The Ken-Betwa river linking project, with all its pending anomalies, has now reached a stage where, as with many large projects, voices of dissent and the legitimate demands of affected local people are being suppressed through repression.
Construction of the dam near Dhondhan village, proposed under the project, is at its peak. Forceful attempts to displace local tribal communities have intensified. Local communities have mobilised against this displacement to protect their existence and have been campaigning for the past two months to have their demands addressed through various forms of satyagraha (non-violent civil resistance), including sit-ins, demonstrations, road blockades and gheraos of the collector’s office. The movement is led by Amit Bhatnagar, a social activist associated with Jai Kisan Sangathan and formerly with the Aam Aadmi Party.
With their demands remaining unaddressed, some agitators marched to Delhi on April 5, 2026, while most locals, especially women, continued to hold their ground. On April 8, 2026, local tribal women staged a symbolic ‘Chita Andolan’ (pyre protest), seeking to convey to the administration that the conditions imposed on them are akin to a funeral bier and pyre, and that they will fight for their rights until their last breath. This symbolic protest has attracted media attention, with Dainik Bhaskar and The Times of India carrying the story prominently.
A total of 24 villages have been settled for centuries in the area where the dam is being constructed. Of these, eight villages are set to be completely submerged due to the dam, while 16 villages are being incorporated into the Panna Tiger Reserve. The project raises serious questions about the understanding and judgement of the country’s policymakers and has been mired in controversy since its inception.
Notably, the project directly affects about 30 per cent of the core zone of the Panna Tiger Reserve, a key tiger habitat. For this reason, the Central Empowered Committee, constituted by the Supreme Court, had raised serious objections to the project’s concept and design.
The Supreme Court itself had issued a clear warning regarding environmental governance in the context of this project: “Our approach should be eco-centric and not anthropocentric.” It further emphasised that due consideration must be given to whether the natural interests of all species are being protected, as all species have an equal right to exist on the planet.
Despite these objections and warnings, the project is now progressing at full pace, and the forced displacement of people has begun. The Chhatarpur Collector has imposed Section 144 (now Section 163 of the Indian Civil Defence Code, 2023) at the project site, restricting assembly and prohibiting the entry of outsiders.
Additionally, the district administration has accused Amit Bhatnagar, a resident of a village located about 20 kilometre from the project site, of inciting opposition and misleading local people, labelling him as anti-development.
A primary concern in cases of project-induced displacement is that communities have lived in these villages for centuries and are unwilling to leave. If relocation is unavoidable, they demand to be resettled in equivalent conditions and provided with sufficient compensation to ensure that they do not face destitution.
They also allege that they have been kept in the dark and that consent from the Gram Sabha was obtained through opaque processes. Their most significant grievance is that their concerns are not being heard and are instead being continuously suppressed by the administration.
Their first demand is that their villages should not be destroyed, as these settlements have existed for centuries and hold deep social and cultural significance. Second, they demand full compliance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, if displacement is unavoidable.
Third, they emphasise that all affected and displaced villages belong to tribal communities and should be rehabilitated in a manner that preserves their cultural and traditional way of life. Fourth, they demand land in lieu of land and village in lieu of village, so that they can continue their socio-cultural practices and sustain dignified livelihoods.
Finally, they call for transparency in the processes of acquisition, displacement and rehabilitation. Any action, they argue, should be taken with their informed participation. They allege that Gram Sabha consent was obtained in a non-transparent and improper manner, and demand that fresh Gram Sabha proceedings be conducted openly and fairly.
Dainik Bhaskar has detailed the administrative proceedings to date. According to the report, the consent of the Gram Sabha, as prescribed under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, was obtained by the administration eight years before the dam was sanctioned. Villagers say they had no knowledge of the project at that time.
As the villages are now being displaced, residents are entitled to resettlement under the 2013 Act. However, the administration has treated them as eligible only for a cash package of Rs 12.5 lakh, and this amount has been deposited in the bank accounts of about 40 per cent of the families.
All individuals above the age of 18 are to be considered separate units and are entitled to rehabilitation rights. However, while the administration has treated individuals aged 18 as separate units, it has fixed the eligibility cut-off at 2022-2023. As a result, many young people have been denied these rights.
The demand for land in lieu of land and village in lieu of village has not been addressed by the administration.
A distinctive aspect of this project is that two separate processes are simultaneously causing displacement. Of the 24 villages scheduled for relocation, 16 are being displaced for the Critical Tiger Reserve under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, while the remaining eight are being displaced for dam construction. Each of these processes is governed by different legal frameworks for land acquisition.
There are three key aspects of the project that require attention.
First, the 16 villages to be acquired for the Panna Tiger Reserve must be relocated in accordance with the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The law provides two options: land acquisition or voluntary relocation through agreement with residents. Notably, these villages have historically coexisted with the Panna Tiger Reserve and have not posed any threat to wildlife. However, with nearly one-third of the core zone of the reserve set to be submerged, these villages are now being acquired as compensatory area.
Under the guise of voluntary relocation, residents are being offered a cash compensation package. This raises a key question: if these villages were not a threat to the tiger reserve for decades, why is human presence now being treated as incompatible with conservation?
Second, even under the Wildlife Protection Act, land acquisition must follow the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. However, there are serious concerns regarding the implementation of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, as all these villages fall within its ambit. According to both legal provisions and villagers’ accounts, and as supported by records, the forest rights of tribal communities in these villages have not been formally recognised.
In this context, a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated January 19, 2024 assumes significance. Delivered in Kamlesh Prajapati v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2024), in relation to the Orchha Wildlife Sanctuary, the Court questioned the validity of so-called “voluntary rehabilitation” in the context of wildlife conservation.
The court held that the consent obtained from oustees was secured under duress. It emphasised that valid consent requires equality between parties, whereas in such cases, consent is often obtained through pressure or misrepresentation. The judgment also highlighted that the forest rights of villagers had not been recognised, and that without full compliance with the Forest Rights Act, displacement cannot take place.
Further, the court found that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 had not been followed in a transparent manner, both in terms of land acquisition and rehabilitation.
Administrators associated with the Ken-Betwa river linking project would need to examine this judgment closely and implement it in both letter and spirit. It must be recognised that tribal communities have limited alternatives and are not direct beneficiaries of the project, which is expected to benefit farmers in Uttar Pradesh, despite existing concerns.
The movement is likely to intensify, and there may be further instances of repression. This stems from the prevailing administrative approach and the vulnerability of the affected communities. It is not that a peaceful resolution is unavailable; rather, the most straightforward course would be to ensure that all actions are taken in accordance with constitutional and legal provisions. However, if the administration remains inflexible and fails to implement the law properly, the consequences are likely to be adverse for all concerned.
Satyam Shrivastava was a member of the Committees on Habitat Rights and Community Rights constituted by the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs as a designated subject expert, and works on forest land and tribal rights.
Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth