Nuclear Lives: Uranium Mining, Indigenous Peoples, and Development in India
By Bengt G Karlsson Scroll down to also read"Adivasi live under Nuclear Terror in Jaduguda, Jharkhand"
India’s nuclear programme has suffered from a shortage of uranium. As elsewhere in the world, the main uranium deposits are located on lands belonging to indigenous or tribal peoples. This paper discusses the unfolding controversy relating to uranium mining in the West Khasi Hills of Meghalaya. The government-owned Uranium Corporation of India has for long been trying to get access to the deposits of uranium, but has failed due to local opposition. During the past two years the government has stepped up its efforts to allow mining in Meghalaya and seeks to win over local people with promises of development. Although a reasonable proposition for some, there is also a strong opposition to this, usually citing either health reasons or issues having to do with ethnic sovereignty and indigenous rights.
Allowing uranium mining, it is argued, would lead to the loss of indigenous lands and open the region to a large-scale influx of non-tribal people.
[T]he entire production cycle for a nuclear weapon – from uranium mining, to plutonium production, to weapons testing, to nuclear waste storage – produces human and environmental costs that are borne by particular bodies in particular places (Masco 2006:12).
India is a rising nuclear power. With the nuclear tests in the Rajasthan desert in 1998, India came fully out of the closet, showing the world that it was indeed a nuclear weapons state. Besides its arms programme, India also has an ambitions nuclear power programme.
1 Introduction According to plans, by the year 2020 India is to generate 20,000 megawatts from nuclear power. This would mean roughly a fivefold increase from the present capacity. Besides the existing 17 nuclear plants, six new ones are under construction. A major hurdle for these ambitions, however, is the shortage of fuel, i e, uranium. This, it is said, causes the existing plants to run at only half of their installed capacity (Joshi 2008). Up to now, as a nonsignatory to the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, India has been barred from importing uranium. But with the signing of nuclear cooperation deals signed with both France (September 2008) and the United States (US) (October 2008), this de facto embargo has been lifted, and India will get access to both nuclear technology and fuel. And if these two countries can, it is not unlikely that the major uranium exporters like Canada and Australia will also follow and open their doors for export to India. The only hitch here is that the international collaboration is exclusively for civil uses.
Hence, India needs a domestic supply of uranium for its nuclear weapons programme. So far, the richest uranium deposit is found in a faraway corner of the state of Meghalaya, in north-east India (close to the border of Bangladesh). The government-owned Uranium Corporation of India (UCIL) has been trying for more than a decade to get access to this source but has failed due to stern local opposition. During the past two years the Indian government has stepped up its efforts to allow mining in Meghalaya and seeks to win local people over with promises of development packages in exchange for uranium. Roads, schools and hospitals will be built and new jobs created, the national government assures.
In addition, the state government will earn substantial annual revenue from the mining project. Saying yes to uranium mining is thus presented as a choice for development. If some people in Meghalaya find this a reasonable proposition, there nonetheless remains a vocal and influential opposition to the uranium mining project in the state.
In this paper, I will discuss various aspects of this unfolding controversy. As we will see, those who oppose the mining project usually cite either health reasons – risks relating to radioactive contamination of the environment – or issues having to do with ethnic sovereignty and indigenous rights. In the case of the latter, allowing uranium mining, it is argued, would lead to the loss of indigenous lands and open the region to a large-scale influx of non-tribal people from the plains. This would further undermine the position of the indigenous people of the state and hence threaten their long-term cultural survival. With regard to health risks, the opposition points to the suffering of the tribal people living in the vicinity of the uranium mines at Jadugoda in the state of Jharkhand and, further, to the experiences of indigenous people elsewhere in the world where uranium mining has taken place. Most of the world’s uranium deposits are indeed located within indigenous territories, as for example in the case of the US, Canada and Australia. To provide a sense of how arguments are put in the debate, I begin by recounting discussions I had during my stay in Meghalaya in the spring of 2006.
2 A Matter of Development H S Shylla, the chief executive member of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC) at the time, greeted me with a friendly handshake as I entered his spacious office in Shillong. He was in a good mood, just returning from a visit to the Jadugoda uranium mine in Jharkhand and several other atomic energy institutions elsewhere in India. The trip was part of a series of study tours organised by the UCIL with the aim of informing politicians, government officials, landowners, and other concerned citizens of Meghalaya about the benefits of nuclear energy and dispelling the fears expressed with regard to the proposed mining of uranium project in the state. Shylla was highly impressed by the advances India had made in the field of nuclear science, which he had learned about during the tour. He had received a DVD with a PowerPoint presentation that was running on his laptop. He showed me a few of the slides that concerned different uses of nuclear technology, for example, in medicine, in food preservation, and not least in power generation. He also showed me the radiation detector that had been presented to him and made a joke to one of his colleagues, saying that they should have a display in the office showing the current radiation level.
He was fully convinced that radiation was harmless and that all talk about health risks was baseless. As he put it, radiation is there in nature itself and we are all being exposed to it as background radiation. Coming to the issue of uranium mining in Meghalaya, he explained that it would be opencast mining, which would minimise the radiation exposure of the workers. In Jadugoda, the mining is done deep under the surface, but even then the people working in the mines for 20 to 30 years showed no sign of being affected by radiation. The workers there were all perfectly healthy, he argued. Why then should we have problems with radiation here, he asked rhetorically, as if this contentious issue were of no concern.1
Shylla told me that the District Council had given its support to the proposed mining project.2 It was a matter of saying yes to development and giving the local people a chance to cash in on the precious resource nature had bestowed upon them. As Shylla put it, “How can poverty and uranium go together – people in the area are sitting on millions and yet they are poor.” To emphasise his point, he told me that the uranium deposit was considered the best in India if not in Asia as a whole. And, as he has put it elsewhere, people would benefit not only in Meghalaya but also in the entire nation, and those in Meghalaya should be proud of their “contribution to the country’s nuclear strength”.3
Indeed, on visits to Meghalaya both then President A P J Abdul Kalam and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had stressed the national importance of the project. In view of this, one can understand Shylla’s optimism and apparent confidence that the mining will eventually be realised. Shylla also said that the landowners were in favour of the project, that UCIL has financed a road project in the mining area, and that the construction work had already started. “It is now up to the state government”, he concluded – “It is they who have the final say in the matter”.
The day after our interview, Shylla told the press that the nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) opposing uranium mining were “anti-development and anti-national” and “should be put behind bars”.4 But the anti-mining camp seemed nevertheless to be gathering strength, spearheaded by the influential Khasi Students’ Union (KSU) along with the Hynniewtrep Environment Status Preservation Organisation (HESPO), the Meghalaya People’s Human Rights Council (MPHRC), and the Langrin Youth Welfare Association. One of the main figures within this camp is the veteran politician Hopingstone Lyngdoh. Lyngdoh explained to me, when we met in April 2006 (just a few days after my meeting with Shylla), that his aversion to the use of nuclear energy goes all the way back to the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
As he learned about this terrible event, he realised the intimate link between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Being a resolute opponent of nuclear weapons, he became equally critical of the use of nuclear energy. Hence his opposition to the proposed uranium mining project in Meghalaya.
3 Opposing Uranium According to Hopingstone Lyngdoh, the history of uranium in Meghalaya goes back to the 1950s when the atomic energy mining division came for the first preliminary explorations. New explorations followed in the 1970s and 1980s, eventually leading to the discovery of uranium deposits in a number of different places. The village of Domiasiat in the West Khasi Hills was one of these sites, and it was close to the place where the Atomic Minerals Directorate5 finally started explorative mining and processing of the ore to produce the so-called yellowcake. Lyngdoh said that he had opposed these activities from the very beginning in his capacity as an elected member of the legislative assembly and the KHADC,6 the latter being a body put in place after the Indian independence to ensure tribal self-rule in the hill areas of north-east India.7 Lyngdoh spoke of how he had started to receive information from people in and around Domiasiat about fish that were dying in the nearby rivers and of dogs and cows that were going mad. Strange diseases had also begun to emerge. It was then that he started to mobilise people against the uranium mining on a larger scale.
Because of the vigorous protests they managed to organise, the exploratory mining was stopped and all operations in Domiasiat were shut down in the 1990s. Lyngdoh said that 650 tonnes of contaminated tailings (mining waste) had been left unprotected at the mining site. Eventually, the Directorate was made to put the waste back in the pits and seal them with concrete. But by then it was already clear that the atomic energy authorities were determined to pursue their mining plans. As Lyngdoh explained, he and the others active in the campaign had been under strong pressure ever since to alter their stand and allow the mining to proceed, but if anything, he has only become more convinced in opposing the project. Over the years he has had contact with other organisations around the world that pursue a similar struggle against nuclear energy/weapons in all forms. He mentioned the terrible fate of the Navajo Indians in the US, whose lands had been devastated by prolonged uranium mining, leading to deaths and enormous suffering for the people, who often had no option but to continue living in a contaminated environment. Preventing the same thing from happening in Meghalaya was another major reason for Lyngdoh to oppose uranium mining.
While the threat of uranium mining has been hanging over Meghalaya for a long time, the central government and the atomic energy lobby appeared more determined than before to go ahead with the project, according to Lyngdoh. Now, he explained, it is a matter of convincing people of the benefits of mining, and this is done to a large extent with the help of bribes. Large sums, he said, had been handed out to landowners and people in decision-making positions. In this connection, Lyngdoh mentioned the study tours arranged by UCIL for people to visit the mining sites at Jadugoda (supposedly involving monetary “gifts”). Major projects commonly involve illicit flows of money, but whether kickbacks have been paid in this case is of course hard to tell. Be that as it may, the nuclear lobby has clearly had some success in convincing certain key groups of the benefits of the project.
This has not, however, seemed to dampen Lyngdoh’s commitment to prevent uranium mining, no matter what.8 The question of whether to mine or not to mine the rich near-surface deposit of uranium in the West Khasi Hills has been haunting the state quite directly, since the early 1990s. H S Shylla and Hopingstone Lyngdoh are two important persons in this controversy. As is obvious from the above, their positions are irreconcilable. There seem to be no points of convergence, no openings for a real dialogue between the proponents and opponents. For example, UCIL and other representatives of the atomic energy sector are claiming, like Shylla, that radiation does not pose any problem in the project. Mining would be carried out in a scientific manner, taking all precautions to protect the health of labourers as well as local villagers and the environment more generally. The opponents argue, like Lyngdoh, the very opposite.
Both camps use the existing uranium mining facilities in Jadugoda to prove their case. The first group argues that the health record of labourers and people living in the vicinity of the mines reveals no increase in cancer or other ailments that could be related to the mining and milling operations. This is what Shylla had been saying since his visit, as did Prestone Tyngsong, the minister of mining and geology in Meghalaya at the time. At a press conference, Tyngsong told the gathered audience that the feared health hazards from radiation were unfounded. As evidence he mentioned that he had seen parents sending their children to the school inside the UCIL premises, a risk they would not have taken had there been any “health hazards”.9
Tyngsong’s predecessor, Deborah C Marak, said similarly after her visit to Jadugoda in 2004 that she was convinced that uranium mining has “no adverse effect on human life”. She backed this claim with assurances by then President Kalam, saying that she trusted him, as a famous nuclear scientist, rather than the NGOs rallying against mining.10
Shylla has referred several times to the Supreme Court decision to turn down a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in 1999 relating to alleged health effects caused by radiation waste in Jadugoda, 11 and he has accused the anti-uranium campaigners of contempt of court because they continue to stress the health risks involved in uranium mining.12 And indeed, the latter camp continues to refer to reports that speak of premature deaths of labourers, high frequencies of cancer, miscarriages, sterility, children born with various deformities, and high infant mortality in the Jadugoda area. The award-winning documentary Buddha Weeps in Jadugoda has been screened during meetings as part of the anti-mining campaign.13
This film gives a chilling portrait of the gross negligence, arrogance, and cynicism of the UCIL authorities vis-à-vis the local adivasi or tribal population. Villagers pass through and graze cattle in and around the tailing ponds that should be properly fenced and secured. Nuclear waste from nuclear facilities elsewhere in the country is also dumped in these ponds. Children play with scrap from the mine and mill areas, leaking barrels with highly radioactive material are lying around unprotected in public areas, labourers work in the mine without proper safety equipment. Trucks carry the uranium ore uncovered on public roads, passing through villages, leaving a cloud of dust behind them. Villagers speak of their failing health, deaths, and misery, and medical experts working in the area confirm that many of their ailments are directly linked to their continued exposure to radiation. The representatives of UCIL interviewed in the film dismiss all such claims, insisting that these ailments are related to poor hygiene and nutrition standards and to high alcohol consumption among the male population in the area.
One villager, a man in his early thirties, sums up their wretched conditions by stating that the mining of uranium and bauxite found on their lands has become a “curse” for them. Many people who have visited Jadugoda convey a similar message, of a place marked by sorrows and sufferings.14
Representatives from the principal anti-mining organisations that were part of a delegation from Meghalaya to Jadugoda in 2004 returned with such a view. Dino D G Dympep, the Secretary General of the MPHRC, told me that they were treated like VIPs during the visit but were not allowed to move around freely. Some of them nevertheless managed to slip out and interact independently with the local people. Dympep showed me some pictures of children with various deformities, photographs they had taken during their unauthorised detour.15 In a letter to the Chief Minister of Meghalaya, Dympep, with KSU President Samuel Jyrwa and HESPO General Secretary S S Syiem, wrote that the villagers spoke about various health problems, above all congenital deformity, something the visitors could also see for themselves. They further claimed that there were no traces of the development facilities that UCIL had said at one time or another would come along with the mining. Instead, they asserted, the mining project would lead to a large-scale influx of outsiders, which would pose a “threat to our culture, customs and traditions”. They concluded by stating (in boldface type in the letter):
...we as organisations which have been opposing the proposed uranium mining from the very beginning of its inception. Now after visiting Jadugoda and seeing the reality behind we are more convinced of our previous stand and...we will not part even an inch of our ancestral land to the foreigners who we consider that they are our enemies.16
The last sentence marks an important discursive twist, portraying the UCIL as a foreign impostor. Such a sentiment is commonly expressed by protesters, who portray the uranium mining issue in terms of “us” (the Khasi people) versus the “foreigner”, the outside exploiter represented by the Indian state.17 The Khasis will stand to suffer, while the benefits will go elsewhere. This trope is central to the autonomy discourse in north-east India more generally, commonly evoked in debates about extraction of the region’s natural wealth. While proponents of uranium mining stress that it will bring development to the state, the opponents frame it as yet another example of neocolonial exploitation and violation of indigenous rights.
In sum, the opposition to uranium mining draws on several registers of protest. On the one hand, it is a matter of a particularly hazardous form of mining that poses great risks for human health and environmental contamination. On the other hand, it is a matter of ethnic sovereignty, of keeping land and resources in the hands of the community, of protecting livelihoods and customs endangered by the foreseen influx of outsiders. Consequently, for some it is a matter of choosing a different type of development or, as a lady protester put it, “We do not want the development that comes from uranium”.18
4 The Geography of Trust Radiation is an evasive phenomenon. It is invisible and without any smell. For lay persons, it is more or less impossible to evaluate risks relating to radiation. Those who oppose uranium mining in Meghalaya obviously do not trust the assurances by UCIL and other government bodies that the radiation exposure from mining would be negligible and hence pose no threat to human health. Again, one can point to two main arguments. The first is that uranium mining in itself, regardless of how it is carried out, will contaminate the environment and have a negative effect on human health for generations to come. The other is more concerned with UCIL’s expected performance, questioning whether the necessary precautions and safety measures will be applied. Here it is argued that UCIL is more interested in getting the uranium out at the lowest possible cost, hardly bothering about the well-being of a few tribals in the area. The fact that the mining will take place in a far-off corner of Meghalaya, and safely away from the gaze of the national press, adds to such fears.
That radiation affects human beings, that it attacks living cells and can cause cancer, is an undisputed fact. But when such dangers appear – i e, what type of exposure, at what levels, for how long, under what circumstances, and so forth – is less than clear. Most countries have their own regulations concerning permissible doses or levels of exposure, and various international bodies issue such recommendations as well. The recommendations differgreatly, have been readjusted over time, and are a matter of dispute.19 It goes without saying that none of the recommended safe levels can claim undisputed scientific backing. In the end, all types of environmental or health regulations are settled politically, reflecting a compromise or balance between safety concerns and the economic and other interests involved in pursuing the activity in question.
That the nuclear industry, in many countries tied to the military interest of developing nuclear weapons capacity, has a major influence on how safety standards are being set and enforced seems obvious. It is a particular feature of nuclear activities that a vast time span must be considered in assessing the various risks. In the case of nuclear waste storage, for example, we are talking about almost inconceivable periods of tens of thousands of years. All risk assessments, as Ulrich Beck (2002:41) puts it, are a matter of “calculating the incalculable”. But with things like nuclear waste disposal we are up against completely “unpredictable” and “uncontrollable risks” (ibid).20 In addition to the temporal aspect, radiation effects are also unbounded in space.
The European Committee of Radiation Risk states in a recent report that the present cancer epidemic is a consequence of exposures to global atmospheric weapons fallout in the period 1959-63 and that more recent releases of radioisotopes to the environment from the operation of the nuclear fuel cycle will result in significant increases in cancer and other types of ill health (ECRP 2003, para 10). Chernobyl is a chilling reminder of this. The credibility of the nuclear industry took a severe blow with this accident, but to the surprise of many, the industry seems to be flourishing again as much as it did before. Part of this can be explained by rising oil prices and nuclear energy’s new image as a “green technology” that will help combat climate change.21
Still, the public distrust of the nuclear industry appears to be significantly higher than with other industrial sectors. Most people prefer not to have any nuclear installations in their “backyard”, regardless of official assurances that these are perfectly safe.22 The type of distrust expressed by people in Meghalaya regarding the alleged safety of uranium mining can be observed more or less universally, and this also holds for related activities in the nuclear chain. The other main site in India where UCIL hopes to start mining uranium is in Andhra Pradesh, and these plans have also unleashed massive protests in that state. Similarly in the US, Canada and Australia, uranium mining evokes fierce protests, not least among the indigenous peoples on whose lands most of the deposits are located.23
The Navajo nation has called for a total ban on mining on its lands. In 2006, the Navajo hosted the Indigenous World Uranium Summit with indigenous delegates participating from various parts of the world. In the declaration of the summit, the main demand was a global ban on uranium mining and related activities on native lands. The summit also recalled the declaration issued in Salzburg at the World Uranium Hearing in 1992, that uranium and other nuclear materials must remain in their natural location. “Leave it in the ground”, that is.24 The Green Party in Canada, for example, has lined up with indigenous and environmental organisations demanding a uranium mining ban on the basis that it is “extremely hazardous to the environment and health of mine workers and public”.25 The anti-nuclear movement is increasingly building up transnational alliances, turning the “not-in-my-backyard” politics into a “not-in-anyone’s-backyard” principle, as Harvey (1996:391) put it in a discussion on grassroots environmental justice movements.
Around the world there are also citizens’ group pursuing litigation against states or private companies for compensation for injuries inflicted by radiation exposure.26 The most disturbing cases are those related to nuclear weapons tests, as on the islands of French Polynesia and Micronesia or in desert areas of the US or in the former Soviet Union. Contamination from these tests has shattered the lives of entire communities. However, victims often find it hard to make their case.27 The psychological “impact” is rarely recognised, and health effects often appear decades later and are hard to prove. As put by Valerie Kuletz (2001:251) in a study on nuclear politics in the US:
It is relatively easy for institutions responsible for the release of radioactive contaminants to hide it because it often takes time for the effects to reveal themselves. This time gap has been used by the United States and other governments to deny causal links between cancer (occurring ten or twenty years hence) or deformities (which occur in subsequent generations) and radioactive contamination. An additional problem is that victims often lack independent health data to back their cases, having to rely on the investigations and medical records of the agencies that have carried out the operations or caused the contamination. In the case of nuclear test sites, such records are often security classified, hence completely sealed off from public scrutiny.
Organisations and persons that seek to gather such information independently commonly face charges of being “unpatriotic” or of working on behalf of foreign intelligence agencies (in the case of Russia, see Garb and Komaraova 2001). When India made its controversial nuclear tests in Pokharan, a desert area in Rajasthan, in 1998, the national press erupted in what Piyush Mathur (2001) calls “nuke journalism”, celebrating this as a great moment in which the nation was showing its strength and technical superiority, hailing the nuclear scientists as heroes.28 (A P J Abdul Kalam was the leading scientist who orchestrated the tests, an achievement that most likely made him India’s president in 2002.)29
The fate of the villagers in the test area, however, was completely silenced. A number of villages were being evacuated, on false premises, only three hours prior to the blast, and dust from the explosion spread over their lands and houses. Neither these blatant human rights violations nor any other social and environmental aspect of the event on the local level were addressed by the principal media. Interestingly, the international press also relegated such concerns to oblivion, focusing instead on the diplomatic and defence-related consequences of the blast (Mathur 2001:10). This, again, illustrates how people and landscapes affected by radiation contamination are rendered “invisible” (Kuletz 2001).
As the nuclear authorities, to cite Mathur again (2001:12), “flatly denied any radiation leakage owning to the May 1998 test”, it is hardly surprising that the more mundane activity of extracting and processing uranium is similarly claimed to cause no harmful radiation exposure for labourers and local villagers. But can the authorities be trusted? Considering the lack of independent health monitoring of Indian nuclear establishments, there is an obvious confidence gap here. The anti-mining organisations in Meghalaya have also made this point, stating, with reference to the situation at Jadugoda, that the UCIL officials “effectively act as legislature, judge, jury, and police over their own activities”.30
The complete denial that there could even be a legitimate concern for radiation hazards – say, if something goes wrong –reveals a managerial arrogance that resonates badly with the norms of democratic governance. During a public debate in Shillong, S K Malhotra from the Department of Atomic Energy brushed aside the expressed health concerns as a mere “fear psychosis”, saying these were based on fictions and not facts.31 But if we look at how uranium mining is perceived and debated elsewhere in the world, such a position seems obsolete. Canada, along with Australia, is the largest supplier of natural uranium in the world. Health Canada (2004: para 5.4.2), the federal agency responsible for health monitoring, gives the following account of the health concerns of uranium mining:
Whether or not mining is conducted in open pits or underground, there are environmental hazards and impacts to workers and general public that need to be considered. These include radiation hazards from radon gas, radium, thorium, and non-radioactive contamination from dust and heavy metals such as arsenic, lead and nickel. After uranium ore is mined, it is processed into yellowcake, a complex semirefined concentrate of uranium. …External gamma radiation, tailings, slurry, and wastewater are the main areas of health concern at this stage.
Here the concerned state agency acknowledges the potential health risks of uranium mining and processing, which at least opens up a space for critical debate and democratic decision-making.
5 A Gleaming Future? Meghalaya is a small state with a population of only about 2.2 million people, the majority belonging to one of the three dominant indigenous communities: the Khasi, the Jaintia and the Garo. India’s high levels of economic growth during the last decade have largely bypassed this remote part of the country. Meghalaya and the other states in the north-east remain among the poorest in India. Most people still depend on subsistence agriculture. The region is richly endowed, however, with natural resources like forests, water and minerals. The timber industry boomed during the 1980s and 1990s, depleting the forests to such an extent that the Indian Supreme Court imposed a complete moratorium in 1996. This was a hard blow for the cash-starved states of the north-east. In Meghalaya it is now mineral extraction that provides the naturally main source of revenue for the state. Uranium mining would be a welcome addition here. But the downside of this extractive industry is its weak links to the rest of the economy; it remains a kind of enclave that seems to generate little overall economic development in the state. The mineral industry also has a most decisive impact on the environment.
Bodies of water are being polluted, forests are being cut down and agriculture lands rendered barren. The much appreciated wildlife and flora of the state are similarly under acute threat. Large-scale opencast mining for uranium will add to such pressures, of course, and radiation contamination will subsequently be added to the list of environmental concerns in the state.
The question that people in Meghalaya have started to ask is whether they really stand to gain from the reckless use of nature that mineral extraction implies. The Ministry of Environment and Forests in New Delhi gave the required environmental clearance for the uranium mining project in December 2007, saying that the area was primarily wasteland and that no ecologically sensitive areas like national parks and wildlife reserves would be affected.32 It is now the Meghalaya state government that stands in turn to give its verdict. Since I conducted my interviews in 2006, a new coalition government has come into power in Meghalaya (in March 2008). It is hard to tell what this implies for the uranium mining issue.
The new government continues the process, initiated by the previous Congress-led government, of all-party consultations and at the moment there are two appointed expert commissions that will submit their findings before any decision is taken on the matter. Hopingstone Lyngdoh is the deputy chief minister in the new government (despite the fact that his party, HSPDP, secured only two seats in the election). With this, the anti-mining lobby is at least represented at a central level of the state government. But again, Lyngdoh is not alone, and the other major parties in the government seem less convinced that mining necessarily spells disaster. The chief minister of the new government, Donkupar Roy, has for example launched the idea that uranium mining could be approved if a nuclear power plant were to be built in Meghalaya or any other north-eastern state. Here one also has to consider the possibility that the central government steps in and avails itself of provisions under the Atomic Energy Act of 1962 to sanction the project, since uranium falls under the category of a strategic mineral. Such a measure, however, could easily backfire and instigate new waves of separatist violence. The central government agencies involved have also consistently stated that mining will not be carried out against the wishes of the people in Meghalaya.
The strategy applied, as mentioned earlier, is instead to convince people of the benefits of nuclear-driven development. As part of that, the Directorate of Atomic Energy is now to look into the feasibility of building a nuclear plant in Meghalaya or adjoining states in the north-east. It is hard to take such a suggestion seriously; to begin with, this is a seismically active region that has had several major earthquakes. In the plain areas of the region, there are severe floods almost yearly that destroy bridges and roads, disrupting communications with the Indian mainland. Further, the north-east has a vast hydropower potential that the central government is already pushing to exploit or “tap” in a big way. Add to these factors the volatile political situation, the presence of a large number of well-armed rebel groups and permeable international borders, and the north-east seems a highly unlikely location for high-security installations like nuclear power plants. In short, neither the natural conditions nor the economic and political ones seem to favour this idea. During the course of my research in Meghalaya, I have several times ended up in private discussions relating to the societal dilemma of whether or not to go for uranium mining. Here I have never tried to conceal my aversion to “nuclearism”33 in its different forms. I share many of the worries expressed by the anti-mining movement. Going by the past experiences of indigenous peoples around the world, uranium mining and other activities relating the nuclear cycle does seem to spell trouble. As entioned earlier, the Navajo people and other native American people in the US have been exposed to the most extreme form of radiation contamination through extensive uranium mining, nuclear arms testing and nuclear waste disposal on their lands. This largely suppressed history is the subject of a brilliant study, The Tainted Desert: Environmental and Social Ruin in the American West (1998), by anthropologist Valerie Kuletz. She writes, “[M]any of the Indians interviewed for this book feel that their families and their lands have been sacrificed” (1998:284-285). Without assuming that uranium mining in Meghalaya will amount to something comparable, I do think that the US experience is worth reflecting on. With an overarching national interest in developing military and civil nuclear capacity, the costs borne by people in the margin might after all be considered a small sacrifice.
