 |
||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
||
| Compensation Awarded to Uttarakhand Agitators (February 9, 1996)
A historic verdict (February 14, 1996) Uttarkhand: Fresh look needed (August 13, 1996) PM playing vote politics, feel Hill students (August 16, 1996) CPI(M) to oppose bill on Uttarakhand (August 16, 1996) Uttarakhand Samiti gives up boycott plan (August 21, 1996) Imaginary discontents? (August 30, 1996) Uttarakhand region needs dressing up (August 30, 1996) Uttarakhand gearing for rejuvenation (August 30, 1996) |
Compensation Awarded to Uttarakhand Agitators
From Our Staff Correspondent (The Hindu) LUCKNOW, Feb. 9, 1996 In a judgment of far-reaching consequences, the Allahabad High Court today awarded a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs each to the dependents of those killed during the agitation for creation of a separate hill State of Uttarakhand comprising the Kumaon and Garhwal divisions of Uttar Pradesh. The Court also ordered payment of compensation totalling Rs. 2.5 lakhs each to those who had sustained grievous injuries resulting in permanent disability and Rs. 50,000 each for other injured persons and those illegally detained by the administration. The number of such persons was about 400. In its judgment in the case of human rights violations during the agitation which was launched when Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav was Chief Minister of U.P., the Court held that the crime of rape was parallel to that of causing death and the rape victims were also awarded a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs each. Those subjected to sexual molestation were awarded Rs. 5 lakhs each. A Division Bench of the High Court comprising Mr. Justice R. S. Dhawan and Mr. Justice A. B. Srivastava passed the orders on a bunch of six writ petitions filed on behalf of different groups of persons, the main one coming from the Uttarakhand Sangharsh Samiti. On October 7, 1994, the Court had directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the cases of human rights violations committed by the police officials during the agitation by the hill people to press their demand for a separate hill State. The Court observed that there was no need to go through the process of seeking Government sanction to proceed against any guilty official as it could be no part of the official duties of Government servants to shoot, molest or rape unprotected citizens. It was suggested that the State Government might consider establishment of a Human Rights Commission to deal with complaints arising within the State as envisaged in the Human Rights Act, 1992. Observing that unusual belligerence had been shown towards the people demonstrating for the hill State, the Court ordered payment of damages as reparation to be made for constitutional wrongs committed against the `people of Kumaon and Garhwal'. The burden of the payment was to be shared by the Government of U. P. and the Central Government and it was to be an amount equivalent to one rupee per person per month, based on the population of the region, for a period of five years. The Court ordered that the compensation amount be earmarked specifically for a programme for uplift of women. The specific allocations would be finalised by a committee under the chairmanship of the Commissioners of Kumaon and Garhwal and with the representatives to the State Assembly and the Lok Sabha from the respective area as also the district magistrates as its members. Investigations which had not been completed by the CBI should be finalised and the charge-sheets submitted without any more delay, the Court ordered. Copies of such charge-sheets should be filed within two months on the record of these cases before the Court. The Court observed that politics was moving away from health into a state in which politicians lost their perspective and regard for cardinal principles. The Court had ordered compensation of such amount to the victims as could be seen significant to act as a deterrent to such abuses in future.
