Manipur’s Ambiguous Farmland Defense Move

By Jiten Yumnam

mangangmacha@gmail.com

Two contrasting media reports in subsequent days in early July, 2014 provoke enough confusion in Manipur. In a strange and seemingly stirring from deep slumber to its senses, the media reports the ruling Congress party of the Manipur Government resolves to protect agriculture land[1], citing setting up of brick farms, residential areas, schools as key reasons for agriculture loss. Few organizations hastily applauded the decision. The decision already provokes wide interest for an agrarian state like Manipur, where nearly 70 percent of its people rely on agriculture for sustenance. Manipur’s agriculture has long been in a state of crisis for long, its land has been shrinking alarmingly in recent decades and an industrial form of agriculture fast descends.    

No further details were elucidated except for the intent expressed to save agriculture land. All’s fine till the next day when denizens of Yurembam village in suburb of Imphal Town expressed strong objection to fresh move to acquire their village land for construction of rail tracks and a Station for the Trans Asian Railway passing through Manipur. The village already lost substantial tract of their prime agricultural land for setting up the high voltage power transmission and distribution lines of Power Grid Corporation of India with funding from the World Bank and for expansion of the Yurembam Power Sub Station. The village literally is on the verge of extinction[2].

One wonders whether the recent decision of ruling party is reasons rife for rejoice? And whether there’s comprehensive introspection of reasons for loss of agriculture land or threats to sustainable agriculture in Manipur? Will such decision led to food sovereignty or sustainable agriculture in Manipur, as also outlined in the draft Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for the Post 2015 development agenda. One also wonder if the decision will undo development injustice in Manipur. One obviously needs to dwell into hard realities to find lucid answers.

For long, Manipur manages agriculture without a comprehensive policy to protect agriculture land. Adhocism rules the roost as agriculture land continues to be conscripted one after another amidst growing public resentment. Peoples’ resistance against farmland acquisition without their consent, in the setting up of National Institute of Technology at Lamphelpat and at Kyamgei and the expansion of Imphal Airport and proposed expansion of Manipur University, setting of Manipur industrial centre at Chingarel etc are still fresh in peoples’ memories[3]. Much of Manipur’s prime agriculture land is also lost due to accommodate extensive deployment of Indian armed forces under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958 to subdue insurgent groups seeking self determination of Manipur.

Will there be a rethinking of the development process and rescinding of destructive and unsustainable policies with the move to defend agriculture land? Or will it be just an expression of intent devoid of practicalities. The development record of government of Manipur is heavily laden with injustice, disrespect of peoples’ rights over their land, their right to participate in development decision making and also brute use of force. Will it also rethink certain development process, such as 105 MW Loktak HEP project, to return the 83,000 acres of prime agriculture land, submerged by the mega dam project? Will it also consider abandoning the Tipaimukh dam project which will submerge nearly 30,000 hectares of forest and fertile agriculture land along the Barak River and its tributaries in Tamenglong and Churachandpur Districts? Will the decision led to saving more than 1000 hectares of agriculture land in Mapithel Valley to be submerged by Mapithel dam? The proposed Chakpi dam will submerge more than 3000 hectares, most of which will be prime agriculture land along the Chakpi River in Chandel District of Manipur.

The decision of the Government of Manipur comes at an interesting phase of Manipur’s history, already in the centre of large scale Trans Asian development initiatives and larger international policies. The Trans Asian Railway, the Trans Asian Highway and the 400 KW High Voltage Transmission lines are both part of the larger strategy to economically connect Asian sub regions and to foster trade between countries in South Asian and South East Asia, the process being facilitated by several economically powerful countries like Japan through its Japanese Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) and several Multilateral banks, primarily the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. With countries like India and Thailand supporting such master plans through their Look East Policies and Look West Policies, Manipur and other parts of India’s North East confronts development onslaught of multinational corporations and intrusion of international financial institutions, conscripting agriculture land in the subsequent industrialization and infrastructure development processes. Neither its people nor its land and resources are involved in definition of such development priorities but rather subjected them for exploitation in all forms to advance their interest and priorities. These infrastructures will only facilitate dumping of cheap agricultural produces from across borders and destroying indigenous agriculture.

Manipur also saw aggressive corporate expansionism with several policies formed to facilitate such processes. The Manipur Loktak Lake Protection Act, 2006, the Manipur Tourism Policy, 2011 and also the Manipur Hydroelectric Power Policy, 2012 etc all favour privatisation and corporatization of peoples land and resources, all of which will require substantial acquisition of agricultural land forcibly and evicting communities. There’s ongoing process to introduce the New Land Use Policy (NLUP), 2014 to facilitate privatisation and commodification of communities’ land and resources. Several farmers’ bodies already opposed the 6^th amendment Bill of Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms recently passed in the 7^th session of the 10^th Legislative Assembly in March 2014, for favouring the rich and wealthy[4].  

Development injustice has strongly been pursued in forced confiscation of peoples land and eviction of small scale farmers. Conscription of agriculture land with state militarism and justice denial can never be sustainable and just development. Further, the police personnel involved in unleashing brutalities on communities asserting defense of their agriculture land as in the case of Mapithel Dam, Khuga Dam, Loktak Eviction etc faces no trial and hence justice remains denied to them.  

One also needs to reflect as to the objective and purpose of protecting agriculture land. This question finds much relevance given the high inputs to agriculture and as farmers increasingly finds it difficult to sustain their agricultural activities. One need to introspect what additional factors threatens Manipur’s agriculture, such as the promulgation of subsidy oriented policies such as National Food Security Act, 2012 and its inconsiderate application in Manipur with enormous potential to destroy indigenous agriculture with dumping of cheap and chemical laden food grain from outside Manipur. Moreover, multinational corporations aggressively promoted their agricultural products ranging from high yielding seeds, chemicals, pesticides, herbicides etc, which will eventually destroy indigenous agriculture, subjecting small scale farmers fully dependent on chemical laden and high capital intensive forms of agriculture. This will render farming impossible for impoverished and marginal farmers. There’s also wide impact of free trade agreement signed by the Government of India with South East Asian countries on agriculture in Manipur. Cheap agriculture products from Myanmar, Thailand and China already destroyed production of seasonal indigenous crops of Manipur[5].  

