Environmentalism in India
Contents
- Introduction
- Indian Environmentalism
- Environmentalism of the poor
- State and corporate interests
- Summary
Introduction
In the field of anthropology, the connection between nature and culture is a recurrent—and hotly debated—theme. Is nature distinct from human culture? is an issue that sociologists, anthropologists, and environmental scientists frequently ponder. Claude Levi Strauss, a French anthropologist, was adamant in his claim that there is a gap. According to him, there are "only two authentic models of concrete diversity: one on the plane of nature, specifically that of the diversity of species, and the other on the cultural plane, as represented by the diversity of functions." It has frequently been asserted that civilization greatly influences nature. Some philosophers argued that man's dominance of nature and of women have gone hand in hand and linked women with nature and men with culture. The nature-culture divide was also exacerbated by the growth of religions like Christianity and Islam, which elevated humans, and particularly the human race, above all other species as nature's pinnacle creation.
However, many civilizations' worldviews do not exhibit this duality. Communities that closely resemble nature find it odd to think of humans as distinct from other living things. In India, people coexist peacefully and in close proximity to other species of life. Some communities have stories and beliefs about humans taking the forms of animals or animals taking the forms of humans. Several species are utilised for a range of purposes. Cultural or religious values are attached to particular places and species. Nature's many aspects provide as inspiration for several art forms like dance, music, paintings, and weaving. Tribal art from the Warli, Gond, and Baiga provides proof of this. India's belief systems are significantly dissimilar from those of the west. In India, nature and people are inextricably linked on both a spiritual and physical level. This is one of the main reasons why environmental movements in India are fundamentally different from those in western nations, in addition to a number of other considerations.
Indian Environmentalism
It is important to comprehend the key distinctions between environmental movements in India and the west. An influential American economist claimed ten years ago that "environmentalism is a natural outcome of a rising real standard of living." In fact, this understanding of environmentalism is very common in the West. American historians believe that environmentalism is a direct result of economic prosperity because, after fundamental material necessities are met, people start to value wilderness regions and clean air (Nash, 1982). A leisure activity that is affordable to those whose material requirements have been met is visiting wilderness regions that are preserved as National Parks or Natural Heritage Sites that are referred to be "virgin" or "untouched." In a market economy, they are consumers of the natural world. According to this viewpoint, environmentalism primarily has to do with the development of leisure time options in a "post-industrial" culture. India, Brazil, Kenya, and Malaysia, nations with a large population of underprivileged people, have yet demonstrated a considerable interest in environmental issues, disproving the presumptions of western environmentalists.
India is mostly an agricultural nation. Here, the environmental movement emerged at a time when industry was still in its infancy. Environmental issues relating to the destruction of the land and forests were present in the nations that spearheaded industrial growth in Western Europe and North America. However, issues like timber scarcities and dust bowls, which long plagued nations like the United States, have vanished because to technologically enabled substitutes and scientific resource management. Other types of environmental deterioration, particularly the pollution of the air and water and the destruction of wild areas, have given rise to grave worries. On the other hand, India's experience with industrialization has led to issues with resource depletion, pollution, and the loss of biological diversity at the same time as expanding social inequities. Gadgil and Guha's (1992) predictions that resource depletion and destruction are likely to continue have come true. In the case of India, resource constraints and environmental deterioration directly endanger livelihood possibilities and perhaps life itself.
Environmentalism of the poor
The concept of "Environmentalism of the Poor" (Guha and Martinez-Alier, 1997; Guha, 2000; Martinez-Alier, 2002) emphasises concerns about the unequal distribution of ecological goods and the negative effects of unequal economic growth. This viewpoint differs with environmentalism in the industrialised world, especially in the USA and Europe, which focuses primarily on protecting species and habitats by, in general, eradicating human effects and implementing technological solutions. Poor people's environmentalism takes the form of social justice arguments and other disputes with a strong ecological component. Poor people are fighting against the government or corporations that threaten their culture, autonomy, well-being, and reliance on natural resources.
Local communities have frequently resisted, organised themselves, or rebelled throughout India's history against other dominating groups that were mostly supported by kings or the State. One of the well-known tales of resistance is that of Amritadevi, a Bishnoi woman, and the 363 Bishnois who gave their lives to preserve the khejdi trees that provided them with their means of subsistence. Under the direction of Birsa Munda, the Mundas staged an armed uprising against the colonial government-supported non-tribal settlers who were encroaching on their land and forested areas. Their uprising was motivated equally by the need to protect their natural resources and their culture, which the indigenous people viewed as intertwined. Many intellectuals hold the view that environmental harm is a direct effect of poverty. Contrary to popular belief, it is regular people—ordinary women and men, tribal and non-tribal people, migrant farmers and fishermen—who have revolted against tyrannical regimes. They have made an effort to right the wrongs done to the land, the water, and the wildlife in their ecosystem. Studies in ecological anthropology, agroecology, and political ecology have amply revealed the environmentalism of the underprivileged. Two illustrative examples of environmental activism by the underprivileged include the 1970s Chipko movement in the Himalayas and the 1980s seringueiros movement in Acre, Brazil, which was connected to Chico Mendes. Examples of environmentalism practised by the poor include protests by the Ogoni, Ijaw, and other groups against the harm caused by Shell's oil extraction in the Niger Delta; opposition to eucalyptus plantations in Thailand; movements of those forcibly displaced by the Narmada Dam Project; agitations against agro-industries and biopiracy; and the theft of traditional knowledge of agricultural or medicinal plants for financial gain. More recently, the Dongriya Kondhs of Niyamgiri, Orissa, gained national notice for their anti-mining stance, which sparked a fiery controversy. This can also be viewed as a poor people's environmental movement. The majority of the time, disadvantaged communities had suffered because the powerful and wealthy had appropriated their resources through privatisation or nationalisation. Due to the ensuing environmental issues, habitat destruction, pollution, wildlife conflicts, etc., they suffered disproportionately.
In tribal districts of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Orissa, disputes between people and the forest authorities grew more intense in the 1970s. Forest conflicts also frequently have a sharper political edge in tribal India. Thus, they have played a key role in the popular drive for a tribal homeland in Bihar, whilst the subject of tribal rights and development is at the heart of a violent resistance movement by organisations frequently referred to as Naxals or Maoists in the other states mentioned earlier. Local people vehemently opposed the taking over of forests almost everywhere and for a very long time since it was an unacceptable violation of their traditional rights of access and use. All of these socioeconomic groups, including hunters and gatherers, roving farmers, peasants, pastoral nomads, and craftspeople, relied on unfettered access to forest products for economic survival and reacted in different ways to the imposition of state authority. In addition to forest rules, local residents' new limits on shikar (hunting)—while permitting the British and the Indian elite to hunt more freely for sport—were another element contributing to social unrest (Rangarajan 1992). Popular opposition to state forestry was extraordinarily persistent and extensive throughout the colonial era. Issues crucial to the direction of forest management have been the focus of popular campaigns in defence of customary rights. First of all, they have argued that ownership and management of woodland must progressively pass from the state to common areas.
Conflicts over resource interests occur frequently when diverse groups with different values are involved. Numerous thousand people participated in the coordinated Narmada Bachao Andolan demonstration, which was both in favour of and against the sequence of big and small dams. The dam's backers came from metropolitan areas and the dry regions of western India and hoped that the greater industrialisation provided by the dam waters would benefit the poor communities and farmers who were dependent on natural resources. Henry Hart, a political scientist, conducted a thorough analysis of the first wave of sizable dams constructed in independent India and highlighted the peasants' anger at the thought of being uprooted. In the 1950s, there was minimal opposition to the enormous river valley projects. They included the Rihand Dam in Uttar Pradesh, the Bhakra-Nangal Dam in Punjab, the Hirakud Dam in Orissa, the Tungabhadra project in Andhra Pradesh, and the Bhakra-Nangal Dam in Punjab, all of which caused the displacement of tens of thousands of people.
But over time, the Indian peasant has shown a clear resistance to "nation-building" initiatives. The actual experience of communities displaced by prior projects is a significant factor in this developing antipathy. The term "displacement" has been replaced in recent years in public discussions of this process by the euphemistic "resettlement," which is a substantial acknowledgement of these failings. Early in the 1970s, organised opposition to new developments gained momentum, with movements forming independently across the nation. Protests against corporate control of natural resources have also been common. The Chipko movement got its start protesting the industrial logging of a local forest. A wave of anti-commercial logging protests that was organised by Gandhian and Left-wing activists swept the Himalayan foothills in the ensuing ten years. The peasants' emphasis on subsistence and the state's emphasis on commerce were contrasted by those opposed to forest management. Typically, the State has directed resources that artisans had been using for generations to industrial enterprises. Thus, the plans of the Forest Department to give the paper industry preferential treatment in the supply of biomass from state-owned forests have been resisted by workers in the reed industry in Kerala, bamboo workers in Karnataka, and rope makers in Uttar Pradesh's Shivalik Hills who make rope from wild grass. Tribals who collect non-wood forest produce have been savagely exploited by traders who run the trade for decades. The tendu leaf, which is used to make the "bidi" or Indian cheroot, is the most profitable of all the "minor" forest products for these traders. Social activists have organised tendu leaf pickers during the past 20 years in an effort to boost their pay.
Popular opposition has also compelled some significant changes in forest policy, including the cancellation of plans to clear-cut native forests and replace them with plantings of exotic species with industrial uses. Conflicts involving forests have decreased recently, if not on the ground then at least in the public's perception, thanks to these small victories and the democratic politics typical of eventually losing interest in any one topic. A historic first step toward redressing the balance was the passing of the Forest Rights Act. By granting people control over resources appropriated by the State's forest departments, the Act acknowledges the historical wrong done to millions of forest dwellers. However, there are numerous issues with implementation. In the US, scientists have been quite important. The publication of Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring in 1962 and the positions expressed at the time by prominent scientists are generally seen as the catalysts for the emergence of modern American environmentalism. On the other side, in India, the environmental movement has been led by journalists, Gandhians, and environmental activists. Recent environmental demonstrations in India have been well-organized efforts to halt potentially dangerous developments. Examples include the demonstrations of localities committed to defend their resources and territory against the nuclear power stations in Jaitapur and Kudanakulam.
Urban nature enthusiasts in India have been influenced by western, particularly American, biodiversity conservation models since the 1970s. Influential foreign groups, such as the World Wide Fund for Nature, supported the state's creation of numerous Protected Areas, which excluded local communities that relied on these woods, marshes, grasslands, etc. But these same organisations also back tourism in protected regions, even when it promotes business ventures like the construction of resorts, causes issues with solid waste management, and restricts wildlife movement in nearby areas. The majority of the time, the promotion of wildlife tourism has led to a rift between local communities and animals because locals believe that tourists' demands are prioritised over their own. Such urban environmentalist movements in India ignore the country's long history of environmental activism. Numerous social difficulties have been brought up by the designation of vast areas as Protected Areas and the specific protection provided to wildlife like tigers and elephants. Local communities feel left out of the decision-making process and have been uprooted in many places without being properly consulted or taking into account potential negative repercussions. Indeed, social scientists consider displacement brought on by large-scale initiatives like dams, mining, and protected areas to be of a similar type.
The massive meat industry in the West has necessitated the extensive conversion of habitats into ranches in order to support the commercial rearing of domestic animals. As a result, Western environmentalism also involves the promotion of vegetarian or vegan eating habits. Small-scale and organic farming are practises that are considered to be environmentally favourable. India only raises poultry as an animal. Even now, people still consume a lot of meat because to backyard poultry. Beef eating is extremely limited and limited to just a few locations due to cultural taboos. The most popular meats, goat and sheep, are grown mostly by pastoralists and subsistence farmers and do not have the same negative effects on the environment as in Western nations. In India, organic farming is encouraged, but the market for the products is small because of their high cost.
State and corporate interests
State agencies and private enterprise are the forces destroying the environment in both India and the United States. In India, direct action has always been a crucial part of environmental activism. Examples include tree-hugging, protests, and attacks on government buildings. Environmental organisations have relied more heavily on litigation, savvy media use, and lobbying legislators in the United States since these strategies have a higher likelihood of success in a more formal and developed democratic political system. While militant environmentalists in America are dissatisfied with the incremental lobbying of mainstream groups and have turned to direct action — such as sitting on trees — to protect threatened wildernesses, environmental groups in India are increasingly using the courts as a supplement to popular protest.
In 1991, the Indian economy began to open up. In part, the removal of state controls was welcomed because the licence-permit-quota-Raj had hampered business and creativity. Unfortunately, the supporters of liberalism attacked environmentalists even more viciously than those of state socialism. Because of their influence, the media—which had previously been extremely sensitive to environmental issues—started to demonise figures like Medha Patkar, the head of the Narmada movement. She and her cohorts were allegedly old-fashioned communists who wanted to keep India in the dark ages and remnants of a bygone era that stood in disrepute today, according to influential columnists. Environmentalists have gone from being regarded as capitalist allies to being vilified as communist stooges in just one generation!
Because only they raised the difficult issues following the removal of state regulations, environmentalists came under assault. Only they questioned where the water or land would come from, what the effects would be on the quality of the air, the condition of the forests, and the livelihoods of the people when a new factory, highway, or mining project was suggested.
- Was liberalisation and development merely going to exacerbate the gaps between the city and the countryside?
- Had anyone performed a thorough analysis of the social and environmental costs and benefits before authorising the rash of mining licences in central India or the massive hydroelectric projects being constructed in the high (and seismically vulnerable) Himalayas?
- Was it acceptable for a democracy to allow a system where the promoter wrote the Environmental Impact Assessment themselves?
Even as they were being asked, these and similar queries were dismissed. The atmosphere, meanwhile, kept becoming worse. All Indian cities now have frighteningly high levels of air pollution. These cities were situated near rivers that were essentially dry. Aquifers of groundwater in the Punjab, India's food bowl, have dropped precipitously. Open-cast mining in Karnataka destroyed entire districts. The untreated trash from cities was dumped on villages all over India. Forests continued to deteriorate and occasionally vanished. Even the future of the tiger, which is our national animal, was now in doubt. The apathy and corruption of our political class have been a significant component to this ongoing degrading process. All prime ministers, past and present, with the exception of Indira Gandhi, have been the most overtly unfriendly. An ecologically aware prime minister would undoubtedly be beneficial. Though they overlook the populations they uproot, officials at the state level are most actively involved in supporting mining and infrastructure projects that forgo or disregard environmental regulations.
The best minds in the environmental movement attempted to combine science with sustainability in the 1980s and 1990s. They aimed to develop and put into practise transportation, water, energy, and forestry policies that would increase economic output and advance human wellbeing without placing undue strain on the environment. They took action knowing that, in contrast to the West, India lacked colonies with resources it could use for its own industrial revolution.
The quick-witted and far-sighted efforts of our environmental experts would have been strengthened by a sympathetic and caring government. Instead, the political class today views logical, fact-based scientific research with contempt. Today's India is a mess when it comes to the environment, with dirty skies, dying rivers, dropping water tables, growing amounts of untreated trash, and diminishing forests. In the meantime, harmful and hastily planned projects continue to drive indigenous and rural inhabitants from their lands.
Summary
In India, as in the majority of the Third World, environmental degradation is a much more serious issue in terms of the effects it has on people. For instance, in the United States, the environmental movement has mostly coexisted with consumer culture without challenging its socioecological foundation. A more thorough critique of consumerism and unchecked economic development has been prompted by the sharper edges of environmental conflict in the Third World and its close connections to issues of subsistence and survival. This critique is primarily focused on the unfair and unsustainable patterns of economic growth that characterise the majority of Third World nations. However, it is also a criticism of Western economic and lifestyle preferences, which are directly responsible for the severe global environmental degradation.
Comments