Global Local Linkages in Contemporary Environmental Movements: Networking,Diffusion and Scale Shift in the Niyamgiri Movement of Odisha

Abstract

Taking the tribal resistance against Vedanta Alumina at Niyamgiri Hills of Odisha in India as a case in point, the present article deciphers the nuances of contemporary environmental movements. It discusses the manner in which movements like Niyamgiri address global environmental issues with local environmental actions. It examines the issue of scale shift of environmental activism and the process in which a local struggle over livelihood and resource capture becomes a global environmental movement. It unravels the subtle negotiations that the local agents of the movement engage in with their global counterparts. The major arguments of the article are based on empirical research at the site of contestation with the help of qualitative methods. The article vividly narrates the emergence of the Niyamgiri movement from that of a localised struggle against land acquisition to that of a transnational movement raising serious ecological concerns, which bridges the gap between the local and global in contemporary environmental movements. It argues that rather than an emphasis on ‘locale’, the point of departure should be the movement’s ability to establish networks with related as well as non-related social movement organisations, who share similar concerns with nature, and are ready to be a part of the mobilisation process.

Keywords

Environmental movement Niyamgiri scale shift networking Vedanta mining

Introduction

Among the many movements that began their career in the new genre of movement politics of the 1960s and 1970s, environmental movement is perhaps the only movement which has sustained its vigour and vitality without being pushed into the oblivions of movement history. Its success is evident from the varieties of legislations that have been crafted in recent years, and the amount of forest lands and animal species that have been protected globally (Guha, 2000). Manuel Castells, therefore, states without contestation that environmental movements are becoming ‘the most comprehensive and influential movement of our times’(Castells, 1997, p. 67). Castells writes, ‘… in its own way, and through the creative cacophony of its multiple voices, environmentalism challenges global ecological disorder, brought about by uncontrolled global development, and by the unleashing of unprecedented technological forces without checking their social and environmental sustainability’ (ibid, 72–73).

During the last few decades, the Indian society has encountered several such popular collective mobilisations concerning nature, which may broadly be put under the larger rubric of ‘environmental movements’. At a time when India is involved in a ‘democratic churning’ (Kothari, 1989), these movements have articulated people’s dissent towards an exploitative and exclusionary model of development, besides highlighting alternate ways of conserving nature. The ideologies of environmentalism and the collective action concerning environmental activism have existed and manifested themselves in various forms. The dominant discourse concerning environmentalism in India has often reduced it to popular conflicts over development or livelihood struggles in defence of land, water and other related productive resources. However, environmental movements, as they exist in contemporary India, manifest themselves in a manner, which is too broad to be subsumed within the narrow framework of development conflict or livelihood struggle. An attempt has been made in this article to capture the broad spectrum of environmentalism and the environmental movement as it exists in its contemporary form. The article aims to investigate the meanings and manifestations of environmental movements in India by way of inquiring the global and local linkages in these movements.

The tribal resistance against Vedanta Alumina Limited (VAL) at Niyamgiri Hills of Lanjigarh Block of Kalahandi district in Odisha has been taken as a case in point to decipher the nuances of contemporary environmental movements. The article discusses the manner in which movements like Niyamgiri struggle address global environmental issues with local environmental actions. It also examines the issue of scale shift of environmental activism and the process in which a local struggle over issues of livelihood and resource capture becomes a global environmental movement. In the process, the article unravels the subtle negotiations that the local agents of the movement engage with their global counterparts.

Method and Nature of Data

The primary objective of the article is to explore the nuances of contemporary environmental movements by way of examining the process of movement diffusion and scale shift. Towards this end, the article poses the central research question as to why and how certain environmental social movements transform themselves from being a localised struggle over issues of livelihood to that of global environmental movements, generating contentious politics at multiples levels and spaces. The empirical data used in this article are derived from a case study of resistance against VAL, which originated in the foothills of Niyamgiri mountain of Lanjigarh Block of Kalahandi District in Odisha, which also transgressed beyond boundaries of the locality to emerge as a trans-national environmental social movement of the contemporary times. The article adopted case study method to elicit relevant data on global-local linkages in the movement against Vedanta at Niyamgiri. Six in-depth interviews with key informant (three interviews with leaders of the Niyamgiri Suraksha Samiti [NSS] and three interviews with members of civil society organisation) and twenty-two structured interviews with community leaders and representatives of local government of Lanjigarh and Batelima Gram Panchayat were conducted to gather relevant data. Besides, four focused group discussions (FGD) at Balabhadrapur, Jagannathpur, Basantapada and Batelima village were carried out. The respondents for the interview and other key informants were chosen based on snowball sampling method.

The narrative of the article is built upon by way of collecting data from the following five sources:

Qualitative fieldwork at the site of mobilisation, which included key informant interviews with members of NSS, the organisation which spearheaded the movement at the local level as well as grassroots level participants of the resistance.

Qualitative interviews with current and previous tribal representatives of Lanjigarh and Batelima Gram Panchayat, who were part of the major decisions of land acquisition for the construction of the refinery plant of VAL.

FGD with tribal community members of Balabhadrapur and Jagannathpur village of Lanjigarh Gram Panchayat, and Basantapada and Batelima village of Batelima Gram Panchayat in Lanjigarh Block of Kalahandi district.

Unstructured interviews with activists, intellectuals and members of civil society organisations at Lanjigarh, Bhawanipatna and Bhubaneswar, who were actively engaged with the movement.

Published and unpublished materials about the movement, including internet searches, local and national newspaper articles, pamphlets and leaflets of NGOs and social movement organisations (SMOs) about meetings and protest events.

Conceptualising Environmental Movements

Since the present article deals with popular mobilisations concerning environment, it is appropriate that we engage with theoretical and conceptual aspects of social movement in general and environmental movement in particular.

Defining Environmental Social Movements

Social movements, as it is popularly known in academia, came into being with the growth of modern nation states and developed as a familiar means of pressing claims (Tilly, 1984). Despite the difficulty of finding a consensual definition of social movements, most of the scholars while defining the concept emphasise the collective identity of challengers, the mix of institutional and non-institutional tactics, and sustained dynamic interaction with mainstream politics and culture (see Diani, 1992). In his attempt to provide a concise meaning to the concept, Sidney Tarrow defines social movements as ‘collective challenges, based on common purposes and social solidarities, in sustained interaction with elites, opponents, and authorities’ (Tarrow, 1998, p. 4).

If it is difficult to give a precise definition of social movements, which include ‘phenomena as diverse as climates of opinion at one extreme to formally organised pressure groups and political parties at the other’ (Rootes, 1997, p. 319); it is perhaps more challenging to conceptualise ‘environmental movements’, where actions deemed environmental not only vary in terms of degree but also cut across ‘parallel forms of collective actions in the field of ethnicity, gender, regional autonomy, labour, human rights, and nuclear disarmament’ (Dwivedi, 2001, p. 12). Reliance on social movement literature often becomes problematic to conceptualise the contemporary environmental movements. Based upon their larger scholarship on social movements, Jamison et al. (1990) and Eyerman and Jamison (1991) conceive of the environmental movement as that relatively brief period between the constitution of the knowledge interests which define the movement and their institutionalisation in university departments of environmental studies, the environmental departments of industrial organisations, law and journalism, professionalised campaign organisations, and in professionalised environmental pressure groups such as Greenpeace and political parties, including Green parties (as cited in Rootes, 1997, p. 324). Eyerman and Jamison (1991) made a conscious distinction between the social movement and its organisations. In their view:

‘Although movements usually involve the creation of organisation or the renovation of institutions, it is important not to mistake the one for the other. Organisations can be thought of as vehicles for carrying or transporting or even producing movement’s meaning, but the meaning should not be reduced to the medium’ (ibid, p. 59).

Viewed in this sense, environmental movements cease to exist when they enter the institutional domain, and therefore, many of the actions of professionalised organisations concerning environment do not qualify to be termed as environmental movements. While this conceptualisation may be useful to comprehend the early development of environmental movements, it, nevertheless, fails to grapple their subsequent maturity and institutionalisation.

In contradistinction to Eyerman and Jamison (1991), for Diani (1992), social movements need not be anti-institutional in styles of action, and organisations and political parties may themselves be part of the movement. Inclusion of professional organisation and even political parties within the conception of social movement may come closer to define environmental movements of the contemporary period, where environmental movement organisations and environmental non-governmental organisations enjoy a decisive place concerning environmental collective actions. However, Diani’s insistent on ‘collective identity’ as a necessary condition of the existence of a social movement’ (1992, p. 8–9) makes the issue rather a complicated one. Diani regards ‘collective identity’ as a matter of both self and external definition of a movement, which helps the actors ‘define themselves as part of a broader movement, and at the same time be perceived as such, by those within the same movement, and by opponents and/or external observers’ (ibid). In contrast, the present-day environmental movements constitute individuals, groups and networks so widespread and diverse in their understanding of social, political and environmental matters that there hardly exists anything which could construct a collective identity among them as participants of the movement.

The disenchantment with social movement scholarship in conceptualising environmental movement leaves no option than to understand them as they are. Perhaps, Manuel Castells is more appropriate in conceptualising environmental movements, while he defines them in their own terms. Castells (2010, p. 73) reiterates:

‘Social movements must be understood in their own terms: namely, they are what they say they are. Their practices are their self-definition’.

Agreeing with Castells, it may be said that environmental movements are collective actions around environmental alterations, which generates crisis in material, physical and symbolic bases of life. They may include public, political and organisational actions of resistance as well as reconstructions concerning environmental change, degradation and destruction. Rather than adopting a much restrictive definition, contemporary environmental movements can be best conceptualised as institutional and non-institutional networks, which according to Rootes include:

Individuals and groups who have no organisational affiliation, organisations of varying degrees of formality and even parties, and which are engaged in collective action motivated by shared environmental concerns, but that the forms and intensity of both action and concern may vary considerably from place to place and from time to time. (Rootes, 1997, p. 326)

The Landscape of Resistance: Bauxite Mining and Environmental Social Movements in Odisha

Albeit making headlines for poverty and hunger death, Odisha, paradoxically, has been the home to rich mineral resources. The state is endowed with 83% of India’s chromite reserve, 92% of nickel, 55% of bauxite, 38% of iron ore and 26% of coal (Government of Odisha, 2009). More than 95% of bauxite deposits of the state are concentrated on the south-western part of the state, that is, in the districts of Kalahandi, Balangir, Koraput and Rayagada. The formation of bauxite ore in Odisha has taken place through the process of weathering of Khondalite rock over millions of years. The thickness of bauxite deposits in the state ranges from about 1 metre to as much as 54 metres, with areal spread covering several square kilometres, such as 3.55 km² at Niyamgiri (Oskarsson, 2017). It is estimated that the state is endowed with 1,733 million tons of bauxite (Padhi & Panigrahi, 2011), creating enough potential for attracting giant mining companies to the state. By the mid-1970s, it had become clear that the bauxite deposits of Panchpatmali in Koraput district of Odisha were exploitable, and NALCO was set up in the year 1981 in collaboration with a French-based aluminium multinational Pachiney Ugine Kuhlmann to exploit the vast bauxite deposits of southern Odisha (Srinivasan et al., 1981). The state-owned company NALCO’s mining operations at Panchpatmali and its aluminium refinery plant at Damanjodi in Koraput district remained Odisha’s only aluminium related project till early the 1990s. However, after the 1991 economic reforms, with the pro-business policies of Indian state and easing of rules for investment and capital ownership, Odisha witnessed a large-scale private sector investment in the bauxite mining sector. Since then, several mining companies such as the Bharat Aluminium Company (BALCO), Utkal Alumina Limited (UAIL), Tata, Indian Aluminium Company (INDAL), Hydro, Alcan, Hindalco Industries Limited (Hindalco) and Vedanta Resources, have tried to extract bauxite from the state. Post liberalisation, mining has been portrayed as the only means to combat poverty, unemployment and underdevelopment of the region, and thus, has been strongly pushed by the state to attract foreign investment. However, large-scale investments in capital intensive mining projects seemed to have made little impact on poverty and employment generation in the area (Kumar, 2014a). The limited economic and employment benefits of mining appear meagre in front of loss of livelihood due to the displacement and loss of environmental resources caused by these extractive projects. These mining projects have caused large-scale displacement in the region and have affected the livelihood and life support system of poor, forest-dependent people of the region. The painful processes of state-sponsored development induced dispossession and subsequent accumulation of capital have fostered a deep sense of resentment among the affected people, mostly belonging to the tribal communities. This has given rise to several grassroots movements against resource extraction across the state. The Chilika Bacao Andolan, the movement against steel and industrialisation projects in Gopalpur (Tata steel), Jagatsinghpur (POSCO) and Kalinganagar, the movement against mining and displacement in Kashipur, Niyamgiri and Gandhamardan, the Narayanpatna movement and so on univocally narrate the story of environmental social movements in post-liberalised Odisha (Kumar, 2014a; Nayak, 2015; Pattnaik, 2013; Reddy et al., 2013; Sahoo, 2007; Sahoo & Mishra, 2017; Sahu, 2008, 2019).

The present article attempts a deeper understanding of the Niyamgiri movement against Vedanta’s mining operations in Lanjigarh by way of investigating the processes of scale shift and networking of the movement. However, before we take up the case of the Niyamgiri movement it is apt to traverse the landscape of resistance against bauxite mining in Odisha. This section, hence, begins with a brief narration of two similar popular resistances against bauxite mining in Odisha, namely the Gandhamardan Movement against BALCO and the Kashipur movement against UAIL, and then proceeds further in providing a detailed account of the Niyamgiri movement in Lanjigarh.

Movement Against BALCO in Gandhamardan Hills

BALCO laid the foundation stones of its mining project on 2 May 1983 at the Gandhamardan hills to extract bauxite on the basis of a 9.6 sq. km lease of the hill ranges in the Sambalpur and Balangir districts of Odisha, which carried 213 million tons of bauxite (Padhi & Panigrahi, 2011). With an assurance of generating employment to an extent of 500 permanent jobs and 3,000 daily wage jobs, BALCO established its office at Paikamal region of the then Sambalpur district in 1983. Since the project’s inception, an intense struggle against mining emerged in the Paikamal and Padampur region of Sambalpur, in the foothills of Gandhamardan mountain. The core issues behind the struggle against BALCO constituted questions of livelihood, indigenous culture, belief and religion, besides the biological and environmental diversity of Gandhamardan. The Gandhamardan hill remained as the only source of livelihood for more than 20,000 tribal households of the region, providing them food, fodder and water (Mahapatra, 2011). The tribal households of the region collected varieties of livelihood supporting non-timber forest products such as mahua flowers, sal seed, sal leaves, bamboo shoots, kendu leaves, and several other fruits and herbs from Gandhamardan mountain. The bamboo forests of the hill also provided wage employment opportunities to the locals due to operation of Orient Paper Mills. Besides, Gandhamardan has always remained an important ecological zone, with more than 360 varieties of medicinal plant species, 22 streams and 150 perennial streams (Padhi & Panigrahi, 2011).

Cultural and religious issues formed the immediate reason for mobilisation of people against the mining when the blasting operations in July 1985 caused partial damage to Nrusinghanath temple, the cultural epicentre of western Odisha. Invoking the religious sentiments of people, resistance against the mining operations of BALCO began under the banner of Harishankar–Nrusinghanath Suraksha Parishad (HNSS). HNSS used various symbols from mythology and local culture to mobilise resources for the movement. The movement against BALCO widened its scope with the involvement of local youth, women, students and intellectuals under the banner Gandhamardan SurakshyaYuba Parishad (GSYP), established in August 1985. GSYP was instrumental in mobilising students from Padampur Anchal College, professors from Sambalpur University, local youths, women and children to join the struggle against BALCO. GSYP held several dharnas and hartals in offices of local administration and gheraoed the BALCO office at Paikamal. On 16 November 1985, more than 1,000 people gathered at a public meeting at Paikamal demanding shutting down of BALCO’s office at Paikamal (Pegu, 2011). Several oppressive measures were used by the state machineries to supress the movement. However, people’s sustained struggle forced the BALCO to close down its office at Paikamal and stop its mining operations in Gandhamardan by December 1985.

Movement Against UAIL in Kashipur

The story of Kashipur movement goes back to 1993, when the state government proposed to set an aluminium plant in mineral rich Kashipur region of the Rayagada district, to be established by UAIL. The UAIL, in its initial years, was a consortium, consisting of the government-owned INDAL, Tata Industries Limited and Norsk Hydro Alumina of Norway. By the early 2000s, owing to the pressure from people’s movement, the Tata Industries Limited and Norsk Hydro withdrew from the project and Alcan from Canada entered into the venture. Alcan brought major share in the joint venture from INDAL and later sold it to Aditya Birla Group’s Hindalco, making UAIL a joint venture between two mining giants Hindalco and Alcan, Canada, with 55% and 45% shares respectively. In April 2007, the Hindalco acquired the UAIL completely by buying Alcan’s the 45% equity stake in the company. At present, UAIL is a 100% subsidiary of Aditya Birla Group company Hindalco, which comprises a 1.5 MTPA alumina refinery project in the Rayagada district of Odisha, bauxite mining operations at Baphimali hills (with a bauxite reserves of 200 million tons) in Rayagada and Kalahandi and a captive co-generation power plant of 90 MW.

The establishment of the aluminium project in Rayagada and the mining activities in Baphimali have witnessed a prolonged people’s movement against UAIL in Kashipur region of Rayagada since the early 1990s. The central issue of Kashipur movement has been displacement owing to acquisition of land for construction of the refinery factory and the related loss of livelihood and the life supporting ecological system. As per data available with the Tahasildar Office at Kashipur, the UAIL project has acquired an extent of 2155.46 acres of land from 24 villages of Kucheipadar, Hadiguda and Tikiri Gram Panchayat of Kashipur block in Rayagada. More than 2,000 people were affected due to land acquisition process, of which nearly three-fourth belonged to STs (43%) and SCs (29%; see Table 1). Three villages, namely Ramibeda, Kendukhunti and D. Koral were completely displaced in due process of construction of the factory.

Table 1.

Land Acquisition in UAIL Project.

No. of Villages Affected	Land Losers				Land Acquired (in Acres)
No. of Villages Affected	ST	SC	Other Caste	Total	From ST Households	From SC Households	From Other Caste Households	Total
24	875 (43%)	574 (29 %)	566 (28%)	2,015 (100%)	848.89 (39%)	703.34 (33%)	603.23 (28.0%)	2155.46 (100%)

Source: Tehsil office, Kashipur.

Framing land acquisition and displacement as major issues, local people in Kashipur, mostly belonging to STs and SCs mobilised against UAIL since its establishment in 1993. During 1993 and 1995 local people resisted the entry of UAIL personnel from entering into the area and sabotaged the camps established for land survey. To give the popular mobilisation a direction, the Prakrutik Sampada Surakshya Parishad was formed in 1997, which spearheaded the movement and organised several padayatras and dharnas and attempted to stop construction activities. The Kashipur movement took an ugly turn on 16 December 2000, when police confronted a protest of nearly 4,000 tribal activists and gunned down 3 protesters and injured 8 others in Maikanch village. Following this event, a massive protest against the police firing was organised in the region involving more than 20,000 tribal people. The movement continued for more than a decade with a sustained vigour, albeit changing its demand from complete withdrawal of the project to that of better compensation, employment opportunities, generation of livelihood opportunities, environmental regeneration and so on (Kumar, 2014a, B. Mishra & Mishra, 2014; Pattnaik, 2013; PUDR, 2005). People’s movement in Kashipur had visible impacts in terms of delaying the process of land acquisition and operation of the project, and better and enhanced compensation and rehabilitation packages.

Vedanta at Niyamgiri Hills: Bauxite Mining and the Tribal Resistance

VAL’s entry into Odisha dates back to April 1997 when the state-owned Odisha Mining Corporation signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Sterlite India, an associate of Vedanta, to extend the right to mine bauxite in the Niyamgiri Hills of Lanjigarh in Kalahandi district of Odisha. However, during July 1997, the Supreme Court of India challenged mining on protected forest land in the Scheduled Areas of Andhra Pradesh in its famous Samata Judgment. Such an act of judicial activism protecting the interests of tribal resulted in halting of the mining initiative by Sterlite India in Kalahandi’s Lanjigarh. After almost five years, in July 2002, Government of Odisha announced that the decision of the Supreme Court in the Samata case in Andhra Pradesh was not relevant to Odisha, and the state’s existing laws are sufficient enough to protect the tribal communities and proceeded with the Vedanta refinery-mining project. In June 2002, the district collector’s office of Kalahandi sent a letter to affected landowners of twelve villages of the Lanjigarh area. The letter declared that the district administration intended to acquire 391 hectares of private land and 628 hectares of common village land for Vedanta’s refinery factory at Lanjigarh. In June 2003, Vedanta Resources signed a MoU with the state government of Odisha for construction of a refinery for aluminium production, a power plant and related mining developments at Lanjigarh in Kalahandi district of Odisha. As per the MoU, Sterlite Industries Limited (SIIL), an associate of Vedanta Resources was to set up a refinery with a capacity of 1.0 MTPA for processing aluminium for export. Subsequently, on 5 October 2004 the Odisha Mining Corporation signed a new agreement with VAL for an ‘integrated project’ including the Lanjigarh refinery, the Niyamgiri bauxite mining and another bauxite mining at Karlapet or elsewhere in the state, and an aluminium smelter in northern Odisha. Vedanta Aluminium, subsequently, started construction of Lanjigarh refinery and certain aspects of mining project, although it had not obtained the required regulatory clearances. In 2006, Vedanta Aluminium completed construction of the refinery and commenced the trial operation using bauxite brought from Korba in the neighbouring state of Chhattisgarh and from other states. The refinery moved to full operation in 2007. The Vedanta refinery at Lanjigarh is now located in a 750-hectare complex, with the land acquired from twelve villages from the Lanjigarh block of Kalahandi

Although VAL was successful in establishing its alumina refinery at Lanjigarh, it had to face several hurdles for its proposed bauxite mining project at nearby Niyamgiri hills. In 2004, three writ petitions were filed at the Odisha High Court in Cuttack and in the Supreme Court of India, challenging the proposed mining lease on the grounds that it violated India’s Constitutional provisions under Schedule V, the Supreme Court’s order on the Samata case, and the country’s environmental and forest conservation laws.¹ Considering the large-scale opposition to the mining project from various sources, the Supreme Courte of India appointed a central empowerment committee (CEC) to investigate further into the matter. In September 2005, the CEC disallowed mining from Niyamgiri, and stated that ‘the use of an ecologically sensitive area like the Niyamgiri hills should not be permitted for mining’. Further, it recommended that ‘the Supreme Court may consider revoking the environmental clearance dated 22nd September, 2004 granted by the MoEF for setting up of the Alumina Refinery Plant by M/s Vedanta, directing them to stop further work on the project’.² The Supreme Court’s interim order in November 2007 stayed the mining project at Niyamgiri. However, SIIL came out with a revised proposal to which the Supreme Court of India in its August 2008 order granted clearance with certain conditions related to the sustainable development of local communities, protection of the environment and conservation of the wildlife (see Sahu, 2008).³ As a follow-up to the Supreme Court’s August 2008 order, the Government of India and government of Odisha gave clearance to the diversification of 660.749 ha of forest land for the mining project in December 2008 and September 2009 respectively.

The Forest Advisory Committee of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), undertook a site inspection to the proposed mining lease area in Lanjigarh of Kalahandi district of Odisha in January 2010–February 2010, and observed several violations of environmental laws, of which the most severe were the case of non-compliance with the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA). This led the MoEF to constitute a four-member committee headed by Dr N. C. Saxena, a retired Indian Administrative Service official and member of the National Advisory Council, to examine the proposal submitted by the Odisha Mining Corporation Limited for diversion of 660.749 ha of forest land for the Lanjigarh bauxite mines in the Kalahandi and Rayagada districts of Odisha. The Committee was given the mandate to investigate the status of implementation of the FRA, and the potential impact on cultural and social lives of the Dongria Kondh tribe, the biodiversity, wildlife and the ecology of the land. The Saxena Committee found serious violations of FRA; Forests Conservation Act, 1980; Environmental Protection Act, 2006; and Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1997 in the case. It reported:

Allowing mining in the area by depriving Primitive Tribal Groups (PTGs) of their rights over the proposed mining site in order to benefit a private company would shake the faith of tribal people in the laws of the land, which may have serious consequences for the security and well-being of the entire country. (Saxena et al., 2010)⁴

Finally, the Supreme Court in its most recent order dated 18 April, 2013 ruled out the mining proposal by Vedanta, and stated that Vedanta had to get clearance from village assembly, or gram sabha, in each affected village, which will consider the cultural and religious rights of the tribals and forest dwellers living in Rayagada and Kalahandi districts of Odisha. The order stated that ‘Gram Sabha can also examine whether the proposed mining area Niyamgiri, 10 km away from the peak, would in any way affect the abode of Niyam Raja’. It further added, ‘needless to say, if the bauxite mining project, in any way, affects their religious rights, especially their right to worship their deity, that right has to be preserved and protected’.⁵

The April 2013 judgement of Supreme Court of India, which is now being talked about as ‘the country’s first environmental referendum’ (Bera, 2013), interpreted rights and powers of the tribal and forest dwellers based on two important legal texts, that is, FRA and the customary and religious rights (sacred rights) provided to the tribals under the specific provisions for STs in the Constitution (Mahapatra, 2013). With regard to the FRA, the Supreme Court stated: ‘Forest Rights Act has been enacted conferring powers on the Gram Sabha constituted under the Act to protect the community resources, individual rights, cultural and religious rights’. On sacred rights provided to tribals under specific provisions for STs in Constitution, the court said: ‘Religious freedom guaranteed to STs and the Tribal Forest Dwellers (TFDs) under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution is intended to be a guide to a community of life and social demands. The above-mentioned articles guarantee them the right to practice and propagate not only matters of faith or belief, but all those rituals and observations, which are regarded as integral part of their religion. Their right to worship the deity Niyam Raja has, therefore, to be protected and preserved (cited in Mahapatra, 2013).

Following the Supreme Court order, the Odisha government prepared a list of twelve villages (five in Kalahandi and seven in Rayagada) likely to be affected by the proposed mining and issued notices to the collectors of the districts of Kalahandi and Rayagada to hold gram sabha (village assembly) meetings between 18 July 2013 and 19 August 2013 (see Map in Figure 1).⁶ In these meetings, all the twelve gram sabhas unanimously rejected proposed mining activities by Vedanta and stressed that Niyamgiri hills, spanning 250 kilometres, is abode of their supreme deity and ancestral kin Niyam Raja, who is the protector and preserver of Niyamgiri.⁷ Following the decisions by the gram sabhas, the MoEF, finally rejected mining activities by Vedanta on 9 January 2014.

Figure 1.

Source: Wikimedia commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page) for map of India and Odisha. Bera, (2013) for map of 12 villages around Niyamgiri.

From Tribal Resistance to Global Environmental Movement: Scale shift, Diffusion and Global Local Linkages

The Niyamgiri movement of Odisha offers a classic case to understand the dynamics of contemporary environmental movements, which often defy geographical boundaries and create disjuncture between place of origin and space of contestation. As an anti-corporate resistance raising concerns over environmental degradation (Samantara, 2006), dispossession and displacement of tribal communities (Rout & Patnaik, 2014), cultural genocide and violation of human rights of indigenous population (Padel & Das, 2010), the Niyamgiri movement has drawn sufficient scholarly attention in the recent past (Borde, 2017; Borde & Bluemling, 2020; Chandra, 2016; Krishnan & Naga, 2017; Kumar, 2014b; Mukherjee, 2020; Temper & Martinez-Alier, 2013). Yet, limited scholarly attention has been paid to explore the organisation networks, which remained crucial in helping the Niyamgiri movement transgress the boundaries. The Niyamgiri movement, which began as a local tribal resistance by the Kutia Kondh of the foothills of Niyamgiri mountain over the issue of land acquisition by Vedanta Aluminium Limited for construction of an aluminium refinery project during 2002 turned out to emerge as one of the transnational movements of recent times with protest events being organised at local, national and international locations by 2006. The present section intends to analyse the growth of the Niyamgiri movement from a local tribal resistance to that of a global environmental movement, raising larger questions of environmental degradation and marginalisation of indigenous tribal communities. Our findings highlight the role of networks of SMOs in the process of ‘scale shift’ (Della Porta & Tarrow, 2005) in order to understand the diffusion of the movement from a local tribal resistance to that of a global environmental movement.

Networking, Scale Shift and Diffusion in the Niyamgiri Movement

Scale shift is an important process of diffusion of any social movement as without it a movement would be limited to its place of origin. While diffusion in the case of a social movement would mean both horizontal and vertical expansion of the contestation, we are more interested here to explore the process of vertical growth of the Niyamgiri movement and its internationalisation through the process of scale shift. The process of scale shift can be defined as ‘a change in the number and level of coordinated contentious actions to a different focal point, involving a new range of actors, different objects and broader claims’ (McAdam et al., 2001, p. 331). The process of scale shift while leading to a wider diffusion of movement also results in changes in the nature of claim of contention, often leading to change in identity and meaning of the movement. In the process of movement diffusion, scale shift not only reproduces the claim at a different level and site but also produce new alliances, target and identities.

Highlighting the significance of coordinated groups of collective mobilisers—movement networks—social movement theorisation often identifies three specific pathways that shape the process of scale shift and movement diffusion, that is, non-relational diffusion, relational diffusion and mediated diffusion (Tarrow, 2005). While non-relational diffusion refers to transfer of information by means of impersonal carriers such as mass media and diffusion among people who have few or no social ties, relational diffusion means transfer of information along established lines of interaction through related movement networks who have sufficient degree of trust among themselves. In mediated diffusion, the scale of a movement shifts from local to non-local sites through a third-party, which links two or more previously unconnected movement sites or networks. This mediated diffusion through a third party is also called ‘brokerage’, where the ‘brokers’—halfway houses, immigrants or institutions—themselves may never participate in movement, ‘but their key position in between otherwise unconnected sites can influence the content of the information that is communicated’ (Tarrow, 2005, p. 104).

Based on the above theoretical readings, when we look at the Niyamgiri Movement of Odisha, it becomes apparent that the second and third pathways of movement diffusion have shaped the nature, intensity and content of the movement. The ‘contentious politics’ (Tarrow, 1998) of Niyamgiri, which emerged over the issue of land acquisition and displacement were able to transgress the social, political as well as geographical boundaries due to the working of several movement networks, which coordinated, mediated and also emulated the contestations of the movement in different occasions, sites and scales. Our findings distinguish two types of movement network, that is, relational network and mediated network, which resulted in scale shift and diffusion in the Niyamgiri movement.

Diffusion of the Niyamgiri Movement Through Relational Networks (2002–2004)

The Niyamgiri movement emerged in the year 2002, with the notification for land acquisition by the district administration for the purpose of construction of the aluminium refinery plant by VAL in Lanjigarh in the foothills of Niyamgiri. The affected villagers of Lanjigarh block of Kalahandi district in Odisha, mostly comprising the members of the Kutia Kondh tribe mobilised themselves with active support from Marxists–Leninist movement organisations such as Samajwadi Jan Parishad (SJP) and Lok Sangram Manch. In the year 2002, the umbrella organisation—NSS—was formed to spearhead the movement against land acquisition at Niyamgiri. Since then VAL’s operation in Odisha witnessed sever protests from the local tribals, members of civil society groups and social movement activists.

In its formative years, the Niyamgiri movement continued to grow and establish itself in the locality due to the working of three separate yet inter-related movement networks, that is, NSS, Sachetan Nagarik Mancha (SNM) and Green Kalahandi (GK). The NSS had a popular base due to its linkages with wider networks of Marxist–Leninist organisations and mass leaders such as Lingaraj Azad and late Kishen Pattnaik of SJP. The strong ideological commitment towards Dalit-Bahujan and working class, past experience of working in movement politics in Odisha and association with other mass movements of the region such as Kashipur and Gandhamardan in Koraput helped the NSS to quickly mobilise the tribals of the region on the issue of land and forest. In the early years, NSS targeted the refinery construction at Lanjigarh over the issue of displacement. ‘Development induced displacement’ was used as a strategy to ensure mobilisation of movement participants. During this period, the issue of proposed mining at Niyamgiri hills did not figure prominently in the ‘repertoire of contention’ (Dela porta, 2013) as the NSS could not establish any link with the Dongria Kondh community residing inside the hills of Niyamgiri.

