Environmental Dissent is for a Stronger State

The arrest of an environmental activist and the consequent social media repercussions are top headlines these days. Following these, police action on another environmentalist group is also being reportedly envisaged. It is still not clear what they did apart from being the source of something that international environmentalist and adolescent icon Greta Thunberg shared publicly. There are some other allegations reported in the press as well, but they seem too far-fetched. A more likely scenario is that their environmental activism was not considered acceptable, or in good taste, by the government.

There is one aspect of environmentalism that few appreciate. Environmentalists world over tend to be pro-state, unlike say left or religious extremists. So, when environmentalists call for reducing the use of hydrocarbons, segregating garbage, planting trees in public spaces, not allowing industry of a certain type, building a certain kind of infrastructure, marking out cycle lanes, planning cities differently, subsidising electric vehicles, etc., they are saying, ‘the state has not been doing enough and it needs to do more.’ They are telling the current government we need more of the state. They may protest against the current government, or even vehemently criticise, but all of that is for a greater role of the state.  Inherent therefore in the current form of environmentalism is a stronger state. A weak state serves no purpose for them. And therefore they fight governments world over for strengthening the role of the state to help save the environment, not weaken it. This requires the government to talk to them, perhaps even educate them on the massive challenges it faces, not prevent dissent.

As far as environment change-makers go, global environmentalists and their groups have till now been quite insignificant in India. Few follow them here and fewer still interact with them. Greta T, for instance, is a global media personality, her carefully nurtured role is to make enough noise to wake up citizens and governments from their perceived environmental somnolence. While she may have had global success in this role, her effectiveness in India has been limited. I argue that the more the government gets upset about her statements and those of international celebrities, the more will the interests of the Indian environment and economy be harmed. 

Systemic change in India does not happen through social media posts, it occurs in either of three ways.  

i. Sustained thoughtful interaction with the government by credible thinkers (as happened during the green revolution, and economic reforms of 1991) 

ii. Through technology and investment (as occurred through mobile telephones starting in the 1990s and now renewable energy that has accelerated since the mid-2010s)  

iii. Through change driven by the masses (as happened with Sunderlal Bahuguna’s Chipko movement or even the 2014 elections)

Greta T and her friends check none of these items. The government, therefore, needs to focus on the substance and not react to the noise.

There is no doubt that government policies need to change rapidly to better address environmental challenges. The alternative is an all-round disaster, with potentially great damage to the economy, society and the country. But it is up against some very difficult challenges. The government needs to figure out how to quickly change its agriculture, industry, and energy sectors; urban design needs to change as does transport planning; and with all of these everything from transmission lines, to the rail network to road grids need to change in tandem. We are looking at a massive transformation of India. To illustrate just two aspects, even if only cropping patterns and the energy sector undergo change to deal with the unfolding challenges of the environment, all of the government finance will need to change as well, since these two directly or indirectly account for greatest inflow and outflow in the annual budget.

In other words, the key environmental challenge is not that the government is unaware, but its ability to implement the change given economic costs, political-economic trade-offs, and technology and investment constraints. I do believe that the current government is not anti-environment and its actions have shown that many times. It is grappling with difficult environment-economy tradeoffs, and it does need to make difficult decisions where the costs are immediate but benefits are long term. The government will need the support of the masses to achieve all of this. Greater awareness and support from among the masses will help it, and us all.  

But when western media or personalities with little understanding of the realities of India, talk down to the Indian government, it must admittedly touch many raw nerves. And perhaps this explains the super-sensitivity in dealing with environmental dissent especially when it gets routed via abroad. But such police actions don’t help anyone.

First, the more reactive government gets the more it will become interesting for the global media. Second, perception of assaults on freedom of speech has a direct bearing on both short term and long-term investment including that aimed at the environment. Third, social media has caught on in India but only a handful follow environmentalists including international ones. But the key, the most important loss from the government's reaction, is that by being unnecessarily sensitive to the noise of such international celebrities and their Indian colleagues, the government and the public have gotten side-tracked from the more important task of implementing environmentally beneficial but economically difficult policies.

And therefore, I would tell anyone in the government, don’t be so sensitive, such environmentalists are mostly focusing on improving awareness and want the state to play a larger, more proactive role in the environment. Instead, let us focus on the critical environment trade-offs and how to address them.