Skip to main content

Has SSNNL ever advised Gujarat govt not to invite water-intensive industries to Vibrant Gujarat summits?

By Sagar Rabari*
Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd (SSNNL), the Gujarat government special purpose vehicle (SPV) responsible for implementing the mega Narmada project in the state, is known to have advised farmers not to grow water-intensive crops. Farmers have reason to wonder: Has SSNNL ever given a similar advise to its political bosses not to invite water-intensive industries during biennial Vibrant Gujarat global business summits?
The advise to Gujarat farmers was not to grow crops like sugarcane, paddy and banana, which are profitable to them. Though farmers haven’t disagreed with the advice, they are indeed asking sharp questions, which SSNNL and Gujarat government officials must answer.
The view is strong that the SSNNL intention for advising farmers not to grow water intensive crops – that farmers should get water till the last farm of the command area – is not honest. Farmers feel, SSNNL wants farmers to save water, pretending water scarcity, but is actually diverting water to industry.
Is SSNNL ready to increase its command area beyond 18.45 lakh hectares (ha), to be irrigated with Narmada water? If yes, farmers argue, they would agree not to grow water-intensive crops in the command area and save water by promoting micro- irrigation.
Farmers know: It is the same SSNNL, which has not come clean on giving accounts of Narmada waters used during the last agriculture season, on how much water did the Narmada dam reservoir receive, how much was released in the canal, how much was provided to farmers to irrigate their fields, and how much of it went to industry and drinking water.
But one thing is clear: Though there was 22% deficit rainfall in the Narmada basin the area, which mainly falls in Madhya Pradesh, the Narmada canal water, provided by SSNNL, could irrigate less than one third, or 6 lakh ha, as against 18.45 lakh ha, as planned. Then why this restriction?
Would SSNNL assure the people of Gujarat that it has not diluted its water use plan or dam manual? If not, how did it dare advise farmers, or pretend to advise them, going so far to threatening them not to use water for water-intensive crops?
Were there any restrictions when water use plan was prepared or command area was calculated? If not, then why now? Would this advisory, to save water, be applicable even during the coming Lok Sabha elections? Is SSNNL, formed to provide water to farmers, playing in the hands of ruling dispensation to gain something invisible to common people?
Sometimes it seems that Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) leader Medha Patkar is right: That the dam has not being built for farmers of the state but for big corporate houses. Those who deserve the most are being denied first!
Farmers of the state must remember and remind it to others, too: Who was responsible for not supplying water to their farms last year, and because of whose failure were they forced to use diesel engines and face the blame of being water thieves?
They must use their vote to teach a lesson to those who are responsible for not building the canal network.
---
*Secretary, Gujarat Khedut Samaj

Comments

TRENDING

Why Venezuela govt granting amnesty to political prisoners isn't a sign of weakness

By Guillermo Barreto   On 20 May 2017, during a violent protest planned by sectors of the Venezuelan opposition, 21-year-old Orlando Figuera was attacked by a mob that accused him of being a Chavista. After being stabbed, he was doused with gasoline and set on fire in front of everyone present. Young Orlando was admitted to a hospital with multiple wounds and burns covering 80 percent of his body and died 15 days later, on 4 June.

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

Walk for peace: Buddhist monks and America’s search for healing

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat*  The #BuddhistMonks in the United States have completed their #WalkForPeace after covering nearly 3,700 kilometers in an arduous journey. They reached Washington, DC yesterday. The journey began at the Huong Đạo Vipassana Bhavana Center in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 26, 2025, and concluded in Washington, DC after a 108-day walk. The monks, mainly from Vietnam and Thailand, undertook this journey for peace and mindfulness. Their number ranged between 19 and 24. Led by Venerable Bhikkhu Pannakara (also known as Sư Tuệ Nhân), a Vietnamese-born monk based in the United States, this “Walk for Peace” reflected deeply on the crisis within American society and the search for inner strength among its people.

Four women lead the way among Tamil Nadu’s Muslim change-makers

By Syed Ali Mujtaba*  A report published by Awaz–The Voice (ATV), a news platform, highlights 10 Muslim change-makers in Tamil Nadu, among whom four are women. These individuals are driving social change through education, the arts, conservation, and activism. Representing diverse fields ranging from environmental protection and literature to political engagement and education, they are working to improve society across the state.

Bangladesh goes to polls as press freedom concerns surface

By Nava Thakuria*  As Bangladesh heads for its 13th Parliamentary election and a referendum on the July National Charter simultaneously on Thursday (12 February 2026), interim government chief Professor Muhammad Yunus has urged all participating candidates to rise above personal and party interests and prioritize the greater interests of the Muslim-majority nation, regardless of the poll outcomes. 

Trade pacts with EU, US raise alarms over farmers, MSMEs and policy space

By A Representative   A broad coalition of farmers’ organisations, trade unions, traders, public health advocates and environmental groups has raised serious concerns over India’s recently concluded trade agreements with the European Union and the United States, warning that the deals could have far-reaching implications for livelihoods, policy autonomy and the country’s long-term development trajectory. In a public statement issued, the Forum for Trade Justice described the two agreements as marking a “tectonic shift” in India’s trade policy and cautioned that the projected gains in exports may come at a significant social and economic cost.

When free trade meets unequal fields: The India–US agriculture question

By Vikas Meshram   The proposed trade agreement between India and the United States has triggered intense debate across the country. This agreement is not merely an attempt to expand bilateral trade; it is directly linked to Indian agriculture, the rural economy, democratic processes, and global geopolitics. Free trade agreements (FTAs) may appear attractive on the surface, but the political economy and social consequences behind them are often unequal and controversial. Once again, a fundamental question has surfaced: who will benefit from this agreement, and who will pay its price?

Why Russian oil has emerged as the flashpoint in India–US trade talks

By N.S. Venkataraman*  In recent years, India has entered into trade agreements with several countries, the latest being agreements with the European Union and the United States. While the India–EU trade agreement has been widely viewed in India as mutually beneficial and balanced, the trade agreement with the United States has generated comparatively greater debate and scrutiny.

Samyukt Kisan Morcha raises concerns over ‘corporate bias’ in seed Bill

By A Representative   The Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) has released a statement raising ten questions to Union Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan regarding the proposed Seed Bill 2025, alleging that the legislation is biased in favour of large multinational and domestic seed corporations and does not adequately safeguard farmers’ interests.