Notes 1 The interview with H S Shylla took place in Shillong, 11 April 2006. 2 Before Shylla assumed office, the District Council had declined to grant final permission to the uranium mining project. For example, Shylla’s predecessor, the late David Lyngwie, maintained a much more ambivalent stand, as he told me during several of our meetings. See also “Keep off! Uranium Rich Meghalaya Tells Mining PSU”, Down to Earth, 31 July 2003. 3 Quoted in “Uranium Mining in National Interests: CEM”, The Shillong Times, 2 March 2006. 4 Cited in “KHADC Clears Uranium Mining Proposal”, The Shillong Times, 13 April 2006. 5 The Atomic Minerals Directorate is responsible for exploration, while the Uranium Corporation of India (UCIL) carries out the actual mining and milling operations. 6 Lyngdoh has been a member of the legislative assembly since 1956, sitting altogether for 49 years. In addition, he has been member of the Executive Committee of the District Council for 36 years and was a member of the Indian Parliament in 1977-79. Lyngdoh said that he had now withdrawn to a large extent from party politics and saw himself more as a social worker. This did not come to pass, however, and in 2008 he was back as the deputy chief minister of the new coalition government that came into power after the state legislative assembly election in March 2008. 7 There are three autonomous district councils in Meghalaya, one for each of the major indigenous peoples of the state, i e, the Khasi, Jaintia and Garo people. 8 Interview with Hopingstone Lyngdoh in Shillong, 15 April 2006, and with H S Shylla, 11 April 2006. 9 See “UCIL Yet to Furnish Land Acquisition Details”, The Shillong Times, 13 February 2007. 10 Quoted in “Government to Hold Rally on Uranium Mining in December”, The Shillong Times, 11 November 2004. 11 The public interest litigation (PIL), No 188 of 1999, was filed by advocate B L Wadehra against the Union of India and others. As far as I have been able to make out, the Supreme Court dismissed the PIL on the basis of an affidavit by the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission stating that it had taken adequate steps to contain the radiation arising out of the uranium waste. To claim, like Shylla, that the Supreme Court has hereby established that uranium mining poses no health risks seems highly questionable. But as I have been unable to access the Supreme Court decision, I leave this for others to evaluate. 12 See “Pleader’s Notice against Anti-uranium Campaign”, The Shillong Times, 4 May 2006; and “We Just Don’t Trust UCIL”, Grassroots Options web portal http://grassrootsoption.com (accessed 4 October 2007). 13 The film is made by Shriprakash (A Kritika and Birsa Production, 1999). For further views on the alleged health effects on local people, see “Uranium Production: Villages and Woes”, Frontline, Vol 16, No 18, 1999; and “Jadugoda Tragedy: Price of Superpower Ambitions”, http://www.jadugoda.net/reports/anumukti.html. 14 See, e g, “Children of the Poisoned Valley” by Peter Popham, The Independent Sunday, 20 May 2001; “Thousands at Risk of Poisoning from ‘India’s Chernobyl”’ by Julian West, The Sunday Telegraph, 25 April 1999; and “Living Next to India’s Uranium Mine” by Mark Whitaker, BBC News, BBC India, 4 May 2006. 15 Interview in Shillong, 16 February 2005. 16 Letter to the Chief Minister, Government of Meghalaya, dated 18 March 2004. 17 See the BBC interview with former KSU president, Paul Lyngdoh, “Tribes Dig in to Fight Uranium”, BBC News, 5 May 2003. 18 Cited in “WK Hills Strongly Divided Over Uranium”, The Shillong Times, 8 June 2007. 19 The European Committee on Radiation Risk has recently issued recommendations that are significantly lower than those of most other international bodies, setting the total maximum permissible dose at 0.1 mSv for members of the general public and 5 mSv for nuclear workers. See ECRP 2003, Recommendations: Executive Summary, http://www.euradco.org/2003/execsumm.htm. 20 Beck is referring to a US commission with the task of finding out how to communicate the dangers of stored nuclear waste to people ten thousand years in the future. The commission reached the conclusion that this was simply not doable. However, as he points out, it was obviously taken for granted that US would still exist then (Beck 2002). 21 As an increasing number of scholars argue, the world has already passed the peak of oil production and the decline is inevitable, again making other sources like atomic energy more attractive (see Deffeyes 2005). The nuclear industry has also cashed in on global warming, talking about a shift from “fossil to atom” as a critical move to arrest climate change. 22 See, e g, Gusterson (1996) on the distrust in relation to US nuclear weapons facilities. 23 For Australia, see the booklet Yellowcake Country: Australia’s Uranium Mining Industry, published by Beyond Nuclear Initiative, 2006, available at Friends of the Earth’s webpage, http://www.foe.org.au/resources/publications/antinuclear/yellowcake.pdf . 24 See “Leave It in the Ground: Indigenous Peoples call for Global Ban on Uranium Mining” by Brenda Norrell, Counterpunch, 8 February 2007, http://www.counterpunch.org/norrell02082007.html. 25 “Green Party Renew Call for Uranium Mining Ban”, press release, 18 September 2007, http://www.greenparty.ca/en/release/18.09.2007b . 26 See, e g, “Navajo Utah Commission Tries to Help Radiation Victims”, Gallup Independent, 11 January 2007, and “Chernobyl Victims Still Fighting for Compensation”, The World Today, 26 April 2006. 27 For a most gripping account of nuclear victims’ silent sufferings, see journalist Svetlana Alexievich’s book Voices from Chernobyl: The Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster (2005). 28 Arundhati Roy’s essay “The End of Imagination” in Frontline, 14 August 1998, is a forceful critique of the event. 29 For more details on the history of India’s nuclear bomb programme, and Kalam’s role in it, see Kapur (2001), Perkovich (1999) and Abraham (1998). 30 An open letter to Chief Minister D D Lapang, “Say No to Uranium Mining in Meghalaya”, dated Shillong, 10 September 2004, signed by Dino D G Dympep, Meghalaya People’s Human Rights Council (MPHRC), and Samuel Jyrwa, Khasi Students Union (KSU). The letter is based on a meeting that the KSU and MPHRC organised in Umdohlum village with land owners and traditional heads in the project area. About 40 participants also signed the letter. 31 See “An Open Interactive Discussion on Uranium Mining and Its Effects: A Proceeding”, 15 July 2004, posted on the Mines and Communities web site, http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Country/india16.htm (accessed 18 November 2004). 32 See “Row Over Uranium Mining in Meghalaya” in Down to Earth, 31 January 2008. 33 I borrow the term “nuclearism” from Kuletz (2001:238), who uses it to refer to various aspects of the nuclear chain like the production of nuclear energy, development and testing of nuclear weapons, storage of nuclear waste and so on.
References Abraham, Itty (1998): The Making of the India Atomic Bomb (London: Zed Books). Alexievich, Svetlana (2006): Voices from Chernobyl: The Oral History of a NuclearDisaster (New York: Picador). Beck, Ulrich (2002): “The Terrorist Threat: World Risk Society Revisited” in Theory, Culture & Society, Vol 19(4):39-55. Beyond Nuclear Initiative (2006): Yellowcake Country: Australia’s Uranium Mining Iindustry. Available at Friends of the Earth’s webpage, http://www.foe.org.au/resources/publications/anti-nuclear/yellowcake.pdf . Chattopadhay, Suhrid Sankar (1999): “Uranium Production: Villages and Woes”, Frontline, Vol 16, No 18. Deffeyes, Kenneth S (2005): Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert’s Peak (New York: Hill and Wang). ECRP (2003): European Committee on Radiation Risk, “Recommendations: Executive Summary”, http://www.euradco.org/2003/execsumm.htm. Garb, Paula and Galina Komaraova (2001): “Victims of ‘Friendly Fire’ at Russia’s Weapons Sites” in N L Peluso and M Watts, Violent Environments (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press). Gusterson (Hugh) (1996): Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of the Cold War (Berkeley: University of California Press). Harvey, David (1996): Justice, Nature & the Geography of Difference (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing). Health Canada (2004): Canadian Handbook on Health Impact Assessment, Vol 4, Impact by Industry Sector, Ministry of Health. Available at: handbook-guide/vol_4/mining-miniere-2_e.html. Joshi, Sandeep (2008): “Uranium Scarcity Ails Nuclear Plants: Ramesh” in The Hindu, 6 June. Kapur, Ashok (2001): Pokhran and Beyond: India’s Nuclear Behaviour (New Delhi: Oxford University Press). Kuletz, Valerie (2001): “Invisible Spaces, Violent Places: Cold War Nuclear and Militarised Landscapes” in N L Peluso and M Watts (ed.), Violent Environments (Ithaca & London: Cornell University Press). – (2001): 1998 The Tainted Desert: Environmental and Social Ruin in the American West (New York and London: Routledge). Masco, Joseph (2006): The Nuclear Borderlands: The Manhattan Project in Post-Cold War New Mexico (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Mathur, Piyush (2001): “Nuclearism: The Contours of a Political Ecology” in Social Text, Vol 19(1):3-15. Norrell, Brenda (2007): “Leave It in the Ground: Indigenous Peoples Call for Global Ban on Uranium Mining”, Counterpunch, 8 February. Available at: http://www.counterpunch.org/norrell02082007.html. Perkovich, Georg (1999): India’s Nuclear Bomb: The Impact of Global Proliferation (Berkley: University of California Press). Popham, Peter (2001): “Children of the Poisoned Valley”, The Independent Sunday, 20 May. Roy, Arundhati (1998): “The End of Imagination”, Frontline, 14 August. Sanghmitra, Shreekumar, Surendra and Vinayak (2004): “Jadugoda Tragedy, Price of Superpower Ambitions”, Anumukti, Volume 1. Available at http://www.jadugoda.net/reports/anumukti.html. West, Julian (1999): “Thousands at Risk of Poisoning from ‘India’s Chernobyl’”, The Sunday Telegraph, 25 April. Whitaker, Mark (2006): “Living Next to India’s Uranium Mine”, BBC News, BBC India, 4 May.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This paper was first presented at the Fourth Afrasia International Symposium, Ryukoku University, Japan, November 2008. Bengt G Karlsson (
) is with the Department of Cultural Anthropology and Ethnology, Uppsala University, Sweden. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Adivasi live under Nuclear Terror in Jaduguda, Jharkhand
By Tarun Kanti Bose
On the basis of available information today, around 7000 people work at the Jaduguda mining complex. Hundred percent of the contract workers are tribal1. Ninety five percent of them are underground miners. In the top management or first grade posts of Corporation of India Limited (UCIL) no tribal people are employed. A study conducted by Anumukti, (Liberation from the Atom), a journal started in 1987) is the leading anti-nuclear journal in India, in its January 2004 issue (Volume 13, Number 1), points out that as high as 55.3% of the household in the villages have at least one person in regular employment with the UCIL. In addition Sadans, dalits and other backward castes work in the UCIL mills and mines.
Most of them work dressed in cotton uniforms and leather gloves are directly exposed to high levels of radon gas, dust and highest radiation. Once a week, these workers carry their uniforms home to be hand washed by their wives and children, exposing the entire family.
In the absence of any independent study, anecdotal evidence suggests that the mineworkers are suffering an epidemic of lung cancer, skin disease and other chronic ailments. Nobody knows how many of have died.
