Environment-Industry Debate: A Much Needed Balance

Every country needs to create jobs, produce essential raw materials like iron and steel, mine minerals and petrochemicals. It is not just about economic growth numbers but about fulfilling our infrastructure, employment, transport, electricity and construction needs. How should this be carried out? Common sense dictates that this process benefit the highest number of people, it be sustainable, it should not destroy our environment, health and long term availability of resources. However, the blame for low economic growth over the last few years is being placed on environment activists and regulations to protect the environment. This forgets the fact huge areas under forests have been cleared for industrial projects (a) over the last 10 years and these industries have also caused harm to local communities by destroying their livelihoods, polluting the environment and causing huge revenue (b) and resource loss to the state as a lot of the minerals are exported without proper records and revenue collection.

In spite of large scale damage- economic, environment and social- caused by mines and possibility of damage from new ones, hydel projects and thermal power plants, economists and industrialists (some in government too) are harping on about reducing or doing away with even the bare minimum protection provided to our environment and people. All they care about is the economic growth figure- either to boost their profits, prospects in elections or to gain support of industrialists.

Even a large scale mine that causes severe environment and health damage or a hydroelectric dam that displaces people will boost GDP since the increased expenditure on health by the people, attempts to relocate, clean up the environment damage and pollution will count towards economic activity. However, the cost of damages caused to the environment, people's lives are borne by the people which is not reflected in the economic growth rates.  A legislation to replace the colonial era land acquisition law that was highly exploitative and patently unjust was passed recently. But this too was criticised as anti-industry although it was much needed to prevent displacement, exploitation and unjust treatment of land owners, especially tribals who have been suffering for years under the previous draconian legislation.

But we only hear about investments and economic growth lagging (c) due to environment hawks and courts putting in place a blanket ban on mining sand or iron ore. Nobody identifies the real cause of the problem- mismanagement and discretion caused by corruption in government over the process environment clearances. But if the finger is pointed to this, then vested interests- industrialists, government and economists tied to corporates- won't be able to enjoy a free ride. They had used a broken system to their fullest advantage- they want to keep the system broken so that they can benefit from its weaknesses.

It is this system and its implementation that needs to be fixed. It is this broken system that forced judicial intervention and so called judicial over-activism into the domain of the executive. But judiciary is being derided since it stepped in to fill a void deliberately left or sometimes even created by the executive. It is the same system that encouraged left-wing extremism and popular protests against large scale industries and factories.

We obviously cannot have a system where every case goes to court, every investment project is held up for years or decades for want of environment clearance (the mere uncertainty and dilly-dallying creates disincentives for investment and reduces economic growth), reduces employment opportunities and sets back our infrastructure. What we need to do is to follow the existing laws- Environment Protection Act, Pollution Control Board rules, Forest Conservation Act etc- clearly, implement them properly and transparently and complete the decision making process in a time-bound manner and also establish a mechanism to ensure that there is continued adherence to environment protection norms. This would mean proper regulatory institutions that are not politically manipulated but act in public interest, independent of the government. Here too a middle ground is required, one that balances needs of industry and economy with sustainability, environment protection and rights of the people dependent on the land.

AAP and Schroedinger's Cat- Good and Bad

When I learned electronics, I dealt with ones and zeroes. Something in that concept deeply disturbed me and this was the absolute lack of middle ground. Of course, in technology this greatly simplifies our working and has lead to the information and computer revolution. We represent everything in ones and zeroes and with larger number of ones and zeroes for greater clarity which takes less space and effort than a continuous analog signal.

We do the same in life. We define everything as white or black and then pick one over the other. We do not think of a middle ground, the grey area which usually signifies doubt and uncertainty is left unexplored. This is because we prefer simpler choices and it is easier to gain followers if the choices and alternates are simple, clear and easily distinguishable. Whether it be in politics, economics or environment we choose between left or rightist policies, socialism or capitalism, industries or forests.

This sort of polarisation is unfair and even evil because-
1) It makes us adamant and adhere to one side strictly without any scope for compromise
2) It blinds us to alternates that are somewhere in between
3) The result is a decision that could be disastrous since it is not the best choice

But to me, the worst result is when those who advocate the middle ground- the saner and yet more complex but infinitely better and logical solutions- are thrashed by both sides. The only way to be heard is to take extreme positions, it becomes a shouting match and the original message is lost. Pragmatism and solutions that can work are rarely considered and so we are reduced to "either with us or against us" type of situation.

It is this polarisation that has depressingly afflicted our debate, thinking and decision on almost every issue- environment versus industries, one religion against another, socialism versus capitalism and activists against politicians. It has to be either fully good or fully bad and this was most felt in the opinions expressed over the functioning of the Aam Admi Party.

It was a refreshing change to see an outsider earn the trust of the people, form a government, consult the people on significant issues and work for the people with a clear local level agenda. But it definitely has its own drawbacks- public protests by the government, signs of populism and theatricality etc. However, the discussion is never about what the AAP should do or what it can do to improve itself but only about how it is doomed to fail and how unfair and undemocratic its functioning is. No one mentions the fact that they have been in government for less than a month and all those who blame this party are willing to turn a blind eye to graver sins of all other political outfits. The new kid on the block is being thrashed by everyone and the media has been unforgiving in its attempts to discredit this young outfit.

But AAP should do well to realise a few things. Their strengths lie in their idealism, transparency, citizen engagement and local level manifestos. But a general election could stretch their resources thin, their message and attempts could get drowned out, manipulated or completely destroyed by the politics of an election campaign which involves slander, unfair criticism and relentless scrutiny along with the advantages that big parties have.

People's desire for change and urban support, several social movements and prominent individuals from industry and academia joining them provides an opportunity for AAP to provide a good government to the people. But they must be aware of the threat posed by populism, opportunists and getting carried away with the trappings, perks and power of position and do their best to counter these. Media visibility is both a strength as well as a threat and so they must be very careful in their public statements, public programs and image.

Such an analysis has not appeared and it has broad and generalised sweeping statements putting them in either the good or bad basket. We do not know what course the AAP experiment will take let alone its final result. But its novelty, challenge to established political realities and methods make it difficult for us to understand it properly since it has not fully taken shape. This irritates us, especially in a hyper-charged environment fed by the media, since we need an answer now.

Is the AAP then good or bad? Where electronics fails, let us use quantum theory and the famous Schroedinger's cat which provides us a middle ground. We do not know whether the cat is alive or dead. There is equal probability and so the cat is both alive and dead at the same time. This is the middle ground as far as AAP is concerned- we simply do not know where it will go, what it will do and what its priorities and policies are. We should give them time, give the new political idea time to develop and allow them to develop a national agenda before fully judging them.