Obviously, the Gujarat police would not want to take notice of anything that state chief minister Narendra Modi did not approve. If the police could connive at the ethnic cleansing and continue to sustain the anti-Muslim environs, how would the force dare to save the NBA office when Modi considered such places an affront to his authority? The situation in the state is so vitiated that the chief minister turns anything which he does not like into an emotive issue and a question of state's pride. The Gujaratis, too, lap up his antics. Sometimes, I wonder whether Gujarat is part of India or India is part of Gujarat.

The entire debate on the Narmada Dam has been debased and distorted. The thesis that Modi and his party, the BJP, have built is that the dam's height has been challenged. But this is not true. Had this been the case, the dam would not have gone up to 110 metres.

The point at issue is about the rehabilitation of those who are ousted in the process. Every additional slab placed on the dam submerges some land and throws out a certain number of families. What about them who have to move elsewhere? Don't the Gujaratis, leave the authoritarian Modi aside, have any moral obligation towards them? Poor they may be, but they are human beings and as much Indians as the Gujaratis are.

This is not the first time that the Gujarat government has gone back on its obligation to resettle those who have been ousted from their places because of the Narmada Dam. Gujarat is responsible to rehabilitate even those whom Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, the two beneficiary states, cannot settle. There are umpteen numbers of awards and judgments on this point.

As recently as March 5, 2005, the Supreme Court said unequivocally that "submergence would not be allowed to take place until complete settlement and rehabilitation of oustees is done."

When Medha Patkar, the NBA leader, went on an indefinite hunger strike, her case was that the new height of nearly 13 metres, from 110 metres to 122.9 metres, had been sanctioned despite the fact that the families who were ousted because of the earlier increase in the dam's height had remained unsettled.

It is estimated that the additional height will add 16,000 families to 14,000, already waiting to be rehabilitated. This would mean 30,000 families. These are facts which even the Supreme Court said it might check through its own team.

Mehda Patkar's fast forced three central ministers to visit at least one state, Madhya Pradesh, to find out what was the truth. They found her contention true. In their report, they have said that the Narmada Control Authority (NCA) gave permission to raise the height on the basis which "has largely been based on paperwork and it has no relevance to the situation on the ground." The Madhya Pradesh government acted in haste and allotted the land which was totally uncultivable.

This throws up the question of credibility of the NCA. An inquiry should be ordered to verify the credentials of officers who constitute the body.

By running down Saifuddin Soz, Minister for Water Resources, who did an objective, bold and honest job, non-rehabilitation does not become rehabilitation. It is like comparing Modi's soap opera with Medha Patkar's fast. All the three governments in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan have indulged in fabrication. When pointed out by the central ministers' team, Madhya Pradesh chief minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan has brought in the federal structure of the constitution. The lawyer representing the Madhya Pradesh government also tried to raise the dust on this point at the Supreme Court.

Big river valley projects are on the Concurrent List of the constitution. Even otherwise, the Narmada Dam is supervised by two committees, one comprising central and state bureaucrats and the other of ministers from New Delhi and the states. The Supreme Court was frank enough to say that the divisions in the central review committee were "on political lines. You have to accept it."

It is shocking that the leaders of the BJP, which rules the three states, have not uttered a word on the shoddy job done even after thousands of complaints.

They can ignore the central ministers' report but not the ground reality. Atal Behari Vajpayee should have reacted and assured the oustees that he would himself see to their proper rehabilitation. This would have been in the spirit of federalism. Why can't political parties take the states run by them to task for rehabilitating the uprooted? Were they to do so, they would go up in people's estimate. At least, the mess created in the wake of the Narmada Dam would have been lesser than what it is today. But then the BJP has to reckon with Modi who doesn't give a damn.

The larger question the Narmada Dam has thrown up is about the oustees from different projects, whether connected with industry, mine, jungle or water. Lakhs of people are being displaced in the name of development. None is against development but what happens to those who have lost their land, house and, more importantly, neighbours? For centuries they have lived together at a place but displacement has meant that they have to plant themselves at new surrounding and environment. The government should be generous, not niggardly.

That development at the expense of social justice has far-reaching consequences. The Naxalite phenomenon is only one of them. Medha Patkar has warned that a bigger movement, not confined to the Narmadha oustees, is inevitable. It is equitable as well as necessary that people ousted from a place to make room for a project are fully rehabilitated before they are disturbed. Already in some tribal areas the slogan is:

No displacement without prior rehabilitation. This may well become a war cry if the government in the states or at the centre is not mindful of the sufferings of the people who are disturbed.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said that the cost of development should not be borne by the weakest section of the people and a credible rehabilitation policy should be in place. But he must set up some machinery for that. Understandably, ministers and bureaucrats have to be part of it because they possess the authority. But if the past is any guide, such machinery becomes too mechanical. Human rights activists should also be engaged in the process because their contact with grassroots is direct and intimate.

Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.