Displacement without Rehabilitation: The Upper Indravati Dam, Odisha

Author: Keshab Chandra Ratha | EPW Vol. 61, No. 11, March 14, 2026

Three decades after the Upper Indravati Hydroelectric Project submerged dozens of villages in Kalahandi district, Odisha, displaced tribal communities — predominantly Kondhs — remain unrehabilitated. Ratha’s study documents the persistent gap between the state’s rehabilitation promises and ground reality, situating the case within India’s larger framework of development-induced displacement.

The Upper Indravati Hydroelectric Project (UIHEP)

The project was conceived as a major power source for Odisha’s industrial development. Its reservoir, however, submerged fertile valley land and forest-dependent settlements of Kondh communities who had no alternate livelihood options.

What Was Promised vs What Was Delivered

Ratha documents that many displaced families have spent decades in makeshift settlements, classified as “encroachers” on forest land they historically occupied.

Constitutional and Legal Framework

Article 244 and the Fifth Schedule

• Article 244 empowers the President to apply special provisions (Fifth Schedule) to “Scheduled Areas” — regions with substantial tribal populations
• Fifth Schedule mandates the Tribes Advisory Council (TAC) and restricts transfer of tribal land
• The Indravati project was built in a Fifth Schedule area — yet land acquisition proceeded without the robust tribal consent mechanisms the Schedule envisions

PESA 1996 (Panchayats Extension to Scheduled Areas Act)

• Extends Panchayati Raj to tribal areas; empowers gram sabhas to:
  • Manage natural resources
  • Consent to land acquisition and rehabilitation plans
  • Control minor forest produce
• The Upper Indravati displacement predated PESA — but even post-PESA, resettlement decisions have not involved gram sabha consent as PESA requires

Forest Rights Act 2006 (FRA)

• Recognises the historical forest rights of tribal and other traditional forest dwellers
• Section 4(5): Rights under FRA cannot be altered without gram sabha consent
• Many displaced Kondh families have filed FRA claims on their original forest land — most remain pending

RFCTLARR Act 2013 (Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act)

RFCTLARR 2013 was not in force when UIHEP displaced communities — but the state’s failure to retrospectively apply its principles to pending rehabilitation cases is the article’s central critique.

The National Picture: Dams and Tribal Displacement

• India has 5,745 large dams — 3rd highest globally (after China and USA)
• Most large dams built in tribal heartland: Odisha, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat
• Estimated 40–50% of all dam-displaced persons in India belong to tribal communities, though tribes are only ~8.6% of the population (Census 2011)
• River valley projects — the largest category of development-induced displacement since Independence
• Thayer Committee (1985): Estimated 1.5–2 crore displaced by large dams at that time; no comprehensive national count since

“Dams are the temples of modern India.” — Jawaharlal Nehru (1954, Bhakra-Nangal) “For whom are these temples built?” — the central question of development-induced displacement scholarship

Article 21: Right to Livelihood

The Supreme Court has held (Olga Tellis v. BMC, 1985; later reaffirmed) that Article 21 (Right to Life) includes the right to livelihood. Development-induced displacement without adequate rehabilitation directly violates this right. Courts have increasingly held that:

• Displacement without rehabilitation = violation of Article 21
• Gram sabha consent under PESA/FRA is a condition precedent, not a formality

UPSC Angle

• GS2 — Tribal Welfare: Fifth Schedule, PESA 1996, Forest Rights Act 2006; tribal land rights; gram sabha powers
• GS2 — Governance: RFCTLARR Act 2013; Social Impact Assessment; R&R policy gaps; implementation failure
• GS3 — Infrastructure: Development vs displacement dilemma; hydropower; large dams
• GS3 — Environment: River ecosystems; Indravati river basin; submergence of forest land

Likely Mains question: “Development-induced displacement in tribal areas reflects a structural failure of both policy design and implementation. Examine with reference to India’s legal framework for rehabilitation.” (GS2, 15 marks)

Facts Corner

• Upper Indravati HEP: 600 MW project on Indravati river, Kalahandi, Odisha; commissioned in 1990s
• Indravati River: Rises in Odisha’s Eastern Ghats; joins Godavari at Bhadrachalam; also the river on which Chitrakoot Falls (Odisha’s Niagara) is located
• Fifth Schedule: Applies to 10 states with Scheduled Areas — Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, HP, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, MP, Odisha, Rajasthan, Telangana
• PESA 1996: Extends democratic decentralisation to Fifth Schedule areas; gram sabha is the primary authority
• FRA 2006: Recognises individual and community forest rights of tribal and traditional forest dwellers; Section 3 lists 13 categories of rights
• RFCTLARR 2013: Replaced Land Acquisition Act 1894; mandatory SIA, gram sabha consent for SC/ST land, 4× compensation for rural SC/ST
• India’s large dams: 5,745 (CWC data); about 75% built after 1947
• Kondh (Kandha): Major tribal community of Odisha; classified as Scheduled Tribe; known for podu (shifting) cultivation and forest dependence