Editorial (The Hindu) Feb. 14, 1996 MR. MULAYAM SINGH YADAV, former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, was as good as his word when he tendered a public apology in terms of the promise he had made that if the High Court held his Government guilty of human rights violation of Uttarkhand agitationists, particularly women, he would not hesitate to express his regrets over what had happened during his regime. It may be recalled that on October 2, 1994 which incidentally happens to be the birthday of the world's greatest apostle of peace and non-violence, Mahatma Gandhi, the Uttar Pradesh police and the Provincial Armed Constabulary opened fire in Muzaffarnagar on about 8,000 Uttarkhand activists wanting to go to Delhi for a rally killing at least eight persons even as the leaders of the movement strongly condemned the police action as totally unprovoked and deliberate. There had been allegations that policemen gangraped women left in a bus after the police firing on the highway. And not until violence spread to the other areas in the hills did the Government care to order an inquiry into the sordid happenings. The question whether there was a case for the creation of a separate State comprising the hill districts was relegated to the background after the police had tried to suppress the movement by resorting to high handed behaviour subjecting the people to violence and misery. An all-party parliamentary delegation that visited Muzaffarnagar soon after the tragic incidents arrived at a consensus that the Uttar Pradesh police and the civil administration were definitely guilty of committing excesses on the Uttarkhand agitationists, especially on women, on the fateful day of October 2, 1994. When the matter was taken up by the Allahabad High Court as a case of violation of human rights filed on behalf of different groups, including the Uttarkhand Sangharsh Samiti, the Division Bench observed that politics was moving away from health into a state in which politicians lost their perspective and regard for cardinal principles. The Court while ordering payment of compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs each to the dependents of those killed during the agitation held that the crime of rape was parallel to that of causing death and the rape victims were also awarded a similar amount. Those subjected to sexual harassment were awarded Rs. 5 lakhs each. The judgment makes clear the gravity of the offenses committed by the Government agencies and the observation that unusual belligerence was shown towards the demonstrating public was a severe indictment of the law and order enforcing functionaries. Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav was obviously convinced at that point of time that the allegations of police atrocities were exaggerated and his ordering of a judicial inquiry was not a spontaneous decision although it was apparent that the police went berserk possibly at the instigation of some higher-ups. It is in this context that the High Court's direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the cases of human rights violation committed by the police officials assumes special significance. The Court also held there was no need to go through the process of seeking Government sanction to proceed against any guilty official as -it could be no part of the official duties of Government servants to shoot, molest or rape unprotected citizens. Mr. Mulayam Singh did not see the writing on the wall and if he thought that by merely ordering a judicial inquiry his responsibility for the crimes committed by his Government was all over, he was sadly mistaken. There is a lesson here for those in power. Riding roughshod by those in authority over political opponents and those who do not fall in line with the government s policy is not going to be an easy affair anymore. Even the officials who obey palpably wrong orders of the Government should think twice before plunging into action that could be questioned in courts of law which in recent months have emerged as the guardians of peoples rights and liberties.
Uttarakhand: Fresh look needed Opinion (The Hindu) Aug. 13, 1996 THE DEMAND FOR the creation of Uttarkhand comprising the eight hill districts of Uttar Pradesh has once again come to the fore with the Congress(I) expressing its strong support to the proposal. There are authentic reports to the effect that the former Prime Minister, Mr. P. V. Narasimha Rao, has also written to the Prime Minister, Mr. Deve Gowda, that the Centre should take an early decision on the issue of granting Union Territory status to the Uttarkhand region. Mr. Rao is believed to have said that the issue had been pending for a long time and the creation of a Union Territory for the region would fulfil the legitimate aspirations of the people and also expedite development of the region. It is surprising that Mr. Narasimha Rao who has shown so much concern for the people of the hill region now did not think it wise to act on the proposal although he was at the helm in New Delhi for an uninterrupted period of five years. Some two years ago the Uttar Pradesh Assembly had passed a resolution recommending to the Centre that a separate State should be created comprising the eight hill districts. When Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav was the Chief Minister a ministerial committee which was set up to examine the proposal had submitted a comprehensive report indicating the modalities for the formation of a new Hill State. A little earlier too during the BJP regime in Uttar Pradesh the Assembly had urged formation of a Hill State. Although the preponderant opinion of the leaders of all parties hailing from the hill districts was in favour of separate statehood for the region, the Centre did not favour the idea. With elections to the Uttar Pradesh Assembly in the offing there is a spurt of activity on this issue although before New Delhi takes a decision the proposal has to be studied in the national context. Even when the States Reorganisation Commission was examining the creation of linguistic States it was urged before it that physically and geographically the hill and plateau regions of Uttar Pradesh had little in common with the Gangetic Valley. Further the hill region was totally neglected and hence it was much better that a new State was carved out which was the only guarantee that the region would get its due. The Commission did not see much force in the argument nor did it accept the allegation of neglect of some parts or for that matter of any portion of the State. This was 40 years ago and there have been several changes in the State during this long period. The people of the hill region strongly feel that their needs have been consistently ignored by successive Governments with their headquarters at Lucknow and there is now no alternative to giving a special status to the hill region. Slowly but surely almost all the political parties seem to have reconciled to this demand and the question is how exactly the region has to be treated in the new political context. The fear of the Centre all along has been that if separate statehood is granted to the hill districts similar demands which are much older cannot be set aside any more and this will only lead to the creation of units in the federation which cannot be self-sufficient. This is bound to impose fresh burdens on the Centre which it can ill-afford. At one time it was suggested that development councils should be set up in the hill region which will take care of the special needs of the hill's people in economic, social, educational and cultural spheres. In fact this could have been done long ago but the continued lack of interest in furthering the progress of the hill areas has led to the present situation in which the people seem to reject anything less than a separate statehood. Elections or no elections the demand needs serious consideration before the agitational approach now being thought of becomes violent as it is bound to.
PM playing vote politics, feel Hill students From Our Staff Reporter (The Hindu) DEHRA DUN, Aug. 16, 1996 Activists of the Students and Youth Alliance (SAYA) burnt an effigy of the Prime Minister, Mr. H. D. Dewe Gowda, at the Clock Tower today accusing him of playing vote politics before the Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections, by announcing to form the Uttarakhand State after securing a green signal from the Assembly that will come into existance after the polls. ``Had the Prime Minister been really honest about forming Uttarakhand, he would have announced a clear decision as the Uttar Pradesh Assembly had recommended it's formation twice in the past'', observed Mr. Manoj Dhyani, convenor of SAYA. The announcement has drawn flak from other action groups crusading for Uttarakhand as well as political parties. The Uttarakhand Sanyukt Sangharsh Samiti (USSS) while describing the announcement as a political gimmick has convened a meeting tomorrow to draw up an action plan for boycotting the Assembly polls. The Uttarakhand Jan Morcha and the Congress (I) have also opposed the announcement as a mere statement to woo the hill voters. In Tehri, a large number of residents staged a demonstration seeking postponement of Assembly elections in the Uttarakhand region till the separate State was formed. In Pauri and Srinagar, activists staged dharnas and sought the immediate formation of the hill State. In Pithoragarh, the Uttarakhand Kranti Dal (UKD) activists staged a rally complete with drums and put colour on each other describing the Prime Minister's announcement as a victory of their crusade that began over a decade ago. According to Mr. Chandrashekar Kappadi, district president of the UKD, Mr. Gowda's announcement was a pointer towards the success of their long drawn battle and the day was not far off when Uttarakhand would be finally formed. In Almora, the UKD has welcomed the announcement. Observers feel that the party was welcoming the announcement in a bid to establish it's credentials amongst the electorate before the elections. The party has planned a rally in Naini Tal on August 17. The Congress(T) has embarked upon a major drive in Kumaon division spreading word that the announcement for Uttarakhand State was made due to the efforts put in by Mr. Narain Dutt Tiwari. The Congress(I), which is now supporting the Uttarakhand demand, is being criticised by the people for claiming that Mr. Narasimha Rao had decided to accord Union Territory status to the hills when in power. Had it been so, Mr. Rao should have accorded the UT status to the region and not kept silent over the issue, is the general comment.
CPI(M) to oppose bill on Uttarakhand From Our Special Correspondent (The Hindu) NEW DELHI, Aug. 16, 1996 The CPI(M) plans to vote against the proposed bill on granting Statehood to Uttarakhand both in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly, and later in Parliament if it gets past the State legislature. Though its action is not likely to affect the fate of the legis lation since most of the parties are likely to support it, con sidering the public stand they have taken on the issue, the CPI(M) is keen on making the political point that the United Front Government cannot take its allies for granted, particularly while taking major policy decisions. The fact that the Prime Minister, Mr. H. D. Deve Gowda, has gone ahead and announced his Government's decision to give Statehood to Uttarakhand despite the CPI(M)'s known opposition to the idea has annoyed the party. While there was no official comment from the CPI(M), sources said it planned to convey its unhappiness to the UF leadership and reiterate its position on reorganisation of States. The CPI(M) has consistently taken the line that carving out new States on ethnic considerations is not a solution to economic backwardness of a particular region. It has repeatedly criticised the parties which are supporting the demand for a separate Ut tarkhand and described their support as politically motivated. The party general secretary, Mr. Harkishan Singh Surjeet, has been particularly critical of the bid to press the demand on the eve of the U.P. Assembly elections, and has contended that it is an attempt to gain political mileage on an emotive issue. Whether the CPI(M) sees the Prime Minister's announcement too in this light is not known, but given its strong views on the subject it would be surprising if it doesn't. The CPI(M)'s contention is that what is required is a policy which would ensure economic development of the region, generate employment and draw the people of Uttarkhand into the national mainstream. In its opinion, most of the parties which are cla mouring for a separate State of Uttarakhand are the same which have been responsible for its economic stagnation resulting in poverty and high levels of unemployment. ``By supporting the demand they are trying to cover up their own negligence'', say senior party leaders. More importantly, the party is worried about the political fall out of the decision. It fears that granting Statehood to one region would have a ``cascading'' effect and lend legitimacy to similar demands in other parts of the country. Demands for a separate Jharkhand State, a separate