Chapter 1

The Environmentalism of the Poorl

The environmentalistsin any area seemedvery easyto identify. They were, quite
simply, members of the local aristocracy... The environmental vision is an
aristocraticone... It can only be sustainedby peoplewho have never had to worry
about security.
(US journalistWilliam Tucker, 1977)

The first lessonis that the main sourceof environmentaldestructionin the world
is the demand for natural resourcesgeneratedby the consumptionof the rich
(whether they are rich nations or rich individuals and groups within nations)...
The second lesson is that it is the poor who are affected the most by
environmentaldestruction.
(Indian journalistAnil Agarwal, 1986)

THE ORIGINS OF CONFLICT

When India played SouthAfrica in a cricket internationalin Calcutta,the

great Indian cricketer, Sunil Gavaskar,was asked by a fellow television
commentatorto predict the likely winner. 'I tried to look into my crystal
ball,', answeredGavaskar'but it is cloudedup by the Calcuttasmog.' He
might well haveadded:'To clear it I then dippedmy crystal ballin the river
Hooghly [which flows alongsidethe city's cricket stadium],but it cameup
evendirtier thanbefore.'
The quality of air and water in Calcuttais representativeof conditions
in all Indian cities; small wonder that foreign visitors comeequippedwith
masksandbottlesof Perrier.Lessvisible to the tourist, and to urbanIndians
themselves, is the continuing environmental degradation in the
countryside.Over 100 million hectares,or one-thirdof India'sland area,has
beenclassedas unproductivewasteland.Much of this was onceforest and
land ground; the rest, farmland destroyedby erosionand salinisation.The
uncontrolledexploitationof groundwaterhasled to an alarmingdrop in the
VARIETIES OF ENVIRONMENTALISM

water table, in some areasby more than five metres. There is an acute
shortageof safe water for drinking and domestic use. As the ecologist
JayantaBandyopadhyayhas remarked,water rather than oil will be the
liquid whoseavailability (or lack of it) will havea determininginfluenceon
India's economicfuture.2
The bare physical facts of the deteriorationof India's environmentare
by now well established. 3
But moreseriousstill areits humanconsequences,
the chronic shortagesof natural resourcesin the daily life of most Indians.
Peasantwomen have to trudge further and further for fuelwood for their
hearth. Their menfolk, meanwhile,are digging deeeperand deeperfor a
trickle of water to irrigate their fields. Forms of livelihood crucially
dependenton the bountyof nature,suchas fishing, sheep-rearingor basket-
weaving,are being abandonedall over India. Thosewho oncesubsistedon
theseoccupationsare joining the band of 'ecologicalrefugees',flocking to
the cities in searchof employment.The urban populationitself complains
of shortagesof water,power,constructionmaterialand (for industrialunits)
of raw material.
Such shortagesflow directly from the abuse of the environment in
contemporaryIndia, the too rapid exhaustionof the resourcebasewithout
a thought to its replenishment.Shortageslead, in turn, to sharp conflicts
betweencompetinggroupsof resourceusers.Theseconflicts often pit poor
against poor, as when neighbouringvillages fight over a single patch of
forest and its produce, or when slum dwellers come to blows over the
trickle of water that reachesthem, one hour each day from a solitary
municipal tap. Occasionallythey pit rich againstrich, as when the wealthy
farmers ofthe adjoining statesof Karnatakaand Tamil Nadu quarrel over
the water of the river Kaveri. However, the most dramatic environmental
conflicts set rich againstpoor. This, for instance,is the casewith the Sardar
Sarovardam on the Narmadariver in central India. The benefitsfrom this
projectwill flow primarily to alreadypamperedandprosperousareasof the
stateof Gujarat,while the costswill be disproportionatelyborneby poorer
peasantsand tribal communitiesin the upstreamstatesof MadhyaPradesh
and Maharashtra.Theselatter groups,who are to be displacedby the dam,
are being organisedby the NarmadaBachaoAndolan (Save the Narmada
Movement), which is indisputably the most significant environmental
initiative in India today.
The 'Indian environmentalmovement'is an umbrella term that covers
a multitude of these local conflicts, initiatives and struggles. The
movement'sorigins canbe datedto the Chipko movement,which startedin
the GarhwalHimalayain April 1973. Between1973 and 1980, over a dozen
instanceswere recordedwhere,throughan innovativetechniqueof protest,
illiterate peasants- men, women and children - threatenedto hug forest
treesrather than allow them to be logged for export. Notably, the peasants

4
 THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF THE POOR

were not interestedin saving the treesper se, but in using their producefor
agricultural and household requirements.In later years, however, the
movementturned its attention to broaderecologicalconcerns,such as the
collective protection and managementof forests, and the diffusion of
renewableenergytechnologies..
The Chipko movementwas the forerunner of and in some casesthe
direct inspiration for a series of popular movements in defence of
community rights to naturalresources.Sometimesthesestrugglesrevolved
around forests; in other instances,around the control and use of pasture,
and mineral or fish resources.Most of these conflicts have pitted rich
againstpoor: logging companiesagainsthill villagers,dambuildersagainst
forest tribal communities,multinational corporationsdeploying trawlers
againsttraditional fisherfolk in small boats.Here one party (e.g. loggersor
trawlers) seeksto step up the pace of resourceexploitation to service an
expandingcommercial-industrialeconomy,a processwhich often involves
the partial or total dispossessionof those communities who earlier had
control over the resourcein question,and whoseown patternsof utilisation
were (and are) less destructiveof the environment.
More often than not, the agents of resource-intensificationare given
preferential treatmentby the state, through the grant of generouslong
leasesover mineral or fish stocks, for example, or the provision of raw
material at an enormously subsidised price. With the injustice so
compounded,local communitiesat the receiving end of this processhave
no recourse except direct action, resisting both the state and outside
exploiters through a variety of protest techniques.These strugglesmight
perhapsbe seenas the manifestationof a new kind of classconflict. Where
'traditional' class conflicts were fought in the cultivated field or in the
factory, thesenew strugglesare wagedover gifts of naturesuch as forests
and water, gifts that are covetedby all but increasinglymonopolisedby a
few.
There is, then, an unmistakablematerial context to the upsurge of
environmentalconflict in India; the shortagesof, threatsto and struggles
over natural resources.No one could even suggest,with regard to India,
what two distinguishedscholarsclaimed some years ago with regard to
American environmentalism,namelythat it had exaggeratedor imagined
the risk posed by ecological degradation. s All the same, the
environmentalismof the poor is neitheruniversalnor pre-given- thereare
many parts of India (and the South more generally)where the destruction
of the environment has generated little or no popular response. To
understandwhere, how and in what manner environmental conflict
articulates itself requires the kind of location-specific work, boundedin
time and space,that social scientistshave thus far reservedfor studiesof
worker and peasantstruggles.

5
VARIETIES OF ENVIRONMENTALISM

This chapterfocuseson an environmentalconflict that was played out

between1984 and 1991 in the southernIndian state of Karnataka. This
conflict is perhapsnot as well known outside India as the Chipko or
Narmadamovements.But its unfolding powerfully illustrates the same,
countrywideprocessesof resourcedeprivationand local resistance.

CLAIMING THE COMMONS IN KARNATAKA

On 14 November 1984, the government of Karnataka entered into an

agreementwith Harihar Polyfibres, a rayon-producingunit located in the
north of the state; the companyforms part of the great Indian industrial
conglomerateownedby the Birla family. By this agreementa new company
was formed, called the KarnatakaPulpwoodsLimited (KPL), in which the
governmenthad a holding of 51 per cent and Harihar Polyfibresheld 49 per
cent. KPL was chargedwith growing eucalyptusand other fast-growing
speciesof treesfor the useby Harihar Polyfibres.For this purpose,the state
had identified 30,000hectaresof commonland, spreadover four districts in
the northernpart of Karnataka.This land wasnominally ownedby the state
(following precedentsset under British colonial rule, when the state had
arbitrarily assertedits rights of ownershipover non-cultivatedland all over
India), but the grass,treesand shrubsstandingon it were extensivelyused
in surroundingvillages for fuel, fodder and other materials.6
The land wasgrantedby the stateto KPL on a long leaseof 40 years,and
for a ridiculously low annualrent of one rupeeper acre. As much as 87. 5
per cent of the producewas to go directly to Harihar Polyfibres;the private
sectorcompanyalso had the option of buying the remaining12.5 per cent.
All in all, this was an extraordinarily advantageousarrangementfor the
Birla-owned firm. The governmentof Karnatakawas evenwilling to stand
guaranteefor the loans that were to finance KPL's operations:loans to be
obtainedfrom severalnationalisedbanks,one of which was, ironically, the
National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development.
For yearsbefore the formation of KPL the wood-basedindustry, faced
with chronic shortagesof raw material, had been clamouring for captive
plantations. Forests were being depleted all over India; in fact, this
deforestationhad itself beencausedprimarily by over-exploitationof trees
to meetindustrialdemand.Although the statehad grantedthemhandsome
subsidiesin the provision of timber from governmentforests,paper,rayon
and plywood companieswere keen to acquire firmer control over their
sourcesof supply. Indian law prohibited large-scaleownershipof land by
private companies:in the circumstances,joint-sectorcompanies(Le., units
jointly owned by the stateand private capital) provided the most feasible

6
 THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF THE POOR

option. Indeed,no soonerhad KPL beenformed then industrialistsin other

parts of India beganpressingstategovernmentsto start similar units with
their participationand for their benefit.
But, of course,paperand rayon factorieswere not alonein complaining
aboutshortagesof woody biomass.A decadeearlier,the Chipko movement
had highlighted the difficulties faced by villagers in gaining accessto the
produceof the forests. In the wake of Chipko had arisen a wide-ranging
debateon forest policy, with scholarsand activists arguing that stateforest
policieshad consistentlydiscriminatedagainstthe rights of peasants,tribals
and pastoralists,while unduly favouring the urban-industrialsector.7
There was little questionthat, as a result of thesepolicies, shortagesof
fuel and fodder hadbecomepervasivethroughoutrural India. In Karnataka
itself, one study estimatedthat while the annualdemandfor fuelwood in
the statewas 12. 4 million tonnes(mt), the annualproductionwas 10. 4 mt
-a shortfall of 16 per cent. In the caseof fodder, the correspondingfigures
were 35. 7 and 23 mt, respectively-a deficit of as much as 33 per cent.S
The fodder crisis in turn illustrated the crucial importanceof species
choice in programmes of reforestation. From the early 1960s, the
government'sForest Department had enthusiastically promoted the
plantationof eucalyptuson state-ownedland. In many partsof India, rich,
diverse natural forests were felled to make way for single-species
plantations of this tree of Australian origin. As in the Thai district of
Pakham(discussedin the Introduction), this choicewas clearly dictatedby
industry, for eucalyptusis a quick growing speciessought after by both
paperand rayon mills. But it is totally unsuitableas fodder - indeed,one
reasoneucalyptuswas plantedby the ForestDepartmentwas that it is not
browsedby cattle and goats,thus making regenerationthat much easierto
achieve.Environmentalistsdeploredthis preferencefor eucalyptus,which
was known to havenegativeeffects on soil fertility, water retentionand on
biological diversity generally. Eucalyptuswas, moreover, a 'plant which
socially speakinghas all the characteristicsof a weed', in that it benefited
industry at the expenseof the rural poor, themselveshard hit by biomass
shortages.Thesecritics advocatedthe plantationand protectioninsteadof
multi-purpose, indigenous tree species more suited for meeting village
requirementsof fuel, fodder, fruit and fibre. 9
In the context of this wider, all-India debate, the formation of KPL
seemeda clearly partisanmove in favour of industry, as the lands it took
over constituteda vital, and often irreplaceable,sourceof biomassfor small
peasants,herdsmenand wood-working artisans. Within months of its
establishment,the new companybecamethe object of severecriticism. In
December1984, the state'spre-eminentwriter and man of letters,Dr Kota
Shivram Karanth, wrote an essay in the most popular Kannada daily,
calling on the people of Karnataka to totally oppose 'this friendship

7
VARIETIES OF ENVIRONMENTALISM

betweenBirlas and the governmentand the resultingjoint-sectorcompany'.

