Backpage

FEW among us, even a quarter century back seemed aware of, far less concerned about, the environment. The occasional debate, usually about the despoliation of nature or decline of wildlife, was seen as a preoccupation of the rich West and elite natives (erstwhile rulers and hunters) keen to somehow perpetuate their privileged consumption of nature. And while The Club of Rome report, 1972 and the Rachel Carson classic, The Silent Spring, did flag concern about the implications of the impending depletion of resources, mainly non-renewable, or the dangers of an excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers resulting in a decline in soil fertility, few in the developing world took these warnings seriously, convinced that western scaremongers were out to deny country’s like India their chance in the sun.

There is little doubt that we have come a long way since; environmental issues are no longer dismissed as marginal but seen as mainstream, including by the political and policy making establishment. Equally impressive, and important, is the improvement in the quality of public debate and the space given to such concerns in mainstream media – print, radio and TV. In large measure, the credit for this change goes to organizations like the Centre for Science and Environment, now entering its twenty-fifth year, as also many other research, advocacy and activist groups, who together have helped make environmental concerns both vigorously contested and intensely political. All this has strengthened the quality of our democracy.

The start was propitious. CSEs first major venture, The State of India’s Environment, 1982, immediately demanded attention and became a subject of intense debate. What marked it out as unique was not merely the quality of research and presentation, but the collation of voices and concerns of many organizations working on a wide range of issues. Crucially, by drawing upon the lessons of many remarkable struggles like Chipko in the Uttarakhand hills, Appiko in Karnataka, the traditional fishers in Kerala and Goa to list a few, it helped shift focus from till then a near exclusive concern with the availability of non-renewable resources (coal, oil, strategic minerals) to the control and use of renewable resources (water, land, forests, air) which are central to the livelihood concerns of the poor, giving rise to the concept of ‘environmentalism of the poor’.

While the CSE since, formerly under the leadership of the late Anil Agarwal and subsequently his protégé and associate, Sunita Narain, along with their remarkable colleagues, has given us many noteworthy publications, produced films, initiated fresh research and training, engaged in vigorous advocacy both at home and abroad, started outreach programmes including in schools and, for the last fifteen years, brought out a high quality fortnightly on politics of development, environment and health, Down to Earth, in many ways the first venture remains unsurpassed. It is difficult, not just in our hyper-competitive times but even then, to think of an equivalent effort which managed to bring together such a wide range of individuals/organizations working on varied themes despite the presence of serious ideological/theoretical differences and ego problems that invariably accompany any such exercise. For this, as much as the drive and skills of Anil and Sunita, one needs to credit the people management and networking skills of Ravi Chopra, the project leader, who drew upon his vast knowledge of the issues and deep friendship with myriad activist groups whose struggles have helped shape India’s environmental thinking.

The focus on its initial and path breaking work should not detract from the high quality of many of the subsequent campaigns initiated by the CSE. Be it the one over the health implications of worsening air quality which resulted in the phasing out of diesel in Delhi’s public transport system and its replacement by CNG; the programme of awarding green ratings to different industries in the hope of ensuring better compliance of environmental standards; the focus on our rich traditions of water harvesting and conservation techniques as a more sustainable way to mitigate water scarcity and manage drought; or the most recent, interventions in the global negotiations on climate change to make a case for a shared but differentiated responsibility in the management of the global commons – all these have helped shaped both policy and public discourse.

If today, despite superior knowledge and awareness, we still seem unable to craft any consensus on action, it may be because our ways of working have served to hollow out the political. Also, as fresh research unravels the increasing complexity of interconnections in nature, there is greater uncertainty about the implications of many proposed interventions. Nevertheless, without understanding that environment and equitable growth are two sides of the same coin, we may well be in danger of sacrificing the soul of the movement.

Harsh Sethi