Frontline Magazine: Environment: Sunday, 4Th January
2026.
Villagers say meetings never took place; consent documents carry names of minors, deceased persons, and non-residents.
On December 8, 2023, a
Friday infused with the chill of early winter, Pabitra Naik received word that
a police battalion was headed towards his village. Like many others in Bundel,
located in the verdant Sijimali hills of southern Odisha, the 35-year-old fled
into the forests. A bauxite mine had been proposed nearby, and police often
detained anyone who vocally opposed it, Pabitra said. From his vantage point in
the forest, he saw four buses and over 10 large vehicles ferrying policemen and
officials, trailed by civilians on 15 motorcycles. After the posse left that
evening, Pabitra and others returned home.
The next day, their phones buzzed with calls and messages. Local media had reported that the district administration had “successfully” conducted Gram Sabhas (village councils) across 10 villages, including Bundel.
“There was no notice of a Gram Sabha, and no one in the village attended it. Only the women were in the village, and they told us that the police had brought people from Kashipur who were holding posters. Police and officials clicked photographs and videos,” Pabitra said.
Documents obtained from the district administration through the Right to Information Act show that these Gram Sabhas—whose approvals are mandatory under law to grant mining permissions—had “unanimously consented” to the diversion of large tracts of forest land for the proposed bauxite mine. The documents also show that Pabitra participated in the Bundel Gram Sabha and consented to the project.
Pabitra saw his signature for the first time in mid-2025 when this reporter showed him the “official Gram Sabha resolution”. A look of shock came on his face. “It is fake,” he told Frontline.
‘Fictitious residents’ and forged signatures
This investigation into resolutions from 10 villages finds forgeries and fraud in the consent documents “obtained” from Gram Sabhas to divert 708 hectares of forest land to the mining giant Vedanta for its bauxite mine.
Documents show signatures of villagers who deny having attended meetings. They also list minors, people who died years before the Gram Sabha, and persons who have never lived in these villages.
RTI documents show official notices for the Gram Sabha at the eight villages of Rayagada district, including Bundel, were issued on November 23, 2023. But across all the villages, residents denied receiving any notices or holding any Gram Sabha on December 8, 2023. There is no evidence—no witnesses, no documentation—to substantiate that Gram Sabhas actually took place in these eight villages.
In the two villages falling in the Kalahandi district, RTI documents show notices were issued. Residents there said they received none. Villagers said that on the date of the purported Gram Sabha, police and officials arrived, told them it was for “developmental works” in the village, and took their signatures without explaining that this would be treated as formal consent for forest diversion. These villages, through subsequent resolutions, called the proceedings “coerced and fraudulent”.
The resolutions also show that all eight Gram Sabhas in Rayagada occurred on the same date—December 8, 2023—at the same time—10 a.m.—and in the presence of the same officials.
In Pabitra’s village, Bundel, the minutes of the Gram Sabha “meeting” show that 103 persons “consented” to divert the forest land. Among them are Pabitra Naik, his wife Jashoda Naik, and his mother Radhika Naik. There are no signatures—just their names listed. In the column for Pabitra’s signature, Jashoda’s name is written; for Radhika’s signature, only her name appears. All three denied attending any Gram Sabha or giving consent to mining.
In the same village, the Gram Sabha resolution lists Prabash Naik and Srikant Majhi, with their signatures in Odia. Prabash Naik is 10 and Srikant is 7. Minors are not eligible to participate in a Gram Sabha or consent to mining projects.
“What kind of government puts names of children in these documents?” said a stunned Surumani Naik, Prabash’s father, a 50-year-old landless labourer in Bondili. While he had heard of forged signatures in the Gram Sabha, he did not know his son was among the signatories until this reporter showed him the resolution. “My son is in Class 3. He does not know how to sign. He did not attend any Gram Sabha,” Surumani told Frontline.
Srikant’s father Ratan Singh also looked shocked at his son’s signature. “My son is in Class 1. He can’t even sign.”
Such irregularities are peppered across the resolution documents. Of the eight Gram Sabhas that allegedly “gave consent”, Frontline followed up with six.
In Kantamal village, less than a kilometre from Bondili, one Lokanath Naik has consented to the mining by affixing his thumb impression. Villagers point out that Lokanath died years before the Gram Sabha was purportedly held.
