Remembering Anil Agarwal: What DTE founder editor thought of 3 new states formed in 2000

India’s politicians never seem to think ahead. They have created three new states out of some of the poorest regions of India—Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand), Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand—without any idea of how these states would survive economically without a huge and permanent largesse from the Centre. If the new chief ministers get stuck in the same old mould, we will hear more cries of neglect from the Centre. In a country where politicians love to talk about poverty but know precious little about how to deal with it, an obvious question to ask is: What will be the economic development strategy in these states?

The answer lies in redefining poverty. The leaders of these states have to recognise that it is ‘ecological poverty’ that plagues these states more than the ‘economic poverty’ that economists love to dwell upon. They need a strong and healthy natural resource base that can help the poor to improve their own natural resource-based enterprises like agriculture, rearing of animals and forestry. These states don’t need economists. They need good environmental managers... As a first step, the new chief ministers should declare themselves the chief environmental officers (CEOs) of their states.

Why do I say this? Firstly, all three are largely forest states. Each one has a large population heavily dependent on forests. But large tracts of land have already been deforested. In Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand, autocratic management of forests has seriously alienated the people and Naxalite movements have gained ground with support from the local populace. Therefore, the first challenge for these states is to get the people involved in regenerating their forests in a way that they come to ‘own’ these forests and are interested in their sustainable management... Secondly, agriculture in these states has to be nursed back to health. All the three new states receive high rainfall, an annual average of more than 1,000 mm. Yet agriculture remains poor... Thirdly, all the three states are rich in biodiversity. They need programmes not just to conserve their eroding biodiversity but also to put it to good use. Farming of herbs can add value to agriculture. Uttaranchal can take the Kerala route in using its herbal wealth to develop a large Ayurvedic healthcare industry...

But it is unlikely that the CEOs of the new states will focus on any of these natural resources. Forest, water and biodiversity management don’t have powerful lobbies. The existing lobbies will focus on activities that benefit contractors and companies, which will lead to exploitation of minerals, and in making roads. Governments in India love to talk about poverty but usually serve the interests of contractors and companies. The trouble is that both roads and mineral exploitation can easily destroy the natural resource base of the poor—forests and biodiversity, in particular—unless there is a strong governance of these resources which involves the local people instead of alienating them. Therefore, the CEOs, if of the right mind, have no choice but to focus on ecological poverty, decentralised natural resource governance and a people’s movement for land-water-forest management. The people will then be their friends. But their own corruption and the standard autocratic ways of their officers will be their biggest enemy. If they are able to show leadership they would not have just benefitted their own people but set an example for the rest of the country’s political class on how to deal with poverty. This will not be a small achievement.

Anil Agarwal was the founding editor of Down To Earth

This editorial was published in the magazine’s January 1-15, 2001 edition