It has been a year of non-stop protests for the residents of Peringamala. Barely had they ensured a temporary shelving of the Indian Medical Association’s biomedical waste treatment facility in January, when the next plan was announced – a waste-to-energy plant in an area about a kilometre away from the proposed biomedical plant.
According to the plan announced by the State government, the waste-to-energy plant is to come up in an area now under the district panchayat’s agricultural farm. For the past 165 days, the residents have sustained the protest against the proposed plant, raising serious environmental concerns. Boards have been hung in front of most of the houses here, making clear the stand of the people against the plant.
On Monday, they began the next phase of their protest – a three-day march to the Assembly. Padmashree awardee and practitioner of traditional medicine Lakshmikutty flagged off the march from Peringamala grama panchayat.
On Monday evening, the march reached Chullimanoor, where a public meeting was held. On Tuesday, the march would begin from Anad and end at Peroorkada. The march would end at the Assembly on Wednesday, when leaders of the agitation plan to hand over a memorandum to Ministers.
Against relocation
According to Nizar Mohammed Sulfi, who heads the Peringamala Environmental Protection Committee, the protest is not against the waste treatment plant, but against the plan to locate it inside an ecologically fragile region. He says that Peringamala is a panchayat with 70% forest area, which is part of the Agasthyamala Biosphere Reserve.
“The plant is located right by the side of the Chittar river, which drains into the Vamanapuram river, the source of more than 40 drinking water projects in the district. Why would anyone want to spoil such a natural source of water. The location is also barely a kilometre away from the ecologically important Myristica swamps, where the IMA plant was proposed to be set up. Even when there were protests in the higher ranges in various parts of the State against the Gadgil and Kasturirangan reports, the people of Peringamala did not protest. That makes it clear how much we care for the environment,” said Mr. Sulfi.
The land for the proposed plant was under the Forest Department. In 1964, it was given on lease to the Agriculture Department. The protesters say that the State government has not reached out to them yet.
“The ruling party members of the panchayat have not yet openly supported our struggle, but even they agree with us. They do have their limitations in openly supporting it. We expect the panchayat to pass a resolution soon against the plant, like they did against the IMA plant,” said M. Kamarudeen, botanist and the coordinator of Peringamala’s biodiversity management committee.
