Narmada as an Example: Are transnational movements a worthwhile cause?

  

Transnational critics of the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada River in India resisted the development on the grounds that it would displace thousands of indigenous people. Although the developers promised that the dam would provide water and energy for the people of Narmada Valley, opponents argued that these empty promises would never be realized. The benefits were largely overestimated to justify the project, even though the social and environmental costs were high. After the dam was built, naysayers’ predictions came to fruition; the irrigation systems to transport water to communities were never built, electricity generation never reached the projected levels, and the displaced communities were never rehabilitated. So why then, even in the presence of a strong international movement against the Sardar Sarovar Dam that prompted the World Bank to rescind funding, did the Indian government still continue the project? Although India’s motives for this controversial project remain unclear, the transnational activism movement known as the Narmada Alliance raises doubts regarding the effectiveness and legitimacy of transnational activism. As demonstrated by this Alliance, even the most widespread transnational activist movements can be ineffective at influencing state governments. Furthermore, even if transnational activism does influence the governing body of a state, its goals may not represent the true interests of that state. Therefore, transnational movements are not advisable approaches to establish positive change within a state.

            Kothari’s essay regarding global alliances and the Narmada movement characterizes Narmada as a success. The successes of the movement, he claims, were the World Bank’s withdrawal of funding for the project and the creation of the World Commission on Dams. These successes deserve some merit, but are not enough to declare the Narmada Alliance successful. The Alliance was able to garner support from both Western NGOs and international human rights and water organizations, which in turn were able to pressure the World Bank. Unfortunately, the alliance was unable to persuade the most important actor: the Indian government. According to Wapner, transnational activist groups are significant because they affect the behavior of larger collectives throughout the world and influence state decisions. Wapner’s description indicates the ultimate criteria on which a transnational movement should be evaluated: its ability to influence a state. In Narmada’s case, regardless of its impressive mobilization, pressure on the World Bank, use of peaceful protests, and increased global awareness of the issue, it failed to sway India’s decision to build the dam.

            The reason for this failure, and the reason that many transnational movements cannot influence state governments, is because the political structure within a state ultimately determines the extent to which a social or environmental movement can change state decisions. In India, for example, as indicated by international legal scholar BalakrishnanRajagopal, the Constitution assigns inter-state water disputes to the exclusive jurisdiction of specialized tribunals, which effectively eliminates public participation in settlements of issues regarding water. Because the structure of India’s water laws does not allow for public opinion to influence decisions, it follows naturally that international public opinion should not be considered when deciding to continue a dam project. Just as India’s legal assumptions regarding water influenced the effectiveness of the Narmada Alliance, implicit or explicit facets of government, legal systems, and publics can completely prevent a transnational movement from changing a state’s behavior. As we discussed in class, the Sea Shepherds’ dramatic tactics to call media attention to Japanese whaling have yet to contribute to widespread concern in the US, perhaps because whaling is not seen as a priority. For these reasons, even the most pervasive and convincing movement could fail if it attempted to influence the behavior of a state that did not value a particular movement in the political sphere; therefore, transnational movements are not a worthwhile channel to pursue change within a state.

            Furthermore, even if a transnational movement was able to reconcile a state’s inherent reservations about social movements and influence a state government to act in favor of the movement, what determines if that action was in fact the right decision for the state? What gives transnational alliances—which are often compromised of Western NGOs and activist groups—the right to determine what is best for a sovereign state? Although the goals of transnational movements represent the state’s interest on the surface, these international movements cannot possibly reflect the best interests of all factions in a particular state. What if the Narmada River dams’ irrigation and energy plans were dependent on the funding from the World Bank? What if the Sardar Sarovar Dam, though it temporarily displaced indigenous people, was part of India’s long-term plan for economic development in that area? The Indian government should handle development issues within its state, along with accommodating the thousands of voiceless people whose interests were not represented by the anti-dam transnational movements. Because individual governments—not obligatory schemes supported by transnational movements—are best suited to address the needs of its own citizens, it is not useful or appropriate to pursue transnational activism as a means of change.

            The Narmada Alliance exemplifies the two problems with transnational alliances: first, their inability to influence state behavior, and second, their misunderstanding of the needs of the state’s citizens. For this reason, transnational movements should be avoided because they are not sensible means to influence a country’s policy decisions.