❖ BHISNOI MOMENT

❖ CHIPKO MOMENT
❖ SAVE SILENT VALLEY MOVEMENT
❖ JUNGLE BACHAO ANDHOLAN
❖ APPIKO MOVEMENT
❖ NARMADA BACHAO ANDHOLAN
❖ TEHRI DAM CONFLICT
 On the 27th of March 1973 ,a group of peasants in a remote
Himalayan village stopped a group of loggers from felling a patch of trees. Thus was born
the Chipko movement, and through it the modern Indian environmental movement itself.
The first thing to remember about Chipko is that it was not unique.
It was representative of a wide spectrum of natural resource
conflicts in the 1970s and 1980s — conflicts over forests, fish,
and pasture; conflicts about the siting of large dams; conflicts
about the social and environmental impacts of unregulated mining.
In all these cases, the pressures of urban and industrial development
had deprived local communities of access to the resources necessary to their own
livelihood. Peasants saw their forests being diverted by the state for commercial
exploitation; pastorialists saw their grazing grounds taken over by factories and
engineering colleges; artisanal fisherfolk saw themselves being squeezed out by large
trawlers.

Environmentalism or environmental rights is a

broad philosophy, ideology, and social movement regarding concerns

for environmental protection and improvement of the health of the

environment, particularly as the measure for this health seeks to
incorporate the impact of changes to the environment on humans,
animals, plants and non-living matter. While environmentalism focuses

more on the environmental and nature-related aspects of green ideology and politics,
ecologism combines the ideology of social ecology and environmentalism. Ecologism is
more commonly used in continental European languages, while environmentalism is more
commonly used in English but the words have slightly different connotations.
 In the West, the
environmental movement had arisen chiefly out of a desire to
protect endangered animal species and natural habitats. In India,
however, it arose out of the imperative of human survival. This was
an environmentalism of the poor, which married the concern of
social justice on the one hand with sustainability on the other. It
argued that present patterns of resource use disadvantaged local
communities and devastated the natural environment.
Back in the 1970s, when the state occupied the commanding
heights of the economy, and India was close the Soviet Union, the
activists of Chipko and other such movements were dismissed by
their critics as agents of Western imperialism. They had, it was
alleged, been funded and promoted by foreigners who hoped to
keep India backward. Slowly, however, the sheer persistence of
these protests forced the state into making some concessions.
When Indira Gandhi returned to power, in 1980, a Department of
Environment was established at the Centre, becoming a full-fledged
Ministry a few years later. New laws to control pollution and to
protect natural forests were enacted. There was even talk of
restoring community systems of water and forest management.
Meanwhile, journalists and scholars had begun more systematically
studying the impact of environmental degradation on social life
across India. The pioneering reportage of Anil Agarwal, Darryl D’
Monte, Kalpana Sharma, Usha Rai, Nagesh Hegde and others
played a critical role in making the citizenry more aware of these
problems. Scientists such as Madhav Gadgil and A.K.N. Reddy
began working out sustainable patterns of forest and energy use.
Through these varied efforts, the environmentalism of the poor
began to enter school and college pedagogy. Textbooks now
mentioned the Chipko and Narmada movements. University
departments ran courses on environmental sociology and
environmental history. Specialist journals devoted to these subjects
were now printed and read. Elements of an environmental
consciousness had, finally, begun to permeate the middle class.

: In 1991 the Indian economy started to

liberalise. The dismantling of state controls was

in part welcome, for the licence-permit-quota-Raj
had stifled innovation and entrepreneurship.
Unfortunately, the votaries of liberalisation
mounted an even more savage attack on
environmentalists than did the proponents
of state socialism. Under their influence the media, once so
sensitive to environmental matters, now began to demonise people
like Medha Patkar, leader of the Narmada movement. Influential
columnists charged that she, and her comrades, were relics from a
bygone era, old-fashioned leftists who wished to keep India
backward. In a single generation, environmentalists had gone from
being seen as capitalist cronies to being damned as socialist
stooges.
Environmentalists were attacked because, with the dismantling of
state controls, only they asked the hard questions. When a new
factory, highway, or mining project was proposed, only they asked
where the water or land would come from, or what the
consequences would be for the quality of the air, the state of the
forests, and the livelihood of the people. Was development under
liberalisation only going to further intensify the disparities between
city and countryside? Before approving the rash of mining leases in
central India, or the large hydel projects being built in the high (and
seismically fragile) Himalayas, had anyone systematically assessed
their social and environmental costs and benefits? Was a system in
which the Environmental Impact Assessment was written by the
promoter himself something a democracy should tolerate? These,
and other questions like them, were brushed off even as they were
being asked.
 Meanwhile, the environment continued to
deteriorate. The levels of air pollution were now shockingly high in all Indian
cities. The rivers along which these cities were sited were effectively dead.
Groundwater aquifers dipped alarmingly in India’s food bowl, the Punjab.
Districts in Karnataka were devastated by open-cast mining. Across India, the
untreated waste of cities was dumped on villages. Forests continued to
decline, and sometimes disappear. Even the fate of our national animal, the
tiger, now hung in the balance.
A major contributory factor to this
continuing process of degradation
has been the apathy and corruption
of our political class. A birdwatcher
herself, friendly with progressive
conservationists such as Salim Ali
, Indira Gandhi may have been the
Prime Minister most sensitive (or at least least insensitive) to matters of
environmental sustainability. On the other hand, of all Prime Ministers past
and present Dr. Manmohan Singh has been the most actively hostile. This is
partly a question of academic background; economists are trained to think
that markets can conquer all forms of scarcity. It is partly a matter of
ideological belief; both as Finance Minister, and now as Prime Minister, Dr.
Singh has argued that economic growth must always take precedence over
questions of environmental sustainability.
An environmentally literate Prime Minister would certainly help. That said, it
is State-level politicians who are most deeply involved in promoting mining
and infrastructure projects that eschew environmental safeguards even as
they disregard the communities they displace. In my own State, Karnataka,
mining barons are directly part of the political establishment. In other States
they act through leaders of the Congress, the BJP, and regional parties.
In 1928, 45 years before the birth of the Chipko movement, Mahatma Gandhi
had said: “God forbid that India should ever take to industrialisation after the
manner of the West. The economic imperialism of a single tiny island
kingdom (England) is today keeping the world in chains. If an entire nation of
300 million took to similar economic exploitation, it would strip the world
bare like locusts.”
The key phrase in this quotation is
‘after the manner of the West.’ Gandhi
knew that the Indian masses had
to be lifted out of poverty; that they
needed decent education, dignified
employment, safe and secure housing,
freedom from want and from disease.
Likewise, the best Indian
environmentalists —
such as the founder of the Chipko
movement, Chandi Prasad Bhatt —
have been hard-headed realists. What they ask for is not a return to the
past, but for the nurturing of a society, and economy, that meets the
demands of the present without imperilling the needs of the future.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the finest minds in the environmental movement
sought to marry science with sustainability. They sought to design, and
implement, forest, energy, water and transport policies that would augment
economic productivity and human welfare without causing environmental
stress. They acted in the knowledge that, unlike the West, India did not have
colonies whose resources it could draw upon in its own industrial revolution.
In the mid-1980s, as I was beginning my academic career, the Government of
Karnataka began producing an excellent annual state of the environment
report, curated by a top-ranking biologist, Cecil Saldanha, and with
contributions from leading economists, ecologists, energy scientists, and
urban planners. These scientific articles sought to direct the government’s
policies towards more sustainable channels. Such an effort is inconceivable
now, and not just in Karnataka. For the prime victim of economic
liberalisation has been environmental sustainability.

CORPERATE INTERESTS: A wise, and caring, government

would have deepened the precocious, far-seeing efforts of our
environmental scientists. Instead, rational, fact-based scientific research
is now treated with contempt by the political class. The Union
Environment Ministry set up by Indira Gandhi has, as the Economic and
Political Weekly recently remarked, ‘buckled completely’ to corporate
and industrial interests. The situation in the States is even worse.

India today is an environmental basket-case; marked by polluted skies, dead

rivers, falling water-tables, ever-increasing amounts of untreated wastes,
disappearing forests. Meanwhile, tribal and peasant communities continue
to be pushed off their lands through destructive and carelessly conceived
projects. A new Chipko movement is waiting to be born.

WHAT IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT: The environmental

movement (sometimes referred to as the ecology movement), also
including conservation and green politics, is a diverse philosophical, social,
and political movement for addressing environmental
issues. Environmentalists advocate the just and sustainable management of
resources and stewardship of the environment through changes in public
policy and individual behaviour. In its recognition of humanity as a
participant in (not enemy of) ecosystems, the movement is centered
on ecology, health, and human rights.
The environmental movement is an
international movement, represented
by a range of organizations, from
enterprises to grassroots and varies
from country to country. Due to its
large membership, varying and strong
beliefs, and occasionally speculative
nature, the environmental movement
is not always united in its goals. The movement also encompasses some
other movements with a more specific focus, such as the climate movement.
At its broadest, the movement includes private citizens,
professionals, religious devotees, politicians, scientists, nonprofit
organizations, and individual advocates.

• Year: 1700s
• Place: Khejarli, Marwar region, Rajasthan state.
 • Leaders: Amrita Devi along with Bishnoi villagers in Khejarli and
surrounding villages.
• Aim: Save sacred trees from being cut down by the king’s soldiers
for a new palace.

What was it all about: Amrita Devi, a female villager could not bear to witness
the destruction of both her faith and the village’s sacred trees. She hugged the
trees and encouraged others to do the same. 363 Bishnoi villagers were killed in
this movement.

The Bishnoi tree martyrs were influenced by the teachings of Guru Maharaj
Jambaji, who founded the Bishnoi faith in 1485 and set forth principles
forbidding harm to trees and animals. The king who came to know about these
events rushed to the village and apologized, ordering the soldiers to cease
logging operations. Soon afterwards, the maharajah designated the Bishnoi
state as a protected area, forbidding harm to trees and animals. This legislation
still exists today in the region.

CHIPKO MOVEMENT:

• Year: 1973
• Place: In Chamoli district and later at Tehri-Garhwal district of
Uttarakhand.
• Leaders: Sundarlal Bahuguna, Gaura Devi, Sudesha Devi,
Bachni Devi,Chandi Prasad Bhatt, Govind Singh Rawat, Dhoom
Singh Negi, Shamsher Singh Bisht and Ghanasyam Raturi.
• Aim: The main objective was to protect the trees on the
Himalayan slopes from the axes of contractors of the forest.
What was it all about: Mr. Bahuguna enlightened the villagers by
conveying the importance of trees in the environment which checks the
erosion of soil, cause rains and provides pure air. The women of Advani
village of Tehri-Garhwal tied the sacred thread around trunks of trees and
they hugged the trees, hence it was called the ‘Chipko Movement’ or ‘hug
the tree movement’.

The main demand of the people in these protests was that the benefits of
the forests (especially the right to fodder) should go to local people. The
Chipko movement gathered momentum in 1978 when the women faced
police firings and other tortures.

The then state Chief Minister, Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna set up a

committee to look into the matter, which eventually ruled in favour of the
villagers. This became a turning point in the history of eco-development
struggles in the region and around the world.

SAVE SILENT VALLEY MOVEMENT:

• Year: 1978
• Place: Silent Valley, an evergreen tropical forest in the
Palakkad district of Kerala, India.
• Leaders: The Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishad (KSSP) an NGO,
and the poet-activist Sughathakumari played an important role
in the Silent Valley protests.
• Aim: In order to protect the Silent Valley, the moist evergreen
forest from being destroyed by a hydroelectric project.

What was it all about: The Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) proposed
a hydroelectric dam across the Kunthipuzha River that runs through Silent
Valley. In February 1973, the Planning Commission approved the project
at a cost of about Rs 25 crores. Many feared that the project would
submerge 8.3 sq km of untouched moist evergreen forest. Several NGOs
strongly opposed the project and urged the government to abandon it.
In January 1981, bowing to unrelenting public pressure, Indira Gandhi
declared that Silent Valley will be protected. In June 1983 the Center re-
examined the issue through a commission chaired by Prof. M.G.K. Menon.
In November 1983 the Silent Valley Hydroelectric Project was called off.
In 1985, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi formally inaugurated the Silent
Valley National Park.

JUNGLE BACHAO ANDHOLAN:

• Year: 1982
• Place: Singhbhum district of Bihar
• Leaders: The tribals of Singhbhum.
• Aim: Against governments decision to replace the natural sal
forest with Teak.

What was it all about: The tribals of the Singhbhum district of Bihar
started the protest when the government decided to replace the natural
sal forests with the highly-priced teak. This move was called by many
“Greed Game Political Populism”. Later this movement spread to
Jharkhand and Orissa.

APPIKO MOVEMENT:
 • Year: 1983
• Place: Uttara Kannada and Shimoga districts of Karnataka
State
• Leaders: Appiko’s greatest strengths lie in it being neither
driven by a personality nor having been formally
institutionalised. However, it does have a facilitator in
Pandurang Hegde. He helped launch the movement in 1983.
• Aim: Against the felling and commercialization of natural
forest and the ruin of ancient livelihood.

What was it all about: It can be said that the Appiko movement is the
southern version of the Chipko movement. The Appiko Movement was
locally known as “Appiko Chaluvali”. The locals embraced the trees which
were to be cut by contractors of the forest department. The Appiko
movement used various techniques to raise awareness such as foot
marches in the interior forest, slide shows, folk dances, street plays etc.

The second area of the movement’s work was to promote afforestation on

denuded lands. The movement later focused on the rational use of the
ecosphere by introducing alternative energy resource to reduce pressure
on the forest. The movement became a success. The current status of the
project is – stopped.

NARMADA BACHAO ANDHOLAN:

• Year: 1985
• Place: Narmada River, which flows through the states of
Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra.
• Leaders: Medha Patker, Baba Amte, Adivasis, farmers,
environmentalists and human rights activists.
• Aim: A social movement against a number of large dams being
built across the Narmada River.
What was it all about: The movement first started as a protest for not
providing proper rehabilitation and resettlement for the people who have
been displaced by the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam. Later on,
the movement turned its focus on the preservation of the environment and
the eco-systems of the valley. Activists also demanded the height of the
dam to be reduced to 88 m from the proposed height of 130m. World Bank
withdrew from the project.

The environmental issue was taken into court. In October 2000, the
Supreme Court gave a judgment approving the construction of the Sardar
Sarovar Dam with a condition that the height of the dam could be raised to
90 m. This height is much higher than the 88 m which anti-dam activists
demanded, but it is definitely lower than the proposed height of 130 m.
The project is now largely financed by the state governments and market
borrowings. The project is expected to be fully completed by 2025.

TEHRI DAM CONFLICT MOVEMENT:

• Year: 1990’s
• Place: Bhagirathi River near Tehri in Uttarakhand.
• Leaders: Sundarlal Bahuguna
• Aim: The protest was against the displacement of town
inhabitants and the environmental consequence of the weak
ecosystem.

Tehri dam attracted national attention in the 1980s and the 1990s. The
major objections include seismic sensitivity of the region, submergence of
forest areas along with Tehri town etc. Despite the support from other
prominent leaders like Sunderlal Bahuguna, the movement has failed to
gather enough popular support at the national as well as international
levels.

To sum up, environmental and ecological movements

became prominent in India since the 1970s, like other such movements. The
concerns of these movement are not confined to any particular groups. They
are all encompassing – the entire village and urban communities, women,
tribals, peasants, middle classes and nature. Even the issues raised by them
concern all sections of society in varying degrees. These issues are: protection
of people’s right to access of natural resources, prevention of land
degradation, preventing commercialisation of nature resources and
environmental pollution, maintenance of ecological balance, rehabilitation of
displaced people, etc. These issues are also related to people’s dignity,
environmental rights and their decision-making rights on the issues
concerning them. The state in collaboration with the donor agencies
disturbed the ecological balance in the society following independence. In
the process this adversely affected the people. The latter launched
environmental and ecological movement with their leadership, NGOs and
other civil society organisations. These movements have raised the levels of
people’s consciousness, and achieved some success. They form a significant
aspect of democracy in India.

BOOKS,RESEARCHPAPERS,NATIONAL ECOLOGY AND

ENVIRONMENT PAGE AND GOOGLE.