Environmental Movements in India

Development, Displacement, and the Roots of Environmental Movements

Sociology Optional Notes {PDF}

Complete Notes Package (Paper I & II) | 1000+ Pages | Instant Download

Discounted Price | Buy Now @ ₹600 →

• For much of the modern period, development has carried unchallenged priority — but sustained concern has grown over the unchecked exploitation of natural resources, and over a model of development that continually generates new needs, which in turn demand still greater exploitation of already-depleted resources. This model has been further critiqued for simply assuming that all sections of the population benefit equally from development, when in practice big dams displace people from their homes and livelihoods, industry displaces agriculturalists from theirs, and industrial pollution imposes costs that fall disproportionately on those least equipped to bear them.
• Citizens who benefit from and celebrate development can usefully be distinguished from sub-citizens who are victimised by it and, as a result, are the ones who typically go on to organise a movement against it — a distinction that runs through nearly every major Indian environmental movement, since the costs and benefits of a given development project are rarely distributed to the same population.

The Chipko Movement: A Case Study in Intermingled Interests

• The Chipko movement in the Himalayan foothills remains the paradigm case for understanding how economic, ecological, and political concerns intertwine in Indian environmental activism. According to Ramachandra Guha’s Unquiet Woods, villagers — including large numbers of women — rallied to prevent government forest contractors from felling oak and rhododendron forests, physically hugging the trees to stop them being cut. At stake was villagers’ basic subsistence: firewood, fodder, and other daily necessities drawn from the forest, pitting an economy of subsistence directly against an economy of profit represented by government timber revenue.
• The movement carried a second, ecological register beyond livelihood alone: deforestation had already produced devastating floods and landslides in the region, so villagers valued the forest both instrumentally, for their own survival, and intrinsically, as a form of ecological wealth benefiting everyone — Guha and Gadgil describe this as the movement’s “red” (livelihood/equity) and “green” (ecological) concerns operating as genuinely inseparable rather than competing agendas.
• A third dimension was explicitly political: Chipko expressed hill villagers’ resentment of a distant, plains-based government that appeared indifferent, even hostile, to their concerns — meaning economy, ecology, and political representation were simultaneously at stake in a single movement, not three separate issues that happened to coincide.
• Chandi Prasad Bhatt organised the movement’s first phase from Dasuli village in 1973, forming Forest Protection Committees village by village; Sunderlal Bahuguna subsequently joined, and women — most famously Gaura Devi — took active leadership roles. Ramachandra Guha additionally reads Chipko as an early expression of eco-feminism, since women’s daily responsibility for fetching water and fuelwood, alongside religious practices that venerate rivers and forests directly, gave them a distinctively intimate relationship to the immediate environment that men in the same villages typically did not share to the same degree.

Environmental Consciousness as a Historical, Not Merely Contemporary, Fact

• Gadgil and Guha, in This Fissured Land: An Ecological History of India (1992), argue that while organised environmental movements are comparatively recent, environmental consciousness itself is a long historical fact in India, not a foreign or entirely modern import. The nexus between nature and culture was first seriously disturbed during colonial rule, when forest exploitation and industrialisation began in earnest — and because tribal communities, who held a deep cultural as well as economic affinity with forests, were among the earliest populations displaced by this process, they can reasonably be regarded as the unsung pioneers of environmental resistance in India.
• Madhav Gadgil identifies the recurring issue-clusters around which Indian environmental movements organise: forest and land rights, dam construction, commercial exploitation of mining, and rights over marine resources, alongside a wider set of concerns — air and water pollution, solid waste, resource depletion, soil degradation, desertification, deforestation, genetically modified foods, biodiversity loss, river pollution, man-animal conflict, and environmental or industrial disasters (the 2013 Uttarakhand floods and the Bhopal gas tragedy being the starkest Indian examples). Some of these concerns — reducing air pollution, protecting biodiversity — read as genuinely universal public-interest issues rather than issues specific to any one social group, which distinguishes them somewhat from movements organised more narrowly around a particular community’s displacement or dispossession.

The Rise of Environmental Movements as “New Social Movements”

• Environmental movements gained real currency in India during the 1970s, precisely the period in which “new social movements” more broadly came into international vogue — a period when rapid developmental expansion was first being widely identified as environmentally costly, and when the 1972 UN Stockholm Conference gave the concept of sustainable development its first real international institutional standing.
• Gadgil and Guha identify four broad ideological strands within Indian environmentalism, distinguished by vision and strategy. The first emphasises the moral necessity of restraining overuse and ensuring justice for the poor and marginalised — the strand most closely associated with Gandhian environmentalists. The second stresses the need to dismantle an unjust social order altogether through direct struggle — the strand most associated with Marxist environmentalism. The third and fourth strands both advocate reconstruction — deploying technology appropriate to a given context and time — reflecting, respectively, the concerns of professional scientists and the spontaneous, village-level efforts of communities seeking to protect local community forests or preserve environmentally sustainable agricultural practice.
• A recurring structural critique running through this literature holds that both capitalism and socialism exploit nature in broadly comparable ways — only the identity of the exploiting party (private capital versus the state) differs — and that India’s own post-independence developmental model, despite achieving formal political independence, substantially reproduced the colonial pattern of resource extraction, with roughly 300 acres of forest land reportedly diverted to development purposes on a daily basis at the height of this critique’s currency. Nehruvian development, modelled significantly on Rostow’s stages-of-growth framework, prioritised industrialisation, urbanisation, and technology transfer from abroad; the Gandhian alternative model, by contrast, emphasised small-scale, sustainable, limited-needs development attentive to both people and environment together — the same basic value split Gadgil and Guha’s four strands trace at the level of specific movements.

Environmental Movements: Pure and Combined

• “Pure” environmental movements, organised around conservation as such, have tended to concentrate in urban areas and be led by NGOs or middle-class/elite intelligentsia — the movements against air pollution in Delhi and against leather-industry water pollution in Chennai are illustrative examples, both substantially free of the livelihood dimension that characterises rural ecological movements.
• “Combined” movements, by contrast, fold ecological concerns together with directly linked livelihood and equity issues — the Tehri movement (led by Sunderlal Bahuguna), Chipko itself (1973, Chandi Prasad Bhatt), and the Narmada Bachao Andolan (1988, led by Medha Patkar) all belong to this category, as does the Paani Panchayat movement in Ralegan Siddhi, Maharashtra, which addressed water conservation and rural poverty together. Rajendra Singh’s water-conservation work in Rajasthan (earning him the epithet “waterman”), the Save Chilika Campaign, and the Tarun Bharat Sangh’s water-conservation efforts in Alwar belong to this same combined-movement tradition.

A Survey of India’s Major Environmental Movements

• The Silent Valley movement (from 1978) in Kerala organised against a proposed dam on the Kunthipuzha River, becoming a grassroots bedrock for wider Indian environmental activism.
• The Jungle Bachao Andolan, beginning in Bihar and later spreading to Jharkhand and Odisha, saw tribals of Bihar’s Singhbhum district protest the government’s plan to replace natural sal forests with higher-value teak — a substitution critics termed “a greed game” dressed up as political populism.
• The Appiko movement (1980s), in Karnataka, was essentially Chipko’s southern counterpart — locally called Appiko Chaluvali, it saw local people embrace trees marked for felling by forest-department contractors. Led by Panduranga Hegde against paper and plywood industries felling ecologically sensitive species, it drew support from figures including Sitaram Kesri, Salim Ali, and M.S. Swaminathan, and succeeded in getting the affected area declared a “Reserved Ecosystem.”
• The Navdanya movement (1982), initiated by Vandana Shiva, promotes biodiversity conservation and organic farming, and has helped create both new market access for farmers and better-quality food for consumers — directly connecting the seed to the cooked food along the entire value chain.
• The Narmada Bachao Andolan (from 1985), led by Medha Patkar, began with a wide developmental critique questioning the very rationale of large dam projects in India before narrowing its focus toward the preservation of the Narmada valley’s environment and ecosystems specifically — probably India’s most internationally visible environmental movement.
• Beyond these headline movements, India has also seen sustained anti-mining movements (against river and air pollution around Jharia, Kalinganagar, the Doon Valley gypsum project, and Goa’s rapid natural-resource depletion) and marine-resource movements — the Kerala fishermen’s cooperative campaign against mechanised trawlers in the 1980s, the Chilika Bachao Andolan led by Banka Bihari Das against mechanised trawling, and the Ganga Mukti Abhiyan and Yamuna Bachao Andolan against river pollution.

