A False Dichotomy

Re-Narrating some of Ram Chandra Guha's arguments and ideas.

This conception that development and environmental protection are two opposing forces has been long ingrained in the minds of many. It's not an either-or situation, but this dangerous narrative is far too common, especially in the minds of our politicians and industrialists.

Part of it, I think, comes from a basic lack of environmental literacy. They just don't seem to grasp the SCALE of the environmental problems we face. And partly, it's because they see environmentalists as anti-development, failing to understand what sustainable, holistic progress really means. Or maybe, they just don't care, prioritizing short-term gains and looking good to an audience whose idea of “development” is, let's face it, not very refined.

But here's the thing: As Guha points out, India is not Europe or North America. We have a far greater population density, our tropical ecologies are way more fragile because of the monsoons, AND, we did not have the luxury of exploiting colonies for resources. Hence, we have to adopt a much more environmentally sensitive approach to development. It's not a choice, it's a necessity. And that approach, somewhat, automatically takes into account community rights, so it’s a combination of environmental sustainability and social justice. And those were the exactly the arguments articulated by movements like Chipko, Narmada Bachao, and others.

It is true that the 70s and 80s were a high point for those big environmental movements. But it's not like the concern has disappeared. At least, not among the young peers I see around me. There's a huge awareness of the environmental crisis, both the domestic stuff like groundwater depletion, resource scarcity, and air pollution (problems that aren't directly tied to climate change), and the more big picture issues, made worse by climate change.

The problem is that this awareness doesn't translate into mainstream media attention, and it definitely doesn't translate into politicians listening and acting. It’s like shouting into a void. Until the environmentally aware lot actually gets into positions of power, we will not see the kind of radical action we need.

Back in the day, environmental activism was driven by grassroots movements and journalists. India didn't have too many scientists working in this field. But over the past couple of decades, our country has developed incredible scientific expertise – in ecology, hydrology, soil science, biodiversity, pollution abatement, urban planning, energy management, you name it. We have the knowledge! What we need is for this expertise to be harnessed, to guide us towards a path of sustainable growth.

It's tragic how often these Indian scientists are ignored. Or worse, when they are consulted, their recommendations are brushed aside. Like with the disastrous riverfront development in Pune, where the Municipal Corporation did not even bother to include river scientists, biologists, or local fauna experts on the boards. We've seen the consequences of this before with what happened with the Gadgil Committee Report on the Western Ghats. Its warnings were ignored, and we're still dealing with the fallout.

Even though the situation is very complicated right now, it's not totally bleak. We have this growing awareness among young people, and, crucially, we have something our previous generations didn't: world-class scientific expertise to help us forge sustainable policies.

Guha made this really important point that's since stuck with me: Even if climate change didn't exist, India would still be facing a massive environmental crisis. Think about it. The air pollution in Delhi, and its impact on the health of the working poor, is a problem in itself. The depletion of groundwater aquifers in Punjab and elsewhere is happening regardless of climate change. The death of our rivers, the deforestation in Hyderabad and now potentially in Mumbai, and the threats to biodiversity from misguided policies – these are all separate issues. So, even without climate change, we'd be in deep trouble. Climate change just makes everything even more urgent and catastrophic, turning floods, fires, and droughts into even bigger disasters that worsen our economic, environmental, and social problems.

So, we, the present and the future of India, need to understand that climate change is an add-on. The problems are much deeper and more fundamental. Even before climate change became a global talking point, some Indian thinkers like Tagore were already arguing that we needed to chart a fundamentally different, more caring, sustainable, and equitable path towards economic progress than the one the West had laid out.

Gandhi, in his own way, somewhat understood this. He had this intuitive understanding of how India's development needs were unique. He famously said, "If India takes to industrial exploitation after the manner of the West, it would strip the world bare like locusts."

And in a country like India, the search for environmental sustainability is inseparable from the search for social justice. Because it will always be the poor, the marginalized, the dispossessed who suffer the most from environmental destruction.