Dr.

Garigipati Rudrayya Chowdari Endowment Lecture - 10

"MARINE FISHERIES OF INDIA :

PROBLEMS OF MODERNISATION"

By

Dr. M. CHANNA BASAVIAH Department of Political Science Osmania University

HYDERABAD-500007

25th February, 2003 RAMACHANDRAPURAM East Godavari Dist. A.P.

Marine fishery sector gained importance with the onset of postindependence economic planning in India. Along with other sectors of economy, the planners stressed the need for modernization of marine fisheries to achieve nigher levels of growth and' development'. General policy outlines were worked out by the 'experts' a year before independence. The National Planning Committee (NPC) which was set up in 1946 to look into the planningfor post-independence economic development, also examined the existing state of affairs relating to the marine fisheries. It came to the conclusion that the traditional fishery was inefficient and hence was not capable to meet the demands of higher production. It was of the opinion that though the fishery resources had been exploited from the time immemorial, the occupation was largely of a primitive character, carried out by ignorant, unorganized and ill-equipped fishermen' It was such assessment of the traditional fishery that formed the basis of the philosophy of marine fishery policies in India since independence to the present day. All through the period of planned development from 1950 onwards, marine fishery policies succeeded in introducing the 'modem' western technologies for higher levels of production, institutionalizing fishery related knowledge and creating a large net\\OIk ofbureaucracy for the general administration of the sector. In the present phase of liberalization of economy, under the new deep sea fishing policy of 1991, attempts are being made to convert the national ocean space into a more open access regime. Neglecting the very nature of common property, all-out attempts are being made to integrate the marine fisheries into global market, al9Qg with the remaining sectors of economy.

The Mechanization Process:

During the first and second five-year plan periods from 1951 to 1961 the State's marine fishery policies were positive in nature, in the sense that they aimed at slow

Modernization. They attempted at developing intermediate range rLtecbnology . to mechanism traditional boats and thus raising the productive capabilities of the existing facilities in a gradual manner, taldnginto confidence the accumulated skills of traditional fisher folk. Motori7ation rLtraditional crafts began in 1953 at Jaleswar, Gujarat, with the fitting oflow HP Out Board Machines (OBM) and In Board Engines (IBE). Gradually the processes offitting OBMs and IBEs gained momentum and spread to all the coastal fishing villages in Gujarat. However, despite the success of Gujarat experience in small-scale motorization of traditional boats, the same was not adopted for other maritime states. Thus a new pattern of modernisation was adopted for other states, beginning with Kerala

In Kerala, mechanization of fishing craft and introduction of nylon nets began during same period with the Norwegian assistance, called the IndoNorwegian Project (1NP)2. This project was the world's first technical assistance project of its kind undertaken between a developed and a developing country, with the following objectives:

An increase in the returns of fishermen's activity; an efficient distribution of fresh fish and improvement offish products; an improvement of the health and sanitary conditions of the fishing population, and a higher standard of living for the community in the project area.

I t was spelt out in particular that the strategy for increasing production of the fish harvesting activity was to be carried out by fixing the present boats with suitable motors. But in practice motorization of traditional crafts was abandoned even before it was given rigorous trials and the search for the universally usable beach landing crafts also was slowly dropped." The Norwegians exerted pressure on the Government of India to enter into a second supplementary agreement in order to introduce shrimp trawling, freezing technologies and to take up export of prawns. This abrupt shift in the INP programme should be underst~ in the c~ntext of two devel~ments, one within the country, and the other m Norway. Firstly; when the.INP JUst started in 1953, a private merchant in Kerala chartered a Japane~e trawler for fishing and exported thirteen tons offrozen prawns from Kerala leading to a quantum increase in exports. By 1957-58, five more private firms joined the fray and exported 458 tons of frozen prawns to the U.S.4 Secondly, in Norway, trawling was first introduced in 1930 and by 1950 the bio-mass of the important species was reduced to a great extent and by 1960s the stock of certain important commercial varieties had all but collapsed. Due to these, a number of trawlers in Norway became inoperative. It was in this backgrmmd that the Norwegians had visualized a good opportunity and pushed the agenda to change the focus of the INP. They succeeded in their attempts as the interests of the Indian State were also coincided

The Indian government considered the shift in terms of earning more foreign exchange through export of prawns to the US and other countries. S The INP and the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI), together conducted an extensive survey of Kerala coast and found several untapped prawns grounds along the coasr' In order to tap the prawn grounds and develop export market, new technologies ofbottom trawling for harvesting prawns and freezing plants were introduced in an organized way under the INP, negating the original objectives. Johan Galtung who studied the political economy of the INP collaboration in a Centre-Periphery framework said:

"The whole process led to the new division oflabour, with Centre (Norway) developing research, technology (know-how), administration and capital, and the periphery (the project area) undertaking . extraction (fishing), processing and consumption in a modern way."

He concludes saying that, ''this relationship has been an unequal one, creating new dependencies, more alienation and exploitation at the periphery". 7

The INP experiment in Kerala brought, therefore, a sudden shift in the pattern of marine fishery policies of the Indian State, from slow/gradual modernization to an abrupt "excessive modernization", It resulted in the adoption of a model which largely premised on the experience of the more developed ~ ~r countries as a sole fool-proof model for the whole marine fishery

~.w"'~I1W,mmHimiIIIlfH~@IIIt~fI~gti~~~igW~~~~~[lHtWt¥~~1%W_1:1'W*~1

sector of India. In other words, it led to the superimposition of modem, capital intensive, specialized technological forms over the existing traditional and largely labour intensive fishing occupation. These shifting strategies of marine 'development', five-year plan outlays t~ the fishing sector by the state were steeply hiked. Thus, compared to preceding two plans, the total

outlays and actual expenditures were more than doubled since the third fiveyear plan and ever since. F ~r instance, total outlay incre~ed from Rupees 5.13 crores during first plan period to Rupees 232.45 crores m 1992-93 and actual expenditure increased from Rupees 2.78 crores during first five year period to Rupees 153.32 crores in 1991-92.8 Major chunk of the money was allocated for the 'modernization' of fishing sector which became synonymous with 'trawlization' • providing for infrastructural facilities for the mechanized sector like construction of harbors, berthing facilities, cold storage plants, boat building yards, resource surveys, market studies for fish export; and so on. 9

Rapid mechanizatien/trawlization of marine fishery sector, which began with the third five-year plan, is being pursued with more vigour today. The total strength of mechanized boats which was 1,800 at the end of second five year

