THE NARMADA has been cast in concrete. Her waters are trapped in lakes of stone. Her people scattered. Every promise to them has been broken. They are refugees in their own land. They are to be mercilessly evicted into barren homelessness without livelihood. All they have is the courage that has seen them through the poverty of centuries. Now, ruthless contractors and uncaring officials have taken over.

Who do they turn to? Will the Supreme Court help them? That the Supreme Court cleared the Narmada project is irrelevant. It did so, subject to social justice. The issue is one of social equity promised to the oustees. From Bhakra to Narmada, the policy of `rehabilitation' and not just money compensation has been the key. Poor people cannot just go and buy land and meet living expenses and start again and reconstruct their lives on what they receive as compensation. Their lives have to be reconstructed. If not, they are condemned to poverty, squalor, disease and oblivion. A whole generation including children has no prospects — for even optimism.

Will the Supreme Court help the oustees including a vast number of Adivasis? Let it follow its own track record on oustees and Adivasis. In the Banwasi Ashram case (1984-94), the Court dealt with multiple oustees from eastern Uttar Pradesh, who were multiple oustees from the Rihand and, then, the power projects. The Court made sure that the lands were surveyed. A special administration ensured speed. A strong legal aid unit and special courts dealt with Adivasi claims over seven lakh acres. The case was monitored by the Court itself. In the Pradip Prabhu case (1995), the Supreme Court ordered the regularisation of Adivasi-cultivated lands in forest areas. In the B.D. Sharma case of 1990, the Court ordered full rehabilitation to be completed at least six months before submergence. In the Samta case (1997), the Court recognised that the Constitution itself protected the Adivasis; and gave directions on how development projects and Adivasi and Dalit interests were to be protected. The Union of India has had a "development" policy on Adivasis since 1974. In 2001, the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Commission reminded Ajit Jogi's Government in Chattisgarh that in the Nagarnar Steel Plant case, the policy of "land for land" and Adivasi preference must be adhered to. The Chief Ministers of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra seem to have one deaf political ear on the Narmada project.

Will the Supreme Court rise to the occasion and protect the social justice due to Adivasis and other oustees? After the Emergency (1975-77), the Supreme Court has become the citadel of social justice. In the Right to Food case (2002), it issued detailed directions for food, work and social security — especially for the most vulnerable. Having cleared the Narmada project, surely the Supreme Court will live up to its reputation of protecting the poorest and most vulnerable homeless in the Narmada Valley?

The Narmada oustees plead not mercy, but justice. The Narmada Tribunal's Award of 1979 (Part XI (IV)) is clear. Land has to be given for land. The new lands must be fertile in the command area so that those who have sacrificed their lives and livelihood share the social dividends of the Narmada project on priority. The Award gives the oustees the right to choose their home State or Gujarat for rehabilitation. The relocation was to be on a community basis by 1981-82 so that `rehabilitation villages' were established to preserve the community itself. The Award also contemplated rehabilitation before construction by 1981-82. This is the entitlement of the oustees under the Award of 1979.

On October 18, 2000, when the Supreme Court allowed the height of the dam to be increased from 88 to 90 metres, clear instructions were given to fully rehabilitate those affected. Today, some 3,500 of these families remain stranded. Gujarat claims resettlement but cannot explain why the families are in the submerged area. In Maharashtra, the Justice Daud Committee has clearly proved that the oustees following the increase in the dam height have not been re-settled on agricultural land. Madhya Pradesh's verification is still incomplete. If the oustees of the previous increase have not been rehabilitated in terms of the Award and Supreme Court directions, we are nowhere. Relocation is not rehabilitation. All have not even been properly relocated.

Now, the Narmada authorities want to raise the dam level to 95m even though the pre-conditions of raising it to 90 metres are not met. Can the Supreme Court permit such a socially unjust calumny? At the proposed 95 metres, some 8,000 or so families will be affected in the next monsoon — with a severe social burden on 19 villages in Gujarat, 33 in Maharashtra and 70 in Madhya Pradesh. A large number of those who will be affected are Adivasis — for whom the Constitution has a special concern. The position is abysmal. By law the oustees are to be rehabilitated not relocated. Broken promises shatter livelihoods. In Madhya Pradesh, even the relocation sites are not ready. The promise of land for land on a choice basis was not to provide makeshift shelters or allocate barren lands arbitrarily. Another ruse is to offer increased compensation to enable the oustees to buy their own land. Where are they going to get this land? Land for land is not land for money. That would violate not only the Award but the very basis on which the project is built. Even the World Bank prescribes more responsible social justice. Maharashtra is not even ready with a plan to accommodate the oustees formed by the increase to 90m. Yet, the increase in height to 95m has been decreed.

The "rehabilitation schedule" is clear. Big projects are worked on what is called a pari passu procedure, which determines the order in which things are to be done. The order is clear: rehabilitate first, project to follow. People cannot be left in limbo. In the Narmada case, the Supreme Court decreed that agricultural lands must be settled one year before submergence. In June 2002, we are nowhere completion of this social process. Both the Daud Committee and the task force of Maharashtra speak of illegalities and scheme violations.

But, matters do not rest there. Once the eviction process starts, there is repression. Those with vested interests in the project, including contractors, combine with state power.In the Tehri case, it was the contractors who conspired to airlift Sunderlal Bahuguna to Delhi in the middle of the night. In the Nagarnar Chhattisgarh Steel Plant affair, women and the disabled have been terrorised and arrested. In Narmada, the repression is exacting far worse. The oustees are bereft. The Narmada oustees are before the Supreme Court to see that the dam level is not raised from 90 to 95 metres until effective rehabilitation is completed. The Supreme Court is invoked as the guardian of legal and social justice. This is not a policy decision to be left to the Government. This is a clear case of the promise of justice. The Court of the people cannot be allowed to fail the people — lest it fails itself. The Supreme Court's reputation rests on its due process and social justice concerns. It must protect the Adivasis. Who else can they turn to?