The National Alliance of People’s Movements has strongly criticized the arrests and repression of villagers and activists protesting against displacement linked to the Ken-Betwa Link Project (KBLP) in the Bundelkhand region. However, opposition to the controversial project has not been limited to grassroots groups. Since its inception, the project has faced criticism from government bodies, court-appointed authorities, retired officials and environmental experts.
The Environment Appraisal Committee of the Ministry of Environment and Forests had repeatedly refused to clear the project before the committee’s composition was changed. The Supreme Court-appointed Central Empowered Committee also highlighted several adverse impacts and raised strong objections. In 2017, the Forest Advisory Committee observed that, ideally, the project should not receive clearance. Around the same time, a district magistrate wrote to senior government officials and the Planning Commission warning about the likely damage to the Ken river and communities dependent on it. Several retired officials and academics associated with government institutions have also expressed serious reservations regarding the project.
While protesters have demanded fair compensation for land acquisition and rehabilitation, critics argue that the issue extends far beyond compensation. They contend that the project threatens to inflict long-term ecological and social damage on Bundelkhand and should therefore be reconsidered through an evidence-based and rational approach.
Supporters of the project have highlighted its promised benefits in terms of water supply and hydropower generation. Critics, however, argue that the government has downplayed the large-scale disruptions the project could trigger and insist that the same benefits can be achieved through alternative, decentralized measures.
One of the most contentious issues remains the projected loss of forests. In 2017, the Forest Advisory Committee estimated that between 1.8 million and 2.3 million trees would be affected. More recent references to only about 17,000 trees relate solely to the initial dam construction phase, critics say. Environmentalists argue that the total loss, including trees affected by submergence and the 220-km canal network, could exceed four million. A report in The Times of India estimated the likely loss at around 4.5 million trees.
Critics also point out that compensatory afforestation cannot adequately replace natural forests, especially in ecologically sensitive areas such as the Panna Tiger Reserve. They warn that the project could fragment wildlife habitats and severely affect species including tigers, leopards, chinkaras and gharials. Concerns have also been raised over possible damage to the region’s unique geological formations, including the Raneh Falls, often referred to as a “mini Grand Canyon”.
Questions have also been raised about the project’s core assumption that the Ken river has surplus water available for transfer to the Betwa river. Critics argue that no credible public data has conclusively established such surplus availability, particularly during the dry season when water scarcity is most acute. They note that the Ken and its tributaries already experience low flows and have additionally been damaged by extensive sand mining. Some former officials had earlier warned that the river itself required protection rather than diversion of its waters elsewhere.
Another major concern is displacement. Around 6,700 families across approximately 22 villages are expected to be affected. Protesters have highlighted difficulties faced by displaced communities, particularly adivasi groups. Activists argue that the full social impact, including secondary effects on nearby settlements caused by wildlife displacement, has not yet been comprehensively assessed.
The project’s estimated financial cost stands at around Rs 45,000 crore, excluding environmental and social costs. Opponents argue that the same funds could instead support thousands of decentralized projects through local panchayats and community institutions. They advocate investment in water conservation, minor irrigation, drinking water systems, solar and renewable energy initiatives, including locally suitable technologies such as Mangal Turbines developed by Bundelkhand innovator Mangal Singh.
Critics further argue that the need to divert water to the Betwa river arose partly because excessive damming and diversion had already depleted that river system. They caution that diverting Ken waters could create another cycle of ecological imbalance and future water scarcity.
Environmentalists and social activists say Bundelkhand’s traditional water conservation systems offer valuable lessons. They argue that strengthening small-scale, community-based water management systems, while incorporating modern scientific knowledge, would provide more sustainable and less disruptive solutions than large river-linking projects.
---
Bharat Dogra is an independent journalist and author who has received several journalism awards from government and professional organizations
Comments
Post a Comment
NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor