tipaimukh dam in india-environmental resistance beyond borders
TRANSCRIPT
1
Tipaimukh Dam in India: Environmental Resistance beyond Borders
Md Saidul Islam, PhD Assistant Professor Division of Sociology
School of Humanities & Social Sciences Nanyang Technological University HSS 05‐44, 14 Nanyang Drive
Singapore 637332
Tel: (65) 6592‐1519 (Office); (65) 8182‐4184 (Cell) Fax: (65) 6794‐6303
Abstract: The Indian government recently resumed construction of the Tipaimukh Dam on the Barak River just one kilometer north of Bangladesh. The construction work was stalled in March 2007 in the face of protests from within and outside of India. A number of experts argue that the completion of the Dam in 2012 will virtually dry up the Surma and the Kushiara rivers of Bangladesh, thus choking the north‐eastern regions of the country. This controversial Dam has therefore generated a massive movement in Bangladesh, India, and in other countries. The movement has taken different shapes starting from simple protest to submitting petition to the United Nations. The paper will explore this single movement to show how environmental resistance against Tipaimukh Dam transcend national borders and took a global and transnational form; who are protesting, why, in what ways, and with what effects.
I: INTRODUCTION Bangladesh and India share basins of 54 international rivers. The waters of these rivers play an important economic role for agriculture, urban and rural water supplies and navigation sectors. Among the shared rivers between the two countries, until recently, the Ganges was the most debated because of withdrawals of its waters at the Farakka Barrage point and 90 other points above of it within Indian territory. Thus far, Brahmaputra and the Meghna/Barak have remained virgin in terms of water impoundments and withdrawal/transfer. However, this is no more the case. India’s recent decision to go ahead with the plan of building a Dam at Tipaimukh on the river Barak has ignited heated debates on its merit in India and Bangladesh (Mirza 2009). The debates gradually transcend the realm of government officials and academics and transform into various forms of protests and resistance in India, Bangladesh, and beyond.
After building Farraka and Teesta barrages, India has started construction of the Tipaimukh Multipurpose Hydroelectric Dam Project (henceforth Tipaimukh Dam) on river Barack just a kilometre north of Jakiganj in Sylhet, Bangladesh. To be located 500 meters downstream from the flowing rivers of the Barack and Tuovai rivers, the Tipaimukh Dam lies on the south western corner of the Manipur state of India. Its reservoir will have a water storage capacity of 15,900 million cubic meters with a maximum depth of 1,725.5 meters. The Dam project was commissioned by India in the year 2006. This area is close to the Manipur‐Mizoram‐Assam border, and therefore the project involves the three states in Northeast India. The Barak river which flows downstream to meet the Surma river system in Bangladesh is considered to be the lifeline of the Sylhet region in Bangladesh. The Dam and barrage when completed in 2012 are supposed to provide 1500 megawatts of hydro power to the Indian state of Assam but in return, as estimated by experts, it is going to bring about a major environmental and social disaster for Bangladesh, practically contributing to drying up of 350 km long Surma and 110 km long Kushiara rivers which water most of the north‐eastern region of Bangladesh (Rahman 2009; Mirza 2009).
Proposed Tipaimukh Dam. (Courtesy: Google image) Over the last four decades, one of the most important issue that mars bilateral relations between India and
Bangladesh is water. Most of the rivers, which Bangladesh shares with India are controlled and managed by India. It has
2
evolved plans to divert waters, from the northeast of the country to its drought prone west and south, of some 54 rivers which flow from India to Bangladesh (Kazmi 2009). Bangladesh has already been severely affected by both Farakka and Tista barrages. Now India’s plan to construct the third barrage has both ignited bilateral tension and generated massive environmental protests. Over last few months, there have been intense debates in Bangladesh among civil society and environmental groups, human rights organizations and media over the implications of the Tipaimukh Dam on the share of water coming from upper‐riparian India. This debate continues to gather momentum as the protest movement has taken a global form (Rahman 2009).
A global ethnography based on a robust internet search and correspondence with some protesters shows that a vigorous environmental resistance has been launched to protest against, and therefore to protect Bangladesh and India from the negative impacts of, the Tipaimukh Dam. The movement has taken different shapes ranging from simple protests to submitting petition to the United Nations. The paper will explore this single movement to show how environmental resistance against Tipaimukh Dam has transcended national borders and taken a global and transnational form; who are protesting, why, in what ways, and with what effects. The paper will provide an important insight of an Asian environmentalism which has originated in Asia but formed a global alliance.
Following this brief introduction, the paper in the second section will delineate a conceptual framework for the emergence of a social movement. Environmental movement is a part of and often merged with other social justice movements while keeping environmental justice as a key agenda. Drawing on this conceptual framework, the paper in the third section will examine the potential environmental and social impacts of Tipaimukh Dam that have largely generated this movement. The fourth section will outline and sketch out the diverse methods of environmental protests and alliances surrounding Tipaimukh Dam. The paper will conclude in the last section by raising some crucial issues which have broader implications not only for the South Asian region but also for other parts of the world.
II: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Defining a social movement Social movements consist of a large numbers of people who organize to promote or resist social change. They have strong ideas about what is wrong about the world‐ or some part of it‐ and how to make things right. Not all mobs or collective actions are regarded as social movements; it is in fact organized attempts to change, entirely or partially, social structure or ideology that is carried on outside legitimate channels or that use of these channels in innovative ways (Ash 1972). Social movements are deliberately organized, they have lasting importance, and they seek to change or defend social pattern. Examples include feminist movement, gay right movement, anti‐globalization movement, and, in the case of this paper, environmental movement. Social movements can be either proactive‐ to promote social change‐ or reactive‐ to resist any social change. Sidney Tarrow (1994) defines social movements as “collective challenges by people with common purposes and solidarity in sustained interaction with elites, opponents and authorities” (pp. 3‐4). His definition outlines four basic properties of social movements: collective challenge, common purpose, solidarity, and sustaining collective action.
Sociologists classify social movements according to several criteria (see, Cameroon 1966; Blumer 1969). Since some movements target selected people while others try to change everyone, one variable deals with who is changed? A second variable looks at how much change? Some movements attempt to foster only superficial changes in how we live, while others pursue a radical transformation of society. Combining these variables, we can discern four types of social movements: alternative, redemptive, reformative, and revolutionary social movements.
Alternative Social Movement
Redemptive Social Movement
Reformative Social Movement
Revolutionary Social Movement
How Much Change?
Limited Radical
Who is changed?
Specific individuals
Everyone
Four Types of Social Movements
3
Alternative social movements are the least threatening to the status quo as they seek limited change in only some narrow segments of population. Planned Parenthood, one example of alternative social movement, encourages individual child bearing age to take the consequences of sexual activity more seriously by practising birth control. Redemptive social movements also have a selective focus, but they seek radical change in those they engage. For example, Alcoholic Anonymous is an organization that helps alcoholics to achieve a sober life. Reformative social movements, which generally work within the existing political system, seek only limited social change, but encompass the entire society. They can be progressive‐ promoting a new social pattern‐ or reactionary‐ counter movements trying to preserve the status quo or to return to past social patterns. In the ongoing debate about abortion in Canada, both the anti‐abortion and pro‐choice organizations are reformative social movements. Revolutionary social movements are the most extreme of all. They seek basic transformation of a society. Sometimes pursuing specific goals, sometimes spinning utopian dreams, these social movements rejects existing social institutions as flawed while promoting radically new alternatives. The nationalist or sovereigntist (i.e., separatists) movement in Quebec is revolutionary because it seeks at the very least, a radical restructuring of federal institution to give Quebec more political and economic autonomy.
A new twist in social movements is the global orientation of some. Rather than focusing on changing a condition within a specific country, the goal is to change this condition throughout the world. The women’s, environmental and animal rights movements are examples. Because of this new focus, some sociologists refer them as new social movements. Emergence of a social movement As we have seen, social movements arise from widespread, deeply felt discontent, from the conviction that some condition of society is no longer tolerable. Not everyone, however, who feels strongly dissatisfied about an issue, joins a social movement. The prevalent theories of why people join social movements include deprivation theory, mass‐society theory, structural‐strain theory, resource mobilization theory, and new social movement theory.
Deprivation theory holds that social movements arise among people who feel deprived. People who feel they lack sufficient income, satisfactory working condition, important political rights or basic social dignity may engage in organized collective behaviour to bring about a more just state of affair (Morrison 1978; Rose 1982). Many sociologists think that mere deprivation does not lead to a social movement unless it is defined as illegitimate vis‐à‐vis other reference group. This led to the emergence of relative‐deprivation theory, a perceived disadvantage arising from some specific comparison.
William Kornhauser’s Mass‐Society Theory (1959) argues that mass society—an impersonal, industrialized, highly bureaucratized society—makes many people feel isolated. Social movements fill a void by offering people a sense of belonging. From this point of view, social movements characterize large, complex mass societies. Further, social movements are more personal than political, in that they confer a sense of purpose and belonging on people otherwise adrift in society. This theory holds that categories of people with weak social ties are most readily mobilized into a social movement. People who have a strong sense of social integration, by contrast, are unlikely to join the ranks of a movement for change.
One of the most influential theories about social movements was developed by Neil Smelser (1962). His structural strain theory identifies six factors that foster social movements. First, there should be a conducive social structure that the structure must be complex and differentiated enough to produce sustained divergence of interests, and it must be less than completely authoritarian. Second, for a social movement to develop, there must be strain in the structure of society. Classical Marxists believe that the source of strain is the relation of production in which workers are exploited by the capitalists. Another source of strain is, however, rapid change in any aspect of society‐ for example, natural disaster, mass migration, or loss of status. The third factor is a general belief about the source of strain. A set of beliefs that defines the stressful situation as unjust and that identifies the cause of the problem must develop. There are strains in all societies; certainly inequality and poverty seem to be universal. Only when poverty comes to be defined as illegitimate and as caused by, say, capitalism or overpopulation or racism will become the focus of a social movement. Many people date the current feminist movement in the United States to the publication of Betty Friedan’s book The Feminine Mystique and the environmental movement to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. These books served as consciousness‐raisers that led to redefining some familiar conditions as unjust.
The fourth one is precipitating factor. A social movement needs a triggering event. Such an event may give substance and urgency to an already defined problem, or it may serve as the catalyst for defining a situation as problematic. Mobilization is the fifth factor for a social movement. A social movement requires that a group not only hold common beliefs but also act on them. Thus, a social movement does not arise until people commit their time and goods to see that action takes place. The final factor is lack of social control. The responses of established authorities, such as political officials, police, and the military, largely determine the outcome of any social movement.
Smelser’s approach—distinctively social rather than psychological in focus—recognizes the complexity of social movements and suggests how various factors encourage or inhibit their development. However, it overlooks the important role that resources such as the mass media particularly internet or international alliances play in the success or failure of a social movement. Here comes the theory of resource‐mobilization. Resource‐mobilization theory points out that no social movement is likely to succeed‐ or even get off the ground‐ without substantial resources, including money, human labour, office and communication facilities, access to mass media, and a positive public image. In other words, any social movement rises or falls on its ability to attract resources, mobilize people, and forge alliances. According to this theory, outsiders are as important as insiders to the victory of a social movement, often playing a crucial role in supplying resources (Snow et al 1980; Killian 1984). A final, more recent theoretical approach addresses the changing character of
4
social movements. New social movement theory emphasizes the distinctive features of recent social movements in post‐industrial societies of North America and Western Europe (Melucci 1980; McADam et al. 1988; Pakulski 1993).
Most of today’s social movements are transnational, focussing on “global commons”‐ global ecology, the social standing of women and gay people, reducing the risk of war, and animal rights, anti‐globalization, among other issues. As the process of globalization connects the world’s nations in more and more ways, in other words, social movements, too, are becoming global. While traditional social movements such as labour organizations are concerned primarily with economic issues, new social movements tend to focus on cultural change and improving our social and physical surroundings. The international environmental movement or environmentalism, for example, opposes the aggravated global warming and other threats to the environment. Lastly, whereas most social movements of the past drew strong support from working‐class people, new social movements, with their non‐economic agendas, usually draw support from the middle class.
Each of the five theories presented here offers some explanation for the emergence of social movements, no single theory, it seems, can stand alone. This is very apparent in case of environmental movements or environmentalism. Even new social movement theory cannot adequately explicate the complexity and dynamics of the emergence, scope and operation of modern environmentalism. Environmental resistance against Tipaimukh Dam may be a product of multiple factors, which we will see in the subsequent sections. III: ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS OF TIPAIMUKH DAM The environmentalists in home and abroad have expressed deep concern that if the project is implemented it could deprive Bangladesh of its share of the international river that supplies waters to hundreds of water bodies in the region. They fear that the Dam would ultimately dry up the Meghna River in the greater Sylhet region and nearby districts and the Surma and the Kushiara rivers in winter season, which water most of the north‐eastern regions of Bangladesh. The Dam would seriously affect agricultural land, local flora and fauna, and generate a massive displacement of people and livestock.
It’s not that only Bangladesh would have to face serious consequences if this Dam is constructed, the people of Manipur and Nagaland of India would also have to suffer. The Barak‐Surma‐Kushiara is an international river. Environmentalists, academics, civil society and the protesters argue that Bangladesh, being a lower riparian country, has the right to an equitable share of the water from the river and also a right to examine the details of the construction of the Dam. No detailed plan of the Dam has seemingly been provided to Bangladesh to appraise its full impact on Bangladesh. They also opine that India, being an upper riparian country, has an obligation under international law to discuss the
construction of such a massive infrastructure on the common river with lower riparian Bangladesh.
Potentially affected areas of Bangladesh (Source: http://www.stoptipaimukhDam.org)
Professor Mustafizur Rahman Tarafdar, a water resources expert, in an article titled “Tipaimukh Dam: An
Alarming Venture” (Tarfdar 2009), discussed the ill‐effects of the Tipaimukh Dam. If this Dam is eventually constructed as intended, Bangladesh would have to suffer the adverse effects. This Dam would lead to hydrological drought and environmental degradation. The Dam would cause the Surma and Kushiara to run dry during November to May which would eventually hamper agriculture, irrigation, navigation, shortage of supply of drinking water, etc. This shortage of water in these few months would decrease the boost of groundwater which over the years would lower the groundwater
5
level, which in turn would affect all dug outs and shallow tube‐wells. Agriculture, which is dependent on both surface as well as groundwater, would also be affected. Also, any interference in the normal flow of water in the Barak would have an adverse effect on the Surma in Bangladesh that, in turn, feeds the mighty Meghna that flows through Bangladesh. This Dam would hamper the cultivation of early variety of boro rice in the northeast. Arable land will decrease and production of crops will fall, leading to an increase in poverty.
Roughly 7 to 8 per cent of total water of Bangladesh is obtained from the Barak. Millions of people are dependent on hundreds of water bodies fed by the Barak in the Sylhet region for fishing and agricultural activities. A Dam‐break is a catastrophic failure of a Dam which results in the sudden draining of the reservoir and a severe flood wave that causes destruction and in many cases death downstream. If the Tipaimukh Dam were to break, impounding billions of cubic metres of water, it will cause catastrophic floods because of its colossal structure. The Dam site has been chosen at the highest risk seismically hazardous zone. Inhabitants of Manipur also believe that this Dam would prove to be a grave threat to the flora and fauna and endangered species like pythons, gibbons, herbal and medicinal plants, and for tribal land rights. They also fear that the Dam would submerge as many as 90 villages within a 311 square‐kilometre radius (Jahangir 2009). According to water experts in Bangladesh:
If the Dam is constructed, 16 districts of greater Sylhet will be affected. The immense natural disaster that will take place would be irreversible. Even though the Indian government is saying once the Dam is constructed, electricity will be generated and Bangladesh will benefit by importing the electricity. It does not make sense to make a certain part of Bangladesh a desert area solely for the purpose of importing electricity (Dainik Destiny, 31 May 2009). The livelihoods of millions of people, who rely on the Meghna for freshwater, for their livelihoods, and for the
overall food security of the region, are at stake. Bangladesh is already battling with water shortages due to global warming and consequent climate change. The Tipaimukh Dam would add to the environmental cataclysm already predicted by environmentalists. According to Ainun Nishat, the country director of International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), one thing is for certain that the Tipaimukh Dam will increase the risk of flood. And the water bodies in Sylhet will be overflowing even during the winter season. Most importantly, the average sea water level will rise. Surface irrigation will be in danger and cultivation and livelihoods in the area will be adversely affected. She also said, if India makes a barrage at Fulertala (through which they will be able to manage water according to their need), and procure water from river Barak, the rivers Surma and Kushiara will become virtually dry (Al‐Mahmood 2009; Jahangir 2009). Apprehending other long‐term impacts of the Dam on Bangladesh, Tarafdar (2009) estimates:
The rosy, prosperous and healthy scenario may soon turn into history causing despondency desperation and misery to the people inhabiting the zone which is known for abundance of water, lush green field of crops and fish sanctuary. Massive environmental degradation will occur, drastically affecting weather and climate, turning a wet cooler habitat into a hot uncomfortable cauldron. The severity of micro‐climate causing heat and dry conditions will gradually increase in intensity spreading over a large area over the years. It may be mentioned that rainfall that the area gets for 4 to 5 months and flood water that will be released from the Dam for a short period will not be enough to replenish the ground water. Climate and environmental change will force the farmers to reluctantly resort to planting low‐yielding drought‐resistant crops (unknown to them).
Source: http://www.e‐bangladesh.org/2009/08/09/bangladesh‐india‐tipaimukh‐Dam‐and‐transparency/
This controversial Dam has been contested by academics and environmentalists in India too. For India,
Namdingpou Kamei (2006) lists a potential far‐reaching environmental and social catastrophe of the Dam to the local people:
6
A total area of land 286.20 sq. km will be submerged forever.
Barak waterfalls and Zeilad Lake, which are connected with the history of the Zeliangrong people, will be forever underwater and all folklores and legends will have no monuments' proof and it will become a makeup story for the next generation.
More than, 40,000 people will be rendered landless.
Eight villages situated at the Barak Valley will be completely underwater.
More than 90 villages mostly of Tamenglong district will be adversely affected.
About 27,242 hectares of cultivable land will be lost.
The township of Nungba sub‐division Hqs. And the village along the NH‐53 will be severely affected.
The Dam will bring health hazard, water borne diseases, industrial pollution and other environmental and ecological problems due to increase of water surface.
Increase in salinity of ground water will be unsafe for drinking thereby causing a lot of problems to the people.
Possibility of frequent occurrence of destructive earthquake in the area.
The decision was taken without proper ecological studies. Such will create a big trouble in the future to the people.
The construction will directly affect the livelihood of the people. The natural product, which the people depend for every aspect of their economy, will be totally cut off so there will be economic and financial crises.
Consequent displacement and destruction of the people by implementing the project will pose a grave threat to the vibrant democratic system of people's right to live.
The project once installed will submerge the exotic flora and fauna and rich gene pools as Manipur falls under one of the genetic hot spot zones of the world where rare biodiversity resources exist.
There will be problem of displacement, resettlement, rehabilitation, repatriation and development issues.