Bodoland and Chattisgarh would gain further momentum with the grant of statehood to Utta rakhand, according to the CPI(M) leaders. The party favours an autonomous council for Uttarakhand on the lines of the set-up in Darjeeling. This would mean considerable decentralisation and giving to the local authorities powers to run their own everyday affairs without interference from New Delhi or Lucknow. Adequate financial resources would need to be given to the State to help it develop the more backward regions. The CPI(M) leaders point out that the United Front's commitment to federalism is on test in Uttarakhand and other regions where similar agitations are taking place. In an article in this paper recently, Mr. Surjeet reminded the United Front that it had ``committed itself to strengthening the federal structure and to granting more powers to the States'' with all that it entailed in terms of giving them enough financial resources etc. The party expects the UF Government to translate this commitment into action, and supplement this with policies aimed at paying special attention to the backward regions. In its view, a federal and development-oriented approach towards the States rather than quickfix solutions like conferring Statehood is what is required to meet regional aspirations.
Uttarakhand Samiti gives up boycott plan From Our Staff Reporter (The Hindu) DEHRA DUN, Aug 21, 1996 The Uttarakhand Sanyukt Sangharsh Samiti (USSS) has withdrawn its poll boycott call following the Prime Minister's Independence Day announcement on Uttarakhand. Announcing this after a closed door meeting of the USSS at Rishikesh, Mr. Indramani Badoni, Mr. Kashi Singh Airi and Mr. Ranjit Singh Verma (all ex-MLAs) said that a high-level committee had been formed to interact with the Centre on the modalities of forming the new State. The leaders have also contacted the former High Court judge, Mr. Vijay Bahuguna, and others for a formal opinion on constitutional matters, it was told. Mr. Ranjit Singh Verma and others will be contacting the Union Home Minister and other concerned authorities next week to urge them not to hold elections to the 19 Assembly seats in the hills as the MLAs who would be thus elected would not have any legal standing either in Lucknow or in the new State's Assembly. However, if the constitution required elections to be held in this region, the USSS will decide later whether to contest the polls in league with the United Front or independently. USSS leaders feel that the new State should have at least 75 Assembly constituencies. This would require delimitation of the existing constituencies - a task which will take at least six months. Similarly, the leaders feel as it will require at least four years for the proposed capital at Gairsen to have the necessary infrastructure, the Uttarakhand secretariats at Dehra Dun and Naini Tal could function as the seats of the government before finally being shifted to Gairsen.
By Rajeev Dhavan (Opinion, The Hindu, Aug. 30, 1996) Warnings that statehood for Uttarakhand will trigger a chain reaction resulting in India's break-up are misconceived and mischievous. The case must be considered in its own right. INDIA'S Constitution works on a theory of un-equal federalism. Some States are large, some small. Some - like Jammu and Kashmir and Sikkim - reflect the historical circumstances within which they were inducted into the Union. There is a family of Articles in the Constitution [Art. 371 to 371 (I)] which contain special provisions for certain areas in the States of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Nagaland, Assam, Manipur, Andhra Pradesh, Sikkim, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh and Goa. The panchayat amendments which create a unique three-tier federalism in India do not apply to Nagaland, Meghalaya, Mizoram, the hill areas of Manipur, the hill areas under the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council and the Scheduled Tribal areas. Refusing to treat unequals equally, Indian federalism leans over to dispense favourable but unequal advantages to areas that need it. Conversely the representation of the States in the Lok Sabha, the Rajya Sabha and for Presidential elections reflects demographic differentials. The larger States of U.P. and Bihar with 139 million and 86 million people respectively not only lift a huge share of funds and resources but also hold the balance of electoral power that makes or breaks Union Governments. Even the demographically seventh largest Tamil Nadu has 55 million people. The edge given to largeness remains a grouse among smaller States. The Constitution does not treat unequals equally. We should not be embarrassed by our unequal federalism simply because it is different from other federal countries in the world. When a sub- continent dense with cultural variations brings people together, the Union is bound to consist of a mosaic of large and small units - with special areas getting special treatment. The Himalayan regions are special. So, indeed, are the tribal areas. If smaller States are required to protect these areas and bring social justice under conditions of sustainable development, the federal system must yield a sensible solution. Warnings that statehood for Uttarakhand will trigger a chain reaction resulting in India's break-up are misconceived and mischievous. The case of Uttarakhand as a full fledged Himalayan State must be considered in its own right. The argument of size is clearly wrong. The proposed State of Uttarakhand would cover 53.4 thousand sq.km., making it larger than Mizoram (21.9), Manipur (22.5), Meghalaya (22.5), Nagaland (16.5), slightly smaller than Himachal (55.7) and almost 60 per cent of Arunachal (83.5). Its population of 60.2 lakhs would make it the largest Hill State compared to the others (that is, Mizoram (6.9), Manipur (18.4), Meghalaya (17.7), Arunachal (16.5) and Himachal (51.7) and demographically the 18th largest State, just short of J&K's 77.2 lakhs). A large over-populated State in the HImalayas is ecologically absurd and unsound in principle. Uttarakhand's population is large enough to be viable but not so large as to offend the concept of a hill state. For those familiar with the area, Uttarakhand has a cultural and historical identity which is integral to each of its nine districts of Almora, Chamoli, Dehradun, Garhwal, Hardwar, Nainital, Pithoragarh, Tehri Garhwal and Uttarkashi. The people of this area are as proud of this identity which they regard as beautiful as the surroundings that produced it. To the English, this was Jim Corbett country. For Indians it houses the strong and vibrant culture and aspirations of the people of Kumaon and Garhwal. The existence of this identity is not inimical to the existence of the Union or a threat to security. The demand for a separate Uttarakhand does not raise the banner of revolt. Nor has it ever been anyone's case that the cultural identity of the area will pose future political barriers which will seek to cut itself off from the rest of the country. There is no reason for any political disputation over the creation of this new State. The CPI had advocated the demand as far back as 1952. Mr. Kalyan Singh's BJP Government of 1991-92 secured a unanimous resolution in support of Uttarakhand's creation as did the Mulayam Singh Government which followed. The Mulayam Government's high- handedness with the Uttarakhand agitation has created the false impression that the creation of this new State is politically contentious. In fact, this is not the case. The Congress conquered its discomfiture about the creation of Uttarakhand soon after demitting office. Some resistance over boundaries may come from residents of the Terai who do not wish their agricultural cultivation to be adversely affected. But, that is a matter of detail which can be easily resolved. Although comprising 18 per cent of U.P.'s area size, its less than 5 per cent of that State's population would yield only four MPs and not affect the significance of U.P. holding the balance of national politics within its palm. Instead of thinking of Uttarakhand as the commencement of a process of the disintegration of giant States like U.P., it is more realistic to think of it as the end of the process of creating Hill States stretching from Kashmir to Mizoram. Perhaps, following the creation of this new Hill State, West Bengal's hill regions may seek stronger recognition than a Hill Council area. Self-governance by hill-folk with hill-folk perspectives covering the Himalayas is an end-in-itself even though experience suggests that unscrupulous hill State Governments have ruthlessly cut down forests and despoiled the environment to line politicians' pockets with unearned wealth. It is not inconsistent with India's uniquely unequal federalism that the Hill States are treated as a class by themselves, with special arrangements and resources being made available to them to preserve their identity and sustain development in an area that has no parallel anywhere in the world. We sometimes overlook the fact that the Himalayan region is important to the whole world. The Union Government is right in taking the view that the earlier BJP and Samajwadi resolutions of the U.P. legislature were euphoric, carrying no other constitutional significance. It is the proposed Bill (not a mere back-dated resolution) that has to be placed before the U.P. legislature for approval. It is wise to wait for the new U.P. Assembly to approve the Bill. But the Bill will have to be followed by detailed legislation which will structure governance in Uttarakhand, and make special provisions to protect its peoples, their lifestyles and the environment. Article 3 of India's Constitution makes it possible for the boundaries of the States (though not of the Union) to be altered. The lack of territorial viability for the States has provoked the criticism that India is only a quasi-federal polity. In fact it is a creative provision. Nomenclature is irrelevant. After the creation of Andhra (1954), Gujarat (1960), Haryana (1966) and many hill and other States, India is richer in its creation of linguistic and other identites. In the past these transitions have been politically charged and painful. Earlier it was thought that to attach a premium on the preservation of identity and the celebration of difference was intrinsically bad because it was inclusionary and would breed insularity. It was the Andhra campaign of 1954 that changed these earlier biases. Nehru's