Guria born crippled "No standards have been met in the tailing ponds construction and no measures instituted to control the radon emissions from it. As a result, they continually pose a constant threat to Dungridih, Chatijkocha, Telaitand, Mecchua, Matigora and other surrounding villages within 10-15 Kms. Even Jamshedpur, just 20 kms is not free from it. It is on the dried up tailing ponds that Dr. Arjun Soren, who is the first doctor from Jaduguda's Santhal adivasi community, once played football as a child unaware of the dangers. Today, he is fighting cancer undergoing treatment in Mumbai for 'acute myeloid leukaemia' His family cannot afford a possible life saving bone-marrow transplant. During his medical studies he continued to visit Bhatin throughout his medical studies, assuring us and other Santhals that he would return to work with us," said Ghanshyam Biruli, President, Jharkhandis' Organisation Against Radiation (JOAR) "While working in uranium mines I handled the ore during drilling operation. Mostly I was in survey work. The geologist, whom I accompanied, used to tell us at what depth the uranium would be available after inspection. All this affected my health and I developed gastric trouble, as we could never take our meals in time. The doctors kept on telling me that I had Tuberculosis (TB). Then I consulted a private doctor in Jamshedpur who told me that I did not have TB. But by then the UCIL doctors had already administered 90 injections and gave some medicine, as a consequence of which my eyes and ears have been damaged. I got my eyes treated by Dr. Mustafa of Bistupur, I now feel as if some insect is moving in my ear. I still feel sick because of drinking uranium-contaminated water; I am taking medicines for the last 15 years. They took my blood, stool, urine and even semen samples but the result was never shown to me. They kept telling me I have TB, "said Mangal Majhi of Matigora village Further, he said, "No one told us that we became sick by drinking uranium – contaminated water. We have witnessed of it on plants and animal here. There used to be 'kendu' fruits grown in the vicinity of UCIL and the tailing ponds, have turned seedless. The fish in the stream have developed all kinds of diseases and started dying. Cows and goats have also died. The buffaloes have shortened tail. Still, I am a sick person and one-fourth of my body is useless, even after taking medicines for 15 years." Radiation affected Father and Son This is in contravention of the Guidelines of the International Committee of Radiological Protection (ICRP). M M Bhagat, former Working President, UCIL Kamgar Union, said, "Gloves and masks are not provided to staff that pack the yellow cakes in drums. Nothing special is being done for uranium miners who are exposed to grave dangers. In addition, their families are exposed to slow poisoning on account of UCIL's unsafe waste management practices."
Jaduguda uranium mining has adversely affected more than 30,000 people in 15 villages within the 5km radius of the mining complex. These villages are in the radiation zone. Prominent among them are Telaitand, Matigora, Mechhua, Bhatin, Rohimbeda, Chatijkocha, Surda, Narua, Dumridih, Dungridih, Sosoghutu, Sitadanga and Bhusabani. People in these and other villages suffer from physical deformities and a variety of illnesses such as lung cancer, skin disease and other chronic ailments. However, UCIL claims that it has not seen any effects of radiation on its workforce; notwithstanding the record of death toll- 17 workers died in 1994, 14 in 1995, 19 in 1996 and 21 in 1997. Mangal Majhi from village Matigora, just half kilometre from Jaduguda mines remembers how all this began- "Officials from Delhi used to come to Santhali villages to give training and employment. We adivasis were not interested. Persistent in their effort, the Englishmen continued to come to our houses to take us to work drop us back home in the evening. Some of us went to Rajasthan and other parts of the country with the same company. The non-tribals working with us became big shots in the company but our adivasis status remained the same. After working in different parts of the country I was sent back to Jaduguda where I worked for UCIL. In the beginning we did not know what was being mined and our Santhal community was never informed about it. When we joined the company, we had to take an oath of secrecy". The Majhi continued, "These mines the government built forcibly over our 'Jaher' (holy places). We did not like this. We did not want them to defile our sacred places. We people were not considered human being. There was no one to protect us."
"At that point in time", the Majhi said, "Jaduguda was a grove of the castor oil tree. That what the term means. It was dense forest situated on the indigenous Santhal and Ho tribal lands in the Singhbhum East district of Jharkhand. Now it is man-made hell." All of the uranium for India's ten Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs) comes from single uranium mining and processing plant at Jaduguda, started by Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL) in 1967.
Tailing Pond It is fed on the one hand by three underground uranium mines at Jaduguda, Narwapahar and Bhatin all within a 5 km radius, and on the other hand by the by-product from three nearby copper mines uranium recovery plants at Rakha, Surda and Musabani. This enterprise brings to the surface, from a depth of 1600-2000 feet, a low-grade ore (0.06%), not worth recovering in other countries.
Outside Jharkhand UCIL controls Domiasiat mill and mine project (West Khasi Hills district, Meghalaya); Lambapur-Peddagattu project (Nalgonda district, Andhra Pradesh). It plans to start new open cast mining at Turamdih and Bhanduhurung, just 20 kms from Jaduguda. Uranium ore is brought to the Jaduguda mill in open trucks along narrow roads linking the mines from Bhatin four kms and Narwapahar twelve kms west of Jaduguda. These trucks are sometimes partly covered by tarpaulins and occasionally carry workers perched on top of the ore load. These dusty roads run through villages littered with loose rock fallen from these overloaded trucks. Seeing children and livestock picking through piles of uranium ore2 is enough to give the casual visitor a glimpse of safety standards being observed.
This ore is crushed to a fine powder in the Jaduguda mill and is then chemically treated (an acid leach process) to extract the uranium. Jaduguda produces around 200 tonnes of uranium in the form of yellow cake (uranium concentrate) a year. It has a processing capacity of around 1000 tonnes of ore per day. By rough calculation, this means that UCIL is mining, crushing and then dumping around 330,000 – 360,000 tonnes of rock every year. The 'yellow cake' manufactured at plant is transported to the Nuclear Fuel Complex (NFC) in Hyderabad, where they used to fabricate fuel rods.
Uranium is not the only radioactive element found in the ore. There are a dozen or so others known as uranium decay products; among them, thorium-230, radium-226, and radon-222. Each of these presents a unique hazard to people and other living creatures coming into contact with them. These wastes are radioactive for around 250,000 years; in human terms this might as well be forever. In addition to the radiological hazard, uranium ores commonly contain varying concentrations of zinc, lead, manganese, cadmium and arsenic. None of these other elements are removed during processing; all remain in the tailings along with residues of the process chemicals used to extract the uranium.
What is left are eighty five percent other radioactive products. These are made into slurry and pumped into 'tailing' ponds. The waste, known as tailings, is treated with lime to neutralise the acidity, and then separated into coarse and fine particles. The coarse tailings, making up about 50% of the volume of the waste, are backfilled into the mine cavities. The remaining fine tailings are mixed with water and pumped through a pipeline over the rooftops of Jaduguda village into the tailings dam, their final resting place. There are now three large tailing ponds at Jaduguda, impounding tens of millions of tonnes of radioactive waste and covering more than 100 acres. They are unlined and uncovered; liquids, gases and fine dust particles are rapidly cycled into the environment. During the dry season, ponds run dry, the wind picks up the loose tailings and blows them around; in the monsoon rains, the dams overflow into the river.
People have also used the ponds to graze livestock and play soccer. They regularly cross them on their way from one place to another. The ponds are constructed on traditional routes to the forest and beyond, connecting people with their relatives. Tailings have been used for landfill and construction materials. The complex has gradually encroached peoples agricultural land and their living space. They continue to live within 30 metres of the tailings structures, and without any source for livelihood. Jaduguda is also 'India's radioactive dump yard'. Xavier Dias pointed out "Wastes from the Nuclear Fuel Complex in Hyderabad and the BARC Rare Materials Plant in Mumbai, Mysore, Gopalpur on sea, as well as medical radio wastes from an unknown number of sources are being returned to Jaduguda. This came to light when local people began to find syringes, bags and IV pipes from hospital wastes buried in the tailings3. It is now widely understood that the company still imports this waste, and is feeding it through the mill, crushing it before discharging it into the ponds. It is likely that some of these materials are gamma radiation emitters, adding to the radiation hazard suffered by everyone in the area".
The first intervention was in 1979 when Indian Federation of Trade Union (IFTU), a labour wing of Communist Party of India (Marxist Leninist) called for a strike in Rakha Copper Mines. In this strike, IFTU demanded only 'radiation allowances' for the workers exposed to radioactive rays. No political party or a trade union raised the these issue confronting the mining community and those living in the vicinity of the mining site, " said Shamit Carr, now a researcher and member, Bharatiya Shramik Sabha. Earlier he worked with IFTU.
At this point in time Singhbhumi Ekta (Singhbhum's Unity), a Trade Union engaged in AJSU activities, developed a special relation with IFTU. Xavier Dias who at this point in time member of AJSU-Singhbhumi Ekta front got involved with this labour struggles in Jaduguda. According to Xavier Dias "The 1979 strike, was unsuccessful but it brought the issue of radiation to the fore. It inspired and partially politicised several educated tribal youth, who were until then unconcerned with radiation and its adverse impact on the adivasis living in Jaduguda".
In 1980s All Jharkhand Students Union (AJSU) led an upsurge on the identity question. Militant bandhs for two-three days were staged by urban youth. AJSU called for elections boycott. However, its associate, Jharkhand Peoples' Party jumped into electoral politics. The result was unrecoverable disaster. Disenchanted, most of the front ranking AJSU functionaries from the Ghatshila and Potka blocks in East Singhbhum district broke away from the organization in 1989 and launched an independent struggle against displacement and unemployment in Jaduguda. They formed Jharkhand Adivasi Berojgar Visthapit Sangh (JABVS) or the Jharkhand Tribal Unemployed Displaced Committee.
"At that time we knew nothing about radiation. We knew there was radiation but we didn't take it as a serious issue" recollected Xavier. Over a period of time Ghanshyam Biruli, now the President of JOAR, points out that 'people slowly started to notice rashes, deformities on fellow beings, cows were being born without tails, fish with unknown skin diseases were being discovered, small animals, including mice, monkeys and rabbits were disappearance from the area, Kendu fruits had become seedless… "In 1991 when the preparations for the World Uranium Hearings had started, we read literature on the consequences of uranium mining- we were shocked", recollected Xavier Dias. We decided to set up an organization to take this struggle forward. Xavier set up the Jharkhandis Organisation Against Radiation (JOAR) in 1991/92 to pressurise UCIL management to reform its operations. This organisation worked together with the All- Jharkhand Students Union that had started an organisation of displaced and unemployed tribal people.
At the World Uranium Hearing4, 400 delegates and observers from across the world participated. Xavier Dias represented JOAR at the hearing. Along with him there were other three delegates and an observer from India. The deliberations and interactive sessions in the Hearing helped Xavier to understand the politics behind the uranium production. "In the World Uranium Hearing, I was astounded by the fact that eighty percent of uranium in the world was being dug out from indigenous lands. The indigenous people are worst victims on the altar of world's nuclear weapons development programme. Not only in India, even in Canada, USA, Latin America, Australia and in Africa. In India Jaduguda and Domisiat in Meghalaya, were tribal area, where rich deposit of uranium was found", said Xavier Dias Participation in the World Uranium Hearing made it clear, pointed out Xavier, that the State by design was smothering tribal identity. This was genocide an integral part of India's nuclear development programme. The deployment of CRPF, CISF and other paramilitary forces at Jaduguda ensured secrecy keeping tribals from knowing what happens in the process of mining uranium and transporting it to other places Truck with uranium without any cover In the absence of any official initiative to find out the health of the people living around the mine, in 1993, Bindrai Institute for Research Study and Action (BIRSA) in collaboration with JAVBS (now JOAR) conducted a survey in seven villages within 1km of the mining site (specifically tailings dams, described later). [BIRSA was started in 1989 It was planned as a research, training and documentation centre by a group of intellectuals and activists connected with the various People's movements of Jharkhand BIRSA set its goal to nurture its own leadership from amongst the Jharkhandi activists and in the ten years of its history is has achieved this to a good extent.] Dr. Imrana Qadir of Centre for Social Medicines, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi trained midwives, who were also village level health workers, for field investigation. The survey was designed to find out instances of stillborns, deformed children and other new aliments and explain to the people the harmful effects of radiation. It took two years to complete the survey.
"The report revealed that 47% of women suffered disruptions in their menstrual cycle, 18% said they had suffered miscarriages or given birth to stillborn babies in the last 5 years. 30% suffered fertility problem. Nearly all women complained of fatigue, weakness and depression. Further, the survey found a high incidence of chronic skin disease, cancers, TB, bone, brain kidney damage, nervous system disorders, congenital deformities, nausea, blood disorders and other chronic diseases. Children were the most affected-born with skeletal distortions, partially formed skulls, blood disorders and a broad variety of physical deformities. Most common is missing eyes or toes, fused fingers or limbs incapable of supporting them. Brain damage often compounds these physical disabilities." In addition, the researchers found that 30,000 people within 5 km of the mining area were being exposed to abnormally high levels of radiation." said Ajitha George of BIRSA, who was co-ordinating the BIRSA/JOAR study.
These damages from low-level radiation slowly degrade the DNA material destroying the inheritance upon which the whole human race depends. Once the genes have been damaged there is no hope of repair.
It is impossible to gauge how much radioactive material is circulating within the environment and how it is being taken into the food chain. The little that is known is frightening.
For nine years after UCIL served notice in 1985 to the villagers of Chatijkocha that their land would be acquired for construction of the third tailings pond, nothing happened. Then suddenly in 1994 the villagers were directed to appear at the UCIL offices to collect their compensation for their land that had been acquired. Crude concrete markers about the size and shape of gravestones appeared in the area where the new waste dump was about to appear.
Most families were deeply offended by the pitiful compensation offered by UCIL and refused to accept. Instead they made a set of demands, which were ignored. On January 27, 1996 UCIL, backed by district police and paramilitary units, entered the village and began the process of bulldozing their houses. Thirty houses were destroyed, fields were flattened, sacred 'sarnas' (groves of worship) and graveyards were levelled out.
The demands were as follows:
1. Bringing radioactive wastes into their area and dumping them in their villages should stop forthwith. 2. International norms and standards for storing radioactive waste that has already been dumped should be meticulously observed 3. All the villages around the already existing tailings ponds should be resettled at a safe distance and complete rehabilitation should be undertaken. 4. All the families whose active working members have either died or been incapacitated and the families which have children with serious physical and/or mental disabilities should be adequately compensated and the company should take the responsibility for their treatment. 5. The company should set up a public dispensary manned by medical personnel qualified to treat radiation related diseases, and its functioning should be under the direction of the traditional tribal leadership of the Majhi/Pargana. In response, within three days Santhal people mobilised a large number of people from nearby villages in support of the people of Chatijkocha. Women lay down in front of bulldozers; the local press broadcast the action to national and international human rights groups. As a result the demolition was temporarily suspended. The villagers demanded that they be realistically compensated for their lands and rehabilitated to a habitable area.
People approached the Ranchi Bench of the Bihar High Court in mid-1996 seeking to stop UCIL from destroying their villages. The court suggested the villagers' dialogue with the mining management. The negotiations was fruitless, the tribal people ended up walking out.
Work to construct tailings dam was quietly recommenced in February 1997. On 25th February, tribal people blocked the construction work. In response, UCIL deployed police and the arrests began. Repressive measures were adopted to silence the tribal people. "In 1997, my brother Jairam also raised his voice along with other Santhals. He was brutally beaten by the police with rifle butts on the buttocks. There was bleeding and since then he has been suffering," said Dumka Murmu, General Secretary, JOAR Broader support from surrounding villages and other Jharkhandis struggling group started pouring in. On March 9, a Parganas5 of all the Santhal Tribal people arrived in support and UCIL were again forced into negotiations. UCIL made lot of promises, including improved radiation monitoring, realistic cash payments, employment for the displaced males and improved healthcare for radiation-affected people.
JOAR's movement forced negotiations and achieved compensation from the powerful and secretive nuclear operation. The movement swelled since 1997 and became known around the country.
'The most mobile element in the tailings is Radon-222, a heavy radioactive gas with a half-life of 3.8 days. (With a steady 10km per hour wind, the gas could travel nearly 1000 km before half has decayed.) This gas presents a major threat to mine workers and nearby residents alike; it emits alpha radiation as it decays into radioactive bismuth, polonium and lead. Inhaling or ingesting radon (it is water soluble) poses a unique health hazard as the body becomes exposed to the chemical properties of the various decay products as well as their radioactivity, according to the paper titled ' Radiological pollution from uranium mines at Jaduguda' submitted by Xavier Dias at a 'Conference on Health & Environment' organised by Centre for Science & Environment in New Delhi 6th-9th July 1998.
As part of protests against the construction of the third tailings dam, JOAR demanded that the State of Bihar conduct its own survey on the health impacts of the mine. The environment committee of the Bihar Vidhan Parishad (Legislative Council) spent two years on the study, and filed its last report in December 1998. A medical team sampled water around the tailings dams and examined 54 people suspected of suffering from radiation-related illness.
The report confirmed what the people already knew; that UCIL was dumping nuclear waste from other sites into the tailings dams, that uranium was leaching into the river, and that people were living too close to the mine. The team expressed concern at the fact that the tails dams were unfenced, that waste water was returning to the treatment plant in open drains, and that there were no warning signs around the plant. But overall the findings were ambivalent. KK Beri, then UCIL Technical Director, had written to the deputy commissioner's office informing him that the 54 people identified by the medical team were not suffering from diseases caused by uranium radioactivity, and they are dismissed in the final report: "As regards the cause-effect relationship of these diseases with radioactivity, we can neither establish nor exclude the same at this stage." The committee recommended a complete health survey to be undertaken. A medical team dominated by doctors from BARC and the UCIL chief medical officer duly carried this out. It found, perhaps not surprisingly, that the diseases found in Jaduguda were not related to radiation, blaming instead poor nutrition, malaria, alcoholism and genetic abnormalities.
Contrary to these findings "There is no radiation or any related health problems in Jaduguda and its surrounding areas", says J.L Bhasin, former chairperson and Managing Director of UCIL. The 'no radiation' argument, when pushed, becomes 'no radiation beyond permitted international limits''. Mine management also denies dumping nuclear waste at Jaduguda, other than "a small amount of raffinate cake" from Hyderabad. It denies any health effects from elevated levels of radiation and insists it holds that its workforce is healthy.
The environment committee however made a recommendation that echoed one of the key demands of JOAR: that people be evacuated to a distance of 5 km from the mines and tailing ponds. UCIL and the government alike ignored this recommendation, like much of the bulk of the report.
This is the standard practice for the nuclear industry worldwide. The Indian nuclear industry is able to hide behind an oppressive 'Official Secrets Act' and is not directly accountable to the people for its actions. All nuclear research including health physics and health test of affected populations are hidden by this Act.
All this workers gradually got to know. This led them to protest. On account of unrest and discontent among the workforce UCIL looked towards private labour companies to hire contract labourers, who were dismissed as soon as they showed any signs of illness. Regular employees started to wear radiation-measuring devices inside the plant and underground, but they are never told what doses are recorded, and if they fell sick they were treated at the plant hospital. Their medical records were kept a closely guarded secret.
JOAR continued to be busy with court proceedings; building up the campaign, labour unrest and the movement became stronger than ever. However, Xavier Dias in an interview to Scott Ludlam in November 1999, said, "From here I think, UCIL is either going to sabotage or break the movement by buying up the leadership, or have some clandestine operation like what normal governments do. These are the only two options available."
In 2002, JOAR membership had touched 3000 but after that it took a downward trend. It had formed village committees under the leadership Manjis (headman). JOAR had also roped in Haripada Pargana as one of its front ranking members. Since its inception JOAR had collaborated with other organisations such as BIRSA, Anumukti etc. to undertake health surveys, legal action, awareness building programmes, political lobbying and direct action in defence of the tribals.
"JOAR's struggle had definitely inspired the movement at Banduhurung 6 against UCIL's open cast mining. The UCIL plans to start a uranium processing and power plant at Turamdih, close to Banduhurung. JOAR and media, especially national newspapers and magazines played an exemplary role in making people aware about uranium mines and its radioactive effect. Rana S Gautam, of the Times of India's wrote series of stories on Jaduguda. It had been successful in making people aware about radiation though at a quite slower pace," said Shamit Carr.
