How Far can environmental movements transform environmental politics? An Indian Context

Environmental movements are defined as social movements wherein individuals, groups, or organisations engage through non-institutionalized informal networks to undertake collective actions and promote discourse based on a shared concern for the environment. For such movements to be successful and achieve their intended goals, the establishment of collective identity is critical. This does not require people involved in an environmental movement to have a set of shared values or beliefs but they must share concerns. Usually, these movements are radical in their approach to transforming society’s value normative system by challenging the socio-political and economic framework of the state.(Death, 2013)

Scientific research and evidence are other important factors influencing the success of an environmental movement. It is argued that using scientific evidence helps environmental NGOs and other entities working on the issue gain credibility thereby strengthening their advocacy efforts and helping in convincing policymakers, businesses, and the general public about the importance of addressing environmental issues. This reliance, however, can also become a limitation when dealing with issues with insufficient scientific evidence, particularly when public concern cannot be justified by scientific proof. It is also a challenge when seen from the North-South lens. Environmental concerns are widely supported across the political spectrum in economically developed Northern states, which aids in attracting a high level of endorsement for research into potential environmental degradation issues. In the Global South, however, environmental movements are closely linked to the power imbalances, and marginalisation of population resulting from socio-political inequalities and injustices. It is this interplay of legal, environmental, and socio-political factors that makes the environmental struggle a complex issue, rather than a matter of scientific determination.(Della Porta, 2014)

Environmental movements can have far-ranging effects that can be direct or indirect, positive or negative, etc. These movements can effectuate policy development, obstruct policy implementation, and promote environmental justice by calling for pollution-burden distribution, equal access to environmental resources, participatory decision-making, etc. In this essay, I will delve deeply into studying the impact of such movements on societies, governments, and policies in relation to three major ecological struggles in India, including the Chipko, Narmada Bachao Andolan, and Niyamgiri Movement.

A glance into India’s environmentalism 

India has a long history of environmental movements and ecological conflicts. Among the various movements, the Chipko movement, Narmada Bachao Andolan, and Niyamgiri Movement stand out as being pivotal in shaping environmentalism in India. Below is a brief account of these environmental movements, which will be fundamental for our analysis of their effects on India’s environmental politics in the later part.

The Chipko movement is one of India's prominent environmental struggles starting in the 1970s. It was amongst the first few environmental movements that received widespread attention nationally and internationally for developing country's environmental consciousness and policies. It began in 1972 with a protest by the Dasholi Gramme Swaraj Sangh (DGSS) against the denial of locals to appropriate forest resources by the state government due to the contractor system. This restriction was imposed because the Indian government auctioned off the forest land in the region to a multinational corporation, for them to exploit forest resources for commercial purposes. 

The movement was initiated by the men of the local community who were dependent for their livelihood on these forest products. However, an incident in Reni Village marked a significant shift in the history of the movement, when women under the leadership of Gaura Devi embraced tree-hugging(Chipko) to prevent the cutting of trees in the forest. This event led to the recognition of women's efforts and ecological concerns, highlighting the changing focus of the movement from men-led demand for the abolition of the contractor system to a comprehensive calling emphasising environmental preservation. After this incident, even DGSS witnessed an internal drift, where Chandi Prasad Bhatt led a group concerned itself with the demand for the reappropriation of forest resources for local industries, and another section led by Sunderlal Bahuguna sought to prevent all forms of deforestation. 

The movement gained regional, national, and international recognition, and its success can be understood from the fact that the government revoked the contractor system, a ten-year ban on felling green trees across a large area, and subsequent protections for six forested regions were imposed. These policy implications were based on the recommendations of the expert committee report, Reni Investigation Committee's 1976 report. The Chipko protests have also influenced many other environmental movements, particularly the southern India movement 'Appiko'. Moreover, members of the Chipko movement have also been involved in numerous other environmental struggles in the country, most notably Narmada Bachao Andolan. 

The Narmada Bachao Andolan(NBA), which started in the year 1985, is another crucial environmental movement in India for greatly influenced the country's environmental politics. A massive protest was organised in opposition to the construction of a dam on the Narmada River under the Narmada River Valley Project. The site of the project was home to different indigenous communities such as the Bhils and Gonds, and a large rural population with an encompassing opulent ecology. The project which was funded by World Bank envisioned the construction of thirty large dams and numerous small dams on the Narmada and its tributaries in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra which would result in increased food production and generation of hydropower. The Sardar Sarovar Dam was the largest, and along with the Narmada Sagar, expected to displace over 250,000 people. 

