India started large-scale aluminium production during British rule in 1943 when Indal, owned by Canadian firm Alcan, was established in Kerala with access to nearby ore and hydropower for smelting. A number of joint ventures followed on a relatively small scale but once larger deposits were found elsewhere in the world operations in India failed to remain competitive. The main effort to expand came much later from a Hungarian-Indian government collaboration project in present-day Chhattisgarh which established Balco (Bharat Aluminium Corporation) in 1965.
Technological problems however prevented Balco from operating properly for many years and once it did the known ore reserves were insufficient.
Little else would probably have happened in the bauxite industry in India had it not been for the discovery of the east coast bauxite reserves in the mid-1970s. Despite frequent surveys across India by British and Indian geologists for well over a century these deposits covering parts of the Scheduled Areas of southern and western Orissa, and northern Andhra Pradesh had remained unknown (Rao et al. 1979). Operating on a wholly different scale compared to earlier efforts in the country, the Nalco (National Aluminium Corporation) bauxite mine and alumina refinery complex was opened in southern Orissa in cooperation with the French firm Pechiney, and with financial support of the French government in 1987. A few years later an aluminium smelter was setup in Angul of northern Orissa close to coal mines for power. Nalco remains the by far largest bauxite ore miner in India, and the only producer currently extracting the vast bauxite deposits of the Eastern Ghats.
The Indian bauxite industry’s first encounter with protest movements occurred shortly thereafter in the late 1980s when Balco’s search for additional ore made it come to Gandhamardhan in Western Orissa (Mishra 1987). This mountain known for its biodiversity but also as a Hindu pilgrimage location, saw a significant opposition movement being established when local and national activists could not believe the publicity slogan that “Gandhamardhan will truly come of age with old holy temples of Nrusinghanath and Harishanker and modern industrial temples co-existing and enriching each other” (Balco publicity statement cited in Independent Committee report commissioned by GoI, 1987). In the end it was mainly livelihood concerns and local mobilisation which forced the company to leave at a time when across India a number of movements against displacement especially from dams were increasingly making their voices heard. The difference between dam agitation at Gandhamardhan and in subsequent bauxite movements has been lower direct displacement, but enduring concerns about indirect loss of
livelihoods when water and forests are disturbed from mining. In addition the proposed bauxite mining areas have often had great environmental values justifying conservation. These concerns remain largely unaddressed to date by the promoters of mining.
The late 80s and early 90s was otherwise a relatively quiet period where little government support existed, and the private industry had yet to gain enough strength. The lack of interest, or possibly ability, in exploiting the ore manifested itself in the AP five year plan 92-97 which merely suggested a start to “preliminary studies for exploitation of the Araku group of bauxite deposits for which no other Government agency has expressed interest” (Government of Andhra Pradesh, Finance and Planning Department 1991, 39). The bigger deposits of the north-western part of Visakhapatnam District were not even mentioned as a topic worth studying possibly due to security issues in areas that, at the time of writing, were virtually under the control of the Naxalite Peoples’ War group.
The interest in developing the east coast bauxite deposits increased dramatically in the 1990s after the opening of the Indian economy to private participation for export. These changes to the Indian economy coincided with the international trend of higher mineral prices, and the loosening of the monopoly on refining and smelting technology by a handful of Western companies which allowed these to be purchased on the open market. The end result was vastly changing circumstances in favour of bauxite projects in tribal India.
Among the first attempts to try the new circumstances allowing private investment for export was Utkal Alumina in Kashipur, Orissa in the early 1990s. But the experience of displacement from large-scale projects in general, and the nearby existence of Nalco, created strong resistance which has evolved into possibly the longest running protest movement against industry of any kind in Orissa. Tremendous conflict has resulted and even led to the police shooting three protesters in 2000. Human rights violations have been extensively documented and yet remain largely not acted upon (Reddy 2006; People's Union for Democratic Rights 2005; Goodland 2007; Padel et al. 2007). While a number of companies have been forced to leave the implementing consortium due to the continued protests, others have joined and the project continues, now even with a proposed expansion.51
51International companies Hydro of Norway and Alcan of Canada have abandoned the project and so has the Tata Group. Recently Hindalco of the Birla Group bought the residual stake of Alcan to become sole owners.
Bauxite projects in Andhra Pradesh have remained secondary to those in Orissa in part due to the smaller deposits and the more difficult terrain. Another reason was the choice of an international partner which could not deliver when attempts were made to establish industry with Soviet collaboration from the early 1980s (Srinivasan et al. 1981). These attempts had to be finally abandoned with the fall of the Soviet Union. It was not until 1999 when the government of Andhra Pradesh together with an unnamed Dubai partner again attempted to utilise the bauxite deposits. These plans could never progress far however and were finally dropped in 2003 due to civil society pressure based on the Samatha Judgement’s ban on private mining on tribal land (Ganjivarapu 2007).
Privatisation and restructuring has left the Indian aluminium industry concentrated in three companies Nalco, Hindalco and Vedanta.52 Major expansions have been taking place within already existing facilities of all three while they have attempted to expand in new locations creating new controversies.53 Nalco is doing very well financially but as its many attempts to create new facilities in India have proved impossible already at the planning stage, and for political rather than technical or economical reasons it has been forced to look abroad. Hindalco is still attempting to start mining in Kashipur.
The key test case for this new wave of expansions has become UK-registered, but Indian owned and managed, Vedanta’s plans to open a mine and a refinery in Lanjigarh, southern Orissa. This conflict started in 2003 when a case was filed in the Supreme Court of India by three activists based on the company’s alleged illegal use of forest land. After long deliberations the mine was controversially allowed in August 2008 (Supreme Court of India 2008). But as the court would not even listen to the many additional issues beyond forest conservation, including matters of
52Vedanta as a relatively late entrant in the aluminium industry has become a major competitor by buying public sector Balco in Chhattisgarh and Madras Aluminium Company in Tamil Nadu while also attempting to establish new facilities especially in Orissa. The holding company Vedanta Resources is registered in the UK but the main owner and chairman Anil Agarwal is Indian and so are the company’s main operations.
53Both Utkal/Hindalco in Kashipur and Vedanta in Lanjigarh have controversially applied for major expansions for their planned refineries once initial environmental clearances had been secured for smaller operations. Vedanta’s existing compound at Balco in Chhattisgarh was large enough to physically accommodate an entire new aluminium smelter with dedicated coal-based power plant. The old Hungarian smelter and the new Chinese built smelter
tribal justice and pollution control54, it is not surprising that protests are continuing at the site, as well as in national and international campaigns.55
With the Essar, Jindal and Birla Groups planning to enter, or already in the industry, it is only the Tata Group, which withdrew from Utkal Alumina, among major domestic metals groups not currently pursuing the bauxite ore of central India. Multinationals have attempted to invest from time to time but with Alcan exiting from Utkal Alumina in Kashipur none remain. As many as 12 bauxite mining and refining projects are currently at various stages of implementation in Orissa (Reddy 2006) and three in Andhra Pradesh, but the only recently opened new bauxite mines anywhere in India are of lower quality in Chhattisgarh and Maharashtra and of non-metal grade in Gujarat.56 What seems to be the case is thus an increasing ability and interest from mainly Indian big business in establishing bauxite industry, but also the strengthening of resistance by oppositional groups and actors who are gradually more able to mobilise across geographical scales to work locally, nationally and internationally. Between these two positions are State and national governments increasingly, but not always, siding with industry demands.