Edit Case Study: Conflicts over development in India's Narmada River Basin

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Users, Administrators / Sysops, Volunteer Administrators, confirmed-user.
The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: confirmed-user, editors, Administrators / Sysops, Volunteer Administrators.

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Users, Administrators / Sysops, Volunteer Administrators, confirmed-user.
The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: confirmed-user, editors, Administrators / Sysops, Volunteer Administrators.

Descriptive terms, facts, and summary for this case.

Each of these checkboxes or numerical values are designed to support semantic search. Please provide thoughtful answers that relate closely to your case and would assist others in searching for this case or common elements between cases. You can elaborate on these responses in other "free text" sections of your case. If you add comments to numerical fields in this page, they won't be recorded or displayed properly.

Water Use:	Indicate 3 – 5 uses of water most important to this case study:
	Select allSelect none Agriculture or Irrigation Domestic/Urban Supply Fisheries - wild Fisheries - farmed Hydropower Generation Industry - consumptive use Industry - non-consumptive use Livestock Mining/Extraction support Other Ecological Services Recreation or Tourism
Land Use:	Indicate 2 – 5 land use terms most important to this case study:
	Select allSelect none agricultural- cropland and pasture agricultural- confined livestock operations conservation lands industrial use mining operations forest land rangeland urban urban- high density religious/cultural sites
Climate:	Select any climate descriptors that may describe relevant climate types present in the case study region
	Select allSelect none Moist tropical (Köppen A-type) Semi-arid/steppe (Köppen B-type) Arid/desert (Köppen B-type) Humid mid-latitude (Köppen C-type) Continental (Köppen D-type) Moist Monsoon Dry-summer Dry-winter cold-climate (permafrost, tundra, polar) temperate alpine

Case Population: Total population for this case -- this could be watershed population, a population of a geographic area, or a combination of these types of statistics -- How many people were/are affected? million

Total Area : Total area for this case -- this might be a sum of watersheds/aquifers recharge area/ or a simple geographic area km²

Map Location Choose a location to place a marker that will represent this case on a map. You can enter the coordinates directly, or click on the map, or enter an address and choose "Look up coordinates." The coordinates will be stored when you save this page.

This page can't load Google Maps correctly.

Do you own this website?

This is the end of the Case Description section. Consider previewing or saving your changes and continue to other sections using the tabs above.

Issues are the concerns of groups of stakeholders within the context of the water basin and the case study. Some issues may be extremely significant, and some may be peripheral to your particular perspective or framework.

Each issue has a specific group of stakeholders. Stakeholders are organizations or powerful individuals who may have input into the process or may bear the results of management decisions in the water basin. The stakeholders for a given issue are those who have a primary concern in its outcome.

Issue:
Provide a short description of your issue: (eg: “ensuring adequate flows for specific ecosystem services”)

Description:

Natural/Societal/Political Domain Variables:

Water Quantity Water Quality Ecosystems Governance Assets Values and Norms	allocation, competitive use, climate influence/uncertainty
	quality for a given purpose, quality from the viewpoint of a stakeholder
	ecosystem services, biodiversity, ecological communities, environmental considerations
	institutions, entities, legal frameworks
	specific human or economic assets
	social value or cultural norm

Stakeholder Types:
Select allSelect none Federated state/territorial/provincial government Sovereign state/national/federal government Local Government Supranational union Non-legislative governmental agency Development/humanitarian interest Environmental interest Industry/Corporate Interest Community or organized citizens Cultural Interest

Issue:
Provide a short description of your issue: (eg: “ensuring adequate flows for specific ecosystem services”)

Description:

{{{!}} class="wikitable" style="width: 95%;"
{{!}}-
! scope="col" width="19%" {{!}} Stakeholder groups
! scope="col" width="19%" {{!}} Water for irrigation for agriculture 
! scope="col" width="19%" {{!}} Drinking water for drought-prone areas
! scope="col" width="19%" {{!}} Hydropower generation
! scope="col" width="19%" {{!}} Water for irrigation for agriculture 
{{!}}-
{{!}} [[India|Government of India]] {{!}}{{!}} High priority. {{!}}{{!}} Not originally part of plans. {{!}}{{!}} High priority. {{!}}{{!}} No national resettlement and rehabilitation policy. Established a package and guidelines through the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award, but left implementation and interpretation up to the states. Defines eligibility as exclusively those who have formal titles to land, landless and “encroachers” are not entitled to compensation.
{{!}}-
{{!}} Gujarat	 {{!}}{{!}} Highest priority. Large areas of the state are drought-prone, and decades of policies encouraging land formerly used for grazing to be used for agriculture created high need for irrigation. Also encouraging growing water-intensive crops like sugar to build sugar processing industry along river. {{!}}{{!}} Not in original plans, but became a high priority when Gujarat realized the political power of using drinking water provision as justification for construction of the dam. {{!}}{{!}} High priority. Has contracts with sugar processing plants along river to provide electricity. {{!}}{{!}} Package goes beyond minimum requirements of NWDT award, includes land-for-land replacement for prior land-holders, landless, and “encroachers.” Defines “Project-Affected Persons” narrowly, so many left without compensation.
{{!}}-
{{!}} Maharashtra {{!}}{{!}} Not a priority. {{!}}{{!}} Not a priority. {{!}}{{!}} Highest priority. {{!}}{{!}} Package goes beyond minimum requirements of NWDT award, provides mix of land and monetary compensation.
{{!}}-
{{!}} Madhya Pradesh {{!}}{{!}} Not a priority. {{!}}{{!}} Not a priority. {{!}}{{!}} Highest priority. {{!}}{{!}} Package goes beyond minimum requirements of NWDT award, including land-for-land replacement, but lack of available land and narrow definition of “Project-Affected Persons” has left many Adivasis, the vast majority of PAPs, without any compensation.
{{!}}-
{{!}} Rajasthan {{!}}{{!}} Highest priority. Extremely arid state. {{!}}{{!}} Highest priority. Extremely arid state. {{!}}{{!}} Not allocated share of hydropower. {{!}}{{!}} Very few “Project Affected Persons.”
{{!}}-
{{!}} World Bank {{!}}{{!}} Priority, but did not fund drainage system for land traditionally farmed based on monsoon cycle that would transition to being irrigated. {{!}}{{!}} Not part of original plans. {{!}}{{!}} Secondary priority to irrigation. {{!}}{{!}} Not originally a priority. Approved loan before environmental impact assessment was completed. Withdrew from the project after independent review showed negligence on the part of the government and the World Bank in protecting human rights and the environment.
{{!}}-
{{!}} Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) {{!}}{{!}} The NBA questions the fundamental premise of the states’ and central government’s development agenda. {{!}}{{!}} Questions whether this will actually happen. {{!}}{{!}} Questions legitimacy of estimates for hydropower production. {{!}}{{!}} Highest priority.
{{!}}-
{{!}} International Environmental NGOs {{!}}{{!}} Questions legitimacy of estimates. {{!}}{{!}} Questions legitimacy of estimates. {{!}}{{!}} Questions legitimacy of estimates. {{!}}{{!}} Highest priority. Successfully pressured governments with financial interests in the Sardar Sarovar project to disinvest. Brought NBA’s cause to world stage, pressured World Bank to conduct independent investigation.
{{!}}}

Natural/Societal/Political Domain Variables:

Water Quantity Water Quality Ecosystems Governance Assets Values and Norms	allocation, competitive use, climate influence/uncertainty
	quality for a given purpose, quality from the viewpoint of a stakeholder
	ecosystem services, biodiversity, ecological communities, environmental considerations
	institutions, entities, legal frameworks
	specific human or economic assets
	social value or cultural norm

Stakeholder Types:
Select allSelect none Federated state/territorial/provincial government Sovereign state/national/federal government Local Government Supranational union Non-legislative governmental agency Development/humanitarian interest Environmental interest Industry/Corporate Interest Community or organized citizens Cultural Interest

The greatest value of any case study is the ability to identify transferable knowledge, particularly identifying the context and usefulness of this knowledge. Select a few questions from the question bank and provide a brief synopsis on the contributions this case study makes to providing more insight or answering this question.

Key Question:

Question Categories:

Question:

Description

Because multiple cases can require an understanding of the same basic facts about

water features such as a basin (watershed), minor rivers, lakes, groundwater resources, etc;
projects, such as built infrastructure or organizational initiatives (such as a commission); and
agreements and treaties

each case can be linked to new or existing articles containing background information on these topics. This way, individual natural features, projects and initiatives, or agreements do not need to be explained in great detail in the body of every case.