The opposition to KPL grew after 15 July 1986, the date on which the
stateactuallytransferredthe first instalmentof land (3,590hectares)to KPL.
Even as the companywas preparingthe ground for planting eucalyptus,
petitionsandrepresentations were flying thick and fast betweenthe villages
of north Karnataka(where the land was located) and the state capital of
Bangalore, 250 miles to the south. The Chief Minister of Karnataka,
Ramkrishna Hegde, was deluged with letters from individuals and
organisationsprotesting against the formation of KPL; one letter, given
wide prominence,was signedby a former Chief Minister, a former Chief
Justice and a former Minister, respectively.Meanwhile, protest meetings
were organisedat severalvillages in the region. The matterwas also raised
in the statelegislature.lO
In the forefront of the movementagainstKPL was the SamajParivartan
Samudaya(Associationfor Social Change,SPS), a voluntary organisation
working in the Dharwad district of Karnataka.The SPShad in fact cut its
teeth in a previouscampaignagainstHarihar Polyfibres. It had organised
a movementagainstthe pollution of the Tungabhadrariver by the rayon
factory, whose untreatedeffluents were killing fish and underminingthe
health and livelihood of villagers living downstream.On 2 October 1984
(Mahatma Gandhi's birth anniversary),SPS held a large demonstration
outsidethe productionunit of Harihar Polyfibres;thenin December1985,it
filed a public interestlitigation in the High Court of Karnatakaagainstthe
State Pollution Control Board for its failure to check the pollution of the
Tungabhadraby the Birla factory.11
Before that petition could come up for hearing, SPS filed a public
interest writ against Karnataka Pulpwoods Limited, this time in the
SupremeCourt of India in New Delhi. SPS was motivated to do so by a
similar writ in the stateHigh Court, filed by a youth organisationworking
among the farmers in the Sagar taluka (county) of the adjoining Shimoga
district. Here, in a significant judgement,Justice Bopannaissued a stay
order instructing the Deputy Commissionerof Shimoga to ensure that
commonland was not arbitrarily transferredto KPL, and that villagers be
allowed accessto fodder, fuel and other usufructfrom the disputedland.12
Submittedin early 1987, the SupremeCourt petition was primarily the
handiwork of SPS.The petitionersspokeon behalf of the 500,000villagers
living in the regionof KPL's operations,the peoplemostdirectly affectedby
the action of the statein handingover commonland to one company.The
transferredland, said the petition, 'is the only availableland vestedin the
village community since time immemorial and is entirely meant for
meeting their basic needs like fodder, fuel, small timber, etc. Neither
agriculture could be carried out, nor the minimum needsof life, such as
leaves,firewood and cattle fodder could be sustainedwithout the useof the

8
 THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF THE POOR

said lands.'
In this context, the petition continued, the arbitrary and unilateral
action of the stateamountedto the passingof 'control of materialresources
from the handsof commonpeopleto capitalists'.This was a 'stark abuseof
power', violating not just the generalcanonsof social justice but also two
provisions of the Indian Constitution itself: the right to fair procedure
guaranteedby Article 14, and the right to life and liberty (in this case,of the
village community)vestedunderArticle 21 of the Constitution.Finally, the
petitionerscontendedthat the planting of monoculturesof Eucalyptus,as
envisagedby KPL, would havea 'disastrouseffect on the ecologicalbalance
of the region'.l3
The argumentsof equity and ecologicalstability aside, this petition is
notablefor its insistencethat the lands in contentionwere commonrather
than state property, 'vested in the village community since time
immemorial'. Here the claims of time and tradition were counterposedto
the legal status quo, through which the state both claimed and enforced
rights of ownership.In this respectthe petition was perfectly in line with
popularprotestsin defenceof forest rights, which sincecolonial times have
held the Forest Departmentto be an agent of usurpation,taking over by
superiorphysicalforce land which by right belongedto the community.I4
On 24 March 1987, the SupremeCourt respondedto the petition by
issuing a stay order, thus preventing the governmentof Karnatakafrom
transferringany more land to KPL. Encouragedby this preliminary victory,
SPS now turned to popular mobilisation in the villages. In May, it held a
training camp in non-violence at Kusnur, a village in Dharwad district,
where400 hectaresof land had alreadybeentransferredto KPL. A parallel
organisationof villagers, the GuddanaduAbhivruddi Samiti (Hill Areas
DevelopmentCommittee) was initiated to work alongsideSPS. The two
groupsheld a seriesof preparatorymeetingsin Kusnur and other villages
nearbyfor a protestscheduledfor 14 November1987, to coincide with the
third anniversaryof the formation of KPL.
On 14 November, about 2,000 people converged at Kusnur. Men,
women and children took an oath of non-violencein a school yard, and
then proceeded for a novel protest, termed the Kithiko-Hachiko
(Pluck-and-Plant) satyagraha. Led by drummers, waving banners and
shoutingslogans,the protestersmoved on to the disputedarea. Here they
first uprooted100 saplingsof Eucalyptusbeforeplanting in their place tree
species useful locally for fruit and for fodder. Before dispersing, the
villagers took a pledgeto water and tend the saplingsthey had planted.Is
The next major developmentin the KPL casewas the partial vacation,
on 26 April 1988, by the SupremeCourt of the stay it had granteda year
previously. Now it allowed the transfer of a further 3,000 hectaresto KPL
(such interim and ad hoc grants of land were also allowed in 1989 and

9
VARIETIES OF ENVIRONMENTALISM

1990).16Thecourt seemingto have let them down, SPSpreparedonce more

for direct action. They commencedtraining campsin the villages, planned
to culminatein a fresh Pluck-and-Plantsatyagraha.Meanwhile, journalists
sympathetic to their movement intensified the press campaign against
KPL. 17
The mounting adversepublicity, and the prospectof renewedpopular
protest,forced the governmentof Karnatakato seek a compromise.On 3
June 1988, the Chief Secretaryof the stategovernment(its highestranking
official) conveneda meetingattendedby representativesof SPS,KPL and
the Forest Department. He suggestedthe setting up of a one-man
commission, comprising the distinguished ecologist Madhav Gadgil, to
enquireinto the conflicting claims (and demands)of the villagers and KPL.
Until the commissionsubmittedits report, KPL was askedto suspendits
operationsin Dharwaddistrict, andSPSto withdraw its proposedmonsoon
satyagraha.
The setting up of committeesand commissionsis of course a classic
delaying tactic, in India resorted to by colonial and democratic
governmentsalike, to defuseand contain popular protest.In this case,the
governmenthad no intention of formally appointing the Madhav Gadgil
Commission,for the ecologistwas known to be a critic of the industrialbias
of state forest policy/8 and likely to report adversely on KPL. Thus the
commissionwas never set up; in response,SPSstartedorganisinganother
Pluck-and-Plantsatyagraha for 8 August 1988. This time, however, the
protesters were arrested and removed before they could reach KPL's
eucalyptusplot.
In later years,non-violent direct action continuedto be a vital plank of
SPS'sstrategy. In an attempt to link more closely the issuesof industrial
pollution and the alienationof commonland, it organisedin August 1989,
in the townsof Hangaland Ranibennur,public bonfiresof rayoncloth made
by Harihar Polyfibres.The burning of mill-made cloth recalledthe bonfires
of Manchestertextiles during India's freedom movement. Whereasthat
campaign stood for national self-reliance or swadeshi,this one affirmed
village self-relianceby rejectingcloth madeof artificial fibre. The following
year, 1990, SPSrevertedto its own patentedmethod of protest.On Indian
independenceday (15th August), it invited the respectedChipko leader
Chandi PrasadBhatt to lead a Pluck-and-Plantsatyagrahain the Nagvand
village of the Hirekerrur taluka of Dharwad.19
While these protests kept the issue alive at the grassroots,SPS
continued to make use of the wider political and legal system to its
advantage. Through friendly contacts in the state administration, it
obtainedcopies of four ordersissuedin 1987 by the Chief Conservatorof
Forests(General),an official known to be particularly closeto the Birlas. By
theseorders he had transferreda further 14,000 hectaresof forest land to

10
 THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF THE POOR

KPL, an areafar in excessof what the SupremeCourt had allowed. On the

basisof these'leaked'documents,SPSfiled a further Contemptand Perjury
petition in October1988.
Meanwhile,the SPSpersuadedpublic sectorbanksto delay the release
of funds to KPL, pendingthe final hearingand settlementof the casein the
SupremeCourt. It had also effectively lobbied the governmentof India in
New Delhi to clarify its own position on KPL-style schemes.In February
1988, an official of the Union Ministry of Environmentand Forests,making
a depositionin the SupremeCourt, statedunambiguouslythat the raising
of industrial plantations by joint-sector companies required the prior
permissionof the governmentof India. Later the sameyear,a new National
Forest Policy was announced,which explicitly prohibited monocultural
plantationson groundsof ecologicalstability. In June 1989 the Secretaryof
the Ministry of Environment and Forests wrote to the government of
Karnatakaexpressinghis disquietaboutthe KPL project.
Within Karnataka,resolutionsaskingthe governmentto cancelthe KPL
agreementwere passedby local representativebodies, including several
Mandal Panchayats,local councilseachrepresentinga group of villages, as
well as the Zilla Parishad (district council) of Dharwad.This was followed
by a letter to the Chief Minister, signed by 54 members of the state
legislatureand senton 11 July 1990,askinghim to closedown KPL so as 'to
reservevillage commonland for the commonuse of villagers'. With public
opinion and the central government arrayed against it, and possibly
anticipating an adverse final judgement in the Supreme Court, the
governmentof Karnatakadecidedto wind up KPL. The company'sclosure
was formally announcedat a board meetingon 27 September1990,but by
then KPL had already ceasedoperations.In its report for the previous
financial year (April 1989 to March 1990) the company complained that
'during the year the plantationactivity has practically come to a standstill,
exceptingraising 449 hectaresof plantations'-a tiny fraction of the 30,000
hectaresof commonland it had oncehopedto capturefor its exclusiveuse.

A VOCABULARY OF PROTEST

The struggle againstKPL had as its massbase,so to speak,the peasants,

pastoralists,and fisherfolk directly affected by environmentalabuse.Yet
key leadershiproles were assumedby activists who, although they came
from the region,werenot themselvesdirectly engagedin production.Of the
SPSactivistsinvolved more or lessfull-time in the movement,onehadbeen
a labour organiser,a seconda social worker and progressivefarmer, a third
a biology PhD and former college lecturer, and a fourth an engineerwho

11
VARIETIES OF ENVIRONMENTALISM

had returnedto India after working for yearsin the United States.Crucial
supportwas also provided by intellectuals more distant from the action.
Theseincluded the greatestliving Kannadawriter, Or Shivram Karanth, a
figure of high moral authority and for this reasonthe first petitionerin the
SupremeCourt caseagainstKPL. A co-petitionerwas the Centrefor Science
and Environment, a respectedDelhi-basedresearchand advocacygroup
whoseinfluence in the media and in the governmentwas shrewdlydrawn
on by the activists from Karnataka.
This unity, of communities at the receiving end of ecological
degradationand of social activists with the experienceand educationto
negotiatethe politics of protest, has been characteristicof environmental
strugglesin India. In other respects,too, the SPS-ledstruggle was quite
typical. For underlying the KPL controversywere a seriesof oppositions
that frame most suchconflicts in India: rich versuspoor, urbanversusrural,
naturefor profit versusnaturefor subsistence,the stateversusthe people.
However the KPL case was atypical in one telling respect, for
environmentalmovementsof the poor only rarely end in emphaticvictory.
To put it in more explicitly ecological terms, these conflicts pit
'ecosystempeople'- that is, thosecommunitieswhich dependvery heavily
on the natural resourcesof their own locality - against 'omnivores',
individuals and groupswith the social power to capture,transformand use
natural resourcesfrom a much wider catchmentarea; sometimes,indeed,
the whole world. The first categoryof ecosystempeopleincludesthe bulk
of India's rural population: small peasants,landless labourers, tribals,
pastoralists, and artisans. The category of omnivores comprises
industrialists,professionals,politicians, and governmentofficials - all of
whom are basedin the towns and cities - as well as a small but significant
fraction of the rural elite, the prosperousfarmers in tracts of heavily
irrigated, chemicallyfertilised GreenRevolution agriculture.The history of
developmentin independentIndia can then be interpreted as being, in
essence,a processof resourcecaptureby the omnivoresat the expenseof
ecosystempeople. This has in turn createda third major ecological class:
that of 'ecologicalrefugees',peasants-turned-slum dwellers,who eke out a
living in the cities on the leavingsof omnivore prosperity.20
In this framework, the 'environmentalismof the poor' might be
understoodas the resistanceoffered by ecosystempeopleto the processof
resourcecaptureby omnivores: as embodiedin movementsagainstlarge
dams by tribal communities to be displaced by them, or struggles by
peasantsagainst the diversion of forest and grazing land to industry. In
recent years, the most important such struggle has been the Narmada
BachaoAndolan (NBA), the movementrepresentingthe ecosystempeople
who face imminent displacementby a huge dam on the Narmadariver in
central India. The movementhas been led by the forty-year-old Medha

12
 THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF THE POOR

Patkar,a womanof courageand characteroncedescribedby a journalist as

an 'ecologicalJoanof Arc'.
A detailed analysis of the origins and developmentof the Narmada
conflict cannotbe providedhere/' but thereis one aspectof the movement
that is of particular relevanceto this book; namely, its flexible and wide-
rangingvocabularyof protest.
The term 'vocabularyof protest'is offered as an alternativeto Charles
Tilly's well-known conceptof the 'repertoireof contention'.Tilly and his
associateshave done pioneeringwork on the study of dissentand direct
action. Their work has focused on the techniquesmost characteristicof
different societies, social groups or historical periods. Tilly's own
understandingof direct action tends to be a narrowly instrumentalone,
with participantsdrawingon, from a broaderrepertoireof contention,those
techniqueswhich most effectively defend or advancetheir economicand
political interests.22 But in fact techniquesof direct action have at the same
time an utilitarian and an expressivedimension.In adopting a particular
strategy, social protestersare both trying to defend their interests and
passingjudgementon the prevailing social arrangements.The latter, so to
say, ideological dimensionof social protestneedsto be inferred evenwhen
it is not formally articulated - the fact that protesting peasantsdo not
distribute a printed manifesto does not mean that they do not have
developednotions of right and wrong. In field or factory, ghettoor grazing
ground, strugglesover resources,even when they have tangible material
origins, havealwaysalso beenstrugglesover meaning.Thus my preference
for the term 'vocabulary of protest' - for 'vocabulary' more than
'repertoire',and 'protest'more than 'contention'- helpsto clarify the notion
that most forms of direct action, even if unaccompaniedby a written
manifesto,are both statementsof purposeand of belief. In the act of doing,
protestersare saying somethingtoo. Thus the Kithiko-Hachiko satyagraha
was not simply an affirmation of peasantclaims over disputedproperty: as
a strategyof protest,its aim was not merely to insist, 'This land is ours',but
also, and equally significantly, to ask, 'What are treesfor?'
To return to the NarmadaBachaoAndolan. Like the anti-KPL struggle,
the Narmadamovementhas operatedsimultaneouslyon severalflanks: a
strong media campaign,court petitions, and the lobbying of key players
suchas the World Bank, which was to fund a part of the dam project. Most
effectively, though, it has deployed a dazzlingly varied vocabulary of
protest, in defence of the rights of the peasantsand tribal communities
which were to be displacedby the dam.
These strategiesof direct action might be classified under four broad
headings. First, there is the collective show of strength, as embodied in
demonstrations (Hindi: pradarshan) organised in towns and cities.
Mobilising as manypeopleas they can,protestersmarchthroughthe town,

13
VARIETIES OF ENVIRONMENTALISM

shoutingslogans,singing songs,winding their way to a public meetingthat

marks the procession'sculmination.The aim here is to asserta presencein
the city, which is the locus of local, provincial or national power. The
demonstratorscarry a messagethat is at oncethreateningand imploring: in
effect, telling the rulers (and city peoplein general),'do not forget us, the
dispossessed in the countryside.We can make trouble, but not if you hand
out justice'.
Second,thereis the disruption of economiclife throughmore militant acts
of protest.One suchtactic is the hartal or bandh (shut-downstrike), wherein
shopsare forced to down shuttersand busesto pull off the roads,bringing
normallife to a standstill.A variationof this is the rasta roko (road blockade),
through which traffic on an important highway is blocked by squatting
protesters,sometimesfor days on end. Thesetechniquesare rather more
coercivethan persuasive,spotlighting the economiccoststo the state(or to
other sectionsof the public) if they do not yield to the dissenters.
Whereas the hartal or rasta roko aim at disrupting economic activity
acrossa wide area, a third type of action is more sharply focused on an
individual target. For instance,the dharna or sit-down strike is usedto stop
work at a specific dam site or mine. Sometimesthe target is a figure of
authority rather than a site of production; thus protestingpeasantsmight
gherao (surround)a high public official, allowing him to move only after he
has heardtheir grievancesand promisedto act upon them.
The fourth generic strategy of direct action aims at putting moral
pressureon the stateas a whole, not merely on one of its functionaries.Pre-
eminenthere is the bhookhartal, the indefinite hungerstrike undertakenby
the charismaticleader of a popular movement.This techniquewas once
used successfullyby Sunderlal Bahuguna of the Chipko movement; in
recentyears,it hasbeenresortedto on severaloccasionsby Medha Patkar,
the remarkableleaderof the NarmadaBachaoAndolan. In the bhookhartal,
the courage and self-sacrifice of the individual leader is directly
counterposedto the claims to legitimacy of the state. The fast is usually
carriedout in a public place,and closely reportedin the media.As the days
drag on, and the leader'shealthperilously declines,the stateis forced into
a gestureof submission - if only the constitution of a fresh committeeto
review the casein contention.
The bhookhartal is mostoften the preserveof a single,heroic,exemplary
figure. A sister technique,also aimed at shaming the state, is more of a
collective undertaking.This is the jail bharo andolan (literally, 'movementto
fill the jails'), in which protesterspeacefullyand deliberatelycourt arrestby
violating the law, hoping the governmentwould lose face by putting
behindbarslarge numbersof its own citizens.The law most often breached
is Section 144 of the Criminal ProcedureCode, invoked, in anticipationof
social tension,to prohibit gatheringsof more than five people.

14
 THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF THE POOR

The pradarshan,hartal, rasta roko, dharna,gherao,bhookhartal andjail bharo

andolan are some of the techniqueswhich make up the environmental
movement'svocabularyof protest. This is a vocabularysharedacrossthe
spectrumof protestinggroups,but new situationsconstantlycall for new
innovations.In the 1970s,peasantsin Garhwal developedthe idiosyncratic
but truly effective Chipko technique; in the 1980s, the SPS in Dharwad,
opposing eucalyptus plantations, thought up the Kithiko-Hachiko
satyagraha; and now, in the 1990s, the Narmada Bachao Andolan has
threateneda jal samadhi(water burial), saying its cadreswould refuse to
move from the villages scheduledfor submergenceeven after the dam's
sluice gatesare closedand the watersstart rising.
The techniquesof direct action itemised above have, of course, deep
and honourableorigins. They were first forged, in India's long strugglefor
freedom from British rule, by MohandasKaramchand'Mahatma'Gandhi.
In developing and refining this vocabulary of protest, Gandhi drew on
Western theories of civil disobedienceas well as traditions of peasant
resistancewithin India itself.23
In fact, MahatmaGandhi providesthe environmentalmovementwith
both a vocabularyof protestand an ideological critique of developmentin
independentIndia. (The 'environmental'ideas of Mahatma Gandhi are
discussedmore fully in Chapter 8.) The invocation of Gandhi is thus
conductedthrough what might be called a rhetoric of betrayal. For the
sharpeningof environmentalconflict hasvividly broughtto light the failed
hopesof India'sfreedomstruggle.That movementcommandeda massbase
among the peasantry, assiduously developed by Gandhi himself, and
freedom promised a new deal for rural India. And yet, after 1947 the
political elite has worked to ensurethat the benefits of plannedeconomic
developmenthave flown primarily to the urban-industrialcomplex.
The KPL caseillustratesthis paradoxas well as any other. On one side
were the peasantsand pastoralistsof north Karnataka; on the other, an
insensitive state governmentin league with the second largest business
conglomeratein the country. As one protesterexpressedit in Kusnur: 'Our
forefathers who fought to get rid of the foreign yoke thought that our
country would become a land of milk and honey once the British were
driven out. But now we seeour rulers joining handswith the monopolists
to take away basic resourceslike land, water and forests from the (village)
peoplewho have traditionally usedthem for their livelihood.' In much the
same vein, a Chipko activist once told the present writer: 'After
independence,we thought our forests would be used to build local
industriesand generatelocal employment,and our water resourcesto light
our lampsand run our flour mills.' But to his dismay,the Himalayanforests
continuedto service the paperand turpentinefactories of the plains, and
the rivers were dammedto supply drinking water to Delhi and electricity

15
VARIETIES OF ENVIRONMENTALISM

to the national grid which feeds into industriesand urban agglomerations

all over India. While private industry has thus gainedprivileged accessto
natural resources,the burden of environmental degradationhas fallen
heavily on the rural poor. To invoke a sloganmadefamousby the Narmada
BachaoAndolan, this has been a processof 'destructivedevelopment'-
destructiveboth of rural society and of the natural fabric within which it
rests. In a bitter commentary on this process, the common people of
Dharwad district have come to refer to the noxious air outside Harihar
Polyfibresas 'Birla Perfume',to the water of the Tungabhadrariver as 'Birla
Teertha'(holy water of the Birlas), and to the eucalyptusas 'Birla Kalpataru'
(the Birla wondertree).24
The environmentalmovement'sreturn to Gandhi is then also a return
to his vision for free India: a vision of a 'village-centredeconomicorder'
that has been so completely disregardedin practice. Perhapsit is more
accurateto seethis asa rhetoricof betrayaland of affirmation, assymbolised
in the dates most often chosento launch (or end) programmesof direct
action. Thesedatesare 2 October, Gandhi'sbirth anniversary;15 August,
Indian Independence Day; and most poignantly,8 August, on which day in
1942 Gandhi'slast great anti-colonial campaignwas launched,the Quit
India movement- in invoking this environmentalistsare asking the state
and the capitalists,the rulers of today, to 'quit' their control over forestsand
water.

Two KINDS OF ENVIRONMENTALISM

In the precedingsectionsof this chapter,the KPL controversyhasbeenused
to outline the origins, trajectory and rhetoric of the environmental
movementin India. In conclusion,let us broadenthe discussionby briefly
contrasting the 'environmentalismof the poor' with the more closely
studied phenomenonof First World environmentalism. This analysis
derives,for the most part, from my own researchon the United Statesand
India, two countries, ecologically and culturally diverse, but at very
different 'stages'of economic development.These arethe countries and
environmentalmovementsI know best, and yet, becauseof their size and
importance,they might be taken as representative,more generally, of the
North and the South.25
I begin with the origins of the environmental impulse in the two
contexts. Environmental movements in the North have, I think, been
convincingly related to the emergenceof a post-materialist or post-
industrial society. The creation of a mass consumersociety has not only
enlargedopportunitiesfor leisure but also provided the meansto put this

16
 THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF THE POOR

time off work to the most diverseuses.Nature is madeaccessiblethrough

the car, now no longer a monopoly of the elite but an artefact in almost
everyone'spossession.It is the car which, more than anything else, opens
up a new world, of the wild, that is refreshinglydifferent from the worlds
of the city and the factory. In a curiousparadox,this 'mostmoderncreation
of industry' becomesthe vehicle of anti-industrial impulses,taking one to
distant adventures,to 'homeylittle towns, enchantingfairy tale forests,far
from stale routine, functional uglinessor the dictatesof the clock'.26 Here
lies the sourceof popular support for the protection of wildernessin the
United States- namely,that natureis no longer restrictedto the privileged
few, but availableto all.
In India, still dominantly a nation of villages, environmentalismhas
emergedat a relatively early stagein the industrial process.Nature-based
conflicts, it must be pointed out once again, are at the root of the
environmentalmovementin countriessuch as India. Theseconflicts have
their root in a lopsided,iniquitous and environmentallydestructiveprocess
of developmentin independentIndia. They are played out against a
backdrop of visible ecological degradation,the drying up of springs, the
decimation of forests, the erosion of the land. The sheer immediacy of
resourceshortagesmeansthat direct action hasbeen,from the beginning,a
vital componentof environmentalaction. Techniquesof direct action often
rely on traditional networksof organisation,the village and the tribe, and
traditional forms of protest,the dharna and the bhookhartal.
Northern environmentalism,in contrast,relies rather more heavily on
the 'social movementorganisation'- suchas the SierraClub or the Friends
of the Earth - with its own cadre,leadershipand properly auditedsources
of funds. This organisation then draws on the methods of redressal
availablein what are, after all, more completedemocracies- methodssuch
as the court case,the lobbying of legislatorsand ministers,the exposureon
televisionor in the newspaper.But the experienceof recentyearssomewhat
qualifies this contrast between militant protest in the one sphere and
lobbying and litigation in the other. Indian environmentalists(as with the
KPL case)are turning increasinglyto the courts as a supplementto popular
protest, while in America, radicals disaffectedby the gentle, incremental
lobbying of mainstreamgroupshave taken to direct action - the spiking of
trees,for example- to protect threatenedwilderness.
In both the North and the South,however,environmentalismhasbeen,
in good measure, a responseto the failure of politicians to mobilize
effectively on the issue of, as the case may be, the destruction of the
wildernessor the dispossessionof peasantsby a large dam. In India, for
instance, the environmental movement has drawn on the struggles of
marginalpopulations- hill peasants,tribal communities,fishermen,people
displacedby construction of dams - neglectedby the existing political

17
VARIETIES OF ENVIRONMENTALISM

parties. And as a 'new social movement',environmentalismin the North

emerged, in the first instance, outside the party process. Some
environmentalists considered themselves as neither left nor right,
representinga constituencythat was anti-classor, more accurately,post-
class.27 However, over time the environmentalconstituencybecamepart of
the democraticprocess,sometimesthrough the formation of Greenparties
that fight, and evenoccasionallywin, elections.
Origins and political styles notwithstanding, the two varieties of
environmentalismperhapsdiffer most markedly in their ideologies. The
environmentalismof the poor originates as a clash over productive
resources:a third kind of class conflict, so to speak,but one with deep
ecological implications. Red on the outside, but green on the inside. In
Southernmovements,issuesof ecologyare often interlinkedwith questions
of human rights, ethnicity and distributive justice. These struggles, of
peasants,tribals and so on, are in a sensedeeply conservative(in the best
senseof the word), refusing to exchangea world they know, and are in
partial control over, for an uncertainand insecurefuture. They are a defence
of the locality and the local communityagainstthe nation.At the sametime,
the sharperedge to environmentalconflict, and its close connectionsto
subsistenceand survival, have also prompteda thoroughgoingcritique of
consumerismand of uncontrolledeconomicdevelopment.
In contrast,the wildernessmovementin the North originatesoutside
the productionprocess.It is in this respectmoreof a single-issuemovement,
calling for a changein attitudes(towardsthe natural world) rather than a
changein systemsof production or distribution. Especially in the United
States,environmentalismhas, by and large, run parallel to the consumer
society without questioning its socio-ecological basis, its enormous
dependence on the lands,peoplesand resourcesof otherpartsof the globe.28
It is absorbednot so much with relations within human society, as with
relations betweenhumansand other species.Here the claims of national
sovereigntyare challengednot from the vantagepoint of the locality, but
from the perspectiveof the biosphereas a whole. This is a movementwhose
self-perceptionis that of a vanguard, moving from an 'ethical present'
where we are concernedonly with nation, region and race to an 'ethical
future' where our moral developmentmoves from a concernwith plants
and animalsto ecosystemsand the planetitself.29
In the precedingparagraphs,I havesketcheda broad-brushcomparison
betweentwo movements,in two different partsof the world, eachcarrying
the prefix 'environmental'. One must, of course, qualify this picture by
acknowledgingthe diversity of ideologies and of forms of action within
eachof thesetwo trends.In the United States,anti-pollution strugglesform
a tradition of environmentalaction which has a different focus from the
'wildernesscrusade'.Such,for instance,is the movementfor environmental

18
 THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF THE POOR

justice in the United States, the struggles of low-class, often black

communities against the incinerators and toxic waste dumps that, by
accidentand frequently by design,come to be sited near them (and away
from affluent neighbourhoods).One American commentator,Ruth Rosen,
has nicely captured the contrast between the environmental justice
movement and the wilderness lovers. 'At best', she writes, 'the large,
mainstreamenvironmentalgroups focus on the health of the planet- the
wilderness,forests and oceansthat cannotprotect themselves.In contrast,
the movementfor environmentaljustice, led by the poor, is not concerned
with overabundance,but with the environmentalhazardsand social and
economic inequalities that ravagetheir communities.'30
Likewise, the Northernwildernesscrusadehasits representatives in the
Third World, who spearheadthe constitutionof vast areasas nationalparks
and sanctuaries,strictly protected from 'human interference'. Southern
lovers of the wildernesscome typically from patrician backgrounds,and
have shownlittle regardfor the fate of the humancommunitieswho, after
parkland is designatedas 'protected', are abruptly displaced without
compensationfrom territory that they have lived on for generationsand
come to regardas their own.3!
These caveatsnotwithstanding,there remains, on the whole, a clear
distinction, in terms of origins and forms of articulation, betweenhow
environmentalaction characteristicallyexpressesitself in the North and in
the South.Take thesetwo episodesof protest,one from California, the other
from central India, the last illustrationsof this chapter.
In May 1979, a young American environmentalist, Mark Dubois,
chained himself to a boulder in the Stanislaus river in California. The
canyonwherehe lay formed part of the reservoirof the New Melonesdam,
whoseconstructionDubois and his organisation,Friendsof the River, had
long but unsuccessfullyopposed. In October 1978, the Army Corps of
Engineershad completedthe dam, and the following April it closed the
floodgates.The level of the reservoirstartedto rise, and it appearedasif the
campaignto 'Save the Stanislaus'had failed. But then, in an act of rare
heroism,Mark Dubois went into the watersand chainedhimself to a rock.
He chosea hiddenspot, and only one friend knew of the location.32
Fourteen years later, an uncannily similar strategy of protest was
threatenedagainstanotherdam,on anotherriver and on anothercontinent.
In August 1993,with the onsetof the Indian monsoon,the vast reservoirof
the SardarSarovardam on the Narmadariver beganfilling up to capacity.
It now seemed that the decade-long Narmada Bachao Andolan had
irrevocably lost its fight. But the leader of the movement,Medha Patkar,
decidedto drown herself in the waters. Patkarannouncedher decisionto
walk into the river on 6 August, with a group of colleagues,but at a place
and time not to be disclosed. Fearing detention by the police, Patkar

19
VARIETIES OF ENVIRONMENTALISM

disappearedinto the countrysideweeksbeforethe appointeddate.

I dare say Medha Patkar had not heard of Mark Dubois, but the
parallelsin their chosenforms of protestare striking indeed. Both formed
part of ongoing,popularmovementsagainstlarge dams.It was only when
the movementseemedto have failed that Patkar and Dubois decided to
throw the last card in their pack, offering their lives to stop the dam.
Notably, in both casesthe political systemwas alert (or open)enoughnot to
allow the environmentaliststo make this supremesacrifice. In Stanislaus,
the Corpsof Engineersstoppedfilling the reservoir,and sentsearchparties
by air and on land to find andrescueDubois. In the Narmadavalley, Patkar
and her band were found and prevailedupon to withdraw their samarpan
dal (martyrssquad),in return for which the Governmentof India promised
a fresh, independentreview of the SardarSarovarproject.
While the strategies of direct action might have been superficially
similar, their underlying motivations were not. Mark Dubois and his
colleagueswere striving, aboveall, to savethe Stanislauscanyonas one of
the last remaining examplesof the unspoilt Californian wilderness. As
Dubois wrote to the Colonel of the Corpsof Engineersprior to enteringthe
river: 'All the life of this canyon,its wealth of archaeologicaland historical
roots to our past,and its unique geologicalgrandeurare enoughreasonsto
protectthis canyonjustfor itself. But in addition, all the spiritual valueswith
which this canyonhas filled tens of thousandsof folks should prohibit us
from committing the unconscionableact of wiping this placeoff the face of
the earth'.33
In contrast, Patkar and her colleagueshoped not only to save the
Narmadariver itself, but also (and more crucially) the tens of thousandsof
peasantsto be displaced by the dam being built on the river. When
completedthe SardarSarovarproject will submergea total of 245 villages,
with an estimatedtotal population of 66,675 people, most of whom are
tribals and poor peasants. 34
True, the dam will also inundateold-growth
forests and historic sites, but it will most emphatically of all destroy the
living culture of the humancommunitieswho live by the Narmadariver. It
is thus that the struggleof Patkarand her associatesbecomes- as they put
it in a messagewritten on the 42nd anniversaryof Mahatma Gandhi's
martydom -a move 'towards our ultimate goal of [a] socially just and
ecologically sustainablemodel of development'.35
The Stanislaus/Narmada or Dubois/Patkarcomparisonillustrates a
more fundamentaldifference betweentwo varieties of environmentalism.
The actionof Mark Dubois,heroic thoughit undoubtedlywas,was quite in
line with the dominantthrustof the environmentalmovementin the North
towardsthe protectionof pristine, unspoilt nature:a reservoirof biological
diversity and enormous aesthetic appeal which serves as an ideal (if
temporary)haven from the urbanworkadayworld. In protectingthe wild,

20
 THE ENVIRONMENTALISM OF THE POOR

it asserts,we are both acknowledgingan ethical responsibility towards

other speciesand enriching the spiritual side of our own existence. In
contrast, the action of Medha Patkar was consistentwith the dominant
thrust of the environmentalmovementin India, which strongly highlights
the questionsof production and distribution within human society. It is
impossibleto say, with regardto India, what JurgenHabermashasclaimed
of the European green movement: namely, that it is sparked not 'by
problemsof distribution, but by concernfor the grammarof forms of life'.36
'No Humanity without Nature!', the epitaph of the Northern
environmentalist,is here answeredby the equally compelling slogan 'No
Naturewithout Social Justice!'37

21