Answer the following questions in about 250 words each: (a) Discuss the major environmental movements in India. How have they…

India’s development has intertwined environmental sustainability and food security: growth based on forests, rivers and land has repeatedly raised questions of who bears ecological costs and who receives nutritional entitlements.

Environmental movements. The Chipko movement (1973) in Uttarakhand, led by Sunderlal Bahuguna and local women, linked tree protection to forest-dependent livelihoods and forced the state to reconsider commercial felling. The Narmada Bachao Andolan (1985), led by Medha Patkar, challenged large dam displacement and created a template for environmental impact assessment, rehabilitation and public hearing. The Silent Valley movement (1973) in Kerala saved a rainforest from hydroelectric diversion and led to its protection as a national park; Appiko (1983) and Tehri Dam protests extended the same logic. These were not isolated protests; they mobilised villagers, lawyers, scientists and media, converting local grievances into national litigation, policy review and legislative pressure. They also shaped judicial and administrative practice by making courts and authorities insist on rehabilitation plans, forest clearance and public participation. The causal mechanism was clear: sustained on-ground resistance exposed the limits of top-down planning, compelled courts and commissions to examine displacement and ecology, and created political space for rights-based and environmental law. This contributed to the Forest Rights Act, 2006, which recognised tribal and forest-dweller rights; the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which provided specialised environmental justice; and the broader environmental regulatory framework anchored in the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and its rules and amendments, enacted after Bhopal but strengthened by public demand for accountability.

NFSA, 2013. The National Food Security Act, 2013, is a landmark entitlement law. It covers 75 per cent of rural and 50 per cent of urban population, provides 5 kg of subsidised cereals per person per month, 35 kg per AAY household per month, and prices of Rs 3, Rs 2 and Rs 1 per kg for rice, wheat and coarse grains. It also provides maternity benefit of at least Rs 6,000 and children’s nutrition schemes, including ICDS-linked support. Its achievements are real: it expanded PDS coverage, supported digitisation of beneficiary lists, strengthened women’s entitlements through maternity benefits and children’s nutrition support, and contributed to reduced hunger and improved food access. Yet a critical evaluation shows serious gaps. Aadhaar-linked PDS has caused exclusion errors for poor, elderly and migrant households. Storage and supply-chain losses remain a concern; FCI storage losses are low, but broader post-harvest/supply losses are estimated at around 30–33 per cent, and recent CAG/PIB reports have flagged stock availability, diversion and beneficiary identification problems, with Bihar and Jharkhand showing weaker implementation compared with Kerala and Chhattisgarh. Grievance redressal is often inadequate, and the fiscal burden on states, especially for procurement, transport and distribution, limits uniform implementation. The central-state funding gap for PDS operations further strains weaker states. Thus, NFSA is a strong rights-based framework but an incomplete delivery system; its success depends on fixing exclusion, storage and leakage, grievance mechanisms and state fiscal coordination, while environmental conservation remains essential for sustainable food security. A rights-based food system must therefore be ecologically sustainable.