Polavaram Progress: A New Dawn for Odisha’s Disputes

The Polavaram dam dispute, festering for nearly two decades, symbolises Odisha’s broader struggle to protect its territorial and riparian rights. Recent reports of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s proposed discussion with Odisha’s chief secretary have injected fresh optimism into this long-pending issue. This intervention is particularly significant as the previous BJD government faced persistent allegations of deliberate inaction, allowing the conflict to fester in legal quagmires while Andhra Pradesh accelerated construction. The current BJP-led administration’s assertive posture, combined with central engagement, could break this stalemate, not just for Polavaram but also for Odisha’s other inter-state conflicts, from the Mahanadi water dispute to volatile border rows.

At the heart of the Polavaram controversy lies the threat of large-scale submergence. The dam’s backwaters could inundate over 6,000 acres in Odisha’s tribal-dominated Malkangiri district, displacing thousands. Despite being declared a “national project” in 2014, the unresolved inter-state objections forced Odisha, Chhattisgarh, and Telangana to approach the Supreme Court. The BJD government’s delayed legal response—filing its petition only in 2019, years after construction began—allowed Andhra Pradesh to create facts on the ground. The current Law Minister’s accusation of “political interests” stalling earlier action underscores this failure. Meanwhile, the BJD counters by citing its Delhi protests and tribal outreach, revealing how the issue remains politicised.

The Polavaram impasse mirrors Odisha’s other neglected disputes. The Mahanadi conflict with Chhattisgarh, where upstream dams drastically reduced water flow into Odisha, remains unresolved despite the formation of a tribunal. Recent appeals to the PM for intervention highlight growing desperation. Similarly, border disputes with Andhra Pradesh, where villages like Kotia cluster face dual claims, and West Bengal’s alleged encroachments near Balasore exemplify systemic apathy. Historical losses of Odia-majority areas (Sareikela, Kharsuan, and parts of Srikakulam) during state reorganisation amplify these anxieties.

The PM’s involvement could recalibrate this trajectory. A transparent, data-driven resolution for Polavaram—ensuring Odisha’s submergence concerns are addressed—would set a template for the Mahanadi talks. For border disputes, the Centre must enforce existing agreements (like the 1968 Odisha-AP accord) and expedite demarcation. However, lasting solutions require institutional mechanisms: permanent interstate river commissions, real-time water data sharing, and time-bound tribunals for border rows.

Odisha’s demands are not merely territorial; they reflect the existential threats faced by marginalised communities. Tribal villages facing submergence or farmers battling water scarcity cannot afford bureaucratic lethargy. As the state asserts its rights, the Centre must mediate with impartiality, ensuring cooperative federalism doesn’t become a zero-sum game. For Odisha, this moment is pivotal—an opportunity to secure its future by finally resolving the ghosts of its past.