Can industrialisation and inclusivity coexist?
The government launches campaigns for inclusive development, but amendments to Forest Conservation Act may harm the poorest citizens.
Economists are arguing fiercely about the direction of the Indian economy. Does the prime minister (PM) believe industrialisation is the way ahead or is he trying to develop an inclusive economy? When he coined the phrase Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas (development with all, for all) he seemed firmly set on the inclusive way forward. Then, there were also schemes to benefit individuals such as building lavatories, distribution of domestic gas cylinders, and the encouragement to open bank accounts. There was also the Swachh Bharat or Clean India campaign. However, the tribal region of Madhya Pradesh, which I know well, doesn’t seem much cleaner. Many of the built lavatories are being used for storage. It seems as if these schemes may not have been as successful as suggested by the Press Information Bureau (PIB) and reiterated by some television networks that have become accustomed to toeing the government’s line. 
The PM seems to have furthered his image of a man who believes that inclusive economics needed another boost. On April 21, PIB announced that the PM would be launching nine campaigns under the theme of Samaveshi Vikas or inclusive development. Among the areas to be covered are employment, health, social inclusion, social security and livelihood creation.
Of course, there is a website and a mobile app. There is clearly politics involved in these inclusive programmes as they were launched from Madhya Pradesh, which is headed for an assembly election this year. But this week, the two Houses of Parliament passed an amendment to the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 which shows that PM Narendra Modi still wants to go ahead with privatisation for accelerating the growth rate of India, but for which the poor might pay a price. This is the liberal economy seen in the case of former British PM, Margaret Thatcher, which swept aside so many of the benefits of the poor won by previous socialist governments.
In India, the poorest of the poor live in the forests and are dependent on them for their livelihood. They are the ones who will be the hardest hit by the amendments to the Forest Conservation Act. In the now famous case of the Niyamgiri forests, the tribals forced the mining giant Vedanta to abandon its plans to mine bauxite in the hills. Noted environmentalist Sharachchandra Lele recently argued that these hills are not notified forests, and according to the amendment, mining can now start again.
The state of Odisha faces this problem in other forests as well, as do the northeastern states. The northeastern states are also threatened by the Centre’s ability to construct linear projects within 100 km of any international border. A linear project could mean a connection between two places, not just roads and railways but also possibly drainage systems, airports, pylons and plenty of other things. The Centre stated that the linear projects will be of “national importance and concerning national security”. And who decides this? The central government. The amendments, as a whole, undermine Indian federalism. The Northeast shares international borders with China, Bangladesh, and Myanmar, and it has problems with all of them. The amendments to the forest law could create further challenges for the security forces of the region.
Of course, there is a threat to its forests as well. And the amendments also open the gates to developers looking to profit from the Northeast’s natural wealth. Some experts have argued that the commercialisation of the Northeast and the forests of central India is one of the main aims of the amendments. Is this the price we have to pay for development?
The views expressed are personal.
Experience unrestricted digital access with HT Premium
