[Thu Aug 17, 2000 11:12 pm]

It is really wonderful to see such an active participation once again. There is nothing I believe more strongly than the principle of pluralism and the freedom to express one's differences and respecting that from others. That is why in a lot of my mails I tend to be fairly critical without sounding apologetic because I take this premise of freedom of expression for granted. It is through constant debate that we ensure that progress happens in the right direction. And to see that alive and kicking in this forum gives me tremendous joy.

And like always I would like to state my slightly different view on the Tipaimukh Dam.

I remember watching a documentary here debating the virtues of the hydroelectric projects being undertaken in the developing countries. The world bank which was sanctioning and promoting these projects were firmly committed that it was the essential catalyst to bring about development in a country as without energy, development cannot happen and the developing countries had ridiculous undersupply of energy preventing them from progressing. On the other hand the environmentalist were putting on pressure through the political processes in the developed countries where the politicians were a lot more "green" conscious and were being successful partially in getting their countries to apply pressure to the World Bank as they were substantial donors to the organisation. In fact a lot of the projects were now not getting any more aid from the world bank.

Being someone who has always favoured to push for change, I agree to some of the points raised by the world bank. The GREEDINESS for economic development can only be met by the displacement of the poor. The poor people who inhabit the surrounding areas of the project are always going to be displaced and that is going to end their way of living and forcing them to a different life style. To that he asked if the environmentalists who were clamouring to prevent these people being displaced, could live in the same conditions and life style that the people in that region were living. Though not apparent initially, these projects eventually give the same people who were displaced a more improved life style with jobs, electricity and running water that spinsoff from the new energy that has been created from the project.

I am not ignoring the emotional scars that is associated with the uprooting of generations of traditions and their way of subsistence living they had. There is no denying the current generation will definitely feel these scars but the next generation is going to enjoy a more improved lifestyle. The change is abrupt but it is a change that every society has gone through with no regrets. We burn up power stations when we do not get electricity. Ofcourse we are no longer subsistent and cannot collect firewood or water living in the cities and neither will these communities as their population grows.

Now the question asked is how can we judge the improvement in their lifestyle according to our values. Are they necessarily having a better lifestyle just because they have running water and electricity and hence accelerates along the inevitable path to progress of better education, better health facility and better income and more development in the economic growth of the township/village.

Change is something which everyone tries to resist which we see even in the experiments in the medical field. In the same way we are fighting the ethics of genetic research, test tube babies too were being challenged and the pioneering doctors who secretly experimented and got caught were expelled from their hospitals. Now it is considered a boon to couples who would otherwise not have been able to raise children of their own. We want to let the underdeveloped natives and indians of every country live in their cocooned world in their own primitive ways. It is considered inhumane and immoral to push them to follow the path that the developed world has gone.

But I want to question why is that so ? Let us just take our own community. Why do we want to have cars, fridges, telephones, better transport, better hospitals, more flights linking to the cities. Our forefathers had none of it. With the passing of time every new commodity/gadget goes through its stages from being a luxury item to being an essential item.

But most important is the GREEDINESS for economic growth. No pain no gain. Dificult decisions have to be made on the way to progress. The area has been identified as the most suitable one and the unpalatable need to displace the community living in that area is something we can not do without if the dam is to be built. Of course we can challenge the validity of the survey and the reports. And we have to be very fair in compensating the people being displaced and I fully support their demands of training and preferential job appointments to the community. But the truth is power is needed to provide the thrust to develop of the community. How are we going to have an industry with the current state of power supply. Who is going to set up a software company in Manipur even if there is zero state tax ? We can manage to develop economicaly without proper transport and access to raw materials by stressing more on knowlege based industries like software, but without power supply, nothing can happpen.

As the world bank states, energy harnessing is mandatory to bring about development. But of course we should not close our eyes and buldoze through any area and so challenging the choice of location is very important. However let us realize that projects to harness more energy has to be top of the agenda in the planning of the state.

[Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:58 pm]

I finally got to read the article of Arundhati Roy that Dilip sent and it was wonderful reading. But most of the flaws that I see are endemic to corrupt countries like ours. Benefits of the project that are promised to the displaced people and the underprivileged regions are never met as the greed of the corrupt politicians are devoid of any moral obligation towards improving the plight of the underprivileged. As she rightly points out, to them such big projects are only seen as mere opportunities to fill up their own coffers. The world bank does not see it that way.

To them it is a genuine commitment towards enabling the development of these countries. And I want to focus on that angle. Where projects to generate energy is taken up under strict supervision from the public to ensure that fairness, however costly, is ensured in terms of both compensation and benefits from the project to every citizen of the place.

I saw another interesting documentary on the world's energy consumption and the global warming. It showed how rapidly the consumption of energy was shooting up all over the world. Coal and other organic materials like petroleum being the major source of energy (over 70%), more CO2 were being released adding to the global warming. Fearing this Al Gore had promoted a push to reduce the emissions of CO2 by all countries of the world. The developing countries would not have any of it as they felt that the developed countries were the ones who have been predominantly responsible for it in the first place. Committing to this reduction would never let them catch up with the developed nations as they need more energy to drive their development and sources like wind and solar were unaffordable to them.

The Kyoto protocol was finally signed after the developing nations were excluded. But the US congress refused to pass the bill by a vote of 96-0 ! After all the talk of trying to save the environment and preventing world bank aid to developing countries to stop the construction of dams in the name of safeguarding environmental protection, the country which was the richest in the world had not even a single person who felt he/she should support the bill !!! And the reason was ... fear that the US industries would be non competitive if forced to use the other costly but non polluting energy sources. The environment has always had to pay a price for economic development. Some of you may question the need for economic development supporting countries like Bhutan where there is a big push towards increasing GNH (Gross national happiness) rather than gross national product so i will address that too.

Energy production is very important to the economic development of a country. There is no questioning this premise. Progress is strongly driven by economic growth (I know there will be many challengers to this assumption). For poor states like ours, the only viable energy source is hydro. We could use small renewable solar, wind and micro hydro projects to supply remote small villages in the hills but we still need to address the important energy demand in the city to drive the factories that will provide jobs for the city inhabitants.

Economy goes much beyond progress. And the most important of them all is its effect on society. All the social ills that we currently have are borne of a region where the economy is in shambles. Every country in the world that is currently in trouble is predominantly an economic disaster. Once you have a healthy economy where the majority of the people have employment and can feed their children, social ills will tend to be minimal. Unless it happens to be a community that can still survive by growing their own food and living with subsistence farming. The people living in the villages who still have their paddy farms can survive but what percentage is that of the manipur population. If we had enough factories in Manipur employing most of the adults, who is going to worry about taking up arms and trying to secede putting their lives at risk. Why would anyone be motivated to try to work hard at school when he/she sees everyone else unable to get a job without paying the bribes.

Yes I know we have people like Dinesh who has shown that it can be done but we have to admit that people like him are special. Not everyone can be as brilliant and have the same amount of drive as him. To anyone who wants to argue this ask yourself why everyone in this world is not an Einstein. There has to be opportunity for the less driven, less intelligent people to make a decent living by securing a job in any country with a decent economy. With the population growing as rapidly as we have in our region, we can't let the status quo remain. We can't continue to live the way our forefathers did as we need more resources then them. We have to create and change to be able to still survive with the growing demands of an ever growing population. And with change comes the inevitable destruction to the environment. We have to minimise that damage and the disruption to other humans which in overpopulated places like ours is going to be very difficult.

Every developed country has been driven by the major power generating projects that they have built. In Australia they have the snowy mountain dam that reduced a once mighty river to a mere trickle during the dry season. Imagine what damage it did to the wild life. They didn't have to worry too much about displacing inhabitants as luckily it wasn't as populated as the developing countries. But the entire australian farming regions that drives the economy of the country was possible because of the water it got from it. Even now there is a big dispute with environmentalist pushing to release more water to the original river but it is unlikely to happen. It is all so easy to take an environmental stand but before that one has to weigh the practical cost of that decision in the long term. If the economy was to collapse because of that decision, it will have far reaching consequences on the population on the long term. It is not just greed but survival to some extent. The way backwards is not always possible and we have to keep pushing forward to survive. And by that I mean we cann't get the whole world to go back to susbsistence farming anymore.

[Thu Aug 31, 2000 8:35 pm]

I just learnt today that they make chop sticks out of bamboo and that is a fantastic opportunity for us to set up a chopstick making factory. It is an instantly consumed commodity and given that more people are eating out and the population exploding, the demand is going to keep increasing. So we do not have to compete much to enter into this market. We need someone to investigate the technology and the machinery required and it is going to be a wonderful, GREEN, money spining industry.

Dilip I think Malaysia will definitely be having a chop stick factory and if so can you please let me know how complicated those machines are and how much a finished chop stick cost. That of course is if you have the time.

