26 September 2007
In its preliminary findings, the first ever Independent People’s Tribunal on the World Bank in India found that the Bank had an undue and disturbingly negative influence in shaping India’s national policies disproportionate to its contribution, financial or otherwise.
A four-day Independent People's Tribunal (IPT) on the World Bank found that the Bank's policies and projects in India have led to increased and needless human suffering since 1991, among hundreds of millions of India's poorest and most disadvantaged in rural and urban areas.
"It is clear to us that a significant number of Indian government policies and projects financed and influenced by the World Bank have contributed directly and/or indirectly to this increased impoverishment and suffering," wrote the twelve-member jury in a written statement of its findings.
The Tribunal took place in Delhi, India from 21-24 September, 2007 at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and was organised by a platform consisting of over 300 individuals representing 60 national and local groups from across the country with diverse interests. Six hundred people from communities, social movements, research institutions, non-governmental organizations, and universities attended the historic event.
World Bank-project affected communities, activists, academics and policy analysts from across the country presented hundreds of testimonies and formal depositions indicting the Bank for the negative impacts of its policy and project interventions in India in every major sector of the economy and society. Testimonies covered 26 sectors including: education, health, agriculture, electricity, water, forests, environmental policy, mining, climate change, indigenous people, post disaster interventions, women's rights, and urban development among others. It not only provided a forum to express grievances but also focused on proposing alternatives.
Almost all the testimonies overwhelmingly pointed to the Bank’s undue (and often negative) influence in shaping India's national policies ranging from the Electricity Act 2003, to the Environmental Clearance procedure of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), to the way Tuberculosis has been documented and treated in India. This is disconcerting given World Bank funding currently amounts to less than on percent of India's GDP.
Historically, India has been the single largest cumulative recipient of World Bank assistance, with lending totaling about $60 billion (Rs. 2,40,000 crores) since 1944. These loans have not only come with conditionalities but also leveraged funding from a diversity of bilateral and multilateral donors such as the Asian Development Bank and Department for International Development (DfID UK). Several participants from social movements shared their experiences of how these loans over time and in different regions have resulted in extensive social and environmental harm from mass displacement (as in the case of the Narmada valley) to loss and disruption of livelihoods of traditional fishworkers (in places such as Barwani) or forestworkers in Jharkhand.
One of the most alarming findings was the increase in farmer suicides since the 1990s. This was primarily due to greater financial pressures on farmers as a result of numerous policies including but not limited to, reduced subsidies, higher prices for irrigation water, reduced access to low-interest loans.
"India was once self-sufficient in food production; its food security is now dependent on imports," the Tribunal jury wrote in its statement. "It is clear to us that major World Bank Economic Restructuring, Structural Adjustment, and Sector Loans have directly promoted and helped to finance these economic policy changes which are a disaster for much of India’s more than 700 million rural inhabitants, and most disastrous of all for poor farmers."
The Tribunal was designed to solicit responses from the World Bank and the Government of India as "indicted parties." Ironically, neither sent formal delegations. The World Bank instead chose to respond to the depositions through their website by posting a "Question and Answers" piece on its India home page. The Q&A attempts to address many of the questions raised by the tribunal.
In a press release defending its non-attendance, the Bank stated:
“Unfortunately the organizers insisted that the Bank make itself accountable to the Tribunal judgment process… the institution does not agree with the format of a “tribunal” established with juries and judges to “try” the Bank.” [emphasis added]
It added that it had collected much of the material discussed at the Tribunal and “would very much like to pursue an earnest discussion about these important issues as it continues to engage across the range of civil society stakeholders.”
The Tribunal jury was comprised of experts and eminent personalities such as historian Romila Thapar, writer Arundhati Roy, activist Aruna Roy, former Supreme Court Justice P B Sawant, former Finance Secretary S P Shukla, former Water Secretary Ramaswamy Iyer, scientist Meher Engineer, economist Amit Bhaduri, Thai spiritual leader Sulak Sivaraksa, environmental lawyer Bruce Rich and Mexican economist Alejandro Nadal.
Citing several ways in which the Bank has positioned itself as the development “knowledge provider” in India, testifiers showed that the Bank had actually “appropriated” the knowledge domain to have an overbearing influence on India's policy making. Citing the “revolving door” phenomenon of Indian policy makers, one deposition listed several senior policy makers who have served as former Bank officials or as Bank consultants, thus raising conflict of interest concerns. The overwhelming presence of the Bank in almost every major policy arena of the country begged the question whether the Bank is in violation of the World Bank's own Articles of Agreement, which mandate it to be an apolitical institution that should not interfere in political processes of member countries.
Several depositions also noted that the Bank has lent at much higher rates of interest than are currently available to India and these loans are usually accompanied by a host of conditionalities. The preparation for these loans is conducted in an opaque and undemocratic manner and the common thrust of the conditionalities push neo-liberal economic policies that call for privatization of service providers, cost-recovery and the “consumer pays” principle at the cost of the poor. This was shown in the urban development, water, health, education and electricity sector, to name a few.
Resources