The Deocha Pachami coal mine project in West Bengal, initiated by the Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress (TMC) government, is one of India’s most ambitious mining ventures. It covers a vast 12.3 sq. km area and holds an estimated 1,240 million tonnes of coal and 260 million tonnes of basalt. While the project promises economic growth and employment, it has also led to intense protests, primarily from tribal communities fearing displacement.
The mining project, located in the Mohammad Bazar Block of Birbhum district, is progressing in phases. However, the divide between supporters and opponents of the project continues to grow. On one side, the government highlights its potential to boost the state’s economy, while on the other, locals, activists, and opposition leaders raise concerns about forced evictions, environmental damage, and transparency issues.
Background of the Deocha Pachami Project
In 2016, the Trinamool Congress (TMC) government announced the Deocha Pachami mining project as part of its broader vision to boost industrial development in West Bengal. The state government positioned the project as a landmark initiative that would drive economic growth, generate employment, and help the state become a key player in India’s coal production sector. However, while the announcement was met with enthusiasm from some quarters, concerns regarding land acquisition, displacement, and environmental impact soon emerged.
The project took a crucial turn in 2019 when the Central government allocated the coal block to West Bengal. With this allocation, the responsibility of executing the project fell entirely on the state government, which planned to develop it through the West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited (WBPDCL). The Deocha Pachami coal block is the largest coal reserve in India and among the largest in the world, making it a strategic asset for both energy security and industrial expansion.
From the outset, mining operations at Deocha Pachami were divided into phases. The initial phase primarily focused on the extraction of basalt, a type of volcanic rock extensively used in construction, road-building, and industrial manufacturing. The basalt mining phase was considered a preparatory step before large-scale coal extraction could begin. Despite this staged approach, the primary objective of the project has always been to mine coal, given the vast reserves spread across the region.
Spanning 21 villages, including Chanda, the project requires approximately 3,400 acres of land for full-fledged mining operations. Out of this, around 1,200 acres are already owned by the government, while the remaining 2,200 acres are privately owned, predominantly by tribal communities. The state government has emphasized that the project will create thousands of job opportunities, directly and indirectly, benefiting the local workforce and boosting the state’s industrial economy.
To facilitate the land acquisition process, the government introduced a compensation package for affected families. This package includes monetary compensation, alternative housing, and guaranteed employment for at least one member of each displaced family. While a portion of the local population accepted the package, another section remains strongly opposed to the project, citing concerns over forced displacement, loss of traditional livelihoods, and potential environmental degradation.
The situation intensified on February 6, 2024, when work officially commenced on the first phase of the project. This significant development came just one day after Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee formally announced the beginning of mining activities at the Bengal Global Business Summit held in Kolkata. The announcement marked a major milestone in the project’s timeline, signaling the government’s commitment to pushing the mining operations forward despite ongoing protests and opposition.
However, the initiation of mining work immediately triggered protests, with locals and activists raising concerns about the project’s long-term impact on their lives. Many residents fear forced eviction, arguing that the compensation package is inadequate compared to the land and livelihood they stand to lose. Several tribal groups and local organizations have mobilized in opposition, citing threats to their ancestral lands, cultural heritage, and environmental stability.
As tensions continue to rise, the government faces the challenging task of balancing industrial development with the rights and concerns of local communities. While it remains firm on its stance that the project will bring economic progress, resistance from the local population highlights the complex socio-political dynamics surrounding large-scale industrial projects in India.
Why Are Some Residents Opposing the Project?
The primary concern among villagers is the method of mining. The project involves open-cast mining, a process that extracts minerals from an open pit rather than from underground tunnels. This method requires vast land clearance, making mass eviction a major possibility.
Residents like Dhani Murmu, who works in a stone-crushing unit, demand direct dialogue with the government. Many share her concern that open-cast mining will permanently alter their lives and traditional livelihoods.
Moreover, several villagers lack proper land documents, raising fears that they may not receive compensation. As a result, many affected families are hesitant to trust the government’s assurances.
In response, the West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited (WBPDCL), the nodal agency for the project, has stated that forced evictions will not occur. Officials claim that only 12 acres of the 326-acre first-phase land will undergo open-cast mining as an experimental project, ensuring minimal displacement.
Protests and the Government’s Response
Following the announcement of the project, protests erupted in several villages. The opposition intensified on March 3, 2024, when locals placed the ‘Charkha’—a tribal tradition of marking land boundaries to prevent entry of outsiders—forcing mining activities to halt. The police responded by deploying heavy security, but tensions continued to rise.
Tribal organizations and activists, under the banner of ‘Jal Jangal Jami o Adivasi Banchao Andolon’ (Save Water, Forest, Land, and Tribals Movement), led rallies in Kolkata, drawing around 300 participants. Protesters accused the government of misleading villagers and claimed that the project would lead to large-scale displacement, similar to what had happened in states like Jharkhand and Odisha.
In contrast, the government has maintained that the project will benefit residents. The administration has set up outreach camps to address grievances, rectify land records, and ensure fair compensation. The Birbhum district magistrate, Bidhan Roy, assured that land-related applications were being processed.
Economic and Employment Prospects
Despite the controversy, a section of the local population supports the project, particularly those who have already secured jobs and compensation. According to government sources, around 1,600 out of 7,000 applicants have received employment—1,100 in the local police force and 500 in government Group D jobs.
Kabirul Islam, a resident of Chanda village, sees the project as an opportunity. His 1.5 bighas of land were acquired, but in return, his wife secured a junior constable position, and they received financial compensation. He believes that opposition to the project stems mainly from land ownership issues rather than the project itself.
Similarly, Atahar Ali from Alinagar received Rs 3.37 lakh for 0.21 bighas of land and a police job. He suggests that the government should offer employment to more affected families to reduce resistance.
While the state government continues to offer compensation and jobs, many residents remain skeptical due to delays in processing applications. Some fear that only a few families will receive benefits while others will be left out.
Environmental Concerns and Sustainability Issues
Beyond displacement concerns, environmentalists warn of long-term ecological consequences. Open-cast mining generates large amounts of dust, disrupts groundwater levels, and leads to deforestation.
Former MP and CPI(M) politburo member Ram Chandra Dome criticized the government for failing to conduct a comprehensive environmental impact assessment (EIA). He pointed out that the detailed project report (DPR) has not been made public, leaving many unanswered questions about the mine’s sustainability.
The state government claims that environmental clearances have been secured, but opposition parties argue that no transparent assessment has been shared with the public. Critics fear that air and water pollution from coal extraction could impact not only Birbhum district but surrounding regions as well.
Environmental experts have raised concerns about the ecological impact of open-cast mining in the Deocha Pachami region. According to studies by independent organizations like the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), large-scale coal mining can lead to deforestation, air pollution, and groundwater depletion, affecting both biodiversity and local communities.
Political Reactions and Opposition Allegations
The project has become a political flashpoint, with opposition parties, including the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and CPI(M), questioning its transparency. BJP Rajya Sabha MP Samik Bhattacharya alleges that the government is hiding crucial details.
“The viability of the project remains uncertain, and we do not know what exactly is happening inside Deocha Pachami. The state government has provided jobs to only a handful of people, and there is a complete lack of transparency,” he said.
Meanwhile, the TMC government insists that it is prioritizing the well-being of affected villagers. TMC MP Samirul Islam visited the region and assured that a fresh land survey would be conducted to assist residents in obtaining proper land records.
Looking Ahead: What Lies in the Future?
Despite protests, the government remains determined to move forward with the project. The state administration has emphasized that it will continue engaging with villagers, offering compensation, and addressing grievances.
At the same time, tribal groups and activists remain committed to opposing large-scale displacement. While outreach camps are attempting to resolve land disputes, there is no clear resolution in sight. The question remains: can the government strike a balance between industrial development and protecting the rights of indigenous communities?
Experts suggest that a middle ground could be found by prioritizing underground mining instead of open-cast methods, which would reduce displacement and environmental damage. However, implementing such changes requires political will and extensive planning.
As Deocha Pachami continues to be a battleground of conflicting interests, its outcome will set a precedent for future mining projects in India. Whether it brings economic prosperity or leads to long-term struggles for affected communities remains to be seen.
