written test questions for CIA2

For our CIA 2 test, I propose to ask the following question (also based on Guha):

What are the different varieties of environmentalism espoused by Indian activists? Which one of them (or you could choose elements from them) would you agree with and disagree with and why? Briefly formulate your own brand of environmentalism (or draw up your own environmental manifesto).

-FR.ARUN

Ramachandra Guha

PERSPECTIVES
Ideological Trends in Indian Environmentalism

Ecology, Socialism, Ecological Socialism?
SEVERAL years ago, Ronald Reagan proclaimed to the British parliament that his life's ambition was to consign Marxism to the ash heap of history. Yet the impending demise of socialism (in whichever of its variants) has been predicted not merely by its historic enemies on the right, but by the radical ecology movement as well. "We are neither right nor left", assert the German Greens, "but in front." For many of its leading theorists, the ecology movement is playing in this century the role assigned by history to socialism in the last. The correct radical response to the evils of nineteenth century capitalism may have been the socialist movement, but the lat-ter's heritage is believed to be totally inadequate in tackling the contemporary crises of industrial society. In this vision, radical ecology may be inheriting the political mantle of socialism, but at the same time it rests on a 'paradigm shift' that opposes it to both socialism and the common enemy, capitalism (Capra and Spretnak 1984; Porrit 1984).
In urging the redundancy of the socialist project, radical ecologists draw upon both theoretical and empirical arguments. The mere abolition of private ownership of the means of production, they claim, is no guarantor of ecological stability. So long as socialist countries continue to follow the capitalist model of energy intensive industrialisation, both the exhaustion of resources and environmental degradation must follow—as witness the tragedy of Chernobyl, the eutrophica-tion of Lake Baikal, and the decline of forests due to acid rain in much of eastern Europe, If socialists have so enthusiastically embraced the industrial economy of pollution and depletion, environmentalists argue, perhaps the fault lies with their nineteenth century ideology—one worshipful of economic growth and its chief instrument, modern science and technology. Nor is the centralised and undemocratic political system favoured by
socialists of much help either—here it is no accident that one of the most visible consequences of glasnost in the Soviet Union has been the assertion of grassroots environmental concerns.
For their part, radical socialists (or Marxists) are equally dismissive of radical ecologists. (As used here, 'radical' refers only to the self image of the groups concerned—it has no other normative connotation.) We have the familiar caricature of an environmentalist as one who shows more concern for tigers and flamingoes than for the less fortunate members of his own species—a caricature with more than a grain of truth when applied to the wildlife lovers who dominate the environmental movement in more than one country. As 'prophets of doom', ecologists are further accused of downplaying human ingenuity and stifling human initiative. Socialists also take issue with the ecologists' uncritical acceptance of Malthusian dogma—pointing out that unequal distribution of resources and the dynamic of capitalist expansion, rather than the 'tragedy of the commons' (a euphemism for population growth) better explain the patterns and processes of environmental degradation.
Both these views are caricatures, but like most stereotypes, they build upon a solid core of truth. It is true that orthodox socialists still regard environmentalism as a western fad, an upper class deviation from the class struggle (note the indifference, bordering on hostility, with which the Indian communist parties treat ecological concerns). At the same time, many environmentalists (especially in the United States) are largely indifferent to the plight of the underprivileged in their own society, let alone the continuing impoverishment of the third world. Be that as it may, there have always existed socialist currents which are not anti-ecological in any fundamental sense; within Marxism, 'humanists' who try and rescue the early Marx from his later 'scientific' self, and outside Marxism, the communitarian, agrarian, and anarchist trends in the socialist tradition. Nor must one equate the World Wildlife Fund with the environmental
movement; many members of the German Greens, for example, have embraced environmentalism without fully losing their socialist moorings. Moreover, to the traditional socialist concern with equality across classes, sexes, and nations, the ecological movement has added a new, but equally important category—equality across generations. (Of course, intergene-rational equity, though not always in-tragenerational equity, was practised by many non-industrial cultures with traditions of prudent resource use.)
Nonetheless, the ecologists' stereotype of the socialist (and vice versa) presents a formidable hurdle to those of us who hold environmentalism and socialism to be (along with feminism) among the most compelling movements of the age. This article is a modest attempt towards the rapprochement between the two traditions. While keeping in mind similar attempts in Europe towards defining an 'ecological socialism' (Bahro 1984; Martinez-Alier 1987), it is firmly rooted in the Indian experience. After defining five generic positions in the environment-development debate in the next section, I go on to analyse three important ideological trends in the Indian environmental movement. The final section argues that this ideological plurality is (at least in the short term) wholly to be welcomed.
My treatment rests on two core assumptions, which are elaborated more fully elsewhere (cf Agarwal and Narain 1985; Hays 1987). The first, contra the socialists, is that environmental degradation is by no means restricted to the industrialised world; in fact, its consequences are more serious in the third world, where it affects the livelihood and survival of hundreds of millions of poor peasants, tribals, and slum-dwellers. Hence a cross-cultural dialogue must begin with this recognition; that third world environmentalism is qualitatively different, in its origins and emphases, from its Western counterpart. One is an environmentalism of survival and subsistence; the other of access to a clean and beautiful environment for the enhancement of the 'quality of life'. The second assumption, contra the ecologists, is that classical socialist concerns with equity and justice remain as valid as ever before: in fact, economic and political redistribution appears to be a sine qua non of environmental stability.
II
Utopians, Dystopians and Communitarians
As the Reaganite and Thatcherite counterrevolutions (not to speak of the
2578
Economic and Political Weekly December 3, 1988
Ramachandra Guha
The author identifies three strands in the environmental movement in India—Crusading Gandhian, Appropriate Technology and Ecological Marxists—and argues that this ideological plurality is to be welcomed.
fascination for economic liberalisation in this country) make painfully evident, the vision of socialism is compelling to socialists, not always to the general public Since the middle of the last century, socialists have had to contend with two views of the human predicament that have exercised an equal, if not greater, influence on the modern consciousness.
We have, firstly, the Utopian worldview of modern economics. In economic theory, society is composed of an aggregate of individuals, each of whom is committed firmly to his/her own material advancement. We live in an intensely competitive world, in which human nature is revealed to be irremediably selfish. This vision of utility maximising economic agents, it might be added, is univer-salistic—it makes little allowance for cultural or historical variations. Surprisingly, what redeems this world of individual selfishness is a social institution— the market. It is the invisible hand which miraculously transforms a welter of competitive and conflicting individual actions into the best of all possible worlds. So long as we leave economic decisions to the market, the argument runs, we can look forward to a secular (or monotonic, to use the economists' jargon) increase in human welfare. This buoyant view of the human prospect rests on two central, and complementary, assumptions—of an infinitely expanding technological frontier and the rejection of any physical limits to economic growth.
Historically at odds with the economists' buoyancy is the profoundly pessimistic, or dystopian, vision of the biologists. Ironically, biologists also practise methodological individualism, promoting with equal passion a view of human nature as essentially selfish. Only in this case, individuals are believed to maximise not their utility, but their 'inclusive fitness', the prospects of survival for the concerned individual and his closest relatives. Unlike the economists, however, biologists have no correcting mechanism to fall back upon. When coupled with an awareness of the physical limits to growth, their perspective on human selfishness can only forecast doom, as an expanding human population exceeds the 'carrying capacity' of their habitat. From Malthus through Darwin to the Club of Rome, there is a long line of doomsday prophets, who believe the conflict between individual and social rationality does not admit of any solution.
Not surprisingly, these two philosophies have historically held sway in the capitalist west—they are observed in their purest form in that apogee of competitive individualism, the United States of America (cf Bellan et al 1985; Hofstadter 1960). Yet
they do have a powerful influence over large sections of the intellectual and political elite in the third world. However, these two ideologies serve us only as a point of departure—our concern is with the large middle ground they have left un-colonised, which is occupied by social philosophies whose defining feature, as far as we are concerned, is that they do not view human nature as essentially selfish. On the contrary, for these philosophies the construction of community (and by extension, the de-emphasising of individualism) becomes an overriding concern.
There are three generic types of 'communitarian' ideologies. The first, which Marxists dismiss as 'idealist", holds that the construction of community can only come about through the affirmation of shared spiritual values. Idealists deplore the loss of meaning and desacralising of life in contemporary society, calling for a return to the religious and ethical traditions of the premodern world. In the environmental field, this trend is represented by the likes of Lynn White and Theodore Roszak, who seek to replace a modern ethic of domination with a religion, drawing from earlier traditions, which preaches harmony with nature. It must be noted that this philosophy is not always socialist—indeed, the tenacious defence of hierarchy as 'natural' for 'functional' for the society) by some of its adherents is uncomfortably close to sociobiology (cf Passmore 1980).
Diametrically opposed to the idealists are the Marxists. Their diagnosis of the modern predicament runs on strictly 'materialist' lines; here it is the unequal distribution of resources, caused by concentration of the means of production in the hands of the ruling capitalist class, which leads to human deprivation. In this perspective, the market, far from being a rational allocator of resources (as in the neoclassical vision) reinforces existing inequalities. Moreover, by treating nature as a free good, the market encourages environmental degradation through the pursuit of profit. The abolition of private ownership of the means of production, and the replacement of the market by centralised economic planning, are the preconditions for a just, and ecologically stable, society. Marxists do believe in the forging of social bonds—only, they hold the state and the vanguard party to be the ultimate guarantor of community. , The third variant of communitarianism cannot be defined as precisely. It is, as it were, a philosophy in the making, an eclectic brew drawing selectively upon anarchism, agrarianism and other non-Marxist socialist traditions. For want of a better label, we may call it 'decentralised
socialism' (Martinez Alier (1987) prefers 'ecological neo-narodnism'). It shares the idealists' suspicions of the modern state and the exaggerated claims of modern technology, while it is at one with the Marxists in their opposition to hierarchy. While it draws heavily on Marxist categories in its analysis of capitalist and colonial expansion and their impact on the natural environment, in its programme of social reconstruction it radically departs from Marxism. As institutions embodying the concentration of power, the party and state are antithetical to the building of socialist values. The construction of community must begin from the bottom up, through what the prince among socialists, Kropotkin, called 'mutual aid'.
Ill
Three Worlds of Indian Environmentalism
How do these generic strands resonate within the Indian environmental movement? Here it is useful to distinguish between the social base of the environmental movement and its articulate leadership, or between what one might call the 'private' and 'public' faces of environmentalism (of Guha 1989). In fact, a large segment of what presently passes for the environmental movement is a peasant movement draped in the cloth of environmentalism. Thus a number of local initiatives in defence of traditional rights in land, water, forests and other living resources collectively constitute what sympathetic intellectuals have termed the 'environmental' movement.
The conflicts which these movements symbolise are not (as in the western case) about 'productive' versus 'protective' uses of the environment, but about alternate productive uses For example, commercial forestry, large dams and fishing by trawlers all represent intensive and profit-oriented modes of resource use which are threatening the ecological and social viability of traditional, subsistence-oriented uses of those very resources. In the last decade and a half, such conflicts have given rise to a number of local initiatives in defence of traditional rights, which intellectuals argue can be read as a devastating indictment of the resource illiteracy of development planning since independence. Underlining the close links between impoverishment of the resource base and impoverishment of large sections of the population, the more vocal segment of the movement (the 'environmentalists', properly so called) has called for a com-plete overhaul of the present economic development strategy, and its replacement
Economic and Political Weekly December 3, 1988
2579
with a more ecologically conscious (and socially liberating) path of development.
While there is widespread agreement within the movement as regards the failure of the present development model, there is no consensus or likely alternatives. Here I believe that one San see the emergence of three distinct ideological perspectives within the Indian environmental movement, each resting on a different identification of the genesis of the problem and articulating rather different mechanisms of redressal. This identification is however not exhaustive, but indicative. It is entirely possible that none of these ideologies is present in a particular struggle, or that adherents of all three might participate unitedly in a specific local initiative. However, careful study and interaction with groups spread all over the country does seem to suggest that the three strands identified below are the most representative tendencies within the movement as a whole. What follows is by no means a history of the Indian environmental movement, but a preliminary characterisation of these three ideological strands.
The first strand, which we may call Crusading Gandhian, relies heavily on a religious idiom in its rejection of the modern way of life. It upholds the precapitalist and precolonial village community as the exemplar of ecological and social harmony: Gandhfs invocation of Ram Rajya being taken literally, rather than metaphorically. The methods of action favoured by this group are squarely in the Gandhism tradition—or at least of one interpretation of that tradition—fasts, padayairas, and poojas, in which a traditional cultural idiom is used to further the strictly modern cause of environmen-talism. Crusading Gandhians are concerned above all with the stranglehold of modernist philosophies (rationalism, economic growth) on the Indian intelligentsia; through the written and spoken word, they propagate an alternative, non-modern philosophy whose roots lie in Indian tradition (cf Nandy 1987; Bahuguna 1983).
The second strand can be termed, less controversially, as Appropriate Technology. Less strident in its opposition to industrial society, it strives for a working synthesis of agriculture and industry, big and small units, and western and eastern (or. modern and traditional) technological traditions. Both in its ambivalence about religion and in its unequivocal criticisms of hierarchy in modern and traditional society, it is markedly influenced by western socialism. In its emphasis on constructive work, it also taps a somewhat different vein in the Gtndhian tradition. Appropriate Technologists have done pioneering work in the creation and diffusion of resource conser-
ving, labour intensive, and socially liberating technologies. Their emphasis is not so much on challenging the 'system' (or the system's ideological underpinnings), as in demonstrating in practice a set of technological and social 'alternatives to the present model of urban-industrial development (cf Reddy 1982; Agarwal 198,6).
The third and most eclectic strand embraces a variety of groups who have arrived at environmentalism only after a protracted engagement with conventional political philosophies, notably Marxism. While including elements of the Naxalite movement and radical Christian groups, Ecological Marxists are perhaps most closely identified with the Peoples Science Movements (for example, the Kerala Sastra Sahirya Parishad), whose initial concern with 'taking science to the people' has widened to include environmental protection. The PSMs can be distinguished from the Gandhian elements in two major ways: in their unremitting hostility to tradition, and in the relatively greater emphasis on confrontational movements. Although such groups have spent a great deal of effort in spreading the message of Marxism among the masses, in general they abhor constructive work. The fashioning of ecologically sound technological alternatives, they believe, must await the victory of socialism. Here systemic economic change is viewed as logically prior to ecological stability, and political action towards that end becomes an overriding priority (cf KSSP 1984).
These contrasting perspectives may be further clarified by examining each strand's attitudes towards socialism and science, as well as their style and scale of activism. Most Crusading Gandhians reject socialism as a western concept. Some among them gloss over inequalities in traditional Indian society, others even attempt to justify them. Clearly the Marxists are the most consistent in their attacks on hierarchy. The Appropriate Technologists, for their part, while sufficiently ifluenced by Marxism so as not to wish away the problem, have rarely shown the will to challenge inequality through a process of struggle. Attitudes towards modern science also vary widely. The Gandhians consider science to be a brick in the edifice of industrial society responsible for some of its worst excesses. Marxists yield to no one in their admiration, even worship, of modern science and technology, viewing science and the 'scientific temper' as an indispensable ally in the construction of a new social order. Here the Appropriate Technologists are the most pragmatic, arguing for a judicious mix of traditional and modern knowledge (and technique) to fulfil the needs of social justice, local
self-reliance, and environmental stability. As for the scale of activism, this last strand works at a micro level (normally a group of villages) in demonstrating the viability of an alternate strategy of economic development (while this commitment to grassroots work is commendable, it must be said that some Appropriate Technologists have not only acted locally, but thought locally too)/Most PSMs cast a somewhat wider net, perhaps working at the level of the district, and occasionally (as in the case of the KSSP) the state. The Gandhians have the largest reach, carrying their crusade across the country and indeed across the globe. Finally, the three strands also differ in their preferred sectors of activism. Their rural romanticism has led the Gandhians to exclusively emphasise agrarian environmental problems, a preference reinforced by their well known hostility to modern industry. While Appropriate Technologists do recognise that some degree of industrialisation is inevitable (though not of the present energy-intensive kind) in practice they have worked largely on technologies aimed at liberating work on the farm. As a consequence both strands have seriously neglected urban and industrial environmental problems, whose impact on the life and livelihood of poor Indians is scarcely less important. Here the Ecological Marxists, with their natural constituency among miners and workers, have been more alert to questions of industrial pollution and work safety.
While Crusading Gandhian, Appropriate Technologists and Ecological Marxists represent the three most forceful strands in the environment-development debate in this country, two additional points of view should be briefly mentioned. One looks to protect the environment while excluding development from its horizons—this is the wildlife protection movement, votaries of which have tended to value certain animal species (for example, the tiger) higher than the less privileged members of their own species. In fact, many wildlife lovers adhere to a Malthusian interpretation in which the high birth rates of the poor (especially the rural poor) are held to be the main cause of environmental degradation. Then we have the incurable optimists, who view development' in isolation from the environment, in the naive belief that there are no physical limits to economic growth and that rapid industrialisation on the western model can be brought about in a matter of decades. While Indian economists do not always practise methodological individualism, and many hold the state rather than the market to be the most efficient allocator of resources, they are by and large as innocent of ecological concerns as their 'neo-classical' counterparts
Economic and Political Weekly December 3, 1988
and as admiring, of energy-intensive growth paths (Singh 1978; Nadkarni 1987).
IV
A Hundred Flowers?
The emergence of the Indian environmental movement can perhaps be dated to 1973, the year the Chipko movement began. Given its relatively brief history, it has enjoyed considerable success. The movement has forced the state to acknowledge the inseparable links between economic wellbeing and environmental sustainability, while the exponential coverage of ecological issues in the media (printed and visual, English and regional language) can only be a source of statisfaction. So must be the proliferation of voluntary groups working in the field of environmental action and eco-restoration. Perhaps the greatest failure has been the lack of response from political parties, especially those an the left.
Yet there is little room for complacency. Take for instance three of the movement's most trumpeted successes— Chipko, Bedthi and Silent Valley. A closer look reveals that these victories were all made possible only through a unique combination of factors. Chipko's success is clearly related to its place of origin. Emerging in an area of great cultural-religious significance for the majority of the country's population, and led by Gandhians with close links to the ruling party, it was able to force the hands of the state. The opposition to the Bedthi dam was led by rich and influential horticulturists, who counted among their supporters and castemen the last chief minister of Karnataka. As for Silent Valley, the late prime minister's desire to carve a niche for herself in the international environmental community (and the influence of prominent individuals such as Salim Ali) played no mean part in the final decision to scrap the project. Chipko notwithstanding, commercial forestry continues its march of destruction elsewhere in the subcontinent, while the reverses in Silent Valley and Bedthi have scarcely deterred the unholy trinity of engineers, contractors and civil servants from realising their dream of turning India into the most dammed country on earth.
The celebration of small victories should not, therefore, blind us to the larger defeats. Assuredly, things can only get worse before they begin to get better. There arc three solid reasons why economic growth in India will continue to use resources both wastefully and unsustainable The economic system of capitalism is inherently expansionist;
fuelled by narrow criteria of profitability, it is completely insensitive to the questions of relative factor endowments arfti ecological stability. Ideologically, this wasteful and destructive economic system is buttressed by the seductive hold of modernisation theory on the minds of our elite. Our present political system is hardly equipped to serve environmental ends either. Five years (the time horizons of our most enlightened politicians) is too short a period for ecological reconstruction. Moreover, the links between big business and the state, and the centralising tendencies in the present constitutional set-up, further shrink the space for dissent and debate.
In the circumstances, the environmental opposition must simultaneously operate on three flanks. In the sphere of the economy, it must strengthen the work of the Appropriate Technologists in presenting before the public a set of resource conserving and socially liberating technical alternatives. In the 'realm of ideas, it must draw upon the compelling arguments of the Gandhians in highlighting the cultural and spiritual costs of much of what today passes for economic 'development'. And in its political struggles, it can do worse than invoke the long and valuable experience of left groups in forging bonds of solidarity among those most seriously affected by environmental degradation.
Notwithstanding the shrill sectarian cries of the most vocal in the three trends, therefore, I believe that this ideological plurality in the Indian environmental movement is to be welcomed. Actually, the three contending ideologies are exercising a visible (though not always acknowledged) influence on each other. Thus the relentless critique of the Gandhians has made some PSM groups more guarded in their celebration of modern science, while the incisive Marxian analyses of class exploitation have forced at least a few Gandhians to be more sensitive to the fractures within their own tradition. Among the three trends I have identified, the Appropriate Technologists can be seen as occupying the slippery and ever shifting middle ground. However, both Crusading Gandhians and Ecological Marxists are playing a critical role in widening the horizons of the movement and sharpening the terms of debate. These two tendencies, too easily dismissed as ideological and 'political 'extremists' respectively, are, as it were, creating a public space for the activities of the Appropriate Technology strand. In the formulation of an ex-peasant who at times wasn't that far from being an ecological socialist himself, let a hundred flowers bloom!

India: Environmental Movements and their Ideologies

Part A: Any Four of the following – give 12 full marks

I. Crusading Gandhianse.g. Chipko’sSunderlalBahuguna.

—  Call for Moral regeneration

—  Hark back to older Indian traditions of reverence for nature

—  Emphasis on Village republics, democracy.

II. Ecological Marxists e.g. Kerala SastraSahityaParishad.

—  Unjust distribution of resources, exploitation – must work towards equity.

—  Reject tradition

—  Establish an Economically Just society.

III. Appropriate Technologists e.g. Dasholi Gram SwarajyaMandal

—  Working synthesis of agriculture and industry

—  Mix of best of Western and Eastern technologies

—  Small is beautiful

IV. Scientific Conservatione.g. Watershed Projects

—  Use Science to increase livelihoods and to preserve environment.

—  Emphasis on Management

V. Wilderness – Nature Parks, e.g. Sariska Tiger Reserve; Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP)Borivali.

·         Preserve certain biodiverse regions, maintain pristine conditions.

·         As far as possible, remove human habitations

If instead of the above they give the following, give 6 compensatory marks, but put in a remark about the mistake:

History: Worldwide Environmental trends in the past:

1.       Back to the land

2.       Scientific Conservation

3.       Preservation of Wilderness, parks, reserves

Part B: Your own perspective on the environment – max 8 marks. Be generous. I expect them to have some ideas of ur own.

ENVIRONMENTALISM: A GLOBAL HISTORY (PART 2)

PART II- ENVIRONMENTALISM’S SECOND WAVE

The ‘Green Agenda’ of the first waves was relegated to the margins of public life by an event of a global consequence— ‘The Second World War’ (political situation across the world-victory of ‘Good’ (democracy) over ‘Evil’ (authoritarian fascist) India’s freedom-other nations too). There was a pre-occupation with ‘productivity and production,-developed/developing nations)

1941-American President (Roosevelt) Franklin R. spoke of a world founded on 4 essential freedoms- freedom of expression and worship, freedom from want and fear- a decade later it seemed as if the 4 freedoms most cherished by the ‘Affluent Society' were:

§  Freedom to produce,

§  Freedom to consume,

§  Freedom to get rich,

§  Freedom to get richer!

The goal in developing countries was removal of poverty- Leaders like Nehru in India, Sukarno in Indonesia, Nasser in Egypt believed in development- rapid Industrialization would end poverty and unemployment and make for a strong and self-reliant society. Thus called for intensive use of nature and natural resources—“the earth is infinitely blessed with natural riches” (Henry Morgenthau U.S Secretary of Treasury 1945 at the time of founding the World Bank)

In this way the prospect of unending Economic growth promised to the people of North and the prospect of becoming like America, offered to developing and under developed countries.- ‘Science’ looked upon as an “endless frontier” ‘technology’ as an inexhaustible resource.

A discordant voice came from Berkeley Geographer Carl Sauer “We have not learnt the difference between Yield and loot”

F.F Schumacher: German Economist believed that the ideology of economic expansion had legitimized the exploitation of non-renewable resources such as coal and oil. Man had lived off his income and is now forcing himself into nature’s larder and emptying it out with increasing speed every year. This would surely lead to self- destruction. (Mumford) he deplored the rule of ‘power, prestige, profit’. Love must take the lead only then will the earth and life on it be safe again.

Mira Behn (Madeline Slade) Gandhiji’s discipline her primary concern was with the rehabilitation of the village economy but was worried by the way in which nature was being plundered and despoiled and disorganized by man. She stressed the need to understand and study nature’s balance and develop our lives within her laws, if we have survive as a physically healthy and morally decent species. This phase of ‘Ecological innocence’ stretched from the end of S.W.W to the last quarter of 1962.

THE ECOLOGY OF AFFLUENCE.

It was in this year the second wave took off the medium being a book (1962) described as a ‘Bible’ and a founding event of modern environmentalism. This landmark book ‘SILENT SPRING’ was the work of Rachael Carson a biologist. It was a book on pesticide pollution.-The central problem was the contamination of man’s total environment that can cause great harm. These chemicals such as D.D.T (Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) an insecticide that had found favor among farmers and scientists. Though used for a worthy purpose to increase food production by eliminating pests, these had now become ‘elixirs of death”. Chemicals applied to plants and trees, slowly leached into the soil and water thus entering the food chain-passing from one organism to another-from insects and birds to fish and animals, they went on to enter the human body in small doses. Thus these chemicals posed a danger to diverse forms of life. The title “Silent Spring” refers to the death of the ‘Robin’ (birds) in parts of New England. They heralded the coming of spring. Now spring comes unheralded, early mornings are silent. She speaks of the Eagle kills (American national bird) and the Salmon deaths before arriving finally at the threat to human life though chemical ingestion, illustrated by the increasing incidence of cancer. ‘Silent Spring’ helped environmentalist that, “nature was an intricate web of life whose interwoven strands lead from microbes to man”. This called for a modest, gentle and cautious attitude towards nature. The book made people rethink-The federal Government outlawed the use of D.D.T and a Pesticide Control Act was passed in 1972 and a Toxic substances control Act 1974 which monitored the use of chemicals. The impact of this book was not confined to the US alone. It was translated into 12 languages and there was a resurgence of environmentalist in Europe. Rachael Carson wrote ‘Silent Spring’ as if unaware of the first wave of environmentalism and the important contributions from Marsh, Muir, and Leopold. Therefore it is referred to as the Age of Ecological Innocence, which seems to have effectively wiped away the memory and heritage of the first wave of environmentalism.

WAVES WITHIN THE WAVE.

Carson inspired a lot of environmental debated in the 1960’s and 1970’s and several biologist wrote extensively on varied aspects, The Destruction of California (Dasmann), The population bomb (Ehrlich), The tragedy of the Commons (Hardin), in the UK the first to ring alarm bells were F.Fraser Darling, C.H. Waddington, Eric Ashby and Julian Huxley all biologists with an interest in protecting the environment. An Economist E.F. Schumacher in 1973 published ‘Small is Beautiful’ which expressed the need to use machines where the production process would be cheap, use little energy and be sensitive to the environment. He was influenced by Gandhiji.

Thus in both Europe and North America there was a lot of environmental concern, many works, some scholarly others passimate. Many environmental activists were considered by the dominant ruling ideologies as “backward-looking reactionaries, ‘prophets of doom’ (the Socialists and Economists). Ecologist Barry Commoner wrote that economic motivation resulted in anti-ecological changes in technology and production since the Second World War. Spanish scholar Juan Martinez Alier coined the term ‘effluents of affluence’ to refer to the changes that have turned the nation’s factories, farms, vehicles and shops into seed-beds of pollution: e.g. nitrates from fertilizers, phosphates from detergents, toxic residues from pesticides.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT: From Ideas to Activism: in the US and Europe.

From 1969 there is a change in activism and the approaches adopted. Earlier activists used the power of their words to persuade people to join or follow them. Some worked closely with politicians and public officials. Contemporary environmentalism tended to resort to more militant forms of action. There were several movements each having a distinct identity: Feminist movements, Civil rights movement, environmental movements. There were marches and processions. Earth Day was held on April 22^nd 1970 described as the ‘largest organized demonstration in human history’.

Swedish sociologist Andrew Jamison has written about the new social movements that were the work of the young people impatient with the political methods of the elders it was a “Revolt of the Young”.

Environmentalism steadily grew in support and influence. As affluent societies grew, its members wanted more food to consume. There was a shift to the 5 day week. Consumers had both money and means to travel. There was a growing interest in the wild and beautiful to relax, ‘nature’ being viewed as one more good to be consumed. In 1970’s and 1980’s environmentalists relied on lawyers and scientists who would work with, rather work against the industry and government. Legislations were drafted to protect nature or control effluents. Over a period of time the routinization and professionalization has in recent years generated a counter-movement---a struggle to return environmentalism to its confrontational past. In US, this radical reaction was given by Dave Foreman, founder of Earth First! According to him many environmentalists had begun to resemble bureaucrats and this needed to change. In Britain, Chris Maile influenced by Gandhiji returned to their half forgotten tradition of dissent and moral authority.

RADICAL AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTALISM.

There are two legitimate claimants to the ‘radical’ (purity and militancy) label. The first strand in the wilderness movement is known as “DEEP ECOLOGY”. Its origin dates to an essay by a Norwegian; Arné Naess (1972) who urged environmentalists to embrace an ethic termed “biospheric egalitarianism” that places humans on a more or less equal footing with other species. This would be truly a ‘deep ecology’ in contrast to the ‘shallow’ ecology which is only concerned pollution and resource depletion. This ethic found followers with the scholarly community. A new journal ‘Environmental Ethics’ influenced a lot of debates in the academic discipline of philosophy. Several activists also took it up very enthusiastically. (North America)- The Canadian province of British Columbia (militant efforts to defend the wild)→blockaded logging roads, with fallen trees, boulders and then own bodies, dangling from trees 100 feet off the ground etc. Deep ecologists considered themselves as the intellectual, spiritual and political vanguard of American environmentalism. However then, critics accused them of ignoring problems of social inequality both within the countries of the North and between the North and the South. They speak of a more radical strand the Second strand→ “Environmental Justice Movement” while Deep ecology was rooted in the wild. Environmental justice was firmly rooted in human inhabitations. The threats it fears are toxic waste dumps and landfills, excretions of the affluence e.g. Love Canal (New York) recipient of 43 million pounds of waste produced by Hooker Chemicals. Love Canal passes through a white area but the toxic waste sites are located in areas inhabited by the minority communities. African-American has been put at risk due to the waste dumps and landfills.

Sociologist Robert Bullard was the first to raise his voice against this problem of effluent discriminations. He found that in the city of Houston where Whites outnumber the Blacks, 3 out of 4 disposal sites had been placed in Black neighborhoods. This did give rise to movements, protests, demonstrations, campaigns and lawsuits against the dangerous dump-sites and landfills often making industry and government accountable. Women have played a leading role for which the health of their children was not a “negotiable category”. A coordinating body ‘Citizens Clearing House for Hazardous Waste’ (CCHW) along with activist Lois Gibbs outlined alternatives to production and dispersal of toxics, the FOUR R’s--- Recycling, Reduction, Reuse and Reclamation, leading to a new reorientation of American environmentalism. The new anti-toxics movement was rooted in people’s immediate experience and comprised of the working classes and low income people. The principle of Social Justice became important.

THE GERMAN GREENS:    

Origin can be traced to the 1960’s. After the Second World War, the ruling Christian Democratic Union urged people to forget the past and work to building an ‘affluent society’. In 1979 a Green party was formed. In 1978 a group of environmentalists taking part in elections in Germany put forward candidates under the “Green List”. The German Greens stand out for their political victories and for the moral challenge they offer to the governing beliefs of Industrial civilization. Indian Scholar Saral Sarkar a resident of Germany observes that the BI’s (Burger Initiative- Citizens actions) passed through 3 distinct phases:

i)                    From 1969-1972 they operated as “one point actions” ( local efforts to stop damaging industries rehabilitate battered women and drug addicts, construct schools, playgrounds without waiting for the Government to do so

ii)                  After oil price hike in 1973, Western Germany expanded is nuclear industry. Theme was Ecology- controversy over nuclear power (fears of the contribution of nuclear plants to pollution, their links to the armament industry and the secrecy around them). There was opposition to Atomic energy.

iii)                From 1977 efforts resulted in an ‘Alternative Political Alliance’ (Green Party). The Greens have contributed by drawing attention to the rights of other nations and future generations and the disadvantaged section of their society i.e. Women industrialized nations were urged to curb their voracious appetite (they consume ¾ of the world’s energy and resources) and allow the southern nations to grow out of poverty. The Green Party (Green Femminism included) has transformed the political landscape of Germany. This is considered to be the finest achievement of the second wave of environmentalism.

  THE SOUTHERN CHALLENGE:

Societies of the third world (developing nations) though far flung and richly varied among themselves are united by the poverty of the masses of their people’s:

1)      Penan- Malaysia (community of hunters and farmers)- their forests were encroached by commercial loggers, their  rivers, exposed their soils and destroyed plants and animals. Penan struggle support from Green peace, Rainforest action network.

2)      Sardar Sarovar Dam- (Narmada) 460 feet (Medha Patkar)

3)      Thailand (1970) - forest department initiated conversions of acres of natural forests into mono-cultural plantations of eucalyptus- peasants opposed these plantations.

4)      Nigeria (1995) military dictatorship hung 9 dissenters for drawing attention on the impact of oil-drilling by Royal- Shell on the Ogoni tribe.

5)      Kenya’s Green belt movement- founded by Waangari Matthai (her country’s first woman professor) urged women to protect and improve their environment. Starting with 7 saplings planted on 5^th June 1977 (World Environment Day) the movement had distributed 7,000,000 saplings by 1992 in 22 districts (Kenya). There were varied other forms of social action---struggles of dam displaced people (Narmada) peasants, fisher folk against environmental degradation. There were also struggle for environmental renewal, soil conservation etc. Most struggles and movements highlighted the problems and consequences on the local communities as it was a fact that environmental degradation often intensities Economic deprivation. In India social protests took various forms---‘Dharna’ (sit down strike) ‘Pradarshan’ mass processions, ‘Hartal’ (general strike) ‘Rasta Roko’ (transport blockade) ‘Bhook Hartal’ (hunger strike), Gherao, Jail Bharo Andolan.

One important feature of the environmentalism of the poor was the role of women (India, Malaysia, Brazil, Kenya, Mexico) - Women and nature (Eco-feminism).

March 27^th 1973. (Chipko Movement) Mandal (a remote Himalayan village in the Upper Gangetic plain) episode (India)

In Brazil- Amazon by Francisco ‘Chico’ Mendes- labor organizer who achieved international fame for promoting the ‘Ecology of Justice’ in a region devastated by economic exploitation. From the Mid 1970’s the rubber tappers have their union. In 1987 they joined the inhabitants of the Amazon to form a ‘Forest People’s Alliance’ to defend the forest and land rights of its members. In December 1988 (22^nd) Chico Mendes was shot dead.

1)      The Northern Environmentalism highlighted the significance of value change (shift to post materialism), The southern movements seem to be rooted in material conflicts with claims to economic justice (rights to natural resources of poorer communities)

2)      The Southern groups have been more adversarial with regard to their government (opposing laws and policies considered unjust and destructive). While the northern groups have been constructive i.e. they have worked with their governments in promoting benign laws and policies

3)      Northern Greens have been attentive to the rights of the victimized or endangered species (animals and plants), whilst the Southern Greens have been very alert to the rights of the less fortunate members of their own species (human beings).

                              However all environmentalists have had to intend with the anti-environmental lobby. In the US it’s the businessman and Industrialist whilst in India and Malaysia they are joined by state officials and technocrats, with both private and public promoters of development attacking environmentalists as motivated by foreigners, as creating law and order problems.

SOCIALISM AND ENVIRONMENTALISM

Early Soviet Environmentalism

1^st World countries comprised the affluent societies of Europe and North America along with Japan, Australia and New Zealand.

3^rd World: Poor nations---Africa, Asia, Latin America

2^nd World: Neither rich nor poor, who before the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, were committed to the Ideology of State Socialism: e.g. Soviet Union.

After the Bolshevik Revolution (1917) the leaders believed that in order to catch up with the affluent societies they needed massive Industrialization. Joseph Stalin wanted this to be achieved in 10 years. In 1920’s technology dominated nature, planning helped to extract from nature all that man required and perhaps even more. In the first 10 years of communist rule a conservation movement began to take shape. Soviet scientists were asking for sites of virgin nature to be selected on ecological criteria, to act as a ‘baseline’ from which to judge the suitability of human intervention in other unprotected areas. (Zapovedniki or protected areas)

1920’s seem to be the “Golden Age” for soviet science and for soviet environmentalism as well. This got a set back in 1929-1934 (1^st five year plan). Ecologists and Conservationists were attacked and criticized, “no need for a Saccharine—sentimental approach to nature” as it prohibited further development of socialism.

China: the Three Gorges Project—In 1920’s—A dam across 3 Gorges on the Yangtze river (185 meters high i.e. 620 feet) communist China punished dissenters. (In 1989 scholars-journalists published a book- Yangtze! Yangtze! which criticized the project)

Even in 1993 (August) villagers in Gansu province protested against contamination of their water by a chemical plant, leading to death of fish and livestock and causing respiratory illness. Their complaints were disregarded and when the peasants took to the streets, police were called. They killed two protestors and injured several others. Several attempts at creating awareness and creation of non-political groups of nature lovers have not been fruitful. “Affirmative voices are allowed to be heard but the negative voices are often suppressed”.

Several protests and movements did take place in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Romania and later once again in Soviet Union when Mikhail Gorbachev came to power with his policies of ‘Glasnost’ (openness in 1985). From the mid 70’s writers and scientists slowly criticized the foul smelling residues of unchecked industrialization. This criticism increased in the 80’s (accident at the Chernobyl) nuclear plant—biggest disaster in planned development Green Movements have been strong in India and most influential in the United States and Western Europe where there is a great commitment to political democracy.

ONE WORLD OR TWO?

·         The World Wildlife Fund celebrated its 25^th anniversary in September 1986 in a novel way in a small town in Italy—Assisi. It brought together representative of five of the world’s great religions—Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism—to harness these diverse and widespread energies towards a collective goal. The protection of ‘One Earth’ which is the abode for us all.

·         By 1970’s environmentalism had emerged as a world wide movement

·         By 1980’s to the list of regional and local problems were added those that were global. (Climate changes, green house effect, emissions) etc.

·         In 1989- ‘Time’ magazine chose the Earth as the ‘Planet of the Year’ calling for protecting the earth—a universal­­­ crusade to save the planet

·         1987- Norwegian Prime Minister Go. Harlem Brundtland presented a report on Sustainable development.

·         1992— Earth Summit was held in Rio De Janeiro (June) —United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) —180 countries participated. It was the largest international conference ever held

Three major problems were discussed

1)      Deforestation. 2)Climate Change 3) Loss of Biodiversity

The question of climate change was very significant and it was recommended that each country agree to stabilize its carbon emissions by an agreed cut-off date say 2015. This was attacked by southern environmentalists—Anil Agarwal, Sunita Narain. (Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi) They made a distinction between “Survival Emissions” of the poor and “Luxury Emissions” of the rich.

The summit was also said to be a ‘Forest convention’ which sought to strengthen global control over forest resources. There were differences between the Northern and Southern environmentalists, while:

I)                    The Northern environmentalists were in favor of an international management regime. Their southern counterparts insisted that National control must make way for local control.

II)                  Disputes arose over a proposed biodiversity treaty which was considered to be favorable to the northern activists.

III)                Many felt that the environmental crisis was precipitated by the wasteful and excessive consumption of the North (80% resources being used by 20% population in Europe, North America, Oceania and Japan).

                        Despite all the views and differences at Rio there is something that unites different kinds of environmentalists— ‘The Idea of Restraint’. 

ENVIRONMENTALISM: A GLOBAL HISTORY (PART 1)

ENVIRONMENTALISM: A GLOBAL HISTORY

                                                                                        -RAMCHANDRA GUHA

The 1960’s witnessed a lot of protests-pacifism, civil rights struggle, counter-culture and environmental movements were a part of it while the others either lost out or lost their way. The “Greeen Wave” has only intensified gaining steadily in power, prestige and public appeal.

Guha’s book gives a historical account and analysis of the origins and expressions of environmental concerns of how individuals and institutions have perceived, propogated, and acted upon their experience of environmental decay. Guha argues that environmentalism must be viewed as a ‘social programme’, a charter of action which seeks to protect cherished habitats, protest against their degradation, and prescribe less destructive technologies and lifestyles.

When did the environmental movement begin? In most countries environmentalism seems to have followed a broadly similar pattern – an early period of pioneering and prophecy, culminating in recent decades in a widespread social movement.

Ramchandra guha speaks of environmentalism’s 1^st WAVE: (initial response to industrialism) and 2^nd WAVE: (intellectual response + mass movements)

PART I- ENVIRONMENTALISM’S FIRST WAVE

FIRST WAVE OF ENVIRONMENTALISM: highlights the initial response to the onset of industrialism. This wave proceeded step by step with the Industrial revolution which altered the natural world through new methods of resource, extraction, production, transportation- nature was used and abused. Populations increased and humans produced more and consumed more leading to habitat degradation greater pollution. The pace of environmental destruction accelerated- nature became a source of cheap raw material as well as a sink for dumping unwanted residues of economic growth.

The industrialization of Europe affected rural economy- transformed agriculture through the adoption of capital-intensive market-oriented methods of production. The imperial expansion resulted in the white colonists taking possession of large parts of the globe and re-orienting local economies. Through the 18^th +19^th centuries, the British had become world leaders in deforestation followed by the Dutch, the Portugese, the French, the Belgians, the Germans- all these were the prime agents of Ecological destruction in their colonies. And there was now a perception of an ‘environmental crisis’ as even though the Industrial city was the prime generator of ecological degradation. The burden was felt in the countryside and the colony. Thus we see that the first voices were raised by the residents of countryside. Like other social movements the environmental movement has within its fold a variety of individuals, trends, traditions and ideologies.

1^st Wave explores 3 varieties- each a response to the Industrial society.

1. Moral + Cultural critique of the Industrial Revolution: is expressed in a rich literary tradition, BACK TO LAND. Great Romantic poets like William Wordsworth, who saw only “the darker side of the great change” resulting from the “Industrial Revolution”. The outrage done to nature, by cities+ factories such that common people were no longer breathing “fresh air” or “treading the green earth”. Through his poetry+ philosophy he maintains that even though the village folk were illiterate + inarticulate they were in close touch with nature than the city dweller.

 John Ruskin: Prof. of poetry at oxford focused on the physical consequence of Industrialism. According to him modern man has desacralised nature, viewing it as a source of raw material to be exploited, emptying it of the mystery, wonder + divinity that the pre- modern man saw in the natural world.

Ruskin started a campaign (1876) to prevent the extension of the railroad into Lake District-(tourists would destroy the district). Ruskin built institutions (Guild-St. George) that ran farms + craft shops which stressed self-sufficiency + simplicity. Handicrafts were revived by his disciple William Morris who wanted to turn England from a grimy backyard of a workshop into a Garden.

Edward Carpenter (mathematician, ordained priest gave up the holy orders + a prestigious Cambridge fellowship to move back to land. He set up a commune on a hill above the factory of town of Sheffield offering a union of manual labour + clean air as an alternative to Industrial Civilization. The commune grew its own food, ‘vegetables + baked its own bread’.

          Wordswoth, Ruskin,Carpenter, Moris influenced and inspired the establishment of an array of environmental societies in the late 19^th century that helped set aside forests, wetlands or preserved historic buildings + parks thus saving atleast some parts of England from the contaminatry effects of urban-Industrial civilization.

      By the late 19^th century Germany had surpassed England as a front runner in technological+ Industrial development. Here too poets + writers have been instrumental in campaigning to preserve their rural land and their forests. (Rainer Maria Rilke-190) kept reminding that Germany was a nation of peasants + shepherds, not of factory workers and entrepreneurs, which it was now becoming. According to Rilke, peasants were the backbone of the nation+ forests the repository of German Culture- an inspiration for its poets, artists, musicians. Industrialization was undermining “German-ness”.

     However both in England and Germany the rural romantics were a minority. The two nations clashed in World War 1 which revealed to the world the destructive power of modern technology. After the war there occurred a revival of the agrarian ideal throughout Europe. Even Nazi thinkers emphasized the mystic unity between the peasant, the forest and national spirit.

 In India Mahatma Gandhi was influenced by Edward Carpenters Civilization: “its cause and cure” often considered as a text to the back to land movement. Gandhiji said “The World has enough for everybody’s need, but not for one person’s greed”. His vision for a free India was a rural one as he felt there were natural limits to Industrialization of the whole world. He opposed industrialization of agriculture (modern methods- fertilizer, chemicals- as these would affect the soil and its nutrients). He advocated the use of organic manure.

 Gandhian vision- practical, English vision-romantic and viewed as an act of defiance against Industrialization.

II) Variety: Ideology of Scientific Conservation.

Conservation Internationalism

In May 1864 ‘Man and Nature’: or physical Geography as modified by human action was published- author was a Vermont scholar and diplomat George Perkins Marsh. This booked sparked the first wave of American environmentalism Lewis Mumford remarked “ Marsh’s opus was the fountainhead of the conservation movement. The same year a German Botanist employed by the government of British India was invited to head the newly created Indian Forest Service—Dietrich Brandis. He and Marsh shared a similar concern with the pace of deforestation and a faith in the powers of scientific expertise to reverse it. The Indian Forest Department which he headed for almost 2 decades has been one of the most influential institutions in the history of conservation. Established in 1864 it is by the biggest landlord in a large country

From the late (18^th Western Scientists began exploring links between deforestation, desiccation and drought (European colonization affected large parts of Asia, Africa leading to massive environmental degradation affecting rainfall)

George Perkins Marsh (North America) Dietrich Brandis in South Asia were in vanguard of what was to emerge as a scientific movement of a global consequence. This second variety of environmentalism “Scientific Conservation” chose not to turn its back on industrial society but to tame its excesses. They propagated careful research guidance by experts to reduce the impact of industrialization and with regards to pollution and depletion of resources. ‘Conservation’ was the “Gospel of Efficiency” the use of Science to mange nature and natural resources efficiently. The idea being a “Sustained Yield” not to dip into resources all the time.

By the (19^th Conservation became a global movement with foresters taking the lead in establishing resource management agencies run on scientific lines in Asia, Africa, Europe and North America. They began to speak of ‘national forests’, ‘rivers as property of the nation’. African scholar William Beinart stated, scientific conservation was an Ideology of “doom and resurrection”. Rational planning became important so to ensure that the great error of waste could be done away with and an efficient and more sustainable system put in place. Here the role of state becomes important, the one body capable of taking a long term view. For profit motive is incompatible with conservation, therefore the state must assume the responsibility for managing resources e.g. forest, water

In Marsh’s view man was an agent of destruction as well as regeneration, with the potential to be a restorer of disturbed harmonies. Therefore judicious intervention and systematic management are important. Marsh emphasized the need for public ownership of forests and water. These became the guiding principles behind American conservation policy and embodied in US forest service and bureau of Reclamation.

The Global reach of Scientific Forestry

Scientific forestry had its origin in late medieval Europe. By 19^th century much of the globe embraced it. France was a pioneer, by 18^th Germany was the front runner in this field—its theories, practices and models becoming a starting point for every national effort in forest science and management until the end of the 19^th.

The actual experience of Scientific Forestry in the colonies was different. Here it followed a “Custodian Approach” state control and denial of customary rights of user exercised by peasant and tribal communities who had been depending on the forests for survival. So when access to these resources was restricted by strictly protected Government reserves, it led to conflicts between local communities and the forest departments e.g. South Asia—Indian Forest Act 1878.  Tribal’s and  peasants resisted operations of the forest department in various ways— through arson, breaches of Forest law, attacks on officials and government property and rebellions. Sometimes through local social movements which aimed at restoring local control over forests. Jyotibha Phule, social reformer was very critical about the role of the forest department “The Cunning employees of our motherly government have used  their foreign brains to erect a superstructure called the forest department.

In South and South east Asia, monsoon is an important factor and therefore its questionable whether sustained yield forestry on the European model can be successfully practiced. In 130 years state forest management— forests are in a poorer condition than before. Scientific forestry was introduced. 22% of Indian land mass is still controlled by the forest department, but less than half of this has tree cover on it. One Asian country—Japan—its scientists developed skilled methods of regenerative forestry that helped stabilize forest cover and mountain slopes of their islands.

III) VARIETY: ENVIRONMENTALISM: THE GROWTH OF THE WILDERNESS IDEA

      Combines elements of morality, science and aesthetics. These came to be known as the Wilderness Idea (wild species and habitat)

The Industrialization of Europe, settlement and spread of the European pop in the new world—devastated areas of forests and wilderness. There rose a movement of artists and scientists to look up areas still untouched to keep them free from human disturbance. Some were geared to protect the extinction of endangered species (grizzly bear) or saving scenic habitats (Yosemite)

            The wilderness movement flowered vibrantly in the US— a formal history—a little more than a century old.

The 1^st international conference on environment took place in 1900 in London—topic— protection of wildlife of Africa→ There were no Africans present!

The delegates were foreign ministers of the European colonial powers—France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Spain, Great Britain. On one side are popular traditions of “Sacred Groves” patches of forests worshipped as homes of deities and protected from human interference (Hindu Nepal, Buddhist Thailand, those parts of Africa that retain their ancestral religions). On the other side, elite feudal traditions of “hunting preserves” (e.g. India particular Mughal India—where animal species like tiger, deer were reserved for exclusive pleasure of the lords and kings with peasants and hunters banned from the hunt and sometimes from the preserve itself. Through colonies wildlife preservation followed a set pattern.

i)                    Moderate demand by specifying closed seasons when animals could not be shot ans issuing licenses which alone allowed hunting.

ii)                  Designate particular species as ‘protected’

iii)                “Specified territories” as “Game reserves” meant exclusively for animals where logging mining, agriculture are prohibited.

iv)                Establishment of national parks—sanctity to entire habitats not merely animal species

In Southern Africa—progress of conservation linked to the development of a distinct settler identity—the African was nowhere. The white settler identified with the land but not the men and women who lived there long before they arrived. Wildlife conservation brought the Dutch and English closer but also consolidated white domination over the majority of the black population. In the game reserves Africans were banned from hunting and in national parks—excluded altogether forcibly dispossessed of their land if it fell within the designated territory. If there was a ‘Crisis of African Wildlife’, it was due to the white man’s gun and rifle, not the native spear and sling shot.

In America—the 1^st national park anywhere was the Yellowstone (1872). Today thousands all over the US has the best managed national parks. Mention must be made of John Muir who settled in California (1868). He had an interest in Botany and Geology and travelled a lot making several trips to the Sierra Mountains. In 1892 he founded the Sierra Club which has since then been the most influential conservation society in American environmentalism. His essay in the Atlantic monthly published in July 1897 where he wrote about the past, the present and the possible future of the American forest, had stirred public opinion to try and protect the ‘Aborginal forest’ to save what is left of the forest”. The steel axe of the white man was destroying the forests, affecting the natives. Muir knew well the economic rationale for forest production (steady supply of timber, prevent soil erosion, regulate the flow of the water in the rivers). He also advocated a non- utilization rationale for preserving the wild—forests are not only a cover but also have a variety of interesting and sacred trees. For him every species had its own honored place in the scheme of nature. In his later years he was glad to see city dwellers—tried coming to savor the glories of the Sierra— to relax and enjoy nature. By early 20^th century, growing urbanization gave rise to a leisure industry which created a powerful social force for preserving wild area. Weekend camping and trekking played an influential part in creation of a national park system. The 1^st reserve established on purely Ecological grounds was Everglades national park 1934. Muir became a cult figure for latter-day environmentalists.

Another important person in the wilderness movement was ALDO LEOPOLD a German immigrant. He worked in the forest service with a tradition of scientific conservation later becoming a philosopher of nature. He developed a philosophy of “Game Management”. In time he realized the importance—the cultural and ecological significance of the wild and from promoting ‘game refuges’ he began urging  that a portion of the national forests be set aside as fully protected wilderness.

While Muir wanted parks to be guarded by the military, for Leopold responsible human behavior outside the national parks was more important. He urged people and communities to moderate their consumption and respect nature.

These 3 strands of environmentalism were analytical and reflective in nature and guided the ‘trans-disciplinary and ‘inter-disciplinary’ intellectual movements. Here contributions of environmentalist Scotsman Patrick Geddes (1854-1932) is significant (he was an admirer of Marsh and Ruskin). He taught Botany in Dundee and sociology in Bombay— he was a social-ecologist who sought to understand the dynamic inter-relationships between human societies and their natural environments. His concern was with the town and city planning—How the city exploited the countryside for energy and materials. He called for a return to the health of village life, with its beauty of surroundings and its contact with nature. Town planning was important—he stressed the creation of open spaces and parks, planting and protecting trees and the conservation of water and water bodies. His ideas were carried forward by his disciples—Lewis Mumford an American historian (1895-1986) and Indian Sociologist Radhakamal Mukherjee.

Mumford: Ace to him the organic unity between the city and the hinterland (medieval Europe) was distributed by the coal and iron based Industrialization of the 19^th century which resulted in pollution and unhygienic slums, deteriorating environment. He hoped for the emergence of a Post-I society based on non-polluting sources of energy (solar power, hydroelectricity). This he wished would restore the three distributed equilibria:

1)      The equilibrium between the city and the village

2)      The equilibrium in population (by balancing birth and death rates)

3)      Most important equilibrium between humans and nature

Radha Kamal Mukherjee was influenced by Geddes when lived in India between 1915-1922. He insisted that a social group must be considered in relation to the chain of interwoven biotic communities to which it is linked—the plants, the animals and even the insects which are indigenous to a region. He studied closely the Indo-Gangetic plain. He found exhaustion and depletion everywhere (Deforestation, soil erosion, depleting yields). Renewal and enrichment of nature should be man’s goal. He called for an “alliance with the entire range of ecological forces” through new values “a thought for tomorrow, sacrifice for inhabitants yet unborn”.

Combining reason with passion, the Geddes— Mukherjee—Mumford tradition of social Ecology brings together three realms:

1)      of the wilderness

2)      the countryside and

3)      the city

A regionalist programme works simultaneously for the preservation of the primeval wild. The restoration of a stable rural community and for the urban-Industrial complex that is sustainable without being parasitical.