. plan in 1961, increased to 9,300 by 1974, and grew by two-and-halftimes by 1991, more than doubled within a decade, numbering 22,292. There was thus a rapid increase in the number of mechanized boats at the rate of 1,070 boats, on an average, per year during the period 1974 to 1984 and from 1984 there was a rapid decline accounting on an average increase per year only 327 till 1991. This rapid decline is due to emphasis on a more advanced fleet called Deep Sea Fishing Fleet (DSF) from the fourth five-year plan onwards. The total strength ofDSF operating along the Indian coast. by the end of fifth plan period was 52. The strength increased to 75 by 1985 and at the end of 1991 it stood at 18010•

In accordance with the New Deep Sea Fishing Policy (NDFP) announced by government in 1991 seventeen joint venture project were cleared in 1992 involving different companies from South Korea, Japan, USA, Russia, France, Denmark, Sing;JpOre'andLatvia All these ventures are 100 percent Export 0ri~-x1 Units (EOU). The prOjects include factory trawlers, stern trawlers, multi liners,

mini-liners, etc., together accounting a total of 146 vessels" .

Impact of Modemization:

. Indian marine fisheries policies are predominantly based on 'growth'

on~nted model of 'development', which ignore the number of ecological and ~ ~ of the nature of marine fishery in the country and benefit orily an insignificant minority at the cost of resource depletion, ecological degradation and the majority afthe people. The other benefit of such policies earning foreign exchange raise more fundamental questions of the need to earn such exchange at the ~t of~elihood of people as these profits are not ploughed back into productiv~ actiVity for the poor. The adoption andpromotion of modem/western technologies - offshoots of naval warfare research and devised to certain extent to s_uit the .warm water coastal eco-system and the people who depend on it for their survival, Trawling; a predominant modern method of fishing adopted through out ~ country, is conducted by dragging heavy weights and beams ~ ~ seabed In order to squeeze the demarsal species, particularly the prawns, ~'~€ft.~Wf.{~1.~p.4@~~t!~~i~f:;~~~~;~~;~~~~~;;~;;~;;;~;;f:;~~~;;;;;;;;;~~;;~~;;~~f~;~~;~~~;~;~;~;~;~~;;~~~~~;~~~~;~;~;;;~;;~~~;t~~~~~~~~~~~~t;~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~~~;~~~~~~~:r~~~E~;~~~~f~~~§~t~~;~~~~~~~t~8

out of t he seabed. This process of dragging has a ploughing effect on the seabed and destroys the fish eggs and larva that breed in its soft sediments. Constant dragging in the same area~ kills the benthic life, sea~eeds and other sea vegetation in the seabed on which ~he fish feeds and which also hav~ a function of purifying sea~ter by ren~W1ng the o~ygenc~n~ent. The drag~.mg . of weight also results in raising the sediments causing turbidity of waters which, together with the noise, drive away and deflect th~ new fish sho~ls from the deeper waters which want to enter the coast for feeding and spawning and thus prevent the replenishment of the fish population 12.

Contra distinctly to trawling which is meant for demarsal species, perseseining is a technique used for pel.agic or shoaling type of species. The technique of perse seining derived from stnng purse/bag, when the stnngs are pulled the bag is closed. Unlike traditional shore seine operation which wait for the fish following their natural and biological circle to come to the shore where it is encircled and caught, the perse-seine go after the shoals, out of the sea, hunting them out and capturing them thus stopping their movement towards the shore. The stretched net size of a perse-seine shows an eye opening (mesh size) of 6 mm. When such a net is operated there is no scope of escape for the juveniles. When the nets are hauled in, these 'small ones' are also trapped. This by itself impairs the future of the fish stock. On the other hand operation of perse-seiners at all times without restriction leads to capturing the egg bearing females during spawning seasons deterring the rate of reproduction and stability of the fish stock. Rapid and systematic catches adds to the diminition and depletion offish stock 13. Besides these, the modem methods of fishing cause much wastage and pollution and thus endanger the fragile marine eco system in another important

way. .

The mechanized dragging of the high species store only commercial varieties and the rest is thrown into the sea mostly dead by the time. Particularly, in the case of shrimp trawlers, only shrimp is stored and the rest is disposed. There is no overall survey of Indian coastal waters on these discards but the discards of dead fish by Visakhapatnam based trawling fleet alone account an estimated 1,00,000 and 1,30,000 tonnes per annum, according to a survey conducted by the Bay of Bengal Programme (SOBP), Madras 14 •

These discarded dead fish pollute the seawaters and affect the living species and thus cause their depletion. According to the BOBP survey it is also found that species such as snappers, groupers, croakers, rays, catfish, goatfish, sharks, ~readfin bream, lizardfish and ribbonfish have declined significantly 15. These discards by trawlers are carried out due to their insignificant value as compared ~ that of shrimp in the export market. However, from the point ofview of domestic ~ket there is a utility for these species. 16

It 1S interesting to know that the term used for the species caught in the net other ~ the ~ne targeted and the ones have commercial value are called as 'by catch IS appbcable only in the cases where the target fishing is possible, as ther~ woul~ be less number of other species caught in the net, for example it is apph~e 111 the context of warm water seas. In the tropical waters context the appropnate term would be "deliberate catch" or "intentional catch" because , ~M*W.#.J.f.'#:::::::~:::~~:~$.:~M$.M~~~:[~~:[t%@:~:~:i:[{:j:[:i:j:;:;:[t:jtjt[:j:+J:W!;j~:!t:t{~j;!;!:}[:;::{{:::j{:~;:~m:!:~::;;;:;::~::~:~:w:;~:r~:;tt:

target fishin~ is not possible in these waters and the wastage is more. Mo~eover all the catch IS not trash fish - that cannot be marketed in any form F I ' . t . d th t th shri 'b h' . or examp e 1 IS suryeye a e mp y catc at Visakhapatnam consists of th'

. 8? specle~ ~t bel~ng to more th~ 45 families of finfish and shell fis=~ 0: . rune f~li~s that Include 12 .species may be considered as "trash fish" 17 • Aft these vaneties are consumed. by the. local people and have a domestic mark t ~mand But seen from the point ofview of international market all these speci:s will become trash fish as these are not consumed by the Americans European Japanes~ etc. and ~en~no export market, for these varieties. As the aim of ~~ mechanized sector IS high val~ export ~et not the low value domestic market hence all the onboard preserving space IS used for shrimp or the species that

. have export demand

Increasing Pressure on the Ocean Spcae: .

