"The dam drowned our temple": teaching a contested development project in Class IX
In a government high school in Khammam district, Class IX has 36 students. Eleven of them come from families resettled after their village was submerged by a reservoir project, and three of those families still do not have land title. The Social Studies textbook devotes two paragraphs to the project: it describes the project as national progress, lists the megawatts generated and the area irrigated, and mentions rehabilitation in a single sentence. During the lesson a resettled boy says, "The dam drowned our temple and our fields; we were given money, not land," and another student replies, "But we get electricity and water, so it is good for the country." Two students then stop participating. A local political group has written to the headmaster asking to address the class on "the truth about the project". The teacher has four periods for the unit and a Summative Assessment that will ask a 5-mark question on "advantages of large dams".
1. How would you teach this unit as an inquiry so that students examine evidence and constitutional values without the teacher indoctrinating them or avoiding the conflict?
Read the worked answer
Frame a question that cannot be answered by recalling the textbook: Who gains and who loses when a reservoir is built, and who should decide how the losses are shared?
Build a source packet of four or five short, contrasting extracts: the textbook paragraphs; a government project note with the power and irrigation figures; a rehabilitation policy extract specifying entitlements; a testimony from a displaced family (anonymised, not the student's own unless volunteered); and a newspaper report on protests or compensation delays. Each extract is dated and attributed, so students practise sourcing.
Structure the discussion. Use a structured academic controversy: pairs prepare one side, present it, then swap and argue the other, and finally write a joint paragraph on what the evidence supports. This forces every student to handle the strongest version of both claims.
Apply a constitutional lens, which is the teacher's legitimate commitment: equality before the law, fraternity, due process, and the right to livelihood. Note that this evaluates the process of displacement and rehabilitation, not whether dams are good in the abstract.
Avoiding indoctrination means the teacher does not require a particular verdict on the dam; it does not mean pretending there are no standards. Students must cite evidence, state a counter-argument and answer it. Disagreement is allowed; unargued assertion is not. Never ask the resettled students to "represent" the displaced - invite testimony, do not conscript it.
2. Two students have gone quiet and one has made a disclosure about his family. How do you manage the emotional and political dimensions of the lesson while keeping the academic purpose intact?
Read the worked answer
First, recognise that both statements in the class can be true at once - the project may generate power and irrigation while this family lost land and a temple. The classroom task is to hold them together, not to decide which child is right.
Ground rules, stated before discussion: no one speaks for a group; personal testimony is evidence but not the whole case; disclosure is voluntary and can be withdrawn; disagreement is about claims, not about families. Give students a written channel (an exit slip: "one thing I want to say but did not") so that quiet students are not forced to speak publicly.
Responding to the disclosure: acknowledge it briefly and without commentary in class, thank the student, and move the discussion to the policy question (what is a fair rehabilitation package?) so he is not put on display. Follow up privately afterwards; if there is distress, inform the head teacher and the school counsellor, and check whether the family needs any school-level support.
The two quiet students: speak to them separately. Silence may be dissent, discomfort, or simply a preference; ask what would make the discussion bearable - a written contribution, a small-group role, or passing. Do not interpret silence as agreement with either side.
Politically, the teacher's own family history, if relevant, should not be hidden, but it must not be presented as the answer; the standard is the same for every claim.
3. How would you deal with the political group's request, and how would you assess the unit so that the 5-mark "advantages of large dams" question is still answered well?
Read the worked answer
The political group: do not allow an unscheduled or one-sided address. Acknowledge the letter, refer it to the headmaster, and follow the school's visitor protocol. If a visitor is invited, three conditions: advance notice to parents, balance (someone able to present the official position as well), and a defined format - a short presentation followed by student questions, with the teacher moderating. Students should prepare questions from the source packet beforehand, so the visit becomes evidence-gathering, not propaganda. Record the decision.
Assessment. The 5-mark question is answerable from the textbook and from the source packet, so teach the standard answer explicitly: irrigation, power, flood control, drinking water, employment - with the caveat that benefits are unevenly distributed. Then add an assessment that tests judgement:
A 150-word note to the district administration recommending two conditions that any rehabilitation package should meet, citing at least two sources.
Rubric: uses at least two sources and names them; separates claim from evidence; states and answers a counter-argument; applies one constitutional principle (equality, livelihood, due process); communicates clearly. No marks for which conclusion is reached. This gives the examination answer its due, while making clear that the higher-order skill being taught is evidence-based reasoning, not allegiance to a slogan.