Medha Patkar and the Narmada Bachao Andolan

Who she is, and what the NBA opposed

Medha Patkar (born 1 December 1954, in Mumbai) is a social activist and a founding member of the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA), formed in 1985.

She holds an MA in Social Work from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS). That formal training fed directly into the community-organising work she’d go on to do.

• What the NBA opposed — the Sardar Sarovar Dam and other large dams planned on the Narmada river. These dams span Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra.
• The core argument — the scale of displacement, over 40,000 families, inadequate rehabilitation for those displaced, and the project’s wider environmental cost. This wasn’t a blanket anti-dam stance, but a case built on specific, documented harms.

The court’s ruling, and the jal satyagraha

• The court’s ruling — on 18 October 2000, the Supreme Court allowed construction to continue, up to a height of 90 metres. Further approvals were required above that height.
• A different protest — in August 2012, around 50 villagers at Ghogalgaon, Madhya Pradesh, waded into the rising Omkareshwar dam reservoir. They simply stood there. They stayed in the water for 17 days, a protest called “jal satyagraha.” The government finally agreed to lower the water level and pay proper compensation.
• A 2026 settlement — on 7 July 2026, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Maharashtra reached an agreement on the project’s pending issues. It settles the decades-old dispute over displaced families and land compensation. Home Minister Amit Shah brokered it. (Source: Akashvani News)

Recognition, a wider network, and other campaigns

• International recognition — Patkar received the Right Livelihood Award in 1991 and the Goldman Environmental Prize in 1992, for the NBA’s work. Both came well before the Supreme Court’s eventual ruling.
• Building a wider network — she co-founded the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM). It coordinates grassroots organisations across India on displacement, housing, and land rights. That extended her work well past the Narmada valley itself.
• A later fight, in a city — in 2013, she led an indefinite hunger strike at Golibar in Mumbai, protesting slum demolitions. Over 500 affected residents joined her. It showed the same tactics applied to an urban displacement fight.
• Other campaigns — her activism later extended to opposing several other large projects. These included the Tata Nano plant site in Singur, West Bengal, and the Lavasa hill-city development.

Losing in court, winning the debate

• Losing in court, winning the debate — the 2000 Supreme Court verdict is a useful reminder. A movement’s legal outcome and its lasting influence aren’t the same thing. The Court sided against the NBA’s core plea. Yet the movement’s arguments still reshaped how India debates displacement and rehabilitation today.
• A network that outlasted one fight — NAPM’s growth beyond the Narmada valley shows a common pattern in Indian social movements. A fight over one specific project can build an organising network that outlasts that single fight.

A contemporary, a decade apart, and a different approach

• A contemporary, a decade apart — Patkar’s activism sits alongside EnvEco0035 — Sunderlal Bahuguna, another leading figure in India’s post-independence environmental movement. Their signature campaigns unfolded a decade apart, in different regions.
• See also — dam-building’s costs and benefits, central to the NBA’s case, are explored more broadly in IndEco0044 — Environmental Impact of Dams.
• A different approach, same rivers — Patkar’s resistance to a large dam makes an instructive contrast with Rajendra Singh’s approach. His Tarun Bharat Sangh revived rivers by rebuilding small, traditional structures village by village, not by opposing a single large project. See IndSoc0053.