By Keya Acharya
BANGALORE, Mar 29 1999 (IPS)

The Indian Navy’s multi-billion dollar plan to build the most sophisticated integrated base in South and East Asia has been stalled for 13 years by opposition from displaced local fisherfolk and farmers.

When completed INS Seabird, spread over 8,000 hectares on the southern Karwar coast, will have a research centre, jetties for berthing 15 ships, an arms depot, submarine facilities, a dockyard apprentice school and a township for 3,500 personnel.

The Karwar coast’s natural terrain of hidden bays and strategic promontories, together with inland hilly forests affords more security than the present naval headquarters in Bombay port, which is shared by merchant ships.

Retired naval chief Admiral O.P. Dawson, finalised the plan in 1979 after rigorous testing, simulating the southwest coast’s monsoon winds and weather, on a 2-km long model at the Central Water & Power Research Station at Pune, near Bombay.

But the project is mired in controversy over rehabilitation and compensation for 4,000-odd families in 13 villages whose land has been taken over by the Navy. The delay has led to a sharp escalation in costs of construction and rehabilitation.

India’s Department of Defence, acting for the Navy, has disbursed some 8.5 million dollars through the Karnataka state government without even one family moving into the rehabilitation centres earmarked by the state.

INS Seabird has been in trouble from the start. First cleared in 1984, India’s Defence Ministry requested the Karnataka government to acquire 8072.39 acres of land scattered over 13 villages along a 26-km stretch of the western coast.

Karnataka applied emergency clauses (for defence security) and acquired land without rehabilitation measures, which led to a number of affected people to petition the High Court for justice.

Though the High Court ordered a stay on evictions pending proper rehabilitation arrangements, villagers were not able to till land that now belonged to the Navy.

In Arga village, village committee president agonises over the loss of agricultural income. “Our farmers, who grew two to three crops a year, now have to work as coolies (labour) or become accountants in fishing boats,” he says.

The compensation package offered by the government was meagre. Ganapathy Mangre, president of the Binaga village committee, another affected village, said they were offered 1/16th of an acre in lieu of several acres given up, whilst being compensated with 150 rupees, per “gunta” (32 ‘guntas’ make one acre).”

“Can anyone get one gunta of land for Rs 150 (less than four dollars) anywhere in our country? If so, we will give our land free,” he fumes.

In addition, the government has delayed in identifying rehabilitation sites. Devbag near Karwar had to be changed when it was found to be erosion-prone; the Nellur-Kanchibail site was identified and thereafter found to be too near dense forests; and the fishing site at Majali proved to be under litigation.

At least six of the 9 alternative rehabilitation sites earmarked have been found unsuitable. The fishing villages are far from the sea, and the farm land, selected by the state’s Soil Conservation Department, are in rocky, unarable terrain.

Also the houses are poorly constructed, and not functional, according to evacuated villagers who have formed a ‘forum’ to fight for their rights.

As a result of the delay, the project is a political issue in the state. Politicians with a vested interest have encouraged villagers who were not on the list of 2,925 originally scheduled to be moved, to claim rehabilitation benefits.

In 14 years, there have been six state chief ministers, each one’s orders being set aside by his successor.

In August 1998, India’s Defence Minister George Fernandes made a new offer of separate family-status for now-grown children alongwith an enhanced compensation package that would cost the government an additional 4.1 million dollars.

But that still does not meet the evacuees demand for standard payment as per other rehabilitated communities in the state. The entire budget has also escalated from 40.93 million in 1986 to the present 5.8 billion dollars.

With the evacuees still demanding standard compensation, a fishing harbour at one relocation site and irrigation facilities,

the Navy has got cracking on construction of two breakwaters.

In January 1999, the authorities imposed restrictions on the public under the country’s criminal procedure code, to allow work to begin on two breakwaters.

Protesting against the severity of police enforcement, Vasant Asnotikar, the local representative of the legislative assembly, went on an indefinite hunger strike, demanding that evacuees not be shifted till the rehabilitation centres are improved.

For INS Seabird, the delay has also meant a downsizing of the original plan. “There is a lack of appreciation of the financial implications for long-term strategy,” rues retired naval chief Dawson.

Excerpt: