The longstanding debate around maintaining a balance between development projects and environmental conservation has once again come to the fore with tribals in Maharashtra and Gujarat holding a protest against the proposed Par-Narmada-Tapi river-linking project. Tribals constitute a significant proportion of population in Saurashtra and Kutch regions. Attracting the ire of tribal population ahead of Gujarat Assembly elections may not hold well for the BJP government. The Central government, in general, appears to be keen on initiating and implementing river-linking projects. Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced the implementation of the Ken-Betwa Link Project with an estimated cost of Rs 44,605 crore in this year's budget, apart from finalising the draft Detailed Plan Report (DPR) for five other similar projects — including the Par-Narmada-Tapi river-linking project. River-linking projects are technically meant to transfer surplus water from a river to a water-deficit river. These are seen as one-stop solutions for a range of problems. In the first place, these projects allow water-scarce basins to receive water for irrigation and other purposes. Increased irrigation, in turn, leads to enhancement in food grain production, ensuring food security. Secondly, the risk of flooding in water-surplus rivers is averted through diversion of water. The major breakthrough in this regard came in the 1980s when the Ministry of Water Resources came up with a national perspective plan (NPP). But implementation of such projects largely remained in the cold storage for one reason or the other. Nirmala Sitharaman's budget speech was an indicator that the government is now taking river-linking projects seriously. As far as Par Tapi Narmada link project is concerned, it aims to transfer surplus water from Western Ghats to Saurashtra and Kutch regions through constructing several dams, tunnels, canals and powerhouses around Par, Tapi and Narmada rivers. Deliberations around the project have been lingering for well above a decade. If river-linking projects appear to be a win-win situation for all, why are tribals resisting against it and what explains the slow progress made until now since the inception of the national perspective plan in the 1980s? As per an NWDA report, the project is expected to lead to the submersion of over 60 villages across the two states — affecting thousands of families, most of them tribals. Here comes the age-old conundrum of displacement vs development — which hasn't been solved convincingly even in the eighth decade of the development march of post-independent India. Absence of concrete and systematic solution of this problem has not only been creating humanitarian crises on account of indiscriminate displacement but also obstructing the path of development. It must be noted here that neither the government can be allowed a free-run over implementation of projects concerning lands and livelihoods of local populations nor can such projects be rejected in an outright fashion. Anyone would agree that a middle ground has to be reached by both the parties. But this middle ground has to be well-defined and based on concrete evidence. In the first place, there has to be a greater clarity and a definitive approach in the land acquisition laws in the country — leaving minimal scope for discretion of the government or the people. Secondly, and most importantly, the decision to implement such projects must be substantiated by a thorough cost-benefit analysis. The urgency of any particular project needs to be ascertained in the light of comparison of benefits it will come with and the cost it will incur. In the case of Par-Narmada-Tapti river-linking project, the benefits include improved irrigation facilities, enhanced food productivity, employment generation and food security. On the flip side, the project has an extensive financial outlay, will snatch away lands and livelihood of local tribal people and lead up to an irreversible disruption of ecological balance. Some environmentalists opine that the presence of surplus water in rivers is not necessarily an unwanted thing, but is rather important for the ecological health of the river. The government needs to rope in independent experts and constitute a committee to figure out exact financial costs and benefits. There could be no substitute for such an assessment if smooth and productive implementation is aimed at. But then again, there is emotional attachment of the locals with the lands they have been inhabiting for generations. Can there be any cost to it? While development may be a prime agenda of the government, uprooting people from their homes cannot be allowed to be an easy exercise. Detailed assessment has to be produced before the people before deciding on development projects.