The conversations left me thinking about a larger issue: how much authority should environmentalism have over the development choices of a country like India?
Sunita Narain became a prominent voice on TV screens in the Vajpayee era when CSE raised concerns over pesticide residues in soft drinks sold in India. In the subsequent UPA years, environmental considerations acquired huge influence over policymaking, particularly in debates surrounding mining, power, infrastructure and industrial clearances. Development projects increasingly encountered questions about forests, emissions, displacement and ecological impact.
Some of those questions could be necessary. But another set of questions deserves equal attention.
There is also an uncomfortable class dimension to the environmental debate. Much of contemporary environmental advocacy is shaped by relatively affluent sections of society—people who already enjoy reliable electricity, air-conditioned homes and offices, automobiles, air travel and the material benefits created by decades of industrialisation.
The aspirations of a poor or lower-middle-income family can look very different. For them, development may mean a concrete house, a refrigerator, an air conditioner, a motorcycle or car, reliable electricity, better roads and a well-paying industrial job. It is much easier to advocate limits on consumption after achieving a high standard of living than before reaching it.
This is why environmental organisations themselves should face greater scrutiny. Their scientific assumptions should be open to challenge, their predictions tested against evidence, their funding and institutional interests transparent, and the economic consequences of the policies they advocate subjected to the same rigorous assessment that they demand of industry.
India cannot afford an environmentalism that treats economic development as inherently suspect or poverty as somehow more harmonious with nature.
The approach under the Prime Minister Modi-led BJP government has been noticeably different. Climate action, renewable energy, sustainability and green growth remain part of the policy framework, but they coexist with an aggressive push for highways, railways, airports, manufacturing, mining, defence production, urban infrastructure and energy security. The underlying proposition appears to be that environmental protection must be reconciled with development rather than allowed to become a veto over it.
My conversations with Pradeep Burman and Priyanka Sharma also suggested a more collaborative model. Their emphasis was on working with government, industry, universities and entrepreneurs—on green technologies, skills, startups, renewable energy, biogas, water conservation and commercially viable solutions—rather than positioning environmentalism primarily in opposition to industry.
That may be a more useful direction for India.
The country certainly needs clean air, clean rivers, efficient use of resources and protection against genuine environmental risks. But it also needs factories, mines, power plants, data centres, highways, cities and millions of productive jobs.
The real challenge is not choosing the environment over development. It is ensuring that environmentalism itself is subjected to evidence, democratic accountability and economic reality—and that the right of 1.4 billion Indians to become more prosperous remains at the centre of the debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment