The overall aims of the scheme are to provide:
(1) Electricity: there are chronic power generation problems in India, with scheduled daily power cuts and frequent unplanned power cuts in most cities.
(2) Irrigation and drinking water: the Narmada catchment is near the north-western limit of the summer monsoon, so it is vulnerable to drought. In poor years, agriculture is severely affected by water shortage.
It has been claimed that the Narmada River scheme will address both problems, providing electricity generation, and providing year-round water management for agriculture. Initially, the project had World Bank support. The World Bank has supported several large dams worldwide, as part of the favoured model of development, involving large capital inputs. However, such projects are falling increasingly out of favour, and the World Bank withdrew from the project in 1993, partly due to environmental considerations, but also because India failed to meet the requirements of the deal. Nevertheless, the development continued despite the loss of this support. The largest element of the Narmada scheme is the Sardar Sarovar dam near the lower end of the catchment. This is the largest and most expensive multipurpose river project ever to be initiated in India, and was planned to provide drinking water to 40 million people, irrigation to 4.4 million acres, and generate1,450 megawatts of electricity. However, if completed, the 455 feet high dam will submerge 91,400 acres in the central and western states of Madhya Pradesh, Gujerat and Maharashtra, and force the relocation of more than 152,000 people. These people (mostly tribal people and Dalits) face losing their homes and livelihood.
As we have seen, these groups are among the most underprivileged peoples in India. Their enforced removal is regarded by many as an infringement of basic human rights, because no purported benefits can be used to justify the denial of the fundamental rights of individuals in a democratic society. Additionally, given the evidence of past megadam schemes in India and elsewhere, many believe that the promised benefits will never be realised. Past experience has shown that large dams have had very mixed results. They have generally delivered only a fraction of their purported benefits, but have had an extremely devastating effect on the riverine ecosystem and have rendered destitute large numbers of people. For no large dam in India has it been shown that the resettled people have been provided with just compensation and rehabilitation. At a more abstract level, such dams raise questions about the wisdom of a development model that offers material wealth and economic growth through modernisation while perpetuating an inequitable distribution of resources and wreaks social and environmental havoc.
The Narmada scheme is being opposed by international and local protest groups. Villagers refused to leave their homes, remaining there to try to prevent water levels being raised. In 1999, waters were raised during the monsoon, flooding several villages. Protesters were forcibly removed by police. In addition to these grass-roots protests, high profile campaigns have been maintained in India and internationally. A vocal supporter is the Indian author Arundhati Roy (see the best-selling God of Small Things), who was arrested for her part in protests. It has been argued that more appropriate means of providing water for agriculture should be followed. One such possibility is Ôwater harvestingÕ or the small-scale collection and storage of water, for local redistribution and use. Such schemes would not involve the large-scale inundation of land and villages, and the consequent disruption of disadvantaged people.
''The Pancheshwar project site falls right in the seismologically volatile Himalayan region,'' says Dipak Gyawali, a prominent water resources expert and one of the foremost critics of the project. ''If the dam breaks due to an earthquake, it will be a catastrophe that will wipe out large number of people on both sides of the Nepal-India border.''
An ambitious dam project in the Indian Himalayas at Tehri has been stalled by environmentalists for years for similar reasons. A major earthquake to the east of the dam in 1992, which affected the dam, bolstered the anti-Tehri project campaign. The construction of the Kannaur on the Sutlej River in the Indian Himalayan foothills was interrupted by landsliding. The seismic activity of the Himalaya and other parts of India is a major consideration. As we saw (Lecture 1) the Himalaya are tectonically active due to the continued northward movement of the Indian Plate against the rest of Asia. This clearly represents a major limitation on planned exploitation of the abundant water resources of the Himalaya, quite apart from environmental and social considerations.
Seismic activity may be triggered by water loading imposed by the reservir itself. For example, the Koyna Dam site in western India has been seismically active since its impounding in 1962. The seismicity peaked in 1967 when an earthquake of magnitude 6.3 claimed 200 human lives and caused some damage to the dam itself. Subsequently, bursts of seismicity with M 5 earthquakes have occurred during 1973, 1980, and 1993 to 1995. The epicenters during the latest burst are concentrated around the newly impounded Warna reservoir, 25 km south of Koyna. Several shocks of smaller magnitude have occurred in this area since 1967 under the influence of the Koyna (Shivajisagar) reservoir, but the impoundment of the Warna reservoir to over 60 m has led to the enhanced seismic activity in the region. Seismic activity associated with water loading is likely to be a greater problem in sensitive areas with high relief, such as the Himalayas.
It is illegal to kill a tiger anywhere in the world, except Burma, but poaching continues due to the large amounts of money that can be made. It is believed that the tiger may become extinct in the wild within this decade. India first drew attention to the plight of tigers more than 20 years ago, and is still at the forefront of tiger conservation. India was also one of the first countries to ban tiger hunting. By 1972, tiger numbers had fallen to less than 2,000 from an estimated 40,000 at the beginning of the century. This jolted conservationists into action. WWF-World Wide Fund For Nature - pledged US$1 million for tiger conservation in the country and the Government of India launched Project Tiger (1973), committing US$16 million for the first ten years. This has led to the establishment of 23 tiger reserves (Protected Areas or PAs) so far and others are planned. Ten years after the launch of Project Tiger, India celebrated a 50 per cent increase in tiger numbers, reaching 3,015 in 1979. A 1993 census estimated 3,750 tigers, and numbers were also up in Nepal and stable in Bangladesh. Many PAs have become important tourist destinations. In this way, tourism can contribute to conservation, by providing an income from the natural world. Otherwise, economic considerations may place tiger habitats under severe pressure. Teams of rangers were formed to protect tigers, and to act as guides to tourists. However, poaching and conflicts between tigers and those living on the fringes of national parks have halted further recovery and given cause for concern. The Director of Project Tiger recently announced that there may be no more than 2,500 left in India with animals dying at the rate of one a day. Additionally, rangers have also come under direct attack. For example, in 1993, two forest guards were killed in Ranthambhore National Park, in Rajastan. It is believed by workers in the field, that there may be fewer than 500 wild tigers in India by 2010. Saving the tiger will involve international effort, both in helping to fund conservation efforts within India and other countries, but also in cracking down on international trade in products from endangered species.