discussion
march 21, 2009  vol xliv no 12  EPW   Economic & Political Weekly76
Ashish Kothari (ashishkothari@vsnl.com) is
with the Kalpavriksh Environment
Action Group.
A Sympathetic Critique of
the Bhaduri-Patkar Model
Ashish Kothari
In suggesting an alternative
to the current pattern of
industrialisation we cannot
ignore the environmental limits
of industrial growth. Sustainable
alternatives need to incorporate
an understanding that
non-industrial lifestyles and
non-human life forms too deserve
respect and space to flourish. This
short piece offers a sympathetic
critique of the Amit BhaduriMedha
Patkar economic formula
(3 January 2009).
A
mit Bhaduri and Medha Patkar
make a formidable pair, combining
incisive economic analyses
with deep humanitarian ethics (“Industrialisation
for the People, by the People, of
the People”, EPW, 3 January 2009). Their
critique of the current economic model of
globalised growth in India and advocacy
of an alternative, deserves full attention.
But while I am in full agreement with their
critique and with the general line of their
prescriptions, I think these fall short of the
fundamental restructuring that is needed
for the Indian (or global) economy to come
close to being sustainable and equitable.
Knowing Medha and having been part of
some of the same struggles, I suspect she
and Bhaduri may not be averse to what I
am saying, and that perhaps the omissions
I point to may be more because they did not
have the time or space to make their article
more comprehensive and well-rounded.
Or perhaps, they held back because they
were anxious to project themselves as not
being “impractical romantics”, but deeply
and concretely concerned about ordinary
people struggling to make a living.
I have two main points of criticism.
One, that the issue of ecological frameworks
and limits is missing. There is a tiny
hint of this in the last paragraph when they
talk about “saving and i­mproving, through
popular initiative, common resources of
forests, rivers and the sea coast”, but the
implications of such an objective do not
underlie the rest of the article. Second,
that in advocating an equitable path of
“industrialisation”, there is a curious
sidelining of other modes of production,
consumption and living. Again, there is
only a hint of this  at   the end of the article,
when the authors mention “those who
now make a livelihood from related agricultural
a­ctivities”.
It is clear now, more than ever before,
that the earth simply cannot sustain
continuous human growth, regardless of
how efficient we make our technologies to
reduce demand on resources per unit of
production. Equitable growth, through
rural and people-centred industrialisation,
must also have its limits. Indeed, the
equation of “development” with “growth”
has been seriously and increasingly questioned,
and even the idea of ever-lasting
“development” has been challenged. The
ideologies of development and growth
are, after all, less than a century old and it
is astonishing how much of a sacred status
they have attained. Anyone challenging
these is looked at with horror by not only
those within the departments and offices
responsible for development, but also by
most “educated” citizens, for we have all
grown up to believe that humanity can only
prosper by an ever-increasing harnessing
of natural resources for a constantly growing
base of energy and material goods.
The multiple ecological crises we are
now surrounded by, however, have forced
us to accept that the earth indeed has limits.
I am not necessarily arguing for the
Malthusian version of “limits to growth”,
such as was made famous in the Club of
Rome book by this name (Meadows et al
1972). My concern is rooted in a more fundamentally
ethical perspective that respects
all life forms and thereby requires
that humanity restrain its activities so as
not to impinge on their right to survive. It
is also rooted on the perspective that limitless
growth of any kind will simply not
be sustained by the earth. “Industrialisation
for the People, by the People, of the
People”, as Bhaduri and Patkar title their
article, could well lead to equitable development
for all humans, but it may not be
so benevolent to other species that co-­
inhabit the earth since it may ultimately
not be sustained by the earth.
It could conceivably be argued by the
authors that equitable industrialisation,
in which all people have a say, would lead
to ecological sustainability too. Possibly.
But I do not think there is anything inevitable
about this, for conceivably too
we may continue to displace the space
and capa­city of other species to thrive,
even while expanding our own share of
goods and services equitably within our
discussion
Economic & Political Weekly  EPW   march 21, 2009  vol xliv no 12 77
species. It would be a mistake to think that
equity will automatically lead to sustainability,
especially if the latter is meant
to include the capacity of all species to
continue thriving.
Going Beyond the Limits
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
sounded a clear alarm in 2005 when it
stated that humanity was already overusing
or degrading the carrying capacity
of the earth. One consequence of our
actions was that 10 to 30% of mammal,
amphibian and bird species were threatened
with extinction. In such a situation,
any more overall growth for human
purposes could exacerbate our negative
impact on ecosystems and species. In
October 2008 the Ecological Footprint
Network and Chamber of Indian Industries
reported that India was already
using twice its biological capacity (GFN
and CII 2008). This means it was either
using someone else’s bio-capacity by importing
timber or mineral or other natural
resources and energy sources (and indeed
we do import timber from southeast
Asia), or overusing its own resources
(of which there is plenty of evidence in
the form of continuing degradation of
forest, grassland and wetland resources).
Therefore, a strategy of ever-increasing
growth, whether for India or for the world,
is not likely to be compatible with an ecologically
healthy future.
The consequences of the lack of a more
ecologically-centred vision shows up in
seemingly innocuous but potentially dangerous
ways in the article. For instance,
in arguing that industry must not displace
existing land-based livelihoods (an absolutely
vital point), they advocate that it
must “come up on vacant/uncultivable
land”. This harks back to attempts by the
government of India to afforest “wastelands”
(in more recent times), or to
distribute such lands to the landless (in
early post-independence times). Many
studies have shown that in fact such lands
are either, (a) the only common resource
for the poorest people (especially pastoralists),
or (b) the habitat of a rich diversity
of wildlife. Or often both. In a country
like India, it is not clear what vacant or
uncultivable land would be available,
which is not already in use by the most
underpriviliged sections of India’s (human
or non-human) denizens.
Alternatives to Industry
Focusing only on “industrialisation” in
their alternative has led the authors to neglect
telling us what should happen with
agriculture or other non-industrial livelihoods
and lifestyles. They talk of the dire
straits agriculture is in (and the dropping
share of agriculture in the country’s GDP),
but do not provide a vision of how farmers
are to get out of this. This is much more
than simply saying they should not be
displaced by industry, it is about a fundamental
revolution in the way agriculture
has been treated by governmental policy.
It is about moving away from bureaucracy
or corporate-led, chemical-intensive, irrigation-priority,
homogenised farming towards
a focus on farmer-led inno­vation,
reviving the respectful role of farming in
the economy, clarifying property rights,
supporting organic and bio­logi­cally diverse
cropping, encouraging direct and
local producer-consumer links, putting
the knowledge of farmers into school
and college curriculum to provide it the
same status that formal lab-generated
knowledge has, and other such actions.
Strategies such as these, and many similar
ones for forest-dwellers, fishers, pastoralists,
and other non-industrial ways of
life, are as crucial in any “alternative”
vision of human welfare as is equitable/
rural industrial development. Concomitant
to such a restructuring would also be
a more direct challenge to the unfettered
consumerism of material goods that
feeds the currently unsustainable paths
of economic globalisation. Such a challenge
may today seem hopelessly unrealistic
but may not in the near future, specially
if public awareness of its consequences
and incorporation of different
perspectives are put squarely into education
and public outreach.
To conclude, I urge that any funda­mental
challenge to today’s destructive economic
globalisation process, has to embrace a
diversity of ways of producing and
consuming, and related lifestyles; as also
respect for a diversity of life forms. One
may then envisage not even one alternative
path, but perhaps a variety of paths,
to suit the enormous diversity of local
ecological, cultural, economic, and political
situations humans find themselves in.
Such alternative paths would have to
ensure that none is constraining the other,
and that they all collectively respect
the global limits of the earth and our
responsibility placed on us towards our
fellow species.
Such a vision may be called “impractical”
and “romantic”. I could argue that we
now have the knowledge and practical
strategies to make this possible, and
that this is no more impractical than trying
to achieve universal human welfare
through industrialisation of any kind. Or I
could argue that India’s constitution,
which enjoins upon us the responsibility
of achieving equity and environmental
protection, is equally “impractical” and
“romantic”, but is nevertheless something
we have embraced as a guiding light to
illuminate the paths we must take. Either
way, the fact that we have put our planet
and ourselves on a path with very visible
arrows pointing to “self-destruct” suggests
we need a very basic rethink. Arguing for
equitable, democratic and decentralised
growth is crucial, but on its own, it will
simply not get us off this path.
References
GFN and CII (2008): “India’s Ecological Footprint: A
Business Perspective”, Global Footprint Network
and Chamber of Indian Industries, http://www.
footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/blog/
indias_demand_on_nature_approaching_c­ritical_
limits http://www.millenniumassessment.org/
en/I­ndex.aspx
Meadows, Donella H, Dennis L Meadows, Jorgen
Randers and William W Behrens III (1972): The
Limits to Growth (New York: Universe Books).
For the Attention of Subscribers and
Subscription Agencies Outside India
  It has come to our notice that a large number of subscriptions to the EPW from outside the country together
with the subscription payments sent to supposed subscription agents in India have not been forwarded to us.
  We wish to point out to subscribers and subscription agencies outside India that all foreign subscriptions,t­ogether
with the appropriate remittances, must be forwarded to us and not to unauthorised third parties in India.
  We take no responsibility whatsoever in respect of subscriptions not registered with us.
							 Manager