By Jiten Yumnam
Hectic negotiation marks
the ongoing efforts to replace the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) with
Sustainable Development Goals in a post 2015 development agenda definition
process, with the developed, developing and least developed countries aggressively
pursuing their interest. One wonders if the re-definition of current
development discourse in the post 2015 will ever led to a rethinking of the
current development model and processes pursued across Manipur and other parts
of India’s North East. For instance, will there be a rethinking into the proposed
plans to built colossal mega dams all across the rivers of Manipur and other
rivers in the region for a more sustainable and alternative options? Or will
there be a rethinking in introducing other extractive industries and other large
infrastructure projects that will destroy the rich biodiversity, flora and
fauna of the region with serious implications for indigenous communities
inhabiting the state and across region. Will the new SDGs led to more
involvement of communities in defining development priorities and processes?
The outcome document of
the Rio+20 global Summit on Environment and Development held at Rio De Janiero
in June 2012 sets the momentum towards defining Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs). The limitations of the MDGs in terms of content and also its definition
processes further provided impetus for SDGs. As diplomatic efforts and intensive
negotiations among different stakeholders unfold, there’s clearly an obvious reality,
of overwhelming focus on privatization of development, to entrust and
legitimize corporate bodies’ role and involvement in all development processes
throughout. Other pressing decision making process on key development
challenges such as UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which gears
up for a significant decision by 2015 year
end also witnessed delegating maximum responsibilities to private sector
development processes with limited or extremely weak accountability mechanisms.
Hopes fades fast as one perceives the pattern of decisions shaped in defining SDGs
primarily at the UN HQs.
The current discourse
is already marked by refusal of many States of UN to refer to the term “human
rights based approach to development” or HRBA in defining sustainable
development goals. The
overt emphasis on private sector led growth as the ultimate model of
development in the Mexico High Level Meeting (HLM) of the Global Partnership
for Effective Development Cooperation (GPEDC) and as also visible in the post
Rio+20 processes without establishing a clear set of rules for accountability
and respect of human rights of communities already provoked wide condemnations
from CSOs and will only contribute in deepening inequality and human rights
violations all over.
The international
discourse is strongly experienced in Manipur too, of increased effort to
privatize people’s land and their survival sources in the name of development
and clear cut refusal to uphold indigenous peoples’ rights. Manipur witnessed
series of development policies formed in the last decade, interestingly in the
last few years, to promote corporatization and privatization of community
resources and commodification of peoples live and future, such as the Manipur
Loktak Lake Protection Act, 2006, the Manipur Tourism Policy, 2011 and the most
recent controversy is the Manipur Hydroelectric Power Policy 2012 and the New
Land Use Policy, 2014.
One also wonders if there
can ever be just and sustainable development when corporate bodies, which only
prioritize on profits, led such kind of development, especially at this time of
multiple global crisis? Given the aggressive pursuance of policy deregulation
towards corporatization of communities land and resources with militarism, the
simplification of processes to seek such approval (single window clearances)
and exclusion of community voices and space to air in their grievances and
alternatives, one wonders if this will lead to sustainable development in
Manipur. One wonder if emphasis on colossal projects in Manipur such as mining,
mega dams etc, that will entail massive impacts be considered as sustainable
and be pursued as key components of SDGs.
Manipur today witnessed
increased intrusion of multinational companies both from developed and
developing countries, whichever has the best capacity to loot, destroy, burn and
ruin communities land, resources, their lives and future. In the case of
ongoing process to drill and explore oil and natural gas in Manipur, oil companies
and the State unleashed both misinformation and denial of information. There is
serious accountability issue with the oil company, Jubilant Energy and Oil and
Gas Corporation of India, as both failed to take the free, prior and informed
consent of communities who depend on their land for survival. Rather there’s
bribery of community leaders and manipulation of traditional decision making process,
which creates confusions within and among communities.
In India’s NE, the definition
of development priorities continues to be defined by International Financial
Institutions with State facilitation, which promoted enabling environment for
private sector/business rather than communities in an atmosphere of exclusivity
and lack of transparency and accountability. Such process lacks a full scale
impact appraisal, denial of information, misinformation, upsetting the fragile
ecological integrity and destroying cultures. The adherence to human rights
standards, such as, UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples, 2007,
is absent. In India’s North East alone, more than 200 mega dams
are being pursued with several constructed in Brahmaputra-Barak River Basin.
These dams have already threatened indigenous farming in India’s North East
States by submerging vast tract of agriculture land, wetlands and forest[1]. And with
lack of accountability of most of the corporate bodies involved in large scale
destructive development, such as the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation
(NHPC) in the case of destruction of Loktak Wetlands by its 105 MW Loktak
Project, one wonders if there ever will be development justice in Manipur? A development
justice, which places people – that is the majority poor and the marginalized –
at the front and centre of development as the primary agents and subjects of
change. A development justice, where development process is designed and
adapted in response to the aspirations of the people and their available
resources, and not imposed by technocrats and so-called high-level experts for
all time and for all peoples.
There is no difference
between the way how decisions are made on development processes, for specific
development projects and policies introduced at the local context. The trend of
development introduced in Manipur and across North East India is now a serious
matter of alarm and concern. The focus of the region in global economic
development, mostly to foster trade and development between South Asia and
South East Asia through construction of gigantic highways, railways and other
mega infrastructure projects along with promotion of extractive industries and
big mega dams targeting the rich natural resources in the region will intensify
social, environmental, cultural, health impacts and complicates the already
worse human rights violations records in the region. Already, the Trans Asian
Highway project and the High Transmission and Distribution Lines with Asian
Development Bank and World Bank respectively and passing through Manipur had
already displaced several communities from their agriculture and residential
land areas. One wonders if the development decision making process in Manipur
and across India’s North East works exclusively to the international decision
making processes and other advances in development rights regime. There’s a
strong disconnect. Marginalized communities most affected by such exclusive
process will continue to be impacted, impoverished and pauperized. How can such
development process bereft of taking communities into consent be considered
sustainable and just? Development fostered under the current development
architecture has already ruined lives, destroyed futures of many indigenous
communities, displaced fisher folks, small scale farmers and women from their
survival sources not only in Manipur, but also across communities worldwide.
One may also ponder if
long standing complaints of affected communities to listen to the inconvenience
and violations by those projects are ever listened to and considered for
necessary action. There are even cases of community members including women
killed, assaulted and threatened for demanding just development, for fair
rehabilitation and resettlement, for review of destructive projects, for
calling for rightful space to air in calls for alternatives and impact assessments.
Three people affected by Khuga dam lost their lives in police firing in
December 2005. In 2008, Ms. Lungmila of Louphoung Village affected by Mapithel
dam in Manipur remain paralyzed after hit by tear gas canister fired by
personnel of Indian Reserve Battalion[2].
How can development process which involves taking lives of communities and
militarizing their land for asserting their legitimate rights be considered as
sustainable and just development?
Given the indications
of exclusion of community representatives, stakeholders in the officials decision
making process in defining sustainable development goals in the ongoing post
2015 processes in the UN HQ has already led to widespread condemnations. The
process, now solely confined for participation and decision among the member
States of the United Nations is already arbitrary, exclusive and undermines
international advances on just development, to ensure participation of
communities and other stakeholders and also undermines the very spirit and outcome
of the Earth Summit in 1992 and also the Rio+20 summit in June 2012.
There are several
countries, from both developed and developing countries which seriously
positioned to exclude civil societies and representatives of communities from
the official decision making on defining SDGs and further to curtail mentioning
“Human Rights” or even “Rights” for that matter[3]. There
are even countries that refuse to acknowledge that ‘land’ is life for many, but
rather perceive it as yet another “productive resource” for corporate
exploitation and expansionism. Developed countries are clear during negotiations,
to protect and advance the interest of their corporate bodies and their
intellectual property rights regime, the basic premise of their corporate
operations to consolidate wealth and profits. One may ask whether the current
efforts to find sustainable development goals will really be sustainable and helpful
for the communities and nature, already subjected to multiple layers of
deprivation, conflict and devastation of their lives. Or will the process contribute at least in
restoring the health of our mother earth and in ushering development justice for
many communities victimized and marginalized by the dominant development
discourse.
The need for a just
development is increasingly felt all over the world with states insisting on
consolidation of the dominant development model and paradigm. As organizations
worldwide prepares to observe the global day of development justice on 21st
July to remind ourselves of the development injustice and the multiple impacts
on marginalized and impoverished communities in deep corners of our earth, it
is high time to remind ourselves if whether the current development process in
Manipur actually serves the needs and also compatible to the wishes and
aspirations of communities. Or whether it serves the interest and needs of only
multinational corporate bodies and those in the State that actively support
them. Pursuance of development
aggression with intensified militarism will never lead to sustainable
development, which actually is all about promoting communities intrinsic rights
and democratic decision making processes. For indigenous peoples, recognizing
their inherent rights over their land and resources and respecting their right
to free, prior and informed consent for any development decision making in
their land and territories is key for sustainable development in their land.
Promoting human rights
based approach to development, fostering a community led development
initiatives, promoting rightful participation, transparency and accountability
will be crucial to foster development justice in Manipur. A significant step to
promote development justice is to rethink all development processes for its
compatibility to standards of human rights based approach to development.
Reviewing policies detrimental to the rights of communities and to
environmental integrity, and if necessary to repeal, such as Hydroelectric
Power Policy, 2012, Manipur Loktak Lake Protection Act, 2006, Manipur tourism
policy, Manipur Industrial policy etc, India’s PPP policy etc, Manipur Land Use
Policy etc is fundamentally crucial.
Development justice can
be best ensured if development processes is rooted in the wishes and
aspirations of communities and in promoting health and sustenance of our mother
earth. A significant consideration of whose development, who defines and who
benefits need be seriously explored. Any development process negating human
rights and inconsiderate of the human rights based approach to development will
only led to multilayered conflict and confusion and will only reinforce
development injustice. Fostering a development process that respect indigenous
peoples right to freely assert their self determined development is extremely
important to secure development justice in Manipur and beyond. It is high time
to advance Development Justice – a transformative development framework that
aims to reduce inequalities of wealth, power, and resources between rich and
poor, between men and women and between countries. The larger process of
defining the Sustainable Developments Goals in the post 2015 process also need
be sensitive to the realities of deprivation and inequality prevailing among
the most marginalized and the violations within perpetuated by State, Corporate
bodies, military and other powerful development actors, as in the case of
Manipur and also be sensitive to their voice, aspirations as expressed in their
concerted struggles for change and justice.
[1] An Assessment of Dams in India’s
NE seeking Carbon Credits under CDM of UNFCCC by Jiten Yumnam published by the
International Rivers, USA, March 2012
[3] “OWG proposals risk sidelining consensus on
human rights-centered sustainable development” CESR STATEMENT, http://www.cesr.org/article.php?id=1564
No comments:
Post a Comment