Ecological Dilemmas of Development Projects in India

India’s post-independence story of development is inseparable from a parallel story of ecological loss and human displacement. Large-scale infrastructure projects – dams, power plants, industrial corridors – have been championed as engines of national progress. But for millions of people living in forests, river valleys, and hills, these projects have meant something entirely different: the loss of land, livelihoods, and ecosystems that sustained them for generations. Two projects stand out as particularly instructive case studies in this tension: the Tehri Dam in Uttarakhand and the Narmada Valley Development Project in central India. Together, they expose the deep ecological and social dilemmas embedded in India’s development model.

Development and its discontents: setting the context 🔗

Since independence in 1947, India has pursued rapid economic growth through large infrastructure investments. The justification has always been clear: electricity for industries, water for drought-prone agriculture, jobs for a growing population. But this growth came at a cost that was rarely calculated in project budgets. According to the Indian Social Institute, an estimated 21.3 million people were displaced by development projects in India – with dams alone accounting for 16.4 million. Of these, indigenous peoples, who made up just 8.2% of India’s total population, comprised over 55% of those displaced by development projects between 1950 and 1990. This stark disproportion is not accidental. Development projects are consistently located in remote forests, hills, and river valleys – precisely the places where tribal and indigenous communities live.

For these communities, displacement has meant not only the loss of a home, but a severance from the ecosystems that sustained their food, culture, and identity. The land is not just an economic asset for them; it is the foundation of their social and spiritual life. When that land is submerged under a reservoir, the damage is irreversible.

The Tehri Dam: a Himalayan gamble 🔗

The Tehri Dam on the Bhagirathi River in Uttarakhand is the tallest dam in India, standing at 260.5 metres. Completed in 2006, it generates electricity and provides water for drinking and irrigation, but the project raised serious environmental concerns and displaced approximately 100,000 people. The idea of building the dam dates back to 1961, but construction began in 1978 and was repeatedly delayed – not merely for bureaucratic reasons, but because of sustained public resistance and unanswered ecological questions.

Ecological risks in a fragile zone 🔗

The Tehri Dam sits in one of the most ecologically sensitive parts of India. The dam is located in the Central Himalayan Seismic Gap, a major geological fault zone, raising serious concerns about its structural stability during seismic events. Critics, including geologists and civil society groups, warned that the weight of the reservoir could itself trigger earthquakes – a phenomenon known as Reservoir Induced Seismicity (RIS). Data on the effects of a large body of water on a geological fault are limited, and experts have warned that mounting pressure could produce an earthquake of magnitude 8.0 or higher on the Richter scale.

Beyond seismic risk, the dam disrupted the flow of the Bhagirathi River – a tributary of the Ganges and a river of deep religious significance to millions of Hindus. Since 2005, filling the reservoir reduced the river’s flow from a normal 1,000 cubic feet per second to a mere 200 cubic feet per second, which at certain points during the year caused the tributary to stop flowing entirely. The ecological consequences downstream were equally severe. Silt carried down from the upper Himalayan catchment – which contains valuable mineral deposits and acts as a natural fertiliser for the Gangetic plain – is now trapped behind the dam, with potentially serious long-term consequences for agricultural productivity.

Human displacement and the broken promise of rehabilitation 🔗

The dam displaced close to 100,000 people, resulting in land alienation, loss of livelihoods, and disruption to religious practices tied to the river ecosystem. Two main groups were uprooted: residents of Old Tehri town, where approximately 12,500 people lived, and residents of roughly 100 rural villages upstream that housed between 80,000 and 100,000 people. The government built a new settlement called New Tehri, but field research found that resettlement dramatically disrupted people’s social, cultural, religious, and economic lives. The resettlement process was characterised by involuntary and traumatic relocation, with denial of development opportunities for years and even decades – and displacement fell most heavily on tribal and rural communities who typically received the least support.

The resistance to the Tehri Dam was led by prominent environmentalist Sunderlal Bahuguna, a veteran of the Chipko movement, who mobilised opposition on grounds of environmental impact, religious belief, and the consequences for local communities – a protest that lasted from the 1980s until 2004. Despite this opposition, and despite the Environmental Appraisal Committee of the Ministry of Environment and Forests refusing to clear the project in 1990, construction continued and was ultimately completed.

The Narmada Valley Development Project: displacement at scale 🔗

If the Tehri Dam represents a single flashpoint, the Narmada Valley Development Project represents a much larger systemic pattern. The project comprises plans for 30 major, 136 medium, and 3,000 minor dams on the Narmada River and its tributaries. The Narmada is India’s fifth-largest river, flowing 1,312 kilometres through Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Gujarat. Its valley is home to dense forests and tribal communities who have lived there for centuries. The centrepiece of the project is the Sardar Sarovar Dam in Gujarat – the second-largest concrete dam in the world by volume of concrete used, and the terminal dam on the Narmada.

The ecological toll 🔗

The Sardar Sarovar Project alone will submerge around 10,000 hectares of forest land, while the Narmada Sagar Project will submerge an even larger 40,332 hectares, including teak forests and the last remaining pure stand of anjun trees in India. The downstream ecological impact has been equally damaging. The dam has disrupted seasonal flood cycles that sustain downstream ecosystems. Compensatory afforestation efforts have largely failed – most replanted areas show little or no tree cover, or use trees from incompatible ecosystems with low survival rates. Downstream effects include sea ingress of up to 40 kilometres, salinisation of groundwater, and destruction of topsoil in Gujarat.

Illegal sand mining in the dam’s catchment area has further intensified soil erosion and land degradation, while the institutional authority controlling the river – the Narmada Control Authority – has refused to release adequate downstream flow to keep the river alive and flowing during dry seasons, against the recommendations of its own commissioned studies.

Who bears the cost? Adivasis and Dalits at the margins 🔗

The Sardar Sarovar Project alone will submerge 245 villages with a population of 250,000 people, many of whom are tribal communities and natural resource-dependent groups. While Adivasis make up 8% of India’s population and Dalits another 15%, an estimated 60% of those displaced by the Narmada dam projects belong to these two groups. For forest-dwelling tribal communities like the Bhil and Gond, displacement means more than losing a home – it means separation from the forests and river that are at the core of their cultural and economic existence, neither of which will be present at resettlement sites.

When all dams on the Narmada are accounted for, over a million people will be displaced or lose their livelihoods. The government’s rehabilitation record has been widely criticised. Thousands of displaced families recognised as project-affected have not received compensation; rehabilitation sites identified by the government have been found inadequate, with poor water supply, broken roads, no electricity, and absent health and education facilities.

The Narmada Bachao Andolan: resistance as a democratic force 🔗

The Narmada Valley project became one of the most prominent sites of environmental and human rights activism in Indian history. In the late 1980s, several resistance groups merged under the leadership of activist Medha Patkar to form the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), meaning the “Save the Narmada Movement,” which stands in direct opposition to the Sardar Sarovar Project. The NBA organised marches, hunger strikes, and legal petitions. Its campaign was significant enough that the World Bank, which had agreed to finance $450 million towards the project, withdrew its loan in 1994 following extensive resistance from the NBA.

The movement brought the project to the Supreme Court of India, which in 1995 suspended construction due to the absence of prior environmental and social impact assessments. However, subsequent Supreme Court rulings in 1999 and 2000 permitted construction to resume, leaving the grievances of displaced communities largely unaddressed. The dam was ultimately completed in 2006 and its height has since been raised multiple times, each increase expanding the submerged zone and worsening the social and environmental toll.

The structural pattern: who pays and who benefits? 🔗

The Tehri and Narmada cases are not isolated incidents. They reflect a structural pattern in Indian development policy. Projects are framed in the language of national interest – electricity, irrigation, drinking water – but the benefits flow primarily to urban industries, large-scale agriculture, and distant cities, while the costs fall disproportionately on the poorest and most marginalised communities. Despite financial, social, and environmental deficiencies in the Sardar Sarovar project, the primary beneficiaries have been large contractors and multinationals, rather than the rural and tribal communities who need clean drinking water and access to the river for their livelihoods.

Neo-liberal economic policies and industrial expansion have deepened tribal dispossession in the 21st century, as the state and corporate capital together encroach on natural resource-rich regions that indigenous communities have inhabited for generations. The rehabilitation frameworks that do exist have consistently failed in implementation. Rehabilitation – understood as the genuine reconstruction of displaced people’s livelihoods – has never been a guiding principle of India’s land acquisition law, which has instead emphasised cash compensation for loss. Cash compensation, however, cannot replace a way of life built over generations in a specific ecology.

Rethinking development: sustainability and social justice 🔗

These case studies do not argue against development itself. Electricity and water are genuine needs. The Tehri Dam provides power to multiple northern Indian states. The Sardar Sarovar project has brought irrigation to drought-prone areas of Gujarat and Rajasthan. The question is not whether to develop, but how, for whom, and at whose expense. Environmental impact assessment plays a critical role in identifying, predicting, and mitigating the various impacts of development on the environment – and any water resource project that fulfils present needs without endangering the ability of future generations to meet their own needs can be considered sustainable.

What both projects lacked – and what continues to be absent in many large development projects in India – is meaningful participation of affected communities in decision-making, independent environmental review before project approval, and a genuine commitment to ensuring that displaced people are not left worse off than before. The involvement of different social movements and citizens in the decision-making process of such projects is key to any satisfactory resolution of the conflict between development and displacement.

The ecological and social costs of India’s major dam projects remind us that development is never a neutral, technocratic process. It involves choices about whose land matters, whose knowledge counts, and whose future is worth protecting. The forests submerged by the Narmada, the sacred river reduced to a trickle at Tehri, and the millions displaced without adequate rehabilitation are not unfortunate side-effects – they are the direct outcomes of choices made in the name of progress.

What do you think? When a development project benefits millions but directly harms a much smaller group – particularly already marginalised communities – how should the state weigh those competing interests? And is genuine environmental sustainability possible within a development model that still treats nature primarily as a resource to be harnessed?

References

1. https://www.fmreview.org/lama/
2. https://egyankosh.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/42057/1/Unit-1.pdf
3. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tehri-Dam
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehri_Dam
5. https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/tehri-dam-india-stumbling-toward-catastrophe
6. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265893646_Displacement_and_Development_The_paradoxes_of_India's_Tehri_Dam
7. https://www.ukessays.com/essays/society/tehri-dam-development-displacement-6178.php
8. https://ijiamr.cmrie.org/docs/a-case-study-of-the-background-aspects-and-impacts-of-the-tehri-dam-on-the-economy-ecology-and-population-of-india-APCOZZEKAXGE.pdf
9. https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/narmada-issue-overview
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sardar_Sarovar_Dam
11. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/southasia/2017/02/13/the-sardar-sarovar-dam-drowning-out-citizens-but-who-benefits/
12. https://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/articles/entry/in-indias-narmada-valley-controversial-dam-causes-upstream-flooding-and-downstream-thirst/
13. https://oralhistorynarmada.in/sardar-sarovar-project-ssp/
14. https://websites.umich.edu/~snre492/Jones/narmada.html
15. https://www.sierraclub.org/compass/2015/10/disastrous-narmada-valley-projects-struggle-resist-continues
16. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/science/narmada-valley-development-project
17. https://climate-diplomacy.org/case-studies/sardar-sarovar-dam-conflict-india
18. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-03166-3
19. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361670338_A_study_of_Environmental_and_Ecological_impacts_due_to_Construction_and_Operation_of_Tehri-_Polavaram_Dam