Case Study 4: Behind The Dam

⁠

By Arjun Singh |

Instagram⁠

Substack⁠

⁠

“Dams have many benefits and can add tons of value to certain habitats, however, just like a sword, it’s a tool that can potentially have negative outcomes if all of the knowledge isn’t present⁵”

⁠

ਸੂਕੇ ਸਰਵਰਿ ਪਾਲਿ ਬੰਧਾਵੈ ਲੂਣੈ ਖੇਤਿ ਹਥ ਵਾਰਿ ਕਰੈ ॥

He makes a dam around the dried-up pool, and with his hands, he makes a fence around the harvested field.

ਆਇਓ ਚੋਰੁ ਤੁਰੰਤਹ ਲੇ ਗਇਓ ਮੇਰੀ ਰਾਖਤ ਮੁਗਧੁ ਫਿਰੈ ॥੨॥

When the thief of Death comes, he quickly carries away what the fool had tried to preserve as his own. ||2||

Raag Aasaa - Bhagat Kabeer Ji - Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji -

Ang 479⁠

⁠

Preliminary Facts

The Narmada River is the fifth largest river in India and travels through the sates of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Gujurat. It provides water to many dams, hydropower to the states, and water for agriculture and irrigation activities¹. The planning and construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada River initiated in the 1960’s, where a distribution system had finally been completed. Although the initial idea seemed beneficial, there were many consequences to this which affected large amounts of the population.

⁠

Centrally Planned Goals & Motivations

The main goal of the dam was to provide electricity, drinking water, irrigation, and wildlife support across the Narmada River. It was part of a greater plan to create over 3000 dams along the river in order to provide water to areas that were getting droughts more often, along with the initial reasons mentioned². This would’ve benefited many of the smaller villages and workers near the river to have a thriving environment with clean water that would allow their villages to prosper.

In the 1980’s however, there was a movement called the “Narmada Bachao Andolan” which opposed the government in completing the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam (along with other dam projects in India) mainly due to environmental concerns that they had. They argued that the dam would force many poor people and peasants to be displaced from their homes, and the habitats of many different animal and plant species would be disrupted with the scale of the damage³.

⁠

Detrimental Outcomes

It turned out that the Narmada Bachao Andolan was correct. The dam caused severe environmental and human destruction that effected many people and animals in the surrounding areas.

Firstly, there was a massive loss of biodiversity. Many of the animals and plants along the river became extinct and displaced due to the uncontrollable flooding that there was no preparation for.

Secondly, crops were damaged and there was a loss of vegetation. This caused increases in food insecurity as farmers were unable to produce at scale and many folks had to unfortunately starve while trying to survive at the same time.

Thirdly, the water became polluted, the quality of it reduced, and all of the hydro systems were disrupted. This contradicted what the government initially intended, which was increasing hydropower and water for the use of agriculture and other daily requirements⁴.

Many movements and protests took place for this as justice was not served effectively for those that lost their lives, land, families, and more.

⁠

Photo by

Justin Wolff⁠

Unsplash⁠

⁠

Lessons

We can conclude from this case study that consulting external bodies is important before implementing large scale projects, such as a dam. The voices of various academics, environmentalists, activist groups, and even the “World Bank” was ignored, which is why having a small group of people (government) acting on behalf of all in an unaccountable manner is not ideal. The more power the central government has, the wider the (negative) impact it can have. When it gets it wrong, it goes really wrong.

Although in this case we can agree that the government may have had good intentions with the distribution of water and electricity, relying on a centrally planned state to make decisions for large rivers that effect large amounts of population and biodiversity may not always be the best system. Dams have many benefits and can add tons of value to certain habitats, however just like a sword, it’s a tool that can potentially have negative outcomes if all of the knowledge isn’t present⁵. There are many people that continue to be affected by this dam till today, and are awaiting rehabilitation from the government (which was arguably inadequate to begin with).

To conclude, it’s important to keep in mind long term effects of policy decisions and how in this case, the tragedy of the commons allowed the government to put many into starvation and a worse quality of life than they started with.

⁠