plant or cultivate athaphum; deposit or fix any stones, bamboo, log, net etc., into the lake for thee a purpose of rearing fish; build any hut or house on phumdis inside the lake. engage in athapum-fishing in the lake; use any fishing feeds and pesticides into the lake; within an area of the lake which is designated as 'core'.

This section, as is clear, will have an adverse effect on the fisherfolk in terms of not just eviction from their phumdi huts but also on their fishing practice.

They would now have to learn new ways of fishing to keep themselves afloat, used as they are to phumnamba, fixing nets, etc some of the most productive ways of fishing. One can even read a design to keep the fisherfolk away, at least from the core area of the lake.

The stated aim of the eviction was conservation of the Loktak lake. It is true that the once clear water of Loktak lake is now full of phums, most of which are the specifically planted ones or the athaphums by fisherman. This, no doubt, has had a very negative impact on the ecological balance of the Loktak lake.

But it should also be remembered that since the building of the Ithai barrage on the Manipur river, the natural phumdis which should have flowed down the river had also remained stagnant within the confines of the lake.

This is a perennial problem which would remain even after the eviction of the phumdi dwellers and the government or the rather the Loktak Development Authority will continue to spend crores of rupees at regular intervals to clean up the lake.

Then there is the danger of shallowing of the lake as the deposits from various sources are not allowed flow down the river because of the damming, this problem is also not going to go away even after the eviction of the phum dwellers. If the government is really serious about saving the lake, it should try and find a permanent solution to these problems also.

It is clear that the state government in its new found mantra of tapping tourism prospects of the land is keen to develop Loktak lake as a tourist destination with clear waters and free movement of motor boats and jetties to ferry the tourist to and fro.

Then there is the security reason for keeping the lake accessible to free movement of high speed motor boat. The acquisition of the hovercrafts was meant to be used precisely for the purpose of restricting the free movement of armed groups within the lakes.

With the eviction of fisherfolk, the state government is apparently attempting to kill three birds at one go - conserve the ecological balance of the lake, rid it of the presence of armed groups and develop it as one of the preferred tourist spots. But the question is, which one of these is the real intended target?