commentary
Development and Displacement:
Resentment in the Kutch
Srinivasan Ramani
A visit to the coastal areas
adjoining the Mundra port in the
Kutch reveals discontent among
fisherfolk, traders and pastoralists
over the creation of a special
economic zone in the area. Apart
from environmental concerns,
the traditional livelihoods
of residents in the area have
also been affected by the new
industrial projects, leading to
organised protests, as witnessed
in Bhadreswar village a few
months ago.
The visit (in mid-December 2009) to the
Banders was arranged by representatives of
the Machimar Adhikar Sangharsh Sangathan
and Setu, an NGO that has helped fisherfolk
and others in Mundra since the earthquake in
Bhuj in 2001.
Email: srini@epw.in
Economic & Political Weekly  EPW   february 20, 2010  vol xlv no 8
B
hadreswar is a hamlet in the Kutch,
Gujarat, between Mundra and
Gandhi­dham towns. The chief at-
traction is a 2,500-year-old Jain temple
situated not far from the Gulf of Kutch,
located in an area of very sparse vegetation.
Bhadreswar was where a violent inci-
dent took place on 23 August 2009, in
which a few local villagers hired as
s­ecurity guards by a power generation
company,  OPG Power Ventures Plc (OPG
group here onwards) were injured in a
clash with villagers identified as fisherfolk
and traders.
Apparently the fisherfolk were aggri­
eved that despite no environmental clear-
ance being given, the OPG group was keen
on setting up a coal power plant in the
area, potentially displacing the bander
fisherfolk and also affecting salt pan acti­
vities. Only on 29 May, a public hearing
had seen vociferous opposition voiced
by many villagers against the project on
various grounds – potential displacement,
environmental damage, pollution, habitat
disruption, etc. A public interest litigation
was also filed against the OPG group in the
Gujarat High Court by the fishermen ask-
ing to halt the firm’s activities.
This writer visited Bhadreswar in
D­ecember 2009. Barely five kilometres
away from the Jain temple and close to
the sea is another semi-hamlet, an ex-
panse of fish drying enclave of thatched
huts. Banders are “temporary village
hamlets”, set up by the fisherfolk – the
Waghers for nearly eight months every
year close to the sea. The Waghers belong
to the Muslim community and are gener-
ally treated as lower in the caste hierarchy
by villagers.
Home to a group of Waghers, this place
– Randh Bander – is among about a
d­ozen  “banders” (Figure 1, p 16) in and
around the Mundra area. The Waghers, a
traditional fishing community set up
banders close to the sea for eight months
every year and whenever the tide arrives,
the fishermen take their boats out into
the sea, catching among other fish, the
prized “Bombay Duck”. Fish thus caught
are s­orted and graded by the Wagher
women (and children) as pomfret and
Bombay Duck, arranged and then carried
for drying over large wooden poles. Randh
Bander is among the few banders – which
reported good catches in 2009.
Waghers have typically large families –
the most that this correspondent surveyed
had more than 10 members – and most of
whom are fully involved in this tradition-
al livelihood activity of fishing. Some
families carry the dried and fresh fish to
a local weighing store run by an non-
governmental organisation (NGO), from
where it is transported to a producer silo
(also a marketing collective) where trad-
ers buy the fish and transport it to con-
sumers, as far away as Andhra Pradesh
and Assam. Dried fish is exported to Sri
Lanka and Bangladesh and more recently
to western countries having a signi­ficant
Sri Lankan population. Fresh fish is
exported to the west.
Other families dealt directly with fish
traders. Apart from boat fishing as prac-
tised by the Waghers, there were also
“P­agadiya” fishing – featuring fixed nets
placed in the tidal zones, enabling fish
catches when the high tide arrived by
these nets. In essence besides a marine
ecosystem that flourished in the Gulf there
was a visible human ecosystem dependent
on it as a means of livelihood. For perhaps
the first time, fishermen were united,
along with other associated partakers of
the area’s economy, such as salt pan work-
ers, fish traders and pastoralists, in oppos-
ing a major industrial project in the
Mundra region.
Rapid Industrialisation
Before “Flashpoint Bhadreswar”, there
had been (which still continue) other
grievance-based mobilisations against
i­ndustrial projects in the Mundra region.
Since 2001, following the Bhuj earthquake,
a slew of reconstruction projects featur-
ing NGOs and assorted capital stepped
into the Mundra area. With the declara-
tion of a tax holiday, Mundra was also be-
coming a new hub of “industrialisation”.
It was also around the time when the
privately-owned Mundra port developed
15
commentary
Figure 1: Location of Different Marine Fishing Villages (Banders) in Mundra Coast, Superimposed on the Map of the Proposed MPSEZL (WFDP)

(1) Average annual fish catch for the period 2000-05 has been mentioned. (2) Total fish catch includes fish catch by mechanised boat and pagadia fishing. (3) Value of fish catch has been calculated on
basis of current market prices. (4) Annual fish production in the area affected by the MPSEZL/WFDP: 12027 MT, Rs 60.8 crore.
Source of data (Annual Fish Catch in MT): Fisheries Department Bhuj.
The figure has been obtained from MASS.

by the Adani group became functional.
In the sparsely vegetated landscape, it
was believed to be far more easy for land
a­cquisition for such projects and soon re-
fineries and power plants were on the
way. In 2005, the Gujarat government de-
cided to cash in on this “industrial
enthusiasm” even further, d­eclaring the
areas around the port as part of a multi-
product special economic zone (SEZ).
Soon there were even more power plants
coming up, one among them belonging to
the Adani group which seems to have the
lion’s share of such projects in the area
and another the ultra mega power plant
built by Tata Power.
The Mundra port hosts state of the art
containers, terminals, conveyors and re-
ceiving facilities. The Adanis acquired the
land close to the sea initially for salt pan-
ning and export, but later on got permis-
sion to develop a port. The location, accor­
ding to the Adanis, was ideal. Nested right
in the Gulf of Kutch, the port enabled easy
harbouring facilities without requiring
much investment for the purpose. The
port has been developed further over
time, hosting oil tankers, automobile ex-
port hubs, coal storage and part of the
container management has been given to
other firms as well. A visit to the port area
16
confirms the significant amount of invest-
ment that has gone into the making and
functioning of the port.
The Adani group’s industrial plans did
not stop with the port and it started ac-
quiring land around the port area – ini-
tially for a salt works project that never
took off, and later garnering thousands of
hectares for the Mundra Port and Special
Economic Zone Private Ltd (MPSEZL),
once the SEZ was announced. Today, as
things stand, across 14 villages, as part of
the SEZ development project land has
been acquired spanning grazing, fallow
and wasteland, not to mention land used
by the banders. The MPSEZL now spans
more than 150 sq km across the Mundra
region and it has constructed a private
railway line between Adipur and the
Mundra port, built roads and has other
infrastructure projects in the works –
among them a comprehensive w­aterfront
development project.
Ecologically Sensitive
In the Mundra region, which is ecologi-
cally sensitive and host to forest land,
thick mangrove vegetation in the coasts
and also a coastal regulation zone (CRZ),
the acquisition process has been subject
to various regulations. The Adani port’s
february 20, 2010  vol xlv no 8  EPW   Economic & Political Weekly
corporate spokesperson whom this corres­
pondent spoke to mentioned that all
e­nvironmental clearances and project
a­pp­rovals were duly obtained, but a
perusal of the approvals suggests that
regulatory a­pproval has not necessarily
been final.
From obtaining the approval for a salt
works project before using the land for
SEZ purposes and applying for transfer
of land to the SEZ company later, to
getting only in-principle approvals from
various regulatory bodies and treating
them as final – and in the process clearing
large hectares of forest land, mangroves
Permission for Reproduction of
Articles Published in EPW
No article published in epw or part thereof
should be reproduced in any form without
prior permission of the author(s).
A soft/hard copy of the author(s)’s approval
should be sent to epw.
In cases where the email address of the
author has not been published along
with the articles, epw can be contacted
for help.

and blocking creeks (creeks were blocked
by bunds and then filled with dredged
material) – the land acquisition and use
story in Mundra by the Adani group is
truly murky (Kohli and Asher 2009;
Asher 2008).
Not surprisingly, this process has
seen litigations aplenty filed against the
Adanis, some of which have been quashed
on technical grounds and some of which
point to serious lapses in the approvals,
still pending in the Supreme Court. This
has not deterred development activities,
as this correspondent was witness to in
the so-called “West Port” area acquired
by the MPSEZL, where dredging activity
was clearly visible.  Satellite imagery
obtained from the Indian Remote Sensing
satellite 1D also points to reclamation,
blocking of creeks and destruction of
mangroves in the area and start of
construction prior to obtaining environ-
mental clearance.
