Introduction:
One of the longest-running ecological fights against a global giant capitalist market is the Plachimada Coca-Cola struggle. This essay aims to delve deep into the issue of Plachimada. Mayilamma, an Adivasi woman who emerged as a leader in her community's struggle against the Coca-Cola company in Plachimada. The Anti-Coca Cola campaign in Plachimada may be seen as one among the trajectories of many grassroots ecological movements in the country and around the world. This campaign is not an issue of production, confined to Plachimada alone. Rather, it raises important ethical questions about consumption on a global scale. It also marks the rise in importance of the rise of eco-activism in Kerala alongside the realities of consumption, globalization, widening socio-economic inequalities, and the rising ecological burdens borne by the marginalized poor. Through this paper, I aim to provide insight and show how the complexity of this ecological fight of Mayilamma and her justice for the Plachimada Coca-Cola plant regarding groundwater exploitation lies in the entanglement of intersectional politics of gender, race, class, region, religion, and caste along with the legality that contributes to environmental exploitation.
Plachimada Coca-Cola Struggle: A Comprehensive Timeline:
The Plachimada Coca-Cola Struggle was a series of protests to close the Coca-Cola factory in the village of Plachimada, Palakkad District, Kerala in the early 2000s. Plachimada is a district in Kerala, India, known for its agricultural significance. It is often referred to as the 'rice bowl of Kerala' due to its importance in rice production. The majority of the people in this district rely on agriculture for their livelihood. The villagers in Plachimada are predominantly landless and work as agricultural laborers. Plachimada is heavily dependent on groundwater and canal irrigation for agricultural and domestic purposes. The district is home to several scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.
Everything originated in January 2000, when the Perumatty panchayat in Kerala's Palakkad district gave the Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Limited, or HCCB, a license to set up a bottling plant in Plachimada, a tribal settlement under the panchayat's jurisdiction. The issue was that it spread over the land measuring 34 acres, and the residents of the area claimed that the bottling plant soon caused severe water shortage and contamination. The detrimental effects were immediately visible within six months after the company started its production. A massive movement ensued against the HCCB, calling upon the company to shut the plant and compensate those affected. Villagers noted that soon after the factory opened, their wells started to run dry and the available water turned contaminated and toxic. Soon, the waste (the sludge) from the factory was passed off to farmers in the area as fertilizer. The BBC report claims that the sludge is dangerous to health and has no value as manure.
The Kerala Pollution Control Board (KPCB) examined sludge samples from the factory premises. A hazardous element, Cadmium was found in higher concentration. The traces of cadmium were also detected in the common Panchayat wells. KPCB commented that the water in the Panchayat well should not be used for drinking purposes. After the KPCB report, legal and institutional frameworks were implemented to address the groundwater pollution issues in Plachimada. The KPCB invoked the polluter pays principle, and various investigations and directions were given to the company. However, the actions taken by the KPCB and other government bodies have been criticized by the Plachimada Struggle Committee. The presence of high Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in the groundwater was noted, and the pollution caused by the dumping of hazardous waste by the company was confirmed. After the KPCB report, legal the Perumatty Grama Panchayat passed a resolution refusing to renew the license given to the company, which was challenged in the Kerala High Court. The court directed the company to approach the Department of Local Self-Government, which in turn directed the Panchayat to constitute an expert group to study the matter. The legal and institutional framework, including the powers of the KPCB, has been invoked multiple times in investigations and directions given to the company. However, the actions taken by the KPCB and other government bodies have been criticized by the Plachimada Struggle Committee. Despite this, no significant action has been reported to have been taken by the KPCB or the Central Government.
The Plachimada case involved the landowner's right to extract groundwater and the Panchayat's power to regulate its use. The legal frameworks addressing groundwater depletion and pollution, including pollution control laws, were part of the legal regime. The Kerala government enacted the Kerala Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Act in 2002, which became applicable in 2005. In the absence of a specific statutory framework, principles such as the public trust doctrine and common law rules regarding landowner rights over groundwater were discussed in the case. Additionally, there are several environmental laws that could have been applied in the Plachimada case.
The pivotal moment in the issue arose on 22 April 2002, when the villagers, mostly Adivasis, began to protest in front of the factory by blocking its entrance. The impromptu protest continued and lasted for years, by gathering support from environmental groups, locals, and national political parties and activists. Continued protests and litigation eventually helped the people of Plachimada to shut down the factory in March 2004. In spite of this event unfolding over a decade ago, nothing much has changed. While a government committee estimated the damages to be around 216 crores ($30 million), the compensation has yet to be paid to the villagers (as of last reported in 2019).
Several study reports have been published explaining the causes of the deterioration of groundwater quality and quantity in Plachimada. Different explanations have been given regarding the causes of the groundwater problems in Plachimada. However, the primary reason remained for groundwater exploitation in Plachimada was the over-exploitation of groundwater by the Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Limited (the Company) plant, which led to the deterioration of the quality and quantity of groundwater in the area. The depletion of groundwater was also attributed to lower-than-normal rainfall and groundwater draft, especially by the wells in the factory. Groundwater depletion in Plachimada may be due to a lack of rainfall and insufficient recharge or replenishment of groundwater.
Mayilamma: A Life Committed to Activism and Justice:
Mayilamma was an illiterate Adivasi woman whose iconic leadership of her community against the unrestrained extraction and pollution of water by Coca-Cola put the nondescript village of Plachimada on the Kerala-Tamil Nadu border on the global map of environmental activism. Mayilamma, who was raised in the Keralan village of Muthalamada, encountered several difficult situations in her life. She was just fifteen when she was married, but at twenty-seven, she became a widow and was forced to raise her four children by herself. This was a difficult time in her life. Even with all of the hardships she faced, Mayilamma had a great desire to make sure her kids had a basic education—something that was not very common in her day. Despite facing personal challenges, her resolve to give her kids an education shows how much she cares about their future and well-being. Mayilamma's story exemplifies the intersectional slow violence experienced by Adivasi communities. Mayilamma's unwavering dedication extended beyond her own family as she tirelessly campaigned to establish an Anganwadi in her village, aiming to benefit not just her children but the broader community. She also became a founding member of the Anti-Coca-Cola Struggle Committee, known as the Pariyadath Committee, which organized numerous protests and demonstrations against the Coca-Cola Company. Mayilamma played a crucial role in raising awareness about the company's water resource exploitation. Her activism succeeded in drawing attention to the issue, inspiring others to join the cause and combat such exploitative practices. Consequently, she became widely recognized as the “Plachimada Heroine”, a testament to the potency of her individual actions in addressing significant social and environmental challenges. Mayilamma's resolute commitment to justice solidified her as a symbol of resistance against corporate exploitation. Mayilamma's story sheds light on the slow violence inflicted on the environment and the exploitation of natural resources. The Adivasi people experience slow violence due to the exploitation of natural resources and the hegemonic dominance surrounding their utilization. This violence is often obfuscated by mainstream narrative discourses, preventing affirmative action in the form of legislation or compensation.
By voicing for her people during the Plachimada protest, Mayilamma effectively resisted and brought attention to the issues faced by her community. Something very notable amongst Adivasi communities is that the tribal women are the biggest backbones of their families. Mayilamma and her struggle for justice highlights the need for recognizing and utilizing the knowledge of indigenous people in environmental governance. It highlights the role of indigenous people, particularly women, in preserving local biodiversity and contributing to sustainable development in the global south.
There is an excerpt from the book Mayilamma: The Life of a Tribal Eco-warrior that highlights the hegemony faced by the tribe on a daily basis by the upper-dominant classes. On one occasion, Pazhanimala (Mayilamma’s brother) leased thirty sacks of red gram from Mathavan Moothar for the purpose of growing the crop; nevertheless, the market price for a single bag of gram was only about seven rupees. This incident is a powerful example of the unfair pricing and exploitation that Pazhanimala had to deal with. Moreover, Mayilamma's story highlights the idea of "slow violence," which is ubiquitous in tribal cultures' experiences. The discourse of Mayilamma sheds light on the hidden forms of violence that often go unnoticed and unreported.
Conclusion:
The effects of land disputes and various other offenses on indigenous people and small-scale farmers have a long history. First, it shows how land disputes can lead to the loss of livelihood. The example of a farmer who lost both his land and his means of subsistence through a complex legal contract proves it. This highlights the harsh exploitation and unfair pricing that people in circumstances similar to Pazhanimala's must contend with. In addition, the story offers a realistic depiction of the struggles small-scale farmers and tribal members face on a daily basis, including finding work and getting access to basic essentials like drinking water. Moreover, the loss of access to water, underscores how a region that was before rich in water resources is currently facing acute water scarcity. This change highlights the seriousness of the issue and its implications for the impacted populations, especially in the midst of the monsoon season. It also clarifies the complex relationship between water resources and land conflicts, showing how losing land can result in losing access to vital water supplies, making the struggles faced by these marginalized communities even more severe. In the end, this complex story highlights the wide-ranging socioeconomic effects of land conflicts, calling for a change in perspective on the complex issues that small-scale farmers and tribal members in these areas must deal with. It highlights how intersectional elements including caste, gender, and socioeconomic disparities perpetuate the slow violence experienced by these communities. Hence there is a need for a more holistic approach to address the complex issues they face. By emphasizing the importance of recognizing and addressing intersectional slow violence faced by Adivasi communities. There should be an all more inclusive and sustainable approach to environmental conservation that respects the rights and knowledge of marginalized communities. By adopting a feminist approach to environmental politics and addressing structural injustices, we can work towards a more sustainable and just future.
References:
1. Balan, Saritha S. 2022. “Protest against Coca-Cola: Why the 20-Year Struggle of Kerala’s Plachimada Goes On.” The News Minute. Retrieved November 3, 2023 (https://www.thenewsminute.com/kerala/protest-against-coca-cola-why-20-year-struggle-kerala-s-plachimada-goes-167064).
2. Koonan, Sujith. 2011. “Ground Water – Legal Aspects of the PLACHIMADA Dispute (Chapter 7) – Water Governance in Motion.” Cambridge Core. Retrieved November 3, 2023 (https://doi.org/10.1017/upo9788175968578.008).
3. Pariyadathu, Jyothibai, Swarnalatha Rangarajan, and Sreejith Varma. 2018. Mayilamma: The Life of a Tribal Eco-Warrior. Hyderabad: Orient BlackSwan.
4. Raghunandan, Gayatri. 2017. “A Look at the Legal Issues Plachimada’s Struggle for Water against Coca-Cola Has Brought Up.” The Wire. Retrieved November 3, 2023 (https://thewire.in/law/coca-cola-plachimada-kerala-water).