Bhubaneswar: The Mahanadi Bachao Andolan (MBA) Monday organised a meeting at Buddha Mandir in Bhubaneswar to deliberate on the long-pending Mahanadi water dispute.
Attended by intellectuals, experts, social activists and senior journalists, the meeting expressed serious concern over the delay in resolving the issue and alleged government inaction.
The meeting was attended by several political leaders and activists. Congress leader Sibananda Ray, Mahanadi Bachao Andolan convener Sudarshan Das, Basudev Bhatta, Girija Das, CPIM leader Ashok Pradhan and others took part in the discussion.
Presided over by Das, the discussion focused on the functioning of the Mahanadi Tribunal and its failure to deliver justice to Odisha. Participants criticised the tribunal for not delivering even an interim order in the last eight years and stressed the need for urgent intervention.
The meeting resolved to intensify a statewide mass movement to protect the interests of Odisha and safeguard the Mahanadi river. It was also decided to strengthen organisational structures in districts located in the Mahanadi basin.
A seven-member technical committee, led by former engineer-in-chief and additional secretary Ashutosh Das, will prepare a comprehensive white paper on the tribunal’s proceedings and the water dispute. The report will be based on scientific and research-oriented analysis and is expected to be completed within a month. It will outline possible legal and alternative dispute resolution measures and will be submitted to the governments of Odisha, Chhattisgarh and the Centre.
The committee includes former chief engineers Harish Chandra Behera and Ramesh Chandra Tripathy, engineer Pradeep Pradhan, former Utkal University vice-chancellor Prof Binayak Rath, geologist Surya Nayak, scientist Subhranshu Ray and former professor Bijay Sahu, among others.
The meeting also decided to form a legal committee comprising eminent lawyers to examine judicial aspects of the dispute. The participants termed the Centre’s claim of resolving the dispute through dialogue as misleading and questioned whether any Cabinet decision had been taken in this regard.