“Loknath died at least five years ago. He used to grow mangoes. His land is still here, but his family left the village,” said Suba Singh Majhi, a resident of Kantamal and president of Maa Maati Mali Suraksha Manch, a local organisation opposing the bauxite project.
At nearby Aliguna village, the signature of the long-deceased Bira Singh Majhi appears in the Gram Sabha resolution. “His family now lives in another village, and I’m sure they have not come to the village during that day to sign on his behalf,” said Hurti Majhi, a retired teacher who now farms there.
Hurti Majhi is the
president of Aliguna’s Forest Rights Committee and has been vocal about his
opposition to the mining. “If they mine here, our waterfalls and streams will
dry up. The medicinal plants we depend on will disappear. We will lose
everything.”
Yet even Hurti’s name—and thumb impression—appear in the Gram Sabha resolution. Hurti said no such Gram Sabha was held. “I would have never attended it and definitely would not have given consent.”
At Aliguna, the scale of the forgery is striking. Of the 85 signatures, Frontline verified at least 16 belonging to “fictional residents” who, villagers said, have never lived in the village. The remaining signatures are of villagers who deny signing the resolution.
Dharam Singh Majhi, a farmer, was stunned to see his name on the Gram Sabha document at Serial No. 3. Against it is a thumb impression. “I can easily sign in Odia. I do not know how my name came here, and whose thumb impression it is. I’m going mad seeing this,” he said, adding that he was in Kerala for construction work on that date.
All the villages later passed resolutions stating that no Gram Sabha took place on the said date and that the alleged Gram Sabhas from December 8 were fraudulent. Frontline used Aadhaar cards of villagers to match and verify names. The mentioned persons were the only ones in the respective villages with those names. For the deceased, villagers whom Frontline interviewed in groups of 15-20 repeatedly confirmed the deaths, well before the purported Gram Sabhas.
A mining proposal gains steam
In February-March 2023, the Odisha government declared Vedanta the preferred bidder for the Sijimali bauxite block and granted the mining multinational a lease for 1,548 hectares of land. This includes 708 hectares of forest land in Rayagada and Kalahandi districts. The open-cast mine—the surface of the hill and its forests will be blasted out and excavated—will extract 9 million tonnes of bauxite annually.
In May 2023, the company was asked to obtain compliance certificates, mandated under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, as per the Odisha Forest Department. This includes consent for diversion of forest land through a resolution from Gram Sabhas, at which at least 50 per cent of all adults in the village have to be present. The Act was enacted to recognise and vest forest rights of forest‑dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers, to correct historical injustice, and to secure their livelihoods, culture and role in conservation.
“People realised that any threat to the hills is a threat to their life and livelihood. We were never ready to give any consent. We had vowed to protect the sacred hills at any cost,” said Fulsingh Majhi, 28, farmer and resident of Kantamal village, who took part in the protests. The anger and protests intensified as villagers realised that the proposal was gaining steam, Fulsingh said.
Then, on December 8, 2023, the authorities claimed that eight Gram Sabhas had given “unanimous approval”. By June 2024, Vedanta resubmitted its completed proposal to the Centre.
In a report to the Centre on August 13, 2025, the District Collector for Rayagada stated that “eight Gram Sabhas were convened separately, strictly ensuring compliance of the provisions of the FRA”. It was attended “by the designated state officials as per the rules viz, the Sarpanch, Sunger Gram Panchayat, and Block Development Officer, Executive Officer-Sunger GP, Block Social Security Officer (BSSO), Panchayat Executive Officer (PEO), whose presence was duly recorded in the resolutions.”
In September 2024, months after news of the fraudulent resolutions reached the villages, the Sarpanch of Sunger Gram Panchayat released a statement saying she had not signed any of the resolutions.
A pattern of violations
Violations relating to Gram Sabha consents for large projects, particularly mining, are not uncommon. A 2024 report by the Comptroller and Auditor General found 126 violations in land acquisitions for mining and development projects in Odisha. These included bypassing consent from Gram Sabhas or brushing aside Gram Sabha resolutions objecting to projects.
Outright forgeries are
relatively rare. In November 2024, the State Scheduled Tribes Commission in
Chhattisgarh flagged consent violations in the clearance obtained for a coal
mining project in the Hasdeo Arand forest, which included forged documents and
inflated attendance figures at Gram Sabha meetings.
Arpitha Kodiveri, an environmental law and justice scholar who has worked on mining and Gram Sabha consents and is an assistant professor of political science at Vassar College in the United States, warned that such practices risk normalising illegalities. “You create a precedent where such a violation is normalised, and it starts to create an unhealthy legal practice. It’s the first-time advantage of ‘we did this and got away with it,’ and evades accountability,” she said. This can increase extraction in tribal-dominated areas, Kodiveri added.
At Sijimali, the forgeries were discovered only after copies of the resolution were obtained by activists and community leaders using the RTI Act in 2024.
Between August 30 and September 4, 2024, special Gram Sabhas convened across 10 villages in Rayagada and Kalahandi districts called the December 8, 2023, resolutions “fraudulent” and “coerced”. The new resolutions unanimously rejected consent for diverting forest lands, noting the villagers’ religious, cultural, and linguistic rights over the sacred Sijimali Hills.
Of particular note were the Gram Sabhas held in Katibhata and Pelanakona villages. A December 2023 resolution stated that these villages had “no residents.” But while there are no permanent residents, around 48 families cultivate lands there. They too held a Gram Sabha denouncing the “fraudulent” older resolution.
In February 2025, two Gram Panchayats (which encompass all 10 villages) moved a petition in Odisha High Court seeking to quash the Gram Sabha resolutions and Forest Rights Act compliance certificates issued to Vedanta by district authorities.
In its response, the State government said the proceedings were recorded on video and the petitioners were present. The court did not “want to be drawn into this dispute on facts,” and in a March 2025 order, disposed of the writ petition stating that the Centre “must take note.”
A month later, with no action taken on the fresh Gram Sabha resolutions and without noting the villagers’ objections, the Odisha government and Vedanta sent the proposal to divert 708 hectares of forest land to the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) constituted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The committee accords final consent for forest land diversion.
As part of the submissions, the State government submitted detailed reports compiled by the District Collectors of Rayagada and Kalahandi claiming “the process has been completed in a fair and transparent manner.”
The FAC noted that “the reports are silent on the concerns raised by the people in their representations and in the petition before the Hon’ble Court.”
This was not the only concern recorded by the FAC. The State government’s submission claims there is “no endangered or rare” wildlife in the area, but the FAC noted—as repeatedly mentioned by the tribal communities in the public hearings—that elephants have been reported in the area.
On December 2, 2025, the FAC recommended Stage-I (in-principle) approval for diversion of 708.204 hectares of forest for Sijimali Bauxite Mines. A recommendation for Stage-I clearance means that the committee has agreed in principle to the diversion of forest land, subject to fulfilment of specific legal, environmental, and procedural conditions. No forest land can be diverted or mining activity commenced until final (Stage-II) approval is granted.
The committee’s minutes record that “several representations have been received alleging irregularities and fraudulent conduct of Gram Sabha proceedings”. It took note of the High Court judgment directing the Union government to consider the petitioners’ concerns. In compliance with the court’s directions, the State government forwarded the response of the District Collectors, who affirmed that “the entire FRA process, including Gram Sabha proceedings, was undertaken in a fair and transparent manner and in accordance with due procedure.”
The committee observed that “these confirmations from the statutory authorities form the basis of FRA compliance for the proposal.” On the ground in Sijimali, local residents and civil society groups continue to dispute this account, calling the Gram Sabhas “fake and coerced”. On 31 December 2025, while granting the stage-I approval, the Centre, as one of the specific conditions, mandated the State government to ensure complete compliance of the provisions of Forest Rights Act.
Frontline reached out to the District Magistrates of Rayagada and Kalahandi districts through phone, text, and email. Questions were sent to both officials and to Vedanta Ltd. over WhatsApp and email. No response had been received at the time of publication. This story will be updated when they respond.
Under police scanner
On August 8, 2025, when activists and communities prepared to celebrate the International Day of World’s Indigenous Peoples, the Rayagada district administration issued a prohibition order outlawing gathering and public assembly in the area. Pabitra did not flee into the forest this time. He and thousands of others defied the order and gathered at their hills—the site of the proposed mine—to mark the day. Administration drones flew overhead proclaiming the ban order. “It’s a day to state that we are one. We are united through this struggle,” Pabitra said.
Near him was a villager who was arrested in 2024 for a similar protest. He was out on bail. His bail conditions specifically bar him from taking part in protests or mass gatherings. That did not deter him. “These are our sacred hills. We will not let the mining companies destroy our world,” he said.
(Mahmodul Hassan is a Writing Fellow with Land Conflict Watch, an independent network of researchers conducting studies on natural resources.)
Villagers say meetings never took place; consent documents carry names of minors, deceased persons, and non-residents.
 |
| Women belonging to Adivasi and other forest-dwelling communities gather inSagubari to celebrate Indigenous Peoples Day on August 9, 2025. In the same event, they collectively denounced any mining projects. | Photo Credit: Mahmoudl Hassan |
The next day, their phones buzzed with calls and messages. Local media had reported that the district administration had “successfully” conducted Gram Sabhas (village councils) across 10 villages, including Bundel.
“There was no notice of a Gram Sabha, and no one in the village attended it. Only the women were in the village, and they told us that the police had brought people from Kashipur who were holding posters. Police and officials clicked photographs and videos,” Pabitra said.
Documents obtained from the district administration through the Right to Information Act show that these Gram Sabhas—whose approvals are mandatory under law to grant mining permissions—had “unanimously consented” to the diversion of large tracts of forest land for the proposed bauxite mine. The documents also show that Pabitra participated in the Bundel Gram Sabha and consented to the project.
Pabitra saw his signature for the first time in mid-2025 when this reporter showed him the “official Gram Sabha resolution”. A look of shock came on his face. “It is fake,” he told Frontline.
‘Fictitious residents’ and forged signatures
This investigation into resolutions from 10 villages finds forgeries and fraud in the consent documents “obtained” from Gram Sabhas to divert 708 hectares of forest land to the mining giant Vedanta for its bauxite mine.
Documents show signatures of villagers who deny having attended meetings. They also list minors, people who died years before the Gram Sabha, and persons who have never lived in these villages.
RTI documents show official notices for the Gram Sabha at the eight villages of Rayagada district, including Bundel, were issued on November 23, 2023. But across all the villages, residents denied receiving any notices or holding any Gram Sabha on December 8, 2023. There is no evidence—no witnesses, no documentation—to substantiate that Gram Sabhas actually took place in these eight villages.
In the two villages falling in the Kalahandi district, RTI documents show notices were issued. Residents there said they received none. Villagers said that on the date of the purported Gram Sabha, police and officials arrived, told them it was for “developmental works” in the village, and took their signatures without explaining that this would be treated as formal consent for forest diversion. These villages, through subsequent resolutions, called the proceedings “coerced and fraudulent”.
The resolutions also show that all eight Gram Sabhas in Rayagada occurred on the same date—December 8, 2023—at the same time—10 a.m.—and in the presence of the same officials.
In Pabitra’s village, Bundel, the minutes of the Gram Sabha “meeting” show that 103 persons “consented” to divert the forest land. Among them are Pabitra Naik, his wife Jashoda Naik, and his mother Radhika Naik. There are no signatures—just their names listed. In the column for Pabitra’s signature, Jashoda’s name is written; for Radhika’s signature, only her name appears. All three denied attending any Gram Sabha or giving consent to mining.
In the same village, the Gram Sabha resolution lists Prabash Naik and Srikant Majhi, with their signatures in Odia. Prabash Naik is 10 and Srikant is 7. Minors are not eligible to participate in a Gram Sabha or consent to mining projects.
“What kind of government puts names of children in these documents?” said a stunned Surumani Naik, Prabash’s father, a 50-year-old landless labourer in Bondili. While he had heard of forged signatures in the Gram Sabha, he did not know his son was among the signatories until this reporter showed him the resolution. “My son is in Class 3. He does not know how to sign. He did not attend any Gram Sabha,” Surumani told Frontline.
Srikant’s father Ratan Singh also looked shocked at his son’s signature. “My son is in Class 1. He can’t even sign.”
Such irregularities are peppered across the resolution documents. Of the eight Gram Sabhas that allegedly “gave consent”, Frontline followed up with six.
In Kantamal village, less than a kilometre from Bondili, one Lokanath Naik has consented to the mining by affixing his thumb impression. Villagers point out that Lokanath died years before the Gram Sabha was purportedly held.
“Loknath died at least five years ago. He used to grow mangoes. His land is still here, but his family left the village,” said Suba Singh Majhi, a resident of Kantamal and president of Maa Maati Mali Suraksha Manch, a local organisation opposing the bauxite project.