The Niyamgiri movement gained momentum when NSS and ActionAid, the international NGO working on tribal development, could reach out to the Dongria Kondh community of Niyamgiri hills during the year 2003. In the following year, two more organisations of concerned citizens, civil society groups and activists, that is SNM (Forum of Concerned Citizens) and GK were set up in Bhawanipatna, the district headquarters of the Kalahandi district to join the local tribals in their struggle against Vedanta. The SNM was an initiative chaired by Mr Sidhartha Nayak, the local advocate from Bhawanipatna, who was instrumental in providing legal aid to the movement and represent the community in the court of justice. Likewise, the GK was set up by Mr Bhakta Charan Dash, the member of parliament from the region from Congress Party, who raised larger ecological issues and highlighted impact of mining on forest ecosystem and local rivers and sprints flowing inside Niyamgiri hills. The Niyamgiri movement, thus, emerged as a network of these three SMOs, which were inter-connected to each other through personal, professional and social ties. The anchors of these organisations continued the coordinated actions in the region through personal communications, sharing of information, and participation in joint meetings and protest events.

During the period 2002 to 2004, while mobilisation against VAL grounded itself through coordinated collective action, VAL also adopted several ‘counter mobilisation’ (Zald & Useem, 1983) strategies to weaken the resistance. This period witnessed emergence of pro-Vedanta groups, consisting of contractors and small business owners who could foresee a potential benefit in VAL’s operation in the region. In order to weaken the movement, the Vedanta supported goons intimidated movement supporters and threatened them for joining the struggle. VAL also supported several youth clubs and mobilised several local developmental NGOs under its CSR initiative. VAL also tried to repress the movement through the help of local administration and police by registering false cases and arresting the movement supporters. The tribal resistance against Vedanta witnessed several forms of protest as well as atrocities by the state and the company against the tribal communities to suppress their voice. Several strategies including threat to life, violent attacks by goons and sudden attacks of tribal leaders were adopted to mute the tribal voices. In one incident in April 2003, a protest march of merely 350 tribals, including women and children, was attacked and shattered by private goons sent by the company (Sahu, 2008). There was also an incident of alleged murder of Sukru Majhi, a Kondh leader on 27 March 2003, while he was returning to his home from Lanjigarh town.⁸

VAL’s counter movement strategies as well as state-sponsored repressive measures, which were reported on everyday basis in local newspapers, drew the attention of other like-minded individuals and organisations, which developed ties with the Niyamgiri movement network. The widened movement network consisted activists from varied backgrounds including university students, researchers, writers, film-makers, lawyers, community organisers, NGOs as well as SMOs from other regions. This widening of the movement network helped in larger mobilisation of the movement by establishing ties with grassroots activists and similar anti-industrialisation and displacement-related resistance movements across Odisha. By the end of 2004, the site of contention of the Niyamgiri movement had transgressed itself from the plains of Lanjigarh to the hinterlands of Niyamgiri hills as well as to the urban centres of Bhawanipatna (the district headquarters) and Bhubaneswar, the state capital. The diffusion of the Niyamgiri movement did not only involve shift in site of the movement but the scale shift process also included shift in identity of the movement and repertoires of contention. The networking of the NSS with other social movement networks of the state resulted in shifting the identity of the movement from that of an anti-refinery resistance to an anti-mining movement, highlighting the larger ecological damages due to mining in the region. Preservation of ecological balance, deforestation due to mining, rights of primitive tribal groups (Dongria Kondhs) emerged as new strategies of mobilisation in the repertoires of contention. By the end of this phase of diffusion, the Niyamgiri movement emerged as a distinct movement with its organisational configurations setting ties with various similar and related movement networks at the local, regional and state levels.

Diffusion of the Niyamgiri Movement Through Mediated Networks (2005 Onwards)

A significant vertical shift of scale in the Niyamgiri movement took place from 2005 onwards with involvement of several crucial activists and organisations, who helped the Niyamgiri movement to reach out to similar other social movement networks at both national and international levels by way of mediating between the grassroots (local) and non-local networks. Our findings distinguish two distinct, yet interrelated, processes of movement diffusion during this phase, that is ‘mediated national diffusion’ and ‘mediated international diffusion’ of the Niyamgiri movement.

By mediated national diffusion, we men the process through which the Niyamgiri movement could established itself as a nation-wide movement, with active involvement of several activists and organisations across the country. What is important to observe such a process of movement diffusion is the process of mediation or ‘brokerage’ (Tarrow & McAdam, 2005), which connected the previously unconnected activists and network. The Niyamgiri movement gradually drew attention of several local movement organisations and activists, who through their formal and informal networks disseminated information about the movement to the wider network based at Delhi. For instance, Kashipur Solidarity Group, a local movement network, helped to connect the Niyamgiri movement network with a group of activists in Delhi who had formed the Delhi Solidarity Group to support the anti-mining struggle. By 2006, a number of Delhi-based activists became involved in the Niyamgiri movement, who were connected to a wide network of other activists, support groups, national as well as international NGOs, became the backbone of the movement, supporting local Niyamgiri communities in their struggle for land and forest (Kraemer et al., 2013).

Likewise, involvement of noted environmentalist Mr Prafulla Samantra, who received the Goldman Environmental Prize (Green Nobel) in 2017 for his contributions for grassroots environmentalism, connected the Niyamgiri movement network with other national-level environmental activists and lawyers such as Medha Patkar, Vandana Siva, Prasanth Bhusan and Ritwick Dutta who together put up battle in the court of law. A significant shift took place in the Niyamgiri movement when the National Alliance of People’s Movement—a Delhi-based advocacy and activists’ network—got connected with the Niyamgiri network through several local movement networks such as LSA, SNM and NSS. Ties with NAPM provided locational and organisational advantage to the Niyamgiri movement as along with NAPM the associated local movement networks from several other states got involved with the Niyamgiri movement.

Alongside national diffusion, the Niyamgiri movement witnessed visible internationalisation since 2006 onwards through the process of ‘brokerage’ by certain organisations which connected Niyamgiri with international movement networks—a process, which we identify as ‘mediated international diffusion’. The internationalisation of the Niyamgiri movement took place when the local and national network of Niyamgiri got connected and established ties with four international organisations, namely, ActionAid, Foil Vedanta, Survival International and Amnesty International. International development organisations like ActionAid were in operation in the Lanjigarh area for long time. The emergence of the Niyamgiri movement coincided with change in ActionAid’s focus from providing developmental aid to promoting right-based advocacy. The grassroots resistance against Vedanta provided an immediate opportunity to ActionAid to demonstrate this strategic shift (Kraemer et al., 2013). Ms Bratindi Jena, an ActionAid ground staff played a major role in formation of initial mobilisation for the movement and also brought the issue to the notice of international environmental bodies of UK. ActionAid started an international campaign against Vedanta staging a protest at the company’s annual general meeting in London in the summer of 2006. During the same year, several UK-based photographers and activists such as Ian and Charles, travelled to Niyamgiri and publicised the Niyamgiri case in UK media, mediated visit of several UK news agencies to Niyamgiri.

The entry of Foil Vedanta into the Niyamgiri Movement network not only gave international attention to the issue of Niyamgiri but also shifted the site of contention to international locale. Foil Vedanta—which is a network of grassroots activists from a variety of struggles in Britain and worldwide, and works in solidarity and collaboration with people’s struggle against corporate take-over, resource racism and neo-colonialism—targeted the Vedanta Resources Company in London, where it is registered. Foil Vedanta worked in close collaboration with the local and national network of the Niyamgiri movement. Along with ActionAid, Foil Vedanta made the presence of Dongria Kondh felt right in front of the Vedanta’s office in London by bringing spokespersons of the community from the tribal hinterlands to global city of London to voice their discontents to the Vedanta’s Board of Directors at an international platform during company’s annual general meeting. Starting from 2006 till date, Foil Vedanta has carried out demonstrations each year during the company’s annual general meeting, which has generated significant international attention and has played a role in further disinvestment from Vedanta. Foil Vedanta’s connections with the Niyamgiri movement network helped in further international consolidation of the movement network as through Foil Vedanta, several other London-based movement networks such as London Mining Network, Saving Iceland, War on Want, Earth First got involved with the movement. Even though these London based-movement networks did not physically participate in the protest events of the Niyamgiri movement, they engaged themselves significantly in the mobilisation by way of posting information, comments, blogs and leaflets on the Niyamgiri movement on their websites. Flyers of Foil Vedanta’s campaigns against Vedanta and information about its protest events during the company’s AGM were circulated in the websites of these London-based SMOs.

With mediation by UK-based activists, who by then were connected with the Niyamgiri movement network, Survival International got involved in the Niyamgiri movement and took up the Dongria Konhd’s case to an international level, highlighting the incident of human rights violation of indigenous tribal peoples. The Survival International—an international organisation known for working on tribal people’s rights—produced several documentary movies on the plight of Dongria Kondhs tribe, which enhanced the focus of the international media on Niyamgiri. Survival’s movie titled ‘The Real Avatar: Mine—Story of a Sacred Mountain’, published on its YouTube channel on 31 March 2009 had attracted more than seven lakh (716,196 views to be precise by 1 August 2018). Survival International’s engagement in Niyamgiri was followed by Amnesty International and several other smaller international NGOs, working on mines and indigenous people’s issues. Amnesty International’s report ‘Don’t Mine Us Out of Existence’ (Amnesty International, 2010) provided a detailed documentation of exploitation of the Dongria tribe as well as their resources.

Conclusion

This case study vividly narrates the emergence of the Niyamgiri movement from that of a localised struggle against land acquisition to that of a transnational movement raising serious ecological concerns which bridges the gap between the local and global in contemporary environmental movements. It argues that rather than emphasis on ‘locale’, the point of departure of contemporary environmental movements should be the movement’s ability to establish networks with related as well as non-related SMOs, who share similar concerns with nature and are ready to be a part of the mobilisation process. Our observations of the Niyamgiri movement make it explicit that it is not sufficient to consider Indian environmental movements as localised conflicts, primarily over the issues of livelihood. The historical trajectories of the Niyamgiri movement highlight the role of local, regional, national and international networks in shaping a local resistance and its transnational diffusion.

Besides, the narratives of movement diffusion highlight the significance of a process approach to study of environmental movements. The political process approach in social movement emphasises the overall dynamics that determine the development of social movements (McAdam, 1982; Tilly, 1978). It analyses social movement from a historical perspective, periodising phases of intense contention and mapping shifts in the repertoires of collective action (Diani, 1992). In organisation studies literature too, process thinking has been identified as a way to conceptualise organisations among networked actors (Hernes, 2008). While examination of Indian environmental movements from political economic and new social movement approach has focused on macro-level systemic failures originating from social inequalities, discrimination, repression and exploitation, the present article is able to discuss the dynamics of the Niyamgiri movement and its non-local diffusion through networks, with the framework of a process approach to environmental social movements. A process approach to environmental movement tries to identify the mechanisms that influence the process of diffusion, scale shift as well as change in repertoires of contention. Based upon our empirical observation, we identified movement diffusion through relational networks and mediated networks as two central processes of scale shift and trans-nationalisation of contemporary environmental movements (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 exhibits that the mediating organisations played a significant role in consolidation of the Niyamgiri movement network and consequent diffusion of movement from local to non-local levels. Besides mediating the vertical shift of scale of the movement, these organisations also contributed to raising awareness about the movement by lodging cases in the local and national courts, and providing supporting evidences required for various court cases. These court cases put pressure on the national government and influenced significantly the movement outcomes. Besides the local, regional, national and international mobilisation, the role of judiciary remained crucial in making the Niyamgiri movement a success, analysis of which, however, is beyond the scope of this article.

Figure 2.

Source: The author.

Despite the temporal and spatial ties of the movement network depicted in this article, it would be mistaken to assume the process of contention in any movement to be an unambiguous, orderly and liner process. Like any other social movement, the ties of Niyamgiri network remained fluid, contested and polyvalent. There were instances of contradictions within the movement, breakdown of alliances, creation of new alliances and production of new forms of behaviour among the key actors (see Kraemer et al., 2013). Nevertheless, what emerges crucial from this analysis is the contentious politics of Niyamgiri, its global and local linkages, and the movement’s ability to sustain and scale up mobilisation through networks to render itself as manifestation of contemporary environmental movements in India.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The present article is conceived from a larger project on the theme ‘Local Governance Initiative in South Asia’, funded by Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC), New Delhi.

Notes

References

Amnesty International. (2010). Don’t mine us out of existence: Bauxite mine and refinery devastate lives in India.

Bera

(2013, August 31). Niyamgiri answers. Down to Earth. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/coverage/niyamgiri-answers-41914

Borde

(2017). Differential subalterns in the Niyamgiri movement in India. Interventions, 19(4), 566–582.

Borde

, & Bluemling

(2020). Representing indigenous sacred land: The case of the Niyamgiri movement in India. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, 32(1), 68–87. 10.1080/10455752.2020.1730417

Castells

(1997). The information age: Economy, society and culture (Vol. II): Blackwell Publishers.

Castells

(2010). The power of identity. Wiley-Blackwell.

Chandra

(2016). Understanding change with (in) law: The Niyamgiri case. Contributions to Indian Sociology, 50(2), 137–162.

Dela Porta

(2013). Repertoires of contention. In Snow

D. A.

, Porta

D. D.

, Klandermans

& Mcadam

(Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell encyclopedia of social and political movements. Blackwell Publishing.

Della Porta

, & Tarrow

(2005). Transnational protest and global activism. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

10.

Diani

(1992). The concept of social movement. The Sociological Review, 40(1), 1–25.

11.

Dwivedi

(2001). Environmental movements in the global south: Issues of livelihood and beyond. International Sociology, 16(1), 11–31.

12.

Eyerman

, & Jamison

(1991). Social movements: A cognitive approach. Polity Press.

13.

Government of Odisha. (2009). Compendium of mineral resources of Odisha. Department of Steel and Mines, Government of Odisha.

14.

Guha

(2000). The paradox of global environmentalism. Current History, 99(640), 367–370.

15.

Hernes

(2008). Understanding organization as process: Theory for a tangled world. Routledge.

16.

Jamison

, Eyerman

, & Cramer

(1990). The making of the new environmental consciousness: A comparative study of the environmental movements in Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands. Edinburgh University Press.

17.

Kothari

(1989). The Indian enterprise today. Daedalus, 118(4), 50–67.

18.

Kraemer

, Whiteman

, & Banerjee

(2013). Conflict and astroturfing in Niyamgiri: The importance of national advocacy networks in anti-corporate social movements. Organization Studies, 34(5–6), 823–852.

19.

Krishnan

, & Naga

(2017). ‘Ecological warriors’ versus ‘indigenous performers’: Understanding state responses to resistance movements in Jagatsinghpur and Niyamgiri in Odisha. South Asia: Journal of South Asia Studies, 40(4), 878–894.

20.

Kumar

(2014a). Confronting extractive capital: Social and environmental movements in Odisha. Economic and Political Weekly, 49(14), 66–73.

21.

Kumar

(2014b). The sacred mountain: Confronting global capital at Niyamgiri. Geoforum, 54, 196–206.

22.

Mahapatra

(2011, April 5). Gandhamardan: The bauxite battleground. Eastern Panorama. http://www.easternpanorama.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1337:gandhamardan-the-bauxite-battleground&catid=69:april-

23.

Mahapatra

(2013, August 19). Jerapa becomes the 12th village to reject Vedanta. Down to Earth.

24.

McAdam

(1982). Political process and development of black insurgency, 1930–1970. The University of Chicago Press.

25.

McAdam

, Tarrow

, & Tilly

(2001). Dynamics of contention. Cambridge University Press.

26.

Mishra

, & Mishra

(2014). Mining and industrialisation: Dangerous portents. Economic and Political Weekly, 49(14), 56–65.

27.

Mukherjee

(2020). Under(mining) the Kondhs: A normative critique of the case of Niyamgiri. Journal of Global Ethics, 16(2), 220–238.

28.

Nayak

A. K.

(2015). Environmental movements in India. Journal of Developing Societies, 31(2), 249–280.

29.

Oskarsson

(2017). The nature of bauxite mining and adivasi livelihoods in the industrialisation of eastern India. In Nielsen

K. B.

& Oskarsson

(Eds.), Industrialising rural India: Land, policy and resistance (pp. 123–139). Routledge.

30.

Padel

, & Das

(2010). Out of this earth: East India adivasis and the aluminum cartel. Orient BlackSwan.

31.

Padhi

, & Panigrahi

(2011). Tribal movements and livelihoods: Recent development in Orissa [PRC-IIPA Working Paper Series No. 51]. Indian Institute of Public Admistration.

32.

Pattnaik

B. K.

(2013). Tribal resistance movements and the politics of development-induced displacement in contemporary Orissa. Social Change, 43(1), 53–78.

33.

Pegu

(2011). Against the pits of death: Anti-mine resistance struggles in Odisha. Asian Institute of Human Rights.

34.

PUDR. (2005). Halting the mining Juggernaut: People’s struggles against alumina projects in Orissa. Peoples’ Union for Democratic Rights.

35.

Reddy

M. G.

, Mishra

P. P.

, Nagaraju

C. J.

, & Ramana

S. V.

(2013). Bauxite mining in Koraput Region of Odisha: A socio-economic impact analysis (CESS Monograph 28). CESS.

36.

Rootes

(1997). Environmental movements and green parties in western and eastern Europe. In Redclift

& Woodgate

(Eds.), International handbook of environmental sociology (pp. 319–348). Edward Elga.

37.

Rout

, & Patnaik

(2014). Institutional exclusion and tribal interest: Decentralized government in the context of conflicts over development in India. Journal of Developing Societies, 30(2), 115–143.

38.

Sahoo

, & Mishra

(2017). Neoliberal development, displacement and resistance movement: The case of Kalinga Nagar integrated industrial complex, Odisha, India. Man in India, 97(11), 245–266.

39.

Sahoo

(2007). The politics of tribal resistance in Orissa. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 68(2), 391–402.

40.

Sahu

(2008). Mining in the Niyamgiri hills and tribal rights. Economic and Political Weekly, 43(15), 19–21.

41.

Sahu

(2019). The rhetoric of development and resistance by tribal women in Kashipur. Social Change, 49(1), 61–77.

42.

Samantara

(2006). Niyamgiri waiting for justice. Lok Shakti Abiyan.

43.

Saxena

N. C.

, Parasuraman

, Kant

, & Baviskar

(2010). Report of the four member committee for investigation into the proposal submitted by the Orissa mining company for bauxite mining in Niyamgiri. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.

44.

Srinivasan

, Vyasulu

, & Rajagopalan

(1981). The Orissa aluminium complex: Points toward a debate. Economic and Political Weekly, 16(49), 2005–2014.

45.

Tarrow

(1998). Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics. Cambridge University Press.

46.

Tarrow

(2005). The new transnational activism. Cambridge University Press.

47.

Tarrow. (2005). Transnational protest and global activism. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

48.

Tarrow

, & McAdam

(2005). Scale shift in transnational contestation. In Porta

D. D.

& Tarrow

(Eds.), Transnational protest and global activism. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

49.

Temper

, & Martinez-Alier

(2013). The god of the mountain and Godavarman: Net present value, indigenous territorial rights and sacredness in a bauxite mining conflict in India. Ecological Economics, 96, 79–87.

50.

Tilly

(1978). From mobilization to revolution. Addison-Wesley.

51.

Tilly

(1984). Social movements and national politics. In Bright

& Harding

(Eds.), State Making and Social Movements (pp. 297–317). University of Michigan Press.

52.

Zald

M. N.

, & Useem

(1983). Movement and countermovement: Loosely coupled conflict [CRSO Working Paper 302]. Centre for Research in Social Organisation, University of Michigan.