Grabbing from Peter to Give to Paul

Grabbing from Peter to Give to Paul

Every time since the Indian General Election results have been out I have been meeting people- happenstance, all of it- who seem to be attuned to a particular frequency, the consequence of which worries me a bit. It begins this way- I’m asked what I do. I say I’m a lawyer. Then I’m asked what kind. At this juncture, I always hesitate a bit but eventually give in and say, I concentrate more as an Environment Lawyer. Here, many people wonder what work that could possibly entail and the necessity of concentrating on environment, of all things. Sometimes I ask what they do and many a times I find that they are working for some major mining/ thermal power plant/ oil exploration/ chemical manufacturing industry. I jokingly might say- “Oh! We haven’t got any cases against your company. Yet.”

What alarms me is what I have heard in reaction, each time without exception, to my explanation of what environment lawyers do. People tell me ” Oh, but you lawyers cannot do much now, can you? Ab to Modiji hai. Development hoga.” It is obviously disquieting for all of those people who work tirelessly, most times for little or no returns, to be putting all that effort in an activity that is perceived as opposed to the growth of people. Somehow, the efforts of the current regime to equate development of its people with the rhetoric of megacities, shiny tall buildings, roads that cut thorough everywhere and reach just anywhere; instead of efficient utilisation of resources and making basic necessities available without disruption of the way of life that people might want, has taken a strong hold in people’s minds.

Having gone through the Election Manifestoes before the Elections and then witnessing the mood-whether real or artificially manufactured- of the results that would come; many people working in the field of environment, wildlife protection, forest rights, etc were observed to be getting anxious. On interactions with various groups of people supporting the shiny form of development agenda/party subscribing to it, it was said over and over again how the ‘green’ people are just being an alarmist lot. But many of these alarmists had several reasons to be so. It is hearsay, I admit, but from various quarters the reports that came in regarding the state of environment in Gujarat pointed to a state of affairs that did not bode well. It is not so much that the pollution and environmental law violation by industries and companies-the harbingers of development- was excessive, but that the means of problem redressal between people and these industries was coloured heavily with bold threats made with impunity and seemed to be with patronage of the State and under its protection.

One such tale I heard and often think of is so clichéd that I wonder that I’m bothered by it at all. The person relating the tale told how the land for a particular industry was acquired with use of questionable means, duress, etc and with a compensation that was so nominal that it surpassed even being a joke. This person explained to me how with one swooping action, with state complicity, the industry acquired cheap land and due to no other means of sustenance-it acquired even cheaper endless labour. It paraded its actions as benevolent employment generation. By giving unsure, low paying jobs at the lowest levels, people who once had their own homes and land to till or work had now become a number to boost the image of the company and of the government that kept quoting its efforts in alleviating the stasis in livelihood creation.

In the backdrop of this, (hopefully!) knowing India’s International commitments to various documents signed, the address on Environment Day by our country’s leader was an optimistic “Lets serve as Trustees, where we utilise our natural resources for the present and at the same time ensure happiness of future generations.” ‘Utilization’ here probably means ‘(ab)use’ and ‘we’ here does not mean the people of the country but the corporations that are so obviously doing great public service in using these resources for large-scale profits. Our esteemed Minister for the Environment, Forests and Climate Change Ministry has therefore come up with an efficient way of carrying out his onerous duty- he has made environment clearances available fast, like Instant Noodles and-in what is a stroke of sheer brilliance- proposed diluting the norms for allowing industrial units in forest, because how else would we use our resources as we have been directed by our very (“I’ll give you good days like you’ve never seen them”) Honourable PM?

One wonders then, is that the bourses we now hear clinking or is it the clang of invisible chains that bind the poor and the helpless while the rest clamour to board the shiny carriage of development that is drawn by these very chains and the poor? Or maybe it is a bit of both with one complementing the other. I think of a blog entry by Liz Fisher that heralded this New Year where she spoke about the trend of environmental law being perceived as at odds with economic growth. About how increasingly environmental protection regimes are being characterised as a luxury that in strained economic times we must do without. She delineates how at most places political discourse is at odds with scholarly discourse in the way in which debate over ‘the facts’ in relation to an environmental problem is being carried out. It is not so much the disagreement over science of environment but about the authority of the facts possessed by the political sides. All these are just as true in India if not more so.

“The natural resources of a country are the sovereign property of its people. They are not ours to steal or exploit in the name of our comfort, our corporations or our consumerism.”

~Blood Diamond.

A government needs to remember its commitment to ALL of its people and its duty to protect their property, especially their resources. Use of resources is indeed necessary but in a judicious manner that profits all. An accounting system that balances the myriad factors is not an inconvenience but a necessity. A State cannot keep taking from the rights of a large part of its people to give to a small portion of other. Mr. Javadekar said recently about his other Ministry i.e of Information & Broadcasting – “Philosophically or Ideologically, I would be willing to scrap the Ministry.” If decisions are taken in a manner to suit corporate needs, he might just as well have spoken for the Environment, Forests and Climate Change Ministry.