At nearby Aliguna village, the signature of the long-deceased Bira Singh Majhi appears in the Gram Sabha resolution. “His family now lives in another village, and I’m sure they have not come to the village during that day to sign on his behalf,” said Hurti Majhi, a retired teacher who now farms there.
 |
| On August 9, 2025, communities from the 10 villages gathered in Sagubari village to celebrate International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples.| Photo Credit: Mahmoudul Hassan |
Yet even Hurti’s name—and thumb impression—appear in the Gram Sabha resolution. Hurti said no such Gram Sabha was held. “I would have never attended it and definitely would not have given consent.”
At Aliguna, the scale of the forgery is striking. Of the 85 signatures, Frontline verified at least 16 belonging to “fictional residents” who, villagers said, have never lived in the village. The remaining signatures are of villagers who deny signing the resolution.
Dharam Singh Majhi, a farmer, was stunned to see his name on the Gram Sabha document at Serial No. 3. Against it is a thumb impression. “I can easily sign in Odia. I do not know how my name came here, and whose thumb impression it is. I’m going mad seeing this,” he said, adding that he was in Kerala for construction work on that date.
All the villages later passed resolutions stating that no Gram Sabha took place on the said date and that the alleged Gram Sabhas from December 8 were fraudulent. Frontline used Aadhaar cards of villagers to match and verify names. The mentioned persons were the only ones in the respective villages with those names. For the deceased, villagers whom Frontline interviewed in groups of 15-20 repeatedly confirmed the deaths, well before the purported Gram Sabhas.
A mining proposal gains steam
In February-March 2023, the Odisha government declared Vedanta the preferred bidder for the Sijimali bauxite block and granted the mining multinational a lease for 1,548 hectares of land. This includes 708 hectares of forest land in Rayagada and Kalahandi districts. The open-cast mine—the surface of the hill and its forests will be blasted out and excavated—will extract 9 million tonnes of bauxite annually.
In May 2023, the company was asked to obtain compliance certificates, mandated under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, as per the Odisha Forest Department. This includes consent for diversion of forest land through a resolution from Gram Sabhas, at which at least 50 per cent of all adults in the village have to be present. The Act was enacted to recognise and vest forest rights of forest‑dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers, to correct historical injustice, and to secure their livelihoods, culture and role in conservation.
“People realised that any threat to the hills is a threat to their life and livelihood. We were never ready to give any consent. We had vowed to protect the sacred hills at any cost,” said Fulsingh Majhi, 28, farmer and resident of Kantamal village, who took part in the protests. The anger and protests intensified as villagers realised that the proposal was gaining steam, Fulsingh said.
Then, on December 8, 2023, the authorities claimed that eight Gram Sabhas had given “unanimous approval”. By June 2024, Vedanta resubmitted its completed proposal to the Centre.
In a report to the Centre on August 13, 2025, the District Collector for Rayagada stated that “eight Gram Sabhas were convened separately, strictly ensuring compliance of the provisions of the FRA”. It was attended “by the designated state officials as per the rules viz, the Sarpanch, Sunger Gram Panchayat, and Block Development Officer, Executive Officer-Sunger GP, Block Social Security Officer (BSSO), Panchayat Executive Officer (PEO), whose presence was duly recorded in the resolutions.”
In September 2024, months after news of the fraudulent resolutions reached the villages, the Sarpanch of Sunger Gram Panchayat released a statement saying she had not signed any of the resolutions.
A pattern of violations
Violations relating to Gram Sabha consents for large projects, particularly mining, are not uncommon. A 2024 report by the Comptroller and Auditor General found 126 violations in land acquisitions for mining and development projects in Odisha. These included bypassing consent from Gram Sabhas or brushing aside Gram Sabha resolutions objecting to projects.
 |
| Women in Kantamal village. Vedanta Limited’s proposal relies on forged village consent, threatening tribal lands and ecosystems. | Photo Credit: Mahmodul Hassan |
Arpitha Kodiveri, an environmental law and justice scholar who has worked on mining and Gram Sabha consents and is an assistant professor of political science at Vassar College in the United States, warned that such practices risk normalising illegalities. “You create a precedent where such a violation is normalised, and it starts to create an unhealthy legal practice. It’s the first-time advantage of ‘we did this and got away with it,’ and evades accountability,” she said. This can increase extraction in tribal-dominated areas, Kodiveri added.