But then where is the power going to come from ? That's why I am so vocal to get power generation stabilised in the state. We can't run any industry with alternate day load shedding. I remember my father taking me to a friend's place a long time ago who was trying to run a small metal factory that was making our gate. He was praising his entrepreneurial skills and extolling on how the state needs more people like him when at that moment the electricity went off. Now how do you expect the person to be motivated to grow his business.

We have to plan for the development of the area given our handicaps and the solutions are going to be a lot more painful and detrimental to the environment then what can be achieved in the developed world. The developed countries wouldn't have been where they are if they too hadn't flooded huge areas with their dams and cleared up all the forests to make way for their massive farmlands. Now the third world is made to look callous for doing just that because they have already done it and reaped the economical rewards. Why don't they reclaim the farmlands from their farmers and reinstate the forests.

New York too was a beautiful lush hilly terrain that was cleared and levelled much like our chinga hillock in singjamei. I am not saying that it is good practice to burn down forests but am question the moral right of these countries and people to question it. If they want Brazil and Indonesia to not burn down the forest to make way for more farmlands and be the lungs of the world, then the rest of the world should pay these countries for the oxygen being generated for the rest of the world. Now they wouldn't want to pay for that but expect even the poorest countries to pay for their royalties on medicines and books. Now that is hypocrisy of the greedy.

[Sun Sep 29, 2002 4:03 pm]

Interesting article for those "intellectuals" and future leaders of manipur trying to figure out economic solutions. Swaminomics article in the times of india are very interesting reading. This brings me to the topic of the tipaimukh dam controversy in manipur. I had debated over this almost 3 years ago in the manipuri forum that the dam should go ahead after ofcourse ensuring an equitable compensation for the displaced people. WE are no longer a subsistence farming community and need the economy to be boosted and what drives that is the source of energy - electricity. Energy is so important that Bush is going to war for that !

We have to debate out manipur's fair share of the electricity if most of the land submerged is in our state when the distribution of land is in the state. But even if that does not happen in paper, once the dam is in the state, there is a lot more control over electricity and irrigation water distribution. I know that from loktak, in times of power shortage, manipur does not send the requisite percentage to the other states.

But we have to ensure that the people being displaced are fairly compensated.

[Sun Dec 22, 2002 6:13 am]

"The state government will ensure that the Grade III and IV staffs of the project are from the state only."
- I hope this is not just a verbal agreement but a writen part of the MOU.

"the state share being 12 percent Manipur "
- 12 percent for the state where the plant is stationed sounds like exploitation. They should mention the percentage allocation for the other states.

"The state's peak hour consumption being only 120 MW, once the projects are completed there would be no power crisis."
- I hope the minister's statement factors in the projected increase in state demand of electricity for the years when the project will be completed. Also just like loktak project, because of water shortage, the plant wil probably run at 75% of it's capacity !

"After hectic negotiations the compensation amount has been reduced from Rs 68.15 crores to Rs 18 crores." !!
- That is a 75% reduction and needs scrutiny !

http://www.e-pao.net/GP.asp?src=2.7.211202.dec02
home >> news section

Tipaimukh, Loktak hydro power projects works to begin in March 2003: Allauddin
Source: Manipur Mail

Imphal, December 20: The construction works for Tipaimukh hydro power project and Loktak Downstream power project will begin in March 2003 according to the MOS Power Allauddin Khan.Both the projects will be protected by two battalions of CRPF he said.

Speaking to media persons today Allauddin said the NEEPCO will look after the Tipaimukh project which will be constructed at a cost of about Rs 5255 crores.

It is estimated to be completed by 2008. Once completed it will produce 1500 MW of electricity and the state share being 12 percent Manipur will get 180 mw of power. The MoU is yet to be signed. It will be signed soon.

The state government will ensure that the Grade III and IV staffs of the project are from the state only. The Loktak downstream project estimated around Rs 677 crores will produce 90 MW of power and it will be constructed by NHPC. After hectic negotiations the compensation amount has been reduced from Rs 68.15 crores to Rs 18 crores.

The state government is also taking several other power projects with the capacity of 10 to 15 MW. The state's peak hour consumption being only 120 MW, once the projects are completed there would be no power crisis. The state will be in a position to sale power to Myanmar and Bangladesh he said.

