The Well and the issues behind it

The Well is the most traditional of the three plays that make up the Human Rights! Bloody Human Rights! trilogy in that it contains a complete story. It explores a number of issues but, centrally, a lack of community consultation, something which is a common phenomenon within cases of business and human rights abuse. Occasionally this makes headlines when communities are successful in getting their voices heard, as with tribal community victories in India over Vedanta Resources PLC in 2013 and 2014. Mostly, however, affected communities find it hard to get their voice heard once decisions have been made without them. In this situation, BEW India, the fictional Indian subsidiary of a British company, has been granted water collection rights throughout the state of Orissa in India. They have provided information and held meetings in the national regional capitals, and issued notices in the official languages of English and Hindi. Additionally, the company is seeking a signed consent from each community for closing and damming wells and rivers. Unfortunately for BEW employee, Trevor, the community he has been parachuted into knows nothing of the privatisation plans, as they speak a minority language and no consultations were held nearby.

Access to water was chosen as the central issue in the first play because everyone understands what is at stake – life. Access to water is also a human right because of its vital connection with life and the realisation of other human rights. The community will die if BEW close the well. However, the well is also a source of disease; Basanti herself has been sick, and BEW is right that it needs to be cleaned. However, it is not clear Basanti understands that “a tap and a meter” means the water will become a commodity they must pay for, and this subsistence community cannot afford to pay for water. In short, she and the community need your help.

Trevor is ably assisted by the local mayor who translates for him and is keen on the privatisation as it will bring health and jobs. In introducing the mayor we also encounter another common phenomenon which is that affected communities in business human rights cases are often split between those who will benefit from the presence of the company in their community and those who will be disadvantaged. In this case Basanti and her community will die if they close the well, whereas the mayor and his constituency will benefit. The mayor also introduces the corrosive issue of corruption into the mix and the problems that multinational corporations have ensuring that their compliance policies have impact on the ground. From BEW’s point of view they have done everything right: held consultations, provided ample information and notices, engaged with the democratically elected mayor, yet everything is not all right - the village community leader responsible for the well won’t sign the consent form - indeed does not understand why this foolish man wants to kill them.

The play also explores the corporation’s reliance on contract and confidentiality. Trevor's insistence on Basanti signing a consent form, his refusal to let her see the collection rights agreement, and his insistence on protecting those collection rights (here stopping the community collecting water in their mouths) are reflections of real world behaviour by corporations – perhaps most famously in Cochabamba in Bolivia, but also common elsewhere. Therein lies the range of core issues the audience has to try to fix. BEW must get her signature to close the well but she must make sure there is water for the community. If the conflict cannot be resolved then, as the play is scripted - tragedy ensues.