The building of Kalabagh Dam—Pakistan’s largest hydropower development project—has been stalled for decades. This article interrogates why and how this project has been grounded for so long. It shows that the state and its administrative agencies that support dam building rest their case on “expert” knowledge, while dismissing the counterknowledge produced by the anti-dam coalition of environmentalists, nationalists, and spiritualists as “inexpert.” Consequently, the dam has become a proxy for contending knowledge claims between the dam’s supporters and anti-dam activists. Deploying Habermas’s communicative action theory that critiques expert knowledge as “instrumental rationality,” this article demonstrates that the Pakistani anti-dam movement’s communicative action played the pivotal role in stalling the dam’s building. It typologizes actors, defending and opposing the dam, and documents their knowledge claims. The article contributes to the environmental movement literature by illuminating the ways in which anti-dam activists structure communicative claims, and deploy them for the public contestation of instrumental knowledge and interests.
AlbiniaA. (2010). Empires of the Indus: The story of a river. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
3.
AndersonE. N. (1996). Ecologies of heart: Emotion, belief and the environment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
4.
AnsariS. F. D. (2003). Sufi saints and state power: The Pirs of Sind, 1843-1947. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BaruahS. (2012). Whose river is it anyway? Political economy of hydropower in the eastern Himalayas. Economic & Political Weekly, 47(29), 41-52.
6.
BeckU. (1992). World risk society: Towards a new modernity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
7.
BhattiM. N. (2011). The problem of water management in diverse societies: Study of Kalabagh Dam Project in Pakistan. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 1, 240-255.
8.
BirkenholtzT. (2008). Contesting expertise: The politics of environmental knowledge in northern Indian groundwater proactics. Geoforum, 39, 466-482.
9.
BuechlerSteven. 1995. ‘New Social Movement Theories.’ The Sociological Quarterly, 36(3): 441-464: doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1995.tb00447.x
10.
Call a referendum on Kalabagh Dam, verdict will come in its favor: Shams-ul-Mulk, pp. 1 (2015, June6). Dunya Newspaper.
CramerJ.EyermanR.JamisonA. (1987). The knowledge interests of the environmental movement and its potential for influencing the development of science. In BlumeS.BundersJ.LeydesdorffL.WhitleyR. P. (Eds.), The social direction of the public sciences: Causes and consequences of co-operation between scientists and non-scientific groups (pp. 89-115) Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel.
15.
DavisD. K. (2005). Indigenous knowledge and the desertification debate: Problematising expert knowledge in North Africa. Geoforum, 36, 509-524.
16.
DhillonC. M. (2017). Using citizen science in environmental justice: participation and decision-making in a Southern California waste facility siting conflict. Local Environment, 22(12): 1479-1496https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2017.1360263
17.
Di ChiroG. (2004). Local actions, global visions: Remaking environmental expertise. In EglashR.CroissantJ. L.Di ChiroG.FoucheR. (Eds.), Appropriating technology: Vernacular science and social power (pp. 225-252). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
18.
The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2014). Global food security index 2014: An annual measure of the state of global food security. London, England: Author.
19.
FisherW. (1995). Toward sustainable development: Struggling over India’s Narmada river. London, England: M. E. Sharpe.
20.
GhazanfarM. (2008). Kalabagh Dam and the water debate in Pakistan. Lahore Journal of Policy Studies, 2, 153-254.
21.
GilmartinD. (2015). Blood and water: The Indus river basin in modern history. Oakland: University of California Press.
22.
GouldK. A.LewisT. L. (2015). The paradoxes of sustainable development: Focus on ecotourism. In GouldK. A.LewisT. L. (Eds.), Twenty lessons in environmental sociology (pp. 330-351). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
23.
HabermasJ. (1972). Science and technology as ideology. In BarnesB. (Ed.), Sociology of science: Selected readings (pp. 353-375). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Penguin Books.
24.
HabermasJ. (1981). New social movements. Telos, 49, 33-37. doi:10.3817/0981049033
25.
HabermasJ. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
26.
HabermasJ. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Volume 2: Lifeworld and system. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. (1991). The Pakistan national conservation strategy: Where we are, where we should be, and how to get there. Islamabad, Pakistan: Environment and Urban Affairs Division.
29.
KaziA. (2003). Kalabagh Dam: Varying points of view. In BengaliK. (Ed.), The politics of managing water (pp. 182-192). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
30.
KhanM. I.JamilS. M.AliL.AkhtarK.JavaidM. S. (2014). Feasibility study of Kalabagh Dam Pakistan. Life Science Journal, 11, 458-470.
KhanS. R. (2003). The case against Kalabagh Dam. In BengaliK. (Ed.), The politics of managing water (pp. 174-181). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
MalikR. (1988). The politics of one-unit: 1955-58. Lahore, Punjab: Pakistan Study Centre, University of Punjab.
42.
MalkaniK. R. (1984). The Sindh story. New Delhi, India: Allied.
43.
MäntysaloR. (2002). Dilemmas in critical planning theory. Town Planning Review, 73, 417-436.
44.
McCormickS. (2006). The Brazilian anti-dam movement: Knowledge contestation as communicative action. Organization & Environment, 19, 321-346.
45.
MemonA. R. (1992). Anatomy of Kalabagh Dam. Jamshoro, Sindh: Pakistan Study Centre, University of Sindh.
46.
MendelsohnE.WeingartP.WhiteyR. D. (Eds.). (1977). The social production of scientific knowledge. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel.
47.
MorrisP.TherivelR. (2009). Methods of environmental impact assessment. London, England: Routledge.
48.
MustafaD. (2010). Hydropolitics in Pakistan’s Indus basin. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.
49.
MustafaD.GioliG.KarnerM.KhanI. (2017). Contested waters: Subnational scale water conflict in Pakistan. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.
50.
National Commission on Agriculture. (1987). Report of the national commission on agriculture. Islamabad, Pakistan: Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of Pakistan.
51.
NiaziT. (2004). Rural poverty and the Green Revolution: The lessons from Pakistan. Journal of Peasant Studies, 31, 248-260.
52.
NiaziT. (2014, July). The political economy of flood hazards in Pakistan. Conference paper presented at the Quadrennial Meeting of the International Sociological Association, World Congress of Sociology, Yokohama, Japan.
