“Environmentalism of the poor”: the Tipaimukh Dam, ecological disasters and environmental resistance beyond borders

Lower-riparian Bangladesh and upper-riparian India share more than 50 international rivers (Adel 2012: 528; Riaz 2011: 106; Islam 1992: 204; Ahmed 2012: 51; Afroz and Rahman 2013: 100).¹ Needless to say, historically these rivers are very important, playing a vital part in many ways in people’s lives, such as, in agriculture and fisheries, vegetation and greenery, urban and rural water supplies, and navigation and communication. However, India has set up constructions for water diversion in more than 50 percent of these rivers. The largest one is upon the Ganges River commonly known as the Farakka Barrage, which puts Bangladesh’s ecosystem at stake. In some border rivers, India has set up groins on her side of the river banks. Furthermore, Bangladesh River water is pumped stealthily from border-rivers by entities on the Indian side (Adel 2012). India’s decisions to build diversion constructions in international rivers and the arbitrary control of transnational rivers’ waters leading Bangladesh to suffer economically, socially and ecologically have triggered unending debates and resistances over the years.² Nevertheless, the debate with Farakka Barrage and the Gajoldoba Barrage³ on the Teesta River is conceived to be overshadowed by India’s recent decision to build another Dam, now at the Tipaimukh on the river Barak. India’s unilateral plan has prompted a wide range of debate and discussion on its merit in both India and Bangladesh (Mirza 2009). The debates have gradually transcended the realm of government officials and academics, and transformed into various modes of protests and resistance in India, Bangladesh, and beyond.

Officially called the Tipaimukh Multipurpose Hydroelectric Dam Project (henceforth the Tipaimukh Dam) on the Barak River⁴ is just 1 km north of Zakiganj in Sylhet, Bangladesh. Theis Dam is spotted 500 meters downstream from the flowing rivers of Barak and Tuivai and sited in the south-western corner of Manipur state of India. Its reservoir will have a water storage capacity of 15,900 million cubic meters with a maximum depth of 1725.5 meters (Islam 2013: 156). Commissioned by India in mid 2000s, the Dam site lies in contiguity with two other states—Assam and Mizoram, that implies the involvement of three states of Northeast India in the project. The Barak River which flows downstream to join the Surma and Kushiara river systems in Bangladesh is considered to be the lifeline of the Sylhet region in Bangladesh. The Dam is estimated to generate 1500 MW of hydroelectric power, though the original consideration was to contain flood-water in the Cachar plains of the Indian state of Assam (D’Costa 2012: 153; Ahmed 2012: 52). However, experts are concerned and have voiced apprehensions that the proposed Dam would cause colossal damage to Bangladesh’s economy, society and environment, practically contributing to drying up two important rivers—the Surma (length: 350 km) and the Kushiara (length: 110 km)—which provide water for most of the north-eastern region of Bangladesh (Rahman 2009; Mirza 2009; Khan 2009; Mastoor 2011; Islam 2013). It will also affect the virgin haor ecosystem of Bangladesh (Adel 2012).

Over the last few decades, Indo-Bangladesh relations have not been strained more by any issue other than that of water. India continues to unilaterally control and manage most of the international rivers that Bangladesh shares with her. Impacted by climate change, India has planned to divert waters, from the northeast of the country to its drought-prone west and south, notably some fifty-four common rivers which flow from upstream India to downstream Bangladesh (Kazmi 2009). Over the last several years, there have been intense debates between the academic circles, civil society, environmental groups, human rights organizations and the media in Bangladesh over the implications of the Tipaimukh Dam upon the dividend of water coming from upper-riparian India. This debate continued to get new impetus since the protest movement expanded to the transnational space (Rahman 2009; Islam 2013).

This study was conducted employing a triangulation of methods: a global ethnography based on a robust Internet search focusing on social media; correspondence with two dozen protesters in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Bangladesh; and qualitative interviews with ten policy analysts comprising UN officials, academics, and government officers from India and Bangladesh. We also use “intellectual activism”⁵ as a novel methodological tool for our analysis. Using “environmentalism of the poor” as a conceptual metaphor, we examine: (a) how environmental resistance against the Tipaimukh Dam has transcended national borders and taken on a global and transnational form; (b) who is protesting, why, in what ways, and with what effects. The paper provides an important insight of an Asian environmentalism which has originated in Asia but formed a global alliance, and offers pragmatic policy recommendations aiming to spur social change and development.

