The issue is more complicated than you think

I had a very good comment from Divya Achyutam regarding my piece about Medha Patkar.
And this was the comment.

" What exactly did you do to claim that you are with Medha??? Reading about her in the newspaper and and writing a blog is not being with her. What can you do today to help her stance? What can anyone do to help her stance? Is her stance on the Narmada issue right? After all, rising the dam height would only provide electricity to 3 states. Yes it would displace a lot of economically deprived people, but you are talking about three states on the other hand!!! "

Divya, at present I just can write and make many people aware about her. That was one of my intentions. I can't go all the way to Delhi and sit with her during the fast, I would like to do, but at present not able to do it.

Then raising the dam's height would provide electricity to three states, I agree. But at what cost?
At the cost of ruining the lives of thousands.

Instead the government can control the illegal electrical tapping that is happening all over India. Also lot of power is going wasted due to inefficient transmission and poor networks, do it first.

Power can also be produced from conventional resources like wind and sun from Rajasthan. Right now that source has not been tapped to full extent. Currently only private investors are investing more in Rajasthan wind mill projects.

What Medha and others are fighting for is proper land reallocation for the people. Where will the people go? They are poor helpless tribals. Had there been some Rajputs there, would the political heavyweights allowed it?

Supreme court itself has said only after proper rehabilitation, the level should be raised, not just providing money.

India has over 4,000 large dams. Three-quarters of India's dams are in the three states of Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh and most are for irrigation.

Some facts about dams in India

Pros and cons

• Indian food production rose from 50 to 200 million tonnes 1950-1997; two-thirds of increase from irrigation.
• Data does not make clear what proportion of the increase was contributed by large dams: estimated 10%; Government claims 30%.
• Before 1978 all dams built without an environmental impact assessment (EIA). EIA became statutory only in 1994.
• Estimates of those displaced by large dams in India in the last 50 years vary from 21 to 56 million people.
• 40% of those displaced are adivasis (tribal people), Less than 50% of people displaced by large projects are rehabilitated.
• Construction occurs under the Official Secrets Act; access is denied, information is withheld, participation is non-existent.
• The costs of dams are systematically underestimated and their benefits are inflated.
• Accepted cost-benefit ratio for large dams is not met in 8 out of 10 cases.
• Heavy silting shortens the life of many dams.
• There have been 17 cases of earthquake tremor induced by large reservoirs in India.

Only the first point is a pro, but that too has been rendered useless by poor farming methods and careless storage of food grains by the government. The government can fine tune these things and then increase the height of the dam.

These are just political acts to include it in the list of achievments of the Governmnet.

I got these facts here.

I actually don't know who this Divya is, but a heartfelt thanks for her, since here comments made me to give some more facts and the depth of the issue.

I also feel happy that somebody who I don't know has commented about my blog. I have no qualms or anything against Divya. Divya if you are not satisfied with the details, do mail me. I am also eager to know who you are?