The construction of Dam will be violation of our democratic form of Government's functioning where the indigenous voices are to be taken and considered.
It is a total disregard of our Zeliangrong ancient indigenous heritage and reflects partiality of the government.
Not only the Barak basin will be affected, it will also affect its tributaries.
Though the potential impacts of the Dam are largely estimated and sometimes seem exaggerated, we cannot deny that the Dam will generate massive environmental and social disasters. While Indian government is continuously justifying the construction of this Dam as it would bring more benefits to people including electricity, the environmental and social Damages and potential risks are enormous. The Indian government never revealed the full environmental assessment report to the public; however, experts’ opinions on this issue have generated an enormous strain about the Dam. People in India and Bangladesh have increasingly felt an unjust move of the Indian government that the Dam will cause an irreparable environmental and social catastrophe. Local people started protesting against the construction of the Dam and therefore the construction was postponed in 2007. Indian government later on used various public relations apparatuses to convince the local people and the government of Bangladesh. Though the current ruling party of Bangladesh, Bangladesh Awami League, is historically pro‐Indian and therefore accepted Indian plan to contract the Dam, people have launched various types of movements and campaigns against the government decision and the Dam.
IV: ENVIRONMENTAL RESISTANCE AGAINST TIPAIMUKH DAM As mentioned earlier, there have been intense debates in Bangladesh among civil society, environmental groups, human rights organizations and media over the implications of the Tipaimukh Dam on the share of water coming from upper‐riparian India (Rahman 2009). The Dam project is an issue currently continues to dominate the domain of political, media, intellectual and civil society’s discourse in Bangladesh with a unilateral demand for revocation of India’s decision for the project. Massive public protest in different forms i.e. rallies, human chains, protest meetings, strikes and so on against the Dam continue to gain momentum in Bangladesh. The environmental resistances have taken different shapes—political and non‐political, local and global though sometimes it is hard to draw boundary lines as they are fused and blurred in an overlapping manner. Environmental Resistance in Bangladesh With regard to the political landscapes, the water sharing of trans‐boundary rivers between India and Bangladesh has witnessed a bitter past with the Farakka dispute over sharing of waters of the Ganges which is still under negotiation. This issue has been played to the hilt in the domestic political scene in Bangladesh in the past, and the lines are clearly drawn now with the opposition led by Begum Khaleda Zia actively supporting the anti‐Tipaimukh Dam civil society groups in Bangladesh. The political opposition has been vociferously attacking the Sheikh Hasina led government which was recently voted to power in Bangladesh and is seen being pro‐India. The four party alliance led by the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) has vowed to take the Tipaimukh Dam issue to international forums if the government fails to stop it (Rahman 2009).
Feeling a heat from the opposition parties and a civil society movement, a parliamentary delegation formed from the Bangladesh Parliamentary Standing Committee on Water Resources led by Water Resources Minister of Bangladesh, Abdur Razzaq, visited New Delhi en route to the Tipaimukh Dam site in Manipur in the beginning of August 2009, amidst
7
growing domestic criticism of the project in Bangladesh, and stressed upon the need to have negotiations on the concerns and issues raised between both countries. Bangladesh has urged India to conduct a joint study of the implications that the Tipaimukh Dam would have on the region and the future flow of water in the concerned river system, which directly affects Bangladesh, being the lower‐riparian country. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina had taken up Bangladesh’s concerns relating to the Tipaimukh Dam Project with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during their meeting on the sidelines of the Non‐Aligned Movement Summit in Egypt recently (Rahman 2009).
A protest in Dhaka City by environmental groups (Source: Forum, Volume 3 Issue 7, July 2009) Environmentalists and other civil society groups in Bangladesh have formed National Tipaimukh Dam Resistance
Committee (TDRC). A ‘Long March’ organized by various Bangladeshi civil society organizations which include TDRC and Sylhet Division Unnayan Sangram Samiti, supported by leaders of BNP and the hardliner Bangladesh Jamaat‐e‐Islami (BJI), started for the Tipaimukh Dam site on 10 August 2009 but were stopped short of the international border by the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR), where they held protest demonstrations subsequently. The support of BJI on this issue could become a serious source of concern for India (Rahman 2009). Recently, BJI tried to organize some massive protests to mobilize people’s opinion against the Dam, but the government managed to foil their protest movements. The top three leaders of the party have recently been arrested by the government. It seems that the current government is committed to ban or foil/crush any popular political resistant movement surrounding Tipaimukh Dam. However, massive environmental resistance in the internet world and abroad continues.
In August 2009, leaders of TDRC at a discussion stressed the need for spontaneous participation of the people in the movement against the construction of Tipaimukh Dam by India. They called upon the people to remain alert on the issue so that the Indian government could not construct the Dam on Barak River. If India constructs the Dam, the north‐eastern region of the country would turn into a desert, they said. The discussion was held at Dhaka Reporters Unity (DRU) in the city as a part of observance of ‘Global Solidarity Sit‐in Tipaimukh Dam Programme’. The programme was also observed in the day in different district headquarters of the country and cities of the world including Shilchar, Calcutta and Patna of India, Canberra of Australia, Tokyo of Japan and New York of America. Referring to 50 large Dams in the world, Engineer Hilal said that a “water syndicate” is now active to build more Dams on big rivers to serve their own interests. "Such immoral activities of the syndicate have also contributed to global climate change,” he said. Indian renowned journalist Shankar Roy and veteran leader of Tipaimukh Dam issue in India Engineer Dinesh Mitra expressed solidarity with the participants of the programme (The New Nation, 30 Aug. 2009).
Visiting British parliamentarian George Galloway shows his solidarity with this movement and called for an international enquiry into the probable environmental impact of India’s proposed Tipaimukh Dam. As it has consequences on the climate and environment, it is an international issue, he said. The MP said an international investigation was required on whether the Dam has any negative effect on a section of both Bangladesh and Indian population. He said the Tipaimukh Dam is not an issue that concerns only Bangladesh and India. "It is a criminal offence to make Tipaimukh Dam by India. I will fight to prevent making this Dam." Not only Bangladeshi people, a section of Indian people will also be affected. Even the Indian expatriates in London protested … against the proposed Dam," he said answering to a query. Galloway led a UK delegation and a huge Bangladeshi crowd on a march on 29
th November 2009 from Sylhet city to the border with
India where the river Barak divides into the Shurma and Kushiara. The march was arranged to draw global attention to the
8
potentially devastating impact of the proposed Dam on Sylhet and the entire north‐eastern region of Bangladesh (Reuters, UK, 29 November 2009).
New Nation (21 August 2009) reports that a conference of Surma Kushiara Meghna Bachao Andolan [Movement to save Surma, Kushiara, and Meghna] in Dhaka on 20th August, 2009 called for drumming up support of the people for the movement to resist the construction of the Tipaimkh Dam. The leaders of the organisation said they would declare a programme for a still greater movement in this regard on the occasion of the 33th death anniversary of Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhasani in November. The conference held at the Dr MA Hadi Auditorium in the city was attended by delegates from 18 districts of the basin of the rivers Surma, Kushiara and Meghna. Former member of University Grant Commission Prof Dr Tarek Shamsur Rehman presided over the programme while former environment and water expert of United Nations Engineer Dr. SI Khan, Vice Chancellor of Manarat International University Prof. Dr. Abdur Rab, lawyer Zubayer Ahmed Bhuiyan, took part in the discussions. Member Secretary of the organisation Md Selim Uddin conducted the programme while delegates of different districts addressed it. Md Kamal Hossain (Chadpur), Shahin Ahmed Khan (Moulvibazar), Jaber Hossain Rasel (B.Baria), Abdul Motin (Kishorgonj) and Mizanur Rahman Rasel (Shariatpur) were among the speakers. Speakers said that the government should discuss the issue with Indian government and if the latter did not stop the construction of the Dam, the Bangladesh government should raise the issue in the international court. The next course of action was declared at the conference.
In August 2009, leaders of Islami Andolan Bangladesh (IAB) submitted a memorandum to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Mun through UNDP representative of Bangladesh office demanding help to stop the construction of Tipaimukh Dam by India. A delegation of IAB led by its presidium member Moulana Syed Musaddek Billah Al Madani submitted the memorandum while UNDP Bangladesh office in‐charge Kazi Ali Reza received it and assured the delegation that the memorandum would be reached to UN Secretary General as soon as possible. The memorandum said that the plan of constructing Tipaimukh Dam Project was a complete violation of Bangladesh‐India Joint River Commission (JRC) 1996, International Helsinki Convention and International River Law. It was also told that if India constructs the Dam, it would destroy country’s existence and it would seriously affect not only in Bangladesh, it is also going to bring negative ecological and environmental changes in vast areas in Bangladesh and different states of India. IAB leaders urged UN Secretary General to intervene to stop the construction of the Dam to save vast areas of Bangladesh from desertification. The delegation includes, among others, IAB General Secretary Moulana Yunus Ahmed, Organising Secretary Prof. Syed Belayet Hossain and Dhaka city president Prof. Moulana ATM Hemayet Uddin. After submitting memorandum, IAB leaders informed journalists that a Long March towards Tipaimukh Dam led by IAB Amir Mufti Syed Rezaul Karim Pirsaheb Chormonai would be launched on December 24, 2009 (The New Nation, 18 August 2009). The Tipaimukh project became a political crisis in Bangladesh during late 2009. On 18
th September 2009, the supporters of IAB again marched on to the
Indian High Commission to protest against the Dam (Demotix, 18 October 2009).
Supporters of the political party Islami Andolon Bangladesh march on to the Indian High Commission (Source: http://www.demotix.com/news/162154/protest‐against‐tipaimukh‐project)
Observers claim that only Bangladesh Awami League (BAL), the leading party of the ruling coalition due to its strategic friendly relations with Indian government did not openly oppose the construction of the Dam. Even some other parties which have coalition with the current regime have launched protest against the Dam. It was reported that Bangladesh Juba Union, a front body of Communist Party of Bangladesh (CPB), had a two‐day Dhaka‐Sylhet road‐march programme demanding to a halt to construction of the India’s proposed Tipaimukh Dam. Though BAL claimed that the protest against the Dam is a business of the opposition parties to harvest political gains, academics claim that the government has failed to understand the pulse of the people’s demand (Nazrul 2010). As the protest against the Dam
9
continues in different forms, the government has also taken hard lines to crush the movement. Nevertheless, the issue of the Dam largely dominates the discourse of media in Bangladesh, and the resistance beyond Bangladeshi border continues.
Movement in India Hundreds of people representing Bengali, Manipuri, Naga, Khasi, Reang, Dimasa and other communities living in southern part of Assam district staged demonstration in front of Deputy Commissioner's office at Silchar in the first week of April, 2009 demanding total scrapping of controversial Tipaimukh Dam to be constructed on Barak River. During the demonstration they shouted slogans condemning government’s attitude and demanded immediate scraping of this project. Pijus Kanti Das, Secretary General of Committee on Peoples and Environment (COPE) and a number of leaders from different organizations and groups joined the demonstration before the DC’s office. The demonstrators later sent memoranda separately to the President, Pratibha Devi Singh Patil, Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, Union Minister for Forest and Environment, Jairam Ramesh, Assam Chief Minister, Tarun Gogoi and Manipur Chief Minister, O Ibobi Singh through DC, Cachar. In these memoranda they raised few pertinent issues and expressed their concern about the impact on people and environment emanating from the construction of Tipaimukh Dam at the upstream of Barak River. They observed that during recent days, lot of hue and cry is being registered opposing the construction of a ‘water bomb’ at Tipaimukh. A handful of protests have been witnessed in Manipur, Mizoram, Barak Valley of Assam, besides many other from Bangladesh. They believed that there should be an extensive downstream environmental impact study from the proposed Dam site up to sea‐mouth and it should be jointly conducted at the initiative of the Government of India and Bangladesh, where experts from Non Government Organizations, particularly, from the environmental outfits, IITs and Universities, must be included to assess the possible detrimental impact on the environment and life of inhabitants in catchment areas at large. Without downstream impact study, if a clean‐chit to the project is given it would be detrimental for both environment and people at large and poor rural people of both in India and Bangladesh in particular (Merinews 12 April 2010).
They further mentioned that the proposed Dam falls at the confluence of Indo‐Burma, Indo‐Malayan and Indo‐Chinese biodiversity hotspot zone. These areas are characterized by the presence of a large number of plant and animal species, like tiger, hillock gibbon, hornbill, turtle, dolphin etc. Many of which are not seen or seldom witnessed in other parts of the world. A large number of them have been categorized as endangered and threatened as the IUCN Red Data Book and the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972. Once the Dam is constructed, these innocent endangered and threatened species would have no other alternative, but to perish. Moreover many of the tribal people including Hmar, Zeliangrong, Kuki, Mizo and others who have been living there for generations will have to leave the place for ever. Under such a situation the construction of a Dam at the proposed site cannot be taken in favor of biodiversity conservation (Merinews 12 April 2010).
The COPE strongly believed and observed with deep concern that this rock filled 390 mts long and 1628 mt high Dam to be constructed at the earthquake zone‐V, wherein there will be constant pressure of water, if for any reason cracks, the entire civilization of the whole of downstream will be washed down in no time. The age old Barak‐Surma culture will live in the history only. Besides the above mentioned burning issues, other important impact like flush floods, water scarcity, crop cultivation, navigation siltation, ecological imbalance and river pollution, extinction of aquatic life forms, livelihood change and the likes are never the less important frontier areas that deserve careful and serious attention before construction of the Dam. They urged to consider all the matters seriously and looking the entire issues from the pro‐environment and pro‐human point of view to scrap the proposal of construction of Tipaimukh Dam, the life time curse for the inhabitants of Barak‐Surma Basin (Merinews 12 April 2010).
There has been an organised movement against construction of Tipaimukh Dam at Cachar in the Indian state of Assam. Although there has been movement against the proposed Dam in Manipur state of India for over two decades, people of Cachar in Assam favoured construction of this Dam. Different environmental organisations of Cachar at a joint meeting with the Monipur groups which are opposed to the construction of the Dam in August 2009 decided to wage movement against this project. These environmental organisations alleged that the government had given a wrong idea about the benefit of the Dam to the downstream people for long. Leader of the Anti‐Tipai Dam Project Ramananda said:
Downstream communities of different races and environmental organisations at yesterday’s meeting decided to join anti‐Dam movement.” People of Barak’s upper region in Manipur have been waging movement for a long time. Anti‐Dam movement has begun in Bangladesh. Now the people of downstream Cachar region have joined this movement. As a result the anti‐Dam movement will gain momentum and pressure will be exerted on the government to abandon this project (NFB, July 29, 2009). The Hmar People's Convention (D) of Monipur in a press release issued on 28 July 2009 said the proposed
Tipaimukh Multipurpose Hydroelectric Project is a war imposed on the indigenous Hmar people and various other communities, who share the river downstream as well as upstream. The power‐hungry governments and Dam builders in India, who were driven by capitalist interests, in their blind pursuit for profit‐making and securing energy in a distant foreign land, are poised to cross into indigenous people's territory to Dam the two rivers, Tuiruong and Tuivai, their lifeline. They don't have the approval and consent of the people, in whose land the Dam is proposed. We are closely watching their every move, it said. The HPC (D) shall never tolerate and allow their efforts to bear any fruit, it added. The statement said: “The rivers that nursed and fed our honoured generations before shall continue to flow for all the generations to come. We cannot allow the rivers to be disturbed and are obligated to see that no outsiders, their forces and might will dam, destroy or disturb the natural flow of the rivers of life” (Quoted in Nesar 2009). It also appealed to the visiting Bangladeshi parliamentary delegates to steadfastly share the concern to save the rivers Tuiruong and Tuivai for all purposes; to work
10
together for collective good; to save the rivers from irreparable Damage. The HPC(D) earlier was also responsible for destroying NEEPCO's drilling machine in 2008, said a release from Lalthutlung Hmar, northern command of the Hmar Peoples Convention (Democratic).
In Early March 2010, hundreds of people took out a rally in an interior town of Manipur's Tamenglong district protesting against the proposed construction of Tipaimukh Dam at the tri‐junction of Manipur, Mizoram and Assam, official reports said. The rallyists marched through Nungba town, which they said would be affected by the proposed Dam, and submitted a memorandum to the state chief minister through the sub divisional officer of Nungba sub division on 9
th
March, 2010. The memorandum claimed the Dam would have serious effect on the ecology, environment, flora and fauna as well as the identity of the indigenous people living in Tipaimukh and surrounding areas. Official sources in turn responded that India and Bangladesh had discussed the construction of the Dam which supposedly would solve the flood problem caused by Barak river in Cachar district of Assam and parts of Bangladesh (ZeeNews, 10 March 2010). Protest in the United States The Human Rights and Development for Bangladesh (HRDB) held a massive demonstration on July 17 in front of the United Nations to protest against the construction of the Tipaimukh Dam. More than 600 people from New York participated. Among others, the demonstration was addressed by community activists Badrunnahar Mita, Mahtab Uddin Ahmed, Mir Masum Ali, Abdul Hasib Chowdhury, Abu Samiha Md Sirajul Islam, Professor Nurul Islam, Abdul Kadir Khan, Barrister Golam Mostafa, Mahmudur Rahman, Moulana Delwar Hossen and others. A memorandum was also handed over to the United Nations on behalf of the demonstrators afterwards. Meanwhile, another activist, Khondaker Abu Sufiyan organised a seminar in association with the International Centre for Advancement of Bangladesh (ICAB) and another organisation floated by a section of Bangladeshi engineers living in the USA on July 26 last at the Jewish Community Centre in Jackson Heights of New York (Nesar 2009). Earlier, in 19 May 2009, an organization named Long Live Bangladesh (LLB) organized a seminar entitled “Environmental and Political Crises Looming in Bangladesh” in the Marriott Hotel at Washington D.C., and discussed the pros and cons of Tipaimukh Dam. Several engineers and some environmentalists presented their papers and opined that the benefits of Dam will outweigh the loss and cost. The Dam will be disastrous for both India and Bangladesh. LLB later on sent press‐release to different local and global media. The author was one of the participants of the seminar. Several folks in Los Angeles established a radio channel called Bangladesh News Network (BNN) to protest against the Dam and Indian hegemony in Bangladesh. They, on behalf of BNN Radio, organized a seminar against the Dam at Los Angeles. Both the President and the General Secretary of International Farakka Committee (IFC) have participated on this occasion, and promised their full cooperation. BNN Radio broadcasted interviews of several professors on the issue of the Tipaimukh Dam. South Asian communities living in other parts the United States also expressed their concern for the Dam and showed solidarity with the movement.
Resistance in Canada Several media portals including The New Nation (14 August 2009) reported that members of the Bangladeshi community in Montreal led by the Save Bangladesh International, Global Environmental Concern and the International Farakka Committee (Canada Chapter) paraded a long march to Ottawa protesting India's move to construct Tipaimukh Dam on Barak River. They went at the Parliament Hill with a slogan “Cholo Cholo Ottawa Cholo” [Let’s go to Ottawa] to demonstrate devotion to their motherland. The group first marched from Montreal on foot for a while then by transportation reached the Parliament Building. The group began marching on the Parliament Hill from the location of the flame to the main building and the slogan on the placards read, “India Stop Building Dams”, “India, Where is your Spirituality”, “How can Dam building be peaceful”? “Share Ganges water”, “Stop building Tipaimukh Dam”, “Save Sylhet”, “Dam building is destroying the humanity”, ‘India, be benevolent to your neighbor”. Addressing the rally near the flame in front of the Parliament building conference organizer Mamunur Rashid of the Save Bangladesh International said, “India being known globally as a peace‐loving country should practice what it preaches. Building Dams over the Ganges, Tista and now Tipaimukh is not helping to promote peace in the region.” Fazlee Elahi one of the organizers said, “India's unilateral action to building Dams is to make Bangladesh a dependent state through desertification. Through this India is increasing shifting away from being a peaceful nation to its path to aggression." Dr. Bahar, spokesperson for the Save Bangladesh International said, “We are not against India or against Indian people but we are against India’s ruling Congress Party’s stated policy of Dam building which Nehru called India's new temples.” Faisal Chowdhury cautioned that India's deceitful initiative is going to hurt Bangladesh. India as a big power in the region rather should work responsibly for regional harmony, he said.
The meeting was told that India is ignoring Bangladesh's and the international environmental group's concerns. Bangladeshis in Bangladesh and in abroad should continue to fight, and should keep up the pressure at home and abroad through demonstration and protests against India's destruction of eco‐system of the region. Some South Asians and some Canadian Friends of Bangladeshi members also joined in the demonstration in Ottawa. The demonstrators also spoke with the representative of Canadian Prime Minister and informed them that India is adamantly going ahead with the plan even by ignoring expert claims that there is an increased risk of Tipaimukh Dam failure due to its location in a high risk earthquake zone and in case of such a failure, the projected Dam would be a tsunami like disaster for Bangladesh's eastern region. The demonstrators sought help from the Canadian government to help mediate to settle this serious international issue that concerns the lives of millions of people (The New Nation, 14 August 2009). Safe Bangladesh International reported that they also organized several meetings on Tipaimukh Dam in some major cities of Canada including Toronto.
11
Resistance in the internet world The issue of the Tipaimukh Dam has massively been talked about in blogs, newspapers and rallies. Consequently, diplomatic efforts have been carried out and many new experts have been brought in. The protests have already spread widely in Internet. More than 80 Facebook groups have been opened, which includes Protest Tipaimukh Dam, Stop Tipaimukh Dam, Protest Against ‘Tipaimukh Dam’, Tipaimukh Dam & Fulertal Barrage – Lets Stop India, Stop Tipaimukh Dam, Save Our Bangladesh Tipaimukh Dissemination, Tipaimukh Barrage and so forth. Dedicated blog sites have been launched to compile and disseminate Tipaimukh Dam related news. Protest Tipaimukh Dam, for instance, posted 208 articles and news analysis related to Tipaimukh Dam in 2009. Various internet, virtual, and other forums have been formed to resist the Dam. There have been over a dozen online petitions to the Prime Minister of India which collected signatures in order to stop constructing the controversial Dam. “Cancel the Tipaimukh Dam, Let the Ahu (Barak River) Run Free” submitted by the Action Committee Against Tipaimukh Project (ACTIP) with Zeliangrong Union (ZU) and Nungba Area Village Authority Chairmen’s Association (NAVACA), Zeliangrong Students’ Union Manipur Nungba Zone (ZSUM Nungba Zone), Tipaimukh Dam Affected Villages Committee (TIDAVCOM) (available online at: http://www.petitiononline.com/ACTIPdoa/petition.html), for example, collected over two thousands signatures. The last paragraph of the petition says: ‘As our elders say, “We cannot eat electricity.” How long must we wait, while our fundamental and basic rights are denied? When will we see you come to us to ask us what we really want for our future, for our land, and not just to tell us what we must sacrifice and what is good for us? Cancel the Tipaimukh Dam, let the Ahu run free and be with us to make the right choices for ourselves, for our future generations and for our natural heritage.’ Apart from Bangladesh, India, United States, and Canada, South Asian people living in other parts of the world including United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, and Malaysia have expressed their serious concerns about the constructions of the Dam. A good number of Sylheti people are living in London and they have expressed their resistance in various forms such as from simple protest to writing in newspapers to sending petition to the UK government to create pressure on Indian government to organizing seminars and symposiums to create environmental awareness on and resistance against the Dam. V: CONCLUSION What we see is that despite massive resistance and protest at home and abroad, both the governments of Bangladesh and India are on the side of constructing the Dam. The resistance movement was temporarily successful before when the construction work was stalled in March 2007 in the face of protests from within and outside of India. As Indian government recently decided to continue with the project, environmental resistance continue to get momentum. People in India and Bangladesh feel that the construction in name of development and helping local population through providing free electricity will ultimately cause a massive environmental and social injustice. Tipaimukh becomes a source of strain for the people of Bangladesh. Their common slogan is that “Tipaimukh Dam is death to Sylhet and Bangladesh – it must be stopped.” As the issue has been conceptualized by experts, academics, environmental groups and politicians as a serious environmental threat to the existence of the people in Bangladesh and India, people have articulated this accordingly and launched this resistance movement. What we also see is that the movement has taken different shapes starting from simple protests to expressing discontents in various forums and meetings to launching protests in the facebook, blogs and other internet portals to generating different environmental and social justice organizations to creating alliances among different groups to submitting petition to the United Nations. The paper shows how and why this single environmental resistance movement against Tipaimukh Dam transcend national borders and took a global and transnational form.
Experts, academics and environmental groups have strongly urged that New Delhi should take urgent note of these events in Bangladesh and treat them with diplomatic caution as these could have effects on the larger India‐Bangladesh relationship. This is especially important at a time when the current regime in Dhaka is perceived as being as friendly towards India, and thus their exists an opportunity to make headway on number bilateral issues. The diplomatic path and solution that India takes and offers on this contentious water sharing issue could in fact prove to be a pointer towards what India itself expects other upper riparian countries to follow as precedent, especially as water diversion concerns are rising over the Yarlung Tsangpo in Tibet by China, which could severely affect the Brahmaputra in India as well as the Jamuna river further downstream in Bangladesh. They also think that India needs to address the concerns raised by Bangladesh in a manner which sets the tone and agenda for future trans‐boundary water negotiations in the larger region, which is a potential hotbed for future water related conflict. New Delhi has to realize that along with ensuring India’s need to develop its hydro‐power potential, the bulk of which is in Northeast India, it also has to cater to concerns of environmental degradation, human displacement and the overall sustainability of such projects. Ambitious projects in Northeast India, both in Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh could get easily mired in civil society unrest, where insurgents could rally support among to foment more trouble for New Delhi, something which is already being seen in Manipur (Rahman 2009; Jahangir 2009; Kazmi 2009).
Whether India will or should listen to the demand of this global environmental resistance movement and act upon it is not the scope of this paper. What is interesting is that there is a new and powerful thread of southern environmentalism that is largely located in the South but due to globalized media and communication technologies the movement transcends national borders and has taken a transnational form. Modern environmentalism is largely dominated by the environmental issues and concerns of the Global North. Guha (2000) found that Global South particularly South Asia has a long history of conservation and environmental concerns that date long before the concerns emerged in the United States. As Southern environmentalism was not given a proper attention by the authors of the Global North,
12
Guha calls this “environmentalism of the poor.” Environmental resistance against Tipaimukh Dam has been generated largely by the poor people; however, the magnitude and scope of the movement is undoubtedly very rich. VI: REFERENCES
Al‐Mahmood, Syed Zain (2009). “Muddying the Waters” in Star Weekend Magazine, Volume 8 Issue 77, July 10, 2009. Available at: http://www.thedailystar.net/magazine/2009/07/02/cover.htm (Accessed: 24 June 2010).
Ash, Roberta (1972). Social Movements in America. Chicago: Markham Publishing
Blumer, Harbert G. (1969). “Collective Behaviour” in Alfred McClung Lee, ed., Principles of Sociology. New York: Barnes and Noble Books, pp. 65‐121
Cameroon, William Bruce (1966). Modern Social Movements: A Sociological Outline. New York: Random House
Demotix (18 October 2009). “Protest against Tipaimukh Project.” Available online at: http://www.demotix.com/news/162154/protest‐against‐tipaimukh‐project (Accessed: 25 July 2010).
Guha, Ramachandra (2000). Environmentalism: A Global History. New York: Longman
Jahangir, Nadim (2009), “Tipaimukh Dam Controversy” in Forum, Volume 3 Issue 7, July 2009. Available online at: http://www.thedailystar.net/forum/2009/july/tipaimukh.htm (Accessed: 25 July 2010).
Kamei, Namdingpou (2006). “Controversial Hydro Electric (Multi‐purpose) Project” in The Sangai Express (India). December 15th, 2006.
Kazmi, Mamoona Ali (2009). Tipaimuk Dam: A Hazard for Bangladesh” in South Asian Research and Analysis Studies, 28 August. Available at: http://saras.org.pk/printpreview.php?topicid=1337 (Accessed: 25 July 2010).
Kornhauser, William (1959). The Politics of Mass Society. New York: Free Press
McADam, Doug, John D. McCarthy, and Myer N. Zald (1988). “Social Movements” in Neil J. Smelser, ed., Handbook of Sociology. California: Sage. Pp. 695‐737.
Melucci, Alberto (1980). “The New Social Movements: A Theoretical Approach” in Social Science Information, 19(2): 119‐126.
Merinews (12 April 2010). “People oppose the construction of Tipaimukh Dam.” Available online at: http://www.merinews.com/article/people‐oppose‐construction‐of‐tipaimukh‐Dam/15803796.shtml (Accessed: 26 June 2010).
Mirza, M. Monirul Qader (2009). “Fallacies of India’s Tipaimukh Dam” in Holiday International. September 4, 2009. Available at: http://www.weeklyholiday.net/2009/040909/anniv09/21.html (Accessed: 17 June, 2010).
Morrison, Denton E. (1978). “Some Notes Toward Theory on Relative Deprivation, Social Movements and Social Change”,
in Louis E. Genevie, ed., Collective Behaviour and Social Movements. Itasca Ill.: Peacock, pp. 202‐209
Nazrul, Asif (2010). “There is no way to believe that Tipaimukh project will not hard Bangladesh” in Daily Naya Diganto (Dhaka), 4 February 2010.
Nesar, Moinuddin (2009). “India secretly hands over Tipai project to state‐owned entity” in Holiday International, 7 August 2009. Available at: http://www.weeklyholiday.net/2009/070809/front.html (Accessed: 25 July 2010).
NFB (News From Bangladesh) (29 July 2009). “Assam joins Manipur to decry Tipaimukh Dam project”, Available online at:
http://newsfrombangladesh.net/view.php?hidRecord=277048 (Accessed: 25 July 2010). Pakulski, Jan. (1993). “Mass Social Movements and Social Class” in International Sociology, 8(2): 131‐58.
13
Rahman, Mirza Zulfikur (2009). “India, Bangladesh and Tipaimukh Dam” in IPCS (Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies) Bulletin, No. #2945, 17 August 2009, Available at: http://www.ipcs.org/article_details.php?articleNo=2945 (Accessed: 14 June 2010)
Reuters, UK (29 November 2009). “George Galloway joins Bangladesh Dam protest”, Available at:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE5AT1BF20091130 (Accessed: 24 June 2010).
Rose, Jerry D. (1982). Outbreaks. New York: Free Press
Smelser, Neil J. (1962). Theory of Collective Behaviour. New York: Free Press
Tarafdar, Mustafizur Rahman (2009). “Tipaimukh Dam: An alarming venture” in The Daily Star, Available at: http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news‐details.php?nid=85451 (25
th April, 2009).
Tarrow, Sidney (1994). Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action and Politics. London: University of
Cambridge
The New Nation (14 August 2009). “Tipaimukh protest march to Ottawa.” Available at: http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2009/08/14/news0639.htm (Accessed: 25 July 2010).
The New Nation (18 August, 2009). “Tipai Dam: IAB submits memo to UN.” Available at:
http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2009/08/18/news0965.htm (Accessed: 25 July 2010). The New Nation (21 August 2009). “Bangladesh needs natural flood: Three rivers to dry if Tipai Dam constructed.”
Available at: http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2009/08/21/news0207.htm (Accessed: 25 July 2010).
The New Nation (30 Aug. 2009). “People Urged to Join Tipaimukh Dam”, Available online at: http://www.ittefaq.com/issues/2009/08/30/all0337.htm (Accessed: 24 June 2010).
ZeeNews (10 March 2010). “Rally against construction of Tipaimukh Dam.” Available online at: http://www.zeenews.com/news610051.html (Accessed: 25 July 2010).