Thu Nguyen 04/22/08 Design and Society Sadar Sarovar Dam Is Not For Poor People.

Narmada River is an issue in India and all over the world. Among the large dams, Sardar Sarovar Dam is the largest. The Indian government claimed that it would bring water and electricity to help drought-stricken areas in Gujarat and India as whole. I agree with the idea that the dam was built to gain benefits; however, my point is this benefit is for rich people rather than poor ones. The largest groups of rich people received benefits from the dam are people living in cities, government officers and the construction company. First of all, Bridgette Caroll in her article The Narmada dam in India, overlooks what I consider an important point about why this dam is for rich people, especially who were living in cities. The purpose to build this dam is for everyone, people who are living in India and especially in Gujarat. This dam began construction in 1985, cost $450 millions, over original plan 250 millions. The effective water was suggested to irrigate 60% drought land, but it turned out just 30%. Some people might say 30% is better than nothing, but where does this 30% flow to? The answer is to rich people who were living in cities. The areas along Narmada canal divides into two parts. The head of the canal consists of the rich and political powerful districts of Vadodara, Kheda, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, and Mehsana. The most dried areas are Kachchh and Saurashtra, located at the tail end of the canal. However, before the water could reach to them, it had to come to those rich cities first; and people over there have extra water to supply for luxurious constructions: water- parks, hotels and so on. Poor people who are living at the tail end have to suffer the lack of water.

Now I will talk about people who worked in the construction company. Obviously, they are the first ones to get profits from the dam. The engineers, of course, might object to my view that they built the dam because they wanted to bring a better life for the Indians. The dam would provide water and they could produce electricity. These were very important elements to stimulate the economy. Their purpose seemed good, but the dam turned out to not benefit tribal and poor people. According to Patrick McCullys article on International Rivers Network, Kutch and Saurashtra, the two driest parts of Gujarat, just received only 9.24% cultivatable lands of Saurashtra. Instead, 40% command area for the dam became waterlogged. So, the theory of using the Sarda Sarovar dam to irrigate lands failed. Moreover, McCully also mentions that the power from Sadar Sarovar Project was promised to be generated from a 1200 MW powerhouse at the dam and a 250 MW powerhouse at the head of the canal. However, in fact the capacity of the dam would be less than 25-28%, and Gujarat just received 16%, the rest are divided to Maharashtra (27%) and MP (57%). Ironically, a large amount of power was used to drain the command area soils and for some structures regulating the flow of canal. None of the promises were fulfilled. The loss was just taken by poor people living at the tail of the canal. The construction people had a big advantage in building the dam; they were gaining earnings as long as the dam was being constructed. Also, the Friends of River Narmada website has a very strong evidence to object the construction companys reason. They insist the company did know about the design of the Sadar Sarovar Dam was never designed for supplying drinking water, even though people in this region needed it the most: This benefit was added as a cynical political ploy when the project ran into trouble. So why did they still continue to build the dam even knowing that it wasnt for everyone? It was the issue of big money.

Finally, another group who would get benefits from the dam was the government officers. They are the people who decided the project and the fate of thousands of poor people. Instead of taking care the citizens lives, they threw a blind eye to them. These officers were living in cities, which meant that they could get large amounts of water and electricity to enjoy in many luxury constructions such as water-parks, hotels, and so on. They might dispute my claim that these conveniences are not for only them, but also for the other people as well. Everyone was living poorly in drought areas, lacking water and electricity, why didnt they want a way which was building the dam to help the situation? That was a good way. Many countries have successful dams; for example, the Hoover Dam located in Nevada and Arizona is a principal source of flood control, irrigation and electrical power in the Southwest, Sunsetcities insists. On one hand, I agree with their view that dams are useful in solving the problems of water and electricity in India. But on the other hand, I still insist that they wanted to build the dam because of their own benefit. The dam took so many years to construct and cost a huge amount of money, but could only irrigate a small percent of Kutchs agricultural land and Saurashtra. The rest of it was going to already water rich areas where the big farmers grew sugar and so on; so why did they bother to spend so much time and money in building the dam? Arundhati Roy in her discuss with host Mishal Husain is right when she argued that with that money going to more local water harvesting schemes, they could have brought water to every single drought prone village in Gujarat. According to her, the reason was not simply because of their good life in big cities, but also political ambition: a potential dam is more important politically than an actual dam. They and the other uptown people were already rich, so they could think about status, but the poor ones didnt; they were so worried about how to adapt enough two meals per day. Then should the government care more about people living in cities than in poor districts? Was the percentage of

people in cities bigger than poor ones? The answer was no. Up till the present day, India is still the highest rate of poverty country41% (Nationmaster). The government, with authority and richness, enjoyed the pleasant life in big cities. Since the dam brought luxury to cities, their lives had gotten better. The Sadar Sarovar dam is not for poor villagers. The dam affected negatively on people living at poor districts. The statistics of irrigation after the dam was built from 1977 to 1979 shows that the harvest of Paddy, Jowar, Maize, Wheat and Gram went down (Carroll). Moreover, drinking water was another claimed benefit, but the dam was announced, No plans have been completed for how the drinking water is to be delivered to consumers, nor has any money been allocated for this component of the project (Patrick McCully ). Overall, the rich people became richer after the dam was built, and the poor people became more miserable. So when we put the cost and the benefits of the dam on scale, the raising question is that whether or not the dam should be built. Clearly, the evidence points to the fact that the dam eas never intended to help the poor like it was proposed to do.

References: "Irrigation Project - Narmada River Development (Gujarat) Sardar Sarovar Dam and Power." The World Bank Group 01 Feb 1985 22 Apr 2008 <http://web.worldbank.org/external/projects/main? pagePK=64312881&piPK=64302848&theSitePK=40941&Projectid=P009829>. McCully, Patrick. "Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP)." International Rivers Network 30 May 1994 22 Apr 2008 <http://www.proxsa.org/economy/ecology/overv.html>. Carroll, Bridgette, and others. "The Narmada Dam In India." SanFrancisco State University 22 Apr 2008 <www.bss.sfsu.edu/raquelrp/projects/515_ej/Narmada_Dam_India.ppt>. "Friends of River Narmada." 22 Apr 2008 <http://www.narmada.org/about-us.html>. "Share of all poor people (most recent) by country ." 22 Apr 2008 <http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pov_sha_of_all_poo_peo-poverty-share-all-poorpeople>. "Hoover Dam." 22 Apr 2008 <http://sunsetcities.com/hoover-dam.html>.