For the Manipur Government, which has long ceased to think for itself, can it really oppose or obstruct the larger dominant paradigm or liberalization of agriculture and subsequent impacts on small scale and marginal farmers? Agriculture in India has landed in further crisis after wide reforms in the after math of the neo-liberal policies of 1991. Decline in the public investment, shrinking public extension services and contraction of institutional credit availability in rural areas after 1991 policy reforms has led to widespread agrarian crisis. The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Act, 2003 has been amended to facilitate setting up private markets, allowing contract farming and legalizing direct purchase from farmers. Multinational companies gained spaces in procurement, wholesale trade and retailing, much to the detriment of small scale farmers. Defense of agricultural land need rethinking the capitalist led development, dominant development model based on profits for private parties, which undermines sustainable agriculture. One wonders if the Government of Manipur will embark on this at a time when it is deeply encouraging corporate agriculture.

The reality today is the unregulated corporate expansionism under imperialist globalization is the biggest threat to sustainable agriculture in Manipur? The Government need be sensitive to such external challenges and threats to agriculture in Manipur, both in the hills and plains, including due to climate change. Further, also to understand the grievances of small scale farmers, which have limited state support for their agriculture activities, such as purchase of farm equipments, irrigation facilities and crop insurance etc. Without challenging the larger unsustainable development models and all threats to sustainable agriculture, a mere defense of agriculture land will simply be irrational?

One also wonder if there will there be reconsideration of the Policies like Manipur Tourism Policy 2011 and Manipur Hydroelectric Power Policy and other legislations that will destroy farmland and restrict community’s access to community land. Especially, the Manipur Tourism policy stipulated creating land banks and to simplify all necessary environmental, social, forest clearances for those that can accord maximum investments.  The other policy will submerge vast prime agriculture land.

Again, will there be real defense of agriculture land in Manipur? And for whom will they be defended? Will it be for the people or for the State functionaries or for the Multinational Corporations? What should be the process to defend? Can such process be defined exclusively by the State without involving communities who very much depends on their land for survival? The call for protection of agriculture land comes also at a time when wetlands are destroyed, with massive urbanization and for pursuance of unregulated industrial activities.

One also wonders what will be considered as agricultural land and whether it will be confined to only permanent cultivable land. Manipur has different categories of agriculture land, depending on the terrain and geography, in the plains, wetlands, hills and in the forest with different agricultural practice. The protection of agricultural land in Manipur should also entail protection of wetlands, forest land and those areas with possibility for permanent cultivation. And here it is highly crucial to ensure involvement of all different communities of Manipur practising different types and forms of agriculture practices and to acknowledge their pattern of land ownership and agriculture practices, to acknowledge and accept best practices and ways to protect agricultural land in different terrains. 

What kind of exception clause will be outlined, if ever there’s a policy for agriculture land protection?  With “Eminent Domain” concept ruling supreme and with legislations like the Manipur Land Registration and Reform Act, 1960, whose provisions are in line with the British colonial land act, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, still allowing State to forcibly acquire peoples’ land for ‘public’ purpose, one wonders how the Manipur Government will ensure protection of communities rights.

The Government of Manipur should consider a comprehensive agriculture policy which recognize communities’ rights over their land and recognize their right to free, prior and informed consent before introducing any initiative or development projects that will undermine their rights or relationship with their land. It is highly crucial to perceive the importance and intrinsic relationship of communities with their land. A holistic policy to protect agriculture land, wetlands, forest of Manipur should be framed in due consultation with communities. Reviewing and changing development processes or policies detrimental in sustainable agriculture of Manipur is urgently required. Protection of agriculture land cannot and simply work in isolation less there’s a concerted effort both to understand and to respond to the larger forces, which already threatened the socio- economic, political and cultural values of Manipur. A serious endeavour to ensure agriculture sector remains a viable survival option is very much crucial. Protection of agricultural land should be an essential and key component of promoting just and sustainable development in Manipur. A mere intent to protect agriculture land will mean nothing till a holistic approach is adopted for agriculture. 

---

[1] “CLP bats for saving Agriculture Land”, 10 July 2014, the Sangai Express

[2] Manipur's debut in railway map may wipe out Yurembam, fear inhabitants
Source: The Sangai Express / Newmai News Network, The 9 July 2014

[3] Developmental challenges : Airport & University expansion, The Sangai Express, 11 May 2008, http://e-pao.net/epSubPageExtractor.asp?src=news_section.opinions.Politics_and_Governance.Developmental_challenges_Airport_Univ_expansion 

[4] Farmers` body opposes Manipur Land revenue and Land reforms 6th amendment Bill 2014

The Imphal Free Press, March 3, 2014,  http://kanglaonline.com/2014/03/farmers-body-opposes-manipur-land-revenue-and-land-reforms-6th-amendment-bill-2014/  

[5] “Banned food items from Myanmar still sold”,  The Peoples Chronicle,  3 August 2013 

Manipur’s Development Debacle in Post 2015 Context

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

http://www.internationalrivers.org/resources/an-assessment-of-dams-in-ne-india-seeking-carbon-credits-from-clean-development-mechanism

[2] Mapithel Dam and Endless Violations, by Jiten Yumnam, Imphal Free press, October 28, 2012   

[3] “OWG proposals risk sidelining consensus on human rights-centered sustainable development” CESR STATEMENT,  http://www.cesr.org/article.php?id=1564

Manipur's Urgencies for Alternative Energy

By Jiten Yumnam *

The Hueiyen Lanpao, 2 July 2014

http://www.hueiyenlanpao.com/articles/item/20675-manipur-s-urgencies-for-alternative-energy

International Rivers Day at Riha Village in Ukhrul District along Thoubal (Yangwuikong) River on 14 March 2014

Hardly many in Manipur would be aware that Manipur hastily formulated the Manipur Hydroelectric Power Policy in 2012. The Act was quietly introduced with limited consultation and discussion even within the Manipur Assembly where it was passed. The policy fits perfectly in India's larger definition of Manipur and other parts of India's North East as power house of India and to generate more than 60,000 Mega Watt of electricity. The policy also forms part of the larger plan to build over Two Hundred (200) mega dams all over the Brahmaputra-Barak River Basin. As the name suggest, the hydroelectric power centric policy envisages generating nearly 3000 Mega Watt of electricity from almost all major Rivers and tributaries of Manipur, the Thoubal River, the Imphal River, the Makru River, the Leimatak River, the Irang River, Iril River and endless of other Rivers.

Already several Memorandum of Understandings are being signed with various corporate bodies to undertake mega dam projects all over Manipur, which includes the 66 MW Loktak Downstream Project, the 1500 MW Tipaimukh HEP project, to be implemented by North Eastern Electric Power Corporation (NEEPCO), National Hydroelectric Power Project (NHPC), Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited etc. The Manipur Government is preparing to sign agreements with NEEPCO to undertake Irang Hydro Electric Project (60 MW) at Irang River in Tamenglong district, Khongnem-Chakha Hydro Electric Project (67 MW) at Barak River in Senapati District and Pabram Hydro Electric (190 MW) at Barak River in Tamenglong district.

The government had even issued Expression of Interest, and several companies already submitted tender bids in response. It is worth noticing that many of the corporate bodies conferred contracts and MoUs for dam building in Manipur are corporate bodies such as National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC), which continues to remain unaccountable for the multifaceted violations and devastations wrought on the affected peoples and also the environment. And these are projects that contribute in complicating the ongoing conflict in Manipur and in subduing the rights of communities over their land and their physical integrity itself.

This Manipur Hydroelectric Power Policy has been pushed through amidst an adverse reality of Manipur reeling in acute power shortage, despite commissioning of the 105 Loktak HEP project, the 35 MW Leimakhong Heavy Fuel Power Project, the Khuga Dam, Singda dam etc, which are supposedly to generate nearly 150 MW of power altogether, not even to mention several micro hydel power projects and other renewable energy projects initiated by Manipur Renewable Energy Department. Manipur is an interesting state having unlimited resources to sustain widespread militarization and related infrastructure all over Manipur and probably to sustain the conflict itself, but lacking adequate resources to respond to power infrastructure needs and other social services.

The power policy has been pushed through amidst prolonged call of different communities for a full scale review of the impacts of 105 MW Loktak Multipurpose Hydroelectric Power Project, commissioned way back in 1984 and further to conduct a holistic review of the Mapithel Dam of the Thoubal Multipurpose Hydroelectric Project built over the Thoubal River. The arbitration, the violations of all applicable legislations, the devastation of ecosystems, the divisions and confusions created among affected communities, the lack of accountability of corporate bodies involved in these two projects, militarization and related human rights violations are just few of the impacts.

The Manipur Hydroelectric Power Policy has also been pushed through at a time when the World Bank is funding development of High Voltage Transmission and Distribution line in Manipur and other parts of India's North East, whose power networks envisages to connect almost areas demarcated for power generations, such as Tipaimukh region. It is very much clear the World Bank's support for such mega project will directly facilitate the construction of mega dams in Manipur. In a stark coincidence, the Asian Development Bank is promoting power sector reforms all over Manipur and across the region as well and today Manipur Electricity Department is already a 'Corporation' and the power supply and distribution is already privatized. So, there is a tacit correlation and coincidence of timing as to how such initiatives are being pursued aggressively with involvement of International Financial Institutions and corporate bodies in the energy sector promotion in Manipur.

One wonders what is the premise setting of this policy and for whose benefit? One also wonders if the people of Manipur have any idea how much this particular policy will benefit them. A primary question is how responsive this power policy will be to the actual needs of Manipur in the long term and for its requisite growth? One may ask then as to why there is an exclusive decision making in defining the power needs and generation of Manipur. Especially for a 'development' process, which supposedly should for peoples' benefits? The participatory planning need to assume centrality as Manipur already had experiences, born out of acute power shortage and compulsions, to meet basic power needs. And these are alternatives of extremely low energy consumption and of increased reliance on alternative energies, such as extensive reliance on affordable solar energies by the people.

The introduction of Manipur Hydroelectric Power Policy in 2012 without any consultation and consent with indigenous communities of Manipur simply constitutes a disregard of their intrinsic relationship and survival dependence on their land, water and forest. Especially, the lack of consultation with communities to be affected and to lose their land from implementation of such policies is unacceptable, given the reality that countries like India are obligating itself to participatory development in international processes in defining sustainable development goals under the Post 2015 development agenda definition processes underway.

The policy lacks vision of promoting an energy policy of Manipur, based on the real and alternative energy needs of our people. One wonders if there's been any effort to learn from the adverse experience of previous mega dam projects like the 105 MW Loktak HEP project, the Khuga dam project. Has the Government learnt from the lessons of failures and challenges of several dams such as the Khoupum dam, the Singda dam etc as to why such mega dams are unable to serve the intended and defined benefits. It is high time for the government to also learn from the ongoing controversy with Mapithel dam construction.

The need for defining alternative energy needs and also for development process is becoming crucial. Due to acute power shortage in Manipur, different communities of Manipur already resorted to solar energy, more of the affordable, efficient smaller solar units. Almost every home in Manipur has a solar unit or more, which at least can meet to basic lighting need for use during frequent blackouts. Such reliance on solar renewable energy is actually reducing the consumption of fossil fuels which pollutes our earth and which contributes in warming up of our earth through emission of green house gases. It is highly unfortunate that the practical initiatives of the communities are ignored and undermined by the concerned authorities and instead opt for energy solutions that will lead to more corporatisation of our peoples' land and also direct damming of almost of the rivers of Manipur.

Is there a thought even to support the initiatives that have already come from communities in the form of extensive reliance on solar energy, through subsidies, or promotion of efficient and more affordable technologies etc, instead of resorting to destructive and unsustainable forms of energy generations which will destroy Manipur's natural heritage? It seems, there is a clear and strong dichotomy between how people respond to energy needs and crisis and how State responds to meet energy needs. There is a clear mismatch. Are the planners of the Manipur Hydroelectric Power Policy ever considerate of the communities' shifting energy dependency paradigm? Is there any thought of complementing or to advance communities initiatives for widespread solar use? When the entire world is struggling with concepts of alternative energy, Manipur already have a situation where its peoples have already resorted to alternative energy, consciously or unconsciously. Such community initiative is laudable as it also minimizes consumption of fossil fuel and further a model of low energy and low carbon consumption oriented way of life.

There is no definition of Manipur's power needs for the coming decades, based on which a viable energy assessment and policy is formulated. Manipur also has huge potential for micro hydel power projects, many of which are already installed in several remote villages of Manipur. One wonders if the Government through its agencies has ever conducted any assessment of potential micro hydel sites of Manipur. Has the Government ever bothered to think about how much of Manipur power's need could be sourced from alternative energies and accordingly plan for it? Is the state sensitive to what other regions, especially nearby states like Nagaland had initiated and advanced in terms of promoting both solar and micro hydel projects, through widespread collaboration with civil society organizations? NEPeD, an organization with Nagaland Government support, has successfully developed assembling units of 3 KW hydroger, a micro Hydel power generation unit, and has shown the way by lighting more than twenty (20) villages in Nagaland.

Is the Government also keeping its eyes open as to how other countries are promoting alternative energies? Countries like Germany, top user and generator of Solar Energy globally, plan to receive its entire energy from Solar and other renewable energy by 2050. Around ten (10) percent of Spain's energy comes from solar power, which is five times more than the average of 2 percent in the rest of the world. So, what hinders Manipur to explore beyond frontiers to see progressive and sustainable development models?

Is the Government of Manipur listening to the ongoing debates to promote sustainable development, to promote development which places communities at the centre stage of decision making, that emphasize on seeking alternatives and which also promotes accountability of the corporate bodies? It seems the Government of Manipur has failed to comprehend the message for options assessment and promotion of alternative energies coming from diverse civil societies and community organization in their call for stop of the long controversial 1500 MW Tipaimukh Multipurpose Hydro electric Project to be built over the Barak River. There are also additional calls to stop the proposed Chakpi Dam plan to be again built over the Chakpi River in Southern part of Manipur.

The consideration of alternative energy is extremely crucial to minimize social, environmental, cultural, biodiversity impacts as efforts are being made to generate Manipur's power requirements, both for domestic needs and to grow its industries and allied activities. One also asks what protective clauses are ensured to minimize impacts on the rich biodiversity of Manipur, which has been listed among the Twenty Five (25) biodiversity hotspots of the world. The communities need be at the centre of such development planning process. Unfortunately, the process is focussing on corporate led development in Manipur, even to the extent of causing destruction of whatever heritage we have. The communities of Manipur are already leading a very low energy oriented way of life as compared with per capita consumption of energy in countries like the United States of America.

The world is also shifting towards intensive efforts to promote alternative energies. The global climate crisis has also confirmed that the present development model adopted has already intensified climate crisis and impacts of climate changes are fast unfolding everywhere. And Manipur is not an exception. Mega dams are also proven to contribute a fair quantum of green house gases and big dams like Tipaimukh dam project, by the potential submergence of 27,000 hectares or 311 sq. Km, will substantially contribute in massive emission of such potent gases. The cumulative submergence of forest and potential emission of green house gases of nearly twenty big dams planned under the Manipur Hydroelectric Power Policy, 2012 will simply be colossal. And here, it's important to gauge as to where the process to pursue large scale dams is associated with holistic impact assessments.

Given the exclusionary nature of decision making and defining both the energy and development agenda, it's high time that the Government of Manipur opens up the debates to the people of Manipur to assess the quantum, the quality and source of energy required for Manipur. It is high time to adopt and frame an energy policy which is holistic and considerate of the power needs of Manipur and which integrate the needs for respecting the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous communities. One may recall that several human rights bodies have actually suggested tangible steps towards promoting democratic decision making for development. Specific to the persisting violations to the ongoing construction of Mapithel Dam, the UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples urged upon the Government of Manipur in 2009 to ensure that affected peoples' right to free, prior and informed consent is fully considered and that all forms of development related militarization should end. The special Rapporteur even went to the extent of recommending repealing even emergency laws such as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958, which increasingly has been used to promote unsustainable and destructive development, all the interest of corporate bodies.

Specific on the building of dam, one may also ask if the government has ever considered taking into consideration the recommendations of the World Commission on Dams in 2000 and also the recommendations of the UN Committee on the Elimination on Racial Discrimination in 2007, which is more to ensure community participation in decision making, to ensure full holistic impact assessment, to undertake an option assessment more to identify if alternative energy generation potential and sources are available. The indigenous communities of Manipur will be hard to accept a development push from beyond and for benefits intended for somebody else.

The definition of alternative power needs of Manipur is very much related to the issue of defining Manipur's own alternative development, a development process rooted in the wishes and aspirations of the people. For indigenous peoples' development, recognition of their inherent rights over their land and territories and resources is crucial and also as already emphasized by several international processes. Indigenous peoples right to self determination over their land and their self determined development process is crucial even in the definition of energy needs of Manipur as such recognition and subsequent participatory decision making can led to meaningful development, one that provides energy needs, that substantially minimize environmental devastation and reduce multiple impacts. The promotion of alternative energy should ensure that the full provisions outlined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007 and the recommendations of the World Commission on Dams in 2000 are fully complied too.

It is high time to repeal the Manipur Hydroelectric Power Policy, 2012 and to consider a comprehensive Manipur Energy policy that encompasses the different alternatives to energy solutions and most feasible alternatives in Manipur. The policy must accord due primacy to promoting the renewable energy development visible from the community and intensify initiative including research on renewable energy prospects in Manipur, exploration of most feasible efficient renewable energy technologies and also provision of subsidies for communities to undertake alternate energy options. Such approach should accord due sensitivity to the already low energy oriented way of life in Manipur. It is high time to explore what best models of alternative energy options are available in other countries and by communities worldwide. Adopting an archaic parochial development notion of exploration, expropriation of communities land and resources in an exclusive and militaristic pattern will only complicate the multiple layers of crisis and conflict plaguing Manipur and its denizens.

---

* Jiten Yumnam wrote this article for Hueiyen Lanpao
The writer can be contacted at mangangmacha(at)gmail(dot)com
This article was posted on July 02, 2014.

Consultation on Alternative energy for Manipur held

The Imphal Free Press, 17 June 2014

http://kanglaonline.com/2014/06/consultation-on-alternative-energy-held/

IMPHAL, June 16: The Centre for Research and Advocacy, Manipur has jointly held a consultation on Alternative Energy at June 16 at Manipur Press Club along with Citizen’s Concern for Dam and Development (CCDD), Committee on Protection of Natural Resources in Manipur (CPNRM), Mapithel Dam Affected Villages Organisation (MDAVO), All Loktak Lake Fishermen Union Manipur (ALLAFUM) and United Voluntary Youth Centre (UVYC). The consultation was held to dwell on the scope and limitations of the alternative energy in Manipur.

The speakers in the consultation were Dr RK Ranjan-chairperson of CCDD, Manglem-director of MANIREDA, Rupachandra Yumnam-Editor of Impact TV and O. Rajen-Secretary of ALLAFUM and the key note address was presented by Joseph Hmar-Secretary of CCDD.

Dr RK Ranjan said that it is necessary to understand the requirement of energy, existing energy quantum and its management in the state, its uses by the privatized agency and encourage the use alternative energy which is reliable and convenient and further compares the efficiency of micro-hydel and solar energy and expressed limitation over solar energy in terms of its inefficiency and harmful effects in the environment.

Director of MANIREDA-Manglem dwelled on the uses and limitation of solar, wind and micro-hydel energy and expressed the reliability and convenience of hydro potential. Rupachandra Yumnam-Editor of Impact TV explained the energy resource and environmental crisis has resulted due to the increasing population and the human desire and the crisis can be met with the intervention of both by the public as well as the government and the decision makers.

O Rajen-secretary, ALLAFUM further stated that limitation over the 105 MW Loktak project which has caused the loss of 83,450 hectares of agricultural land and livelihood of fishermen and expressed the necessity of an alternative-renewable energy such as solar, wind and micro-hydel which are environmental friendly, it said.

During the consultation resolution to encourage to consider convenient and reliable alternative energy, discourage the mega dams which are affecting the ecosystem, judicial existing power resource, encourage eco-friendly and people friendly power supply and responsible consumption of energy by the public were taken up, it said.

Convention on Human Rights of Human Rights Defenders held

The Hueiyen Lanpao, 29 June 2014

http://e-pao.net/GP.asp?src=33..290614.jun14

Imphal, June 28 2014 : A one-day Convention on 'Human Rights of Human Rights Defenders of Manipur' was held at Manipur Press Club here Friday.  Jointly organized by Human Rights Law Networks (Manipur Unit), Human Rights Initiative, United NGOs Mission and Centre for Research and Advocacy Manipur, the convention also strongly condemned the assault on Laimayum Sevananda of Human Rights Law Network, Manipur Unit by suspected security forces in plain clothes and called upon the state Government to investigate and identify those involved in the attack within a reasonable period of time.

It also condemned the verification campaign unleashed by the Intelligence Bureau on activist d and NGOs in the name of deterring development by using foreign funds.

In his keynote address, Jiten Yumnam elaborated the need for protection of human rights defenders of Manipur who are working in an environment of armed conflict situation and also in the context of recommendations of Ms.Margeret Sagakya, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders to protect human rights defenders across India.

Director of Human Rights Law Network, Manipur Unit Rakesh Meihoubam pointed out that government should change their behavior and respect the human rights of all peoples of Manipur.

Sharing the recent incident of harassment on him by the personnel of IRB, Journalist Paojel Chaoba condemned the actions of the state security forces violating the rights and freedom of media persons of Manipur. Stressing the need for a system where all violations can be addressed with proper legal aid, Executive Director of Human Rights Alert Babloo Loitongbam stressed on the crucial need for specific mechanisms in which all victims can raise their voice and mooted idea of a focal point committee which can monitor all violations.

Director of WAD Sobita, while expressing concern over the recent incident of physical attack on Advocate Shivananda by team of security personal, said that attacking an Advocate like Shivananda represents an attack on all advocates of Manipur. Phulindro Konsam, Chairperson of COHR raised concern how the Government of India still relies on colonial laws of the British imposed during the Indian freedom movement.

He put up the proposal to demand the government to implement provisions of UN declaration on Human Rights Defenders, 1998 to end violations against human rights defenders. Saying said that the law enforcing agencies, instead of protecting people, are targeting innocent people and human rights defenders, UNMM Secretary U.Nobokishwor stressed the need for review of the Indian Police Act, 1860 for its inconsistency with human rights advances.

Among others, the Convention resolved that Centre and the Government of Manipur should recognize the human rights and ensure protection of all human rights defenders who are striving for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at all levels. It also appealed to the government to investigate and punish those involved in the torture, arbitrary detention and killing of all human rights defenders of Manipur specifically those involved in the attack on Journalist Paojel Chaoba.

Implementation of the recommendations made by UN Special Rapporteur Margaret Sagakya during her visit to India in February 2011; repeal of all emergency laws, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act 1958, the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 and the National Security Act, 1980; unconditional release of Irom Sharmila conceding her legitimate demand for repeal of AFSPA; review of Indian Police Act, 1860 etc. were among the resolutions taken in the Convention.  The Convention also demanded full functioning of the Manipur Human Rights Commission by appointment of competent and committed members through a transparent process, and setting up of special cell for protection of human rights defenders.

FRACKING PEOPLES’ LIVES: A PENNSYLVANIAN EXPERIENCE

By Jiten Yumnam

http://www.hueiyenlanpao.com/headlines/item/20514-fracking-peoples-lives-a-pennsylvanian-experience

A different form of industrialization and neo colonization process fast unfolds in America’s rural, far and interior terrains, this time again, also by the rich and powerful in a process many Americans increasingly despised with. Today, many tranquil American rural communities find themselves amidst noisy, dirty and polluting industrial zones. Friends from Canada and United States for long shared how extensive gas shale fracking uncared of peoples’ lives and environment ran havoc in rural communities. The zeal to comprehend the reality first hand persists for long till a chance encounter with Ms. Dina, a cancer survivor from Pittsburg city in Pennsylvania State. Strong in heart, spirits and deeds, she’s instrumental in addressing adverse implications of fracking industries and in enforcing ban on fracking in Pittsburg city areas after extensive advocacies and campaigns.       

In visits across some fracking sites across Pennsylvania in an early June summer of 2014, Ms. Dina elucidates how Pittsburg residents resist the corporate bodies engaging in hydraulic fracking for oil and gas in communities’ backyards.  ‘Fracking’, as it is known, is a controversial method to extract natural gas and other fossil fuels, by boring deep vertically and horizontally for gas trapped in rocks and shale. It is accomplished by injecting millions of gallons of high-pressure water and chemicals directly into layers of shale to create fractures to release and secure the gas. Often, such process contaminates the aquifers and leakages of natural gas and oil in natural surface waters, springs, rivulets, wells etc. More than 5000 Marcellus gas shale wells exists in Pennsylvania state by 2014 count and places like Butler County have wells less than one mile of each other. Several gas companies are planning to increase to 100,000 wells in coming decades.      

In visits to communities harmed by gas fracking in Dina’s words in Connoquenessing town, Butler County, Pennsylvania, the adverse impacts of fracking is fully evident. The town areas are dotted with oil wells amidst farmland and energy companies busy setting up their machines for fracking next to residential areas. Often, energy companies failed to inform communities how fracking will harm them. Oil business has ruined farming, cattle rearing and devalued properties, causing enormous stress among rural communities. The enormous quantum of waste water generated throughout the fracking process is what that usually contaminates the water and soil throughout fracking sites. In Daisytown, Washington County, oil spilled over to farmland areas from oil wells run by Dominion Company and killed several livestock. The Monongahela and Cheat Rivers along foothills of Allegheny Mountains in the Springfill Township, Fayette County are contaminated with oil and chemical leaks from operations of Marcellus oil fields.  Many families in Woodlands town are forced to buy waters after fracking operations contaminated their waters from leakages of chemicals and oil. Failures of oil wells after fracking and continued emission of hazardous carcinogenic chemicals from oil wells abounds in Pennsylvania State.          

Visits to some of the cryogenic plants, where separation of crude gas and oil into multiple products reveals evidence of continuous release of hazardous and toxic gases. Many of such gases are invisible to naked eyes, except with flare cameras which reveal fumes continuously emanating from such plants and related oil wells. However, the impacts of such emissions are clearly evident in the deterioration of heath of many of the communities living close to such plants. In one of the cryogenic plants near Evans city, Pennsylvania, families were living next to the huge industrial complex, which also has a gas flaring units, which burns continuously, flaring at times up to 100 feet above the air, especially in night time. Ms. Susan of Evans City complained her heath deteriorates ever since the opening of the cryogenic plant next to her home recently and described the gas flaring in the plant as “Towering Flame of Death”. The air around her home smacks smell of natural gas and chemicals. One realise breathing fresh air has already become a matter of privilege. It’s hard to comprehend that fact that people are being deprived of their basic right to breathe oxygen. The pipeline metering stations with high pressure pop offs valves also involves releases of high quantum of raw natural gases to the atmosphere.  The continuous noise of the compressor several times the noise of a full running locomotive freight train engine would certainly cause nuisance to any people living near it.  Families living in Hopewell Township, Washington County has to endure noise of burning gas flaring throughout the night and to expose to 15 million gallon frack waste pond, condensate storage tanks, combustible flares etc.

Many families find their children’s nose bleeding due to neurotoxins and carcinogens released from gas processing facilities units nearby. In Bradford County, after Chesapeake Energy commenced fracking from 2010, many families have already lost their lives after developed cancer due to high exposure to cancerous elements. Medical examinations confirmed high concentration of arsenic, radium, uranium among harmed communities. A researcher of University of Texas, Rachael Rawlins, concludes there is 95 percent likelihood of increased rates of leukemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in children in Flower Mound, a town with several gas shale fracking sites between the years 1997 and 2009. A jury in Texas State awarded $3 million dollars to Bob and Lisa Parr, in their fracking lawsuit in April 2014 for poisonings by Aruba Petroleum on them and thus confirming the chemical contamination and violations caused by fracking.   

Many of the gas fracking sites are actually located near schools as there are concerns on the safety of school children in gas explosions. Extensive clearing of forest is noted for gas pipelines to transport the oil across the state. Dina explained how the State invoked “Eminent Domain” concept to acquire ‘forest’ and other land required in developing infrastructure for fracking.

Many Americans are becoming refugees in their own land. Many rural Americans are forced to abandon their homes, due to undervalued property values, contamination of their water sources, worsening health impacts, loss of their cattle etc. In Connoquenessing town in Butler County, many families conscious of the potential impacts of ongoing fracking processes, put up their houses on sale. Ms. June Chapel of Hopewell Township expressed that the property value of her home decreased after Range Resources set up oil wells near her home since 2008. Dina explained how insurance companies refused to cover houses damaged due to their close proximity to industrial sites.

Oil wells and fracking sites competes with granary storage facilities across Pennsylvania State, a State that competes with California for agricultural production, due to the abundant availability of  natural waters. Fracking is such a water intensive process that leads to contamination of aquifers underneath. Pennsylvania is rich in water, forest and beautiful landscapes and many people prefer to retire here, but the fracking industries already destroyed and polluted one place after another just for corporate greed and profits. The impacts of fracking also extend to California, Texas etc.  

Companies are increasing California’s earthquake risk by injecting billions of gallons of oil and gas wastewater a year into hundreds of disposal wells near active faults around Los Angeles, Bakersfield and other major cities, according to a report from Earthworks, the Center for Biological Diversity and Clean Water Action.  A boom in hydraulic fracturing in California would worsen the danger of earthquakes by greatly increasing oil wastewater production and underground injection. Studies warned extracting the Monterey Shale’s oil could produce almost 9 trillion gallons of contaminated wastewater. In Wyoming, several water wells used by communities are contaminated with Benzene and led to dying of several animals. In many states, the fracking companies also involve setting up of their own private security units which lead to threatening of communities harmed by fracking. Oil and Gas companies also intruded in peoples’ homes for fracking without their consent. Massive movement of heavy trucks carrying gas, sand, water, coal etc caused further inconveniences.

The oil and gas fracking industries is also wrought with violation of workers’ rights and many of its workers are either injured or killed in explosions, electrocutions, chemical spills and traffic accidents. Many workers trucking chemical laden waste water hold back from the oil wells after fracking developed varied adverse health symptoms and disabilities as in the case of Mr. Randy Monger of Portage Township, Cambria County, Pennsylvania. The industries’ blatant disregard for safety and workers rights is becoming more serious as it race against peoples’ critical opinions.

Fracking also involves high emission of methane gas, a green house gas, trapped inside the earth in fossil fuels through leaks from aquifers. Methane with its high potency to retain heat from the sun, will contribute enormously in global climate crisis. Mr. Louis W. Allstadt, former executive Vice President of Mobil Oil while acknowledging methane gas leaking from fracking sites opined one simply doesn’t how much is being leaked and unfortunately, there’s no monitoring and regulation.

The search for shale gas is spreading all across United States, raising the question of whether the State is adequately protecting its citizens and its resources. The State’s present regulations, laws and enforcement policies are far too weak. Not only are the resources for dealing with the health and environmental impacts of gas production insufficient to meet the scale of the boom, but state regulators consistently downplay the risks, take sides with industry against landowners. In all the fracking operations, there’s a tacit lack of cumulative impact assessments for not just specific communities but for entire Pennsylvania State. The cumulative impact assessments are crucial given the fact that the fluids used in fracking contained at least 650 cancer causing chemicals.

The fracking lobby is very strong and influential, with the entire politicians, intellectuals and media favouring and aggressively pursuing it with a pinch of misinformation campaign. The American media and visual channels are flush with advertisement on how clean and safe is natural gas derived from fracking. “Safe Fracking”, “Jobs and Money” is the catchword in the corporate media campaign. Harmed communities expressed concerns that the Pennsylvania Department of Environment and Protection (DEP), usually favoured the energy companies and often denied contamination of air and water by toxic elements by fracking. David Headley of Springfill Township of Fayette County complained of inaction of DEP for communities harmed by gas shale fracking by Marcellus Company. Even intellectuals are not spared. Dr. Charles Groat, Professor at Energy Institute, University of Texas, Austin provoked wide controversy with his research concluding no links between fracking and water contamination. The professor, who later was identified to be a board member of an energy company, had to resign in the aftermath of widespread condemnations.    

In the pursuit for profit, the poor, the rich does not matter, the corporate bodies along with their cohorts and patronage will clamour and exploit land wherever it is. The height of capitalism and its ramifications fast consolidates in American backyards and its hinterlands. Dina shared there’s no longer differences among the people of those living in poor or rich countries. For profits and to serve insatiable greed, corporate bodies are ever willing to dig into peoples’ land, farmland, forest, water sources and wherever there are fossil fuels and the entire State seem to exist to serve corporate interest. There’s even deregulation of policies which exempts energy companies from paying tax.

Even as the impacts of fracking is fast unfolding and communities across US are grappling with the new unfolding reality and often uncertain on how best respond to emerging challenges, the country’s President already endeavoured hard globally to adopt fracking as an alternative energy solution. In places like Manipur, where oil and gas is confirmed to be in rich deposits and where decision making on management of such resources are exclusive and pursued aggressively with militarism of the state, the communities have lot more challenges. The social, environmental, health and other human rights impacts of oil and gas explorations as evidenced in Pennsylvania State should be an eye opener for all people of Manipur to seriously ponder over the oil and gas exploration moves in Manipur, especially on the impacts and accountability of corporate bodies.   

The Fracking process continues to be a subject of wide controversy across United States as communities across several states are more sensitive to impacts of Fracking. Many communities harmed by fracking maintained varying positions in responding to fracking exercise. In area such as Daisytown, Washington County, harmed people called for a complete ban on fracking. Residents of Springhill Township of Fayette Council called for more accountability of the energy companies involved in fracking and devastations of peoples’ lives. Some harmed villagers such as Mr. John Slesinger in Cambria County filed lawsuit against gas driller, T& F Explorations for violating their basic rights and denial of information on drilling operations. While others called for full respect and adherence to their constitutional rights, such as right to fresh and clean air. Residents of Denton Town in Texas gathered enough signatures to petition the city mayor to undertake voting to ban fracking in their town and vicinity areas. The State of Vermont enforced ban on Fracking, while the politically charged New York State enforced a moratorium on Fracking until the impacts are thoroughly assessed and comprehend with. Dina opined that the decisions of the two States are based on the concerns raised on impacts in Pennsylvania. Elsewhere, in Europe, France and Bulgaria, countries with the largest shale-gas reserves in Europe, have already banned fracking. Protesters are blocking potential drilling sites in Poland and England. It is high time voices of harmed communities on their adverse experiences of oil spills, contaminations, violations of their basic rights, lack of accountability of energy companies are considered seriously for necessary changes.   

For long the United States is notorious for allowing its multinational corporate bodies to intrude and expropriate communities land, water and forest in third world countries. Today, communities across rural United States are becoming an extension of third world countries, where corporate bodies are expanding their operations for greed and destroying prime agriculture land, forest, water and other tranquil locations. There’s sharp division between those involved in fracking and those impacted.  

The world has seen much advances and advent of more efficient technologies on energy solutions.  However, political commitments to adopt and apply such energy solutions to meet peoples’ needs and to minimize all forms of impacts are deliberately lacking. The corporate interest for fossil fuels still dominates political decisions. The question of who defines development, for whom and who benefits continues to be pertinent. It is high time for the communities of Manipur to take precaution of the adverse realities of what has been pursued as development and as clean sources of energy, as in Pennsylvania State. A development paradigm that best serves the needs of communities and that can minimize all forms of negative impacts on environment and people need be pursued strongly.

A dangerous form of consolidation of wealth among America’s wealthy while spreading disease, poverty and misery among the other less fortunate is fast consolidating. An intensification of privatisation process rules the roost, as energy companies continue to frack and ruined peoples’ lives. The privatisation of peoples land, resources and their lives further intensifies in the rural areas of United States amidst corporate bodies’ pursuit for endless profits. One needs to question the practicability of the principles and practices of democracy in the United States, where peoples voices are muffled, where corporate interest are far favoured than citizens rights, where democratic decision making and peoples’ concerns are subdued with misinformation and insensitivity of adverse reality and harming of communities. Manipur unfortunately, has the additionally challenge of ongoing armed conflict over self determination struggles, the ambience of endless suspicions, gauging development processes to fit into the ambits of India’s national security and interest and further to advance corporate interest while negating and subduing communities’ intrinsic rights. Are the Americans and for that matters, across the terrains in third world terrains ever be awakened by this new reality fast unfolding in  American backyards? Fracking peoples’ lives and future can never be the solution to a just and sustainable development wherever it happens.

Convention on "Human Rights of Human Rights Defenders of Manipur.

http://epao.net/epSubPageExtractor.aspsrc=news_section.Press_Release.Press_Release_2014.Convention_on_Human_Rights_of_Human_Rights_Defenders_of_Manipur_20140628

An HR activist deliberating at Manipur Convention on HRDs on 27 June 2014 at Manipur Press Club

HUMAN RIGHTS LAW NETWORK, MANIPUR UNIT
HUMAN RIGHTS INITIATIVE
UNITED NGO'S MISSION, MANIPUR
CENTER FOR RESEARCH AND ADVOCACY, MANIPUR

Convention on "Human Rights of Human Rights Defenders of Manipur",
Date: June 27, 2014, Manipur Press Club, Imphal 

A one day Convention on Human Rights of Human Rights Defenders of Manipur, was jointly organised by Human Rights Law Networks (Manipur Unit), Human Rights Initiative, United NGOs Mission and Centre for Research and Advocacy Manipur at Manipur Press Club on 27 June, 2014. The convention was organized in the backdrop of increased human right attacks on human rights defenders of Manipur, the latest being the attack on Mr. Laimayum Shivananda, an advocate. Mr. Phulindro Konsam, Chairperson, Committee on Human Rights, Mr. U. Nobokishore, Secretary, United NGO's Mission, Manipur and Ms. Maibam Nganbileima, victim of Lamphelpat Yaipha Lekai Eviction victim.

Mr. Jiten Yumnam given the key note addresses elaborating the need for protection of human rights defenders of Manipur working in an environment of armed conflict situation and also in the context of recommendations of Ms. Margeret Sagakya, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders to protect human rights defenders across India. Mr. Rakesh Meihoubam, Director, Human Rights Law Network, Manipur Unit said the government should change their behaviors and respects the human rights of all peoples of Manipur.

Mr. Pojel Chaoba (journalist IFP) shared his incident of harassment by personnel by Indian Reserve Battalion and condemned how the state security forces even violated the rights and freedom of media persons of Manipur. Mr. Babloo Loitongbam, Executive Director, Human Rights Alert stressed the need for a system where all the violation can be taken up with proper legal aid. He express the crucial need for specific mechanisms, where all victims of violations can raise their voice and further stressed the need for a focal point committee where all violations can be monitored. Mrs. Sobita Director WAD expressed concern with the recent incident of physical attack on Advocate Shivananda by team of security personal. She expressed that attacking an Advocate like Mr. Shivananda represents an attack of All Advocates of Manipur.

Phulindro Konsam, Chairperson of COHR expressed the risk involved to all defender in Manipur. He explained how the Government of India still relied on colonial laws, which the British implements against the Indian freedom movement. He said the we should demand to the govt to implements the provisions of UN declaration on Human Rights Defenders, 1998 to end violations against human rights defenders. Mr. U. Nobokishwor secretary, UNMM said that the law enforcing agencies, instead of protecting people are instead targeting innocent people and human rights defenders. He stressed the need for review of the Indian Police Act, 1860 for its inconsistency with human rights advances. The participants of the meeting adopted the following resolutions:

Resolution: Convention on "Human Rights of Human Rights Defenders of Manipur" Manipur Press Club, Imphal, Manipur, 27 June 2014 

The participants of the Convention on "Human Rights of Human Rights Defenders in Manipur", organized by the Human Rights Law Network – Manipur Unit, Human Rights Initiative, United NGO's Mission, Manipur, Centre for Research and Advocacy, Manipur at Manipur Press Club on 27th June 2014, hereby:

Strongly condemn:

1. The assault on Mr. Laimayum Sevananda of Human Rights Law Network, Manipur Unit by suspected security forces in plain clothes and called on the Government of Manipur to investigate and identify those involved in the attack within a reasonable period of time.
2. Increased targeting of human rights defenders from human rights organizations, Media, Legal fraternity, such as assault of Mr. Paojel Chaoba of Imphal Free Press in early 2014.
3. The vilification campaign unleashed by the Intelligence Bureau on activist and NGOs in the name of deterring development by using foreign funds.

Further resolved that the Government of Manipur and Government of India should:

- Recognize the human rights and ensure protection of all human rights defenders who's striving for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at all levels, as also outlined in Article 1 of UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, 1998.
- Stop targeting of all human rights defenders of Manipur to threats and direct physical attacks and deprivation of their right to life and liberty.
- Investigate and punish those involved in the torture, arbitrary detention and killing of all human rights defenders of Manipur. Specifically, punish those personnel of Manipur police involved in the attack on Mr. Paojel Chaoba of Imphal Free Press in early 2014.
- Fully implement the recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, Margaret Sagakya in February 2011 during her visit to India.
- Repeal all emergency laws, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958, the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 and the National Security Act, 1980 and other legislations that facilitate violations of human rights in Manipur.
- Call for unconditional release of Ms. Irom Sharmila and to concede her legitimate demand to repeal the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958.
- Review Indian Police Act, 1860 for its compliance with human rights principles
- Ensure the full functioning of the Manipur Human Rights Commission by appointment of competent and committed members through a transparent process.
- The Government of Manipur should set up special cell for protection of human rights defenders.
- Ensure that all security forces in Manipur strictly adhere to recommendations of Supreme Court judgement of 1997 in hearing of AFSPA, 1958 especially to identify themselves in their operations.
- Establish legislations for the protection of human rights defenders of Manipur with their due consultation in accordance with the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, 1998.
- Formulate legislations to end all practice of torture as per the UN Convention against Torture.

The Convention further adopted to form an Adhoc Committee to constitute a platform for the protection of the safety and security of human rights defenders of Manipur

Signed
Rakesh Meihoubam, Director, Human Rights Law Network
U Nobokishore, Secretary, United NGO's Mission Manipur
Joykumar Wahengbam, Director, Human Rights Initiative
Jiten Yumnam, Secretary, Centre for Research and Advocacy, Manipur