In India, activism against large-scale development projects often garners national and international attention. Environmental activists claim to protect the environment, displaced communities, and human rights, but a closer look reveals a pattern of selective opposition, media bias, and politicized agendas. A case in point is the recent protest by Sonam Wangchuk in Pune following his controversial visit to Pakistan. This incident brings to mind Medha Patkar’s opposition to the Sardar Sarovar Dam project, where similar tactics were employed to stall development under the guise of environmental concerns.
Medha Patkar and the Sardar Sarovar Dam
Medha Patkar led the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) against the Sardar Sarovar Dam project, claiming it would displace thousands of families, harm the environment, and fail to deliver promised benefits. Her activism included filing legal petitions, organizing protests, and even influencing the World Bank to withdraw its funding in 1993. Her campaign received widespread media coverage and international support, painting her as a savior of marginalized communities.
Notable individuals like Aamir Khan supported her cause, with the actor even attending NBA events and publicly criticizing the dam. The Congress party, often in opposition to the BJP government in Gujarat, extended indirect support to her protests. Patkar was also awarded international prizes, like the Goldman Environmental Prize, which bolstered her global image as an environmental crusader.
However, when the Sardar Sarovar Dam was completed in 2017, the project proved her claims wrong. It brought water to drought-prone regions, irrigated millions of hectares of farmland, generated hydroelectric power, and provided drinking water to thousands of villages. The benefits far outweighed the concerns Patkar had raised. Investigations revealed that many of her claims about inadequate rehabilitation and environmental destruction were exaggerated. Yet, her activism delayed the project, depriving millions of timely benefits.
The Sonam Wangchuk Saga
Fast forward to today, a similar narrative is playing out with Sonam Wangchuk. Known for his innovative work in Ladakh, Wangchuk has recently been in the spotlight for his protests in Pune after visiting Pakistan. His visit raised eyebrows, as it coincided with his opposition to India’s development policies in Ladakh and the government’s focus on infrastructure projects in the region.
Much like Medha Patkar, Wangchuk enjoys the backing of certain sections of the media, which portray him as a hero standing up to the “big bad government.” Aamir Khan, who previously supported Patkar, even made a movie (3 Idiots) inspired by Wangchuk’s life, further popularizing his image as a revolutionary thinker. International organizations and media outlets have also joined the chorus, praising him as a champion of the environment.
But his activism seems selective. While he opposes development projects in Ladakh, his visit to Pakistan – a country notorious for its poor environmental policies and water mismanagement – has gone unquestioned by the same media. Moreover, there are few details about any tangible, practical solutions he offers to balance development and environmental protection in a region like Ladakh, where infrastructure is critical for both national security and local livelihoods.
Selective Activism and Double Standards
A recurring pattern emerges:
• Media Bias: Both Patkar and Wangchuk received extensive positive coverage, while alternative perspectives, like the benefits of the Sardar Sarovar Dam or the need for Ladakh’s development, were downplayed.
• Celebrity Endorsements: Aamir Khan’s involvement in both cases helped amplify their causes, lending them credibility among the masses.
• International Recognition: Awards and global support often bolstered their campaigns, creating pressure on the government while disregarding the local realities or long-term benefits of development projects.
Another glaring example of selective activism is the opposition to the Aarey metro car shed in Mumbai. Activists and even Christian schools vocally opposed the cutting of trees for the metro project, despite the extensive replantation plans proposed by the government. Yet, these same institutions never oppose the widespread cutting of trees for Christmas celebrations or urban projects that align with their own interests. This selective outrage highlights the inconsistencies in such so-called “environmental” protests.
The Reality of Development vs. Activism
Medha Patkar’s failed predictions about the Sardar Sarovar Dam teach us an important lesson: Not everyone who claims to be an environmentalist is genuinely concerned about the environment. Many protests are politically motivated or backed by vested interests to stall development under the pretext of human rights and ecology.
In the case of Sonam Wangchuk, it remains to be seen whether his protests truly aim to protect Ladakh’s fragile ecosystem or if they serve a larger agenda. While legitimate environmental concerns should be addressed, blind opposition to development projects risks depriving local communities of progress and opportunities.
As citizens, we must critically evaluate such activism. True environmentalism seeks a balance between protecting nature and enabling sustainable development. Anything less is simply obstruction in the name of progress.
✍️ Pratham Uvaach
0 Comments