Beyond pro-dam vs anti-dam: What India’s irrigation debate gets wrong

In India, large dams evoke strong and often irreconcilable emotions. To some, they remain symbols of national progress — engines of agricultural growth and regional development. To others, they signify ecological disruption, displacement and broken promises. This pro-dam versus anti-dam binary has dominated public discourse for decades. Yet, as with most polarised debates, it obscures more than it reveals.

What if the real question is not whether dams are good or bad, but what they actually deliver on the ground — for whom, and under what conditions?

Recent evidence from a nationwide assessment of major irrigation projects conducted for the Central Water Commission by the National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) offers a useful way to reframe this debate. By comparing command and non-command areas across multiple projects and states, the study moves beyond rhetoric to outcomes — capturing both the visible and often overlooked impacts of irrigation infrastructure.

Why the pro-dam argument endures

Supporters of large dams have long argued that irrigation is indispensable in a monsoon-dependent economy. Their case rests on familiar pillars: stabilised agricultural production, higher cropping intensity, crop diversification and protection against rainfall shocks. These arguments are not without merit.

Empirical evidence shows that command areas consistently outperform comparable non-command regions in terms of agricultural income. Irrigation lowers production risk, enables farmers to shift towards higher-value crops and supports input use that would otherwise be prohibitively risky. These direct gains alone help explain why irrigation continues to occupy a central place in India’s food security strategy.

Yet an exclusive focus on farm income significantly understates the true impact of irrigation projects.

The invisible half of irrigation benefits

One of the most striking findings from the NCAER assessment is the scale of indirect benefits generated by irrigation. Improvements in health outcomes, education, labour productivity, livelihood diversification, women’s time use, market participation and reduced vulnerability together account for nearly one-third of the total benefits from irrigation projects.

These effects do not appear neatly in crop budgets or yield statistics, yet they shape rural welfare in fundamental ways. A more reliable water supply reduces the time women spend collecting water, improves household health and nutrition, enables children — especially girls — to attend school more regularly and supports the diversification of livelihoods beyond agriculture. 

Improved irrigation also strengthens market linkages by encouraging higher-value cropping and more predictable surplus production. When such benefits are systematically valued, irrigation projects appear far more consequential than conventional cost-benefit analyses suggest.

This evidence strengthens the pro-dam argument, but only partially.

Why the anti-dam critique still matters

Opposition to large dams is rooted in real and persistent failures. Displacement, ecological damage, inequitable water distribution and weak rehabilitation outcomes cannot be dismissed as ideological objections. The same evidence that confirms irrigation benefits also reveals how unevenly those benefits are distributed.

Not all farmers in command areas gain equally. Tail-end users, smallholders and marginal households often face less reliable water access and greater exposure to supply disruptions. In several projects, institutional weaknesses, ranging from inadequate command area development to poor maintenance and weak local governance, significantly dilute potential gains. In such cases, infrastructure exists, but outcomes fall short.

Crucially, many of these shortcomings are not failures of dams per se, but failures of planning, governance and post-construction management. Yet these gaps fuel legitimate scepticism and social resistance, reinforcing the perception that large dams overpromise and underdeliver.

Where the binary breaks down

The evidence points to a more nuanced conclusion: dams are neither heroes nor villains. They are amplifiers. When embedded in strong institutions, they magnify growth and resilience; when embedded in weak ones, they magnify inequity and inefficiency.

This insight exposes the limits of the pro- versus anti-dam framing. The real policy questions are far more specific—and far more answerable. Which projects deliver sustained benefits over time? How effectively are command areas developed and governed? Who gains from irrigation, who is excluded and why? Are indirect benefits recognised in appraisal and investment decisions?

Viewed through this lens, blanket opposition to dams is as analytically weak as uncritical endorsement.

Toward a smarter irrigation debate

India does not need fewer dams or more dams as an article of faith; it needs better-performing dams, evaluated over their full lifecycle. This requires shifting attention from engineering structures to irrigation systems, where water delivery, governance and local institutions matter as much as storage capacity.

Policy frameworks must also evolve. Conventional project appraisal tends to undervalue irrigation by overlooking indirect benefits, while simultaneously underestimating social and ecological costs. A more balanced approach would explicitly account for both, leading to more credible and transparent investment decisions.

Most importantly, debates on irrigation must move away from slogans and towards evidence. The question is no longer whether dams should exist, but how they can be designed, managed and governed to maximise inclusive and sustainable outcomes.

India’s irrigation future will not be decided by ideology alone. It will be shaped by the willingness to learn from evidence — and to move beyond false binaries that no longer serve policy or people.

Saurabh Bandyopadhyay is a senior fellow and Laxmi Joshi a fellow at the National Council of Applied Economic Research.

Views expressed are the authors’ own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth.