In the forested hills of Sijimali, along the Rayagada-Kalahandi border of Odisha, Adivasi communities have been keeping night-long vigils since 2023. Makeshift tents and small fires dot the landscape – not to ward off wild animals, but to remain alert to the movement of police forces and officials connected to a proposed bauxite mining project. What is unfolding in Sijimali is reminiscent of the conflict in Niyamgiri a decade ago, though with a significant difference: while Niyamgiri ultimately affirmed the authority of Gram Sabhas, Sijimali raises concerns that consent itself is being hollowed out.The proposed mine, leased to Vedanta Ltd., seeks to extract 9 million tonnes of bauxite annually over a 50-year period across 1,549 hectares, of which nearly half is forest land. The project would generate approximately 18 million tonnes of waste each year and draw over 700 kilolitres of water per day from a region already marked by ecological stress. Yet, the crisis unfolding in Sijimali is not merely environmental – it is constitutional, cultural and moral as well.A makeshift camp in the Sijimali hills, Odisha. Photo: By arrangementThe Fifth ScheduleSijimali lies entirely within a Fifth Schedule area, meaning the Indian constitution recognises Adivasi rights to land, self-governance and cultural autonomy. Statutes such as the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA) and the Forest Rights Act (FRA) mandate free, prior and informed consent of gram sabhas before forest land can be diverted for mining. These provisions were intended to correct the long history of dispossession experienced by Adivasi communities.However, residents and civil society groups allege that gram sabhas related to the Sijimali project were conducted with inadequate notice, heavy police presence, and the exclusion of several affected villages. RTI disclosures, accessed by the author, reveal discrepancies in attendance and consent records, including signatures of deceased individuals and mismatches between thumbprints and signatures.If accurate, such practices would indicate not procedural lapses but a deeper governance failure, where legality is manufactured while substantive participation is denied.The 2020 Environmental Impact Assessment has also been criticised for understating displacement, health risks and cumulative ecological damage. Bauxite mining is globally associated with water contamination, air pollution and long-term health impacts, yet these concerns receive limited attention. A meeting to raise awareness about the issue in the Sijimali hills, Odisha. Photo: By arrangementThe precautionary principle, repeatedly upheld by Indian courts, demands caution in situations of irreversible harm. In Sijimali, regulatory clearance appears to have proceeded despite precisely such conditions.Policing dissent and limits of participationAs opposition intensified, reports suggest a shift from consultation to coercion. Protest leaders have faced arrests, prolonged legal cases and charges under serious provisions of law. Such measures, while framed as measures to maintain order, risk undermining the participatory framework envisioned under PESA and the FRA. When dissent is criminalised, gram sabhas lose their meaning as deliberative institutions and become formalities to be managed.When communities resisted, consultation gave way to coercion. The report and multiple independent accounts record midnight raids, arbitrary detentions and criminal cases filed against protest leaders, including charges under serious provisions of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code and even the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The aim is not conviction but exhaustion – to fracture collective resistance through fear, surveillance, and legal harassment. One such incident took place on August 2, 2025, when a tribal women activist, Naringi Dei Majhi, a fierce defender of the hills, was detained by Rayagada police while supporting her daughter-in-law’s delivery in the hospital. This approach marks a departure from the Niyamgiri precedent, in which the Supreme Court affirmed that gram sabhas had the authority to decide matters affecting religious and cultural rights. The situation in Sijimali suggests a narrowing of that legacy even as the law formally remains unchanged.Sacred Hills as Cultural and Political InstitutionsWhat distinguishes Sijimali from many other mining conflicts is the cultural meaning of the hill itself. For the Kondh, Paroja and other Adivasi communities, the hill is not a resource but a sacred being, associated with Teej Raja, a living deity. Rituals tied to agriculture, seasons and collective memory are inseparable from the hill’s physical presence. Its destruction would not merely displace people but unravel social and moral worlds.Anthropological research helps clarify why such claims cannot be dismissed as mere symbolism or sentiment. William S. Sax’s work, Mountain Goddess: Gender and Politics in a Himalayan Pilgrimage, demonstrates that hills and forests function as ritual and moral institutions that structure authority, community and ethical life. Felix Padel’s long engagement with Adivasi societies in Odisha similarly shows that hill worship reflects an ontology in which ecology, ancestry and divinity are intertwined. In this worldview, mining is not a technical intervention but a rupture in the relationship between humans and the land.A makeshift tent of watchdogs at the Sijimali hill entrance point near Sagabari village. Photo: Ganesh GaigouriaThis perspective complicates dominant development narratives. For communities in Sijimali, displacement cannot be reduced to compensation packages or resettlement plans. The hill is a source of food, medicine, ritual practice and historical continuity for them. When villagers assert that “if the hill goes, we go,” they are articulating an existential claim grounded in lived experience.An echo of NiyamgiriThe Niyamgiri conflict arose from the proposed bauxite mining project in the Niyamgiri hills, in Odisha’s Kalahandi-Rayagada district, threatening the livelihoods, environment, religious beliefs and cultural identity of the Dongria Kondh and other Adivasi communities. The mining project had sparked strong resistance worldwide, paving way for the Supreme Court, in a landmark 2013 judgment, to uphold their rights, recognising that the constitutional guarantees under Articles 25 and 26 protect not only religious beliefs but also essential religious practices and rituals. The Court affirmed that the right to worship their deity Niyam Raja and to protect sacred groves and hills formed an integral part of the community’s cultural and religious life. By empowering Gram Sabhas to decide on matters affecting their religious and cultural rights, the judgment marked a significant affirmation of Adivasi autonomy, environmental justice, and the protection of indigenous cultural heritage. However, Sijimali’s situation reflects a broader pattern of regulatory dilution over the past decade, including amendments to forest conservation laws and the weakening of environmental clearance processes. While constitutional language continues to affirm Adivasi rights, governance increasingly privileges extraction and speed over consent and deliberation.Fundamentally, the conflict poses a constitutional question. If Fifth Schedule protections can be bypassed through procedural compliance alone, what remains of the promise of autonomy and self-rule for Adivasi communities?The immediate demands in Sijimali are clear: an independent review of the consent process, a credible reassessment of environmental and health impacts, and restraint in the use of criminal law against protestors. The night fires on the hills of Sijimali are not merely acts of resistance. They signal a deeper anxiety about the erosion of constitutional morality in resource governance.Ganesh Gaigouria is a PhD Candidate at the Centre for Political Studies, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.