Session 2016 - 2021

NARMADA BACHAO
ANDOLAN: A Case Study
LEGAL AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Under the guidance of Mr. Vijayant Sinha

1
 PREFACE

Legal And Research Methodology has become a common name. This course is the
window to see the law and it is the beginning of law students’ transformation into
lawyers. It teaches the students to engage with legal texts, to think critically about
the law, and most importantly, to think, analyze and reason like a lawyer. The
course will familiarize students with theoretical debates on the nature of law and
will acquaint them with their real world consequences.

The topic of research is to case study the Narmada Bachao Andolan.

With the above background, it is hoped that this study shall contribute
towards a better understanding of NARMADA Bachao Andolan.

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Any project completed or done in isolation is unthinkable. This project, although

prepared by me, is a culmination of efforts of a lot of people.

Firstly, I would like to thank our LEGAL AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

teacher Mr. Vijayant Sinha for his valuable suggestions towards the making of this
project.

Further to that, I would also like to express my gratitude towards our seniors who
were a lot of help for the completion of this project.

I would like to express my gratitude towards the library staff for their help also.

Last, but far from the least, I would express my gratitude towards the Almighty for
obvious reasons.

---

3
 Table of Contents

Introduction Chapter 1
#1 research methodology……………………………………………………………………
#2 objectives of study…………………...…………………………………………………..
#3 hypotheses………………………………………………………………………………………..

#4 research questions………………………………………………………………….......…………

Background Chapter 2
#1 definition and case study………………………………………………………………...
#2 statutory provisions………………………………………………………………………

#3 cause and effect…………………………………………………………….……………

Formation Chapter 3

Aftermath. Chapter 4

People involved………………………………………………………….Chapter 5

Conclusion..……………………………………………………………..Chapter 6

Bibliography & Summary Chapter 7

4
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

‘Research’, in simple terms, can be defined as ‘systematic investigation towards increasing the
sum of human knowledge’. It can be defined as “the manipulation of things, concepts of symbols
for the purpose of generalizing to extend, correct or verify knowledge, whether that knowledge
aids in construction of theory or in the practice of an art.”

For this assignment Doctrinal research has been done i.e. Information from various books,
journals, magazines and e-resources have been used for the completion of this assignment.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of the research project is to make a case study of NARMADA Bachao
Andolan and draw implications as to how they could be made effectively flexible.

 To understand the various aspects related to Narmada bachao andolan.

 To study the various implications of Narmada bachao andolan.
 To know the Legal implications and prohibitions of the same.
 To make sure that the root causes were effectively identified.
 To understand the statutes and the prohibitions that was devised for the effective and
efficient tackling of Narmada bachao andolan.
 To know about the various loopholes and the problems in the Narmada bachao andolan.

HYPOTHESES

India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, once called dams the ‘‘temples of modern India.’’
His quixotic analogy is often invoked to support the view that building large dams is essential to
meeting India’s myriad development needs. Though he later retracted his statement and called
large dams ‘‘a disease of gigantism’’ that India must abandon, the drive to build large dams for
the sake of building large dams continues to blind the government to their human and
environmental costs. Nowhere has this rung more true than along the banks of the Narmada
River. The Narmada River traverses three of India’s northwestern states: Gujarat, Madhya
Pradesh, and Maharashtra. In 1978, the Indian government sought the World Bank’s assistance
to build a complex of dams along the river as part of the Narmada Valley Development Project
(‘‘Narmada Project’’). The Narmada Project envisioned the creation of thirty large dams, 135
medium dams, and 3,000 small dams.

5
RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The main questions to be answered are as follows:

 What were the various aspects in the Narmada Bachao Andolan?

 What would have been done to minimize the controversy?
 What were the various investigations carried out in that process?
 What was the role of top management in that procedure?

These are some of the important questions to be answered in this research assignment.

Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) is a social movement consisting of adivasis, farmers,

environmentalists and human rights activists against a number of large dams being built across
the Narmada River, which flows through the states of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and
Maharashtra, all in India. Sardar Sarovar Dam in Gujarat is one of the biggest dams on the river
and was one of the first focal points of the movement.

Their mode of campaign includes hunger strikes and garnering support from film and art
personalities (notably Bollywood actor Aamir Khan). Narmada Bachao Andolan, with its leading
spokespersons Medha Patkar and Baba Amte, received the Right Livelihood Award in 1991.

The construction and maintenance of public facilities involves several sets of stakeholders: the
political leaders who ultimately decide when, whether, and what to build; the engineers and other
government staff who provide or oversee design, construction, and maintenance; the private
firms supplying design, construction, or maintenance services; the taxpayers whose money will
fund the project; the lenders who supply loan funds permitting the project to go ahead in advance
of tax or toll collections; the users of the facility; and nearby residents. The question of which
stakeholders should have what role and influence in the design, construction, and maintenance of
public facilities has become more contentious as they have become larger and affected more
people.

Proposals to construct large dams have inspired considerable contention in the last few decades
as political mobilization of nearby residents who will be displaced by the reservoirs they create
and of environmentalists concerned with the consequences of large dams for the river basin and
nearby forests, wildlife habitat, or farmland have led to demands for greater public information
and participation in project definition and design and greater transparency and accountability in

6
construction, operation, and maintenance. Most dam projects proceed within a single country,
meaning that stakeholders have to secure their influence within the national political system
using whatever processes for citizen mobilization and input that system allows. Yet, some dam
projects have transnational dimensions, either because the project itself involves more than one
country or because the government hoping to build the dams needs loans from outside. These
transnational aspects sometimes allow stakeholders unable to gain much influence in the national
political processes to find outside supporters who pressure the government into listening to the
previously ignored stakeholders.

Contentions over the planning or construction of large dams in developing countries provide
some of the best documented examples of local stakeholders using transnational connections to
secure greater influence in the domestic decision-making and implementing processes. Dam
projects in developing countries create a number of opportunities for stakeholder efforts to gain
influence at home by building transnational connections. No government finances a large dam
project from current tax collections; these are large physical capital investments with costs
beyond the ability of governments to finance from current taxes given all the other demands on
the budget. The governments of industrial countries can easily borrow the money they need for
construction from private investors, but the governments of developing countries often find that
difficult. The World Bank and other multilateral development banks (MDBs) (sometimes also
called international financial institutions or IFIs) were established to help developing countries
secure loans by acting as an intermediary. The MDBs are owned by the governments of member
states, which pay in a certain amount of money (their “quota”) based on their current level of
economic prosperity, meaning that the industrial state members pay in more money and hence
own more shares – and have more votes on the board – than the developing country members.
The MDB uses the paid-in capital as the reserve against which it borrows money on private
investment markets that it then re-lends to the developing country members. Because of the
industrial state backing and borrower promises to give the MDB priority in loan repayment,
private investors are more willing to buy bonds issued by the MDB than bonds issued by an
individual developing country. This allows the MDB to charge borrowing countries lower
interest rates than they would be able to secure on their own.

7
 CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND
After 1947, investigations were carried out to evaluate mechanisms for using water from the
Narmada River, which flows into the Arabian Sea after passing through the states of Madhya
Pradesh, Gujarat. Interstate differences in implementing schemes and sharing of water made the
Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal be constituted by the Government of India on 6 October 1969
to adjudicate over the disputes. The tribunal investigated the matters referred to it and responded
after more than 10 years. On 12 December 1979, the decision as given by the tribunal, with all
the parties at dispute binding to it, was released by the Indian government.

As per the tribunal's decision, 30 major, 135 medium, and 3000 small dams, were granted
approval for construction, including raising the height of the Sardar Sarovar dam.

In 1985, after hearing about the Sardar Sarovar dam, Medha Patkar and her colleagues visited the
project site and noticed that project work being checked due to an order by the Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Government of India. The reasons for this was cited as "non-
fulfillment of basic environmental conditions and the lack of completion of crucial studies and
plans". What she noticed was that the people who were going to be affected were given no
information but the offer for rehabilitation. Still, the villagers had many questions from why their
permission was not taken to whether a good assessment on the ensuing destruction was taken.
Furthermore, the officials related to the project had no answers to their questions. While World
Bank, the financing agency for this project, came into the picture, Patkar approached the
Ministry of Environment to seek clarifications. She realised, after seeking answers from the
ministry, that the project was not sanctioned at all and wondered as to how funds were even
sanctioned by the World Bank. After several studies, they realized that the officials had
overlooked the postproject problems.

Through Patkar's channel of communication between the government and the residents, she
provided critiques to the project authorities and the governments involved. At the same time, her
group realised that all those displaced were given compensation only for the immediate standing
crop and not for displacement and rehabilitation.

8
As Patkar remained immersed in the Narmada struggle, she chose to quit her Ph.D. studies and
focus entirely on the Narmada activity. Thereafter, she organized a 36-day solidarity march
among the neighboring states of the Narmada valley from Madhya Pradesh to the Sardar Sarovar
dam site. She said that the march was "a path symbolizing the long path of struggle (both
immediate and long-term) that [they] really had". The march was resisted by the police, who
according to Patkar were "caning the marchers and arresting them and tearing the clothes off
women activists".

Between the first suggestions for dams on the Narmada made in 1947-48 and the Award of the
Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal in 1979, disputes about what to construct where, were
arguments among three, and later four, state governments within India. The governments of
Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashta, later joined by the government of Rajasthan, argued
about which state could build what size dam where, how the waters made available for irrigation
would be divided among them, and what share of electricity generated by hydroelectric power
plants built in conjunction with the dams would flow to each.

Though the populations and economic situations of the states along the Narmada have changed
over the decades, their primary concerns about the locations and sizes of dams and waterworks
on the Narmada have remained constant:

State Concerns
Gujarat primary: secure irrigation and drinking water to compensate for low rainfall
secondary: hydroelectric supply

Madhya Pradesh primary: limit amount of water others are allowed to take
secondary: limit displacement of villages by downstream dam construction

Maharasthra primary: secure hydroelectricity for its energy-short industrial districts

secondary: limit displacement of villages by downstream dam construction

Rajasthan secure irrigation waters for its dry southwestern districts

Disputes between the states have been so protracted because of competing ideas about the height
of the dam to be built at Navagam. Gujarat favored a higher dam to maximize water supply, but

9
it would flood out a much larger area, extending further into Madhya Pradesh and Maharastha,
than the lower dam preferred by the latter two states. When it became involved later, Rajasthan
also preferred building a higher dam because that was the only way it would get any Narmada
water.

Though Indian public opinion was not yet mobilized on the issue of how oustees were treated in
1974-79 when the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal was pursuing its inquiries and preparing its
findings, its three members were aware of earlier problems. They acknowledged that oustees
would bear a heavy burden for the project and deserved decent recompense. The NWDT Award
sought to avert earlier problems by stipulating explicitly that compensation should be "land for
land" rather than money: each displaced family is to receive land of its choice within the
command area of the dam displacing them equivalent in area to what they were losing, or at
minimum 2 hectares (4.94 acres). Each male 18 years or older is to be treated as the head of a
separate family and allocated land. The initial terms of the Award suggested that compensation
would be provided only for those who held legal title to their land; activists later pressured the
Gujarat state government into extending the program to landless people and to “encroachers”
(people who had simply set up their houses on government-owned land). The tribunal award
required each of the participating states to prepare its own package of resettlement and
rehabilitation benefits, but Gujarat was also required to offer the same benefits to oustees of the
Sardar Sarovar from Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra if they opted to move to Gujarat as the
Tribunal balanced the burden of providing for resettlement with the benefit of the greater water
supply Gujarat would secure from the high Sardar Sarovar dam. The NWDT Award specified
that each resettled family should get a housing plot as well as farmland, and monetary grants in
aid to cover the cost of moving, buying farm implements and draft animals, and insurance. It also
specified that resettlement villages should be provided with a primary school, a panchayat
(village government council) meeting hall, a medical dispensary, a seed store, a children's
playground, a drinking water well, a village pond, and a link road. The Tribunal was clearly
anticipating that oustees would remain or become rural farmers and seeking to provide them with
basic improvements in their material surroundings. The Award did not make any distinction
between adivasis and others among the oustees, even though several Indian laws do treat adivasis
as a distinct category and provide them with certain legal protections for maintenance of their
traditional communal ways of life. Some two thirds of the oustees from the Sardar Sarovar Dam
were adivasis, and they became the centerpiece of the controversy over oustee resettlement.

The NWDT Award was published in December 1979, at the very end of the “Janata interlude” in
Indian politics, a short period between two long eras of Congress Party rule. The Congress Party,

10
which had been in power continuously since independence in 1947, lost the spring 1977
parliamentary elections in a popular rebuke of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's suspension of
many civil liberties during Emergency Rule in 1975-77. However, the coalition that supplanted it
was wracked by internal disagreements and soon faced strikes and other civil strife. This enabled
the Congress factions forming Indira Gandhi's new Congress (I) party to win the next election
and return to power in January 1980. A significant number of younger Indians who had become
alienated from conventional politics during and after Emergency Rule began to channel their
idealism into volunteer activism and work with NGOs. This new generation did not have any
direct experience of the pre-1947 nationalist movement, but draw on the same extensive Indian
repertoire of civil disobedience actions though adopting ideological stances ranging across
socialism, the Gandhian tradition of nonviolence, humanist ideals, and feminism. Yet, whatever
their disagreements all of the activists were committed to fighting for social justice through
grassroots organization, public education, and organized political protest. Much of their
discussion was framed in terms of rights: rights to equality, rights to dignity, rights to be
consulted, rights to be free from exploitation, and rights of both future and present generations to
an undamaged environment. All of these claims are resonated with those of other groups in other
countries who were also seeking alternatives to the existing political, economic, and social order.
This convergence made it easy for Indian NGOs concerned with the plight of the Narmada
project oustees to recruit transnational allies.

By the late 1980s, India was home to one of the most vibrant collection of local civil society
organizations and grassroots activism in the world. As John R. Wood observed:

It is a matter of considerable debate as to whether the proliferation of NGOs in the 1980s, and
into the 1990s and beyond, reflected a failure of India's political system, or rather its success. On
the one hand, NGOs were taking up responsibilities that were originally thought to belong to the
government and which the latter, for reasons of sloth, corruption or unwillingness to disturb the
status quo, had clearly failed to fulfill. On the other hand, the vigorous voluntarism,
outspokenness and self-sacrifice of many NGO activists could only have emerged in an open
political system that encouraged democratic participation and valued rights and freedoms. Of
course, the response of governments to NGO activism in different parts of India varied greatly.
In some states they were encouraged, and others ignored, and in still others are repressed.
Among and within the NGOs also there was considerable disagreement -- between those activists
who wanted to cooperate with government officials, enlist their support and convert them to new
thinking, versus those who saw government officials as the main enemy, whose policies and
projects calls the injustices that NGOs must fight.

11
 CHAPTER 3
FORMATION

There were many groups such as Gujarat-based Arch-Vahini (Action Research in Community
Health and Development) and Narmada Asargrastha Samiti (Committee for people affected by
the Narmada Dam), Madhya Pradesh-based Narmada Ghati Nav Nirman Samiti (Committee for
a New Life in the Narmada Valley) and Maharashtra-Based Narmada Dharangrastha Samiti
(Committee for Narmada Dam-Affected People) who either believed in the need for fair
rehabilitation plans for the people or who vehemently opposed dam construction despite a
resettlement policy.
While Medha Patkar established Narmada Bachao Andolan in 1989, the groups joined this
national coalition of environmental and human rights activists, scientists, academics and project-
affected people with a non-violent approach.

The voluntary associations, NGOs, and community action groups took up the cause of the
oustees first became active in Gujarat. Initial organizing was assisted by activists in Lokayan, an
organization founded by social scientists at the Center for the Study of Developing Societies in
New Delhi seeking to link researchers with activists policy makers and ordinary citizens
affected by development projects. The Lokayan branch in Ahmedabad, Gujarat was particularly
active and other Ahmedabad activists began criticizing the resettlement provisions of the
NWDT Award soon after its publication.

. The Center for Social Studies in Surat got involved in 1981 when the Gujarat government gave
it a contract to monitor the condition of 19 Gujarati villages whose inhabitants would be
displaced by the Sardar Sarovar reservoir. The contract was expanded in 1984 to cover all
resettlement and rehabilitation for all Gujarati oustees. The surveys done by Center sociologists
revealed that the social problems caused by relocation were much larger than anticipated. It was
Center researchers who discovered that many of the oustees were encroachers lacking title to the
land they occupied. They also realized that a majority of the Gujarati oustees were adivasi
familiar only with sustaining themselves by fishing, hunting, and gathering plant foods in a
forest environment. The Center researchers wondered how they would manage to convert from
their largely non-monetized economy in the hills to the modern agriculture envisioned for
resettlement. They were also concerned about finding enough land to permit the adivasi oustees
to move as a village unit so that hamlets of kin groups could be kept intact. By then several
organizations were involved in providing services to adivasi villages so were very familiar with
conditions on the ground.

12
More NGO activity was galvanized by construction of Kevadia, a town of offices and residences
built near the Sardar Sarovar site for engineers and workers involved in its construction. Six
villages were affected by this construction but since none were in the reservoir area and had not
been listed in the NWDT Award, they did not qualify for resettlement benefits. The contractors
building the town sometimes paid compensation to villagers but more often pressured them into
accepting token compensation through agreements they could not read. Their cause was taken
up by Lok Adhikar Sangh (Association for People’s Authority) a civic organization specializing
in legal assistance to the poor. It was able to get the Indian Supreme Court to issue a stay order
stopping construction while court-appointed investigators determined how the oustees were
being treated. This inquiry revealed massive irregularities and prodded the Gujarat government
into realizing that it needed to follow proper expropriation procedures in all project-related
construction activity. Two other organizations, Action Research in Community Health and
Development (ARCH) and Vahini (short for Chhatra Yuva Sangharsh Vahini or Student Your
Struggle Force), already engaged in providing social services in adivasi communities, combined
their efforts to campaign on the villagers’ and dam oustees’ behalf. A third, the Centre for Social
Knowledge and Action (known by its Gujarati acronym as SETU), was formed in 1982 to
provide marginalized groups with training and assistance for self-mobilization.

Though the NGOs and other activists were often in conflict with Gujarat government officials,
the conflict did not get too intense for several reasons. First, many of the NGOs followed the
Gandhian approach to social service and employed only nonviolent opposition methods. This
gave them and their cause legitimacy in Gujarat politics and the government was careful to
avoid actions that would make it look bad. The longer-established NGOs had political and
bureaucratic contacts in the government, and several senior government officials were
sympathetic to the demands they were putting forward. These officials realized fairly soon that
they did not have the administrative capacity needed for relocating thousands of people and
needed the NGOs’ assistance to avert a social disaster. Finally, the NGOs realized that securing
water supply was so important to everyone in Gujarat that all-out opposition to Sardar Sarovar
would weaken support for the oustees.

These early interactions meant that Gujarat was far more prepared to resettle people of the 19
villages it was required to move under the NWDT Award then Madhya Pradesh was to move the
people of its 33 listed villages or Maharashtra to move the people of its 193. NGOs were not
active in either state and the governments did not appear to be getting ready to deal with the
problem. This inspired considerable concern within the Gujarati NGOs who understood the

13
dimensions of the problem and SETU in particular began to expand its activity into Madhya
Pradesh.

The politics of resettlement intensified in Gujarat in March 1984 when massive rallies of
villagers from the 19 affected villages got enough publicity to come to the attention not only of
the government but also of international aid groups including Oxfam and the World Bank.
Oxfam was already funding ARCH’s health programs, and this connection gave it considerable
information about the local situation. The protests also attracted notice of World Bank officials
who were then negotiating the terms of $450 million a startup loan for the Sardar Sarovar Dam.
During the project assessment phase of considering the loan, the World Bank sent Professor
Thayer Scudder, an anthropologist at the California Technical Institute (Caltech) with
considerable expertise on involuntary resettlement, to assess the resettlement provisions.
Scudder's report confirmed most of the Gujarati NGOs’ complaints about the inadequacies of
the tribunal resettlement provisions and became an important weapon in ARCH-Vahini’s battle
with the Gujarat government. Officials at SSNNL quickly realized that ARCH-Vahini and the
oustees could cause a delay in securing the World Bank loan and thereby slow the project. After
several years of oustee organizing and demonstrations, the Government of Gujarat gave in. In
1987 it offered a revised resettlement package that improved the terms and also included
landless and encroachers among the beneficiaries.

Meanwhile the NGO coalition was splitting. ARCH-Vahini was following a pragmatic strategy
of combining constant pressure, implied threats of mass unrest, and willingness to cooperate
with the government if it made significant concessions. Its leaders regarded this as the only
strategy that made sense in Gujarat where the urgent demand for water meant there was broad
popular support for completing the dam as quickly as possible. The 1987 revised resettlement
agreement looked very good on paper; now according to ARCH-Vahini, the task was to make
sure that it was fully implemented. Others rejected the ARCH-Vahini approach as too timid. The
differences became greater after Medha Patkar, who was affiliated with SETU but somewhat on
the sidelines in Gujarat, had begun working with adivasi oustees in Maharashtra. Organizers
from the Communist Party of India (Marxist) were already in the villages, and competing
effectively with them required her to advance more radical views than prevailed among the
Gujarati groups. She attributed her decision to oppose the entire project to a combination of
greater awareness of the environmental problems it was causing, belief that the Forest
Conservation Act 1980 would restrict the ability to resettle oustee adivasi on forest land, and
belief that the project should not have gone forward until after full public consultation with
those who would be affected. She became the central figure in the Narmada Bachao Andolan
(Save the Narmada Movement), which was formed in Maharashtra in 1989 and later spread to
include 150 affiliates in other parts of India and organizations of supporters abroad.

14
Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) organized village committees in the areas of Madhya Pradesh
and Maharashtra that would be affected by Sardar Sarovar and other dams on the Narmada, and
succeeded in maintaining a coalition between adivasis in Maharasthra and western Madhya
Pradesh and members of the landowning Patidar caste in the plains. It registered its opposition
to the Narmada Project on human rights and environmental grounds and staged a series of
demonstrations, road blockades, and sit-ins against its continuation. The NBA’s success at
getting Prime Minister V.P. Singh to agree to reconsider the Narmada Project in March 1990
sparked a fierce counter-reaction in Gujarat, where state government officials and newly formed
pro-Project civic organizations mobilized to support construction. January 1991 was marked by
a 21-day confrontation between some 5000 NBA activists and supporters on one side and
Gujarat police plus thousands of pro-dam demonstrators on the other at Ferkuva on the Gujarat-
Madhya Pradesh border, where the NBA group had been stopped before they could reach the
Sardar Sarovar site. Baba Amte, a Gandhian social worker greatly respected everywhere in India
for his longtime work with lepers, set the stage for an extended confrontation by announcing a
“dharna (fasting sit-in) unto death” on the 5th. Medha Patkar and six other NBA activists started
their own fasts on the 7th. Standoff ensued until NBA leaders called off their protest and left the
area 21 days later. NBA then began a noncooperation campaign in the Narmada Valley
involving refusal to pay taxes and blocking entry to all government officials except teachers and
doctors. As Narmada waters backed up behind the partly constructed Sardar Sarovar Dam and
threatened Manibeli village in Maharashtra, NBA also organized a confrontation between
villagers who did not want to move and police sent to clear the village.

NBA initially refused to accept foreign funding, because doing so would open it to one of the
most common charges in Indian politics: that it is the agent of outside powers.9 However, it did
garner international media attention, an invitation to testify at a US Congressional hearing,10
and the Right Livelihood Award from the Swedish Right Livelihood Foundation. In the early
1990s, it also had tacit support from the Madhya Pradesh and Maharasthra governments because
its opposition to dam construction dovetailed with their concerns about the ultimate height of the
Sardar Sarovar Dam and succeeded in triggering debate all around India about the social and
environmental impacts of the Narmada River Project and large dams more generally.

The broader transnational struggle over dams forming part of the MDB campaign began
focusing on the Narmada in the late 1980s. By 1989, campaigners were demanding that the
World Bank, which was considering additional loans for the Sardar Sarovar Project -- $350
million for canal construction and $90 million for environmental measures – either force
modification of or refuse to support the project. Transnational environmentalist and human

15
rights NGO campaigning led several Western governments to indicate doubts about the loans. In
response, the World Bank commissioned an Independent Review of Indian and state
government implementation of the resettlement and environmental mitigation aspects of the
Sardar Sarovar Project. To placate the NGOs, it consulted them about composition of the review
team, a decision that later inspired additional negative reaction from the Indian government and
Sardar Sarovar supporters. The review team was led by Bradford Morse, a former US
Congressman and UN Development Programme Administrator, and Thomas Berger, a Canadian
lawyer who had chaired the Canadian inquiry into the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Project and
given strong support to indigenous peoples’ rights, and included a group of mainly Canadian
engineers, environmental planners and indigenous rights experts. In June 1992 after 10 months
of inquiry, it issued a 363-page report criticizing the project for failure to:

a) include adequate assessment of the human impact of Sardar Sarovar Dam,

b) involve any consultation with those who would be affected,

c) consider the character of adivasi culture in working out resettlement plans,

d) provide adequate additional resettlement when the height of the dam was increased,

e) pay sufficient attention to environmental factors in the initial project design, and

f) comply with the stipulations included in the conditional clearance issued by the Indian
Ministry of Environment and Forests in 1987

16
 CHAPTER 4
AFTERMATH

Within the focus of the NBA towards the stoppage of the Sardar Sarovar Dam, Patkar advised
adding the World Bank to its propaganda. Using the right to fasting, she undertook a 22-day fast
that almost took her life. In 1991, Patkar's actions led to an unprecedented independent review
by the World Bank. The Morse Commission, appointed in June 1991 at the recommendation of
World Bank President Barber Conable, conducted its first independent review of a World Bank
project. This independent review stated that "performance under these projects has fallen short
of what is called for under Bank policies and guidelines and the policies of the Government of
India". It resulted in the Indian government pulling out of its loan agreement with the World
Bank. Patkar said, "It is very clear and obvious that they used this as a face-saving device",
suggesting that if it were not to happen, the World Bank eventually would have withdrawn the
loan. The World Bank's participation in these projects was cancelled in 1995.

She undertook a similar fast in 1993 and resisted evacuation from the dam site. In 1994, the
Narmada Bachao Andolan office was attacked reportedly by a couple of political parties, and
Patkar and other activists were physically assaulted and verbally abused. In protest, a few NBA
activists and she began a fast; 20 days later, they were arrested and forcibly fed intravenously.

However, NBA’s continuing resistance to any dam construction was beginning to get out of
phase with Indian opinion. This became more obvious in the summer of 1999 when novelist
Arundhati Roy, well known after her The God of Small Things won the Booker Prize in the UK,
wrote a series of essays on the Sardar Sarovar Project. These emphasized the suffering of the
oustees in eloquent terms but paid no attention to the water management issues. Their
publication coincided with the second year of failed monsoons and severe drought in Gujarat,
and they became the target of criticism by others – and even of public burning during pro-dam
demonstrations in Ahmedabad. 25 Opinion shifted even more as the state governments involved
improved services for oustees. Gujarat offered to provide the same financial aid to Sardar
Sarovar oustees in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra who wanted to settle near their original
homes rather than move to Gujarat. Gujarat also established a special Grievance Redressal
Authority (GRA) for Sardar Sarovar Affected Persons giving oustees who had moved to new
homes in Gujarat a place to go to get complaints resolved as the resettlement process moved
forward. Its head, former High Court Judge P.D. Desai, secured strong guarantees of autonomy
from the Gujarat government and instituted processes through which the GRA simplified
procedures and worked mainly through roving investigation teams who went to the oustee’s new

17
villages. NBA praised its work, and Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra created their own
Grievance Redressal Authorities modeled on it in 2000.

DECISION

The court initially ruled for Andolan, effecting an immediate stoppage of work at the dam and
directing the concerned states to complete the rehabilitation and replacement process.

It deliberated on this issue further for several years but finally upheld the Tribunal Award and
allowed the construction to proceed, subject to conditions. The court introduced a mechanism to
monitor the progress of resettlement pari passu with the raising of the height of the dam through
the Grievance Redressal Authorities (GRA) in each party state. The decision referred in this
document, given in 2000 after seven years of deliberations, has paved the way for completing
the project to attain full envisaged benefits. The court's final line of the order states, "Every
endeavour shall be made to see that the project is completed as expeditiously as possible".

Subsequent to the verdict, Press Information Bureau (PIB) featured an article:

"The Narmada Bachao Andolan has rendered a yeoman's service to the country by creating a
high-level of awareness about the environmental and rehabilitation and relief aspects of Sardar
Sarovar and other projects on the Narmada. But, after the court verdict it is incumbent on it to
adopt a new role. Instead of 'damning the dam' any longer, it could assume the role of vigilant
observer to see that the resettlement work is as humane and painless as possible and that the
environmental aspects are taken due care of."

The majority decision left the control institutions established by the NWDT – the Narmada
Control Authority and the 6-member NCA Review Committee consisting of the chief ministers
of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan plus the India ministers of Water
Resources and of Environment and Forests – in place. It concluded the ruling with these
directions:

18
1) Construction of the dam will continue as per the Award of the Tribunal.

2) As the Relief and Rehabilitation Sub-group have cleared the construction up to 90 meters,
the same can be undertaken immediately. Further raising of the height will be only pari passu
with the implementation of the relief and rehabilitation and on the clearance by the Relief and
Rehabilitation Sub-group. The Relief and Rehabilitation Sub-Group will give clearance of
further construction after consulting the three Grievances Redressal Authorities.

3) The Environment Sub-group under the Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forests,
Government of India will consider and give, at each stage of the construction of the dam,
environment clearance before further construction beyond 90 meters can be undertaken.

4) The permission to raise the dam height beyond 90 meters will be given by the Narmada
Control Authority, from time to time, after it obtains the above-mentioned clearances from the
Relief and Rehabilitation Sub-group and the Environment Sub-group.

5) The reports of the Grievances Redressal Authorities, and of Madhya Pradesh in

particular, shows that there is a considerable slackness in the work of identification of land,
acquisition of suitable land and the consequent steps necessary to be taken to rehabilitate the
project oustees. We direct the States of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat to implement
the Award and give relief and rehabilitation to the oustees in terms of the packages offered by
them and these States shall comply with any direction in this regard which is given either by the
NCA or the Review Committee or the Grievances Redressal Authorities.

6) Even though there has been substantial compliance with the conditions imposed under the
environment clearance the NCA and the Environment Sub-group will continue to monitor and
ensure that all steps are taken not only to protect but to restore and improve the environment.

7) The NCA will within four weeks from today draw up an Action Plan in relation to further
construction and the relief and rehabilitation work to be undertaken. Such an Action Plan will
fix a time frame so as to ensure relief and rehabilitation pari passu with the increase in the height
of the dam. Each State shall abide by the terms of the action plan so prepared by the NCA and in
the event of any dispute or difficulty arising, representation may be made to the Review
Committee. However, each State shall be bound to comply with the directions of the NCA with

19
regard to the acquisition of land for the purpose of relief and rehabilitation to the extent and
within the period specified by the NCA.

8) The Review Committee shall meet whenever required to do so in the event of there being
any un-resolved dispute on an issue which is before the NCA. In any event the Review
Committee shall meet at least once in three months so as to oversee the progress of construction
of the dam and implementation of the R&R programmes. If for any reason serious differences in
implementation of the Award arise and the same cannot be resolved in the Review Committee,
the Committee may refer the same to the Prime Minister whose decision, in respect thereof,
shall be final and binding on all concerned.

9) The Grievances Redressal Authorities will be at liberty, in case the need arises, to issue
appropriate directions to the respective States for due implementation of the R&R programmes
and in case of nonimplementation of its directions, the GRAs will be at liberty to approach the
Review Committee for appropriate orders.

10) Every endeavor shall be made to see that the project is completed as expeditiously as
possible.

The continuing severity of demand for water in Gujarat meant that as soon as the Supreme Court
handed down its judgment in 2000 construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam resumed. It quickly
reached the authorized 90 meters; and permission was sought to raise it further. It stood 95m
high by the end of 2002 and 100 meters high in 2003. The 100-meter height created a reservoir
high and long enough to fill the irrigation canal. By the end of 2005 that canal was complete
almost to the Gujarat border, with construction of the extension into Rajasthan under way.

20
 CHAPTER 5

PEOPLE INVOLVED

Amongst the major celebrities who have shown their support for Narmada Bachao Andolan are
Booker Prize winner Arundhati Roy and Aamir Khan.

In 1994 was the launch of Narmada: A Valley Rises, by filmmaker Ali Kazimi. It documents the
five-week Sangharsh Yatra of 1991. The film went on to win several awards and is considered
by many to be a classic on the issue. In 1996, veteran documentary filmmaker, Anand
Patwardhan, made an award-winning documentary: A Narmada Diary. Alok Agarwal, current
member of the Aam Aadmi Party, is an active figure in the movement.

Bihar CM Nitish Kumar participated in rally organised by NBA on the bank of Narmada at
Rajghat on 16th Sep 2016. Expressing Solidarity with the Andola Mr. Nitish Kumar said “I have
come from Patna to extend support to the agitation on the side of river Narmada here,”

Supporting the NBA's maind demand Mr Nitish Kumar appealed PM Mr Modi at Rajghat
saying "Pradhan Mantri ji, don't close the gates of Sardar Sarovar Dam. Rehabilitate people not
by giving cash, but giving them alternative land/employment. Don't make plans to drown 2.5
lakh people by closing the gates," he said in a statement released in Barwani

MEDHA PATKAR

Medha Patkar was born in Mumbai, India to Indu and Vasant Khanolkar, a trade union leader
and freedom fighter. She was raised by politically and socially active parents. Her father
actively fought in the Indian Independence Movement. Her mother was a member of Swadar, an
organization setup to help and assist women suffering difficult circumstances arising out of
financial, educational, and health related problems. Her parents’ activism played a role in

21
shaping her philosophical views. She did her M.A. in Social Work from Tata Institute of Social
Sciences (TISS).

Medha Patkar is one of the recipients of Right Livelihood Award for the year 1991. She
received the 1999 M.A.Thomas National Human Rights Award from Vigil India Movement.
She has also received numerous other awards, including the Deena Nath Mangeshkar Award,
Mahatma Phule Award, Goldman Environment Prize, Green Ribbon Award for Best
International Political Campaigner by BBC, and the Human Rights Defender’s Award from
Amnesty International. She was also a Commissioner to the World Commission on Dams.

BABA AMTE

Murlidhar Devidas Amte, popularly known as Baba Amte was an Indian social worker and
social activist known particularly for his work for the rehabilitation and empowerment of poor
people suffering from leprosy.

Amte was born to Devidas and Laxmibai Amte in the town of Hinganghat in Wardha District of
Maharashtra. The family was a wealthy jagirdar Brahmin family. His father was also a British
official with responsibilities for district administration and revenue collection.

In 1990, Amte left Anandwan for a while to live along the Narmada River and join Medha
Patkar‘s Narmada Bachao Andolan (“Save Narmada” Movement), which fought against both
unjust displacement of local inhabitants and damage to the environment on account of the
construction of the Sardar Sarovar dam on the Narmada river.

22
 CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

The Narmada dam’s benefits include provision of drinking water, power generation and
irrigation facilities. However, the campaign led by the NBA activists has held up the project’s
completion, and the NBA supporters have indulged in physical attacks on local people who
accepted compensation for moving. Others have argued that the Narmada Dam protesters are
little more than environmental extremists who use pseudoscientific agitprop to scuttle the
development of the region, and that the dam will provide agricultural benefits to millions of
poor in India.

There had also been instances of the NBA activists turning violent and attacking rehabilitation
officer from Narmada Valley Development Authority (NVDA), which caused damage to the
contractor's machinery.

The NBA has been accused of lying under oath in court about land ownership in areas affected
by the dam. The Supreme Court has mulled perjury charges against the group.

However, later reports suggested that the state was still offering monetary compensation In
2006, NBA complained that Madhya Pradesh was persisting in ignoring the land for land
principle and failing to provide resettlement in advance of construction. Madhya Pradesh
officials contended in return that most of the oustees wanted money rather than land. The same
issue that had triggered the initial NBA activism -- fair treatment for those whose homes would
be lost to rising waters -- was still very much alive despite all the changes in Indian politics and
in Indian policy regarding water management over the more than 20 years of contention. Similar
contentions swirl around construction of the other large Narmada dams.

23
 CHAPTER 7
SUMMARY

Narmada Bachao Andolan is the most powerful mass movement, started in 1985, against the
construction of huge dam on the Narmada river. Narmada is the India's largest west flowing
river, which supports a large variety of people with distinguished culture and tradition ranging
from the indigenous (tribal) people inhabited in the jungles here to the large number of rural
population. The proposed Sardar Sarovar Dam and Narmada Sagar will displace more than
250,000 people. The big fight is over the resettlement or the rehabilitation of these people. The
two proposals are already under construction, supported by US$550 million loan by the world
bank. There are plans to build over 3000 big and small dams along the river.

Narmada Bachao Andolan It is a multi crore project that will generate a big revenue for the
government. The Narmada Valley Development plan is the the most promised and most
challenging plan in the history of India. The proponents are of the view that it will produce 1450
MW of electricity and pure drinking water to 40 million people covering thousand of villages
and towns. Some of the dams have been already been completed such as Tawa and Bargi Dams.
But the opponents says that this hydro project will devastate human lives and bio diversity by
destroying thousand of acres of forests and agricultural land. On the other hand it will overall
deprive thousands of people of their livelihood. They believe that the water and energy could be
provided to the people through alternative technological means, that would be ecologically
beneficial.

Led by one of the prominent leader Medha Patkar, it has now been turned into the International
protest, gaining support from NGO'S all around the globe. Protestors are agitating the issue
through the mass media, hunger strikes, massive marches, rallies and the through the on screen
of several documentary films. Although they have been protesting peacefully, but they been
harassed, arrested and beaten up by the police several times. The Narmada Bachao Andolan has
been pressurizing the world bank to withdraw its loan from the project through media.

The strong protests through out the country not only made impact on the local people but has
also influenced the several famous celebrities like film star Aamir Khan , who has made open
efforts to support Narmada Bachao Andolan. He said he only want that those who have been

24
rendered homeless should be given a roof. He pleaded to the common people to take part in the
moment and come up with the best possible solutions.

25
BIBLIOGRAPHY

26