[Thu Dec 26, 2002 5:12 pm]

I have again dug up some tipaimukh discussions from the manipuri group archives. Have been meaning to do this for a while as tipaimukh is a very important issue. To sum it all I support it's development and so we should not be arguing for it to be stopped but to get the best deal out for manipur. I know this development is meant to probably serve more of other states than ours at our expense but frankly beggars cant be choosers. There is talk of multi micro projects along the barak river instead of 1 big tipaimukh project.

One must not forget that manipur does not have any money for these projects. The tipaimukh dam is being built because NEEPCO has the money for it. And so we have to kiss their arse to get the dam built. The debate should be on how to minimise the NEEPCO arse kiss! In the MOU we have to try to argue for the increase of manipur's share of electricity. If tipaimukh generates at most 600 MW instead of 1500 MW, we should continue to get the 150 MW (10% of 1500MW). also if all the other previous sites for the dam in assam were opposed to then manipur should be able to drive a harder bargain in the negotiation.

Manipur I am convinced will benefit from the project so it is a question of how much quoto of the electricity is a fair exchange for the losses to manipur for submerging our land and displacing our people to save the flooding in assam. Unfortunately this development is at the expense of villages being affected so compensation and resettlement has to be more fairly awarded.

Here are the relevant links to both the pro and anti dam views.

PRO:
http://www.manipuronline.com/Features/October2002/tipaimukhcontroversy11_1.htm

AGAINST:
http://www.e-pao.net/epPageExtractor.asp?src=features.tipaimukh.html..

[Wed Feb 5, 2003 5:22 pm]

Further to my previous post from the archives ( you will need to have a yahoo mail id to access it. I again advise members to choose a yahoo mail id for this reason) I did some more investigations. We should not be looking to subsistence farming and Indian govt handouts in the farming sector as the way forward for manipur. The environmentalist are way out of step with the urgent need of electricity in developing regions to drive economic development by facilitating industries and business.

So the need is to ensure that the displaced and affected people are compensated fairly. I was initially worried about the split of the tipaimukh electricity amongst the various states and was investigating ways to negotiate a bigger share of the generated electricity and came across the articles below. With so much potential for hydro power in the North East I am sure in the next 10 years we will definitely have no electricity shortage even at peak time if we do not have protest like tipaimukh stalling all the proposed hydro projects.

I was surprised to see that the Dihang and Subansiri project has a higher projected production than the 3 gorges dam in china ! The infratructure like roads and communication that such a large project as tipaimukh will promote in manipur cannot be ignored.

http://www.rediff.com/business/2000/jan/07ne.htm
January 7, 2000
Arunachal to get world's biggest power project

http://northeast.nic.in/power.htm
DEVELOPMENT OF POWER SECTOR IN NORTH EASTERN REGION
HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER POTENTIAL

[Sat Jul 26, 2003 8:00 am]

The real noor behind healing hearts

This is a related article to the ones below from the archives. We need politicians providing such conducive environment to professional manipuris willing to bring back the knowledge in their professions to the state. But most important is the need for an infrastructure to enable economic development and there is nothing more crucial than cheap and reliable energy source which in our case is hydro power. So when you oppose the tipaimukh dam , debate on this crucial factor and not on how the displaced people and the environment are affected. Because that is self evident and known to all but the question is despite these drawbacks, is the overall picture better if we can catalyse economic development with the hydro power that could help the same displaced people and environment later once the state becomes more affluent.

That is the same "trickle down" capitalistic philosophy employed by the republicans in the US as though they are cutting down social security related programs that affect the lower income people while giving more tax breaks to the wealthy, economy driving entrepreneurs at the top tax bracket.

The reasoning is that once the economy improves, the wealth generated pervades and trickles down to the poor eventually. On the other hand if the money was instead given off to the poor and withheld from the economy driving entrepreneurs, the economy would continue shrinking making the poor even worse off eventually. That is the same logic with the tipaimukh dam.

The displaced people will no doubt be disadvantaged more than those not dispalced in the state. However, the plight of all residents of the state including those displaced ( I admit at great cost to them) will be eventually better off in a richer, stronger economy, better infrastructure state brought about by cheaper, more reliable electricity source. And it is ludicrous to stop such crucial (I admit costly to the displaced people) development just because only one set of people has to make the sacrifice. This will always be the case as given our heavy population some people will always be displaced and environment damaged by such massive infrasrtucture development.

The debate should be on how best to minimise and more important fairly compensate those affected. And I know how promises are never kept so critical thinking has to be done on how to ENSURE guarantees that a mutually acceptable compensation package cannot be reneged on later.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Manipur-Diaspora/message/401
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Manipur-Diaspora/message/404