In mid 1990s, I attended an impromptu
press conference addressed by Manmohan Singh at the Central Leather Research
Institute (CLRI), Chennai. As the finance minister spoke, we huddled closer to
hear him. The economic liberalisation was still in its early stages, and Singh
said that once the economy starts to grow at 7% there would be enough resources to
invest in the social, environment and health sectors.
A few days ago the Indian National
Congress published the report card for the United Progressive Alliance (UPA),
and the party’s promissory note for the future five years. The manifesto states
that it is a document drawn up after a series of consultations with different
stakeholders “to get their inputs on India’s future growth, development and
inclusion agenda.” Election manifestoes need lofty statements, and this one
says, “We believe in a simple truth: equity and opportunity for all.”
 |
|
The results of the coming elections
will show what communities think of the UPA’s environmental policies
|
The economic growth in the past 10 years
had a certain kind of inclusiveness about it. The growth of the service sector
and its incessant need for manpower opened employment opportunities for young
graduates in the country. However, it is not the UPA that initiated the thrust
for the information, communication and entertainment sectors. At best the UPA
did not negate the policies implemented by its predecessor National Democratic
Alliance (NDA) government.
The UPA was effective with its Mahatma
Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA) and the National Food
Security Act. The Congress manifesto does not miss highlighting these
achievements: “At the turn of the millennium, we brought about a ‘Regime of
Rights’ marking a paradigm shift in India’s politics and development.”
Whenever it comes to environmental
discussions, there is a fact that every senior leader of the Congress party repeats
ad nauseam. They recall that Indira Gandhi was the only visiting prime minister
who participated in the 1972 United Nations Conference on Human Environment
held in Stockholm, Sweden. This statement is repeated, once more, in the
Congress manifesto.
There is certainly historicity in the
statement about Indira Gandhi. But then, she was also the person who decided
that conserving the rain forest in Silent Valley was more important than
submerging it for hyrdro-electric power. The Project Tiger was launched during
her premiership, and she had also sown the seeds of the Coastal Regulation Zone
notification.
Hidden behind this near-platitudinous
reference to Indira Gandhi is the state of the Congress-led UPA’s environmental
record in the past 10 years. The report card part in the manifesto talks about
the establishment of the National Green Tribunal and the National Action Plan
on Climate Change.
The action plan for 2014-2019 states that
it will put water conservation in its actions on agriculture, rural and urban
development; provide clean cooking fuel across the country; launch Green
National Accounts by 2016-17; conserve biodiversity; and engage tribals and
forest dwelling communities in the management of forests and share with them
benefits from forest produce.
Whatever be the promises, voters assess them
against past performance. And this is more so for the party that has led the
national government for a decade. Thus two sentences – one a promise, other an
achievement – in different parts of the manifesto, sum up much of the
environmental controversies that the UPA faced during its two consecutive
terms.
The promise states, “We envision an India
where power would have been devolved to the grassroots and the marginalised so
that they can shape their own destiny.” And, the achievement states, “Today,
coal production is 554 million tonnes per year. Ten years ago it was 361
million tonnes per year.”
Though not limited only to coal, the most
contentious environmental disputes during the UPA period were related to
mining, where the interests of the industry were strongly perceived to hurt the
interests of the local and forest communities. It came to a head when 12 gram
sabhas turned down the proposal by Vedanta Resources for bauxite mining in
Niyamgiri Hills in Odisha.[i]
On matters related to environment the UPA
has been like one of the cars they use in driver training schools that have two
sets of controls – one for the student and the other for the trainer. While the
political lightweight prime minister attempted to take the car in one
direction, there was a reverse pull from the other set of controls handled by
Sonia Gandhi.
At least two environment ministers – Jairam
Ramesh and Jayanthi Natarajan – operated in the space created by these two
pulls. Environment clearance for projects were delayed, and at times denied.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh confirmed to a group of editors in June 2011 that
he has been pressurising Ramesh. Singh quoted Mahatma Gandhi, “As Gandhiji said,
poverty is the biggest polluter. We need to have a balance.”[ii]
Singh attempted to change this with the proposal for the establishment of a
National Investment Board (NIB).[iii] The
proposal did not materialise.
The idea of the NIB is not dead, though.
It has resurfaced as the proposal for a National Environmental Appraisal and
Monitoring Authority “to conduct rigorous and time-bound environmental
appraisals and recommend environmental clearances where appropriate in a
time-bound and transparent manner.” It is not known if the repeated emphasis on
“time-bound” is intentional or not.
Delays in getting clearances hurt
investment and in turn the investment climate. True. The need for a transparent
and time-bound process can also not be disputed. But the two preceding
questions are: how seriously are environmental impacts of projects assessed,
and how carefully does the government listen to the voice of the community
during public hearings? The UPA’s record has not been very reassuring on this
front. Or else there would not have been so many environmental controversies
during the past 10 years.
Since the press meeting I attended at CLRI two decades ago, Manmohan Singh completed one term as finance minister and later had two full terms as prime minister. The economy too grew at above the promised 7% (the manifesto claims that the average for the last 10 years was 7.5% economic growth). So history did not deny him the opportunity to turn his words into action. The results of the coming elections, especially from the constituencies that have had environment- and livelihood-related disputes, will show what people think of his government’s action or inaction.
Timely and merited observation.. with due emphasis on popular action.
ReplyDelete