Environmental Justice in India

Although present as an important thread in the wider discourse, wilderness advocacy and the sentiment about “protecting the environment,” per se, has never been the defining feature of Indian environmentalism (Agarwal 1985). Instead, the relationship between environmental change and social and economic inequality has been the defining precept unifying a wide range of environmental movements for more than a quarter of a century. In this, Indian environmentalism shares many of the core philosophical tenets with environmental justice movements in the United States (CSE 1982, 1985). It is premised upon the idea that differential access or exposures to the environment is related to the quality of life and to human wellbeing, more broadly. For example, a lack of access to fresh natural resources, such as drinking water or forests, affects millions of people dependent on these resources for their very survival. Again, the prevalence of unhealthy or toxic environments in living or work spaces impacts on the capacity of people to live healthy lives. The mainstream environmental debate in India has been centered around such concerns, as well as about questions about access to public goods, on the one hand, and the presence of public bads, on the other (Gadgil and Guha 1995). Indian environmentalism has also been played out across a tapestry of a vibrant democracy. The issues of public goods and bads have also been articulated in terms of inclusion, representation, and human rights (Visvanathan 1997). Elsewhere, I have described this triad in terms of sustenance—the absence of public goods and security; the presence of public bads and suffrage—the ability to be represented in decision making about the quality of environments people live and work in (Rajan 2011).

The debate about sustenance, security, and suffrage or about environmental human rights and justice, more broadly, has evolved over three phrases. The first phase started during the 1970s, although environmental historians have argued compellingly that it has a longer historical provenance. It was concerned with issues of access to what some economists have described as natural assets (Boyce and Shelly 2003). A case in point concerns conflicts over access to forests and forest products. Many communities living near forests had enjoyed informal and, in some instances, formal rights historically. However, forest legislation passed by British colonists with the advent of modern scientific forestry diminished and in some cases abrogated traditional usufruct rights. The result was popular revolt against state policy and the start of what later became India's first globally visible environmental movement, Chipko (Guha 2000). Another case involves the damming of rivers. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of Independent India, was a great advocate of dam building, which was an important aspect of his modernizing strategy. Nehru famously called dams the temples of modern India. However, dams came at a social and ecological cost, including forcibly evicting millions of people in one of the largest mass evictions in human history (Khagram 2004). Once again, massive social movements erupted across the country. Over the past five decades, these struggles over access to natural assets have continued and moved to newer sectors and frontiers, such as mining (Padel 2011). The second phase in what might be termed the environmental justice movement in India came in the wake of the Bhopal Gas Disaster of 1984. The disaster was the consequence of a toxic spill emanating from a U.S. based multi-national company, Union Carbide. More than 2000 people died on the spot, and there are an estimated half a million people who continue to suffer the aftermath (Chouhan 2004, 2005). Bhopal resulted in considerable activism and mobilization around issues of industrial policy, and the control and management of toxic substances. It also cast attention to other issues related to chemicals, notably air and water pollution (Naraine and Bell 2006; Mathur 2005).

The first and second phases of recent Indian environmental history were social movements and involved charismatic activists. They also sparked a fundamental soul searching about the meaning of development, the future of the country, and the very idea of India itself (Nandy 1990). It was, in essence, an interrogation of the concept of modernity, and this deep rooted philosophical reflection is visible not only in the writings of scholars and activists but many rulings on environmental cases by the Indian Supreme Court (Balakrishnan 2010). While the broad sentiments of such rumination remain, the third, and current phase of the Indian environmental movement, has added a new dimension. Whereas the first two phases did see considerable technical inputs by natural and social scientists and lawyers, the third phase is witnessing increased participation by technical professionals. In sector after sector, from water use to climate change and toxics, the debate about justice has been joined by technicians. The landscape of Indian environmentalism today includes not only internationally visible and articulate activists and philosophers, but also scientists and nonprofit organizations involved in an almost actuarial approach to the politics of equity and environmental justice.

This special issue highlights these distinctive trends and features of Indian environmentalism. The issue begins with a historical overview of the environmental justice movements in modern India by Rajan. The second article, by Ghazala Shahabuddin and Padmasai Bhamidipati, addresses the issue of displacement, but with a focus on conservation and especially on how conflicts between human populations and wild animals are being approached and addressed by scholars and policy makers. The third article, by Vishal Mehta, Eric Kemp-Benedict, Sekar Muddy, and Deepak Malghan, addresses another crucial topic—the availability and equity dimensions of freshwater access in a rapidly urbanizing country. Next up is an article by Bharati Chaturvedi, a leading environmental justice activist and a head of an internationally award-winning nonprofit organization. It addresses the social equity dimensions of changing policies on urban waste management—a new and important topic in the Indian environmental horizon. After these three articles exploring the urban landscape, Sujatha Byravan examines an issue of planetary concern—the impact of climate change on the poor. Last, but by no means least, is an article by Reena Shadaan and Renu Pariyadath, representatives of a U.S.-based solidarity movement, who explore the topic of transnational solidarity.

The issues and topics addressed in this special issue might not, at first glance, appear to be about environmental justice, at least not in the terms of reference used in the United States. Moreover, the authors do not formally classify their topics under the rubric of environmental justice. Yet, given their focus on rights, poverty, and inequity, they are without doubt a part of the tent of issues that may be understood as concerning environmental justice. They represent environmental justice as the concept has arisen in the global south. They are illustrative of what Raewyn Connell terms “Southern Theory,” referring to political and social thought developed in the global south but with wider resonances elsewhere (Connell 2007). Some of the issues raised in the Indian environmental movement—such as, for example, the equity dimensions in conservation—have a lot to offer scholarly and policy debates in places such as the United States. Conversely, the North, and especially the United States, has a great deal to offer to countries like India. This is particularly so in the area of managing toxics in an environmentally just way. While not directly transferable, the advances made in the United States, in fields such as information systems (e.g., Scorecard), novel forms of toxic modeling as discussed in previous issues of this very Journal, and legal and institutional arrangements, has relevance to countries like India. There is a great deal of scope for collaboration between Indian (and Southern countries, more broadly), and U.S.- based scholars, policy makers, and activists. This potential has remained an unrealized agenda thus far, but one with great potential for mutual good.