Development-Induced Displacement: Scale and Sociology

• Dam construction alone has displaced an enormous population: the Hirakud dam displaced roughly 1.1 lakh people, the Nagarjuna Sagar project roughly 2 lakh, and the Rengali Dam and Subarnarekha project together roughly 3 lakh — cumulatively, roughly 18–19 million Indians have been displaced by dam projects specifically, of whom around 80% belong to already-vulnerable sections of the population.
• Walter Fernandes’ research found that between 1960 and 1980, only around 30% of the displaced were rehabilitated at all, and even that rehabilitation was frequently inadequate; by the year 2000, nearly 16 million people had been displaced by development projects nationally, over 40% of them tribal. Bela Bhatia’s study of displacement, rehabilitation, and resettlement around the Sardar Sarovar Dam, and Jagannath Patra’s typology, together identify three sequential stages of displacement: primary displacement (physical evacuation, typically accompanied by monetary compensation), secondary displacement (the marginalisation and distress that follows once compensation is exhausted, often forcing people into new occupations chosen from necessity rather than preference), and tertiary displacement, or detribalization (the deeper cultural and psychological dislocation of arriving in a new place one cannot adjust to socially or emotionally).
• Dams illustrate the underlying trade-off starkly: their benefits (electricity generation, flood control, irrigation) are real, but so are their costs — poor siting decisions (Tehri sits in a seismically active zone), the tendency for commercial viability to override ecological stability in project selection, and lasting damage to river hydrology, flora, and fauna independent of the human displacement question altogether.

State and Judicial Response

• Indian environmental movements have, over time, measurably shaped formal policy and legal doctrine: the courts have read the right to a healthy environment as an implicit component of the constitutional right to life, acted on environmental Public Interest Litigations, and established dedicated “Green Benches” within the higher judiciary specifically to handle environmental matters — the introduction of CNG vehicles in Delhi, driven substantially by judicial direction, is a frequently cited instance of this judicial activism in practice.
• At the policy level, the government introduced the National Environmental Policy (2005) and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 — the latter attempting to address tribal livelihood claims and conservation objectives together, in direct response to exactly the kind of forest-rights grievance this article traces from Chipko through Jungle Bachao and beyond.

Contemporary Developments: Forest Rights Under Pressure

• The January 2023 land subsidence crisis in Joshimath, Uttarakhand — where unplanned construction, tunnelling for hydropower and road projects, and inadequate geological assessment combined to crack and destabilise the town — has become a widely cited contemporary illustration of exactly the Gadgil-Guha critique this article opened with: development proceeding without adequate ecological assessment, imposing costs on a resident population that had little say in the underlying project decisions.
• The Forest Rights Act itself has faced sustained institutional pressure in 2025: the Union Environment Ministry issued a notification expanding state governments’ power to divert forest land for infrastructure projects while exempting such diversions from public hearings, and a mid-2025 joint circular directed forest officers to “assist” (critics read this as “supervise”) Gram Sabhas in community forest management — developments environmental and tribal-rights groups have read as a direct dilution of the Act’s core promise of Gram Sabha authority over forest land use, reopening precisely the forest-and-land-rights fault line this article has traced from the colonial period through Chipko to the present.