Is it their tiredness with what they may believe is his “fashionable populism” or their irritation with his style that so many senior ministers of the Union government were so ready to be so dismissive of Jairam Ramesh’s views on the “ecological unsustainability” of 10 per cent economic growth?
That the Union Minister of State for Environment and Forests has not exactly endeared himself to many of his ministerial colleagues is by now an open secret. What many of Mr Ramesh’s colleagues cannot figure out is whether he is being serious or flippant when he intervenes in policy discussions. While his views on environmental policies may have become the subject matter of much controversy, it is necessary to reflect on Mr Ramesh’s views on the sustainability of high growth in the medium term.
Speaking at a meeting of the Planning Commission last week, Mr Ramesh reportedly questioned both the wisdom of setting a growth target – and one as high as 9 to 10 per cent – and of seeking an additional power generation capacity of 100,000 Mw in the 12th five year plan period (2012-17). Mr Ramesh was worried about the carbon emission impact that such rapid growth would have and viewed this as being “ecologically unsustainable”.
This is not the first time such attention has been drawn to the constraints that the paucity of natural resources imposes on economic growth. India’s adverse land-man ratio and the enormous burden that energy-intensive industrialisation has placed on nature exercised the minds of Indian planners even before the Planning Commission came into being.
Mahatma Gandhi’s entire world view on economic growth and industrial development was shaped by his concern about the limits to growth imposed by nature. His famous dictum that “the Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed” sums up the Gandhian approach to the conflict between man and nature.
The literature on economic planning in India is full of debates on the “ecological sustainability” of modern energy-intensive industrial development for close to three quarters of a century. India’s first five year plan, written under the direct supervision of Jawaharlal Nehru, begins with the words: “[The objective of planning in India is] (a) to make an assessment of the material, capital and human resources of the country, including technical personnel, and investigate the possibilities of augmenting such of these resources as are found to be deficient in relation to the nation’s requirements; and (b) to formulate a Plan for the most effective and balanced utilisation of the country’s resources.”
Mr Ramesh has formulated his version of an old argument in terms of the ongoing discourse on climate change and carbon emissions. His specific point that adding 100,000 Mw of power generation capacity would vastly increase India’s carbon emissions and, therefore, would be ecologically unsustainable, defines the problem in narrower terms compared with the original Gandhian critique that the world has enough to provide for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed.
However, Mr Ramesh has raised an important question that India’s planners must grapple with: Should India merely ape the West, and indeed the East — given that China, Japan, Korea and many east and southeast Asian “tiger economies” have all aped the western model of energy-intensive industrialisation? Or, should India pursue a more ecologically sustainable model of economic development?
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh himself has posed this question on more than one occasion. Quoting Gandhiji’s famous dictum, Dr Singh addressed an international conference on the relevance of Gandhian philosophy in the 21st century (January 30, 2007): “Gandhiji’s statement [“the Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed”] is a simple statement on sustainable development [that] shows us the value of high thinking and simple living. The concern for our environment that now envelops civil society across the globe is best articulated by this statement. I do sincerely believe that the world cannot sustain the lifestyles of the affluent. We need a new development paradigm that caters to everyone’s need and can keep in check human greed.”
It is that “new development paradigm” that Mr Ramesh and his fellow travellers seek. Critics may differ with this viewpoint, but it is neither fanciful nor unimportant. Time and again, Indian planners and policy makers have debated the fundamental questions of the direction and pace of economic growth. In raising the questions that he has, Mr Ramesh is forcing us to pause and ponder. One must.
India cannot blindly seek the energy- and capital-intensive model of industrialisation and urban development that both the “industrialised” West and the “industrialising” East have adopted. Mr Ramesh is right to say that this model of development is ecologically unsustainable.
The question, however, is whether there is adequate political support for an alternative model. India’s rising middle class, ranging all the way from urban professionals and small business communities down to the upwardly mobile small-town middle class to rich rural peasants, constituting a substantial majority of the population of over 600 million (all the mobile phone users), seeks an increasingly energy-intensive lifestyle. No political party can ignore the “revolution of rising expectations”.
China’s leaders, too, have neglected the question of the long-term sustainability of its growth process, as western leaders. While many around the world wonder whether today’s energy-intensive lifestyle of developed and developing economies can be sustained, few nations have so far thrown up a political leadership capable of grappling with the challenge of shifting development paradigms.
In posing the question that he has, Mr Ramesh has forced India’s political leadership to grapple with this challenge. He has made a point worthy of serious consideration, even if no easy answers are available.
