“The lack of political will in preventing environmental degradation is one of the major challenges that India is experiencing.” Comment. (2026, 15 Marks)
Political will means leaders’ sustained readiness to act and to bear the political cost of acting. The statement claims that India’s degradation comes less from missing laws than from unwillingness to enforce them. The Supreme Court has said as much: in August 2024 Justice Abhay S. Oka lamented that almost all authorities are not functional.
The Case for the Statement
- Laws without enforcers. India has a dense statute book (Water Act 1974, Air Act 1981, Environment Protection Act 1986) and thin enforcement. In 2024, 204 of 344 sanctioned posts in Delhi’s pollution committee were vacant, as were 395 of 808 in Rajasthan’s board. In May 2025 the Court issued contempt notices to four chief secretaries over the vacancies.
- Air. The National Clean Air Programme (2019) first targeted a 20–30% cut in particulates. The target was later raised to a 40% cut in PM10 by 2025–26 across 130 cities. Only 23 cities had met it by 2025, and about two-thirds of spending went on road dust.
- Dilution. The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act 2023 and the Jan Vishwas Act 2023 weakened protection. In November 2025 the Supreme Court recalled Vanashakti, reviving post-facto clearances. Its 100-metre definition of the Aravalli hills (November 2025) was put in abeyance on 29 December 2025 only after public protest.
- Outcome. India ranks 176th of 177 in the 2026 Environmental Performance Index, and 174th on environmental health.
The Counter-Evidence
Will is not absent; it is selective. Non-fossil sources passed half of installed power capacity in 2025, five years ahead of the 2030 target, and reached about 300 GW by mid-2026. The NDC for 2035 pledges a 47% cut in emissions intensity, 60% non-fossil capacity and an extra 3.5–4 billion tonnes of carbon sink. India also launched the International Solar Alliance and Mission LiFE. Navroz K. Dubash explains the pattern through co-benefits: the state acts where the environment serves energy security, industrial policy and diplomacy. Installed capacity is not generation, though, and coal still supplies most of the electricity actually used.
Beyond “Will”: Structural Constraints
- Capacity. Lant Pritchett‘s flailing state has a sound head whose limbs do not respond. Circulars from Delhi do not staff a district pollution office.
- Federalism. Pollution crosses state lines, as stubble smoke from Punjab and Haryana does into Delhi. Enforcement lies with the states, so Centre and states blame each other.
- The development imperative. Indira Gandhi‘s question at Stockholm (1972), “Are not poverty and need the greatest polluters?”, still frames policy in a lower-middle-income democracy.
- Electoral incentives. Mancur Olson‘s logic applies. The costs of enforcement fall on organised groups such as farmers, builders and industry, while clean air benefits a diffuse public. The environment rarely decides elections.
Conclusion
The statement is substantially right but imprecise. India shows will where the environment pays in growth, energy or prestige, and lacks it where local costs fall on organised interests. The remedy is institutional: properly staffed, independent regulators; airshed bodies that cross state boundaries; and the public pressure that makes neglect cost votes.