Thursday, August 28, 2014

प्रधान मंत्री : अब गंगा से हमे कुछ लेना नहीं, बस देना है

PM calls for making Ganga rejuvenation a mass movement for 'Ganga seva'; chairs first high-level meeting on "Namaami Gange" vision. Pl. read the PIB release in the link below or text thereafter.


The Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, has called for making Ganga rejuvenation a mass movement. He called for specific action plans to unite the strength of various sections of society dedicated to "Ganga Seva." 

The Prime Minister was chairing the first high-level meeting on "Namaami Gange" – an integrated plan for Ganga rejuvenation today. The Prime Minister said the first priority should be "Nirmal Ganga" – a clean Ganga. The Prime Minister said the first priority in this mission should be to stop fresh generation of pollutants.

He said teams of volunteers from various parts of the country could be involved in generating public awareness and perform Ganga seva by maintaining specific stretches of the river. 

Shri Narendra Modi referred to his vision for solid waste management and waste water management in 500 urban centres across India, through the PPP model, and said the first priority under this vision would be given to towns on the banks of the Ganga. 

The Prime Minister said suggestions being received from people on the MyGov website should be carefully studied. 

The Prime Minister said that Ganga rejuvenation could also be envisaged as a major mission to conserve the environment, with the involvement of nearly half the country's population. This would invite positive global attention, expertise and commitment, he added. 

The meeting was attended by Union Ministers Shri Venkaiah Naidu, Shri Nitin Gadkari, Ms. Uma Bharati, Shri Prakash Javdekar and Ms. Nirmala Sitharaman, and top Government officials. 


***

The above mentioned PIB release on yesterday's meeting of the PM with Union Ministers Shri Venkaiah Naidu, Shri Nitin Gadkari, Ms. Uma Bharati, Shri Prakash Javdekar and Ms. Nirmala Sitharaman, and top Government officials is silent on Barrages or Ganga Navigation Plan. Do we take this as dropping of the idea of Ganga Navigation Plan?
+++++++++++++++

From the following Report published in Dainik Bhaskar it appears that Ganga navigation plan for making it a Water ways will not materialise. Let us see the outcome of today's meeting in PMO.




Letter to World Bank and their response

2014-09-03 17:06 GMT+05:30 <Oruhl@worldbank.org>:

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your email dated August 30, 2014, regarding the proposed World Bank support for the inland waterways systems on the Ganga river.  

The World Bank shares your concern that the proposed project, which has been declared a national priority by the Government of India, be designed and implemented in a sustainable manner.  We have only recently begun our due diligence on the proposed project, and are in the process of understanding the various technical, environmental, social and cultural issues that could affect this important development initiative.  

In this context I would like to thank you for the offer of a discussion around the proposed project.  Your inputs and suggestions will be very valuable to us in identifying the critical issues that need to be analysed and studied further before work on the project design can begin.

Mr Arnab Bandopadhyay, the Senior Transport Specialist who leads the World Bank task team working on the project, will be in touch with you to arrange a meeting at a mutually convenient time. 

Onno
Onno Ruhl
Country Director, India
The World Bank
70, Lodi Estate, New Delhi
Tel: 91(11) 414 79245
Email:oruhl@worldbank.org
Website: http://www.worldbank.org.in



From:                   <bharatjj@gmail.com>
To:                        "WB India Onno Ruhl" <Oruhl@worldbank.org>
Cc:                       "ramaswamy iyer" <ramaswamy.iyer@gmail.com>, "gopal krishna toxics forum" <gopalkrishna1715@gmail.com>, "Samir Mehta" <samir@internationalrivers.org>, "Samir Mehta two Samir" <takeaction@internationalrivers.org>, "dinesh kumar mishra" <dkmishra108@gmail.com>, "Anil Prakash Farakka" <anilprakashganga@gmail.com>, "Debadityo Sinha Vindhya" <debadityo@vindhyabachao.org>, "V N Sharma Dr" <vnsh44@gmail.com>, "paritosh tyagi" <paritoshtyagi@gmail.com>
Date:                    08/30/2014 02:10 PM
Subject:                Ganga Waterway
                                                    



Dear Mr Ruhl:
Greetings!

We are much concerned with the proposal to build a series of barrages on the Ganga from Haldia to Allahabad in order to enable movement of large ships for transport. We are attaching herewith a representation outlining the various problems that will arise in this project. Our considered assessment is that the project as conceived presently will impose huge environmental, social and cultural costs on the people of the country. It will also not be economically viable if proper cost-benefit analysis is undertaken after taking on board various environmental costs. 
Sir, the World Bank is committed to the promotion of sustainable and equitable development. This project is against both these mandates.
We request that the World Bank may not finance this project and suggest to Government of India to explore ways of promoting waterway transport within free flow of the Ganga. We also request that you may kindly give us an opportunity to present our concerns before you.
Yours truly,
Bharat Jhunjhunwala (99171-44777)
For Ramaswamy Iyer, Gopal Krishna, Samir Mehta, Dinesh Kumar Misra, Anil Prakash, Debasis Ray, Dr.V.N.Sharma, Debadityo Sinha, Shiva Kumar Upadhyaya and Paritosh Tyagi


""""""""""""""

Similar letters, as given below, have been sent to the Union Ministers and Secretaries of the 5 ministries: Environment, Power, Shipping, Water resources and Tourism.

Bharat Jhunjhunwala
Lakshmoli, Maletha, Kriti Nagar, UKD 24161
bharatjj@gmail.com; Tel 99171-44777
August 26, 2014

Sushri Uma Bharati, Minister
Shram Shakti Bhawan,
Rafi Marg,
New Delhi 110001

Sub: Waterway from Haldia to Allahabad
Madam:
We are much concerned with the proposal to build a series of barrages on the Ganga from Haldia to Allahabad in order to enable movement of large ships for transport. We are attaching herewith a representation outlining the various problems that will arise in this project. Our considered assessment is that the project as conceived presently will impose huge environmental, social and cultural costs on the people of the country. It will also not be economically viable if proper cost-benefit analysis is undertaken after taking on board various environmental costs.
Madam, the NDA Government is committed to rejuvenating the Ganga and re-establishing riverbed connectivity. The proposed project will do the opposite. It will cause further fragmentation.
We request that the Government may scrap this project and explore ways of promoting waterway transport within free flow of the Ganga.
Yours truly,

Bharat Jhunjhunwala
For Ramaswamy Iyer, Gopal Krishna, Samir Mehta, Dinesh Kumar Misra, Anil Prakash, Debasis Ray, Dr.V.N.Sharma, Debadityo Sinha, Shiva Kumar Upadhyaya and Paritosh Tyagi

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Bharat Jhunjhunwala
Lakshmoli, Maletha, Kriti Nagar, UKD 24161
bharatjj@gmail.com; Tel 99171-44777
August 26, 2014

The Secretary
Paryavaran Bhawan,
CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi,110003

Sub: Waterway from Haldia to Allahabad
Sir:
We are much concerned with the proposal to build a series of barrages on the Ganga from Haldia to Allahabad in order to enable movement of large ships for transport. We are attaching herewith a representation outlining the various problems that will arise in this project. Our considered assessment is that the project as conceived presently will impose huge environmental, social and cultural costs on the people of the country. It will also not be economically viable if proper cost-benefit analysis is undertaken after taking on board various environmental costs. We request that the Government may scrap this project and explore ways of promoting waterway transport within free flow of the Ganga.
We request that:
1                   Receipt of representation may kindly be acknowledged at bharatjj@gmail.com.
2                   A personal hearing may kindly be granted to us so that we are fully able to place our concerns before you.
3                   A reasoned reply to our submissions may kindly be provided and we may be given an opportunity to respond to the same.
We are constrained to bring to your kind notice that we shall have no option but to approach the Courts if we do not receive any response from you by September 25th, 2014.
Yours truly,

