Speaking with Nature review: Ramachandra Guha traces roots of Indian environmental thought

Guha has not been unknown to polemics and devil’s advocacy. In ‘Radical American Environmentalism and Wilderness Preservation: A Third World Critique’ (The Future of Nature, Yale University Press, 1997), he went hammer and tongs against American environmentalism for its obsessive fixation with wilderness preservation and its separation from the mundane lives and struggles of ordinary people. Questioning their self-righteous arrogance, he argued that those Americans should import ideas from movements like Chipko and Indian thinkers like Mahatma Gandhi. Against this background, he chooses his pioneering protagonists carefully. Not all of them were Indians (Patrick Geddes, Albert and Gabrielle Howard, Madeleine Slade or Mira Behn and Verrier Elwin), but no one could have been more Indians than them.

Mission and methodology

The disciplinary/social-ecological commitments of these 10 pioneers took them to different parts of India where they worked day in and day out at the grassroots with the Indians in their bewildering diversities — with sensitivity and empathy to come out with prescriptions which are capable of addressing contemporary challenges of environmental degradation. Others — a Nobel laureate in Rabindranath Tagore, a sociologist in Radhakamal Mukerjee (with keen sense of social ecology), comrades of Bapu (J.C. Kumarappa and Mira Behn gunning for rural renewal along Gandhian lines), K.M. Munshi whose environmentalism was rooted in ancient Hindu sensibilities and brilliant but abrasive M. Krishnan who — of all the characters — came closest to the separation of nature from community in order to preserve nature, and who was not exactly fond of big animal projects which gave short or no shrift to the small animals.

Watch: Ramachandra Guha interview: 'No govt ever consults environmentalists'

While dwelling upon their lives, works and legacies, Guha makes it clear that they were not under the thrall of environmentalism as it developed in the West. Second, all of them were acutely aware of the exploitative and brutalising presence of colonialism which had led to sharp and searing ruptures, departures and fragmentation of natural resources of all kinds. The author discusses their ideas in relation to hugely disruptive colonial question. Third, Guha goes to great lengths in ascertaining their pioneering ideas, initiatives, experiments and prescriptions as speaking to the lived reality, felt needs and humdrum but immensely diverse lives of the ordinary people.

Fourth, Guha compares and contrasts the organic ideas of his protagonists with the contemporary and later environmental movements across the world to underline their lingering sense of relevance. But all said, Guha — even though an admirer — is not an uncritical acolyte of the characters under discussion and does not shy away from offering critical insights.

Eclectic ideas and lingering legacies

Guha rightly calls Tagore “the myriad-minded environmentalist” who backed his ideas with experiments. Tagore’s aesthetic appreciation of nature expressed so feelingly in his lyrical writing went well with a sharp awareness and critique of the political and economic forces — stemming from industrialisation and imperialism (“carnivorous and cannibalistic”) which threatened it. His focus on environmental education is now formally part of the school curriculum in India.

As for Radhakamal Mukerjee, Guha minces no words when he says that a lot of what he wrote was superficial and ephemeral but in regard to human ecology, he was a true pioneer. While advocating a balanced and non-exploitative relationship between the city and the countryside, he put forth the intricacies of the web of life, of which humans were only one element so he expected humans to act with restraint if they didn't wish to undermine the prospects of life on earth. He highlighted the instrumental role that community — apart from state and market — must play in growth and development.

J.C. Kumarappa — the Gandhian disciple — argued against the appropriateness of the western model of growth for India and advocated that India must build its economic future on agrarian foundations in a decentralised fashion through the energetic participation of community. His book Economy of Permanence finds echo in E. F. Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful.

Of the foreigners who came to India to make it their home for extended periods or for lifetime, Patrick Geddes, with his ecological town planning, is different as he doesn’t deal as much with forests and countryside as with cities. Guha highlights three central themes of his sense of urban planning — respect for nature, respect for democracy or people, and respect for tradition. In his vision, water, trees, conservation of resources and recycling, along with harmonising of city and county, were of seminal significance.

Albert and Gabrielle Howard — husband and wife, pursuing “better research through agriculture” and not conventionally popular “better agriculture through research” — dissenting scientists par excellence, dirtied their hands and feet while challenging the dominant knowledge system of the times regarding soil health and fertility. Their opposition to monoculture and exotic crops, the centrality of the significance of humus and composting, appreciation rather than rejection of the knowledge of local cultivators and the need to give that knowledge appropriate direction, coupled with appreciation of the way nature renews itself, speak of their enduring sense of relevance.

Also read: There Are Rivers in the Sky review: Elif Shafak’s sweeping tale born of a water drop

While Mira Behn, with her considered views on decentralised development and rural renewal, and Verrier Elwin, with his passionate, even fierce advocacy of tribal-forest symbiosis and “Culture in Nature” are better known, it is the choice of K.M. Munshi that is both interesting and possibly confusing. He was not an environmentalist per se but at the helm in Independent India, he sought sanction for conservation in the ancient Hindu texts and traditions, presided over the idea of “Van Mahotsav” and as Guha puts it succinctly, “wished to instrumentalize nature for a religious cause.”

M. Krishnan — mostly self-taught and self-trained environmentalist — was as interested in plants as in animals and was keenly aware of the relationship between the two. For him, the state has to take the lead in ecological conservation through the expansion of the network of parks and sanctuaries under government ownership and a strict prohibition on sport hunting. He was different from Verrier Elwin in that he often disregarded the long-standing claims of peasants and tribals who had always been a part of the forest ecosystem.

Leitmotifs running through the book

Guha's central motivation in writing the book — environmentalism transcends geographical confines and intellectual initiatives of the developed world — finds echo throughout the book. While retrieving and presenting the ideas and initiatives of the protagonists, he is concerned about their contributions to the overall environmental conservation movement. He underlines how their ideas could help focus sharper on the question of sustainable lifestyles. They cautioned deliberate restraint to tone down mindless consumerism.

Further, these pioneering protagonists saw a close connection between environmental sustainability and democratic deepening. Kumarappa and Mira, as committed Gandhians, and Radhakamal Mukerjee, through his emphasis on the importance of common property resources in agrarian life, highlighted that environmental sustainability was not possible without community participation. And lastly, what is now referred to as sustainable development and social justice — local, national, international or inter-generational — these protagonists were alive to these questions and felt accountable to provide answers.

The predicament of an admirer

So, there is everything going for the book which must be read at a time when climate change is not merely a probability but a living reality. However, Guha at times seems too keen to prove the autarchy of Indian environmentalism. Further, his deep knowledge is laced with an expectation that readers share the same level of understanding or are equally well-versed. In this pursuit, he includes quotes from authors that may not always feel appropriate, necessary, or both. Many of the ideas and views discussed here have also appeared in his previous works, which can evoke a sense of familiarity, if not mild ennui. That said, it is a book that demands to be read.