(a) Discuss the role of environmental movements in shaping the environmental governance in India. 20 (b) "Relative deprivation…

(a) Environmental movements and governance

Indian environmental movements began as local ecological struggles and evolved into a force that redefined the state’s role. Chipko (from 1973) linked tree protection to rural livelihoods and challenged technocratic forestry, contributing to a 15-year ban on green felling in the Uttarakhand Himalaya in 1980; the Silent Valley campaign in Kerala led to the area being declared a national park in 1984, and Appiko (1983) carried the idea to the Western Ghats. The Bhopal gas disaster of 1984 prompted the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The Narmada Bachao Andolan contested large dams, exposing displacement and caste-gender inequalities, and pushed for rehabilitation, consent and alternatives. Such activism shaped public participation and rehabilitation debates, and environmental impact assessment became mandatory through the 1994 EIA Notification under the Environment (Protection) Act, with public hearings added in 1997; the Supreme Court nonetheless allowed the Sardar Sarovar dam to proceed in 2000, showing the limits of movement influence. Later, tribal and environmental activism around mining, forests and climate issues—such as the Niyamgiri bauxite struggle and contemporary climate activism—brought indigenous knowledge, forest rights and climate justice into policy. It has also pushed for adaptation finance and community-based adaptation, linking local struggles to national policy. These movements shifted environmental governance from a top-down bureaucratic model to a participatory, rights-based approach. They helped create legal and institutional space: the Forest Rights Act, 2006, recognised the rights of forest-dwelling communities over forest land and minor forest produce; the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, provided specialised environmental adjudication; and judicial directions, including the Supreme Court's April 2013 order that the Dongria Kondh gram sabhas decide on the Niyamgiri bauxite project under the FRA - after which all twelve gram sabhas rejected it and the environment ministry refused clearance in January 2014 - alongside public interest litigation from M.C. Mehta and others that produced orders on vehicle pollution, the Ganga and illegal mining. The broader effect was to make environmental governance more accountable, locally embedded and sensitive to indigenous knowledge, though implementation remains uneven.

(b) Relative deprivation and ethnic conflict

Relative deprivation, as developed by Ted Gurr and James Davies, refers not to absolute poverty but to the perceived gap between what a group believes it deserves and what it actually receives. Unlike absolute deprivation, it is comparative, tied to status, dignity and recognition. Donald Horowitz (Ethnic Groups in Conflict, 1985) showed how "backward" groups fearing domination by "advanced" ones mobilise around such grievances. Sri Lanka is the classic case: the Sinhala Only Act (1956) and the "standardisation" of university admissions (1971) convinced Tamils that they were losing status and opportunity, feeding the civil war. In India, too, it helps explain several ethnic conflicts. In Nagaland, the Naga National Council’s demand for Naga independence reflected historical exclusion and distinct identity. In Kashmir, militancy drew on perceptions of political marginalisation, sharpened by the disputed 1987 Assembly elections, and was sustained by cross-border support from Pakistan. In Bodoland and Gorkhaland, demands for separate entities arose from claims that linguistic, cultural and economic interests were neglected by the state. The Assam Movement (1979-85) arose from fears of being outnumbered by migrants, and the Meitei-Kuki violence in Manipur from May 2023 was triggered by a dispute over Scheduled Tribe status and access to land and jobs. However, it is not sufficient. It can intensify conflict when institutions fail to provide redress. Ethnic conflict also involves political manipulation by elites, competition over resources and jobs, historical grievances, heavy-handed security responses and the failure of constitutional accommodation. Thus, it is a useful lens but must be read with structural and political factors.

(c) Gram Sabha: promise and practice

Gram Sabha is the constitutional foundation of Panchayati Raj under Article 243A and the 73rd Amendment. It is a forum for collective deliberation, social audit, participatory budgeting and local conflict resolution. When functioning well, it strengthens social cohesion and local accountability. In Scheduled Areas, the PESA Act, 1996, gives Gram Sabhas a greater role in planning and managing natural resources and requires consultation before land acquisition. In practice, it often falls short of its constitutional promise. Elite capture, low participation of women, SCs and STs, irregular meetings and weak enforcement limit effectiveness. It can become a rubber stamp for local power brokers rather than a space for collective wisdom, aspirations and will. Regular meetings, transparent records, women’s and Dalit representation, digital budget access, and stronger links to forest-rights claims and to the social audits of the rural employment guarantee (MGNREGA, now succeeded by the VB-G RAM G Act, 2025) can make it more representative.