When politicos turn their ire on projects they once approved of

The makeshift roofs became permanent (they exist even today) and the crowd under them multiplied like raindrops during the monsoon as the anti-nuclear protest led by professor SP Udayakumar saw a groundswell of public support against what was ‘contended’ by the protesters as an ecologically hazardous project that could affect their livelihood, courtesy the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan that showed the extent of damage nuclear accidents could cause.

A routine mock drill had only worsened the fears of protesters, enabling them to peacefully endure the joint onslaught of the Centre and state for over a year, indeed with some moral support from liberal thinking minority across the country and fringe politicians in the state. Vidinthakarai, true to its name, not only became a theatre of protests but also led to the dawn of a new era of public protests and civil disobedience. Opposition to ecologically sensitive projects that affected people’s livelihoods started becoming the focal point. Sutrusoolal (environment) became the byword of many protests in the state. 

The spirit and courage exemplified in Idinthakarai, which, from being a local fishing hamlet issue snowballed into a primetime news debate in 24x7 newsrooms in New Delhi, had opened the floodgates for agitations opposing ecologically sensitive projects. So much so that a sea of people on the streets drew the political mainstream out, who, surprisingly, expressed solidarity with ‘ordinary’ protesters. 

From mouthing concern through short statements on a busy news day, parties and leaders started deputing envoys to agitations, sometimes visiting protesters themselves, all for ecology and livelihood. Projects such as the GAIL pipeline, methane extraction, hydrocarbon in Neduvasal, ONGC pipeline in Kathiramangalam and most recently the neutrino project at Pottipuram in Theni and the second edition of anti-Sterlite protests in Thoothukudi became catchphrases of leaders of various organisations. 

Parties like the DMK and AIADMK, which, once knowingly or unknowingly approved projects, have now jumped on to the save-environment bandwagon, courtesy the ‘satyagraha’ of the people. When DMK Rajya Sabha MP Kanimozhi said recently, “The Sterlite plant needs to be shut down immediately,” a few days after her brother-cum-party working president MK Stalin had charged the copper plant with contaminating Tamirabarani and causing cancer, the duo also carried the stigma of giving “consent to operate” the Sterlite factory in the state during the party’s 1996-2001 regime.

On the flip side, the ruling AIADMK could not distance itself from the Sterlite controversy given that it was this party that gave “consent to establish” the plant during its 1991-96 regime. One way or the other, the two parties that ruled the state for most of the last century and their allies, who conveniently kept calm or occasionally murmured concerns about the projects in the past, have now become saviours of the environment during the last seven years. The newfound love of netas for environment has impressed and intrigued real environmentalists alike. 

Sundararajan of Poovulagu environmental group, which has been vehemently opposing all the aforesaid projects, says, anti-nuclear agitations in Koodankulam redefined protests. “KKNPP opened the eyes of parties which were only fighting for socially significant issues like reservation and castebased discrimination. The anti-nuclear protests transformed ‘local’ protests to state-wide ones. Parties realised that environmental issues could flare up and with such massive support for these issues, parties have to reflect public opinion. The parties themselves committed a blunder in allowing ecologically-sensitive projects. 

What was once someone’s problem became everyone’s problem. People fought for KKNPP in the 1980s, but how many knew? They are subjecting themselves to course correction. Nehru had said Hirakud and Bhakra Nangal are temples of modern India. Back then, there was no proper understanding of such ecologically-sensitive issues. Needs of a nation state are different now. 

While countries are judged by human development index now, back then it was industries. Now, they are admitting their guilt.”

Conversely, S Nallasamy, secretary of Federation of Tamil Nadu Agriculturists Association, says, “Politicians lack understanding. The 2018 order in the Cauvery case says Tamil Nadu can utilise 20tmcft of groundwater, which belongs not to the people or country, but only to the ground and plants. Which party understood it? No party has the conviction to protect the environment. They are only doing it to advance their political interest. They spoiled the environment and destroyed natural resources. People who hit the streets also lack understanding, now they are exploiting the same issues for politics. They are unaware of the larger issues in such projects too.” 

“If the projects had public and parties’ support, why did the Koodankulam protest fizzle out?” he added. Just a simple recap of recent history would help put Nallasamy’s apprehension in perspective. Even the government of the time (led by the late CM J Jayalalithaa) had initially seemed empathetic towards anti-nuclear protesters before it unleashed a posse of policemen who drove the Idinthakarai protesters into the sea. 

That veteran CPI leader R Nallakannu had led the legal charge against the government for preventing sand mining in Tamirabani river, a lifeline of farmers in the state, till recently, should lead one to doubt the conviction of political parties in resisting ecologically-sensitive projects brought to Tamil Nadu. However, one significant advantage the voluntary participation of politicos brings to such sensitive and hazardous projects would be the enormity of publicity and the amount of awareness it spreads.