Two years later the UCIL succeeded in dividing the movement. JOAR split on 24th February 2004, when UCIL organised a 'Jan Sunwayi' (Public Hearing) at Banduhurung to garner support of the people in favour of open cast mining in Banduhurung "JOAR supported UCIL and BIRSA opposed UCIL" said Shamit Carr. Prior to this public hearing a leader of JOAR went around the villages telling the villagers that they should support UCIL, which would get them the jobs. Paradoxically, JOAR is a major partner in the MUAP (Movement Against Uranium Project) raising voice against UCIL projects in Nalgonda (Andhra Pradesh) and Domiasiat (Meghalaya).
"Seventeen tribal organisations have formed a co-ordination committee to oppose uranium open cast mining in Banduhurung. The co-ordination committee had distanced itself from JOAR, as it had supported Uranium Corporation of India Limited (UCIL) to begin its operations in Banduhurung." Alleged, "Rich dividends were paid by UCIL to Ghanshyam Biruli, President, JOAR for total 'sell out'. UCIL gave him money to get his house refurbished in Jaduguda. UCIL also paid him money to get a pond dug nearby his house. The president is a full time activist. But where does he get money for leading a lavish lifestyle" said Surai Hansda7, Chief Functionary, Adivasi Moolvasi Bhumi Suraksha Samiti (AMBSS) Surai Hansda decided to launch AMBSS when they saw JOAR work in support of open cast mining in Banduhurung. AMBSS upholds tribal exclusive rights to their traditional lands and their resources. It emphasizes that where the lands and resources of the tribals have been taken away by UCIL without their free and informed consent, it should provide jobs. It objects to and protests against UCIL not keeping its promise8. AMBSS has 700 members. Most of them are men; they plan to induct women in their struggle. Surai thinks, "Women had been at the forefront of the tribal struggles. Without their participation, it's quite difficult to organise the movement." The organisation generates its own resources. Whenever there are programmes, people donate generously. During their mobilisation drive against globalisation, they saw that youths wanted to dispose off the land but elders oppose. They are not interested in any reunion with JOAR. Their potential allies in the struggle are the affected community, villagers and BIRSA. BIRSA has supported and assisted the movement through legal advice, arranging for documents, dissemination of information and financial support. UCIL tried to divide this organisation, but in vain. Sukumar Murmu, Chairperson, Talsa village Assembly said, "Ghanshyam Biruli is acting like a broker of UCIL. Suresh Purti of village Barahata paid Ghanshyam Biruli Rs. 75,000 for getting him a job. But till date he has not got a job and Rs. 23,000 was returned back to him. Manki Gunduwara of Barahata village also paid Rs.75, 000 and Dusrath Jojo gave Ghanshyam Biruli Rs. 50.000 for job in UCIL."
As UCIL is going on a faster pace for operationalising open cast mining in Banduhurung so 17- organisation co-ordination committee is intensifying its struggle. They are less dependent on external facilitator. They encourage participation and transparency and make an effort to generate their own resources. Growing intensity and broader base of the struggle in Banduhurung, will force UCIL to soften its stand. UCIL has been assiduously trying to brand the struggle as anti-national and anti- development by roping in JOAR but the people affected by the project see it as a genuine struggle and therefore take it seriously. Some of the senior functionaries of JOAR are silent and slowly distancing from its activities. Of all the mining in Jharkhand nuclear mining at Jaduguda is the most lethal.
It is difficult to say how this conflict will unfold and what will be its consequences for the people. The problem is difficult-should one accept the Nuclear programme and then struggle over implementation of appropriate employment policy and safety measures or should the struggle focus on questioning nuclearisation as such?
On the one hand, India is the first Asian country to develop a nuclear programme. The process of becoming nuclear began before the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and inspite of the chill of the Cold War. As early as 1944, Dr Homi J Bhabha played a decisive role in Indian nuclear affairs. He wrote to the government asking for money to set up an institute for studying the subject, so that "when nuclear energy has been successfully applied for power production in, say a couple of decades from now, India will not have to look abroad for its experts, but will find them ready at hand". India's first pacifist Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru wrote to his defence minister shortly after independence that not only did the "future belong to those who produce atomic energy", but "Defence (was) intimately connected with this."
In 1948, a year after independence the Indian Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was set up. It would work under the direct control of the prime minister. This was the beginning of the Nuclear Industry. It began with meagre resources. An early geological survey of India had revealed a vast thorium resource but few uranium deposits. The earliest resource estimate amounted to only 15,000 tonnes. For an independent nuclear program to be 'sustainable' with this meagre resource, an ambitious it was decided that the first generation of reactors would be Canadian-designed CANDU reactors, which run on natural (i.e. non-enriched) uranium and use 'heavy' water as the moderator. The plutonium thus generated would provide fuel for a second generation of fast-breeder reactors, which would provide yet more plutonium to mix with the abundant thorium resource and theoretically supply free energy forever.
In August 1954, six years later the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) was set up. The prime minister operates though this Commission and the Department. The AEC has overall control of all activities relating to commercial use of nuclear energy. It formulates policies for the DAE, prepares its budget, and ensures the policies are implemented. It also has the ultimate responsibility for safety. For insuring this it works through the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB). [The President of India constituted the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) on November 15, 1983 by exercising the powers conferred by Section 27 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (33 of 1962) to carry out certain regulatory and safety functions under the Act. The regulatory authority of AERB is derived from the rules and notifications promulgated under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986.]
The mission of the Board is to ensure that the use of ionising radiation and nuclear energy in India does not cause undue risk to health and the environment. Currently, the Board consists of a full-time Chairman, an ex-officio Member, three part-time Members and a Secretary.
The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) was and has full executive powers to implement the policies of the AEC. It supports and regulates the activities of two main research centres and the other research institutions; the Nuclear Power Corporation; the heavy water projects; and fuel-chain undertakings.
The Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), which is responsible to the AEC, formulates safety standards and regulations. It approves the commissioning of nuclear stations on the basis of its own safety assessments and on information provided by the Safety Review Committee of the DAE. The AERB, which in an ideal world would perhaps be an independent body reporting directly to parliament, has no power to truly regulate the industry and reports to the AEC behind closed doors. The DAE maintains a monopoly on research, suppressing heretical views as efficiently as any medieval inquisition.
Uranium mines in Jaduguda are the foundation of the Indian nuclear fuel chain. It is wholly State monopoly. The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) owns UCIL and its operations are covered under Atomic Energy Act, which makes accurate information about the mine somewhat tortuous to obtain. There is no requirement for public participation at any stage of the process of sighting, designing or building nuclear facilities. In an article for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (1999), T.S. Gopi Rethinaraj writes: "The department [of atomic energy] has happily exploited the ignorance of India's judiciary and political establishment on nuclear issues. In the past, it has even used the Atomic Energy Act to prevent nuclear plant workers from accessing their own health records. While nuclear establishments everywhere have been notorious for suppressing information, nowhere is there an equivalent of India's Atomic Energy Act in operation. Over the years, in the comfort of secrecy, India's nuclear establishment has grown into a monolithic and autocratic entity that sets the nuclear agenda of the country and yet remains virtually unaccountable for its actions."
On the other hand the struggles in the Jharkhand have protested against expropriation of Natural Resources9 for over three hundred years. The modern composition of Jharkhand was developed in reaction against British colonialism despite the fact that conducive integrated economic structure based on geographic features, backward agriculture and forests, and integral cultural heritage, unique inter-tribal relations etc., were present for this. Tensions were sparked off in the society due to new polarisations caused by the growing pressures on land by the state at the time of colonial subjugation and the consequent transfer of the land constantly into the hands of usurers as well as due to other external pressures. As a result, revolts in this region took the form of tradition and culture developed under resistance. In the initial period these revolts were of religious and retrograde form, which is a special feature of peasant revolts. But progressively the development of these struggles took place in the form of looking for a new system against the colonial fetters, zamindari and usury. The Munda resistance from 1789 to 1820, the Kol revolt of 1830-31, the Bhumij revolt of 1834, the Santhal revolt of 1855-56, the Sepoy Mutiny of 1856-57, the upsurge under the leadership of Birsa Munda during 1895-1901 etc., kept the entire region agitated with a series of revolts spanning over more than a century. If the people faced the repression together, they also enjoyed the fruits of victory together. The laws that were made under compulsion were the achievements of these struggles. The Chotanagpur-Santhal Parganas Tenants Act (1872, 1886, 1903, 1908) that put a check on land sales in Chotanagpur and Santhal Parganas etc., were enacted under the pressure of these struggles. The spontaneous struggles in Jharkhand have laid the foundation for a tradition of resistance.
In Conclusion IFTU, which called for a strike in Rakha Copper mines in 1979, demanded only 'radiation allowances' for the workers exposed to it. But neither any political party nor mass organisations raised the issue of 'uranium radiation' affecting the mining community or those living in the vicinity of the tailing ponds. However, radiation is a serious issue which cannot be a part of any social organisation or project-driven NGOs. It was a serious political issue. Uranium, which had been used for manufacturing had killed thousands in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. In Jaduguda it is daily killing people those living near the mines.
In 1989, when Jharkhandis' Organisation Against Radiation (JOAR) was taking its roots, the organisations which came to forward to take up the issue, followed principles of democratic centralism. The democratic centralism has two parts ideological centralism and organisational centralism. The ideological centralism grows out of the struggle to develop one process of thinking, uniformity of thinking, oneness in approach and singleness of purpose. Organisational centralism is built up on the basis of the ideological centralism, which gives the real structural shape to the principle of democratic centralism In the movement against radiation in the post-1989 era, there was convergence of political movements such as AJSU, trade union struggles like Singhbhumi Ekta, traditional Manji Pargana System, NGOs, professionals like journalists, academicians, legal practitioners, scientists, film-makers etc. The convergence took place at the time when there was a paradigm shift in the movement, as it started drifting away from the principles of democratic centralism.
