Looking Ahead From Victory At Doon

The Indian Supreme Court’s August 1988 decision against limestone quarrying in Doon Valley was vindication of grassroots activism. By their awareness and action, the Valley’s people have helped the cause of ecologically sustainable and socially equitable utilisation of nature’s resources. This was, after all, the first major environmental public interest litigation of its kind in the Court. Perhaps it is time to draw lessons from the Doon’s experience, to reflect on the past and to look at the challenges that lie ahead.

Today, there are more and more public interest environmental cases being filed in the courts of India. What was the uniqueness of Doon Valley and its people that the litigation went in their favour? There was a time when environmental researchers doing village surveys had to be fearful of the limestone mafia in the Valley. Today, it is common to take the side of the environment and against limestone quarries -in fact it is risky not to do so!

The Doon Valley is a picturesque but ecologically fragile area bounded by the Himalaya to the North, the Shivalik to the South, and the life-giving Ganga and Yamuna to the East and West. Abundant water and a fine climate have provided the base for high value crops like the fragrant basmati rice and the famous green tea of Dehra Dun. So perfect was its scenic and climatic situation that in 1853 Doon was even selected as the most fitting area for the future capital of India.

While the political capital was set up elsewhere, Debra Dun did become the “environmental capital” of India; headquarters of the Survey of India and the Imperial Forest School were set up here. Since 1947, too, it has become host to a large number of institutions engaged in natural resources research, monitoring and training.

During the 1950s, the economic picture of Doon started to change. Reliance on renewable resources gave way to the nonrenewable extraction of high-grade limestone from the Valley’s Northern flanks. To foster economic development of this ”zero industry district”, the Government supported several big limestone processing units. Limestone has a ready market in the steel, chemicals and textile industries of the plains. Debra Dun quickly lost its tranquility and became a mining city for the “white gold”.

As the quarrying grew enormously in the 1960s, the villagers’ agricultural and pastoral economy was undermined. Deep social conflict soon emerged between them and the quarry operators. The authorities, meanwhile, maintained their unquestioning faith in “economic development”, never asking, ”Whose development and at what cost?”

Realising that their future was at stake, the villagers began to protest, only to face a violent backlash. For example, the villagers of Nahi Kala came out in non-violent protest when their land, dwelling houses, pastures, cattle and even young women fell prey to the strength of the quarrying economy. They tried to block the roads and had to face truckloads of armed goons who used brute force to clear the road for the mining economy.

It is not that the State and Union Governments were insensitive to the ecological problems, but that they were ineffective in finding a solution. There was no clear institutional framework for ecological monitoring. Finally, in early 1983, the Department of Environment commissioned an ecosystems study of Doon Valley, which I had the opportunity to conduct. That study, and another by’ three socially committed journalists, K. Prasun, N. Nautial and B. Dogra, changed the course of public thinking. What had till then been just a sense of ecological destruction and economic underdevelopment had now been scientifically quantified.

Following the publication of the ecosystems research in June 1983, the Rural Litigation and Entitlement Centre (RLEC) filed a public interest suit that was accepted by the Supreme Court in July. RLEC’s coordinator, Kaushal, followed the case with patience and perseverance until 30 August 1988, when the historic judgement was delivered by the Court. It called for gradually discontinuing limestone quarrying in the Valley.

The success of the Doon Valley case was built on several strong points. The ecosystem study gathered objective information on the ecological dislocation from those people who were affected. This liberated the meaning of ecology from fashionable concepts of scenic beauty and connected it instead to human rights and to basic resource needs. The scientific information generated by the ecosystem study was most competently used in the courts.

Notwithstanding the scientific competence, the case would probably not have been accepted had not Justice P.N. Bhagwati interpreted “right to life” in a holistic and ecological way. And even when it was admitted, the case would not have drawn the interest of the Government if the people of the Valley had not continued in their protests. During the process, the villagers became so highly informed about scientific and ecological matters that they challenged Government officials who tried to be evasive.

Their victory at the courts placed before the people of Doon and the administration the question of what is to be done next. It is easy to identify ecological damage by some economic activity, but it is difficult to identify and carry out only those activities that are ecologically sustainable. The Court’s judgement has pushed the people to think ahead and to search for alternative ways to live and develop.

Jayanta Bandyopadhyay is presently with ICIMOD in Kathmandu. He recently published a detailed case study on environmental management in Doon Valley.