Concern for Kondhs, but not Khasis?

Times of India, Aug 30, 2010

What is common between Niyamgiri hills in Kalahandi district of Orissa and a place near Umiam lake in East Khasi Hills district of Meghalaya?

Both are among the finest addresses for nature lovers. Nestling among green and once undisturbed surroundings, the inhabitants - Dongria Kondhs and Khasis - do not know much about the rapid industrial strides the country has taken.
If East Khasi Hills district houses the world's once wettest place, Cherrapunjee, the beautiful Umiam lake and scintillating waterfalls like Nohkalikai, Kynrem and Nohsngithiang, then Kalahandi district has abundant green cover sheltering varied wildlife.

Peace and serenity of both places have been shattered. If it was limestone mining by French multinational Lafarge's subsidiary in Shella village of Khasi Hills for supply of raw material to a cement plant in Bangladesh, then in Niyamgiri it was a Vedanta group firm seeking to extract bauxite for its aluminium refinery.
Both matters had reached Supreme Court on the environmental clearance aspect. In the Vedanta-related mining case, the SC kept in mind sustainable development theory and chalked out a plan for rehabilitation of tribals and social welfare measures. But the clearance was subject to final nod from the ministry of environment and forests (MoEF), which now has withdrawn its in-principle consent for mining saying most of the mining leases were fraught with illegality.
The Lafarge case is a little different. Mining was carried out without even a valid environmental clearance. On a petition from Shella Village Committee, the SC stayed mining operations on February 5. This set the entire government machinery into action, for it would mean stoppage of raw material to Bangladesh's cement plant.
Harried officials carried out fast-track environment impact assessment and gave the green signal. It was placed before the apex court. Services of the attorney general were requisitioned and he made an impassioned plea staking everything - from straining of bilateral ties at a critical time to breach of sovereign guarantee by India to supply raw material to the cement plant and loss of face in the international community.
The eagerness of MoEF to bend a few procedural impediments was quite evident from the plea and fast-tracking of a normally tedious process. Now, it has prepared an elaborate plan to eke out Rs 140 crore from Lafarge to plead before the SC to allow resumption of mining activity.

Given the dwindling natural habitat of wildlife and wiping out of many species, MoEF is saddled with the unenviable task of being brutally strict with implementation of Forest Conservation Act and Environment Protection Act.

And whatever be the procedure MoEF adopts for scrutiny of projects, it must be in compliance with the mandate of the two laws and should be applied uniformly across the spectrum.

If one takes the cases of bauxite and limestone mining in Niyamgiri Hills and the Khasi Hills, then there appears to be something amiss somewhere and leaves one wondering whether politics has some role even in matters relating to environment.
What the SC said in its 2007 judgment on Vedanta case is important. The three-judge bench, through Justice S H Kapadia, explained that sustainable development was a constitutional requirement and defined it as ''development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs''.
It also said, ''Indian economy for last couple of years has been growing at the rate of 8-9% of GDP. It is a remarkable achievement. However, accelerated growth rate of GDP does not provide inclusive growth. Keeping in mind the two extremes, this court thought of balancing development vis-a-vis protection of wildlife ecology and environment in view of the principle of sustainable development.''
Only environment minister Jairam Ramesh will know whether this ruling was kept in mind while deciding the fate of Niyamgiri hills and Khasi Hills.