, . . The growin~ ·~o~ mechaniz~boats has increased pressure on

. Indian coastal fishenes resulting m the reduction of sea space per fisherman as .:

well as per ~t and ~ing per capita production. For example, between 1973-77 fishing area available for each fisherman at the all-Ind.ialevel WdS 0.6 sq. Ian. and area per Boat was 1.68 sq. km, Between 1978-84~ fisher areaperfisherman reduced to 0.38 sq. km. and area per Boat was 3.02 sqkm." (for state wise . figures see table 1). With the further increase of pressure after 1984, per capita availability of sea space for fishing reduced drastically; These in turn affected per capita catches, figures for per fisherman are not available but the overall trend in the yearly catch per unit effort (CPUE) at the country level was 25 t030

. tonnes per Boat on an. average during 1970-1983, had declined to an abysmal average of nine tonnes per Boat in 199119• Though there is decline in the per capita marine fish catch, overall production of marine fish drastically increased over a period of time. This rise in production seen from the resources point of view is a retrogressive sign rather than a positive trend, as it will not sustain for a longer period. It is generally accepted among scientific community that, ideally, 50 percent of the reserves should be treated as the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). Caution should be exercised once this limit has been reached in order to

prevent overeXpioitation. . . . . . . .

From these accounts it is clear that marine fish productton In India has reached its maximum sustainable yield level. Thus, rationally think.in:g, evenif one does not reduce the present fleet strength, it should at least not be increased

. further. A 1992 FAD study of Deep Sea Fisheries in Indiamade similar sugg~ons.

It specifically considered the constraints of fishery resources potential and examined the declining yearly shrimp catchper trawler from27. 9 ~nnes m 1981 to 8.76 tonnes in 1991 (see table 2 for details), in Visakhapatnam where all.the DSF is located. The FAO recommended that the existingDSF should be a~ed of in preference of further investments. for the acquisition of new units". Nevertheless the Government insists on increasing the number ofDSFs ~ugh joint ventu.re~ with more foreign equity participation to bring a colossal disaster called, ~BLUE REVOLUfION' in the seawaters under the NDFP

Table 1
INCREASED FISHING PRFSSURE IN THE INDIAN MARITIME STATUS
1973-77 1978-84
s::: s:::
.~~ :I... c~
.~ § ':-0 ~ ~ ::::
...... -.J s::: ~ ...... ~ ~
I:::s ~I:::ss::: I:::s
t;~-;- ~-;- ._ ti C I:::s§-;- c.__ i5 ~ s:::
k: ~ ~. ._ :I... C
f:)()~] :1...] ~ ~ s::: ~~] ti] ~~~
States ~ t; ~ . ~ 1::4.. s:::
s::: .~ ti-o 1::4..' s::: s::: c:::s I::4..ti-o .~ s::: c:::s
._ c ~i5 ~
~~~ c:::s ~ :I... ._ E t; .~ E
~~ ~titi s::: ._~ ~~
.~ ti ._ k: ~ ...... ,
:I... ~ ~
tt:~ ~ {;-S, i5 ~ ~~
c . ...,: ti:
~~ ~~
Andhra Pradesh 26 0.63 1.56 0.2 0.24 1.75
Gujarat 29 10.93 10.27 0.8 6.7 2.75
Kamataka 0.18 .0.55 4.93 0.16 0.33 4.16
Kerala 0.16 0.55 4.27 0.1 0.43 3.46
Maharastra 0.61 2.47 8.49 0.59 2.0 6.47
Orissa 0.48 1.39 1.52
west Bengal 277 6.23 2.98 1.35 NA 0.54
TamlNadu 0.54 0.73 3.00 0.29 0.5 2.94
Othen 0.42 1.1 7.85 0.22 0.45 27
'Alladia 0.6 1.68 4.49 0.38 0.96 3.02
Sc.rce:
1. Government of India Handbook of Fishery Statistics, 1980 and 1986.
2 Facts and Figures, Gowmment ofKerala, 1980.
3. Government eX Andhra Pradesh Fisheries Statistics at a Glance, 1983-84.
4. Gtgarat Fisheries, Oowrnment ofGujarat, 1982-83.
S. Oovenunent af'Kamataka State, Statistical Bulletin of Fish eries, 1983-84.
6. Government ofMahatastra Fishing Season Report, 1982. Table 2

FLEET STRENGTH, SHRIMP CATCHAND YEARLy CATCH PER TRAWLER INVISAKHAPATNAM

FleetStrength Catch- C t h -

a c per Trawler

1981 59 (tonnes) (tonnes)

1982 68 1649 27.9

1715 25.2

198368 1638 - 24.0

1984 68 2381 35.0

1985 75 1419 18.9

1986 &5 1861 21.9

1987 100 1050 10.5

1988 131 1058 08.1

1989 157 757*04.8

1990 . 168 437* 02.6

J991 ISO' 1568 08.7

Sour~e: ~~~ Visakhapatnam, for all years excluding 1990, Deputy Director of Fishenes m Visakhapatnam CODF) for 1990.

*DSF operations were hindered by strikes in 1989 and 1990.

Over emphasis on export promotion in the context of natural resources like ~e fisheries becomes a self-defeating in the long run due to the over

. explortation of resources. The export promotion in'the country is being emphasized at the cost of domestic market, because it fetches foreign exchange. While the nutritional value of fish for the people of the country was stated as one of the objectives of the fisheries policies, in practice, the results are quite the contrary as neither fish nor foreign exchange benefits reach the people. The domestic per capita consumption is static at 3.5 kg a year since several decades, as against a world average of 12 kg," While large sums of investments were made on the infrastructural facilities etc. to increase production and develop export market, no attempt is being made to look into the up gradation of domestic market. Most of the wholesale and retail market yards within the country, which are meant to cater to the needs of the people of the country, lack adequate facilities such as truck. parkin& storages, ice plants, etc.22 Retail markets are over crowded pla~s located at pavements. The retailers have poor facilities for marketing. There IS less availability of fresh fish in the domestic markets. It is estimated that the composition offresh fish in the domestic market is only 44 per cent. 23 This in

nun is consumed mostly in the coastal urban centers. .

Even after all the efforts to develop export market, is th~ country able togain substantial value for the resources exported? The qu~tIty of e~ports and the value realization of course have increased over a penod according to. the MPEDA statistics. But, these' statistics never explain the under~urrents unle8S we carefully look into them. For this purposes, two ~s of readings are to be made. First to compare the growth rates of total ~uantlty exported, t~ value realized and the growth rates in terms of per unit value, a.~e~ .... ~~?.;; .. :

W.#JJf"~6:#t@W:lt{tj((f\ftfttfttt:tf:r/ft:tJ)fr:)::r:tltfi~@:i~rtfIi:Ift:itt)WW\:~:::::~:}if:

Year

Secondly the percentage of margin has to be seen between the growth rates of quantity exported, totalvalue realized and the growth rates in terms unit value over a time period. If the percentage of margin is positive and more, it should be considered as favourable to the exporter. Whereas, if the percentage is more in a negative form, it benefits the importer. O~ the basis ofavailability of figures, last 25 years data, from 1969-70 to 1993-94, IS taken for this exercise. For the sake of comparison th~ sea data is divided into five. periods. (See table 3). Duringthe first five-year penod the growth rate of quantity exported was 82;85, it declines continuously till the fourth five year period and improved in the last five year period to 88.80, an increase of 6 per cent over the first five year period. Whereas the growth rates of total value realized and average unit values realized during the same period have continuously declined. The total value in the fourth fiveyear period was 51.2 per cent and the average unit value declined was 39.3 per cent.

These clearly reveal that though the quantity exported increased,the growth rates ofvalue realized have not increased. Despite this, we are making profits in absolute terms and there is no dispute over it. However, the question is whether the margin of profits has increased with the increased quantity of exports or else has shrunk? Let us compare the margin of profits in the same five-year periods. Owing the first five year period the margin of profit, when we minus the growth rate of quantity exported from the total value realized' and converted into percentage, it stands at 31.5 per cent, in the second five year period it stands at 27.1 per cent, in the third five year period it stands at 12.1 per cent, in the fourth five year period it stands at 8.8 per cent and in the last five year period it stands at 20.5 per cent These figures clearly indicate how the margin of profit is shrinking and though there is an improvement in the fifth five-year period, it did not even attain the level of first five-year period It should be clearly pointed out that the improvement in the fifth five-year period both in value realized and margin of profit over preceding year is precisely due to the devaluation of rupee in line with the IMP conditionalities. Hence, it is not an improvement in real terms.

Table 3

EXPORT GROWfHOF INDIAN MARINE PRODUCI'S:

COMPARISON OF QUANI1TY VALUE & UNIT VALUES (1969-70 to 93-93)

_e. -. .... ~ Ul =

liJ ~]~ ~f ~. !

ca~= ~~~~8 ~ j

~~~ ~ g.~~ C;a

Years

1. 1969-70to 1973-74 1,94,283 262.31 13.07 80.85 245.90 89.42
2 1974-75 to 1978-79 3,19,173 797.73 24.16 64.30 127.90 84.85
3. 1979-S0to 1983-84 4,02,963 1,504.05 37.43 26.30 88.54 54.92
4. 1984-85 to 1988-89 4,52,637 2,372.01 52.08 12.33 57.71 39.14
5. 1989-9010 1993-94 8,54,414 6,990.63 78.20 88.80 194.71 50.l5 Further, scanned from the resource point of view. i e when w

' , , " e compare '

the margins between the growth rates of quantity exported and the '

, val wth 1 I' , per unit

ue gro rates, ca cu atmg In terms of percentages as explained earl' f

th iods h " ier or

, e same pen ,W at emerges IS a disastrous picture, During the first five

iod th . be th . y' year

pen e margin tween. e quantity exported and the unit value growth

rates s~ds at 5',6 percent, m t~e s~cond five year period it increases to 17 percent, In the thir~ fi~e year penod It further increases to 23,6 percent, in the fourth five year penod It reduces to 22 percent and in the last five year period the margin goes in a negative direction figuring at minus 32 percent. What does this indicate? These clearly point out that the more you export the less the value you get - the logic of world capitalist system. Lastly, one more aspect should be brought into the evaluati~n ecolo~cal ~udit. So far we have not developed any tools t undertake ecological audit, but If we were able to develop it and see the damages doneto the coastal ecology by the modernization policies, the value whatever we have realized by exporting our marine products would certainly be dismal.

Marginalization of Traditional Fisher folk:

Introduction of modem fishing technologies affect the survival interests of the fishing communities in several ways. At a philosophical plane, the modernization process discarded the knowledge systems, evolved through centuries of involvement in the fishing activity by the fishermen communities. Considering them as ignorant, and keeping them aside in all the stages of policy fermulation, despite declaring fishermen's 'welfare' as one of the objective of marine fishery policies is the essence of the development strategy, In the place Of traditional wisdom of fisher folk, based on the knowledge of the marine ecosystem, modernization contributed to the emergence of institutionalized and bureaucratized knowledge forms. These 'modern' and 'scientific' knowledge systems emphasized the taxonomical approach to the study offishery resources. Taxonomical approach, which aims at the compartmentalization of understandings about the resources, produced a compendium of studies on ccmmercial species, explaining the life histories of individual spe~~, biologi~ features and population dynamics etc. Thus, we have today, ~peclal~zed studies and specialized personnel, such as oil sardine studies and 011 sardine experts, peneid prawn studies and peneid prawn experts lobster studies and lo~st~r experts etc. This fragmented knowledge by no means aggregates ~ hO!lStlC understanding of the ecosystem. As one critic caricatures these studies, 'fi~h eye view of the sea", valid, but certainly not a picture, of totality. 24 Th~ genes] s of present ecological crisis in the marine fishery, can be traced In these

approaches.

Growth-oriented strategies also led to the advent of a capitalist class in the mar~ne secto~ called 'sea lords' who own marine fishing and exporting comparues but neither belongs to nor represents the fishing communities. The modem methods of harvesting fish by trawlers and perse-seiners have disrupted traditional sources as the fisher folk who use traditional gears like gill nets and bag nets in the sea are threatened by the trawlers as they trawl in the same area and damage the nets of fishermen. This damaging of fisher folks' nets by the trawlers has become an all India phenomenon with the spread of trawling operations throughout the coast. The trawlers in their mad rush for shrimping i.e., prawn fishing, (the most remunerative fishing activity) concentrate where the prawn grounds are located and thus do not allow the fisher folks to enter that area. Similarly the fisher folk who operate another traditional gear called shore-seine for catching pelagic species like mackerels and sardines are threatened by perse-seine operations which catch the whole shoals offish before the1isher folk can even approach the shore. According to a study conducted on the inipact of perse-seine operations in Dakshina Kannada district ofKarnataka State, the fishing viUages of the coast once full of joy and cheers today portray a picture of poverty and misery with the displaced fisher folk or the refugees of modernization/development idling around in search of livelihood. 25

Actually, the mechanized vessels are expected to fish in the distant Wdters, i.e., in the waters beyond the capacity of traditional boats and gears. Though the traditional boats are capable of operating up to twenty miles or till the depth range offifty meters, certain state governments demarcated between six to ten kilometers for the traditional fisher folk. The trawler operators do not respect even this limited zone and the enforcement mechanism lacks teeth. Why do these mechanized vessels also carry out their operations in the shallow waters? Because fishery resources are concentrated more in the continental shelf due to favourable ecological conditions and resource composition declines beyond the continental shelf due to unfavourable biological and environmental CODditions. Within the Indian coastal waters, according to provisional reports ~ a latest survey, about 66 percent of the demarsa1 and 57 percent of the pelagic apecie8 are concentrated in the depth range of 0-50 metre interval and on the

geographical scale, the density per sq. km. for both demarsal and pela&:lc . es· about 70 percent higher in 0-50 metre interval (11.00 tonnes) than 1D the depth range of 50-200 metre interval (6.5 tonnes)." Thus it is cl that aan.c 90 percent of Indian EEZ waters account for less fish with 10 density.

urtber, . OUI queations have been raised regarding th commercial value of '

••• 18 speci .. and also the viability of fishing such resources. It is due to

these realities that all the mechanized vessels also compete in the shallow waters and deprive the fisher folk their source of livelihood.

The developmental policies/programmes undertaken one after the other - beginning with the early phases of modemizationitrawlization to the present high-techization under the New Deep Sea Fishing Policy - continue to uproot the fisher people from their occupation and from their places ofliving. It is in this kind of scenario that the victims of development in the marine fisheries, the traditional fisher folk, have organized themselves for a fight for survival. Beginning with the purely spontaneous expression of outrage, the fisher people's struggle has come a long way to become a well-organized movement. Most of

. the initial protests, which began in early seventies, were spontaneous and sporadic in nature. They first started in Tamil Nadu and Goa and later spread to Kerala and other parts of the coast. As early as in 1971, conflicts arose between Catamaran fishermen and the trawlers in the Kanya Kumari district of Tamil Nadu. Though the state government issued orders, three miles from the sea as trawler free zone to protect the artisanal fishermen, it was never enforced and the trawlers continued to operate very close to the shore. The fishermen expressed their anger through burning the houses of trawl owners. The district administration reacted by placing buoys at sea to demarcate zones for Catamarans and trawlers. Even a patrol boat was employed, but nothing worked. Then the fishermen started to seize the catches of trawlers on landing in the villages. As there was no harbour nearby to protect their catches, the trawlers stopped their operations and left the place. 27

A major clash between Catamaran fishermen and trawlers occurred in Madras in May 1976, when the trawlers ignoring the five fathoms law and continued to encroach more and more into the shallow waters, destroying the nets of the-fishermen and the spawning grounds. Many lost their lives. The State administration, then under the presidential rule, did not take any proper action. Though the fishermen stopped the illegal operations of trawlers, seized them and handed over to the police, the police without any penalty let them off. As a result, battle erupted at the sea between the two groups. Boat burnings, destructions of nets and the killings have taken place. By theendof 1978, sixteen fishermen lost their lives and 110 boats were destroyed. In these agitations women also took part.28 Similar kind of spontaneous agitations occurred in Goa during the same period between the Rampon fishermen and the trawlers. These agitations have later spread to Quilon and Cochin areas ofKerala coast and also other parts of the Indian coast. The response of the State to these agitations was coercive. It viewed as a law and order problem without any concern for the

people and ecology. It should be made clear at this point that, all these agitations were spontaneous and violent, they were not anarchic. They were the logical outbursts of the evolving socio-economic and technological forces rooted in the very development mode adopted in the marine fishery sector. 29 Fishermen's Organized Movement:

In June 1978 fisher peoples' representatives of different States met in Madras, which debated various issues at stake in the coastal areas of Goa, Tamil Nadu and Kerala If concluded that the situation in the sea had reached the level of a national catastrophe and thus there was threat not only to the fisher people but also to the resources' itself Que to indiscriminate mechanized fishing. I~ the same month the National Forum for Catamaran and Country boat Fishermen's Rights and Marine Wealth, a representative body of thirteen major regional fisher folk unions/associations was formed under the chairmanship ofMatanhy Saldanha The National Forum launched a nationwide campaign in the same year demanding among other measures: to reserve 20 km. of coastal waters for 'the traditional sectors; put a coast guard on the sea coast; to restrict the trawlers and purse-sainers; and enact a comprehensive National Marine Fishing Regulation. 30

At political level the National Forum represented its case to Members of Parliament, Prime Minister and Agriculture Minister and such initiatives brought the plight of fisher people to attention of the national media and thus the public. The National Forum also worked bill on National Marine Fishing Regulation and got it presented in 1978 in the parliament. It could not be introduced due to political uncertainty and subsequently the Central Government referred the bill to the respective maritime stat~ for the enactments instead of making common national legislation. As a result the focus of the National Forum had to shift from the Centre to the States. As many as nine maritime States involved in the question of legislation, the Forum had to seek allies in all the States and strengthen the struggle to prevent any weakening of the cause. The shift of focus yielded good result, the regional unions, which were already under the Forum, was strengthened and new unions were formed in the States where there 'Were no unions. After prolonged struggles, Goa and Kerala passed bills in 1980. Since then, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Orissa and Tamil Nadu have also enacted marine fishing regulations. But many of these state enactments were challenged in the courts of law

Apart from demanding marine fishing regulation, the National Forum also put forward concrete ideas on different issues relating to marine fisheries and campaigned on them. They include, appropriate forms of fishing technology - .

labour intensive, eco-friendly and income distributive. Its other acts of public mobilization included an international campaign against the export of seafood from the country, which was one of the causes of reckless over fishing in shallow waters by trawlers and the consequent anarchic growth of the fishery industry. One such successful intervention by the National Forum was a combined campaign with the. India, Committee of the Netherlands - a solidarity organization supporting progressive movements. and organizations in India - against the purchase of seventeen trawlers worth Rs. 120 million from the Netherlands in 1982. The India Committee's action led the Dutch government to refuse finance trawlers to India without a preceding' experimental fishing programme' on the sea food resources in Indian deep-sea zone. 32