Government soon realised that linguistic identities brought people together without undermining national integration. By itself, the creation of Uttarakhand is not controversial, but it is in danger of walking into needless controversy. Imagined fears and discontents distort our understanding of the reason for the creation of Uttarakhand. The wider problems of Indian federalism do not have to be resolved as a prelude to creating this new Hill State. No doubt, there are bigger problems ahead. India's external boundaries were re-drawn by the British in 1947, by Pakistan's usurpation of parts of Kashmir and by the creation of Bangladesh in 1971. The changes in its internal map are not an affront to its federalism but its fulfilment. Some Indian States -especially U.P. and Bihar - contain populations larger than most of the larger nations of the world and need to be broken up into smaller units. The quest for smaller and manageable identities will not lead to the balkanisation of India but make democratic governance more meaningful. The creation of Uttarakhand will complete the decentralisation of the Hill States. The more difficult tasks lie ahead. The problems of Indian federalism need to be thought through; and, not fought out to the bitter end. For the moment the case for Uttarakhand should not be dragged into, or be undermined by, the wider controversies that confront us.
Uttarakhand region needs dressing up From Our Staff Reporter (The Hindu) PAURI GARHWAL, Aug. 30, 1996 Promotion of lesser known natural beauty spots and shrines for pilgrims, domestic and foreign tourists and adventure sports like skiing and river rafting, revival of the age old `chatti' system, a broad based network of cottage industries based on locally available resources and hydro power generation through small and medium sized ecologically and geologically friendly run-of-the river schemes could prove a boon to the economy of the Uttarakhand region. The Garhwal and Kumaon hills abound in spots of natural beauty and holy shrines, local residents point out. Besides the famous Badrinath, Kedarnath, Gangotri, Yamunotri, Hemkunt Sahib, Rishikesh,Mussoorie and Naini Tal, the lesser known places of attraction include Gopeshwar, Aadibadri, Narayankoti, Pandukeshwar, Jageshwar, Baijnath, Chopta, Tungnath, Katarmal, Champawat, Dwarahat and Kaushani. Unfortunately, a number of hotels and tourist bungalows run by the Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam are in a poor condition though those run by the Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam are slightly better. The need is to either streamline the functioning of these Nigams or handover these hotels and tourist bungalows to local entrepreneurs, says Mr. Vinod Gaur, a tourism executive in Mussoorie. Prof. Avdhash Kaushal, chairperson of the Dehra Dun-based Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, has an excellent idea to promote local enterprise along with tourism. Local handicrafts, carpets and sweets like `singauri', `sakalpara',`kalakand' and `bal mithai' should, he says, be promoted so that people coming here for pleasure or pilgrimage take them back as souvenirs. Also part of the huge offerings made at the holy shrines could be used to fund education and research in the existing universities of the region or a new university established as in Tirupati, he says. A major cause of frustration among the local people is the mass scale export of herbs and leaves and barks of trees with medicinal or industrial value by businessmen to the plains for processing. Although the businessmen engaged in the trade make huge profits the locals have been reduced to work as mere labourers. When the locals demand a higher wage, it is quiet common for the traders to bring in cheap labour from Nepal, Bihar or Kashmir. This, Dr. Sudhir Dangwal, a social worker in Tehri feels, has to be countered by providing incentives to local entrepreneurs in establishing small units to process the herbs and tree barks in every development block. The herbs and trees of medicinal value should also be cultivated and harvested rather than natural resources being plundered from the wild, he says. The hill region is the sole producer of Lisa extracted from pine oak trees and used in the manufacture of turpentine oil in Uttar Pradesh. There is, however, only one factory for manufacturing turpentine at Tilwara. A number of similar units can be set up in these hills for turpentine oil production. Potato is another important produce which could be used for earning profits through setting up cottage industries to make potato chips. Malta, a citrus fruit found in abundance in the region could be upgraded by using bio-technology, say Mr. Subhash Dhyani and Mr. Arvind Tamta, both post graduates running small shops at Srinagar. The Chipko leader, Mr Sunder Lal Bahuguna, feels that real development is possible only when power is generated at every possible water source. The water sources, which are drying up due to illicit and haphazard felling of trees and cutting of mountainsides by vested interests or shortsighted officials involved in execution of development plans, should be first restored through a massive drive for planting locally acceptable plant species, he says.
