DIALOGUES-Fourth Critical Studies -Social Power 1

Abstract

Certain facts can be stipulated as “true” at the outset, in the sense of being non-controversial. The world, including India, is rapidly moving towards an ecological crisis. The modern political economy, based upon extraction and consumption of natural resources on a massive scale, has resulted in widespread destruction of habitat. Forests, home to hundreds of millions (if not more) of human beings have become emblematic of this disaster and, are disappearing at an alarming rate. The situation of India’s forests is no better. Large swathes of them are to be found only on paper. The governments, both state and central, have shown themselves incapable of regulating the use of forests, whether it is the cutting of trees, extracting forest produce, or extracting the mineral wealth hidden beneath them.

Starting with the Forest Conservation Act 1980, the country’s legal and judicial regime has been increasingly active in the running of India’s forests. This activism has led to the case known as T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad versus the Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) 202 of 1995), which has been pending before the Supreme Court since 1995. By virtue of this and a few other cases forests and their inhabitants, both of which have stiffly resisted incorporation into the regimes of modernity, have been brought fully within its purview.

Thousands of orders have been passed in the Godavarman and related cases. These orders are a peculiar mix of macro and micro management, ranging from an absolute ban throughout India on all non-forest activity in areas defined as “forests”, to granting permission for cutting a few trees (203 trees to be precise) in the Rajaji National Park, Dehradun. On another scale, these orders range from the ‘absolute ban’ mentioned above to the grant of permission for the conversion of thousands of acres of “forest” land to industrial use, including mining, leading to large scale destruction of flora and fauna; such diversion being deemed essential in the name of the shibboleths of modernity, namely “progress”, “development” and “growth”.

To aid the very difficult balances required to be maintained in the achieving of such contradictory objects, the Supreme Court has adopted several tools, developed by the rule of law regime worldwide. The most prominent among these are the notions of ‘sustainable development’ – as propounded by a combination of business and mainstream ecology – and ‘net present value’ (NPV), which has been developed by the financial and economic wizards of the world to create a “sustainable” order of priorities for decisions affecting non-renewable natural resources.

Thus, the Godavarman case, along with its bunch of connected cases, are perfect illustrations for one of the most significant trends to emerge from the post WW-II scheme for global order and control, namely the judicialisation of power. Received with universal hope and acclaim to begin with, this trend was seen by secular progressives of the world as the ultimate answer to irrationality of all kinds, including sectarian divides, arbitrariness, corruption, and much more.

However, there is a growing body of thought that takes the view that the Supreme Court’s approach is fraught with controversy and problem. Instead of working in tandem with the people most closely linked to the forests, namely the Adivasis and other forest dwellers, the Court has taken the easy way out, creating a small but extremely powerful bureaucracy that is answerable exclusively to itself. The concerned executive arms of the state stand relegated to playing subordinate roles. In this context, the fact that among the over 2500 applications filed (and entertained) by the Supreme Court in the Godavarman case there are virtually none by those directly affected by the new regime of forest management acquires enormous significance.

Thus, on the one hand, it is not unreasonable to hold that rampant corruption, the imperatives of capitalist growth, and the compulsions of life on the margins of modernity would have rapidly led to a Haiti like situation in India. In such a situation the courts, particularly the Supreme Court had a solemn duty to uphold and enforce the laws for the protection of the environment, including forests and wildlife.

On the other hand, forests mean land. Land is the most valuable resource in India, or anywhere else for that matter. Approximately 30% of India’s land is “forest”. So, if one is to attribute prescience to the Court, one must attribute it not only with respect to consciousness about the importance of the environment and the forests but also with respect to the “value” of the subject matter they took under their control.

The Supreme Court, through its bureaucracy, has taken charge of natural resources worth several trillion dollars at a conservative estimate. Even more important is the fact that they have become arbiters over the lives (and fate) of an estimated 350 million Indians, who are either directly dependent upon forests, or earn their livelihood from them.

The transfer of such enormous power into the hands of a completely unaccountable few deserves serious examination. Given space and scope constraints, in this paper I intend to focus on exploring the ramifications and impact of the twin notions of “sustainable development” and NPV.

Bionote