National Development: A

Critique
Two alternative visions of
reconstruction
Gandhian Nehruvian
reviving village development
economy as the basis through rapid
of development industrialisation
Not merely a eco/pol
independence
Maintaining the
cultural traditions of
Indian peasantry
Indigenous
development
Gandhian era witnessed the domination
of industrialists in congress party
Gandhian politics – an all embracing
effort to mobilise all sections of society
in a common struggle
Congress party (with support from
industrialists) – nation building – a
modern, industrialised India
Gandhi’s idea of trusteeship rejected
For Indian nationalists – reconstruction
through emulation of west
– Intellectually – infusion of modern science
– Materially – adoption of large-scale
industrialisation
Dev. as catching up with the west -
intensive industrialisation, urbanisation
Industrialise of perish model from 2nd
Five Year Plan
22 % budget allocation for Agriculture,
which employed 75 % of population
Adoption of modern tech. without regard
for their socio-ecological consequence
Choices available then were multiple
– Capital vs. labour intensive
– Satisfying demands for luxury goods vs.
fulfilling basic needs
– Environmetal degradation vs. non-polluting
The choice that India took was
influenced by 3 dominant
groups
– Capitalists and
merchants/industrialists
– Technical and administrative
bureaucracy
– Rich farmers
Achievements of dev. Practice
Food self sufficiency
Respective growth rate of
economy
Improved quality in life style
– Life expectancy from 44 years in
1960 to 65+
Urbanisation, industrialisation,
world class amenities
Rising middle class with a
purchasing power
A modern, vibrant INDIA
Thanks to industrial growth – both in
manufacturing and agriculture
Inherent believes
– Benefits of increased production and
employment would trickle down
– Half-hearted attempt towards redistribution
(land reforms)
Environmental externalities of dev.
Overlooked
– Increased urban congestion
– Global warming, acid rain, ozone depletion,
pollution
Other side of dev – persistence of poverty
Trickle down hypothesis didn’t work
Poverty, powerlessness and pollution
UNDP Report, 1992
– Infant death – 3.84 million/year
– Mal-nourishment – 73.1 million
– School dropout – 72.9 million
– Illiteracy – 281 million (61 % women)
– Unemployment – South Asian economy doubled
between 1975 – 90, but only 37 % increase in
employment – (Jobless Growth)
Neutralisation of eco. Growth by population
pressure hypothesis is ambiguous
– Hunger death despite adequate food production
– social inequality, failure of distribution mechanism
Centralised planning and execution
– Projects devised with bureaucratic,
technocratic approach
– No consultation with the affected
Concentration of resources on
particular sectors and build on a
gigantic scale
– Cost of Narmada project more than
entire amount spent of irrigation since
independence
Minor and Major irrigation projects
Type of Investme Cost of Total
project nt irrigation land
pattern /ha irrigated

Major/ 64 % of Rs.19,310 30.5

medium total million
irrigation irrigation ha
outlay
Minor 36 % of Rs.4,520 37.4
irrigation total million
irrigation ha
outlay
 Energy Sector
3 % of energy needs of India are met by
electricity
Biomass provides more than 50 per cent
However, electricity sector has been a
prior area of investment
– Most of the power generated is supplied with
high subsidy
Less priority to development of bio-mass
resources
– No subsidy for poor, who do not depend on
electricity
Dev. pattern and Ecological Crisis
Fundamentally altered two crucial
bases of production
– LAND and WATER
22.4 % land as Forest Area – (42
% of forest area under tree/grass
cover, rest devoid of vegetation)
National Remote Sensing Agency Data
Year Forest cover % to total land
1972 – 75 55.5 million ha 16.89 %
1980 – 82 46 million ha 14.1 %
1990 32.8 million ha 10 %
Agricultural land
¾ of the Ag. Land degraded due to
soil erosion, water logging, salination
6 billion tons of top soil lost/year
Increasing instances of floods
Tribal, landless, rural poor, women
are the worst affected by ecological
crisis
– Difficulties in finding fuel wood, fodder
and water
– Migration to urban areas
– Environmental refugees
Why dev. Failed to improve the lives of
poor?
National dev safeguarded the interests
of:
Capitalists, merchants, industrialists
– Massive state investment in industrial
infrastructure
– Free or subsidised access to raw material
Rich Farmers
– Adequate and cheap supply of water,
power, fertiliser
– Incentives for commercial agriculture
Dev consolidated the dominant class
interest
– Sacrificed the interests of landless, small
and marginal farmers, tribals
– Ignored the direct dependence of these
categories upon nature for livelihood
State dev policy – a tendency to
consolidate power and monopolise NR
Forest
– To maximise immediate profit
– No concern for future
– Traditional rights curtailed
Water:
State in favour of large centralised
irrigation and energy projects
Encouraged profligate use of NR
– Shift from subsistence to water-
intensive remunerative crops
– Subsidised canal irrigation
Socio-ecological crisis
Reproduced social inequality
Consequences of Ecological Crisis
Reduced Poor's ability to control and
gainful use of NR
Surrendering land and livelihood for
national interest
Altered the way in which different
social groups use and have access over
NR
Competing claims over NR
– Not merely who gets what and how much
– Different ways of using and valuing NR –
profit vs. survival
 Ecological Marxism
A theoretical construct to understand
development conflicts and
consequences of ecological crisis
Modern industrial dev
– Unchecked use of NR
– Transformation of people to
dispossessed working classes against
will