The Adani group’s corporate affairs
representative, Niranjan Engineer, men-
tioned during the course of a meeting
in December that the port’s construction
did result in the destruction of man-
groves, but this was compensated for by
the group by “cultivating” mangroves
across other areas in the coastline. A
marine ecologist in the area – who did not
want to be identified – that this corre-
spondent spoke to suggested that this
was an untenable argument. Mangroves,
he emphasised, were a vital component
in the marine ecosystem and played an
important role in sustaining the bio­
diversity of the coastal areas. The areas
around the Mundra port – teeming with
creeks, intertidal zones, mud flats, and other
diverse landscapes – were a “biological
hotspot”, he said.
The choice of port development along
the creeks made by the Adani group was
because of the fact that creeks required
very little sedimentation, but this process
was ecologically destructive as creeks
were also areas of good biodiversity. The
continuing mangrove destruction, creek
sedimentation, land reclamation and
dredging were having an adverse effect on
the ecology, and the claim that alternate
mangrove cultivation was done in com-
pensation was untenable as “arti­ficially
created ecosystems would not discharge
Economic & Political Weekly  EPW   february 20, 2010  vol xlv no 8
commentary
their ecolo­gical functions for a few As an article in Down to Earth maga-
decades”, he emphasised. zine pointed out (Langa 2008), the acqui-
Fishing – already affected due to indis- sition of grazing land has been done at
criminate methods such as sophisticated ridiculously subsidised rates (Re 1 per
netting – would now be doubly affected square metre in some places) by the Adani
by mangrove destruction and release of group, only to be resold by the MPSEZL to
effluent waste in the fishing zones. Kutch, buyer companies at much higher rates to
having been identified as a major man- garnish a substantial profit – all of this
grove area by the central government, has, suggesting a major land scam and favour-
however, not been protected enough, the itism b­estowed on the Adanis by the
scientist alleged. The very process of obtain- Gujarat government. A Gauchar activist
ing environmental clearances by industrial that this correspondent spoke to minced
groups was skewed, as the environmental no words saying that the Gauchars would
assessments were not done by independ- not allow any project representative from
ent bodies or regulatory authorities associ- entering the area. The fact that the
ated with the government, he argued. Gauchars could command greater clout,
as they primarily belonged to the majority
Affecting Local Livelihoods community, as compared to the Waghers,
The breakneck speed of industrial devel- was not lost on this correspondent.
opment has definitely transformed the And the fishing community has pro-
area, as much as the Gulf of Kutch itself. tested as well. At Shekadiya village in
Quite a large amount of the agricultural early 2007, a major 32-day-long agitation
land in the region was owned by absentee was launched by Pagadiya fisherfolk
landlords, who have benefited from sale protesting the construction of an airstrip
of land for the project. And some amount by the MPSEZL, which blocked their
of employment has also been created, lo- access to the fishing zones. It required
cal sources say. But there are others who government intervention to force the
have been affected as well – pastoralists Adani group to relent and construct an
of the “Gauchar” community, for example. access road through the area. When this
An affluent cattle-rearing community, correspondent asked the corporate
Gauchars have complained about the spokesperson about the grievances of the
occupation of their traditional grazing fishing and grazing communities in the
lands by the SEZ. area, he was told that fishing zones were
In one village, Jharpara, for example, non-existent in the area and that the only
Gauchars organised a major agitation organised fishing activities were across
against the land acquisition by the MPSEZL the Jakhau coast featuring boat jetties.
in April 2008. And despite getting alloted The flippant dismissal of fishing activity,
land as part of the SEZ, the MPSEZL has which formed a major source of liveli-
been unable to commence “development” hood for thousands of Mundra dwellers,
follo­wing the Gauchars’ organised threat was indicative of the attitude of the Adani
to prevent the same. group entities.
National Seminar on “Water Governance in India:
Challenges and Strategies”
March 18-19, 2010
Call for Papers
Newman College, Thodupuzha, a NAAC accredited ‘A’ grade institution in Kerala is
organizing a national seminar on “Water Governance in India: Challenges and Strategies”
during March 18-19, 2010. It is being organized in collaboration with University Grants
Commission, New Delhi. The seminar expects papers on Democratisation of Water, National
Water Policy, Management of Drinking Water, Management of Irrigation Water, Community
Participation in Water Management, Pollution Control-Water and Environment. Abstracts
may be submitted by e-mail, on or before 8th March 2010. Free lodging will be provided.
