Our political class appears to display as little awareness of issues pertaining to environment and development as it did about international relations earlier. It is hard to think of a top-flight leader possessing familiarity with the nuances in this field. Typically, political leaders shy away from making observations pertaining to the
environment unless they have to if they are in government. It is, therefore, good to see Congress president Sonia Gandhi come out unambiguously in support of “our lush forests and mountains, majestic rivers and all other water sources and clean air” and speaking of the “responsibility to preserve them for the coming generations”. At the recent ceremony to launch the National Capital Thermal Power Project executed by NTPC at Dadri near the national capital, the Congress leader also highlighted the need to protect the environment in order to bring about “sustainable development”. Touching on a related subject, she acknowledged the need for industrialisation (development), but appeared to set boundaries for this when it came to absorbing “large tracts of fertile and productive agricultural land”. Further, she underlined adequate compensation for farmers who were losing their land to industry, and also adequate occupations.
All of this appears to be a carefully constructed formulation and, broadly speaking, none of this is at variance with existing national policy, or with India’s stance in the international arena on the climate issue. And yet some have seen it fit to read in Mrs Gandhi’s observations a point of view that is at odds with that of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The Prime Minister had observed not long ago that “perpetuation of poverty” cannot protect India’s environment, and that a “new balance” was needed between environmental concerns and industrial needs. In effect, Dr Singh was espousing the case that economic and industrial development in the country, which is crucial to lifting people out of poverty, cannot be kept in abeyance. From time to time it is necessary to put this in perspective as environment enthusiasts sometimes tend to become sanctimonious and run down those who take up the cause of development. It is clear that Mrs Gandhi does not divorce herself from this perspective. She, in fact, noted at Dadri, “New industries and infrastructure cannot be built without acquiring land. This is obvious and there is no argument about it.”
Much of the current preoccupation to see a gap between the Prime Minister and his party chief appears to be driving a particular discourse. The former is sought to be exhibited as a pro-market doer whose efforts are being stymied by his “left-leaning” party leader who surrounds herself with “jhola-wallahs” or voluntary sector types whose concerns are thought to be idealistic, anti-industry and foolish. This is indeed a pity, and possibly even an attempt to confuse the issue. In fact, if there is any politics in this, it lies in the sphere of the Congress chief seeking to earn the goodwill of the farmers, who are the most significant element of our electorate in occupation terms, and who have of late been in revolt in different parts of the country on account of acquisition of land for industrial use. The other possible strand of politics in Mrs Gandhi’s vein of thought has to do with West Bengal, where her caution not to transfer large tracts of fertile agricultural land for industry calls to mind exactly what the CPI(M)-led state government did in the state, causing a huge political explosion all round. To that extent the Congress leader’s recent pronouncements link her more to her West Bengal ally, the Trinamul Congress. It should cause no surprise if the concern for farmers and farm production outlined by Mrs Gandhi was explicated in formal policy terms by the government.