Bharat Jhunjhunwala
For Ramaswamy Iyer, Gopal Krishna, Samir Mehta, Dinesh Kumar Misra, Anil Prakash, Debasis Ray, Dr.V.N.Sharma, Debadityo Sinha, Shiva Kumar Upadhyaya and Paritosh Tyagi

&&&&&&&&&&&&&

REPRESENTATION BEFORE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
On
GANGA WATERWAY FROM HALDIA TO ALLAHABAD
By
Bharat Jhunjhunwala, Former Professor, IIM Bengaluru
Ramaswamy Iyer, Former Secretary, GOI
Gopal Krishna, Ganga Bachao Samiti, ToxicsWatch Alliance
Samir Mehta, International Rivers and River Basin Friends
Dinesh Kumar Misra, Barh Mukti Abhiyan, Bihar
Anil Prakash, Ganga Mukti Andolan, Bhagalpur
Debasis Ray, Eco-One BHU, Rajiv Gandhi South Campus, Mirzapur
Dr.V.N.Sharma, Chairman, Jharkhand Vigyan Manch
Debadityo Sinha and Shiva Kumar Upadhyaya, Vindhya Bachao, Mirzapur
Paritosh Tyagi, Former Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board

Table of Contents

List of Annexures
SL
Document
01
Extracts from Planning Commission Working Group on Flood Management
02
Extracts from Kalyan Rudra, The Encroaching Ganga and Social Conflicts
03
Riverine Changes and Human Vulnerability in the ‘Chars’ Of Malda
04
Report by WWF on IPCC 4th Assessment Report
05
Sea Level Changes by National Institute of Oceanography
06
Threats to the Sundarbans Mangrove
07
Report of Standing Committee on Water Resources 2013-14
08
Report of Disaster Management Department, Government of West Bengal
09
Runoff sensitivity of Ganges River Basin by Md Monirul Quader Mirza
10
MOWR Report on Effect of Climate Change
11
WWF Report on Ganga Basin’s vulnerability to Climate Change
12
Report from Economic Times dated Jul 19, 2014
13
News Report from PatnaDaily.com dated 05 Oct 2013
14
Report from CIFRI on Hooghly Estuary
15
Statement by Four Shankaracharyas
16
Cost Benefit Analysis, Report of Ganga Flood Control Commission, 2004
17
Draft Guidelines of Cost-Benefit Analysis by IIFM
18
Passive Use Values by John Loomis
19
US Geological Survey, Effects of Dams on Mississippi River
20
US Government Accountability Office, Mississippi River
21
Report on USACE Cumulative Study of Barrages on the Mississippi
22
Report by John Tibbetts on Louisiana Wetlands
23
Article from Popular Science
24
Report by Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy

Introduction
The Government plans to make about 16 barrages on the Ganga between Haldia and Allahabad for enabling navigation in the river. The main consideration appears to be lowering of transport costs. We welcome the government’s resolve in this respect. Our submission is that these Barrages will impose huge environmental and social costs. The objective of cheaper transport can be better achieved by other ways without incurring these costs. In this respect we wish to make the following submissions.

Deposition of Sediments

Sediments will be arrested in the reservoirs behind the Barrages. The level of water in the river will rise as the river will be flowing above the deposited sediments. The water will hit at the banks leading to erosion.
Photo 1: Erosion on Left Bank upstream of Farakka. A village used to exist here.

Erosion will also take place downstream because release of water from the barrages is made suddenly with full opening at a particular gate so that the high velocity pulls the sediments and flushes them downstream. However, this same high velocity leads to erosion of banks downstream as can be seen at Farakka.
A Report of the Planning Commission accepts that there is a problem of erosion of banks both upstream and downstream of Farakka Barrage (Annexure 01).
There is evidence that the Farakka Barrage has caused huge sedimentation, increasing flood intensity and aggravating tendency of bank failures in both Malda (upstream) and Murshidabad (downstream) (Annexure 3).
The deposition of sediments and raising of river bed will lead to increased risk of the Ganga outflanking these barrages. The entire area of 1600 km will become devastated in event of this happening in a high flood. The Irrigation Department of West Bengal has expressed such a danger for Farakka: “The continued swing of the river Ganga on the left bank in the district of Malda upstream of the Farakka Barrage is not only eroding densely populated villages, fertile cultivable lands, roads and communication systems and causing floods almost every year, but also holds a possibility of the Farakka barrage being outflanked once the Ganga if allowed to avulse[1] into one of its abandoned paleo-channel[2] on the left bank” (Annexure 02).
The deposition of sediments in the reservoirs behind the barrages will lead to less flow of sediments at the mouth of the Ganga and lead to increase in coastal erosion. The natural hunger of the sea for sediments will not be met and the seas will erose the coasts to meet its hunger. The sea will advance towards the mainland accompanied with salinity ingress . The IPCC[3] 4th Assessment Report says that 1 million people will be affected by coastal erosion due to decreased sediment delivery by the rivers (Annexure 04). This has been happening at Ganga Sagar at increased rate. A study by National Institute of Oceanography indicates that the Delta at Diamond Harbour is sinking rapidly (Annexure 07). Therefore, there is need for extreme caution in undertaking any activity that will further reduce the flow of sediments to the Harbour.
The sediment that is flowing into the Ganga will be arrested in the multiple barrages that are proposed. This has to be flushed out for the Project to be sustainable. Presently huge amount of sediments get flushed out during the high flows. This entire sediment will have to be dredged. The cost dredging will be prohibitive. The Kolkata Port Trust is constantly facing financial burden of dredging. This means that the revenue from dredged material is small in comparison to the cost. This is the situation at Kolkata where demand for construction is large. The situation would be much worse upstream.
A further problem is that of storage or use of the dredged material. The prevalent practice is to dump the excavated material near the riverbanks from where it flows back into the river repeatedly.
There may be positive impact on Sunderbans due to increased flow of water in the Hooghly. However, there will be negative impact due to this water carrying less sediments. Presently available evidence indicates that the diversion of Ganges water at Farakka Barrage has led to an increase in both sedimentation and salinity in the Sunderbans which is threatening its ecosystem. The Sundari and Goran species are affected by top-dying disease (Annexure 08).
Counterargument: MOWR has contended that there is no increase of flooding due to the Farakka Barrage because there is no ponding during lean season (Annexure 09).
Reply: This is correct to the extent that there is no increase in flooding due to release of impounded waters. However that is not relevant. Flood intensity has increased because of deposition of sediments upstream and  consequent rise in level of water of the Ganga upstream. The Indian branch of the Mahananda faces one foot of rise of the Ganga water during the flood season.
Counterargument: Construction of several barrages upstream will arrest the sediments and reduce sedimentation at Farakka.
Reply: It is true that there will be reduction of problem at Farakka. However, this only transfers the problem upstream. The sediment that is presently deposited at Farakka will in future be deposited upstream at other barrages and have similar consequences. Secondly, a good amount of sediment is flushed out at Farakka during monsoons presently. This flushing will get restricted because multiple barrages will prevent the Ganga from carrying them to the sea.
Counterargument: Dredging will enable utilization of the sediments for other construction purposes. The revenue generated from regulated river bed mining will be further used for maintenance activities of the river.
Reply: The cost of dredging the sediments is exorbitant. The demand for sediments in upstream areas will be less.
The Kosi brings huge amount of coarse sediments which has found no use at all as construction material. As said previously, Kolkata Port Trust is not able to generate net revenue from dredging.
Counterargument: The sediment runoff will be controlled by plantation of suitable native trees with strong soil holding capacity. This green belt along the bank of Ganga will help in minimizing the sediment load of the river greatly.
Reply: Large areas have been planted in the last few decades but sedimentation becomes worse by the year. Sediments are released from bank erosion as well as fields. These are not managed by plantations.
Counterargument: Embankments will be made to solve the problem of river bank erosion.
Reply: Embankments are helpful only in the short run. The sediments get deposited and lead to rising of the riverbed between the embankments. Soon the river starts flowing above the level of the surrounding ground level. This requires further increase in level of the embankments. There is a limit to the increase in height of embankments. And, the water gushes out if there is a breach and causes sudden floods.

