Madhav Gadgil: Government which had declared itself ‘pro-people’ is moving into a ‘pro-power’ stand

The decision of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) to process a report prepared by a high level working group (HLWG) headed by K Kasturirangan instead of the previous report by a 12-member Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) headed by Madhav Gadgil, has not gone well with the renowned environmentalist. Reacting to the decision, Gadgil said that the government which had declared itself ‘pro-people’ is moving into a ‘pro-power’ stand.

Speaking to dna from Goa, Gadgil said that he was disappointed as Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his swearing-in ceremony had proclaimed that he would make development a people’s movement. But his government’s decision to accept the Kasturirangan report was a complete contradiction of that statement, he said.

Slamming the HLWG report as an autocratic top-down approach which took away the people’s power to have a say, Gadgil said his biggest objection was the undemocratic nature of the report. “If you go by the report submitted by us, it merely created a roadmap for making development a people’s movement. We examined in great detail various sets of issues and made suggestions too. But at the same time, we said that before making any decision, our report and suggestions must be presented to every gram sabha in human settlements of affected areas of the Western Ghats in the local language that people would understand. After receiving their considered opinions, only then a decision for that region could be arrived at,” said Gadgil.

On the other hand, the HLWG report questioned the involvement of local communities in matters of economic development, he said. “It is the people living at the grassroot level who really care about the health of the environment, as it is directly connected to their lives. At the same time, do they also not want development? Hence the decision of the local population who are the real stakeholders in such matters is extremely important. The biggest drawback of the HLWG report is that it takes this power away from the people,” he said.

Claiming that the HLWG report is not representative of the public opinion, Gadgil said that the decision was taken after a limited web-based consultation in English, which is not representative of the local population which is largely non-English speaking.

Slamming the HLWG committee report further, Gadgil said that the committee had completely departed from the mandate that was given to it, while the WGEEP had stuck to the mandate by the book.
“For example, one of the mandates given to us was to propose guidelines for establishing a Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA) which was supposed to be a professional body to manage the ecology and sustainable development of areas under the Western Ghats. The decision to form it had already been taken, we were to merely suggest ways in how it would function, which WGEEP did by suggesting a three tier administrative system at the center, state and local level which was again a democratic decision making system. The HLWG instead said that strengthening the existing high level committee, pollution boards, departments would serve the purpose of the WGEA. But that wasn’t the mandate at all, the panel wasn’t supposed to say if WGEA is needed or not as that decision was taken by the MoEF,” said Gadgil. Emphasising that the HLWG strayed from the mandate given to it, Gadgil pointed out that the WGEEP arrived at the conclusion that the entire Western Ghats was an ecologically sensitive area while the HLWG failed to do so.

“The mandate given to us required that we consider the recommendations of earlier government bodies on the issue of ecologically sensitive areas and the Pronab Sen Committee’s recommendations of year 2000 which were accepted by the Government of India. Furthermore, we divided the Western Ghats area into three zones depending on ecological vulnerability and the list of permissible activities varied as per the level of protection required. Even then, the final decision on classification of areas under zones, permissible activities etc rested with the locals. However, the HLWG didn’t consider such a classification and the recommendations are final with no scope for locals to give their inputs,” added Gadgil.

Asked if the government’s decision to go by the HLWG report instead of the Gadgil committee report (as the WGEEP report is popularly known) was because they considered it too ‘pro-environment and anti-development’, Gadgil retorted, “I take objection to the perverse use of the word development here. If the definition of this development means real estate, mining and industries, it is a rather poor meaning. Call it pro-real estate then, not pro-development.”

Does he think things would have been different had the UPA government, which constituted the WGEEP, been in power? “I don’t wish to make speculative statements on what could have been, I just know what happened is a loss to the people,” said the environmentalist.

Stating that he would continue to raise awareness amongst the locals on the WGEEP report and try to dispel the myths spread about it, Gadgil said that it was extremely unfortunate that a government that claims to be pro-people has taken such an undemocratic stand.

Also read: 6 points made by Madhav Gadgil report that the Centre ignored