Uttarakhand gearing for rejuvenation From C. K. Chandramohan (The Hindu) PAURI GARHWAL, Aug. 30, 1996 Now that the emergence of Uttarakhand as the 26th State in the near future seems a possibility following the Prime Minister, Mr. H. D. Deve Gowda's announcement from the Red Fort on Independence Day, intellectuals, women, ex-servicemen and social action groups in the region are gearing up to develop it as a self-sustaining economy and to rejuvenate this part of the Himalayas which has been plundered by vested interests including businessmen and bureaucrats from the plains. Although, the local people are sore at the plunder of natural resources by outsiders, there is no hatred or ill-will against them. The hate element is however, being introduced in Udham Singh Nagar carved out of Naini Tal recently and Dehra Dun city by some politicians for electoral reasons - a trend that needs to be checked immediately to avoid a clumsy situation. A number of Uttarakhandis while urging politicians to stop whipping up passions for petty electoral gains wanted them to rise above party lines and become the real agents of economic change by launching special drives aimed at developing infrastructure for employment nearer home so as to check the exodus of youth to the plains for jobs and rejuvenate the hills which have sufferred a great environment loss over the decades. The politicians at best should work for securing special funds for the region from the Centre at least for the next 15 years, a period required by Uttarakhand to prosper and develop into a sustainable economy, feel Dr Rameshwar Dhaundiyal and his friends at Chamoli. Women are the main working force of the region and going by their active participation in the Uttarakhand agitation involving them in development programmes should not be difficult says Ms Subadhra Dangwal, a social worker in Uttarkashi. The development plans should however, first provide for fuel, fodder and water nearer home as the women have to trek several kilometres everyday to fetch these essentials, she added. Evoking public participation should not be difficult as the Uttarakhand movement itself is a classic example where the entire agitation was spearheaded by local action groups and politicians who earlier spoke of regional or national issues had to resign from their parties and join hands with the crusaders in a bid to survive politically. Violence did occur but that was only after serious provocation by the police or rather immature statements by the then Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister, Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav. Some of the areas that need to be developed expeditiously in the region are ropeways to connect villages to the roads for human, vegetable and horticultural produce transportation, schemes to lift water to hamlets for drinking water and irrigation and electrification of the hamlets for promoting mini cottage industries. Enterprises requiring minimum investment and training and which are eco-friendly need to be identified and promoted through various agencies including well-meaning NGOs. To rejuvenate the hills there is an urgent need to cover them with grass, shrubs and plants that bear fruit, fodder and fibre - this will evoke a lot of local participation in the schemes as all items produced by the plants are eagerly sought after by the population for domestic consumption. Experts at the Forest Research Institute (FRI) in Dehra Dun have over the past recommended plantation of several locally acceptable species of grass, shrubs and trees. These recommendations could not see the light of the day as the State Forest Department entrusted with the job found it convenient to plant commercially profitable species which were not accepted by the population leading to mass failure of the plantations. As most of the agriculture can be done profitably only in the valleys that are scarce, the area needs promotion of select fruit, off-season vegetables and herbs species in the higher areas says Dr. Doshi, officer in charge of the G B Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Hill Campus at Ranichauri in Tehri Garhwal district. Mr. Himanshu Ghildyal, Mr. Satish Chandola and Mr. Girish Naithani all students at the H. N. Bahuguna Garhwal University in Srinagar (Garhwal) feel that the new State should lay emphasis on providing roads and buses for people living in interior villages to at least reach the district headquarters (not to talk of the State capital) without having to trek through dangerous hills. Such inaccessible villages abound in the Tons, Kedar, Pindar, Mahakali and Dhauli valleys. A number of local politicians are also accused of having felled a large number of trees in the catchment areas of the major rivers over the past decade sparking off a serious environmental degradation of these vital glacier-bearing areas. These politicians-cum-contractors are also responsible for poaching of animals like the musk deer, admitted a senior officer. |