C'da, Barua, >From the mails we have been posting (I include myself FIRST), IHMO, we are arguing and counter-arguing in circles. If we were to go thru mails for the last, say half a year or so, the topic under discussion seems to always boil down to a few core issues:
(a) Whether or not the Center is responsible for major issues affecting Assam (b) Whether or not GOA is responsible or not for the major issues affecting the Assamese people (c) Whether or not (and to what extent) the Assamese are responsible for things to have taken such a turn. Barua is right, sometimes the blame lies with the Center, other times with the State, and yes, sometimes with the people. We wish the 'people' take more active roles. And I understand C'da's view that many times 'people' have very little or no say in what goes on. While discussing with Partha Gogoi on another issue, I am so happy to see that some active 'people' are taking a stand and are creating 'citizen groups' that will tend to focus on tourism potential in the state. I had a similar discussion with Partha Das (of Guwahati), he tells me that they are on the verge of launching a major group, with the help of the GOI (they are allocating 3 + crores for tourism development), the NDFI, businesses, airlines, travel groups etc. They think they will see results around April this year. Isn't this what we would all like to see happening? Maybe, when Also when we say GOA, it does not mean the Assamese people (and yes, we somtimes do cross that sensitive line). Yes, the GOA is mostly made up of Assamese people, but they have been given the responsibility to do certain things (just like the people in the GOI). Having said all this, the bottomline and our goal, like Barua mentioned ought to be to be able to define problems succinctly and in in some small way help solve them. This round robin, merry-go-round has basically become a forum for venting some of deep seated beliefs (IHMO - and I could be wrong, and out of place here), and sometimes I even forget the thread that started the issue in the first place. My sincere belief is, irrespective of our different and opposing stance, we all have one thing in common - ie to make any situation, if possible,in Assam better. If such situations are over and beyond our control, then we move on to some other. Just my thoughts. --Ram On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 10:53:57 -0600, Barua25 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chandan: > I see Chandan Mahanta, a NRA, shouting in the net and trying to make GOI > accountable. > What we need is the people of Assam to hold both GOA and GOI accountable for > their lapses and not to let them go. > That is what Ram and I have been shouting for in the net. > Are you willing to join us in trying to help people of Assam do that? > That is why I asked you in my last mail, what point you are trying to make > by blaming the system. > > We have 2 options. > We can shout and try to make point > or > We can try to help people of Assam. > I am for the later. > Rajen > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Chan Mahanta > To: [email protected] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; D K Mishra > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 7:26 AM > Subject: [Assam] Re: Credibility Of MoWR!!! > > For those who might be interested in holding their governments accountable. > > > cm > > > > > At 12:14 AM +0600 3/3/05, D K Mishra wrote: > The data about irigation in different states , as provided by MoWR are > fake and misleading. I can say this on the authority of data supplied by > WRD of Govt. of Bihar. The annual reports of GoB suggets that, > > Major > irrigation projects in the state (with command areas in excess of 10,000 > hectares) include the Kosi and Gandak in North Bihar, and the Sone canal > network in South Bihar. There are a number of medium-sized schemes, > defined as those with commands between 2,000 and 10,000 hectares, and > hundreds of minor irrigation projects. However, as of 2003, irrigation > potential (area connected to the irrigation network) was only 2.8 > million hectares and the area actually receiving water from the networks > was limited to 1.6 million hectares. > > Scrutiny of records show that > both irrigation potential and actual irrigation (area receiving water) > increased in the state until 1990 when it attained its peak of 2.148 > million hectares after which actual irrigation saw a steady decline even > as potential irrigation continued to rise. Between 1990 and 2000 (when > the state was bifurcated into Bihar and Jharkhand), there was additional > potential irrigation of 113,000 hectares but actual irrigation fell by > 653,000 hectares. The area irrigated by surface networks has stabilized > around 1.6 million hectares for the past ten years. Considering that > 404,000 hectares was under irrigation in Bihar at the time of > Independence in August 1947, the increase in actual irrigation of 1.2 > million acres over the past 56 years is not a noteworthy achievement. At > that rate of average > growth of actual irrigation, it will take about > 230 years to achieve the irrigation targets and if we only consider the > growth rate in the past 15 years of misrule in Bihar, the targets would > never ever be achieved since the growth has been negative. One can only > extrapolate as to when the irrigation department of the state would > cease to function. > > According to the water resources department (Minor > Irrigation), irrigation potential of 222,000 hectares had been created > by 2000 of which 84,800 hectares is through surface irrigation schemes > and 132,200 hectares is by lift irrigation and energized rural pump > sets. However, reports indicate that the surface irrigation schemes have > not operated at more than 60 per cent efficiency while the lift > irrigation schemes operate at a maximum efficiency of 10 per cent. > Ageing machines, erratic electricity supply, incompetent management and > indifference of users are stated to be the causes of underutilization of > these facilities. > > There were a total of 2,316 Lift Irrigation > Schemes in the state of which 679 are defunct because of electrical > problems, 104 do not function because of mechanical problems, and 826 > schemes suffer from a combination of both these defects. Another 221 > schemes have fallen into disuse because of the shifting of the river > course away from the sump well or due to sand-casting (intake covered by > sand). Thus, only 482 schemes, or less that 21 per cent are > operational. > > There are 5,558 State Tube Wells (STW) in the state with > a command area of 307,000 hectares. Of these, only 5,122 have received > electrical power. In the case of STWs, too, the operation record is poor > - 2,886 sets are inoperative because of electrical faults, 85 because of > mechanical trouble, and 302 because of defects in the power supply > transformers. As a result, according to the annual report of the Minor > Irrigation Dept, against a potential of 112,000 hectares, State Tube > Wells irrigated only 19,468 hectares of land in 1999-2000. > > Bihar (now > Jharkhand) Hill Area Lift Irrigation Corporation (JHALCO) established in > 1975 under Tribal Sub-Plan commissioned 394 Lift Irrigation Schemes in > the tribal areas of Jharkhand. According to reports, 284 of these > schemes are no longer functioning. Not surprisingly, if the rains are > delayed by only a week the state faces drought. > > Actually, both the > data, whether it is given by Delhi or by Patna are fake if the farmers > are to be believed. They do not trust the irrigation establishment and > most of agriculture is based on their own enerprize. The Irrigation > Department claims all the development to its credit. > > I am sure, the > situation in other states too, may not be as rosy as presented to be. > There is a need to strengthen the counter-research to blast the bogus > claims made by the irrigation bureucracy. > > Dinesh Mishra > > > > ________________________________ > > > _______________________________________________ > Assam mailing list > [email protected] > http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam > > Mailing list FAQ: > http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html > To unsubscribe or change options: > http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam > > > > _______________________________________________ > Assam mailing list > [email protected] > http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam > > Mailing list FAQ: > http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html > To unsubscribe or change options: > http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam > > > _______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [email protected] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam Mailing list FAQ: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html To unsubscribe or change options: http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