However, in the struggle there were networking among different players, who cut out their role. To take ahead the movement, the activities were research, lobbying, mobilisation, discussion, strategy planning, awareness building, information dissemination, finance etc. The support groups had convergence of interests but had no uniformity in approach. Majority of those forming the support group came from middle class background whose desire was to strengthen the movement but had not declassed them. An amateurish videographer turned filmmaker whose documentary had been successful in bringing the 'radiation issue 'at the fore in national and international arena. Though he was politically aware but had no ideological grounding. Quite overenthusiastic, he started interfering in the day-to-day activities of JOAR. JOAR leadership had pinned their hopes on support group, for resources and skills too. But it was not quite competent enough to tackle those who mobilised resources and used their skills for building the struggle.
Fissures in the network starting taking place and the sharp contradictions came to the fore. JOAR, like post-1989 phenomena, started functioning like an NGO, without being ideologically driven to cause. Like an NGO it was run in an ad-hoc and anarchic manner. In 2002, BIRSA withdrew from the support group, and then the crisis deepened. In February 2004, it reached its zenith and there was a split in JOAR. The split in the movement is also an example to understanding the contradictions and the dynamics in the movement. A new open- cast mining started in Banduhurung. In Jan Sunwayi, JOAR did not have a clear policy to oppose open cast mining. Prior to Jan Sunwayi, JOAR leader went around the villages telling the villagers that we cannot oppose the Government. So, the contradiction widened and there was split in JOAR.
1 Socially, Jaduguda and nearby villages, which is inside the radiation zone may be divided into two broad swaths as the dominant being the Santhals, the largest tribe in Jharkhand: · The Austro-Asiatic tribes, especially Santhal and Ho live in Jaduguda and nearby villages. Most of these tribals are peasants but some of them work as miners in UCIL mills and plants. 95% of underground miners are tribals. In the top management or first grade posts of UCIL no tribals are employed, while 100% of the contract workers are tribals. The major occupation of the villagers is agriculture and animal husbandry. In a study conducted by Anumukti, a journal devoted to non-nuclear, it is stated that, as high as 55.3% of the household in the villages have at least having regular employment with the UCIL either as casual mill workers. · The Mixed category [Comprises a broader category, mostly Sadans, dalits and other castes work in the UCIL mills and mines as workers and wage labourers]. The Santhals, a dominant tribe in Jaduguda and nearby villages have a century old, traditional system of local self-governance known as Manjhi-Pargana System (MPS) at the village and intermediate level responsible for the overall development of the Santhal communities.
2 Uranium is not the only radioactive element found in the ore. There are a dozen or so others known as uranium decay products; among them are, thorium-230, radium-226, and radon-222. Each of these presents a unique hazard to people and other living creatures coming into contact with them. These wastes are radioactive for around 250,000 years; in human terms this might as well be forever. In addition to the radiological hazard, uranium ores commonly contain varying concentrations of zinc, lead, manganese, cadmium and arsenic. None of these other elements are removed during processing; all remain in the tailings along with residues of the process chemicals used to extract the uranium.
3 It was an early demand of theirs that this practice be stopped, which UCIL eventually agreed to.
4 The World Uranium Hearing (WUH) took place from 13-19 September 1992 in Salzburg, Austria. Founded by Claus Biegert in December and it is registered as a non-profit organisation in Munich, Germany. It was an unprecedented gathering of indigenous people affected by the nuclear industry, with focus on uranium mining. In the Hearing, about 80 indigenous and 30 non-Indigenous people, representing 25 indigenous nations and 27 countries, made testimonies. All continents were represented. It was a massive indictment against the nuclear industry for contaminating water and land and for disregard of human rights.
The World Uranium was q Based on testimonies and experiences from around the world, q Based on the evidence of damage to indigenous people, culture, economy, land, water, and air, q Based on indigenous people's respect for spiritual values, beliefs, and practices, and their opposition to the destruction of their existence. The 'Council of Jurists' consisted of scholars with commitment and expertise in human rights and environ-mental law at the international and national levels, as well as lawyers who have worked to promote sustainable development to protect the interest of Indigenous peoples, and to protect the public from nuclear risks. A six-page leaflet suitable for mailings was available in German. Also helping to promote the WUH was a video, "The Death that Creeps from the Earth" (in English, German and Russian), and the first European Group Show of he Atomic Photographers Guild. This photo exhibition remained in Europe until the end of 1993. In the Hearing there were testimonies from around the world by the peoples of the mountains, the forests, the deserts and the oceans, who suffer daily from uranium mining, nuclear weapons testing, nuclear power generation and radioactive waste. These testimonies showed the peoples' intimate relationship with the Earth and the destruction of the natural environment they depended upon, culturally, spiritually and materially. It became clear that each phase of the nuclear process - civilian or military - has a deadly impact on all forms of life Delegates heard testimonies from around the world by the peoples of the mountains, the forests, the deserts and the oceans, who suffer daily from uranium mining, nuclear weapons testing, nuclear power generation and radioactive waste.. These testimonies showed the peoples' intimate relationship with the Earth and the destruction of the natural environment they depend upon, culturally, spiritually and materially. It became clear that each phase of the nuclear process - civilian or military - has a deadly impact on all forms of life. It was realised that the inhabitants of this planet, responsible for the generations to come, have to live with consequences of our radioactive heritage from now on. Together, the delegates stood and said: q No more exploitation of lands and peoples by uranium mining, nuclear power generation, nuclear testing, and radioactive waste dumping; q Clean up and restore all homelands; q End the secrecy and fully disclose all information about the nuclear industry and its dangers; q Provide full and fair compensation for damage to: peoples, families and communities, cultures and economies, homelands, water, air, and all living things; q Provide independent and objective monitoring of human health and the well being of all living things affected by the nuclear chain. In view of the unity of humanity and the world, they made an appeal on behalf of future generations to use sustainable, renewable, and lifeenhancing energy alternatives.
5 Historically, the Manjhi Pargana system started losing its authority with the advent of the British colonial power. Even in Jaduguda and its villages, the Manjhi Pargana System became redundant. This process continued after the independence. Various legislations made the system ineffective and dysfunctional. The 'Movement for Tribal self-rule' launched in 1996 resulted in the enactment of Provisions of Panchayat (extended to the Scheduled Areas) Act 1996 (PESA-96) by the Parliament. Manjhi Pargana System, which had become redundant in Jaduguda, he said, "When we were dispossessed from our land by UCIL, the Pargana did not even stand against it and unite his tribal brethren against it. He miserably failed in performing his duty. In Santhal history, you would see that Parganas have stood along with his tribal brethren like an unfaltering rock whenever the 'intruders' attempted to dispossess of their land. Jaduguda, Bhatin and Narwapahar were built on Santhali land. Bihar Government leased this land to UCIL. But, according to SNT, Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, Fifth Schedule Area Act and Traditional Self-rule system, the land belongs to Santhal community. Bihar Government violated all the acts and flouted all the norms in the air. In the name of 'national development' adivasis dispossessed of their land did not receive any compensation. As a Pargana, Haripada failed to perform, as he was not aware of the acts and his role. First, the land was acquired by Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), directly under Prime Minister, and later on transferred it to UCIL. Traditional self-ruling system was non-operational due to direct intervention of the Government."
The fundamental and the basic tenet of the Act empowered the traditional village councils under Manjhi Pargana System to govern themselves on their own in accordance with their traditions and customs in all matters pertaining to their own socio-political, economic and cultural development. The Jharkhand Government ratified this Act in 2001. The PESA-96 provides adivasis for self-governance and now they have legal and Constitutional power to organise themselves, plan, implement, review and monitor their own programmes of development. In Jaduguda and nearby villages, as Dumka Murmu, General Secretary, Jharkhandis Organisation Against Radiation (JOAR) said, "Being a part of the 'Movement for tribal self-rule', it was our historical obligation to revive the Manjhi Pargana System in our areas of operation. Manjhi were headman of the village and Pargana had control over them. A Pargana has a control over 60 villages. Identity cards were issued by JOAR to the Manjhis and Parganas. It was by strengthening of Manjhi Pargana System, that the advantage regarding mass consciousness on radiation issues surfaced and spread."
6 Banduhurung is 25 kms from Jaduguda and 10 Kms from Jamshedpur.
7 He mobilised people in support of JOAR's direct action at Chatijkocha, in 1996 and 1997, when third tailing pond was constructed, said, "
8 In 1984, when mining started in Turamdih, the houses of 375 families were demolished and land acquired by UCIL but they have not got any job. UCIL's compensation followed the 1970 package. According to 1970 package, if an acre is acquired the UCIL pays a compensation of Rs. 12,000, Rs.15,000 and Rs.18,000 based on the fertility of the land. 9 Of 45 major minerals such as coal, iron ore, magnetite, manganese, bauxite, graphite, limestone, dolomite, uranium etc are found in tribal areas contributing some 56% of the national total mineral earnings in terms of value. Of the 4,175 working mines reported by the Indian Bureau of Mines in 1991-92, approximately 3500 could be assumed to be in the tribal areas. Income to the government from forests rose from Rs.5.6 million in 1969-70 to more than Rs.13 billions in the 1970s. The bulk of the nation's productive wealth lay in the tribal territories. Yet the tribals have been driven out, marginalised and robbed of dignity by the very process of 'national development'.
Jharkhand is estimated to have more than a third of India's total mineral wealth. It has more than a third of the coal deposits in the country and the only region for the mining of coking coal. The state has half of the country's reserves of mica, 23 percent of iron ore and 34 percent of copper reserves. Fireclay, manganese ore, uranium, bauxite, kyanite, china clay etc. are also abundantly found in Jharkhand. Large-scale mining of major minerals started in Jharkhand as early as 1890. Coal mining in Jharia began its operations in 1886, iron ore mining started at Gurumahisini in 1911, Badampahar and Sulaipet in 1923, Noamundi in 1926, bauxite mining in Palamau and Lohardaga in 1940, mica mines in Hazaribagh and Koderma in 1930. Presently there are about 398 working mines in the state.
Issue : VOL 44 No. 34 August 22 - August 28, 2009
Online Network ~~ May 2009