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!