At Sijimali, the forgeries were discovered only after copies of the resolution were obtained by activists and community leaders using the RTI Act in 2024.
Between August 30 and September 4, 2024, special Gram Sabhas convened across 10 villages in Rayagada and Kalahandi districts called the December 8, 2023, resolutions “fraudulent” and “coerced”. The new resolutions unanimously rejected consent for diverting forest lands, noting the villagers’ religious, cultural, and linguistic rights over the sacred Sijimali Hills.
Of particular note were the Gram Sabhas held in Katibhata and Pelanakona villages. A December 2023 resolution stated that these villages had “no residents.” But while there are no permanent residents, around 48 families cultivate lands there. They too held a Gram Sabha denouncing the “fraudulent” older resolution.
In February 2025, two Gram Panchayats (which encompass all 10 villages) moved a petition in Odisha High Court seeking to quash the Gram Sabha resolutions and Forest Rights Act compliance certificates issued to Vedanta by district authorities.
In its response, the State government said the proceedings were recorded on video and the petitioners were present. The court did not “want to be drawn into this dispute on facts,” and in a March 2025 order, disposed of the writ petition stating that the Centre “must take note.”
A month later, with no action taken on the fresh Gram Sabha resolutions and without noting the villagers’ objections, the Odisha government and Vedanta sent the proposal to divert 708 hectares of forest land to the Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) constituted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The committee accords final consent for forest land diversion.
As part of the submissions, the State government submitted detailed reports compiled by the District Collectors of Rayagada and Kalahandi claiming “the process has been completed in a fair and transparent manner.”
The FAC noted that “the reports are silent on the concerns raised by the people in their representations and in the petition before the Hon’ble Court.”
This was not the only concern recorded by the FAC. The State government’s submission claims there is “no endangered or rare” wildlife in the area, but the FAC noted—as repeatedly mentioned by the tribal communities in the public hearings—that elephants have been reported in the area.
On December 2, 2025, the FAC recommended Stage-I (in-principle) approval for diversion of 708.204 hectares of forest for Sijimali Bauxite Mines. A recommendation for Stage-I clearance means that the committee has agreed in principle to the diversion of forest land, subject to fulfilment of specific legal, environmental, and procedural conditions. No forest land can be diverted or mining activity commenced until final (Stage-II) approval is granted.
The committee’s minutes record that “several representations have been received alleging irregularities and fraudulent conduct of Gram Sabha proceedings”. It took note of the High Court judgment directing the Union government to consider the petitioners’ concerns. In compliance with the court’s directions, the State government forwarded the response of the District Collectors, who affirmed that “the entire FRA process, including Gram Sabha proceedings, was undertaken in a fair and transparent manner and in accordance with due procedure.”
The committee observed that “these confirmations from the statutory authorities form the basis of FRA compliance for the proposal.” On the ground in Sijimali, local residents and civil society groups continue to dispute this account, calling the Gram Sabhas “fake and coerced”. On 31 December 2025, while granting the stage-I approval, the Centre, as one of the specific conditions, mandated the State government to ensure complete compliance of the provisions of Forest Rights Act.
Frontline reached out to the District Magistrates of Rayagada and Kalahandi districts through phone, text, and email. Questions were sent to both officials and to Vedanta Ltd. over WhatsApp and email. No response had been received at the time of publication. This story will be updated when they respond.
Under police scanner
On August 8, 2025, when activists and communities prepared to celebrate the International Day of World’s Indigenous Peoples, the Rayagada district administration issued a prohibition order outlawing gathering and public assembly in the area. Pabitra did not flee into the forest this time. He and thousands of others defied the order and gathered at their hills—the site of the proposed mine—to mark the day. Administration drones flew overhead proclaiming the ban order. “It’s a day to state that we are one. We are united through this struggle,” Pabitra said.
Near him was a villager who was arrested in 2024 for a similar protest. He was out on bail. His bail conditions specifically bar him from taking part in protests or mass gatherings. That did not deter him. “These are our sacred hills. We will not let the mining companies destroy our world,” he said.
(Mahmodul Hassan is a Writing Fellow with Land Conflict Watch, an independent network of researchers conducting studies on natural resources.)
.JPG)
.JPG)