Photo 2: This embankment was made to prevent erosion at Village Madanpara downstream of Farakka on left bank. The embankment was itself eroded within one month of being made.

Flood Conveyance

The Ganga carries the flood waters of the many tributaries including the flood-prone Ghaghra, Gandak and Kosi. The capacity of the Ganga to carry the flood waters of the incoming tributaries depends upon the velocity and volume of water that the Ganga can carry. The gates of the barrages may be fully opened during such flood events. However, the cross section of the river would be reduced due to sediment deposition. The gradient of the river will also become less in large stretches due to this deposition. The reduction of live cross-section of the river and gradient will lead to flood waters of incoming tributaries not being carried by the Ganga and the flood intensity in the tributaries will be much aggravated.
Counterargument: The sediments will be flushed out from the Barrages.
Reply: Flushing leads to removal of sediments for only a small distance upstream of the Barrage. The deposited sediments form a slope and only sediments above this slope are flushed out. One can see deposition of sediments about 1 km upstream of Farakka. Sediments in long stretches of 100 km will not be flushed out.
A Report of the Disaster Management Department, Government of West Bengal explains that one of the causes of flood is backing of water in tributaries at their confluence with main river. The Ganga is not able to drain the waters of Mahananda and other rivers when the Ganga rules high upstream and downstream of the Farakka Barrage (Annexure 10). This situation will be created in the entire stretch of 1600 km where barrages will be made leading to increase in damages due to floods.
Counterargument:  The backward flow of water into the tributaries will be checked by regulating the flow of river by upstream barrages.
Reply: Barrages do not have any storage capacity. They will have to release all the water that they receive. Some sediments may be held in the upstream barrages but volume of water released will remain unchanged. Therefore there will be no change in downstream flood situation.

Climate Change

A Study by National Institute of Hydrology indicates that the rainfall and river flow in the Ganga may increase due to climate change (Annexure 11). Simultaneously the number of rainy days will be fewer and heavy rain events will be more (Annexure 12). WWF[4] has assessed that the rainfall will be concentrated in the month of August only (Annexure 13). This means that the there will be increased demand on the flood conveyance capacity of the Ganga in August. The cascade of Barrages will have the opposite impact of reduction of flood conveyance capacity.

Fragmentation of Habitat of Aquatic Life

Construction of a cascade of Barrages will led to multiple fragmentation of the migration path of fish—Hilsa and Prawns in particular. The Farakka Barrage has already led to the fragmentation of the habitat of these fish as indicated by a report by Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute (Annexure 14). Hilsa and prawns are no longer found above the Farakka Barrage. Making a series of barrages will limit migration of these fishes to a many disjointed stretches of 100 km each and prevent them from reaching areas that are suitable for their different life cycle requirements like spawning, etc. This will totally decimate these fishes.
Livelihood of fishermen dependent on fishing will be affected.
Former Chief Minister Nitish Kumar has said that the Farakka Barrage has led to accumulation of sediments, reduction of depth of watercourse and decline in the number of dolphins (Annexure 15). Dolphins are the keystone species to assess the health of the riverine ecosystem. Decline in dolphins indicates that the entire ecosystem is degrading.
Moving of ships will create disturbance from the turbulence, noise and pollution. The Dolphin is a blind animal which navigates and preys using sound to locate objects. The noise from ships will create disturbance to the Dolphin’s ability to sense and navigate. The barrages will fragment their natural path by creating obstructions.
The Project will have a negative impact on the Turtle Sanctuary at Varanasi and Vikramshila Dolphin Sanctuary at Bhagalpur.
The quality of river water is a function of aquatic biodiversity and the same will be adversely impacted.
Counterargument: There has been an increase in catch of Hilsa downstream Farakka due to the expansion of the mixing zone (Annexure 16). Increased water in the Hooghly has led to an increase in the contact zone between incoming sweet river water and receiving salt water. This zone is most productive.
Reply: The increase of fish catch in the mixing zone would be much less than the loss in 1600 km length upstream. 
Counterargument: The cause of decline of Hilsa is bagnet fishing.
Reply: This is true but barrages will exacerbate this negative impact. Need is to put a stop to bagnet fishing.
Counterargument: Reservoirs behind the barrages will lead to an increase in fish catch.
Reply: The experience of Farakka indicates otherwise. The total fish catch has declined. Number of fishermen coming to the area is nearly one-half of the pre-Farakka period. The catch of preferred species such as the Hilsa, has much declined. Artificial prawn cultivation has also not succeeded.

Floral Biodiversity

The cascade of barrages will lead to increased impoundment of water and correspondingly much reduced velocity of flow. This will lead to growing of water hyacinth on the river banks. Water hyacinth can be seen growing in the Ganga upstream on right bank above Farakka Barrage (Photo 3). The hyacinth kills other aquatic flora which are habitat and food for fishes.
Photo 3: Water hyacinth at Village Palasi on Right Bank upstream Farakka.

A US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Report on the cascade of barrages on the Mississippi says that “in the late 1980s large beds of underwater plants, such as wild celery, all but disappeared in much of the Upper Mississippi. While some plant beds have partially recovered, they may never return to their previous state, taking with them thousands of acres of habitat for young fish and the small animals that fish and other wildlife eat” (Annexure 23). The growth of Hyacinth upstream of Farakka indicates similar impact in India.
The riverine ecosystem requires variation of water levels and velocity of flows. A seasonal and gradual variation in river flows takes place in natural condition. The aquatic flora and fauna get time to adjust to the varying levels. Making a cascade of barrages will lead to the water level remaining almost constant for most of the year. There will be sudden variation in flows as and when water is released from the barrages for flushing. This sudden variation will be another impediment to the ability of flora and fauna to adjust and harm the riverine and riparian ecosystems.

Socio-cultural Impacts

The four Shankaracharyas are on record that obstruction of the flow of Ganga due to the construction of dams and barrages leads to decline in the spiritual quality of its waters (Annexure 17). Ganga has been declared as National River because of this socio-cultural value which is sacrosanct and should not be destroyed.
People living along the banks of the Ganga will have to immerse the ashes of their dead in the reservoirs. The ashes will settle in the lakes instead of being carried to the sea.

Water Quality

The series of reservoirs will lead to increased groundwater recharge. This is a fortuitous impact. But this will also lead to reduction of downstream flow and may even lead to zero flow in downstream stretches during lean season leading to anaerobic conditions. The water may stink and will not be fit for religious or tourism purposes.
Discharge of carbon emissions by ships will be more absorbed by the river water because of close proximity leading to decline in its quality. Some amount of lubricant or other oil is leaked by ships. The colour of water near the ports becomes nearly black for this reason. These leakages will have a negative impact on water quality.
Disasters take place in shipping. Barges loaded with coal, fuel oil or other materials may sink or otherwise spill their cargo into the river leading to deterioration of water quality. These discharges by the ships will remain stagnant due to the formation of barrages and the natural purification of the river will not take place.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

It is necessary to undertake a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of the project. The Ganga Flood Control Commission has prescribed a format for assessment of Cost-Benefit Analysis of flood management schemes (Annexure 18). This format excludes many costs. The Indian Institute of Forest Management has drafted guidelines for undertaking cost-benefit analysis of irrigation projects which are more comprehensive (Annexure 19). The IIFM Guidelines indicate the following costs that must be accounted for: human resettlement costs, reduction in value of land, habitat fragmentation costs, loss of public infrastructure, loss due to increase in water-borne diseases, loss of flood-recession agriculture, loss of fisheries, decreased sand harvesting, decline in water quality, loss of aesthetic value of the river, landslides and impact on terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity. These are enumerated here only to indicate the wide range of costs that need to be included in such a analysis.
Of particular importance are non-use, passive-use or existence values. People may not use the river but they are willing to pay a price to keep the river free flowing. They derive satisfaction from the knowledge that the sacred river is flowing freely. The Elhwa Dam in the United States was removed mainly because these passive values (Annexure 20). These values are routinely ignored in Cost-Benefit Analysis done in India. Inclusion of these values will tilt the scales in favour of free flow of rivers.
The Directive Principles enshrined in our Constitution require the Government to make policy that is equitable. The negative impact of the Barrage Project will mostly affect the poor due to coastal erosion, riverbank erosion, loss of fisheries, increase in water-borne diseases, loss of aesthetic value of free-flowing river, etc. The benefits, on the other hand, accrue mostly to the well-off sections—tourism on luxury ships, etc. An assessment of the differential impact of the project on different strata of the society is necessary before a decision to implement this project is made.

Strategic Impact Assessment

It is necessary to make a holistic strategic assessment of various alternatives to water transport. The factors to be induced in such an assessment would be:
1       Shipping necessarily involves increased dependence on fuel oil while rail transport is undertaken by electricity that can be generated from renewable  energy; and, as second option, by coal or nuclear power. Increase of shipping will lead to greater import dependence and impair our economic sovereignty.
2       Indications are that price of solar power may decline to levels of other sources in a few years; on the other hand fuel oil may become more expensive. This is one of the reasons why there has been a thrust on solar and wind power in the budget for 2014-15. In such a scenario the shipping project will become unviable yet we would have destroyed our river.
3       The environmental costs of waterway are high while those of rail transport are relatively less. The assessment of alternative modes of transport should be made after including these environmental costs.  
4       Shipping can be undertaken by small ships on the presently free-flowing river. Some increase in size of ship can be obtained by dredging a channel in the Ganga though environmental impacts of such dredging will have to be separately assessed. The correct comparison, therefore, is not between waterway, road and rail. The correct comparison is between (1) Small ships on presently available waterway; (2) Medium ships on dredged waterway; and (3) Large ships after construction of barrages.
5       It would be possible to design barges that have reduced draft requirement and that can ply on present natural flows or dredged flows of the Ganga without making barrages.
6       The demand for shipping on the Ganga waterway is arising mainly from the need to ship imported coal to upstream thermal power plants. These power projects can be located nearer to the ports such that it minimises transportation costs.
Any decision on the project must be taken after considering these factors.

Alternative Design of Farakka Barrage

Ways must be explored to redesign the Farakka Barrage to enable free-flow of the Ganga while also providing increased water to the Hooghly. We give below three examples of similar structures.

Tajewala

The old Tajewala Barrage on Yamuna was a partial obstruction. This has since been decommissioned and Hathnikund Barrage has been made upstream. The Tajewala Barrage was made in a ‘L’ shaped structure with Offtake on the west bank of the river. The abutment in the river did not extend across the river. The river flows in a circular fashion at this point thus water naturally flows towards the west bank.

Photo 4: Tajewala Barrage supplying to Western Yamuna Canal

The above system of partial obstruction was in operation for nearly 100 years. Problem was that water supply to the canals was not ‘proper’. This can be managed by better engineering designs.

Bhimgoda

An agreement was reached between the British Government of India and representatives of the Hindu community under the leadership of Shri Madan Mohan Malviya in 1916 providing that a ungated opening will be kept open at the Bhimgoda Barrage which was supplying irrigation water to Western UP. The structure was like two spurs from two sides with an ungated opening in the middle which established riverbed connectivity.
The opening was progressively reduced and sometime in the last decade it has been totally blocked. The Bhimgoda Barrage now is a conventional barrage extending across the riverbed. Nevertheless, this indicates that a ungated opening is technically feasibly as was in operation for nearly eighty years.

Ruparel

Photo 5: Structure on Ruparel River
The water of Ruparel River in Alwar had to be divided between the States of Alwar and Bharatpur. A structure was made such that the water got divided between the two states in ratio of 55:45. There is no gate in the structure. There is aviral flow on both offtakes. This structure is still operative.
Similar structures can be made to divide the water of the Ganga in two parts. One part can be diverted to the Hooghly and other can be allowed to flow to the Padma.

Mississippi Experience

A cascade of barrages have been built on the Mississippi River in the 1930s in the United States to enable shipping. However, many negative impacts of that project have become known and there is even a call for “letting the river go its own way.”

Photo 6: View of Lock and Dam 27 on the Mississippi River (Annexure 21).

Environment

The US Government Accountability Office has said that the USACE, which maintains the barrages, assesses the hydrologic impacts but not the environmental impacts of the barrages on the Mississippi. This means that the environmental aspects of the barrage system have not been taken on board. The Report says “Researchers have highlighted two key areas of concern with river training structures—degradation of river habitat and increased flooding” (Annexure 22). These are precisely the major impacts of Farakka Barrage that are noticed in India.
A study by USACE pointed out that the ecosystem of the Illinois River, which is a tributary of the Mississippi, collapsed in 1950s. Many plant, duck and fish populations declined very quickly. Similar collapse of the Mississippi is feared.

Sediments

A Report by US Geological Survey says: “Since the early 20th century, approximately 4,900 km2 of coastal lands have been lost in Louisiana. One of the primary mechanisms (for this happening)… is believed to be the disconnection of the river distributary network from the delta plain by the massive system of levees on the delta top, which prevent overbank flooding and replenishment of the delta top by sediment and nutrient deliveries. Efforts by Federal and State agencies to conserve and restore the Mississippi River Delta Plain began over three decades ago and have accelerated over the past decade. Regardless of these efforts, however, land losses are expected to continue because the reduced upstream sediment supplies are not sufficient to keep up with the projected depositional space being created by the combined forces of delta plain subsidence and global sea-level rise” (Annexure 21). A similar loss of coastal lands is already happening at Ganga Sagar.
In 1996, the State of Louisiana created a document named Coast 2050, which outlined strategies and measures needed to restore the state’s wetlands and barrier islands. Coast 2050 proposed that the Mississippi River be re-engineered to imitate natural processes. Some portion of the river’s flow should be re-diverted via pipelines or canals to flush into the delta so that South Louisiana’s sinking ecosystems could be built up (Annexure 24). There is much criticism of this report. Many observers feel this will not work. Be that as it may this debate indicates that after nearly 80 years the US Government is still trying to grapple with the problem of coastal erosion created by the cascade of barrages on the Mississippi.
Other observers give a grave warning: “Oliver Houck, who directs the environment program at Tulane University Law School, says that nothing less than letting the river go its own way will solve the land loss problem… What has to be done now is to let the Mississippi River take its natural course and allow the full bed load of the river to rebuild the marsh.” He adds, “The problem with Coast 2050 and other restoration plans is that they fail to halt wetland destruction in the same areas they are trying to restore. New canals, deeper canals, expanded ports are all on the table. No way that works.”
A Report in Popular Science says the Mississippi is topping its banks and barriers more frequently and with greater consequences than flood models tend to predict. The writer says, “one thing is abundantly clear: the mighty Mississippi wants out of the path that humans have determined for it, and it is increasingly finding ways to escape” (Annexure 25). Similar fears that the Ganga may outflank the Farakka Barrage have been expressed by the Government of West Bengal (quoted above).

Economics of the Waterway

A Report by Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy says that transport of cargo by barges on the Mississippi waterway is economical only because it is not taxed while user fees are charged from rail and road transport (Annexure 26). The proposed cascade of barrages on the Ganga is similarly likely to be economical only due to subsidies provided by the Government. Our situation is likely to be worse. The Mississippi Waterway is used to transport bulk agricultural exports from upstream states to the coastal ports for exports. The Ganga Basin does not have such export-oriented bulk commodities. The Ganga Waterway will be mainly used for transport of imported coal. This will be small in quantity to make the Waterway economically viable.
Counterargument: A study was commissioned by the USACE to assess the feasibility of expanding the locks and dams to accommodate more shipping on the Mississippi River.
Reply: There is a tendency among engineers to make big structures. This does not mean that these structures will be sustainable or viable. USACE has made a mistake in making bigger structures on the Mississippi. We must learn from their continuing mistake and not follow that path.

Humble Submission

The NDA Government is committed to the maintenance of Aviral flow of the Ganga. The present project will break this. It will additionally impose huge environmental and social costs, especially due to intensification of flood and riverbank and coastal erosion.
We welcome the efforts of the Government to reduce the cost of transport and exploring the option of shipping. The way forward is to explore various ways of promoting shipping without obstructing free flow of the Ganga. We request the Government to scrap this project and commission a Strategic Impact Assessment of various non-obtrusive alternatives.





[1] To tear off, to separate.
[2] Old or ancient channel.
[3] Inter-Governmental Protocol on Climate Change
[4] World Wide Fund for Nature

Thursday, August 7, 2014

Letter against victimisation of Prof Rajeev Kumar of IITKharagpur

REGISTERED
No. JVM/C/Rajeev/0114
Aug 07, 2014.
Smt Smriti Irani,
Union Minister for Human Resource Development                                                       & Chairman, IIT Council,
Government of India,
Shastri Bhawan,
NEW DELHI-110001
            Sub: Victimization of Prof Rajeev Kumar, an IIT Teacher for Reforming IIT JEE Processes
Hon’ble Smriti Irani Ji,
We would like to bring to your kind notice the victimization of a good academician Prof Rajeev Kumar of IIT Kharagpur by the self-seeking authorities of the Institute. Prof. Kumar is a victim of UPA Government,  MHRD officials and IIT Kharagpur officials,  who were all hand in glove with each other in victimizing Prof Kumar for all these years. They continue to be the same even now. We present some of Prof Kumar’s commendable work done in the area of academics and streamlining the IIT system for the benefit of all concerned. 
The tenacious efforts made by Prof. Rajeev Kumar of IIT Kharagpur led to reforming IITs’ Joint Entrance Examination (IIT-JEE) and other admission/competitive examinations. Kumar has brought about systematic reforms in (i) a priori selection criteria, (ii) carbon copy of answer script, (iii) release of answer keys before results, (iv) online availability of evaluated scanned scripts, (v) multiple rounds of admissions with exit policy, etc. Two independent benches of Supreme Court acknowledged Kumar’s positive work and termed him as one of the many unsung heroes who helped in improving the system.
Kumar also solely authored UG engineering accreditation guidelines (May 2011 Edn.), by which India acquired full signatory status in Washington Accord in June 14. Kumar adopted ‘transparent, well defined processes with built-in-consistency checks and participation of stakeholders’ in both the above ‘Public Services,’ which are aimed at Min. government, Max. governance.
In retaliation to his “Public Services” and “Disclosure of several conflicts of interests and irregularities in Public Interest” (e.g., IIT Kharagpur Chairman running IIT-JEE Coaching classes and IIT directors being indicted by CBI/CVC), IIT suspended Kumar in May 2011, and charge sheeted Kumar on those charges in which Kumar blew the whistle. IIT Kharagpur set up a Kangaroo court with sole aim of falsely implicating Kumar by denial of natural justice and fairness. The Kangaroo Court, without any evidence, found Kumar guilty of also those charges, which were never levelled against Kumar in the charge-sheet. The Kangaroo Court’s conclusions are contrary to Supreme Court’s Judgments and CVC’s findings.
The initial stand of your Ministry dated 10.10.11 was that “IITs enjoys administrative autonomy and intervention by the Ministry in a disciplinary case is not feasible,” was changed due to receiving several CVC queries. Annoyed with whatever was going on in IIT Kharagpur in this case we wrote to the President of India vide our letter No. JVM/ C/ Rajeev/ 0112 dated Dec 03, 2012 with a copy endorsed to your predecessor (copy attached). In April 2013, Min. HRD directed IIT Kharagpur to revoke the suspension order after making Kumar academically dysfunctional for 2 years.
However, IIT Kharagpur defied Min. HRD’s orders, dated 22.10.12 and 12.12.12 and did not place Kumar’s representations alleging bias in the Inquiry before the Reviewing Authority, the Visitor. Min. HRD defied their own orders, and did not place allegations of the biased inquiry despite receiving President Secretariat’s letter, dated 28.02.13 for appropriate action.
IIT Board’s order, dated 20.06.14, did not consider any violation of principles of natural justice in the inquiry. IIT found Kumar guilty on several counts though IIT failed to specify even a single violation of conduct rules. IIT proposed a penalty of Kumar’s compulsory retirement. The proposed penalty is malicious, mala fide, ultra-vires and in violation of the laws of the land. We would request  you to kindly see the relevant Newspaper Reports in the following links
In accordance with autonomous IIT Kharagpur Statutes 15(12), we request you to please initiate the following action and get the charges and compulsory retirement order of the IIT Kharagpur against Professor Kumar revoked. It would be in fitness of things to get this case reviewed by a fresh team of persons who were not involved earlier.
   (i)    place the allegations of biased inquiry, dated 21.02.13, before the appellate authority, the Visitor for appropriate action as per President Secretariat’s letter, dated 28.02.13, and Min. HRD’s letter, dated 22.10.12,
 (ii)    examine independently the Inquiry Report, and Kumar’s response dated 09.07.14 to the penalty show cause notice by CVC, UPSC or some other independent body,
(iii)    consider independently Kumar’s letter, dated 16.07.14 for his protection from victimization,
(iv)    recommend to the Visitor for quashing the inquiry and the charge-sheet for Kumar’s protection from victimization as per the applicable Whistleblower Gazette Notifications, 2004/2013 or Sec. 11(1) of Whistleblower Protection Act, 2011.
Further we request you to kindly protect Prof Kumar by re-locating him appropriately so that he is allowed to carry on his academic and research work for the benefit of the students, the IITs and last but not the least, this country. We are sure that all the records, as mentioned above, are with IIT Kharagpur, Min. HRD and CVC. Yet we suggest you to call Prof. Kumar for documents and clarification, if and when needed. Please let us know if we can be of some help to you in resolving this long pending issue.

With thanks and kind regards,

Yours faithfully,


(V.N.Sharma)
An IITK Alumni

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

REGISTERED
                                                                        No. JVM/ C/ Rajeev/ 0112                                                                                       December 03, 2012
To
        
Sri Pranab Mukherjee,
President of India & Visitor, IIT Kharagpur, 
President’s House, Raisina Hills,
New Delhi 110 001

  Sub: Request for immediate revocation of suspension of Prof. Rajeev Kumar of the Dept. of Computer Science & Engg. of IIT Kharagpur

Dear Sir,

I would like to bring to your kind notice the case of computer science teacher, Prof. Rajeev Kumar, who has been put on suspension for the past 18 months, without any review. In absence of the review, the suspension order, dated 13/05/11, is not valid after 90-days, i.e. from 12/08/11 in accordance with the applicable CCS (CCA) Rule 10(7).

Prof. Kumar discovered irregularities, in the merit lists of Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) for admissions in IITs. His tenacious efforts of the past 6 years have led to improvement of JEE, which is much reformed now due to transparency. Some of the measures, as adopted by JEE are – (i) cutoff procedure and marks are known a priori, (ii) carbon copy of the answer script is provided to prevent tampering, (iii) answer keys are announced before the result, (iv) scored marks and evaluated scripts are made available online before the result declaration, and (v) multiple rounds of admissions are done with exit policy to re-allocate surrendered seats for avoiding wastage of vacant seats.

Two independent benches of Supreme Court lauded Prof. Kumar’s efforts in making the merit ranking process of IIT-JEE more transparent and accurate. The Supreme Court called him one of the many unsung heroes who helped in improving the system.

It appears that due to his exposure of academic and financial irregularities (including CBI’s indictment of the then IIT Director, Deans and others), Prof. Kumar was suspended, on the charges on which he suggested to reform the procedures for maintaining academic sanctity.

Presently Prof. Kumar is debarred from teaching and research. He is made academically dysfunctional. The
indefinite suspension is doing irreparable losses and ruining his professional career in addition to the loss to students in academic terms. His allegations of biased Inquiry were not addressed. Therefore, MHRD directed IIT vide letter No. F.No. C-13011/67/2011-I dated 22nd October 2012 for (i) review of the continued suspension as per provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, and (ii) processing of Prof. Kumar’s representations alleging bias against the Inquiry Officer for placing before the Reviewing Authority, the Visitor, in accordance with the CCS (CCA) Rules. (copy attached).

In my view it is a serious matter that IIT Kharagpur has ignored this well considered direction of the Ministry and remained silent till now to the above directions.
I believe IIT Kharagpur – first of the IITs and a premier institute of learning in India in its own right - need to be the role model in the country with respect to justice, fairness, obedience to authority and respect for human rights. Instead it has chosen to brutalize a "hero" teacher.  Instead of punishing the guilty, it has chosen to punish the messenger. History will not be kind to its actions which do not reflect high on its reputation. At the same time it will also not be kind to this generation of intellectuals and the system of governance which stood to punish those who blew whistle to keep the society and the country safe and away from the wrong doers and their corrupt practices. I feel that it is a matter of shame to all IITians, I being one of them.
In view of the above I request your personal attention for revoking the suspension order and quashing the charge sheet against Prof Rajeev Kumar with immediate effect.
Thanking you,
Sincerely Yours,


(V.N.Sharma)

   Encl: Copy of letter No. F.No. C-13011/67/2011-I dated 22nd October 2012  
Copy to:

Dr. M. Mangapati Pallam Raju,
Union Minister for Human Resource   Development & Chairman, IIT Council,
Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi 110 001.
--For information and with a request to please do the needful for revocation of suspension of Prof. Rajeev Kumar of IIT Kharagpur.

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Kosi Barrage Picture


Posted by Picasa

डा वी एन शर्मा
vf[ky Òkjrh; f'k{kk vf/kdkj eap
1 viSzy 2010 dks ns'k esa rFkkdfFkr ^eq¶r ,oa vfuok;Z f'k{kk vf/kdkj dkuwu] 2009* ykxw gks गया gSA ;g crk;k tk jgk gS fd ;g ,d Økafrdkjh dne gSA ljdkjh nkok gS fd blls ns'k ds lkjs cPpksa dks f'kf{kr djus dk dke gks tk,xkA ysfdu lp D;k gS\ vkb,] fopkj djsa &
Ø bl dkuwu us 6 lky ls de mez d¢ cPp¨a d¨ larqfyr vkgkj] LoLFk cpiu v©j iwoZ&çkFkfed f’k{kk ¼ulZjh] d¢-th-½ dk lafoèkku esa fn;k x;k e©fyd vfèkdkj Nhu fy;k gSA tc cqfu;kn gh det¨j g¨xh r¨ ;g dkuwu vkxs D;k nsus dk nkok dj jgk gS\ dkuwu esa vkB lky dh f’k{kk ¼1&8 d{kk rd½ d¢ vfèkdkj dk t¨ <¨ax fd;k gS mld¨ ge uhps mtkxj dj jgs gSaA 8oÈ d¢ ckn 9oÈ ls 12oÈ d{kk rd dh ekè;fed f’k{kk dk vfèkdkj u nsdj bl dkuwu us xjhc cPp¨a d¢ fy, mPp f’k{kk v©j dSfj;j d¢ jkLrs can dj fn, gSa\
Ø bl dkuwu esa dgÈ ugÈ fy[kk gS fd fodykax cPp¨a d¨ fu;fer Ldwy¨a esa gh i<+k;k tk,xkA dkuwu esa fn, x, ekunaM¨a esa Òh dsoy mu fodykax cPp¨a d¢ fy, ukeek= çkoèkku gS t¨ pyfQj ugÈ ldrsA n`f"V&ckfèkr] ewd&cfèkj ,oa ekufld :i ls fodykax cPp¨a d¨ iwjh r©jij utjankt+ fd;k x;k gSA ljdkj dk bjknk lkQ gS fd ,sls cPp¨a d¨ mud¢ Äj¨a esa gh jgus d¨ etcwj fd;k tk,xk v©j mUgsa ,u-th-v¨- d¢ gokys djd¢ ljdkj viuh tokcnsgh ls iYyk >kM+ ysxhA
Ø bl dkuwu esa dgÈ ugÈ fy[kk gS fd lc cPp¨a d¢ eq¶r f’k{kk nh tk,xh ¼nsf[k, èkkjk 3½ ojUk~ t¨ fy[kk gS mlds ek;us gSa fd V~;w’ku Qhl d¢ vykok vU; çdkj d¢ ’kqYd ysus ij d¨Ã eukgh ugÈ gSA ,slh vthc¨xjhc ^eq¶r* f’k{kk dk Òh vfèkdkj mu cPp¨a dk ugÈ jgsxk t¨ ljdkjh Ldwy¨a dh cngkyh d¢ pyrs futh Ldwy¨a esa i<+us d¢ fy, etcwj gSa ¼nsf[k, èkkjk 8d½A vxj futh Ldwy¨a esa cPp¨a d¨ igys dh rjg gh Qhl nsuh iM+h r¨ D;k ;g dkuwu cPp¨a d¢ lkFk fd;k x;k ÒÌk etkd ugÈ gS\
Ø bl dkuwu dh 'krZsa iwjh djus ds fy, ljdkjh Ldwyksa esa f'k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr rks gksxh] fdUrq os vLFkk;h] vizf'kf{kr o Bsds ij fu;qDr ^iSjk&f'k{kd* gh g¨axsA bl dkuwu eas ^iSjk&f'k{kd* ¼tSls lafonk f'k{kd] vfrfFk f'k{kd] f'k{kk fe=] f’k{kk mikld vkfn½ yxkus ij dksbZ jksd ugha gSA bldk eryc gS fd ljdkjh Ldwyksa vkSj lLrs futh Ldwyksa eas xjhc cPpksa dh i<+kbZ ^jke&Hkjksls* jgsxhA D;k LFkk;h] izf'kf{kr] i;kZIr osru okys f'k{kdksa dk dSMj cuk, cxSj ns'k ds cPpksa dh f'k{kk Bhd ls gks ldsxh\
Ø bl dkuwu esa f'k{kdksa dh ;ksX;rk] osru vkSj lsok ’krsZa tkucw>dj r; ugÈ dh xà gSa rkfd ckn esa ljdkj d¨ euekus
Ø bl dkuwu esa fo|kFkhZ&f'k{kd vuqikr v©j dej¨a dk ekunaM blçdkj r; fd;k x;k gS fd U;wik ¼us’kuy ;wfuoflZVh v‚Q+ ,T;qd¢’kuy ,MfefuLVªs’ku ,aM Iykfuax½ }kjk tkjh fd, x, vkadM+¨a d¢ vkèkkj ij lkQ gS fd yxÒx 40 Qhlnh izkFkfed Ldwy ¼60 ls de ukekadu la[;k okys½ d¢oy n¨ f’k{kd&n¨ dejs okys cus jgsaxsA ;kuh bu Ldwy¨a esa ,d f’k{kd }kjk ,d gh dejs esa ,d ls vfèkd d{kk,a i<+kus dh ifjikVh cnLrwj tkjh jgsxhA Bhd ;gh gky yxÒx 30 Qhlnh ¼90 ;k 120 ls de ukekadu la[;k okys½ v©j Ldwy¨a dk Òh jgsxkA ;kuh vkxs Òh n¨&frgkà ls vfèkd Ldwy¨a esa xjhc cPPkksa d¢ lkFk nks ;k rhu d{kkvksa dks ,d lkFk i<+kus dk etkd tkjh jgsxkA
Ø bl dkuwu esa ljdkjh Ldwyksa ds f'k{kdksa dks tux.kuk] iapk;r ls ysdj laln rd d¢ pquko¨a vkSj ^vkink jkgr^ d¢ uke ij i<+kus d¢ vykok vU; dke¨a ij yxkus ij Hkh jksd ugha yxkbZ gSA ;kuh futh Ldwy¨a d¢ cPp¨a d¨ j¨t i<+k;k tk,xk tcfd xjhc cPpksa dh i<+kbZ igys dh rjg ljdkjh f'k{kdksa dks xSj&’kS{kf.kd dke¨a esa yxk, j[kus d¢ dkj.k izHkkfor gksrh jgsxhA ;kuh ljdkjh Ldwy¨a d¢ cPp¨a d¢ f[kykQ ÒsnÒko tkjh jgsxkA
Ø bl dkuwu esa futh Ldwyksa dh Qhl c<+kus ij dksbZ jksd ugha gSA ;kuh os euekuh Qhl c<+krs jgsaxsA bu Ldwyksa ds izca/ku esa vfHkHkkodksa ;k lekt dh fdlh rjg dh Hkkxhnkjh ;k ljdkj }kjk fu;eu d¨ Hkh t#jh ugha j[kk x;k gSA ekuo lalkèku fodkl ea=h dfiy flCcy us r¨ gky esa bl vk’k; dh Ĩ"k.kk djrs gq, ;g Òh dg fn;k gS fd bl dkuwu d¢ ykxw g¨us d¢ ckn fofÒUu jkT;¨a d¢ futh Ldwy¨a dh Qhl o çcaèku ij fuxjkuh j[kus okys e©twnk dkuwu Òh jÌ g¨ tk,axs ;kuh f’k{kk v©j vfèkd egaxh g¨ tk,xhA
Ø bl dkuwu esa f'k{kk esa c<+rh gqà xSjcjkcjh vkSj HksnHkko dks jksdus dh dksbZ ckr ugha gSA mYVs ;g dkuwu ljdkj d¨ mls vkSj c<+kok nsus dh iwjh NwV nsrk gSA blls ljdkjh Ldwyksa esa flQZ xjhc cPPks gh jg tk,axs] vkSj mudh mis{kk o nqnZ'kk vkSj c<+sxhA bl dkuwu ds ckn uke ds fy, rks gj cPps dks Ldwy dh f'k{kk ikus dk vf/kdkj gksxk] fdUrq xjhc cPpksa ds fy, fugk;r ?kfV;k v©j v/kdpjh f'k{kk gh gksxh ¼ftlesa 5oha vkSj 8oha esa vk tkus ij Hkh cPps dks U;wure i<+uk&fy[kuk vk,] ;g Òh lqfu’pr djus dh tokcnsgh ls ljdkj dkuwu esa cjh g¨ xÃA½
Ø bl dkuwu esa futh Ldwyksa esa 25 izfr'kr xjhc cPpksa dks eq¶r f'k{kk nsus ¼mudh V~;w’ku Qhl ljdkj nsxh½ dk cgqr izpkj fd;k tk jgk gSA fdUrq dkuwu prqjkà ls e©u gS fd futh Ldwy¨a esa V~;w’ku d¢ vykok t¨ ukuk çdkj dh vU; Qhlsa yh tkrh gSa os bl çkoèkku d¢ rgr pqus x, xjhc cPps dSls nsaxsA dkuwu tkucw>dj bl ij Òh e©u gS fd 25 izfr'kr xjhc cPpksa dks fdl fofèk ls pquk tk,xk\ ;kuh bldk nkj¨enkj iwjh rjg futh Ldwy¨a ij N¨M+ fn;k x;k gS rkfd os euekuh dj ld¢aA lcls cM+k loky r¨ gS fd t¨ cPps bl çkoèkku d¢ rgr pqus tk,axs D;k mUgsa mEnk f’k{kk fey ik,xh\ bldh laÒkouk dkQh de gS pwafd T;knkrj futh Ldwy ÄfV;k Ldwy gSaA ,slk gh ,d v©j lokyA t¨ cPps bl çkoèkku d¢ ckgj jg tk,axs ¼yxÒx rhu&p©Fkkà ls vfèkd cPps½ mudk D;k gksxk\ muds fgLls esa ogh ?kfV;k] v/kdpjh ukeek= dh f'k{kk jgsxhA oSls Òh 8oÈ d{kk d¢ ckn bu cPp¨a d¨ lM+d ij [kM+k dj fn;k tk,xk pwafd mld¢ ckn dkuwu esa futh Ldwy¨a dh d¨Ã tokcnsgh ugÈ jgsxhA
Ø bl dkuwu esa 8oha rd dh i<+kà cxSj fdlh c¨MZ ijh{kk d¢ iwjh djus dk çkoèkku gSA bldk eryc gS fd ljdkjh vkSj lLrs futh Ldwyksa esa vk/kh&v/kwjh f'k{kk ds ckn Hkh cPpksa dks vxyh d{kk esa /kdk;k tkrk jgsxk v©j mUgsa 8oÈ dh i<+kà iwjh djus dk çek.ki= fey tk,xk ftlls vkxs dh d{kkv¨a esa ços’k ikus esa d¨Ã enn ugÈ feysxhA
Ø bl dkuwu esa ekr`Hkk"kk esa f'k{kk dk izko/kku rÒh fd;k tk,xk tc og ljdkj d¢ fy, ^O;ogkfjd^ g¨xkA oSls Òh ,d [kkl oxZ d¢ cPp¨a d¢ fy, vaxzsth ek/;e dh f'k{kk dh xqatkbZ'k NksM+ nh gSA bl rjg ns'k esa nksgjh f'k{kk O;oLFkk iwoZor pkyw jgsxhA
Ø bl dkuwu esa f'k{kk ds c<+rs /ka/ks vkSj equkQk[kksjh ij jksd yxkus dh dksbZ ea'kk ugha gSA mYVs ljdkj lkoZtfud&futh lk>snkjh ¼ih-ih-ih-½ ds uke ij ljdkjh Hkwfe] iSlk vkSj vU; çdkj dh enn ¼çR;{k v©j fNih fj;k;rsa lesr½ nsdj iwathifr;ksa] ,u-th-v¨- o èkkfeZd laxBu¨a dks bl /ka/ks esa cqyk jgh gS vkSj mUgsa euekuh Qhl ,saBus] de osru ij f’k{kd¨a d¨ fu;qDr djus v©j fofÒUu çdkj d¢ dj¨a ls NwV nsdj c<+kok ns jgh गसा


जन संगठनो के प्रतिनिधियों की अगस्त 7-9, 2010 की अल्मोडा बैठक में प्रस्तुति हेतु

Wednesday, November 18, 2009



ALL INDIA FORUM FOR RIGHT TO EDUCATION
306, Pleasant Apartments, Bazarghat, Hyderabad-4
Tel.: (040) 2330-5266
________________________________________________________________________
PRESS RELEASE
09 November 2009/ New Delhi

The All India Forum for Right to Education (AIF-RTE) organized a two-day national
consultation at the Delhi University campus on 7-8 November 2009 on ‘Building a
Movement for Right to Education’ which was attended by the representatives of several
teachers’ and students’ organizations, Right to Education groups, social movements,
intellectuals and activists from 13 states of India. The national consultation expressed a
deep concern over the rapidly deteriorating condition of the education system from preprimary
stage to higher and technical education. The national consultation unanimously
noted that,

1. The recently enacted ‘The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education
Act, 2009’ (henceforth referred to as the ‘Right to Education Act, 2009’ or simply
as the ‘RTE Act 2009’) is designed to (a) enable the State to abdicate its
Constitutional obligation towards providing elementary education (class I-VIII) of
equitable quality to all children in the 6-14 year age group; (b) demolish the entire
government school system except the schools of certain elite categories (e.g.
Kendriya Vidyalayas, Navodaya Vidyalayas, XI plan’s 6,000 model schools, and
similar elite schools of the States/UT governments); and (c) increase the pace of
privatization and commercialization of school education. This Act would provide
neither free education nor education of equitable quality. Rather, it would legitimize
and maintain the multi-layered school system built through World Bank’s District
Primary Education Programme (DPEP) during the 1990s and Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyan (SSA) during the present decade. The central agenda of the Act is clearly
to privatise and commercialise the school system through neo-liberal schemes such
as Public Private Partnership (PPP), school vouchers, adoption of schools by
corporate houses, religious bodies and NGOs.

2. The decision of the government to provide for profiteering through education has
dangerous socio-political implications for the stability, solidarity and sovereignty of
the country.

3. Public Private Partnership (PPP), which includes school vouchers, outsourcing and
adoption of schools and colleges, is aimed at shifting of public funds to the
corporate capital through the back door for unbridled profiteering.

4. The Yashpal Committee Report on higher and technical education is a package of
contradictions but, in the ultimate analysis, it rationalizes and supports the neoliberal
agenda of privatisation and commercialisation of higher education
institutions, PPP and differential fee structure; and welcomes second grade (or even
worse) foreign universities and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). What is of even
greater concern is that it fails to propose any credible plan for improvement of the
quality of the existing 18,000 colleges and 400 universities in the country. Its
recommendation of replacing the existing regulatory bodies such as UGC, AICTE,
NCTE, MCI and others by a high empowered single window National Commission
of Higher Education and Research (NCHER) would enable it draw its resources
directly from the Ministry of Finance, thereby making it unaccountable to the
democratically mandated Ministry of HRD. This is certainly a prescription for
unbridled privatization and commercialization of higher education as well as entry
of foreign universities and FDI.

In light of the above, we urge upon the Union Government to,

i) replace the RTE ACT 2009 with a new Act drafted in the framework of the
‘Common School System based on Neighborhood Schools’ in consonance with
the basic spirit and principles enshrined in the Constitution;

ii) review the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act (2002) with a view to providing
a Fundamental Right to free and compulsory education of equitable quality to all
children until the age of eighteen years i.e. until class XII, including early
childhood care and pre-primary education;

iii) create all necessary provisions within the Common School System to
educate the disabled children therein, except in the case of certain extreme forms
of disabilities for whom Special Schools may be required;

iv) incorporate a Constitutional guarantee within the Act for providing
adequate funding for the entire school system, including early childhood care and
pre-primary education. This is precisely the implication of a Fundamental Right;
and

v) include in the Act a provision to completely ban all forms of privatisation
and commercialisation of education, especially Public Private Partnership (PPP),
adoption of schools by private agencies, outsourcing and voucher schools.

In addition, we demand that,

1. All private schools, aided or unaided, should be taken over by the government and
handed over to the Local Bodies for management, except in the case of those
charitable societies which give an undertaking to fulfill the same Constitutional
obligation as a Government or Local Body school, including, among others,
providing free education of equitable quality as a Neighbourhood School and
appointing teachers under service conditions and salary scales applicable to the
government school teachers.

2. Upgrade the status of all Para Teachers previously appointed in schools under
DPEP and SSA since the 1990s and include them in the cadre of regular teachers,
while, at the same time, ensuring that their educational status through pre-service
and in-service education is taken care of by the government, including its cost.

3. Enact legislation to ban all forms of privatisation and commercialisation at all
stages of education from pre-primary stage to higher and technical education, with
severe penalty clauses against profiteering.

4. All forms of Public Private Partnership (PPP), including school vouchers, adoption
by private parties and outsourcing, must be banned through legislation forthwith.

5. The State must ensure that entirely free education of equitable quality is available
at all stages of education from pre-primary to higher and technical education (“free
education from KG to PG”).

6. No foreign university should be allowed to function in India either directly or
indirectly.

7. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in education has no place at all in a country that
is required under the Constitution to become a “sovereign, socialist, secular,
democratic Republic”, apart from being entirely inconsistent with the principles of
equality and social justice enshrined therein.

8. The “offer” of higher and technical education made by the Govt. of India to the
GATS Council must be withdrawn forthwith, lest they become “commitments”.

9. The entire education system must be reconstructed to build a democratic, socialist,
secular, egalitarian, and enlightened society and to protect the sovereignty of India,
on the one hand, and the democratic and human rights of the masses, on the other.

The national consultation decided to undertake the following three-point programme:

1. Organise a massive march to the Parliament during the forthcoming budget
session of the Parliament in 2010.

2. Open a sustained dialogue with various section of society including the dalits,
tribals, OBCs, minorities, disabled and the nomadic, displaced and migrant
population, especially the women in each of these sections of society, with a
view to building a common understanding for moving towards a pro-people
and democratic education system in India founded on the principles of equality
and social justice.

3. Undertake Pad Yatras throughout the country in order to carry forward the
Right to Education movement to the district and Block levels.

Members of the Presidium & Secretariat
All India Forum for Right to Education (AIF-RTE)

Presidium

1. Sh. Prabhakar Arade (President, All India Federation of Elementary Teachers
Organisations), Kolhapur, Maharashtra.
2. Dr. Meher Engineer (President, Indian Academy of Social Sciences), Kolkata, West
Bengal.
3. Prof. G. Haragopal (Centre for Human Rights, University of Hyderabad), Hyderabad,
Andhra Pradesh.
4. Sh. Kedar Nath Pandey (General Secretary, Bihar Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh), Patna,
Bihar.
5. Ms. Madhu Prasad (Deptt. of Philosophy, Zakir Husain College, Delhi University), New
Delhi.
6. Prof. Anil Sadgopal (Former Dean, Faculty of Education, Delhi University & Former
Member, CABE), Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
7. Shri Sunil (Vice-President, Samajwadi Jan Parishad), Distt. Hoshangabad, Madhya
Pradesh.

Secretariat

1. Dr. Sarwat Ali (Institute of Advance Studies in Education, Jamia Millia Islamia), N.Delhi.
2. Shri Vikram Amrawat (Gujarat Vidyapeeth), Ahmedabad, Gujarat.
3. Dr. Shaheen Ansari (Ark Foundation), New Delhi.
4. Ms. Nandini Dutt Jha (Shiksha Adhikar Manch, Bhopal), Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.
5. Ms. Radhika Menon (Mata Sundari College, Delhi University), New Delhi.
6. Shri Ramesh Patnaik (A.P. Save Education Committee), Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.
7. Dr. V.N. Sharma (Jharkhand Vigyan Manch), Ranchi, Jharkhand.
8. Shri Arvind Vaidya (Committee for Equal Fundamental Right to Education), Mumbai