From Campaign to Trade Unionism:

The shift of focus by the National Forum from the national to the regional level and organizing the fisher folk to demand enactment of marine fishing in different states resulted in directing the movement into trade union activity. The general body meeting of the Forum held in September 1983 at Bangalore was a historic one as at this meeting the Forum decided to rename itself as the National Fishermen' sF orum (NFF), drafted a new constitution and significantly decided to register the body under the Trade Union Act.33 In 1985, the NFF decided on new agenda of fishermen's struggle with the following demands. They include:

1. With the further depletion offish wealth in all the states, immediate measures for its conservation should be taken.

1 To save life and sea wealth, strict implementation of marine law.

3. Stop trawling in 10 km. area on the seacoast, ban night trawling, curtail the number of fishing boats and forbid trawling during June, July, August months.

4. Discourage star-hotels growth on the beaches and stop eviction of fishermen from the seacoast on account of tourism development.

5. Prohibit factories from polluting seawaters with untreated waste dumping.

6. Stop purse seining in 22 km. radius on the seacoast.

To press these demands, all the States organized a Demands Day on 15U1 June 1985. The States of Kerala, goa, Tamil Nadu, Orissa, West Bengal and . Kamataka responded positively to the NFF's call and organized

""-_--...! 34 ~dUons.

Two more nationwide agitations organized by the NFF are milestones indae fishermen's movement, the March 1987 agitation and, the Kanya Kumari March of 1987. The March 1987 agitation was well planned, almost eight months

in advance in July 1986. The NFF chalked outfifteen demands for the agitation. The increase in number of demands signifies the increased crisis in the marine fishery sector and the concomitant victimization process of the fisher folk in the' country. The new demands added include - stopping j oint ventures in deep sea and promoting deep sea fishing in public and cooperative sector with the active participation of the fisher folk; legislation and implementation of labour laws in processing plants and mechanized boats; exemption from excise duties on imported out-board engines and supply of quality kerosene at reasonable prices; reorientation offisheriesresearch in cognizance with traditional skills; controlling export of marine products; introduction of old age pension schemes; and providing title deeds to the fisher folk existing houses where they reside. 3S One important aspect of the March 1987 agitation was mobilizing support of other trade unions, mainly the National Convention. of Militant Trade Unions, organized by D tta Samant and George Fernandez in early 1987. The Convention unanimously passed NFF sponsored resolution on the demands of the fisher folk. Several other trade unions supported and participated in nationwide agitation on March 16-}7, 1987. During the agitation, fasts, tallies and public meetings were organized in Delhi, Raipur, Calcutta and many other coastal cities and simultaneously the fisher folk staged mass fasts, picketing and rallies in coastal villages and towns allover India. In-land fisher folks also joined the agitation all over the country. 36

Kanya Kumari March, a month-long campaign and agitation held from 2nd April to 1!1t May 1989 with the slogan ''Protect Waters, Protect Life", was by all means a historic event in the annals fisher people'smovement, Like the above nationwide agitation Kanya Kumari March was also a well-organized one but in a general body meeting held in December 1987, the March got extensive support with wider participation which included apart from non-party trade unions, environmental groups, non-governmental organizations; women's groups, teachers and students.

Each of the above issue has got multiple aspects within it and each issue is interlinked with the other. The March was led by two teams, one from the east coast march began. on 2nd April 1989 from a small fishing village called Purandar Basudebpur on the bank of Hagol Creek in Sunderbans area of 24 Parganas district of West Bengal, and another from the west coast on 3cd April from a place called Utan in Bombay. Although their journeyboth the-teams popularized the cause of protecting the nation's marine ecology, before terminatingat Kanya Kumari on Itt May 1989 and culminated into a huge rally. The March ended with the following important decisions adopted by the NFF:37

To .continue to strengthen the unionization process, mainly in Tamil N Orissa and Andhra Pradesh. adu,

To further support t~e artisanal sector in the struggle against the trawlers and other over-efficient technologies.

To deepen the consciousness of the artisanal fish workers on the ecolo 'cal

aspects of the sector. gi

To support local struggles against pollution of the waters where this has

become a major threat to fish life. .

To further study the intensive .aquaculture programme sponsored by the government leading to the privatization of the waters and make alternative proposals.

To extend campaign. for the protection and regeneration of the mangroves whereve possible.

To support the women fish workers in their right to work and access to fish primarily in Andhra Pradesh where they are not organized.

To support the people Koodankulam and Kaiga in their struggle against the forthcoming nuclear plants.

To further the debate at State level regarding new plans and ventures in industrial fisheries.

Joint Stl11ggie against Joint Ventures:

The opening up of the Indian EEZ to the foreign joint ventures under the New Deep Sea Fishing Policy (NDFP) of 1991, as part government's New Economic Policy (NEP), triggered a new phase in the fisher people's movement in the country by uniting hitherto antagonistic sections of'traditional fisher folk and the mechanized boat owners. The entry of joint ventures with high-tech deep-sea vessels and 100 percent export orientation had sent shock waves to the different sectors of marine fisheries in the country

. Traditional/non-mechanized, mechanized, processing industry, wholesale

marketers and exporters etc.

The NDFP met with massive resistance on various grounds-resources, employment, consumers and ecology. From the point of resources, the density offish resources in the deep seas is low. There is an absence of preci~ biologi.ca1 knowledge about some of the Ospecies and there' is inadequate Info~atl0n about the location and seasonal behaviour of the fish resources. It IS also observed that these constraints could impinge on the commercial viability of an expanded deep-sea fleet. These aspects were dealt with c1e~ly. in the FAD study 'Which suggested improvement of the efficeiency of the exisung deep-sea fleet of 180 boats based at Visakhapatnarn rather than recommending the

l.

2

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

expansion of the vessel numbers. 38 The F ~O fishery survey clear~y i~dicated that 75 per cent of the total exploitable manne fish resources are within the 50 metre depth from the shore. On this basis the NFF questioned the very rationale of the NDFP. From the point of view of employment, the very nature of technology employed in thesevessels rules out new employment opportunities. From the point of view of consumers, since the deep-sea fishing units are 100 per cent export oriented, fish supplies are channled away from the domestic market. The NFF opposed excess export orientation of marine fisheries at the cost of domestic needs. From the point of view of ecology, the argument against the policy is that it will lead to fishing at an .unsustainable level that could severly deplete the resources. The experience world over serves as a warning in

this respect. 39 . .. . .

