An Overview of Large Dams in India: Systemic Flaws and the Need for Inclusive Planning

Large dam projects have long been hailed as symbols of national progress in India-what Jawaharlal Nehru once famously called the “temples of modern India.” Yet, the experiences of communities affected by major projects like the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada and the Tehri Dam on the Bhagirathi reveal a starkly different reality. Behind the promises of irrigation, electricity, and economic development lies a legacy of displacement, environmental degradation, and broken commitments to some of the country’s most vulnerable populations.

Systemic flaws in dam planning
Gaps between policy and implementation
The role of civil society and non-violent struggle
The Tehri Dam opposition
Ecological costs and global warming
Regional ecosystem disruption
The imperative for a community-oriented approach
Meaningful participation and consent
The urgent need for sustainable planning
Legal and policy evolution

Systemic flaws in dam planning

The cases of Narmada and Tehri expose fundamental problems in how mega dam projects are conceived and implemented in India. When the World Bank approved a $450 million loan for the Sardar Sarovar Dam in 1985, it did so without adequately consulting indigenous communities facing displacement. The assessment team focused almost exclusively on economic and technical aspects while neglecting social and environmental considerations.

The injustices of the government’s relocation program were soon exposed: insufficient land available for redistribution, low-quality amenities at resettlement sites, and settlers struggling to adapt to unfamiliar environments. The 1991 Morse Commission Report-the first independent review commissioned by the World Bank-documented the stark absence of proper environmental assessments by either the Indian Government or the World Bank.

The Tehri Dam faced similar criticism. Sunderlal Bahuguna, the movement’s leader, pointed out that humanitarian aspects were grossly neglected in project planning. The rehabilitation policy specified regressive measures-compensation amounts were inadequate, land values were systematically undervalued, and officials employed what critics described as “divide and acquire” tactics to weaken community resistance.

Gaps between policy and implementation

Research examining dam displacement in India reveals a troubling pattern: while the state promises “resettlement and rehabilitation,” it typically delivers only basic resettlement while neglecting genuine rehabilitation. Most affected communities-predominantly Dalits, Adivasis, and marginal farmers-find themselves more vulnerable after displacement than before.

Not a single displaced village from the Sardar Sarovar Project has been resettled as a community. Even families have been scattered, with fathers and sons allocated land in distant locations. This fragmentation of social networks destroys the very fabric that sustains traditional communities.

The role of civil society and non-violent struggle

The Narmada Bachao Andolan emerged in 1985 as a powerful coalition of tribal people, farmers, environmentalists, and human rights activists. Led by Medha Patkar and supported by respected figures like Baba Amte, the movement employed distinctly Gandhian methods of resistance. Their slogans-“Vikas Chahiye, Vinash Nahin” (We want development, not destruction) and “Koi nahi hatega, bandh nahi banega” (No one will move, the dam will not be built)-captured the essence of their struggle.

The NBA conducted hunger strikes, organized massive awareness marches like the Narmada Jan Vikas Sangharsh Yatra, and pursued legal battles in the Supreme Court. Their efforts achieved significant milestones: the World Bank withdrew from the Sardar Sarovar project in 1993, and foreign investors abandoned the Maheshwar Dam between 1999 and 2001. The movement received international recognition with the Right Livelihood Award in 1991.

The Tehri Dam opposition

The Tehri Bandh Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti (TBVSS) was formed in 1978 under freedom fighter Virendra Datt Saklani to oppose dam construction, demand proper rehabilitation, and advocate for sustainable development alternatives. Environmental activist Sunderlal Bahuguna, who had earlier championed the Chipko movement, became its most prominent voice.

Bahuguna undertook several prolonged fasts to draw attention to the movement, including a 74-day fast at Gandhi Samadhi that compelled Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda to review the project. Despite these efforts, the dam was eventually completed, and Bahuguna himself was forced to relocate when his home was submerged by the rising reservoir waters in 2004.

Both movements faced state repression-arrests, police beatings, and forced evacuations. Yet they succeeded in reshaping the national conversation about development, demonstrating that ordinary citizens could challenge powerful state and corporate interests through peaceful resistance.

Ecological costs and global warming

The environmental case against mega dams has grown substantially stronger with emerging scientific evidence. Contrary to their “clean energy” image, hydropower reservoirs collectively contribute roughly 1.3% of global annual greenhouse gas emissions-equivalent to the entire nation of Canada’s output.

Studies conducted over the past decade have shown that hydropower dams are significant emitters of methane, a greenhouse gas 28 to 34 times more potent than carbon dioxide. This methane is produced when underwater microbes decompose the organic matter accumulated in reservoir sediments.

Regional ecosystem disruption

Dam construction fundamentally alters river ecosystems. By fragmenting natural water flow, dams hinder the “flushing out mechanism” that cleanses rivers of pollutants. The inadequate downstream flow disrupts biogeochemical cycles, harms aquatic species, and reduces floodplain fertility through sediment starvation.

Particularly concerning is reservoir-induced seismicity. The Koyna and Warna reservoirs in Maharashtra have triggered numerous earthquakes over five decades. The Tehri Dam, located in a seismically active Himalayan zone, faced persistent safety concerns-especially after a 6.6 magnitude earthquake struck the region in 1991 while construction was underway.

Large dams cause cascading environmental damage: worsening water quality, degradation of aquatic ecosystems, disappearance of riparian habitats, and species extinction. These impacts extend far beyond the immediate submergence zone, affecting hundreds of kilometers of downstream ecosystems.

The imperative for a community-oriented approach

Around 50 million people have been displaced by development projects in India over 50 years, with dam projects accounting for a significant portion. Of those affected, approximately 40 percent belong to tribal communities-populations that already face marginalization and have deep spiritual and economic connections to their ancestral lands.

The Sardar Sarovar Dam displaced over 250,000 people, while the Tehri Dam uprooted approximately 100,000. These numbers represent not just physical relocation but the destruction of livelihoods, cultural practices, and community bonds built over generations.

True rehabilitation requires more than compensation payments. It demands participatory planning that involves affected communities from the outset, skill development and livelihood support for long-term economic recovery, strict timelines for compensation disbursement, and plans that preserve cultural and community ties.

Experiences from the Bargi Dam rehabilitation demonstrate that successful outcomes require well-prepared policies integrated into project plans, proper dialogue with affected persons during the planning stage, flexibility to accommodate local needs, and decentralization of decision-making powers to field levels.

The urgent need for sustainable planning

The 1992 “Save Himalaya Movement” declaration articulated an alternative vision: promoting “run of river” schemes as environmentally friendly alternatives to large dams, planting trees on denuded slopes, and developing agro-forestry. These approaches recognize that sustainable development must work with local ecology rather than against it.

Before embarking on gigantic projects, planners must conduct genuine cost-benefit analyses that incorporate environmental impacts, consult indigenous communities, and address their concerns. The assumption that development benefits automatically outweigh human and ecological costs has proven tragically flawed.

Legal and policy evolution

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013 represented progress by legally mandating comprehensive rehabilitation of project-affected persons. However, implementation gaps persist, and the definition of “public purpose” remains broad enough to enable questionable projects.

The hour demands that India evolve effective planning frameworks that protect fragile environments while ensuring sustenance for affected communities. No development project-regardless of its promised benefits-can be considered successful if it destroys the social and ecological foundations upon which communities depend.

What do you think? Can large infrastructure projects ever be truly reconciled with the rights and wellbeing of displaced communities? What role should affected populations play in decisions that fundamentally alter their lives and environments?

References

PDF 📄

An Overview of Large Dams in India: Systemic Flaws and the Need for Inclusive Planning

Table of Contents

Systemic flaws in dam planning 🔗

Gaps between policy and implementation 🔗

The role of civil society and non-violent struggle 🔗

The Tehri Dam opposition 🔗

Ecological costs and global warming 🔗

Regional ecosystem disruption 🔗

The imperative for a community-oriented approach 🔗

Meaningful participation and consent 🔗

The urgent need for sustainable planning 🔗

Legal and policy evolution 🔗