The movement initially was guided solely on human rights concerns, arguing the government's inadequate resettlement and rehabilitation programme for displaced populations. However, subsequently, the movement's scope expanded to also include broader environmental and sustainability issues. Internationally the movement gains support in relation to critical concerns of displacement risks, environmental consequences, financial implications, and civil liberties violations. Media advocacy, collaboration with eminent social workers such as Baba Amte, Sunderlal Bahuguna, and Medha Patkar, as well as celebrity endorsement, have all played vital roles in amplifying the movement's message and influencing public opinion in India and globally.  In 1994, an appeal too was filed in the Supreme Court, which resulted in a stay order in January 1995 that restricted the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam.

The NBA movement was unsuccessful in halting the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam. However, its efforts raised global awareness on the issue of dam building and associated challenges, influenced the World Bank's stance to withdraw from the project, and prompted the formation of the World Commission on Dams. Domestically, it prompted the Government of India to implement a new National Water Policy, which included Hariyali Guidelines. These guidelines introduced elements of decentralised governance, community participation, and long-term sustainability to future water development projects in the country. Under this new framework, Panchayati Raj institutions will be empowered to oversee village water projects. The policy also dictated the need for prior consultation and agreement with local communities, ensuring a participatory approach to instill a sense of ownership and responsibility in local communities.

The Niyamgiri Movement was organised in 2002 when the local Dongria Kondh tribe of Niyamgiri hills protested against the Odisha state government's grant of rights for bauxite mining Sterlite India, a Vedanta subsidiary. It was contended that the proposed mining project would have serious environmental consequences, such as the destruction of natural habitats and threats to the Dongria Kondh tribe's traditional lifestyle. In the early stages, Marxist-Leninist organisations propelled the movement with the support of Niyamgiri Suraksha Samiti. Subsequently, as the movement developed, environmentalist Prafulla Samantra and organisations like the National Alliance of People's Movement played a critical role in linking the movement to national activists and advocacy groups. The movement quickly grew from a local tribal resistance to one of the most prominent transnational movements, with international organisations such as ActionAid, Foil Vedanta, Survival International, and Amnesty International helping to raise international awareness of the issue.

Parallelly, three writ petitions were filed in 2004 challenging the mining lease for violating constitutional provisions under ScheduleV and other national environmental and forest conservation laws. The Supreme Court and the Central Government established numerous expert committees to investigate the project's impact, all of which found serious violations of several national laws. Given these considerations, the Supreme Court ruled against the project in 2013, directing that clearance be sought from the affected gram-sabhas and this is how India’s first environmental referendum was conducted rejecting the project.(Chopra, 2017)

Understanding these movements in the context of Environmental Justice and changes they have brought about

The above environmental movements are categorised under the field of Environmental Justice(EJ) as they challenged the structural and institutional shortcomings intending to politicise and radicalise deeper long-term socio-political changes. These collective actions for transformation are intended to empower marginalised segments of society by addressing the underlying power dynamics that contribute to societal inequality. Here, we will look at the changes caused by the aforementioned movements on the EJ components to see how they affect the overall contours of environmental politics in India. 

In all three environmental movements, the affected population was local marginalised communities who suffered the loss of natural habitat, livelihood, and, ultimately, a broader understanding of their lives. Development is understood as a cost-transfer process in which the cost of exploiting nature in pursuance of national development is borne by the poor, who are already living on the margins of commodity frontiers(Chopra, 2017). The aforementioned environmental movements organised grassroots resistance against the economic exploitation of resources and lands by external forces like government and corporations, thereby challenging existing power structures. The fundamental aim of these movements focused on shifting power, changing its application, and association towards the marginalised population. The ban on tree cutting, the development and implementation of the National Water Policy, and the exercising of the right of local communities to decide on the project via referendum go to show how these movements resulted in a shift in the power of decision-making in favour of the affected and marginalised population, rather than a few elites dictating everyone's behaviour.

It is fundamental for the success of any environmental movement is foster collective knowledge of the matter concerned in the context of the local community(Temper, 2018). Marginalised indigenous communities have unequal access to information and reliable sources of knowledge can seriously hamper the discourse on the matter of environmental concern. In all three movements, local leaders and organisations made significant efforts to conduct extensive awareness campaigns, empowering indigenous communities with knowledge about their rights and available recourse. These movements also had the involvement of expert knowledge that has been significant in guiding the deliberation, influencing policy changes, and determining the success of the movement. In relation to the aforementioned environmental movements, the involvement of expert knowledge has also played an important role in shaping the discourse, influencing policy change, and determining the success of the movement.  

