Koppal district.
Credit: DH File Photo
On February 24, the usually quiet town of Koppal came to a standstill. Protesters – local farmers, activists, workers, students, and religious leaders – joined hands in a complete bandh against the proposed Baldota Integrated Steel Plant. The concern was not abstract. For a region already struggling with over 20 sponge iron units, where residents routinely report respiratory illnesses and water scarcity, the idea of a Rs-17,979 crore steel plant felt like a final blow, not progress.
The agitation has since grown into one of the most significant environmental protests in Kalyana Karnataka in recent years. Its message is simple: development is welcome, but not at the cost of
the people’s health, water, and soil. And not without listening to those who will live with its consequences.
In this backdrop, Industries Minister M B Patil’s announcement in the Legislative Council that the government will conduct an evaluation of the project – possibly by the Indian Institute of Science or another independent institution – is a welcome step. He has also committed to consulting elected representatives, local activists, and religious heads like Gavi Siddheshwara Swami before a final decision is made. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has directed that all work on the project be halted until the review is complete.
This course correction comes at a crucial moment. Kalyana Karnataka has waited a long time for development. For decades, it remained at the periphery of Karnataka’s growth story, marked by low investment, poor infrastructure, and limited state attention. The 98th Constitutional Amendment in 2012, which introduced Article 371J, was meant to change that. It created a separate development board and mandated equitable resource distribution. But over a decade later, districts like Koppal still lag in every major development indicator.
The numbers are stark. In 2015-16, Koppal’s Gross District Domestic Product (GDDP) stood at just Rs 7,941 crore, contributing a mere 1.01% to Karnataka’s overall GDP. The region has neither seen strategic investments in green industries nor an expansion of educational or health infrastructure that Article 371J envisioned. And now, instead of becoming a turning point, the Baldota steel plant has stirred deep public anxiety. Residents fear a repeat of past mistakes – industries that promise growth but leave behind poisoned air, tainted water, and a trail of chronic illnesses. Reports of cancer, asthma, and declining agricultural productivity reflect the lived experience of a region forced to bear the costs of unchecked industrialisation.
Beyond EIAs
An independent evaluation, then, must go well beyond the limited scope of traditional Environmental Impact Assessments, which often suffer from rushed timelines, insufficient baseline data, and a failure to assess cumulative effects. Best practices demand a more comprehensive approach – one that considers the cumulative environmental burden already borne by Koppal, includes robust health impact data, evaluates stress on local water resources, and accounts for the social cost of displacement or loss of livelihood. The evaluation must not be confined to technical metrics; it must centre lived experiences of those most affected. It should involve direct consultations with local communities, not just the project proponents, and make all findings accessible to the public in non-technical language. Critically, the expert committee must include elected representatives, health professionals, environmental scientists, and civil society members to ensure transparency and credibility.
Beyond environmental safeguards, the conversation must address who benefits from such industrial projects. While Article 371J does not legally bind private companies to provide local employment reservations, its core intent – to correct regional imbalances – must still guide industrial policy. Companies seeking to operate in Kalyana Karnataka should commit to voluntarily reserving a significant share of jobs for local residents. This is not just a matter of ethical responsibility – it is smart, inclusive economics. Prioritising local hiring would not only ease public anxieties but also build trust and long-term community support, turning potential resistance into shared ownership of development.
The Karnataka government must follow up the decision to pause the project with measures to ensure that development in Kalyana Karnataka must not follow the script that left other regions scarred by pollution and neglect. It must be development with dignity – grounded in environmental stewardship, participatory planning, and long-term vision.
The residents of Koppal are not rejecting investment; they are demanding that it be responsible, inclusive, and rooted in local realities. How the government responds now will shape public trust in the promises of Article 371J. If handled right, Koppal could set a precedent – not just for Kalyana Karnataka, but for how India pursues equitable, participatory industrialisation in ecologically fragile areas.
(The writer is a lawyer and research consultant)