Following this brief introduction, the paper in the second section delineates “environmentalism of the poor” as a conceptual metaphor. Drawing on this conceptual framework, the paper in the third section examines the potential environmental and social impacts of the Tipaimukh Dam that have largely generated this movement. The fourth section sketches out the diverse methods of environmental protests and alliances surrounding the Tipaimukh Dam. The paper concludes in the last section by raising some crucial issues which have broader policy implications seeking to encourage social change not only for the South Asian region but also for other parts of the world.

Social or environmental movements consist of a large number of people who organize themselves to promote or resist social change. Social movements can be either proactive- to promote social change- or reactive- to resist any social change. Sidney Tarrow (1994: 3–4) defines social movements as “collective challenges by people with common purposes and solidarity in sustained interaction with elites, opponents and authorities.” His definition outlines four basic properties of social movements: collective challenge, common purpose, solidarity, and sustaining collective action. Social or environmental movements arise from widespread, deeply felt discontent, from the conviction that some condition of society is no longer tolerable (Henslin 2011). Under these conditions, “environmentalism of the poor” proliferates.

Combining both environmental philosophy and activism, much has been written on various contours of environmentalism in the Global North ranging from the nature conservation movement to deep ecology to the new environmental paradigm (Islam 2013). While the previous trends continue to dominate the whole corpus of environmentalism literature, the new trend seeks to delve into the environmentalism of the Global South. This new trend, still in the making, has been drafted with various titles. It has also been appropriately called livelihood ecology (Gari 2000), or liberation ecology (Peet and Watts 1996). While other scholars of global environmentalism such as Martinez-Alier (2002, 2014), Nixon (2011), Guha and Martinez-Alier (1997), Iain Davey (2009), and Anguelovski and Martinez-Alier (2014) have indiscriminately used the term “environmentalism of the poor” to refer to as the environmentalism of the Global South.

Environmental justice as an organized movement has been almost confined to its “country of origin”—the United States, while popular environmentalism or livelihood ecology or the “environmentalism of the poor” are names given to the myriad of movements in the Global South that struggle against environmental impacts that threaten poor people who are, in many countries, a majority of the population (Martinez-Alier 2002). Environmentalism of the South is thus appropriately given the title of the “environmentalism of the poor” since the poor people of the Global South have, by and large, been victims of the growth-centric development approach and the environmental footprints, and it is these poor people who have initiated and organized environmental movements in the South (Guha and Martinez-Alier 1997). This movement, to quote McMichael (2008: 245), “takes two forms: active resistance, which seeks to curb invasion of habitats by states and markets; and adaptation, which exemplifies the centuries-old practice of renewing habitats in the face of environmental deterioration. In the alter practice lie some answers to current problems.”

While social construction of a boundary between Northern and Southern environmentalism often seems arbitrary, this distinction is periodically significant as the vibrant environmental movements in the Global South have been strikingly less represented in the discourse of environmentalism Islam ( 2012, 2013). In this paper, we will elucidate the environmental resistance against the Tipaimukh Dam in India as an example of the “environmentalism of the poor” focusing on the potential social and ecological costs of the Dam, dynamic and transnational nature of the resistance movement, and practical policy implications of this social and environmental activism for the geo-politics and social change of the region.

The environmentalists have posited that the Tipaimukh Dam would cause severe environmental and social disasters to both Bangladesh and India. Once completed, their primary concern centres around Bangladesh being deprived of its share of the international river that supplies waters to hundreds of water bodies in the region. They fear that the Dam would ultimately dry up the Meghna River in the greater Sylhet region and nearby districts, and the Surma and the Kushiara rivers in winter season which provide water for most of the north-eastern regions of the country. The Dam would severely affect agriculture and fisheries, vegetation and greenery including local flora and fauna, and generate a massive displacement of people and livestock in Bangladesh. The effects of the Dam are not only confined to Bangladesh as it also of serious consequences to the people of the Indian states of Manipur and Nagaland as the Barak-Surma-Kushiara is an international river (Islam 2013; Arora and Kipgen 2012; Somokanta 2014). Figure 1 shows the nexus of rivers in north-east Bangladesh and India.

A number of studies on the Tipaimukh Dam have revealed that the successful implementation of the project would impact perilously on Bangladesh. In 2005, a research team comprising three members—Abu Saleh Khan, Md. Sohel Masud and Wahid Palash—pursued a study titled “Hydrological Impact Study of Tipaimukh Dam of India on Bangladesh”, and their findings describe the terrible potential outcomes to be faced by Bangladesh from the construction of the Dam which they have summarized in six broad categories: hydrology, flooding pattern and river-floodplain-wetland ecosystem, morphology, water quality, Dam collapse, and other general impacts (Khan et al. 2005). Arora and Kipgen (2012) have pointed out the main objections of the people from both Bangladesh and India to the Dam project which they have also grouped under six categories, albeit differently: location in a geologically unstable region; loss of biodiversity with submergence of land; economic feasibility studies and cost-benefit analysis; administrative lapses, procedural and human rights violations; social and cultural objections; and objections by Bangladesh. They argue that the proposed Dam site is located in Zone V of Seismic Zoning Map of India, and that during 1953–92, this region had experienced twenty-one earthquakes of more than 6.5° on the Richter scale (see also, Abbasi 2009). The resourceful forested hills, mostly in Tamenglong and Churachandpur districts along with the richest areas in terms of flora, fauna, and aquatic systems will be submerged. Hydrology of the region will be affected. The local indigenous people will have to bear the brunt of the project’s devastating impact, but they will not share the estimated revenue to be obtained from the project. Even people will not be able to afford buying electricity at a premium. There will be catastrophic effects on infrastructures including roads and highways. The indigenous Hmar and Zelinangrong Naga people’s jhum (shifting cultivation) lands, wet rice fields, and forest and riverine habitat will be submerged and destroy their way of life. Official statistics shows, 1461 families will be directly displaced, while other estimate shows, the Dam will submerge areas of about 311 sq. km covering 90 villages with 1310 families, including 27,242 hectares of forest and cultivable land and posing grave threat to biodiversity, flora and fauna of the region (Pamei 2009; Yumnam 2008; cited in Arora and Kipgen 2012: 121). Apart from northeast India, the Dam will be a death-trap for Bangladesh, as about one-third of its population will be seriously affected. Sixteen districts of the Sylhet region will be directly and adversely affected (Arora and Kipgen 2012: 118–122).

Muzaffer Ahmad, an noted environmentalist and the president of Bangladesh Poribesh Andolon (Bangladesh Environmental Movement)—a leading environmentalist organization in Bangladesh—in a press conference remarked that the Tipaimukh Dam would be “a disaster for Bangladesh’s river system, livelihood and environment”. “We have done rigorous study on the Tipaimukh Dam”, he continues, “and found that it is going to be more disastrous than the Farakka Barrage that has already destroyed the Padma river and ecology in the country’s south-western region.” He added, what is “power-luxury” for India is a “life-and-death question” for Bangladesh. Energy cannot be more important than human disaster, continued Muzaffer.⁶ Similarly, M. R. Tarafdar (2009), a water-resources expert, in an article “Tipaimukh Dam: an alarming venture” apprehended some adverse effects of the Dam. The construction of the proposed Dam would incur endless sufferings to Bangladesh which include hydrological drought and environmental degradation, among others. The Dam would cause the Surma and Kushiara to run dry periodically that would eventually result in agricultural, irrigational, navigational, and potable water crises. During this time, the ground water level would markedly fall which, in turn, would affect all dugouts and shallow tube-wells. Agriculture, which is dependent on both surface as well as groundwater, would embrace catastrophic effects: rice production, the main component of Bangladesh agriculture, would drastically fall, leading to an increase in poverty (see also, Islam 2013).

While these figures are largely estimated, one cannot rule out the potential colossal environmental and social disasters. The Indian government has yet to reveal the full environmental-assessment report to the public. Nonetheless, independent specialists’ views on the project have engendered huge reservations over the Dam’s feasibility. A sense of injustice continues to grow among the people of India and Bangladesh over the Indian government’s unilateral decision. The government of India instead employed various public relations strategies, apparatuses and resources to convince the local people and the government of Bangladesh of the benefits and feasibility of the project. The current ruling party of Bangladesh, Awami League (AL), has maintained warm relations with India historically, and remains supportive to the Indian government’s decision.¹¹ However, people from all strata of society in Bangladesh have embarked on a massive social movement and have criticized their government’s role and implicit support for the Tipaimukh Dam project (Islam 2013).

The Tipaimukh has been a life-and-death question for Bangladesh, and thus people regardless of political affiliation, intellectual and ideological background, ethnic and cultural variation, and religious affiliation have come onto a common platform to render massive protests against the construction of the Dam. With a unilateral demand for an abrogation of India’s decision, protests in different forms—rallies, human chains, protest meetings, seminars and symposia, strikes, and so forth—continue to carry on across the country. Protests and demonstrations have, indeed, transcended the national boundary and taken on a transnational from. The movement thus turned to a global social and environmental movement embodying the “environmentalism of the poor.”

The environmental movement in Bangladesh over the construction of the Tipaimukh Dam cannot be disconnected from the turbulent past and other bilateral tensions between Bangladesh and India, such as the disputes over the water sharing of the transboundary rivers including the Ganges and Teesta as well as unabated tensions in borders between these two nations. The trajectory of the Indo-Bangladesh relations—mostly marked by bilateral tensions—has always been a key catalyst in the domestic politics of Bangladesh, and has drawn the political lines between the ruling AL and the main opposition—Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) led by Begum Khaleda Zia, which has been actively supporting the anti-Tipaimukh Dam movement. Sheikh Hasina’s government which came to power in late 2008 through a participatory election, and for the second consecutive term in early 2014 through a non-participatory election¹² has always been accused by the critics and the opposition parties of being pro-Indian and thus adopting a “subservient” foreign policy towards India. A number of cabinet ministers constantly remark that the Dam would not harm Bangladesh and this is reflected in the government’s lukewarm response to India’s decision. The four-party alliance (now extended to twenty-party alliance) led by BNP expressed its sharp reaction to the government’s stance on the Tipaimukh issue, and vowed to take the issue to international forums if the government fails to stop it. The civil society groups had also been critical of the government’s role on the Tipaimukh Dam in question (Rahman 2009; Islam 2013).

Under growing pressure from the opposition parties, civil society, intelligentsia, and the media, the government proceeded to send a parliamentary delegation to India to survey the proposed Dam site. The delegation comprising ten members, all of whom were also the members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Water Resources led by Abdur Razzak, the then Water Resources Minister of Bangladesh, visited New Delhi en route to the Tipaimukh Dam site in Manipur in early August 2009. They however failed to survey the Dam because of weather condition (Rashid 2013; Islam 2013). The delegation members were reported to have had stressed to their Indian counterparts the need for negotiations regarding the concerns and issues raised between both countries. Concurrently, Bangladesh offered to conduct a joint study with India to examine the implications of the Dam project on the region and the future flow of water in the concerned river system, which directly affects Bangladesh due to its position as a lower-riparian country.

The civil society groups including the environmentalists in Bangladesh had formed the National Tipaimukh Dam Resistance Committee (NTDRC). A long March organized by different civil society organizations which included NTDRC and Sylhet Division Unnayan Sangram Samiti (a committee that fights for development in Sylhet Division), supported by BNP and Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami (BJI)—the major Islamist party in Bangladesh and often branded as a “politically hardliner”, marched towards the Tipaimukh Dam site on 10 August 2009, but was stopped at the international border by the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR), currently Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB).¹³ BJI’s active role and support for this cause could become a genuine source of concern for India (Rahman 2009). Prior to the long March, BJI attempted to organize massive protests to mobilize people’s support against the Dam, but the government managed to thwart these protest movements. All the frontline leaders of the party were arrested by the government in 2010. Although the government was showing its zero-tolerance against any popular political-resistance movement surrounding the Tipaimukh Dam in Bangladesh, massive environmental resistance overseas and online continued (Islam 2013).

In August 2009, the leaders of NTDRC at a discussion held at Dhaka Reporters Unity (DRU) in the capital warned the people about the potential danger of the Tipaimukh Dam, and asked for their spontaneous and broader participation in the anti-Dam movement. They stressed that the construction of the Dam on the Barak River would desert the northeastern region of the country, and thus they called upon the people to remain alert on the issue so that the Indian government would not be able to go ahead unhindered in its construction. The meeting was held as part of an observance with the “Global Solidarity Sit-in the Tipaimukh Dam Programme”, which was observed simultaneously in different district headquarters around the country and cities around the world, including Shilchar, Calcutta and Patna, India; Canberra, Australia; Tokyo, Japan; and New York, U.S. Referring to fifty large dams in the world, an engineer named Hilal, a discussant, said that a “water syndicate” is now actively constructing more Dams on big rivers to realize their selfish interests. “Such immoral activities of the syndicate have also contributed to global climate change,” he continued. Shankar Roy, a renowned Indian journalist and Dinesh Mitra, an Indian engineer who also happens to be a prominent leader of the anti-Tipaimukh Dam movement, both expressed solidarity with the participants of the program (The New Nation 2009).

George Galloway, a visiting British parliamentarian, who is internationally known for his role as a human rights defender and social activist, showed his solidarity with this movement and called for an international enquiry into the potential environmental impact of India’s proposed Tipaimukh Dam. The inquiry would need to examine the impact on the population of both Bangladesh and India, he added. He opined that the project is an international issue due to its implications for the climate and the environment, and thus India’s decision to build the Dam unilaterally would be “a criminal offence.” He reaffirmed his benevolent support by saying “I will fight to prevent the making of this Dam. Not only the Bangladeshi people, but a section of the Indian people will also be affected. Even the Indian expatriates in London protested… against the proposed Dam” (Islam 2013: 162). Galloway led a UK delegation and a huge Bangladeshi crowd on a March on 29 November 2009, from Sylhet city to the border with India where the river Barak bifurcates into the Surma and Kushiara. The March was arranged to draw global attention to the potentially devastating impact of the proposed Dam on Sylhet and the entire north-eastern region of Bangladesh (Bdnews24.com 2009).

The leaders of Islami Andolan Bangladesh (IAB), in August 2009, submitted a memorandum to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Mun via the UNDP representative to Bangladesh, seeking help to stop the construction of the Dam. The memorandum contended that the plan to construct the Tipaimukh Dam was a clear infringement of the 1996 Bangladesh-India Joint River Commission (JRC), the International Helsinki Convention, and International River Law. It also pointed out that the construction of the Dam would bring terrible ecological and environmental changes in vast areas of Bangladesh and many states of India. On 18 September 2009, IAB arranged a March on to the Indian High Commission in Dhaka to protest against the Dam. Other major political parties such as The Communist Party of Bangladesh (CPB) have also organized movements against the Tipaimukh Dam. Juba Union, the youth wing of CPB, held a two-day Dhaka-Sylhet road-March program to demand an immediate halt to the construction of the Dam (Islam 2013). After 2009, the movement surrounding the Dam gradually became less vibrant as Bangladesh faced other political and social crises. Most leaders of this movement got arrested and some of them faced execution or forced disappearance.

The movement in India and particularly its northeast regions against the Tipaimukh Hydroelectric Project was phenomenal. In April 2009, hundreds of people representing Bengali, Manipuri, Naga, Khasi, Reang, Dimasa, and other communities from the southern part of Assam district staged demonstration in front of the District Commissioner’s office at Silchar. The demonstrators condemned the government’s decision and demanded the immediate abrogation of the Dam project. Pijus Kanti Das, secretary general of the Committee on Peoples and Environment (COPE), and a number of leaders from different organizations and groups joined the demonstration. The demonstrators subsequently sent a memoranda separately to the then President Pratibha Patil; Prime Minister Manmohan Singh; Union Minister for Forest and Environment Jairam Ramesh; Chief Ministers of Assam and Manipur Tarun Gogoi and O Ibobi Singh respectively through the District Commissioner of Cachar. In these memoranda’s, they expressed their concern for the people living upstream of Barak River and the potential environmental impact of the Dam’s construction (Islam 2013). Protests also took place in Manipur, Mizoram, and Barak Valley of Assam.

As indicated earlier, the Indian government initially stated that the project’s object was to contain flood-water in the Cachar plains of Assam, and therefore, the people of Cachar initially favored the Dam’s construction. However, they joined the movement against the proposed Dam when it became apparent that they had been misled. In August 2009, a joint meeting between various environmental organizations of Cachar and the Manipur groups opposing the building of the Dam was held. The speakers alleged that the Indian government had been misleading the downstream people with regard to the benefits of the Dam for a long time (Islam 2013). On 28 July 2009, the Hmar People’s Convention (Democratic) of Manipur issued a press release which stated that the proposed Tipaimukh Multipurpose Hydroelectric Project is a war imposed on the indigenous Hmar people and various other communities located downstream and upstream. The power-greedy governments and Dam builders in India, who are driven by short-term interests in their blind pursuit of profits, are putting indigenous communities at stake. They have not sought the consent and opinions of these indigenous communities in whose land the Dam is proposed. A statement from the press release stressed that “the Rivers that nursed and fed our honored generations before shall continue to flow for all the generations to come. We cannot allow the rivers to be disturbed and are obliged to see that no outsiders, their forces and might will destroy or disturb the natural flow of the rivers of life” (quoted in Islam 2013: 165). It also appealed to the visiting Bangladeshi parliamentary delegates to steadfastly share the concern to save the rivers Tuiruong and Tuivai; to work together for the collective good; and to save the rivers from irreparable damage. Hundreds of people held a rally in an interior town of Manipur’s Tamenglong district to protest the construction of the Tipaimukh Dam in early March 2010. The participants marched through Nungba town, which they said would be affected by the proposed Dam, and submitted a memorandum to the state’s chief minister with the assistance of the subdivisional officer of Nungba subdivision on 9 March 2010.

Environmental resistance against the Tipaimukh Dam has swept through (Fig. 1) North America through formal protests, organizing seminars, and submitting petitions to the United Nations (Islam 2013). Along with the physical protests on a global scale, there have been a wide range of debate, discussions and protests in the virtual world, such as blogs, Facebook, newspapers, and rallies, against the Tipaimukh Dam. More than 100 Facebook groups have been created, including “Protest Tipaimukh Dam”, “Stop Tipaimukh Dam”, “Protest against Tipaimukh Dam”, “Tipaimukh Dam and Fulertal Barrage–Let’s Stop India”, “Save Our Bangladesh”, “Tipaimukh Dissemination”, “Tipaimukh Barrage”, and so forth. To organize and to disseminate the news and information related to the Tipaimukh Dam, a good number of blog sites have been launched. Protest Tipaimukh Dam, for instance, posted 208 articles and pieces of news analysis related to the Dam in 2009. Many other online forums have been formed to resist the Dam’s construction. These forums are reported to have mobilized people’s support against the Dam throughout the world. Over a dozen online petitions that collected thousands of signatures in favor of the anti-Dam movement were sent to the prime minister of India. Beyond Bangladesh, India, and North America, South Asian people inhabiting other parts of the world have expressed their deep concern about the constructions of the Dam. Adopting various means of social movement, such as protests, petitions, and other form of resistance, their endeavors have been aimed at mounting pressure on the Indian government to reconsider and to abandon the Dam project.

This “environmentalism of the poor” showed an initial success when the project was halted in 2007. The government of India, with its neoliberal agenda prioritizing economic gain over ecological and social costs, pursued this project again. Although the movement could not stop the project entirely, it pushed the government of both countries to address certain concerns. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina brought up Bangladesh’s concerns relating to the Tipaimukh Dam Project with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during their meeting on the sidelines of the 15th Non-Aligned Movement Summit held in July 2009 in Egypt (Rahman 2009; Islam 2013). Following the signing of the “Promoter’s Agreement” on the Tipaimukh Hydroelectric Project to set up a Joint Venture Company (JVC) between the Government of Manipur, NHPC Ltd. and Sutlej Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. in October 2011, in early December of the same year, Dr. Mashiur Rahman and Dr. Gowher Rizvi, advisors to Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina paid a visit to New Delhi to discuss Bangladesh’s concerns. In September 2011, during the Indian prime minister’s visit to Dhaka, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) titled “Indo-Bangladesh Framework Agreement on Cooperation for Development” was signed by the two Prime Ministers that prevents India from taking any unilateral decision to construct the Tipaimukh Dam. Official responses stated that technical teams from both countries should have regular meetings on this high-voltage issue (Rashid 2013).¹⁴

The Dam is damn! Environmental resistance against the Tipaimukh Dam has been largely initiated by the poor; however, the magnitude and scope of the movement is undoubtedly diverse and widespread. It is still up for debate whether and to what extent this movement is successful. The resistant movement was temporarily successful when the construction work was stalled in March 2007 in the wake of protests from within and outside India. When the Indian government decided to continue with the project, environmental resistance continued to gain momentum. People in India and Bangladesh are convinced that the construction in the name of development and benefiting the local people through the provision of free electricity will eventually lead to environmental and social injustice. Tipaimukh has become a source of strain for the people of Bangladesh and India. One of their common slogans is that “Tipaimukh Dam is death to Sylhet and Bangladesh—it must be stopped.” The people of both Bangladesh and India have waged a strong environmental movement against the Dam. The movement has taken various shapes—from street demonstration to indoor-protests, from seminars and discussion meetings to virtual protests through Facebook, blogs, and other online portals, from developing various environmental and social-justice organizations to making alliances among different groups to the submission of petitions to the United Nations. Originated by the poor in Asia, this environmental movement has spanned across Europe and North America.

River-interventionism has generally been the outcome of the mercantile approach to rivers, which suggests that any flow of river water to the sea is a waste, and that all of it should be used up. Such an approach contributes to the downgrading of rivers and increased conflict among countries of the river basin. In contrast, there is now a shift from a mercantile to ecological approach, which recommends preservation of the natural volume and direction of river flow. Instead of being a source of discord, as is the case with the mercantile approach; under the ecological approach, rivers represent a bond of friendship and good neighbourliness. Globally, there is also a shift from the unilateral approach toward a multilateral, basin-wide approach that includes all the countries of a river basin in decision-making processes with respect to the use of the river. Drawing insights from the environmental and social-justice movements surrounding the Tipaimukh Dam, we offer some pragmatic policy recommendations: First, India should stop proceeding any further with the Tipaimukh Dam project and engage in dialogue with Bangladesh with open-mindedness on the question of intervention on transnational rivers, particularly, which it shares with Bangladesh including the Barak River. Simultaneously, the government of Bangladesh ought to be proactive and requires diminishing its dependency on India by attaining political legitimacy through allowing and engaging in participatory democratic practices, and thus it should exert more pressure on its Indian counterpart so that the Indian government is forced to abandon its anti-people and anti-environmental Dam project. Second, India should abandon its current unilateral approach; adopt a multi-lateral, basin-wide, integrated resource-management approach to the rivers of the region; and invite Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and China to join this effort. Third, Bangladesh, India, and other countries of the subcontinent should abandon their current mercantile approach to rivers and adopt the ecological approach. Finally, all the concerned stakeholders in both Bangladesh and India, including political parties, civil society organizations, NGOs, think tanks, media, mass organizations, local people’s organizations, non-resident Bangladeshis and Indians, and so forth, should come together, leaving behind myopic partisan and sectarian interests. Stakeholders from both Bangladesh and India should jointly form a high-profile international committee to monitor the Tipaimukh project and disseminate necessary and updated data and information. This proposed committee can coordinate and contribute to movements against Tipaimukh in India, Bangladesh and elsewhere. For Bangladesh, all concerned stakeholders including members of civil society organizations, media, NGOs, human rights organizations, intellectual groups, business and religious communities, and research organizations need to develop and rally behind a common platform and take a united national stand regarding Tipaimukh Dam and other river sharing issues, as the nation needs national unity and solidarity in order to defend its rivers.