Environmental Movements — Character & Roots

Collective struggles over ecological security, livelihood, displacement, forest and water rights, pollution, sustainable development and environmental justice. In India they are not merely conservationist — they are tied to poverty, livelihood, caste, class, gender, tribal autonomy and democracy.

Ramachandra Guha: there are “varieties of environmentalism” in India. Unlike much Western environmentalism, Indian struggles are usually led by women, poor communities, tribal groups, peasants, fisher folk and those directly hit by ecological degradation.

Historical background

Pre-1947: tribal resistance to colonial forest laws; the Bishnoi sacrifice at Khejarli, Rajasthan (1763); Mulshi Satyagraha (1921) led by Senapati Bapat against a dam in the Lonavala hills. Post-1947 triggers: Stockholm Conference (1972); Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth (1972); Project Tiger (1973); B. B. Vohra’s EPW article on soil erosion and land degradation; the Chipko Movement (1973).

Guha’s Four Phases of Indian Environmentalism

From “interlopers” to neo-liberal backlash. I · 1970s — Environmentalism seen as an “interloper” — a luxury of rich nations; activists (Bhatt, Bahuguna) branded CIA agents; Marxists call ecology bourgeois → II · 1980s — Environmental journalism grows (Anil Agarwal, Shekhar Pathak, Nagesh Hegde); Dept. of Environment (1980) becomes Ministry of Environment & Forests (1985) → III · 1990s — Professionalisation — social & natural scientists, ecological research, credible data; IISc Bangalore builds capacity → IV · 1990s on — Neo-liberal backlash — protests against mining, SEZs, displacement; activists branded anti-development / anti-national (e.g. Binayak Sen detained)

Ideological Strands (Gadgil & Guha)

“Crusading Gandhians, Appropriate Technologists and Ecological Marxists represent the three most forceful strands in the environment-development debate in India.”

Ramachandra Guha

Deep vs Shallow Ecology & New Environmentalism

Deep ecology challenges anthropocentric development; shallow ecology fits reformist policy more easily.

New environmentalism

Stresses affected people’s knowledge, local context, dispersed information, community participation and sustainable use — and accepts that properly harnessed economic development can improve the environment. Traditional environmentalism often treats people as external to nature and ignores local knowledge.

Sunita Narain

Environmentalism is not only about planting trees or protecting tigers — environment is about democracy. People must be seen as owners and custodians of natural resources; development must be sustainable. Environmental movements resist commodification, monopolisation, inequitable distribution and disempowerment of communities.

Major Environmental Movements

Chipko — the anatomy

“Chipko” = to stick, to embrace. Earlier inspirations: Bishnoi resistance (1763), Sri Dev Suman, Mira Behn, Sarala Behn. Methods: tree-hugging, satyagraha, non-cooperation, hunger fasts, Bhagavad Gita readings, tying rakhees around wounded trees; Bajgis musicians and Ghanshyam Sailani’s poems mobilised villagers. It was at once environmental, peasant, women’s, regional and subaltern-cultural — a critique of the development model.

“Ecology is economy.”

Chipko slogan

Significance: questioned state policy favouring industrial elites; linked ecology with livelihood; became a symbol of ecofeminism; revived “forest satyagraha” (per Vandana Shiva and Jayanta Bandyopadhyay); influenced the 15-year ban on commercial green felling in the U.P. Himalaya and the National Forest Policy, 1988; won the Right Livelihood Award (1988). Ramachandra Guha calls it “Environmentalism of the poor.”

UPSC 2013 — Comment: Compare and contrast the Chipko Movement with Narmada Bachao Andolan.

Recent Environmental Movements

Tuticorin (Sterlite) Environmental Movement

Protest against the Sterlite Copper plant of Vedanta in Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu — resistance since the 1990s, sharp visibility in 2018, demanding closure of the smelter over pollution and health.

Findings & institutional failures

NEERI report (2011) found high copper, lead, cadmium and fluoride in groundwater; a 2013 gas leak brought a fine and temporary closure. The plant sat 14 km from Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park (norm: >25 km from an eco-sensitive zone); the green-belt requirement was allegedly cut from 250 m to 25 m. The Centre for Science and Environment noted three states had rejected the proposal before Tamil Nadu accepted it; a faulty EIA was alleged. Vandana Shiva called for shutdown.

Base: locals, fisher folk, small farmers, Dalit communities, women, church groups, traders, student unions, cultural activists — women from fishing and Dalit backgrounds became its moral voices. Methods: dharna, hunger strike, social media (100,000+ online), documentation, Tamil folk songs and art. State response: the Pollution Control Board had rejected clearance yet construction continued; it culminated in police firing — eleven died — and the factory was sealed in May 2018.

Assessment: the case exposes the conflict between industrialisation and environmental justice and weak governance; the Second ARC’s triple bottom line (People, Planet, Profits) is invoked; S. N. Sahu reads it as reinforcing Swaraj and democracy; Sunita Narain’s critique applies — movements close some plants but fail to change the development model.

Environmentalism of the Poor

Struggles by poor and marginal communities against ecological damage that threatens livelihood, health, culture, autonomy and access to land, water and forests.

Joan Martinez-Alier

Describes environmentalism of the poor as the struggles and practices the poor engage in when threatened by ecological distribution conflicts — over mining, dams, land grabbing, biomass, oil, gas and waste. It is rooted in survival, not leisure; links human rights and environmental rights; combines distribution, recognition and participation; often speaks in idioms of livelihood, dignity and the sacredness of nature.

Indian examples: Chipko, Narmada Bachao Andolan, Niyamgiri, anti-POSCO, Tuticorin, forest-rights struggles. Qualification: the thesis does not claim the poor are always environmentalists — only that in many extraction and waste conflicts the poor stand with nature because their life depends on it. Ramachandra Guha distinguishes Northern “full stomach” environmentalism (led by scientists) from Southern “empty stomach” environmentalism (led by the poor).

Constitution & Environment

The Constitution is an enabling document for environmental protection, expanded through judicial interpretation.

“It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.”

Article 51-A(g)

Directive Principles: Article 47 (public health, which includes environmental protection); Article 48 (scientific agriculture and animal husbandry); Article 48-A — “the state shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.”

Article 21 has been expanded by the Supreme Court to include the right to a healthy, pollution-free environment. Key cases: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (expanded Art 21); the Dehradun Quarrying Case; M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (pollution-free environment under Art 21); Kovar G. B. Bharucha v. Excise Commissioner, Ajmer (environment vs freedom of trade). Article 19(1)(a) does not cover loudspeakers causing noise pollution. PIL runs through Articles 32 and 226.

Statutes: Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 · Water Act, 1974 · Water Cess Act, 1977 · Forest Conservation Act, 1980 · Air Act, 1981 · Environment Protection Act, 1986 · PESA, 1996 · National Environmental Appellate Authority Act, 1997 · Biological Diversity Act, 2002 · Forest Rights Act, 2006. Institutions: Pollution Control Boards, EIA, National Green Tribunal, National Biodiversity Authority.

Environmental Movements & Governance

Movements shaped governance by raising awareness, forcing state response, influencing laws, triggering judicial activism, exposing ecological injustice, questioning development models and building citizen participation.

Competing interpretations

Bajwa and Bains and O. P. Dwivedi: governance emerged partly from global initiatives (Stockholm). Subir Sinha: from resource-intensive development causing ecological imbalance and deprivation. Atul Kohli: from societal forces and movements. Vandana Shiva and Ashish Kothari: from environmental groups and public awareness. Madhav Gadgil: Chipko and Narmada forced the state to rethink extraction — People’s Biodiversity Registers and the Gadgil Committee on the Western Ghats reflect participatory governance.

Movements influenced cost-benefit analysis, EIA, environmental auditing, risk analysis, public inquiries, legal reform and judicial activism. Through PIL the Supreme Court acted on Ganga pollution, vehicular emissions, deforestation, quarrying and industrial pollution — the M. C. Mehta cases being the model.

Criticism & assessment

Ramachandra Guha calls Joseph Cornelius Kumarappa the founder of modern Indian environmentalism — village economy, resource conservation, distinguishing selfish Western “pack-type” from collective Indian “herd-type” societies. Verrier Elwin: forests are central to tribal life and rebellion. Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens: modernity is a “risk society.” Robert Bullard: environmental harm falls disproportionately on the marginalised. Weaknesses: low environmental consciousness, local and reactive movements, legal wins that do not change ground reality, weak NGT/EIA implementation, and ecology rarely a manifesto priority.

“Polluted skies, dead rivers, disappearing forests, falling water tables, ever increasing hills of untreated waste, displaced peasants and tribes” — India as a “Basket case of all sorts of environmental tragedies.”

Ramachandra Guha

UPSC 2012 — Discuss the impact of environmentalist movements on government policies in recent years.

UPSC 2009 — “The environmental movements have challenged the policy and pattern of economic development in post-independent India.” Analyse with examples.

UPSC 2022 — The high concentration of economic activities and consumption patterns in the post-liberalisation period has led to the failure of environmental movements in India. Elucidate.

Environmental Movements after Liberalisation

Roots in colonial forest management, tribal displacement, post-independence dams, mining and state-led projects. Major mobilisations: Chipko · Appiko · Narmada Bachao Andolan · Silent Valley

After liberalisation, industrial and mining activity expanded and FDI accelerated resource extraction; tribal areas in Jharkhand, Odisha, Chhattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh faced deforestation and displacement. K.B. Saxena and Rajkishor Meher link LPG development with displacement, dispossession and unrest among indigenous communities.

Why movements weakened

State–corporate nexus; economy over ecology; weak legal enforcement; corrupt permissions; fast industrial clearances; fragmented movements; limited citizen participation; expert-dominated discourse; a consumerist culture. Arun Kumar — the state–MNC nexus suppressed recent environmental movements.

“environmentalism was never an organized ‘movement.’”

Donella Meadows

Judicial jurisprudence

Built through Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum (tanneries), the Fertilizer Gas Leakage case, S. Jagannath (coastal management), Goa Foundation v. Konkan Railway, Narula Dyeing and Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action — giving the public liability, polluter-pays and precautionary principles and the “right to environment” within “right to life” under Article 21. Consumption after liberalisation brought hyper-consumerism, food waste, urban pollution, a rising Gini and SDG 11–12 concerns.