The Sivaramakrishnan Committee appears to have rushed in to submit its report without wide data collection and thorough research, observes Human Rights Forum.
From a reading of the report it is obvious that it is at best a perfunctory exercise. The committee could have sought extension of the deadline so as to give a more thorough and well thought out recommendations, HRF president S. Jeevan Kumar and general secretary V.S. Krishna said in a statement here on Tuesday.
The HRF raised some serious objections to some of the recommendations. “Most glaring is specific omission in the report of the acute predicament of forest dwelling adivasis and coast-based fishers. If the committee was at all sensitive to their needs, it would have placed on record its serious disquiet to both the Polavaram project and the Vizag-Chennai PCPIR industrial corridor as they would devastate these communities,” they said in the statement.
ContradictoryThey also felt that there were some contradictions in the report. While the committee stated that sustainable development must be a core principle, the report endorses the Dugarajapatnam Port proposal even though it will threaten the highly eco-sensitive Pulicat Lake. “Indeed, an uncritical acceptance of the current destructive economic model, instead of a people-driven and inclusive one, was a major failing of the report,” Mr. Krishna and Mr. Jeevan Kumar said.
The HRF supported the view of the committee in opposing the location of State capital in Vijayawada-Guntur region as it would threaten the food security of the State. The capital must be more or less centrally located and accessible to all parts of the State. However, land acquisition for it must involve minimal displacement and environmental damage, they said and added that official activity must be dispersed across the State with decentralisation being the cardinal principal.