If an article exists, you can enter the title (e.g.: Ganges River, Mekong River Commission, Glen Canyon Dam, Indus Water Treaty), and it will be automatically linked to the case study. If the article does not exist, a new page will automatically be created for the feature. You will be able to see/edit that page by clicking the link when viewing your saved case study.

We suggest looking at the existing list of features, projects, and agreements to see if relevant sections already exist for your case.

Water Features, such as rivers, wetlands, or lakes:

Water Features

Narmada River

Narmada River Basin

Riparian States/Countries:

Relevant Riparians

India

Indigenous Population

Gujarat, India

Maharashtra, India

Madhya Pradesh, India

Water Infrastructure Projects or Organizational Initiatives:

Water Projects

Sardar Sarovar Dam

Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal

Narmada Control Authority

Narmada Valley Development Authority

Agreements or Treaties:

Agreement or Treaty

Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award

Interstate River Water Disputes Act

Forest Conservation Act

Image Upload - open the image upload page in a new tab:
Upload a File View all Files
You can find or upload a file and then return here.

To insert an image in your text, type: [[File:filename.jpg]]

== History ==
=== Timeline of Narmada River Development ===

{{{!}} class="wikitable" style="width: 95%;"
{{!}}-
! scope="col" width="8%" {{!}} Date
! scope="col" width="75%" {{!}} Event Description
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1901 {{!}}{{!}} First Indian Irrigation Commission proposes construction of a dam on the Narmada River. 
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1947 {{!}}{{!}} Independence from Great Britain.

Investigations begin into Narmada’s potential for irrigation and hydropower by the Central Waterways, Irrigation and Navigation Commission, which recommends several sites in Gujarat.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1956 {{!}}{{!}} Commission selects a site near village Gora in Gujarat for Broach Project on Narmada River.

Anticipating interstate water disputes because of changing state borders, Parliament passes the [[Interstate River Water Disputes Act]] (Article 262 of the constitution), which provides a role for the central government in adjudicating conflicts surrounding interstate rivers. Elaborates dispute resolution process, involving forming an interstate tribunal. 
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1960 {{!}}{{!}} Bifurcation of Bombay state along linguistic lines into states of Gujarat and Maharashtra. 
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1961 {{!}}{{!}} Government of Gujarat gives approval for Narmada Valley Project. The project includes plans for 3,165 small, medium, and large dams. Prime Minister Jawalarl Nehru lays foundation stone for the project. 
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1963 {{!}}{{!}} Gujarat plans to raise the height of the largest planned dam at Navagam village to maximize storage benefits and extend irrigation to drought-prone areas near the Arabian sea coast, at the cost of submergence of potential planned hydropower sites in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. Dispute arises between the states over water and power sharing. 
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1964 {{!}}{{!}} Indian central government appoints a high level committee to resolve dispute, which prepares a basin master plan involving the construction of 12 major projects in Madhya Pradesh and the Navagam dam in Gujarat. Gujarat endorses proposal, but Maharashtra refuses to support it.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1969 {{!}}{{!}} After negotiations fail to resolve dispute, the [[Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal]] (NWDT) is formed, according to the [[Interstate River Water Disputes Act|IRWD]].
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1976 {{!}}{{!}} Prime Minister Indira Gandhi adds article 48A to the constitution: “The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.”
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1979 {{!}}{{!}} [[Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal]] gives its award, considering development of water resources as a whole, allocating shares of water and hydropower from the Sardar Sarovar dam project (renamed from Navagam dam). Partial share of the water allocated to a nonriparian state, Rajasthan. Award also determines usable flow of the river to be 27,000,000 acre feet (33 km3). Cost sharing formula, rehabilitation and resettlement package with costs borne by Gujarat, and regulated release requirement by Madhya Pradesh also included.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1980 {{!}}{{!}} [[Narmada Control Authority]] (NCA) established to manage [[Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award|award]] of the [[Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal|NWDT]].

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi issues a directive mandating environmental impact assessments by federal agencies for medium and major irrigation projects, including dams.

Indian Parliament passes the [[Forest Conservation Act]] and creates the Federal Department of the Environment.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1985  {{!}}{{!}} Federal Department of Environment upgraded to the Ministry of environment and Forests.

World Bank approves $450 million loan to India for Sardar Sarovar. Residents affected by the dam organize protest movement.

[[Narmada Valley Development Authority]] (NVDA) set up for construction of Narmada projects in Madhya Pradesh.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1986 {{!}}{{!}} Parliament enacts Environmental Protection Act.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1987 {{!}}{{!}} Construction begins on Sardar Sarovar dam.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1988 {{!}}{{!}} Gujarat state government creates public company Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam (SSNL) to operate the dam.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1991 {{!}}{{!}} [[Narmada Control Authority|NCA]] releases submergence schedule for each of the three states, corresponding to different heights of dam during construction.

World Bank announces it will institute an Independent Review of the Sardar Sarovar Projects, unprecedented in its history.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1992 {{!}}{{!}} Independent Review, the “Morse Report,” published. Criticizes resettlement and rehabilitation process, inadequacy of environmental impact assessment. Recommends World Bank “step back from the projects and consider them afresh.”

World Bank continues to fund project, asks Indian to meet basic conditions within 6 months.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1993 {{!}}{{!}} Indian government asks World Bank to withdraw funding. Citing project irregularities, World Bank withdraws from Sardar Sarovar. 
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1994 {{!}}{{!}} The Narmada Bachao Andolan, a coalition of people’s movements in areas scheduled to be submerged, files a civil writ petition in the Supreme Court of India, questioning the basis of the Sardar Sarovar Dam and seeking a stay on the construction. 
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1995 {{!}}{{!}} India’s Supreme Court suspends construction of the dam, on grounds that the rehabilitation of displaced people had not been adequate. 
{{!}}-
{{!}} 1999 {{!}}{{!}} Governments of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra set up a Grievance Redressal Authority (GRA). 
{{!}}-
{{!}} 2000 {{!}}{{!}} Supreme Court allows building construction to continue up to 90 meters (295 ft.). Additional construction to the dam’s planned height of 138 meters (453 ft.) requires approval by the [[Narmada Control Authority|NCA]] in five-meter (16 ft.) increments.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 2002 {{!}}{{!}} Narmada Bachao Andolan protest movement reports est. 30,000 families not resettled.

[[Narmada Control Authority|NCA]] gives permission to raise height of dam from 90 to 95 meters.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 2003 {{!}}{{!}} [[Narmada Control Authority|NCA]] gives permission to raise height of dam from 95 to 100 meters.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 2004 {{!}}{{!}} [[Narmada Control Authority|NCA]] gives permission to raise height of dam from 100 to 110.64 meters.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 2006 {{!}}{{!}} [[Narmada Control Authority|NCA]] gives permission to raise height of dam from 110.64 to 121.92 meters.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 2011 {{!}}{{!}} [[Narmada Control Authority|NCA]] gives permission to raise height of dam from 121.92 to the full 138.64 meters, but Gujarat is blocked from continuing construction because of 400 Project-Affected families in Maharashtra.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 2013 {{!}}{{!}} Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh declare rehabilitation and resettlement complete in their states. All four states agree to recommend to [[Narmada Control Authority|NCA]] that construction continue to 138.64 meters.
{{!}}-
{{!}} 2014 {{!}}{{!}} Planning begins for the Statue of Unity, a 182-meter (nearly 600ft) monument that will directly face the Sardar Sarovar dam.
{{!}}}

== Ecological and Geographical Background ==
===Narmada River===
*Begins in Amarkantak, Madhya Pradesh
:“Lifeline of Madhya Pradesh”
:
*Extends 1,312 km from Madhya Pradesh to the Arabian Sea
*5th longest river in Indian subcontinent
===Narmada River Basin===
*Narmada Basin covers 98,796 km2 (38,145.3 miles2), runs through 3 states:
:*Madhya Pradesh: 86%
:*Gujarat: 14%
:*Maharashtra: 2%
*One of the 5 holy rivers of India:
:*Amarkantak called “gateway to Nirvana”
:
*Population
:*16,245,666 (2001 census)
:*Over 60% Adivasi (indigenous)
:*Mostly rural
*Varied climate, from arid to humid and tropical
:Important agricultural area
:
==== Map 1. Location of the Narmada Basin ====
[[File:Location.png|400px|Location of the Narmada Basin]]
==== Map 2. Major Water Resource Projects in the Narmada Basin ====
[[File:Major projects.png|400px|Major Water Resource Projects in the Narmada Basin]]
==== Map 3. Narmada Basin and Sub-basin Drainage, incl. Reservoirs (submergence areas) ====
[[File:drainage.png|400px|Narmada Basin and Sub-basin Drainage, incl. Reservoirs (submergence areas)]]
==== Map 4. Narmada Basin Annual Average Rainfall ====
[[File:rainfall.png|400px|Narmada Basin Annual Average Rainfall]]

== Governmental, Political, and Legal Context ==
The trajectory of the development of the Narmada Basin has its roots in rhetoric and legal frameworks established in the immediate period after India’s independence from Great Britain. India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s aggressive development agenda of modernization equated dam building with nation building, and was famously quoted as referring to dams as “the temples of modern India.” Traditional, small-scale irrigation systems were destroyed in favor of massive projects, over 3000 of which have been constructed in the 60+ years since independence.

The legal foundations of the development plans of the Narmada are based on a 1956 constitutional amendment, the [[Interstate River Water Disputes Act]] (IRWD). Anticipating interstate water disputes because of frequently changing state borders in the post-independence period, the law elaborates a dispute resolution process, involving forming a tribunal comprised of judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The bifurcation of Bombay state along linguistic lines into the states of Gujarat and Maharashtra—whose new borders were separated by the Narmada River—at the same time that Gujarat began planning major projects in the Narmada Basin, initiative just this sort of conflict when the states of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh realized that Gujarat’s plans for the Sardar Sarovar dam would submerge areas in which those two states were planning to develop hydropower projects. After failed negotiations between the states, the central government intervened and formed the [[Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal]] (NWDT), according to the [[Interstate River Water Disputes Act|IRWD]]. The allocations of water and shares of power determined by the award in 1979 (see Table 2), based on estimates of river flows by the Tribunal, are legally binding. Partial shares of the water are given to an extremely arid non-riparian state, Rajasthan. The Tribunal also establishes the Narmada Control Authority, with representatives of each state to manage the requirements of the Tribunal’s award.

Several environmental protection efforts followed the Tribunal’s award, including a law requiring environmental impact assessments of medium and major irrigation projects, including dams. The Ministry of Environment and Forests is also created at this time, which initiated an environmental impact assessment after the World Bank approved a $450 million loan to India to construct the Sardar Sarovar dam. Despite going against both India’s and the World Bank’s own policies regarding measuring environmental and social impacts of projects of this kind, dam construction begins in 1987.

Cases involving disputes over the Sardar Sarovar have been heard twice by the Supreme Court, the first of which was brought in 1995 by the Narmada Bachao Andolan, a coalition of protest movements made up of communities who would be impacted by the submergence areas of the dam’s reservoir. On the grounds that the dam was approved without proper consideration for environmental impacts and inadequate resettlement and rehabilitation, the Supreme Court suspends construction. As a result, the governments of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra set up a Grievance Redressal Authority. The second Supreme Court case in 2000 gives permission to Gujarat to raise the height of the dam, requiring approval by the Narmada Control Authority in 5-meter increments, and addressing environmental and resettlement concerns incrementally.

=== Water and Power Allocations of the Sardar Sarovar Project according to Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award, 1979 ===

{{{!}} class="wikitable sortable" style="width: 85%;"
{{!}}-
! scope="col" width="20%" {{!}} Party States
! scope="col" width="30%" {{!}} Allocated share of water 
! scope="col" width="15%" {{!}} % Share of power
! scope="col" width="30%" {{!}} % Other requirements
{{!}}-
{{!}} Madhya Pradesh {{!}}{{!}} 18,250,000 acre feet (22.51 km3) {{!}}{{!}}57 {{!}}{{!}} Regulated release requirement
{{!}}-
{{!}} Gujarat	 {{!}}{{!}} 9,000,000 acre feet (11 km3) {{!}}{{!}} 16 {{!}}{{!}} Bear costs of resettlement and rehabilitation in all states
{{!}}-
{{!}} Maharashtra {{!}}{{!}} 250,000 acre feet (0.31 km3) {{!}}{{!}} 27 {{!}}{{!}} N/A 
{{!}}-
{{!}} Rajasthan (non-riparian) {{!}}{{!}} 500,000 acre feet (0.62 km3) {{!}}{{!}} 0 {{!}}{{!}} N/A
{{!}}-
{{!}} Total {{!}}{{!}} 28,000,000 acre feet (34.5 km3) {{!}}{{!}} 100 {{!}}{{!}} N/A
{{!}}}

=== Government Estimates of Benefits and Impacts of the Sardar Sarovar Project ===

{{{!}} class="wikitable" style="width: 85%;"
{{!}}-
! scope="col" width="40%" {{!}} Benefits
! scope="col" width="40%" {{!}} Impacts
{{!}}-
{{!}} Network of canals will irrigate 1.8 million hectares (nearly 7000 sq. miles) of Gujarat {{!}}{{!}} Submerge 37,000 hectares of land (143 sq. miles)
{{!}}-
{{!}} Dam and canals will supply drinking water to 40+ million people {{!}}{{!}} Submergence area of reservoir and canal building will displace 152,000 people (27,000 families) identified as “Project-Affected Persons” (PAPs)
{{!}}}

== Social, Economic, Cultural Context ==
The Narmada River has enormous religious significance in Hinduism. The river’s origin on the Amarkantak plateau in Madhya Pradesh is considered to be a doorway to nirvana, and many devotees make a pilgrimage circumambulating the river, making the 2,600-kilometer journey on foot. The aforementioned quote by Prime Minister Nehru equating dams with being the “modern temples” of India was not shared by the thousands of people displaced by the construction of the Sardar Sarovar dam, approximately 60% of whom were Adivasis whose lives and livelihoods revolved around the river and the forests surrounding it.

The formation of the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), which came to vehemently oppose all dams and canals on the Narmada River, was not originally entirely against the dams. Initially, the movement sought to ensure that communities who would be displaced by their construction would be adequately and fairly compensated and resettled. Although the states had rehabilitation and resettlement policies on paper, the NBA observed that majority of people living in submergence areas were not informed or consulted, and would not receive any compensation because they did not have formal titles to their land, despite having lived on the land for countless generations. The implementation of these policies was also problematic, with no coordinated plan for how to adequately resettle approximately 200,000 people, the majority of whom have lived off the land all of their lives, were illiterate, and had virtually no contact with wage labor. Policies seen as positive, such as states promising land-for-land replacement for displaced families, were impossible to implement in practice because states did not have enough land available for all families affected.

The escalation of the NBA’s protest activities, including fasts, mass demonstrations, and dramatic neck-deep confrontations with police in partially-submerged villages, led to widespread attention from international environmental and human rights organizations. Pressure by these organizations on their home governments and subsequent media attention led to several international companies withdrawing from their investments in the project. Embarrassed by the negative coverage, the World Bank initiated an unprecedented independent review of its involvement in the Sardar Sarovar project. The independent review’s report recommended that the Bank “step back from the projects and consider them afresh”  (See footnote 1 for the report’s core recommendations). The World Bank eventually pulled out of the project, and India decided to continue to finance the project on its own.

For each case, multiple contributors will have the opportunity to add his/her own analysis/synthesis or insights into the specific case, and these nuanced, contextual additions will be presented together in the case to provide multiple viewpoints. Because of this, each contributor will need to both add and annotate their contributions to this section to highlight major points and also receive credit for the original thoughts.

ASIs already associated with this Study

Applying the Water Diplomacy Framework to the Narmada River Basin conflict

ASIs on this study that you have already created

You have not added any ASI sections that are linked to this Case Study.

Please use this section to analyze interactions between issues and stakeholders, synthesize information presented, draw conclusions, highlight important lessons learned, or to provide insight into the knowledge/wisdom from this case can be transferred to other settings.

Add an ASI

Provide a focused summary to facilitate case organization/searches. The organization for summaries is meant to create short, information-dense documents. You should complete this section after preparing the rest of your case study.

We suggest the case summary is kept under 300 words and touches on the following topics: major issues addressed, important stakeholders, major points of analysis/synthesis/insights (especially if there are multiple contributors of insight to the case), opportunities for transferrable knowledge. This is not meant to be fully comprehensive, but simply provide enough information to a reader to indicate whether or not s/he is interested in reading further.

The Narmada River is the fifth longest river in the Indian subcontinent, and one of the five holy rivers of India. Plans to develop the river for irrigation and hydropower have been discussed for over a century. It was only after India’s independence from Great Britain in 1947 that plans began to take shape, thanks to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s aggressive development agenda. Flowing 1,312 kilometers through three states in Central and Western India, Gujarat, Maharastrha, and Madhya Pradesh, the Narmada basin now boasts over 3000 dams, a “giant staircase of reservoirs.” The largest of these dams, the Sardar Sarovar, also boasts of causing a protracted conflict starting shortly after Indian independence and continuing through the present day, involving countless government agencies, decades of negotiations between four states, one of the largest people’s mobilizations in India’s history, pressure from international environmental organizations and governments, the World Bank, multiple supreme court cases, and tens (or by some counts, hundreds) of thousands of people displaced. As of May 2014, the construction of the dam is still not complete, so this list of actors could potentially grow.

The conflict began as an interstate issue over the right of the state of Gujarat to raise the height of a dam on its portion of the Narmada River, creating a submergence area that would impact plans for hydropower development in co-riparian states Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. The central government of India intervened, establishing the [[Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal]], which allocated shares of water and power from the dam between the three states and an extremely arid non-riparian state, Rajasthan, according to estimates of river flows and hydropower potential based on its own study. The Tribunal’s award also established minimum requirements for rehabilitation and resettlement of “Project-Affected Persons,” based on its study’s estimates of the dam’s submergence area and the number of land-owning families living in those areas. This initial, binding decision was made by a three-judge panel, and did not involve participation by representatives of the four states involved, nor did it include any efforts to consult with communities whose villages would be submerged, over half of which were Adivasis (indigenous Indians) who are subject to special protections in the Indian constitution.

In the mid 1980s, when the World Bank agreed to finance the project before an environmental impact assessment was conducted, communities scheduled to be submerged by the dam construction organized themselves into the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), a coalition of farmers, Adivasis, and activists. The NBA successfully mobilized the interest of international environmental organizations, which prompted the World Bank to conduct an independent review of the project and eventually withdraw based on issues surrounding environmental impacts and inadequate resettlement and rehabilitation. The project has continued to this day, financed by the Indian central government and individual states, and the NBA continues to be active in national politics and advocate for just compensation.

Topic Tags

Help others find this case study by providing topic tags -- either keywords or short phrases without any punctuation.

Each entry utilizes autocomplete to find similar words/phrases. You can also add a new tag keyword or phrase.
You can add as many as you'd like -- we suggest between 1 and 5.
You shouldn't add tags that are the same as article titles linked to cases or values that have been added by selecting check boxes elsewhere in this case -- those keywords have already been recorded!

Add Keywords or phrases (no special characters or punctuation)

References Please list all reference here. use (name date) parenthetical citations in relevant text areas.

Link Text

Link Address

Description

Link Text

Link Address

Description

Link Text
Link Address
Description	Bold Italic Link Embedded file Reference AdvancedSpecial charactersHelp Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Heading FormatBulleted list Numbered list No wiki formatting New line Big Small Superscript Subscript InsertPicture gallery Redirect Table Search and replace

Link Text
Link Address
Description	Bold Italic Link Embedded file Reference AdvancedSpecial charactersHelp Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Heading FormatBulleted list Numbered list No wiki formatting New line Big Small Superscript Subscript InsertPicture gallery Redirect Table Search and replace

The contributing author, other editors, and admins can all provide public case review. Checking any of the boxes below will place a notice at the beginning of the case

To enhance the ability of a contributor to improve a case, please answer the yes/no questions below. For each "yes" (checked) answer, you should initiate a discussion on the case study discussion page to explain the improvements required.

The purpose of this review is to both encourage users to continually improve cases and also to alert readers that there are aspects of the case that could be improved. Any editor/contributor may remove an alert (by unchecking the related box) after the issue has been addressed.

Completeness

Are 1 or more sections empty?
does the case/page need more formatting or copyediting help?
Are 1 or more sections incomplete?
Does the case/page need additional or better references?
Does the case/page need more internal links (to AquaPedia Pages)?
Does this case/page need more external links (to relevant external sources)?

Content

Is content out of date? or, are there recent developments that should be addressed by the case?
Is there a dispute about the accuracy of the content?
Is there a need to represent additional points of view?

Provide a summary of the type/purpose of updates you have made. This summary is displayed on the "History" tab for the page and is not part of the page as it is viewed:

This is a minor edit Watch this page

Cancel