For achieving substantive policy changes, it is important for these movements to effectively garner support and pursue the powerful individual and network of the elite who have a significant say in the country’s decision-making process. One way of doing this is by building or strengthening an existing network by forming alliances with academics, human rights advocates, and environmental justice activists. In the above detailed movements, notable figures such as academics, scientists, social workers, and renowned organisations at both the national and international levels played important roles in supporting and promoting the movements' causes and concerns to a larger audience. 

In the case of the Chipko movement, the original organisers were men seeking financial gain from commercial forest products, but the movement was later led by women with the primary goal of forest conservation. The said transition is positive as it emphasis environmental conservation and community involvement over the interest of a select few.  This is the issue of “participatory exclusions”, which explains the paradoxical situation where initiatives or actions intended to increase community participation may result in an unintentional exclusion of certain groups, particularly women and other marginalised community members(Temper, 2018). This exclusion will further exacerbate societal inequalities, undermining the effectiveness of the planned intervention. This underrepresentation and exclusion may result from pre-existing social norms, power dynamics, or even unintentional biases within the movement.

The said movements also highlight the significant role the judiciary has played in directing the discourse for policy change and effectuating such change. Both NBA and Niyamgiri movement employed a two-front approach which included the promotion of the shared environmental concern through social movement at the same time attracting the attention of those involved in policymaking. Environmental activism in India started in 1982 with the introduction of public interest litigation(PIL). PIL allows for individual activists or organisation to invoke judicial recourse and seek appropriate redressal for the vulnerable section of the society. The environmental activism is particularly popular in addressing the debate between prioritising the environment and development. Indian courts have extensively developed different doctrines which have come to become fundamental principles that are employed in adjudicating matters of ecological concerns such as, ‘precautionary-principle’, ‘polluters-pay’, ‘absolute-liability’, ‘sustainable development’, ‘protection of citizens’ rights’ and others.(Verma, 2019)

 

The Chipko Movement, NBA, and Niyamgiri Movement have significantly impacted the environmental politics of India. These movements have brought about transformational changes as their focus was not only to address immediate socio-ecological concerns but also to challenge broader structural issues (capitalism, patriarchy, state-centrism, or other inequities in power) that cause environmental degradation, inequality, and injustice. These movements can be considered successful as they managed to implement immediate and favourable policy actions such as the ban on tree cutting, the local community’s “right to decide” on the mining projects, redesigning of the rehabilitation and resettlement plan, the development of National Water Policy 2002 and the incorporation of Environmental Impact Assessment framework into the process of governmental project development and management. However, their success is limited in terms of territory and sense of immediacy, for instance, NBA comprehensively dealt with the issue of dam construction, and many subsequent movements have still emerged in different parts of the country challenging the issue around dam construction. 

  

References

Death, C. (Ed.), (2013), Critical Environmental Politics (1st edn.), Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315883076

Della Porta, D. and Diani, M. (Eds), (2015), The Oxford Handbook of Social Movements (online edn.), Oxford Academic, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199678402.001.0001

Chopra, K., (2017), Development and Environmental Policy in India, (1st edn.), Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3761-0

Temper, L., Walter, M., Rodriguez, I. et al, (2018) A perspective on radical transformations to sustainability: resistances, movements and alternatives. Sustainability Science,  (Vol. 13), 747–764, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0543-8

Verma, R. K. (2019). Environmental Jurisprudence in India (Is People’s Attitude Under Its Purview?). Indian Journal of Public Administration, 65(4), 916-929. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019556119889210

Baviskar, A. (2019). Nation’s body, river’s pulse: Narratives of anti-dam politics in India, Thesis Eleven, 150(1), 26-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0725513618822417

Banerjee, B., Maher, S.R., & Krämer, R., (2023), Resistance is fertile: Toward a political ecology of translocal resistance, Organization, 30(2), 264-287. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508421995742

Dilay, A., Diduck, A.P. & Patel, K., (2020), Environmental justice in India: a case study of environmental impact assessment, community engagement and public interest litigation, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38(1), 16-27, https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2019.1611035

Mishra, D.K., (2019), Himalayan ‘hydro-criminality’? Dams, development and politics in Arunachal Pradesh, India, UCL Press, 115-139, https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvfrxr41.12