. Lastly, the government provided a number of incentives to these joint- . ventures:-no customs duty on imported fishing vessels; 100 per cent exemption from customs duty on capital goods, spares and raw materials imported and purchased in the domestic market; providing diesel at highly subsidized rate; allowing trade of resources at the high seas." On the whole the NFF considered that the NDFP was the result of a collaborative effort ofbureaucrats, scientists,

private business and foreign multinational corporations. . . .

. It is in the . light of these arguments that the NFF is opposed to the

NDFP and demanded comprehensive policy review. Accordingto the NFF, deepsea fishing policy should ensure the expansion of'the ambit of operations of the small fishermen to deeper waters. Enterprising fishermen should be encouraged and supported to move into offshore waters. The policy should easure liberalized centIal subsidies and credit for small fishermen who venture into the deep seas. It should also lead toincreased supply offish for domestic consumption. The Government should confer legal rights and reserve exclusive fisbing zones for small-scale artisanal fishermen at least up to the contiguous zone i.e., up to 24 DaItical miles. Annual fishery management plans

. with ~ of Total Allowable Catch (TAC), introduction of quota system, fisbing holidays and surveillance should form part of resource management. 41

. Articulating the demands on these lines, the NFF had taken up auextensive campaign against the NDFP.and succeeded in mobilizing support from all the aft'ected ~sectors of marine fisheries-traditional fisher folk, small-scale mechanized sector, domestic processing industry and marketer etc.-and ~ ajoint struggle against the joint venture vessels operations in the Indian seas. Protracted struggle carried out since early1994 finally resulted in the appointment of a review committee in 1995, which submitted its report to the

Government of Indi~ in 1996, Ul~equivocally opposing the NDFP42 Though, the NDFP ceased to ~Xl~t, as the hcenses were not renewed, the fisher peoples' struggles are contmumg one or the other form from total implementation of the review committee recommendations.

Conclusion:

The deprivation and displacement of fisher folk, from their traditional occupation is thus evident from the increasing share of mechanized sector landings of fish every year and subsequent decreasing share of the traditional sector landings. Not only the increased strength of mechanized sector has been disrupting the traditional fisher folk from their livelihood sources but also the construction of infrastructural facilities for the mechanized sector have uprooted villages to places away from the sea. This is observed in all the places where the major and minor harbours have come up. Such 'modernization' trends, however, have sparked the popular movements by the coastal fishermen communities throughout the country as discussed above.

The fisher peoples movement is not against the developmental policies in the marine fisheries per se, but for development to be defined in larger terms which should take care of their livelihoods in a better way, take care of the $UStainability of the resources and the coastal ecology for a longer periods to come. As the genesis of the fisher peoples movement lies in the evolving socioeconomic and techno-ecological forces rooted in the very dynamics of the modernization process followed by the State in the marine fisheries, in accordance with the alternatives thrown by the fisher peoples movement by different states, a total reorientation of the marine fisheries policies are necessary. These involve multiple aspects, particularly biological/ecological, technological, social and organizational. These movements certainly made on official marine policies, though legislation on a national maritime policy incorporating the comprehensive demands by the fishermen's movement is yet to be introduced.

Notes and References:

1. See, K T. Shah, National Planning Committee: Animal Husbandry, Dairying, Fisheries and Horticulture. (Bombay: Vora and Company, 1948).

2. John Kurian, Technical Assistance Projects. and S~cial Economic Change: The Norwegian Intervention in Kerala's Fishery Development Experience (Trivandrum:

Centre for Development Studies, Working Paper No.205, 1985), p.15.

3. Clause 1d (i andii) of the INP,seelbid. pp.17-18.

4. Ibid, p.2l.

5. The demand for prawns in the US is largely a post second world war phenomenon.

Two factors were responsible for the increased demand for prawns: (i). The wartime shift in the population from inland areas to the coastal regions introduced more people to seafood. Consequently on there retum to their homes, the demand for seafood spread to the inland markets. The discovery of large shrimp grounds off Louisiana and the establishment of a more efficient transport system and a cold storage chains gave a boost to the marketing of marine products. (ii). The members of~e US armed forces in the Southeast Asia regions developed a taste for Southeast Asian cuisine which is replete with crustaceans (like prawns) and Cephalopods (like cattle fish). \Vith their return home the taste for the exotic seafoods had become more ingrained and consequently demand increased. The import of shrimp into the US in 1930s and 40s were from China. Following the revolution this supply dried up and altemative sources had to be found. In 19508 the import of shrimp into the US was 18,000 tonnes , in 1959 it reached 48,000 tonnes and further increased to 63,600 tonnes by 1962. The US local production was at an all time low of 17,000 toones in 1954. Mexico was a prime supplier and had locational advantages but could not cater to the full demand. Supply from India soon followed. See,lohn Kurian, Op. Cit. p. 57.

6. Ibid. p.21.

7. Jolm KlUian and Sebastian Mathew, Technological Change in Fishing: Its Impact on Fishen:nen ( Trivandrum: Centre for Development Studies)

8. Somce: Ministry of Agriculture, Fishing Division, see for detailed figures, M. Channa Basavaiah, Political Economy of Marine Fisheries in India, (Hyderabad: Centre for AIeas Studies, Osmania University, mimeo, 1995) p.36.

9. For &e details of sector wise figures of allocation see, M. Channa Basavaiah, Op.

Cit. p. 37.

lO.G.R. Kulkarni and U.K. Srivastava (Ed.), A Systems Framework of the Marine Food Industry in India, (New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company, 1985) pp.47 ... d Sl and U.K. Srivastava et all (Ed), Fishery Sector of India (New Delhi: Oxford "mH Puhtishing Company Pvt.Ltd 1991), pp. 23 and 34.

11. See, The Economic Times, dated, March 18, 1992, The Independent, dated IOthe July 1992 _d The Hindu, dated 3rd August 1992. (Note: The important objective

-*MlMm~~MU~~W~tM~~mIlm~Mtt~~tt~~~~~~lttt~~tltI~})}t))rltf!lttWW@b%MW@Mt

of the State in promoting rapid mechanization and assisting the mechanized sector with aU the infrastructural and other facilities is with the sole aim to increase fish production for export as a means of earning foreign exchange. Particularly, in the present liberalized phase, under the NDFP the export of marine products is being emphasized further. During the last forty years, marinefish production had shown a steady rise. It has mcreased five fold (nearly 400 percent) from 5.341akh tonnes in 1950-51 to 25.40 Iak:h tonnesin 1992-93.)

12. John Kurian, Ruining the Commons mid Responses of the Commoners: Coastal Over Fishing and Fishermen's' Actions in Kerala State, India (Geneva: UNRISD Discussion Paper No. 23, May, 1991).

13. See, John Devaraj, Keel Hauling of Traditional Fisheries: A Study of the Impact of Purse-Seine Ope~tions on the Fish Economy of Dakshina Kannada District of Kamatab, (TriVBlldrum: Programme for. Community Organization) pp. 50-70.

14. Barty Blake and Tim Bostock, " Shrimp By-Catch: A Problem in the Bay of Bengal that has)'8t found no viable solution" Bay of Bengal News, (Madras: Bay of Bengal Programme [BOBP] ofFAO) Issue No. 44, December, 1991, pp. 5-6.

IS. K. Sivasubramaniam, ''Biological Aspects of Shrimp Trawl By-Catches" , Bay of Bengal News, Issue No. 40, December, 1990, p. 10. (These activities go against the conservation meaSUDS stipu1atedin Article 61(4) of the Law of the Sea Convention, which caD for special management measures on the part of coastal states to keep the tepIOdDctiOll levels constant of the associated dependent species. See, The United Nations COIlV_tiClllon the Law of the Sea, UN. Doc. AlConf.62/122. October 7,1982).

16. See, Ann Gordon, The By-Catches from Indian Shrimp Trawling in the Bay of B_gal: The Potential for Its Improved Utilization, BOBP/Working Paper/68, 1991, p.l0.

17. K. SivasubIamauiam Op. Cit. p. 8.

18. B.S. SIIDIla, ''Use of Economic Parameters in Investment, Decision Making for Utilization ofLivingResources of Seas in India" in U.K. Srivastava (Ed.), Proceedings of National Symposium of Utilization of Living Marine Resources of the Indian Seas, December 19-21, 1987, Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Bombay (ADallabad: National Academy of Sciences, 1989), p. 348.

19. TM Economic Times, dated March 22, 1992.

10. Ibid. dated 6· November 1993. .

21. World ResoUJCeS: A Guide to the Global Environment, 1996-97, (New York: Oxford

University Pless, 1996), pp. 310-311.

22. Mukai, "Enter, 1I1e Big Fish: New Deep-Sea Fishing Policy Draws Flak", Frontline,

AupIt 26, 1994, p.127.

13. Ibid.

24. See, John Kurian, "Krov ige Systems and Fishery Resources Decline: A Historical Perspective", in Walter L -nz and Margent Deacon (Ed.), Ocean Science: Their History and Relation to Men, Proceedings of the 4th International Congress on the ' History of Oceanography, Hamburg, September 23 .. 29, 1987 (Hamburg: Deutsche H)drographic he Zeitschrift. 1990) pp.476-80.

2~. See, lohn Devaraj, Op. Cit.

26. M.Gudicelli, Study on Deep-Sea Fisheries Development in India. (Rome: FAO, April 1992), p. 4.

27. lose Kaleekal (Compiled), The National Forum: In Struggle of Fishermen and Fish Workers in India, (New Delli: Indian Social Jnstituteand Delhi Forum, 1987), p. 146.

28. Ibid. p. 149.

29. 101m Kurian, f.n. No12, p. 16.

30. Jose Kaleekal, Op. Cit. pp. ISO-SI.

31. TIN Economic Times, datedJ_uary 22, 1982.

32. For mqre details, see, correspotldence between the National Forum and the India Committee of the Nethedacls, between 1981 to 1984. Fisheries Research Cell Doc..-ataOll, ProgramDlO for CommDDity Orgauization, Ttivmdrum.

33. JOI8 ~ Op. Cit. p.1S3 ..

34. Ibid. p. IS4.

35. See, Fish wvrbrs Stnagte for Survival: A Compilation on March 1987 Agitation (Tnv.cJram; Fisheries Ilea." CeJl Documentation, P.C.O., 1987) p.2.

36. Ibid.

37. Apmaa Sander (Compiled), Bteak- Through Despite BINk-Up: A Compilation OIl KaayaJamuui Match (CocIUa: National FUil WOrbrs Forum, 1989).

38. M. GudiceIIi Op. Cit

39. n .. are as many as 2S,OOO vessels around the globe that are partially or totally i41e. Some ofdtese are forced to remain icBe because over fishing in certain areas that ... 1Ift them. with litde or DO resources to tap. Others have to suffer have to suffer til ..... fate because Westem governments have woken up to the threat these vea.ls pose to Datural telO1ttCeS 8Ildecology ad have imposed banlrestrictions. See,lohn Kurian," Impact of Joint V.tUles on Fish Economy", Economic and Political Weekly, February 11, 199~, pp. 300-02.

40. The Pioneer, dated NoYelllbw 29, 1994.

41. Memoradum submitted by tile NFF to the Food Processing Mini&1ry, Govemment ofIa •.

42. For .. detailed analyais of the NDFP, see M. Channa Basavaiah, "The New Deep Sea FUlring Policy: A Case of Revenal in the New Economic Policies", SOCIAL ACTION, Vol. S3., No.1., l_ury-March 2003, pp. 47-S0.

Dr. M. Channa Basavaiah took his Master Degree in Political science from Osmania University in 1985. He did his M.Phil at centre for West Asian and African Studies

. ,

School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi .. The title of his dissertation is "Mauritius_ Foreign Policy 1968-1988". He was awarded

..

PhD by Osmenie University, Hyderabad in 1998 for his thesis "India's Exctusive Economic Zone: A Political Economy Perspective".

Dr. Channa'Basavaiah presentea papers in several Nationa/ Seminars and a/so published books and articles in professional journals. The areas in which he has published include Indian Politics, Fishermen's problems and movements, Marine products in G/oba/isation, Human rights, Economic reforms, SAARC problems and people and public pOlicies in the; context of G/obalisation. He is member executive in various academic bodies.

At present he is working as Associate professor in Political SCience, Nizam col/ege, Osmania University, Hyderabad.