Justin Joseph “Contours of Political Ecology and Debate on Post-politics in the Context of Conservation of India’s Western Ghats”, IIT Madras (India)

Dimensions in Political Ecology

It is a well-known fact from the historical sociology that, political movements are essential in shaping different trajectories of social orientation and but construction of contemporary environmental science theories or environmental conservation practices are less indebted to historical sociology. There were many attempts to understand the sociology of political ecology in the faculties like post Marxism, Science and Technology studies, post-modernism, post-colonialism etc. They all share a common thread, in spite of all their epistemological and ontological differences that, critical social theory can offer an entry into methods, mechanisms, technologies of resistance and emancipatory political tactics in the field. Despite the theoretical dissimilarities, all theories which studied the sociology of political ecology, maintain that, the political factors, arrangements etc. arises out of the socialfabrication. Most present day political ecological perspectives presume the political to arise from analysis of social events, but they neither attempt to theorize the political factors nor operationalize the properly political within a political ecological framework. This paves the way for a theoretical as well as practical gap in political ecology discourse, because of the fact that, the chances of a pluralist knowledge production is evacuated from the theoretical and practical assumptions which shaped political ecology heretofore. This is an unprecedented ‘retreat of the political’ (Lacoue and Nancy 1997) from the social sphere and it indeed requires immediate attention. The political ecology studies insist that, socio-environmental processes and conditions are profoundly socio-political in nature and consequently, the creation and implementation of different socio-environmental trajectories is a decidedly political process. This is in sharp contrast to the retreat of the plurality.

According to eminent political ecologist Slavoj Zizek, consensual populism campaigns that the present environmental conditions and way of life present a clear danger that requires immediate and swift techno-managerial re-alignments in conservation practices and a trajectory shift in the practices of governance as well as monitoring, also rejects the properly political moments and contributes to the emergence and consolidation of a post-political condition in the whole environment discourse (Zizek 2002). There is no chance for the consolidation of a post-political situation because “the political” is hard to define, unable to locate, and impossible to predict.

But it holds good that, the contemporary consensual policy arrangement has increasingly reduced the discourses of conservation to ‘policing’, or ‘policymaking’, or ‘managerial consensual governing’, conveniently leaves behind all traces of a ‘government’. From the environmental justice movements based on John Rawls’ equal distribution of goods and bads, arguing to rectify environmental ‘wrongs’ of the elites, to modern ecological perspectives that insist on the possibility of a techno-managerial conduct, recommending for a mutual existence of ecological sustainability with economic growth, and the techno-scientific consensus that inherently urges to adopt a particular set of management, accounting and monitoring rules to mitigate catastrophic environmental disaster, all share a common thread of consolidating a new set of practices in the ecological science, which profoundly minimises a pluralistic knowledge production.

These debate free environmental conservation proposals are characterised by the mutual existence of broad range of often unlikely allies, general agreement about the need to develop a more sustainable world and a new socio-ecological practice which operates fully within the contours of the existing social order (Swyngedouw 2007).

Slavoj Zizek defines a debate free ecological practice as a political formation that actually forecloses the political and prevents the politicization of particulars (Zizek 2006). This means that, there is a political tactic to establish the ‘police order’ so that, things and thoughts are assigned and arranged to their allocated places and parts. In order to reduce the overall demand or complaint (Paucity/Surplus) of a particular group to just this demand new ecological practices mobilizes the vast apparatus of experts, social workers, and so on. In Western Europe and the United States, in particular, such social debate free arrangements and their mobilization are largely in place.

Due to the presence of e-environmental techno-managerialism and eco-monitoring, populist ecological practices reject ideological divisions and the explicit universal generalization of particular political demands. Or in other words, it is maintained in such a way that, it is unable to take in to consideration the diversity of unit factors operating in socio-ecological philosophies. The populist condition doesn’t favour the constitutive paucity or surplus factors that define the socialness and prevents suturing of the social, as it insists on the democratic credentials like the inclusion of all, thereby adheres to the totality or the majority of the social and eclipse the rise of local political movements.

Such configurations generally succumb to the totalitarian temptation or majority opinion of democratic institutions (Lefort 1994). Demands or particular identitarian rights are never considered valid, rather as sectarian, thereby precluding the possibility of their universalization.

Together with the effective manipulation of economic system, parliamentary democracy and inclusive cosmopolitanism e-environmental governing apparatus continuously argue for a conflict free situation. Economic system of the present time introduces inevitable systemic by-product, the neoliberal capitalist absorption of anything and everything into the world capitalist market. Parliamentary democracy is manipulated in the e-environmental governance for the early legitimization of the concerned policies, without taking into consideration the methods to address the apprehensions that are varied according to regions. The inclusive cosmopolitanism is a moral foundation for e-environmental governance, to adhere to the easy means towards consensual ideas. As a result of this mutual manipulation of existing government apparatus, e-environmental governance makes debate free discourse a social reality.

There are examples cementing the transformation of existing governmental apparatus to e-environmental governance, the conflict of global ideological visions embodied in different structures and agencies which compete each other for power or security is largely replaced by the collaboration of enlightened technocrats, economists, public policy specialists, management experts, think tanks etc. The e-environmental governance is not identified with conflicts or issues because of the fact that, a process of negotiation of interests or a compromise is reached in the name of universal consensus. E-environmental governance thus emphasizes the need to leave behind ideological visions in social or cultural spheres across the globe and confront new issues like the establishment of the various types of indices or databases, primarily armed with the necessary techno-scientific expertise that takes into consideration the real needs and demands of the people and the nature in general (Zizek 1999).The administration or the policing order of environmental, social, economic or other domains is socially conflict free.

‘The ultimate sign of debate free policy making in all Western countries is the growth of a managerial approach in government, as a result government is reconceived as a managerial machine which is capable of governing itself and it is deprived of its proper political dimensions (Zizek 2002).

Politicization in the classical Greek sense is completely invisible in contemporary techno-managerial packages. According to the classical Greek tradition, politics is defined as the metaphorical universalization of particular demands or interests, which doesn’t stop with the negotiation of interests.

A genuine political space for disagreement or dissent is evacuated from the consensual times we are currently living in. However consensus does not equal peace or absence of contestation (Ranciere 2005). Under this new decision making process: everything can be politicized and discussed using the same network of technology, but only confined in an academic workshop or similar short living events, absolute and irreversible choices are provided, unable to break the consensual themes, succumbs to the populist assumptions sooner or later. In that sense, politics becomes something anyone can do without making decisions that divide and separate the socio-cultural and economic domains.

When e-environmental populism or consensual assumptions become an end in itself real plural politics of decision making is pushed to corners or completely evacuated (Diken andLaustsen 2004). Attempts to re-order the police order or re-shape the e-environmental policies are generally accepted as problematic and stagnated, hardly win their objectives. Because, these are dealt with managerial and technical arrangement and the production of consensus, which are unable to do an undo process because of the paucity of a feedback mechanism.

Consensus means the only point of dissent lies on what has to be done as a response to a given problem at a given situation. On the other hand, dissents can mean that there is a debate on the sensible givens of a situation, on how it can be told and discussed, a discussion on things in e-environment which you see and feel, who is entitled to name it and how, who is able to argue about it and why. It is also about the visibilities of the places and the body in their allotted places and portions, the invisibilities of the expected visible, the definition and partition of private and public spaces, the very configuration of the visible and reason for the invisibility etc. Hence, the idea of consensus is the refection of politics as a polemical constituent agent of the reality (Ranciere 2003).

This rejection of pluralist assumptions in environment decision making bifurcates dissident citizens, in the absence of real politicization of particulars the only position is that of either a traditionalist or a fundamentalist. A traditional dissident stuck in the past political experience, refuses to accept the inevitability of the new neoliberal capitalist spill over. The second option for a dissident is severe compare to other domains; it is by sheer violence, suspending their humanitarian and democratic privileges. This new decision makingpreferably excludes radically those who posit themselves outside the consensus themes. The debate over the policing order of sustainable environmental practices, more generally, the environmental debate itself is one of the key arenas through which this e-environmental consensus becomes constructed, when ‘politics proper is progressively replaced by expert social administration’ (Zizek 2005).

Therefore, e-environmental consensus is one that is radically reactionary, one that forestalls the articulation of divergent, conflicting and alternative trajectories of future environmental conservation potential using technological manipulation. There is neither contestation over the givens of the situation or over the partition of the sensible. Rather there is only debate over the various types of technologies of management, the pattern of policing order and the concerns of the legitimized stakeholders, whose voices are no longer noises.

Another point about present environmental decision making process is its complex relationship with functioning of the political system. According to many like Jacques Ranciere, the very foundation upon which any democratic set up rests is unprecedentedly threatened by new realities like unilateral decision making and policy implementation. Ranciere insists that consensual decision making is paralleled by the introduction of a unilateral configuration of institutions, social structures and agents which can eventually erode the very foundation of equalitarian democratic politics.

Consensual decision making can be defined as a future government practice, an unexpected by-product of e-environmental consensus, a democracy that will eliminate the appearance, conflicts, and dispute of the citizens. Hence the same can be trivialized to the level of sole interplay of state apparatus and combinations of social interests. Consolidation of consensual decision making affects the space of proper politics in society. New environmental decisions reduce politicization of dissents even if decisions are unilateral in appearance.

Although disagreement and debate are still possible, they operate within an overall model of elite consensus and subordinated to a managerial-technocratic regime of status quo (Jorke2005).

The police configurations through which environmental concerns like the search for local sustainability, search for a more equitable distribution of ‘ecological goods’ and rejection of ‘ecological bads’, the search for new eco-management of the biosphere etc. are articulated implies a political deficit, leading to a new democratic deficit of morality. The purposeful introduction of apocalyptic warnings of the pending environmental catastrophes wreaked by global warming and climate change and the need to adopt immediate remedial action to frame a panacea for all fear of disaster and extinction are part of the tactics associated with the consolidation of present consensus decision making process.

All these discourses of e-environmental governance, clearly separates nature from the everyday affairs of people, diminishes the traditions of conservation, and reintroduces as something that should be achieved in the future. Hence environmental conservation is a faculty of knowledge, a means to the end of creation of a nature for all. These points are accepted beyond the formal slogans of consensus politics across the continents. But the point of dissent is the apprehensions like priority settings regarding rate of implementation of techno-managerialism and eco-monitoring in ecologically sensitive areas. Thereby, it drags the epistemological and ontological assumptions of e-environmentalism to examination.

There shall be broad evaluations concerning the basics like in what kind of nature people wish to inhabit, what kinds of nature people wish to preserve for future humanity, what are the things people wish to wipe off from the planet, and how to do it.

The fantasy of e-environmental governance compel people to imagine the possibility of an ‘Eden’ which is now out of synch, but can be brought back by means of a series of techno-managerial and organizational operations. As it is maintained before many different socio-cultural and philosophical strands, unconditionally agree with this dictum.

Dissents are only allowed in the rate of mixing of organizations, choice of technological apparatus, managerial adjustments, time allotted for the implementation, the method of that implementation etc. As Zizek argues, ecology and the ecological imperative are becoming new opium for the masses (Zizek 2008).

It is almost impossible for a fully-fledged local political activity to emerge in a consensual decision making structure. Because, according to contemporary political ecologists, theproper political is impossible to arise, because it is almost impossible to disrupt the given order of things in the e-environmental governance, exposing the constituent antagonisms that

constitute the police order and test the principles of e-environmental governance. The proper democratic political sequence abides justice and equality through legal-governmental procedures on the basis of socio-cultural and political- economic injustice.

The political activity also throws light on the paradigmatic condition of equality which is conveniently wronged by the police order.

A particular political activity can only expose the limitations of police order in governance by generalizing the outcomes. Therefore, a proper political ecology movement of dissidents in the contemporary e-environmental governance era shall abide to the principle of equality and justice not as a normative goal, but as its original principle, by demanding equality in the right to produce proper socio-cultural and physical environment. But unfortunately political ecologists like Alain Badiou and Jacques Ranciere share the view that a proper political event is uncommon and unusual in a techno-managerial governance mechanism. They do not assume everything is political. While the political might arise anywhere and everywhere in a democratic polity, the political sequence of events in a consensual decision making set up is unusual, unwelcomed and unnoticed.

Potential for the emergence of a properly political sequence can be heralded on the basis of the socio-cultural or ecological analysis of the conditions of the ground situation. Ground realities give birth to low intensity protests but these protests are often destructed after collided with the tenets of e-environmental consensus. This view of the political as a space for dissidents, converting noise to voice, negotiating conflict stand in face to face with the swiftly consolidating global consensus of contemporary e-environmental governance, an assemblage that a growing body of literature identifies exclusively as unilateral.

Bringing back the conservation policies of the Western Ghats, the above described characteristic features of e-environmental conservation mechanisms and environmental consensus are explicitly visible from the very beginning of the process of conservation and throughout the edifice of new policy agendas. The policy makers or the concerned implementation authority of Western Ghats conservation would have never expected hurdles in its new conservation practices. The precise police ordering with all its inevitable salient features, as maintained in the previous section, is about to take roots in Indian environmental governance sector. This police ordering simultaneously defects the traditional conservation practices of the land and compels to imbibe new theories of techno-managerial governance of Western Ghats. In other words, conservation practices were taken from the everyday life of the people of Western Ghats and introduced back as a theory to obey. Conservation of Western Ghats was proposed to be by creating no go zones on the basis of rate of change of ecological sensitivity. Determination and classification of areas on the basis of ecological sensitivity and their monitoring proposals directly announces the features of upcoming events’ in socio-cultural spheres of our nation. The most significant feature is an influx of techno-managerial governance in other sectors of public policy.

But due to a variety of reasons, the implementation of e-environmental techno-managerialism was not easy in the case of Western Ghats conservation. Because of that, the emergence of a consensual decision making in the case of political ecology of Western Ghats is on a temporary halt.

E-environmental governance of Western Ghats largely places science and technology before socio-political and cultural insights, lacks an enmeshed approach and invokes the emergence of the dissent into the forefront by sophisticatedly armed with ‘the political’. The populist assumptions in the whole environmental discourse are unprecedentedly attacked by the local dissidents as never before.

The next section explicitly evaluates the reasons of the dissent, context of the move against the populist assumptions, potentials of this particular vernacular dissent etc. to consolidate the fact that, threat to democracy has its remedy in democracy itself.

Conservation question and politics of resistance in the Indian State of Kerala

According to Jacques Ranciere, a typical political sequence is uncommon and unusual in a consensual decision making set up which is consolidated by the effective operations of e-environmental techno-managerial consensus. Because there are is no ground for such an activity, rather it is an interconnected system of policing order, existing only within specifically allotted the space and time, carrying out only assigned labour. In such highly techno-managerial system, the advent of a political event if any, can generally mean, the emergence of a void in the system, presence of a sections of dissidents who are not in tune with the populist assumptions etc. Even if it marked the presence of dissidents, their demands concerning environmental conservation practices are often dealt with severe negligence, leading to a slow dysfunction of the dissent aspirations. Or more specifically voices are only considered noise. In one way or other this dissident aspirations are abandoned by the people and the environmental consensus gradually engulfs it. Hence it is hard to point out a paradigmatic dissent aspirational movement even in countries with highly implemented networks of e-environmental governance.

But so far as the conservation of Western Ghats is concerned, the road to be trod is no easy. There were conventional mechanisms to ensure the preservation of ecologically fragile areas of Western Ghats. In the course of time, as science, technology and managerial approaches were shortlisted into the lexicons of governance as a result of the inevitable by-product of neoliberal capitalism; the conservation of Western Ghats also witnessed a paradigmatic trajectory shift in determining the sensitivity of the region. There were environmental studies based on this techno-managerial conservation practice in well advance to the government approach, by big league international environmental NGOs like the Goa Foundation and ATREE. Their reports and finding did outburst the catastrophic onslaught of natural resources of Western Ghats, with solid evidences against mining like effects. Responding to the domestic as well as international consensus for environmental conservation, the government of India constituted a committee to recommend conservation methods of the Ghats.

The concerned officials both in the government level and committee level were completely aware of this trajectory shift to the techno-managerial part of the envisaged report. The committee was constituted in such a way that, it consists of experts from not only ecological science, but techno-management also.

The first one, Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel, asserts that, it made use of the conventional reports like Pronab Sen committee report and Mohan Ram committee report while determining the ecological sensitivity of the region. Even then the report clearly marked a trajectory shift in the environmental conservation practices of the land. When it is coming to the second one, High Level Working Group report, the conventional methods of determining ecological sensitivity is hardly referred. Thus it heavily depended on geo-spatial technology and managerial processes in order to frame the report. It was Jairam Ramesh, former environment minister Government of India, who persuaded Madhav Gadgil to head the committee of experts to recommend means to balance the demands of development and conservation in the Western Ghats.

But unfortunately, by the time the WGEEP submitted its report, Jairam Ramesh had been replaced by Smt. JayanthiNatarajan, due to the political reasons of the then ruling Congress party. The Report came to limelight when the Central Information Commission and the High Court of Delhi instructed it to make it public. When it was made public, there were initially small intensity protests mainly from real estate lobbies, mining companies, spice exporttycoons etc. in indirect means. But gradually the consensus which was shadowed in the whole process of conservation became a factor of threat to the daily life of the people who were dwelling on Western Ghats region for generations. Something like a counter-consensus began to emerge across the regions of the vicinity of Western Ghats. Followed by a series of filing of apprehensions and complaints about the implementation of recommendations put forward by the WGEEP, government started thinking of new committee which was exclusively designed to overcome the hurdled faced by WGEEP. It was HLWG. One of the main hurdles faced by the WGEEP is the public anger against declaration of whole Western Ghats as ecologically sensitive, thus paving the way for strict rules and regulations in daily life of the people residing in the region. So HLWG did not give much attention to other hurdles for example the monitoring mechanisms like the Western Ghats Ecological Authority (WGEA). The HLWG report was inherently obsessed with the reduction of ecologically sensitive area to minimize the furious criticism against new conservation practices. And it did so. The Ministry of Environment and Forest Government of India (MoEF) issued an order on 13 November 2013, saying that, developmental initiatives in the region of Western Ghats should follow the regulations mentioned in the order.

The clause number nine of the government order reads as follows, “the following category of new and/or expansion projects/activities shall be prohibited in ESA from date of issue of these directions except those cases which have been received by EACs/MoEF or SEACS/SEIAAs before the date of putting HLWG report on the website of the Ministry, i.e., 17.4.20 13 and which are pending with EACs/MoEF or SEACs/SEIAAs. Such projects will be dealt under the guidelines and rules applicable at the time of application before the respective EACs/MoEF or SEACs/SEIAAs. Apart from such cases, no pending case or any fresh case shall be considered by the EACs/MoEF or SEACs/SEIAAs from the date of issue of these directions.

(a) Mining, quarrying and sand mining

(b) Thermal Power Plants

(c) Building and construction projects of 20,000 sq. m. area and above

(d) Township and area development projects with an area of 50 ha and above and/or with built up area of 1, 50,000 sq. m. and above

(e) Red category of industries” (India, MoEF 13-11-13)

These particular statements were regarded as something which is capable of transforming the daily lives in the region of Western Ghats, especially in southern parts of the massif. Regulations regarding the area of buildings and townships were the most unaccepted recommendation of the HLWG. The state of Kerala was the torchbearer in the struggle against recommendations. In spite of criticism from various parts, the government of India continuously asserted that, it was adamantly committed to the conservation of Western Ghats. Hence, after the 13-11-13 order, protest against its recommendations gained momentum as there was an unprecedented orientation of various socio-cultural and political bodies against the powerful techno-managerial governance’s recommendations. No literature in political ecology or environmental science provides the scope for such a vernacular dissent aspiration in a developing country like India.

This struggle against the e-environmental governance mechanisms, is in all means, shall be considered unique and analysed deeply in order to understand the new realms of thought in political ecology and environmental science.

In other words, a holistic analysis of this dissent aspiration can yield new understandings of the science/politics dictum.

The ministry’s direction came weeks after it partially showed approval symptoms of the controversial report on Western Ghats prepared by the HLWG which recommended prohibition on development activities in 37 per cent of natural landscape. In its order issued to Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Goa, Maharashtra and Gujarat on Wednesday, the ministry said the “directions will come into force with immediate effect and remain in force till further orders”. “In case of any violation, appropriate legal action under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 shall be taken,” it said (The Hindu, 16 November 2013).

According to many officials, HLWG Report would be a negotiation, because 37 per cent of natural landscape identified by the High Level Working Group has low forest fragmentation, low population density and containing protected areas, world heritage sites and tiger and elephant corridors has been identified as Ecologically Sensitive Area.

On the other side, as it is shown in above, the Order prohibits activities including mining, quarrying, sand mining, thermal power plants, building and construction projects of 20,000 sq. m. area and above and township and area development projects with an area of 50 ha and above or with built up area of 1, 50,000 sq. m. and above will not be allowed in these areas. The ministry has also imposed a strict ban on all red category industries which are identified as heavily polluting both in domestic as well as international environmental directions. Regulations like these were to have a direct impact on the economic aspirations and developmental initiatives of the people dwelling in the region, according to many those who opposed the recommendations.

The move to ban on red and orange category industries evoked public attention as it included many inevitable agricultural units like Coffee Pulping, Fertilizer Units, Fish processing Units, Spices processing units etc. at the same time it also prohibits hospitals and educational institutes from the vicinity of Western Ghats. Both the reports were not able to address the apprehension of the Western Ghats people and hence series of protest against the recommendations emerged in the region.

The frequency and intensity of the protest was high in South Western Ghats region due to various reasons. The Southern Region protest was led by the State of Kerala. High density of people living in High Range region and a general tendency to resort to political activities were the major reasons behind the high frequency and intensity of protest in South Western Ghats.

The protest in Kerala against the report had two fronts, one in Northern parts including the places like Kozhikode, Mananthavadi, Wynad, Sulthanbathery, Kannur etc. and the other one was in the Central-Southern parts consisting of the places like Kottayam, Idukki etc. in both these warfronts there were unprecedented social mobilization against the report. This social mobilization was characterized by new tie ups between unexpected and extreme social agencies. One of the most significant features of this mobilization was that, there was a rare but interesting nexus between the Catholic Church and the Communists.

Source-Kerala State Biodiversity Board

Fig 5.1 Area of ESAs in Kerala in a comparative method

There were general understandings between various religious factions towards the opposition of conservation reports. The Church was appearing in the protest in its activist role, under the name, High Range Protection Council. Various sub-organs of the church in the region of Western Ghats urged its youth and women wings to participate in the process of resistance.

A Dawn to Dusk Protest Strike

After the Order of 13.11.13 came out, people of Western Ghats under the auspices of High Range Protection Council and the Left Democratic Front organized a state wide strike which affected the public life severely. The ruling United Democratic Front of Kerala also supported it. High range regions of Kerala echoed anti-HLWG slogans and turned violent in some parts like North Kerala. Strikers blocked all the village roads in Thiruvambadi, Koodaranhi, Kodencheri, Puthuppadi and Kavilumpara and attacked government offices, media and several public and private vehicles. The protestors who thronged the Thamarassery- Chungam market set ablaze a police vehicle and blocked the route for hours. Windshields of public transport buses were smashed. The protest was so organized and well-arranged as the police sometimes found it very hard to control the situation. People from the surrounding villages rushed to the spot in goods carriers and foiled the attempt of the police to maintain law and order.

In Nellipoyil, a mob attacked a village office and the nearby telephone exchange and tension prevailed in the area as the police tried to take into custody some of the protesters. Protestors dispersed from the area only after the police withdrew from the scene.

In some locations, the forest offices like the Thamarassery Forest range office was partly damaged as the protestors tried to set afire to the building and areas like Poozhithodu and Vilangad also the forest offices were partly destroyed in heavy stone pelting. People were so angry against the forest offices, because they appeared before the protesters as a symbol of government who threaten the life and property of the people. But this evoked criticism that the attack on forest office was pre-plant to destruct some case files.

In Puthuppadi, the highway was blocked for hours interrupting the long distance services to other South Indian cities like Bengaluru. In Thiruvambadi and Pulloorampara, police vehicles were blocked. Government offices were forcefully closed down by strike supporters who pelted the Kodencheri Village office. Commercial establishments and educational institutions remained closed. Senior police officials, including District Police Chief and Deputy Superintendent of Police were blocked and their vehicles were attacked by a violent mob at Adivaram, North Kerala. The three rounds fire by the police, in the air to disperse the mob and rescue the detained officers was something new in the annals of civil protest against a new policy introduction in a democratic set up so far as the state of Kerala was concerned. But in regions like Idukki and Central Kerala, the protest strike was generally peaceful. No incidents of violence were reported. People from different walks of life came out of their house and stayed on streets by cooking and lying on the road as a symbol of evacuation from the Ghats.

This particular protest strike filliped a public vigilance about the threat they are facing or going to face in the immediate future. Hence this strike was a major event in the whole process of the creation of a counter consensus.

It is an undefeatable fact that, there emerged a dissent aspiration or something like a counter consensus against the proposed conservation policies. Though it can be argued that the counter consensus is limited to the people those who are affected by the implementation process of Western Ghats conservation only, it is a new event in the techno-managerial conservation packages that, the decisions are re-examined or compelled to re-examine. There were unending demands to re-examine the reports of conservation, lion’s share was from farmers and agricultural labourers of Western Ghats region.

The High Range Protection Council and the Left Democratic Front were the spearheads of protest strikes. Or in other words, these were the two converging points in the Western Ghats, where the public anger was co-ordinated in order to produce a more “political sequence”. The coming section of the chapter discusses the constituent agents of the whole process of gathering public anger against the implementation of conservation reports.

The Catholic Church against the Conservation Reports

The church was an important opponent of the implementation of both WGEEP Report and HLWG Report. It demanded for a homo-centric approach not eco-centric one. The church was involved in the protest from the very beginning. Or more specifically it can be stated that, the church begun the protest. Its farmers’ co-operative body, the High Range Protection Council emerged itself to represent the people those who are afraid of the implementation of the report. High Range Protection Council was a structured organization, working as a subsidiary of the Idukki Catholic Diocese. The main area of operation of the Council was setting the issues of the “settlers” in the Ghats region including the issues of title deeds.

In dealing with the above mentioned issues of the people of high range areas of Western Ghats, the Council did not have the gestures of a proper political agency. The main means of the council in order to bring the issues of farmers, like the low price of spices to the forefront was through proper legal mechanisms.

Though there were some political nexus between some centre-right parties and the church, itwasn’t appeared so political. But after the November notification was published, the Church incarnated in a newly transformed agent for deciphering the issues of people dwelling on Western Ghats. As it is mentioned previously, both the fronts of protest against the reports, in North Kerala and the South were noticed by national and international media because of the direct involvement of the Church. Idukki diocese co-ordinated the events in Idukki, Kottayam and other central south districts of the State and Thamarassery Diocese did the same for Northern districts. It resembled a cadre party while mobilizing protesters in short timings, arranging public meetings, delivering campaigning etc.

Cardinal George Alencherry was fast to respond, asked the government to take immediate steps to do away with the apprehensions of people on the implementation of key suggestions of a report on Western Ghats.

“The government might not evict people. Still people are apprehensive that they would be displaced. The government should give a clear picture on it,” he said in a statement (New Indian Express, 18 November 2013). In the protest strike on 17 November 2013, Idukki district witnessed huge gatherings of people at various locations protesting the order. At a few places, the locals took to the streets along with domestic animals to register their protests, and at many places the Church also took the lead as numerous priests and nuns joined in the protest.

In an article, the general convener of the High Range Protection Council, Fr. Sebastian Kochupurakkal, said: “We oppose the recommendation to exclude 123 villages in Kerala from the cultural landscape and include them instead in the region described as natural landscape, and to describe such highly populated areas as ESAs. The two reports (of the WGEEP and HLWG) indicate that ESAs are areas where the provisions of the forest protection laws would be applicable. In the November 13 order, the government makes it clear that Forests Rights Act of 2006 shall be observed in these areas in letter and spirit. The report also says that even small projects would require clearance from forest authorities and environment impact assessment. Such a situation would make these villages literally forest lands. All forest laws would be imposed there. Land transactions would come to a halt. Plans to provide title deeds (to settler farmers) will come to an end. It would become illegal to even cut the branches of a tree. Development activities would become impossible. Even normal development activities that are required for a modern society would come to a halt. Gradually all such areas would become forest land. People living there will have to move out. We can never accept such a situation.” (Frontline, 27 December 2013). These words are so determined to face any challenge in the issue. The leaders of the Council were given scheduled awareness classes about the up-to-date developments in the field.

The church was attacking the central government authorities through their pastoral letters which was read during the Sunday masses in all churches. A pastoral letter read in Idukki’s churches, had warned elected representatives they would be “confronted on the streets” if they ignored the people’s sentiments (Ananthakrishnan G., 2013). This was immediately after the National Green Tribunal prodded the Central government to implement the report. Indian Farmers Movement, known as “Infarm”, which is another farmer co-operative movement under the Catholic Church also issued letters sharing the fear of being evicted from the land which was occupied before generations. A letter issued on the farmers day January 15, the Infarm letter asserted that, the Western Ghats diversity can be maintained by only by the people of the Western Ghats, any attempt to evict them from their place of birth would invite unnecessary consequences (KCBC, 2014).

Primarily organized for dealing with the issues of the natural rubber price, infarm had eventually disappeared from the scene. Through this issue of conservation, infarm resurrected and warmly welcomed by the old members.

In addition to the campaigning of Catholic Church, Orthodox Diocesan Metropolitan had also come out against implementation of the Kasturirangan committee report for conservation of Western Ghats. Mar Theodosius asserted, basically the people of the region namely Idukki and Wyanad are constantly living under constant fear. “Implementation of the Kasturirangan report will prove to be a hindrance to the life and livelihood of people living there. The clause must therefore be removed,” the Metropolitan insisted in a letter issued by the Diocesan Metropolitan (orthodoxchurch.tv).

The Orthodox Syrian Church had criticised the centre’s decision to approve the HLWGreport. The church termed the decision “condemnable” stating that the decision would result in 123 villages in one-third area of Kerala State being declared under ESA. Mar Theodosius has further stated that the common people must not be troubled with its implementation he stressed for the need of a re-look into the whole matter.

The church also worked as a pressure group to influence the state government to take up the issue and bring into the attention of the national government. But in spite of all its peasantry sentiments the church was criticised for fighting to protest its establishments and investments in and around the Ghats.

Major Political Parties which opposed the Implementation

The Communists parties in the state, Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the Communist Party of India (CPI) including other small factions immediately realized the political gains from the game of conservation. It was to oppose the both the conservation reports when the ruling Congress party was taking a stand to implement them. The Congress was also asserting the fact that, the report would be implemented with the concern of the farmers and people of Western Ghats. After the November notification was published, Communist Party of India (Marxist) hosted a convention at Kodencherry in Kozhikode district of Kerala State on December 7, 2013, stating that farmers in hilly terrains were worried over the notification of Kasturirangan report on the Western Ghats (news.webindia123.com). CPI (M) district secretary in a release said the convention was being organized to strengthen people’s movement against impractical implementation and anti-people recommendations of HLWG Report. Stating nine villages in the district would be included in the notification, he said care should be taken to protect inhabited localities, agriculture and factories while implementing environment-friendly steps. People in the hilly terrains were against the United Democratic Front government's move to ensure implementation of the report, he said adding the party would adopt steps to rally people in large scale aimed at ensuring their protection.

It is worth noting that, the CPI (M) had initially pleaded for the implementation of theWGEEP recommendations, but by the time its election manifesto was released, it retracted from its position and rejected both the reports, realizing the agony of the people of Western Ghats due to the fear of eviction. The election manifesto, instead promised the formation of a ‘democratic’ panel for yet another set of recommendations.

“Stopping implementation of Madhav Gadgil and Kasturirangan reports and set-up a broad based expert committee to arrive at a “comprehensive plan for protection of fragile eco systems in the Western Ghats and people’s livelihoods” through public hearings and wide consultations with stakeholders” (CPIM, 2014 Election Manifesto). There were shear criticism that the Communist opposition of the reports was against the parties’ traditional vision on the environment and nature.

But the national leadership of the parties stood by the people of Western Ghats, to argue for reconsideration on the implementation of conservation reports, according to them.

The Communists took initiatives to break the ice between the Catholic Church in the State after the notification of November 13 came out. Six years old long nose between the Church and Communists were left behind and new joint discussion were initiated after Communist Party of India (Marxist) State secretary PinarayiVijayan appeared to have made peace with the Thamarassery Catholic diocese in North Kerala. Bishop House in Thamarassery confirmed that it had forgiven the CPI (M) leader for his remark about the then Bishop of the diocese Paul Chittilappilly. Mr.Viyayan had at a public function six years ago called the bishop a “wretched creature,” triggering protests. All these issues were resolved to fight jointly against the unilateral implementation of conservation reports.

Though Bishop told a leading newspaper that the visit hardly had any political motive and the issue taken for discussion was the concerns of farmers over the implementation of the conservation report and the stance of the church, it was a beginning of an unprecedented alliance. “We do not see any political colour to the visit as our priority was on making clear the apprehensions of the farmers’ community and the need for support of all political parties to win their fight,” the bishop asserted (The Hindu, 15 December 2013). But this statement did not hold true when the parliament elections approached. According to Bishop the CPI (M) leader had assured him all support of the party in the on-going agitation by the church against the forceful implementation of the report. Though both denied the political effects of the meeting, it was sure in the meanwhile that, there were discussions about the coming LokSabha election. The after effects of this meeting were reflected all over the Western Ghats region where the Church and Communists shared conflicting views. Local leaders of the parties and concerned priests of the Church started interaction for formulating jointactions against the mode and method of protests. Idukki Bishop House interacted with the communist leaders in the regions and supported each other for their ‘Occupy Street’, the 48 h protest strikes.

The CPI leadership was also in the forefront in criticizing both the WGEEP Report and HLWG Report, also demanded a holistic approach in the issue of conservation. Its state leadership accused the centre of playing with the future of people living in the Ghats region. The four-month period given by the Centre for implementation of recommendations in the report of the HLWG was with an eye on the forthcoming Lok Sabha elections, accused Mr Panniyan Ravindran the state secretary of CPI.

The report and its recommendations were totally against the interests of the State, he said, accusing the Union Ministers and UDF MPs from the State of remaining idle and doing nothing to prevent the implementation of the recommendations.

The left parties had aligned with the church even months before the parliament elections. Thepublic fear about the eviction if the reports are implemented, worked as a catalyst in united the church and the left parties. But alike the church the communists also underwent criticismsaccused of resisting the reports’ implementation in order to protect its interests.

But for a student of political science, this alliance between the Catholic Church and communist parties was an unprecedented specimen to study.

A Separate Committee for the State of Kerala

Due to the growing intensity of the protest strikes, the government decided to constitute a separate committee to study the about HLWG report and asked it to submit its recommendations about the whole issue. The two significant reasons for the constitution of a separate committee include the growing intensity of the protest from the people and the uncertainty in the position taken by government of India. The ruling Congress party in the State continuously asserted that, it could convince the national government about the genuine reasons behind the protest, the people were not satisfied with that. It was a direction from the centre to have a separate committee to study their specific issues due to the implementation of HLWG report.

The aim of the creation of the committee was that, after the committee submits its report to the state government, the State government would submit its views to the Central government on the basis of the deliberations at the meeting and get them accepted by the Centre. The committee was asked to visit all areas proposed by members of the Assembly and Parliament from November 26 to December 5 and interact with all concerned (The Hindu, 20 November 2013). Separate time was allowed for individual or group consultations and for organisations to make representations to the committee.

The all party meeting which was boycotted by the Left for other political reasons, pointed that the ecologically fragile lands (EFL) and ecologically sensitive areas (ESA) were different concepts under different laws. However, people had confused the two concepts and this had raised concerns. While the State Act on ecologically fragile lands was enforced by the Forest Department, the ecologically sensitive areas declared under Central Environment (Protection) Act would be administered by the Revenue Department and the State Pollution Control Board. The meeting recognized the notified ESAs included agricultural lands as well as land eligible for title-deeds. The meeting took initiatives to government actions against officials if any complaint was received about officials not accepting tax or creating other hurdles and it mentioned that there were no changes in the existing rules regarding registration of sale of lands, payment of land tax, pledging of land and permits for cutting of trees on private lands and constructing buildings.

These particular steps taken by the government of Kerala help reduce the fear of eviction and loss of their livelihood to some extent. The decision of the LDF to withdraw from the all party meeting was considered a betrayal by the people of Western Ghats. But LDF recognized the loosing threads and they were fast to return to the issues of the implementation of HLWG Report. One of the important mandates for the committee which was constituted under Dr. Oommen V Oommen committee was that, to figure out the procedural lapses in demarcating ESAs. Demarcation using remote sensing had resulted in villages such as Melukavu, Teekoy and Poonjar-Thekkekkara, with not forests but rubber plantations, getting listed as ESAs. This and similar errors in population estimates would be corrected. Besides, the State government wanted demarcations to be done within the villages also. The Government hoped this would exclude many areas from ESAs.

Other two members of the Dr. Oommen V Oommen Committee were Dr. V N RajashekhatanPillai and Sree P.C Cyriac. Dr. Oommen was the Chairman of Kerala biodiversity board, Dr. Pillai was the vice president of Kerala State Council for Science Technology and Environment and Sri P.CCyriac was from Rubber Board. Oommen V. Oommen committee stated after its several interactions, the people of the Ghats were concerned about the implementation of HLWG report.

Most of the complaints the panel received was regarding the Ecologically Sensitive Areas. The representatives of the local bodies demanded that their villages should be excluded from the ESA list. They also added that all the developmental projects would come to a halt once the report was implemented.

Mr Oommen said the concerns of the people needed to be addressed. He said nature could not be protected by separating human beings from it. He added that nowhere in the Kasturirangan committee report, there was a mention of evicting farmers while protecting the environment. He said the panel stood for people. He, however, added that there was no difference of opinion on protecting the Western Ghats (The Hindu, 4 December 2013).

The High Range Protection Council convenor Fr. Sebastian Kochupurackal, Members of Legislative Assembly, Roshy Augustine (Idukki), S. Rajendran (Devikulam), E.S. Bijimol (Peerumade), CPI (M) district secretary M.M. Mani, CPI district secretary K.K. Sivaraman, representatives of farmers’ organisations and non-governmental organisations were participated in the sitting arranged by the Special Committee in Idukki region of the Ghats.

They all shared the common concern that the environment protection plans without people protection is not acceptable, conservation methods should be implemented after studying the social consequences and issues of farmers, HLWG report based on the data collected through remote sensing was not error-free and it should not be implemented in haste.Similar sittings were conducted in various parts of the state and complaints regarding the implementation of the conservation reports were collected by the expert committee on HLWG.

The sittings of the committee were populated with large number of farmers, plantation workers including Tamils, political parties, church representatives, environmental workers etc. Nearly 30,000 people participated in the thirty sittings at various parts of the Western Ghats in Kerala (Expert Committee Report, page 9). They all demanded security for their livelihood and property while implementing the report. They did not give up the need to conserve the Ghats which is a global biodiversity hotspot but more than that, their place of birth and area of life. Among the sittings conducted at various places, Idukki, Kottayam, Palakkad and Kozhikode sittings received more complaints about the report and its implementation. There was arrangement for sending the apprehensions through post or mail. The committee received a considerable number of complaints though post. The received comments about the implementation of HLWG report were divided into supporting and opposing and were listed for further analysis. In that, the opposing comments were very large. Many environmentalists like Ms Sugathakumari, Dr. V S Vijayan etc. also submitted their views about the report. The environmentalist also shared the view that, the implementation of HLWG should not be unilateral and genuine apprehensions should be resolved. They shared a common notion that, the geo-spatial technology aided determination of ecological sensitivity was not complete without add on physical verification of the ground reality.

Source-Expert Committee Report on HLWG Report

Fig 5.2 Complaints received by Expert Committee

This graph tells that, the apprehensions of the people who are living on Western Ghats region are not negligible and cannot be resolved so easily. The influxes of complaints were verified by the committee and realized the socio-cultural and historical background of the lives of Western Ghats people. Hence the committee identified agriculture which is the primary sources of income of the people of Western Ghats, linked to environment conservation in all means. The farmers of Western Ghats play a key role in the biodiversity conservation of the region according to the expert committee (Expert Committee, page 15). The committee noted that Carbon sequestration occurring in the agricultural fields of Western Ghats is not considered in the previous reports as it deserves.

Some of the significant Expert Committee recommendations on HLWG Report are listed below;

1) Physical verification through field survey shall be conducted in Ecologically Sensitive Areas which are identified by both WGEEP Report and HLWG Report to classify between areas of high population density, agriculture land and forest. There are other small areas of ecological importance within the villages of Western Ghats. The committee recommends the preservation of those unidentified areas and separation of areas with high density and agriculture land from the classification of ESAs.

2) Instead of directly moving to organic agriculture, the expert committee recommend the setting up of “Good Agricultural Practices” proposed by the central government to mark a gradual shift towards organic farming.

3) The government should make sure that the crops like Teas, Rubber, Coffee and Cardamom are not included in mono-crop category and necessary orders should be issued.

4) The HLWG report should not be an obstacle for livelihood of tribes of the Ghats who are enjoying the Forest Right Act.

5) The plight of the farmers in Western Ghats region can be upgraded by inducing responsible tourism methods in the estates and plantations.

6) Not only for the Western Ghats region, proper law has to be made for the freedom to cut trees within the domestic property.

7) The heights of buildings in the Ghats which are situated above 500 meters above sea level shall be restricted to 8 meters.

8) It is noticed by the committee that, many reservoirs of the Ghats has less storage capacity due to over sedimentation of sand. Proper actions shall be taken to remove those sands after sand auditing.

9) Illegal mining related activities in the Western Ghats region shall be immediately stopped and there shall be a minimum distance of 500 meters for granting new permission for quarrying from the forest borders.

10) Projects for hospitals, educational institutions, worship centres, milk processing units and other livelihood needs shall be considered separately and protected from the blanket ban.

11) The respective panchayat master plans shall be included eco-friendly developmental patters, renewable energy proposals, eco-friendly infrastructure and shall not include polluting and hazardous development models.

12) Biodiversity Monitoring Committees (BMC) shall be constituted in order to oversee the ground situations in the Ghats and this committee should be made entitled to report the anti-environmental activities to the government bodies and environmental laws, their amendments, new notifications etc. shall be reached the people through this committee.

13) The government should keep its promise that, all settlers prior to 1977 January 1st would be given title deeds.

14) Buffer zones are not favoured as there is recommendation to preserve the sensitive areas like Groves, grasslands etc. which are situated outside the notified ESAs.

15) Freshwater streams of the Ghats should be conserved by prohibiting fishing by meansof explosive methods (Translated to English from Expert Committee Report on HLWG Report).

As it can be seen, the observations made by the expert committee are largely in favour of thedissents who opposed the implementation of HLWG Report. But the recommendations also include provisions for the conservation of biodiversity of the Western Ghats. The observations like the loose stand on buffer zone, granting permission to cut trees from the individual property etc. were welcomed by the High Range Protection Council and the Catholic Church. One of the significant pro-farmer recommendations was the insistence to grant title-deeds for the setters in Western Ghats.

The Expert Committee clearly mentioned that, the Settings in the Western Ghats had enjoyed government support from time to time. It was to overcome the food crisis occurred due to the Great War II; the government introduced “grow more food policy” by insisting immigration to the Ghats region. There were similar attempt again in 1950s; the government provided each farmer 5 acres of land to cultivate food crops and spices.

These spices glory has taken the Ghats states to the world markets. So the farmers and agriculture are inevitable part of the Western Ghats as far the State of Kerala was concerned (Expert Committee Report, page 16).

The expert committee submitted its report to the government with a pro-farmer stand in general approach of conservation. Bowing to pressure from the Kerala, the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) reduced the area of the ecologically sensitive area in the Western Ghats (Kumar S., 2014).

The ministry issued a draft notification keeping the boundaries of ESZ in Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu same as those proposed by the HLWG Report. ESA boundaries for Kerala, however, were finalised as per the recommendations made by the state government. The ministry declared it would receive suggestions or objections from states based on field verifications as done by Kerala, regarding the notified ESAs to make modifications in these boundaries.

Parliament Election 2014

All the efforts and effects of protest strikes, dissent aspiration etc. was about to take a structure through politics. In the 2009 elections to the Indian Parliament, the United Democratic Front (UDF), led by the Congress party in Kerala had won 16 seats out of 20, of which 14 went to the Congress. In the run up to the 2014 elections, the party high command allowed all the sitting MPs to be candidates, except one. The one MP who was denied a second term in the constituency was Mr P T Thomas, who had represented the Idukki Parliament constituency of Western Ghats. The reason was that he was one of the very few politicians in Kerala, who opposed the protests and strikes against HLWG Report by the High Range Protection Council and other allies, and he also argued for the implementation of the WGEEP Report to conserve the degrading environment of the Ghats.

At the other end of the spectrum the colour is different. The spearhead of protests against the implementation of reports, the High Range Protection Council behaved like a typical political body by declaring its own candidate for the election. There were not much competition or claims for the seat, its candidate was proposed and selected unanimously. Mr Joice George was the legal advisor of High Range Protection Council, a High Court advocate by profession; he had appeared in Supreme Court of India regarding the cases of title-deeds representing the people of Western Ghats. Left Democratic Front, which did not field a candidate of its own, supported Adv. Joice George. Hence Adv. Joice George was the candidate and representation of those who oppose the implementation of WGEEP Report as well as HLWG Report without proper study. This decision to have a joint attempt in the Parliament election was a landmark in the course of protest strikes against techno-managerial governance.

The Church and the Communists in Kerala, alike most of the other parts of the globe, have often remained at opposite extreme poles in almost all matters of political or sociological importance. But this time the latter viewed the developments around the Western Ghats as an opportunity to forge a new ‘issue-based’ relationship with the Christian religious hierarchy which always has a great say in the political proclivities of its followers. The church along with the ‘Kerala Congress’ a political party motored to safeguarding the interests of the farmers, always championed the cause of the ‘settlers’ in the Western Ghats. But this was not just the setters’ issue to curb.

The public in Kerala and some part of the country had a special interest in the result of Idukki Parliament constituency. The dissent aspirations gave birth to a political miracle in the Western Ghats constituency Idukki.

The candidate fielded by the opponents of conservation report won the run to the Indian parliaments. Adv. Joice George defeated the Indian National Congress candidate by more than 50,000 votes. The conquest of Idukki constituency by the protest strikers was the result of their genuine apprehensions and fear of eviction. The counter consensus was conveniently converged to have a representative to the parliament. After the 16th Parliament elections to the World’s largest democracy, the opponents of Western Ghats conservation report have their own member. This can be considered a miracle which can only happen in living democracy with the inevitable permutations and combinations of ‘the political’.

“This is the victory of the farmers who settled here from other parts of Kerala and who have been working hard facing all odds. This is a mandate for their self-respect,” said a beaming Joice George, the new Member of Indian Parliament from the massif (Suchitha M., 2014). Wide spread celebrations were conducted in the Kerala Western Ghats region. One of the important points to note is that, Mr Joice was considered the representative of whole Western Ghats region in Kerala. His constituency was not to confine to Idukki constituency. 2014 parliament election in the world’s largest democratic country was marked by the presence of a representative of dissidents against the tenets of global environmental conservation and mode of its implementation.

Close on the heels of the Centre’s decision to keep habitations, plantations and agricultural areas in 123 villages in Kerala out of the purview of the ecologically sensitive areas (ESAs) the Karnataka government was also planning to make a similar demand.

Karnataka Minister for Forests B. RamanathRai told that the government would do whatever required in the interests of people. The Cabinet subcommittee had discussed the issue several times. Restrictions imposed on carrying out certain activities in forest areas apart, the government would ensure that livelihood of people was not be affected, Mr.Rai said. He indicated that the Karnataka government would take up an exercise similar to the one done by the Kerala government soon (Chinnappa K.J. 2014).

Of Karnataka’s total geographical area of 1, 91,791 sq. km, Western Ghats taluks measure up to 44,448 sq. km, including 1,576 villages are identified as ESAs. The cultural landscape (habitation, plantations) area extends up to 22,919 sq. km while the natural landscape area measures up to 21,529 sq. km. Of the 21,529 sq. km of natural landscape area, 5,660 sq. km comprise reserve forests, protected areas and World Heritage Sites (India, MoEF 2014).

The series of protest strikes conducted by the opponents of the report in Kerala had enjoyed tremendous political support; more specifically it has got a political dimension. But this kind of a movement would be hard to evolve in a State like Kanataka because the political resorts for issues are not common there. Thence ‘the political’ can be identified as the soul of protest strikes against the WGEEP and HLWG reports and their implementation.

The whole process of conservation debates was an unexpected event for many political ecologists to happen in an e-environmental conservation proposals. But in the case of conservation of Western Ghats it is a set of new phenomena emerged due to the operation of ‘the political’. A small vernacular dissent aspiration has questioned the global consensus, demanded re-orderings of the police order, and proved that the political can emerge leaving behind post-political arguments.

Conclusion

The advent of techno-managerial conservation proposals consolidates a unilateral decision making scenario in environmental conservation which eventually affects the society in general. Distinguished ordering of sum and substances of ecology can be a paradigm shift in social administration. Once a system of database or indices is established, there is no diversity or plural assumptions in decision making process. Not only is the social arena evacuated of critique and fundamental conflicts, but the parameters of democratic governing itself are being shifted, paving the way for a society of control through embedded networks of governance.

When government is replaced by governance, policy resembles policing. According to Political Ecologists like Ranciere and Zizek, in a consensual decision making set up, it is hard to politicize an issue like that of dissent or it is impossible to re-think the method of evaluation of techno-managerial conservation proposal. And this eventually leads to something like a post-political situation of stakeholders. By post-politics, political ecologists simply mean the inability to record the voice of affected people, inability to minimize their apprehensions, inability to protest against modes of evaluation or in general retreat of “the political” from stakeholders’ part.

This was the tenets political ecology literatures, when some section of people of Western Ghats opposed the recommendations of techno-managerial conservation proposals. According to post-political situation, a radical dissent aspiration would not be considered as voice, but noise and would be dissolved. But the people of Western Ghats who raised dissent aspiration against the method of techno-managerial evaluation, have challenge political ecology writings heretofore. Or in other words, they have accomplished their demands to a large extend and they were able to save their voice as voice. The expert committee constituted by one of the six Western Ghats States have recognized the genuine apprehensions of the dissidents against the techno-managerial evaluation. The ability of dissentients of Western Ghats to disrupt the mechanical ordering of sum and substances of the ecology was made possible by an unusual political incarnation.

Had the dissent not received a political face through series of protest struggles, agitations and most importantly Indian Parliament elections, the dissent aspirations of the people of Western Ghats would have not been listened to. The Expert committee to evaluate the HLWG report by Government of Kerala submitted its report saying the techno-managerial evaluation had not considered socio-cultural factors as they deserved. Visible political resistances including protest strikes, public agitations, campaigns etc. were used as means to drag the attention of government to the neglect of socio-cultural factors of the Ghats.

Contrary political ecology literature, the implications of techno-managerial evaluation do not consolidate a post-political situation as such in this case, or symptoms of consolidation of a debate free discourse in conservation practices can be effectively minimized by the timely occurrence of the political. The discourse and discussions of Western Ghats conservation were highly politicized in Southern Ghats state Kerala, which is in contrast to the notion that politicisation of particulars, was disabled in a techno-managerial set up.

So far as contemporary political ecology studies are concerned, the contours of political debates occurred in Western Ghats States especially in Kerala regarding the conservation of Ghats, are provoking to envisage new realms of thought. These insights are valid not only in political ecology but Science and Technology Studies, Politics of Resistance, Social Justice, Decision Making Process etc.

This is not the question of whether we need to conserve the Western Ghats; rather it is largely concerned with the methods of conservation. And here in India, a country with chequered history of democratic credibility, new political ecology discourses are emerging to criticise post-political arguments of political ecologists like Slavoj Zizek, Jacques Ranciere, and Eric Swyngedouw etc. Unilateral decision making situation or a debate free discourse hardly consolidates in a democratic community, because political rights which are the breadth and blood of democracy cannot be exchanged for anything.

The arguments like post-democracy are childish to talk about in a country with long democratic legacy, as there would never emerge a situation without ‘the political’ at any circumstances, as it is seen in the case of conservation of India’s Western Ghats. Democracies are plural, diverse and problematic, in that it is politics which decides who gets what and how.

Reference

Ananthakrishnan, G. (2013): “Church voice in farm vs green debate”, The Telegraph,

November 18.

Chinnappa K.J. (2014): “Kasturirangan report: Karnataka State could go the Kerala way”,

The Hindu, March 19.

CPIM (2014): Election Manifesto, New Delhi: Communist Party of India Marxist.

CPM to host convention against Kasturirangan recommendations, Dec 6, 2013,

http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20131206/2297897.html

Diken, B. and Laustsen (2004): 7/11, 9/11, and post-politics, Lancaster: Lancaster University.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/delhi-hc-dismisses-moef-petition-asks-it-to-make-

gadgil-report-public/951744/

India, MoEF (2011): Report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel, Appendix A, New

Delhi: Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India.

India, MoEF (2012): Report of the High Level Working Group, New Delhi: Ministry of

Environment and Forest, Government of India.

India, MoEF, S.O.733 (E) [10.03.2014]: Draft Notification declaring Ecologically Sensitive

Area in Western Ghats in the states of Gujarat, Maharahstra, Goa, Karnataka,

Kerala and Tamil Nadu, New Delhi: Government of India.

Jorke, D. (2005): “On the way to postdemocracy”, Leviathan 33, 482–91.

Kerala State Bishops Council (KCBC) (2014): 682 025/03.01.2014/Ref: 2766/K

35/OL/KCBC/DS.

Kerala, Biodiversity Board (2014): State Expert Committee on HLWG Report,

Thiruvananthapuram: Government of Kerala.

Kumar Sambhav. (2014): “MoEF accepts Western Ghats boundaries suggested by Kerala”,

Down To Earth, 19 March.

Lacoue-Labarthe, P. and Nancy (1997): Retreating the political, London: Routledge, Web of

Science.

Lefort, C. (1994): “L'inventiondémocratique: les limites de la domination totalitaire, Paris:

Fayard.

Mar Theodosius says accepting Kasturirangan report will be 'disastrous' - Orthodoxchurch.tv,

accessed on 24-01-16.

Order issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest on 13 November 2013

Ranciere, J. (2003): Comment and responses, Theory & Event.

Ranciere, J. (2005): Chroniques des Temps Consensuels., Paris: Seuil.

Suchitha M. (2014): “Anti-Kasturirangan campaigners win in Idukki”, Down to Earth,

May16.

Swyngedouw, E. (2007): “Impossible/undesirable sustainability and the post-political

condition”, In J.R.Krueger and D.Gibbs (eds.), The sustainable development paradox,

Guilford, New York.

The Frontline (2013): Unsettling report, December 27.

The Hindu (2013): “Chandy to convene all-party meet on Western Ghats”, November 20.

The Hindu (2013): “Kasturirangan report draws flak from all quarters”, December 15.

The Hindu (2013): “People of Idukki concerned over Kasturirangan report, says panel”,

December 4.

The Hindu (2013): “Violence breaks out in Kerala over implementation of Western Ghats report”, November 16.

Zizek, S. (1999b): The ticklish subject- the absent centre of political ontology, London:

Verso.

Zizek, S. (2002): Revolution at the gates -Zizek on Lenin - the 1917 writings, London: Verso.

Zizek, S. (2002): Revolution at the gates -Zizek on Lenin - the 1917 writings, London: Verso.

Zizek, S. (2005): “Against human rights”, New Left Review 34, 115–31.

Zizek, S. (2006b): “The lesson of Ranciere”, In Jacques Ranciere (ed.), the politics of

aesthetics, London: Continuum.

Zizek, S. (2008): In defence of lost causes, London: Verso.

Appendix

Western Ghats Map