Travelling Allowance will be available only for limited participants. More details can be
had from our web site: www.newmancollege.ac.in or tmjoseph1963@hotmail.com
17
commentary
The refrain adopted by the group
r­epresentatives was that the amount of
capital investment that went into the deve­
lopment of the SEZ was huge (Rs 10,400
crore in one estimate) and the litigation
was a minor irritant.
Other long-time social activists in
the region complain that even though
they are not against industrialisation in
general, the MPSEZL project was unwar-
ranted as it has affected traditional liveli-
hoods without considering those who
have been affected as stakeholders in
the process. The port itself could have
been located in another part of the Kutch
where fishing and mangroves could not
have been affected. One senior civil
society activist, Sandeep Virmani, told
this correspondent that a proposal for
shifting the port, before its development,
to between the Mandvi and Mundra
coasts beyond J­akhau had been made,
but the developers were insistent on the
current location.
The alternate location could have
e­nsured minimal destruction of mangroves
and would not have hampered fishing
activities. He alleged that the idea of
planned industrialisation in synergy with
t­raditional occupations was never a priority
for the state government. The Gujarat
government, in its enthusiastic approach
towards fostering industrialisation, insti-
tuted a single window clearance system
for projects, facilitating land acquisition by
companies and later, declaring the same as
an SEZ. No study was made by the govern-
ment or local authorities as to how local
communities dependent on traditional liveli-
hood such as fisheries would be affected
by rapid industrialisation and its costs on
the fragile ecological environment, he
said. The state government was very lack-
adaisical about implementing e­nviron­
mental norms or addressing issues of dis-
placement and rehabilitation and there-
fore the courts and agitations were the last
resort for the fisherfolk, he a­rgued.
The CRZ notification 1991 provides for
sufficient regulation of industrial activity
in ecologically sensitive coastal zones. But
as the Kutch experience suggests, it is
also necessary to identify areas where
traditional fishing thrives and which have
to be protected. The rights to ownership,
access to coastal areas and livelihoods of
18
fisherfolk have to be sufficiently protected.
A draft of the Tradi­tional Coastal and
M­arine Fisherfolk (Protection of Rights)
Act 2009 obtained, shows that such a
r­ecognition is being mulled by Parliament.
Back to Bhadreswar
The fisherfolk, in collaboration with other
stakeholders in the coastal areas’ “human
ecosystem” – traders and salt pan workers
– managed to organise and voice their
concerns about the prospective OPG power
plant project. This marks a breakthrough
of sorts. For the first time, those involved
in traditional livelihoods were making a
statement against the indiscri­minate “in-
dustrialisation” process.
A fisherfolk activist Ahmed Wagher,
fondly called Ahmed Kaka, told this
writer that this was a “do or die” stance
for them. “We are not against industriali-
sation”, the old activist said, “but we are
skilled only in fishing and working in the
waters”. The companies developing the
port were not even keen on employing the
younger of the fisherfolk in activities such
as “p­iloting” ships to the port. They had
no other go but to oppose this form of
“industrialisation”, he said, adding that
“we are more aware of our rights now and
will d­emand the same”.
Traders involved in the fishing business
were even more vocal, telling this corre-
spondent that they will fight to the finish
february 20, 2010  vol xlv no 8  EPW   Economic & Political Weekly
and not let the OPG project go through. The
fisherfolk and traders that this correspon-
dent met were not poor – obviously their
occupations were earning them enough
and they were seeking to improve their so-
cial statuses as well by educating the
younger generation. As can be expected
from their emotional stance, passions are
running very high in Bhadreswar. There
are elements in the area who want to give
the situation a communal colour, not unex-
pected in a state like Gujarat.
It is evident that the state government’s
exuberant push for industrialisation has
been to the detriment of the traditional
livelihoods in the Mundra-Kutch region.
A far more nuanced and sensitive ap-
proach that sees the people of the Kutch
as stakeholders, rather than considering
the area an “industrial mine” for inves-
tors and d­evelopers, is much needed.
Having said that, there has been no sign
of a change in approach by the state
government. No wonder, the fisherfolk
have turned to the courts, the civil society
and their own agency.
References
Asher, Manshi (2008): “How Mundra Became India’s
Rotterdam”, Infochange India – http://info-
changeindia.org/200812277554/Trade-Develop-
ment/Features/How-Mundra-became-India-s-
Rotterdam.html, December.
Kohli, Kanchi and Manshi Asher (2009): “Adani
Builds, MoEF Bends”, Civil Society, November.
Langa, Mahesh (2008): “Villagers Veto Sale of Grazing
Land to Mundra SEZ”, Down to Earth, 30 May.