The Narmada River, a sacred artery flowing through the heart of India, has long been revered as a symbol of life and sustenance for millions. Originating in Amarkantak, Madhya Pradesh, it traverses westward through Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Gujarat before emptying into the Arabian Sea. For centuries, communities along its banks have relied on its waters for agriculture, fishing, and their cultural and spiritual practices. However, this ancient river became the epicentre of one of the most prolonged, significant, and contentious environmental and social movements in post-independence India: the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA).

The genesis of the conflict lay in the ambitious Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP), envisioned as a monumental multi-purpose dam project on the Narmada River in Gujarat. Conceived in the mid-20th century as a cornerstone of India’s developmental aspirations, the SSP promised to deliver vast benefits, including irrigation to drought-prone regions, hydroelectric power generation, and drinking water supply. Yet, the sheer scale of the project, necessitating the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people and the submergence of extensive forest and agricultural lands, set the stage for a profound clash between top-down development paradigms and the rights and livelihoods of marginalized communities, giving birth to the formidable Narmada Bachao Andolan.

Context and Origins of the Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP)

The idea of harnessing the Narmada River for irrigation and power generation dates back to the pre-independence era, but it gained significant momentum in the 1940s. Post-independence, with India embarking on a path of planned development, large-scale infrastructure projects like the SSP were seen as temples of modern India, essential for economic growth and poverty alleviation. The project’s primary objectives included providing irrigation to over 1.8 million hectares of land, primarily in the arid and semi-arid regions of Gujarat and Rajasthan, generating 1,450 megawatts of hydroelectric power, and supplying drinking water to 131 towns and 9,633 villages in Gujarat. Proponents argued that the dam was crucial for addressing chronic water scarcity, boosting agricultural productivity, and ensuring energy security for the region.

However, the inter-state nature of the Narmada River, flowing through three major states—Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Gujarat—led to protracted disputes over water sharing and benefit distribution. To resolve these conflicts, the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT) was constituted in 1969. After a decade of deliberations, the NWDT delivered its final award in 1979, laying down the framework for water allocation, the height of the Sardar Sarovar Dam (138.68 meters), and crucial guidelines for the rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) of project-affected people (PAPs). The NWDT award mandated “land-for-land” compensation for all displaced families and underscored the principle of providing R&R benefits simultaneously with the progress of dam construction. Despite the tribunal’s award, the sheer magnitude of displacement—estimated to affect over 250,000 people across 245 villages in the three states, predominantly tribal communities (Adivasis), farmers, and landless labourers—remained a significant humanitarian challenge that the established R&R mechanisms struggled to address adequately.

Emergence of Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA)

The seeds of the Narmada Bachao Andolan were sown in the mid-1980s as initial construction activities for the Sardar Sarovar Project commenced. Early protests primarily emanated from the tribal belt of the Narmada valley in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, where local communities, supported by voluntary organizations, began to voice their concerns over inadequate information, lack of consultation, and the impending loss of their ancestral lands, forests, and livelihoods. These initial fragmented agitations coalesced into a more organized and unified movement under the leadership of prominent social activist Medha Patkar. Patkar, along with local activists and affected people, meticulously documented the socio-economic and ecological impacts of the dam, exposing the discrepancies between the promised R&R and the ground realities.

By 1989, these disparate local struggles converged to form the Narmada Bachao Andolan (Save the Narmada Movement). The NBA rapidly gained momentum, drawing in a diverse coalition of activists, environmentalists, academics, artists, and human rights advocates from across India and internationally. Key figures who lent their support and leadership included the revered Gandhian activist Baba Amte, renowned writer Arundhati Roy, environmentalist Sunderlal Bahuguna, and numerous grassroots organizers. Initially, the NBA’s demands focused primarily on ensuring just and comprehensive rehabilitation and resettlement for all displaced families, advocating for the strict implementation of the NWDT award’s land-for-land policy and opposing forced evictions without proper alternatives.

However, as the movement deepened its understanding of the project’s multifaceted impacts and encountered persistent resistance from the state machinery regarding R&R, its focus evolved. The NBA began to question not just the implementation but the very legitimacy and desirability of large dams as a development model. It challenged the cost-benefit analysis of the SSP, arguing that the environmental and social costs far outweighed the projected benefits. This strategic shift marked a pivotal moment, transforming the NBA from a localized struggle for rehabilitation into a broader socio-environmental movement that challenged the dominant paradigm of development itself, advocating for alternative, more sustainable, and decentralized approaches. The movement employed a range of non-violent methods, including mass rallies, sit-ins (dharnas), hunger strikes, and unique forms of protest like ‘Jal Satyagraha’ (water protest), where protestors stood in the submerging waters to draw attention to their plight.

Core Issues and Arguments of NBA

The Narmada Bachao Andolan’s multifaceted critique of the Sardar Sarovar Project was rooted in compelling arguments regarding its environmental, social, and economic impacts, coupled with concerns about transparency and democratic governance.

Environmental Impact

The NBA meticulously highlighted the catastrophic environmental consequences of the SSP. The construction of a mega-dam of this scale would lead to the submergence of vast tracts of prime forest land, agricultural land, and significant biodiversity. Specifically, it was estimated that over 40,000 hectares of forest, including rich deciduous forests and wildlife habitats, would be lost, threatening numerous species of flora and fauna, many of which were endemic or endangered. The movement argued that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) conducted for the project was flawed and incomplete, failing to adequately account for these irreversible ecological losses.

Furthermore, the NBA pointed to the potential for significant degradation of the riverine ecosystem. The dam would disrupt the natural flow of the Narmada, impacting aquatic life, especially fish migration and breeding patterns. Downstream, the reduced flow would lead to saltwater ingress in the delta region, affecting the delicate estuarine ecosystem and the livelihoods of fishing communities. Concerns were also raised about the potential for reservoir-induced seismicity (RIS), given the region’s geological characteristics, and the long-term impacts of waterlogging and salinization in the command areas due to excessive irrigation, rendering fertile land barren over time. The movement asserted that these environmental costs were largely externalized and not factored into the project’s economic viability.

Social and Human Rights Impact

Perhaps the most potent aspect of the NBA’s critique revolved around the profound social and human rights implications of mass displacement. The project threatened to uproot hundreds of thousands of people, predominantly Adivasis (tribal communities), who have a deep spiritual and cultural connection to their land, forests, and river. For these communities, land is not merely an economic asset but the very foundation of their identity, culture, and social structure. Displacement meant not just loss of physical homes but the disintegration of communities, traditional livelihoods (such as farming, fishing, and collection of forest produce), and centuries-old cultural heritage.

The NBA argued that the R&R policies, despite the NWDT award, were fundamentally flawed and poorly implemented. Promises of “land-for-land” compensation often translated into inadequate, infertile, or distant land, making it impossible for displaced families to rebuild their lives and livelihoods. Many were offered only monetary compensation, which was often insufficient and quickly dissipated, pushing families into deeper poverty and debt. The movement exposed numerous cases of forced evictions, lack of proper consultation, and the psychological trauma and social alienation experienced by the displaced. It asserted that the state had failed to uphold the fundamental rights of these marginalized populations, violating principles of consent, justice, and dignity. The issues of displacement were particularly acute for landless laborers and informal workers, who often fell outside the formal R&R frameworks, receiving no compensation despite losing their means of survival.

Economic Viability and Cost-Benefit Analysis

The NBA challenged the economic rationale presented by the project proponents, arguing that the true costs of the SSP, including environmental degradation, social displacement, and rehabilitation expenses, far outweighed its projected benefits. They highlighted significant cost overruns, delays in project completion, and inefficiencies in water delivery systems. The movement also questioned the reliability of the benefit estimates, particularly the actual area that would receive irrigation and the amount of power generated, suggesting that these figures were often inflated.

Moreover, the NBA proposed and advocated for alternative development models that were more ecologically sound, economically viable, and socially just. They championed decentralized water management systems, local rainwater harvesting, micro-irrigation techniques, and smaller-scale projects that could meet local needs without massive displacement or environmental destruction. Their argument was that the SSP represented an outdated, capital-intensive, and inequitable model of development that disproportionately benefited certain sections of society at the cost of the most vulnerable.

Democratic Process and Transparency

A significant point of contention for the NBA was the lack of transparency and genuine public participation in the decision-making processes surrounding the SSP. The movement argued that affected communities were not adequately informed or consulted before the project commenced. Decisions were made in a top-down manner, without informed consent from those whose lives would be irrevocably altered. The NBA consistently demanded greater accountability from government agencies, transparent environmental and social impact assessments, and a participatory approach to development planning. They alleged that the project’s approvals were often rushed or granted without thorough due diligence, overlooking critical environmental clearances and human rights considerations.

Strategies and Tactics of NBA

The Narmada Bachao Andolan employed a sophisticated and multi-pronged strategy, combining grassroots mobilization with legal advocacy, international lobbying, and public awareness campaigns. This holistic approach distinguished it as a pioneering socio-environmental movement in India.

Grassroots Mobilization

At its core, the NBA was a people’s movement, rooted in the affected villages of the Narmada valley. Its strength lay in its ability to mobilize and sustain resistance among thousands of tribal people, farmers, and landless labourers. The movement organized numerous non-violent direct actions, including:

  • Rallies and Protests: Massive demonstrations were held in state capitals and Delhi, drawing national attention.
  • Dharnas (Sit-ins): Extended sit-ins at dam sites and government offices were a common tactic to halt work or pressure authorities.
  • Jal Satyagraha (Water Protest): A unique form of protest where villagers stood in the rising waters of the Narmada River, symbolizing their determination to face submergence rather than leave their homes without justice. This tactic gained significant media traction.
  • Relief and Rehabilitation Camps: NBA activists also engaged in providing support and organizing affected communities, helping them navigate bureaucratic hurdles for R&R.

Legal Challenges

The NBA effectively utilized the Indian legal system to challenge the project. It filed numerous Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India, demanding proper implementation of R&R, questioning environmental clearances, and seeking judicial intervention to protect the rights of displaced people. The most significant case was Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Others, which led to the landmark Supreme Court judgment in 2000. While this judgment ultimately allowed the dam construction to proceed, it also laid down stringent conditions for R&R and recognized the rights of the displaced, albeit imperfectly.

Advocacy and Lobbying

The NBA engaged extensively in advocacy and lobbying efforts at various levels. They presented their concerns to government committees, engaged with politicians, and sought to influence policy debates on large dams and development. Their representatives participated in international forums, speaking engagements, and conferences to highlight the human and environmental costs of the SSP. They also lobbied the World Bank, a major financier of the project, to review its involvement.

Public Awareness Campaigns

A critical component of the NBA’s strategy was its ability to garner widespread public sympathy and support. They effectively used various media—print, electronic, and social media—to disseminate information about the project’s adverse impacts and the plight of the displaced. Documentaries, books, articles, and cultural performances (songs, plays) were produced to raise awareness. Support from prominent intellectuals, artists, and activists like Arundhati Roy (who wrote extensively on the issue) helped amplify their voice and shape public opinion, both nationally and internationally.

International Pressure and World Bank Withdrawal

One of the NBA’s most significant achievements was its successful campaign to pressure the World Bank. Through persistent lobbying, protests at World Bank offices globally, and extensive documentation of human rights abuses and environmental violations, the NBA managed to draw international scrutiny to the project. This led the World Bank to commission an independent review, known as the Morse Report (1992-93), which severely criticized the project for its inadequate environmental and social planning and implementation. The scathing findings of the Morse Report, coupled with relentless pressure from the NBA and international NGOs, ultimately led the World Bank to withdraw its funding from the Sardar Sarovar Project in 1993, a monumental victory for the movement and a severe blow to the project’s financial viability.

Alternative Visions

Beyond opposition, the NBA also articulated and promoted alternative visions of development. They consistently argued for decentralized, small-scale, and community-led solutions for water management and energy generation, emphasizing ecological sustainability and social equity. This not only provided a constructive alternative but also positioned the movement as a proponent of a different, more humane, and sustainable future.

Key Milestones and Outcomes

The journey of the Narmada Bachao Andolan has been marked by significant milestones, both triumphant and challenging, shaping its legacy as a pivotal socio-environmental movement.

World Bank Withdrawal (1993)

The withdrawal of the World Bank’s funding in 1993 stands as the most significant tangible victory for the NBA. This unprecedented move by an international financial institution, prompted by the independent Morse Report’s damning findings and sustained pressure from the NBA, sent shockwaves through the global development community. It forced a critical re-evaluation of the social and environmental safeguards in large infrastructure projects worldwide and demonstrated the power of grassroots movements to influence global finance. While the project eventually found alternative funding, the World Bank’s pull-out was a moral and symbolic victory for the NBA, validating its core arguments on a global stage.

Supreme Court Judgment (2000)

After years of legal battles, the Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment on the Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Others case in October 2000. In a split verdict, the court allowed the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam to proceed to its full planned height (138.68 meters) but stipulated that construction could only proceed pari passu (simultaneously) with the full rehabilitation and resettlement of affected families. The judgment emphasized that effective R&R measures must be in place before submergence. This verdict was a mixed outcome for the NBA; while it did not stop the dam, it legally entrenched the imperative of rehabilitation, providing a judicial framework for monitoring and ensuring the rights of displaced people, even if its implementation proved challenging.

Ongoing Struggle for Rehabilitation

Even after the Supreme Court judgment and the eventual completion of the dam and its associated canal network, the NBA continued its work, transitioning from a movement primarily focused on stopping the dam to one monitoring R&R implementation and advocating for justice for those still awaiting proper rehabilitation. Cases of incomplete R&R, issues with land allocation, and struggles of displaced people to rebuild their lives persist. The NBA has continued to organize protests, file petitions, and push for accountability regarding the promises made to the displaced. The struggle highlights the enduring challenges of ensuring justice for project-affected communities in large-scale development projects.

Influence on Dam Policies and Environmental Governance

While the SSP was completed, the NBA’s tenacious struggle had a profound and lasting impact on dam policies in India and globally. It spurred a greater emphasis on conducting comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and Social Impact Assessments (SIAs) for large projects. It also led to increased scrutiny of rehabilitation and resettlement policies, pushing for more humane and just compensation frameworks. The movement became a reference point for subsequent environmental and social movements, influencing policy debates on development, displacement, and environmental governance.

Legacy and Significance

The Narmada Bachao Andolan stands as a seminal socio-environmental movement in India, leaving an indelible mark on development discourse, environmental activism, and the landscape of human rights advocacy.

Its primary legacy lies in fostering a paradigm shift in India’s understanding of development. The NBA fundamentally challenged the dominant “big dam, big project” model of development that had been a cornerstone of post-independence economic strategy. It forced a national debate on the costs versus benefits of such projects, questioning who truly benefits and who bears the burden. The movement articulated a critique of development that was not merely economic but also social, ecological, and cultural, promoting more holistic and sustainable alternatives.

The NBA became a potent symbol of environmental justice, demonstrating the inseparable link between environmental degradation and social inequality. It underscored that the environmental costs of development are often disproportionately borne by marginalized communities, particularly indigenous populations and the rural poor. By foregrounding the rights of displaced communities and the ecological sanctity of the Narmada valley, the NBA brought the concept of environmental justice to the forefront of public consciousness in India.

Furthermore, the Andolan played a crucial role in strengthening the rights of displaced persons in India. Through its persistent advocacy and legal battles, it compelled the state to acknowledge the humanitarian crisis caused by forced displacement and pushed for better rehabilitation and resettlement policies. While perfect implementation remained elusive, the NBA undeniably raised the bar for R&R standards and established a precedent for affected communities to demand their rights.

The Narmada Bachao Andolan also showcased the immense power and resilience of civil society organizations and grassroots movements. It demonstrated that organized citizen action, even against formidable state and corporate power, could effectively challenge large-scale projects, influence policy, and draw international attention to local struggles. The movement’s ability to forge broad coalitions, from local villagers to international human rights groups, became a model for future activism.

Finally, the NBA contributed significantly to the democratization of environmental decision-making. By demanding transparency, public hearings, and informed consent, it pushed for greater accountability from government agencies and project proponents. It highlighted the need for participatory planning processes where the voices of those most affected by development projects are genuinely heard and integrated into decision-making, rather than being an afterthought.

In essence, the Narmada Bachao Andolan, while unable to completely halt the Sardar Sarovar Project, achieved immense victories in the realm of public awareness, policy reform, and legal precedents. It transformed the discourse around development, environmental protection, and human rights in India, becoming a beacon for subsequent movements fighting for justice and sustainability against the tide of unsustainable development. Its enduring legacy is a testament to the unwavering spirit of those who stood up for their land, their livelihoods, and the integrity of a sacred river, forever changing the narrative of progress in a developing nation.