Has the current discourse of development proposed by the renowned economists, academia, political authorities, security personnel and analysts, hyper-nationalists, neo-liberal intelligentsia and capitalist proponents become unquestionable, unchallengeable and rigid idea? Has it been accorded the highest holiness and absolute sanctity in economic and social discipline that none should look for the flaws in it? Has the all-pervading narrative of development that has been incorporated in the minds of the populace made it an unnatural attempt to think about the alternative narratives and perceptions regarding the development? Are the prevailing development practices adopted by the governments and corporates alike fool-proof and needn't be reformed? Is asymmetrical progress natural and organic in the notion of development propounded by the modern-day economic theorists? Is environmental destruction a natural phenomenon and needn't be given a thought for? Is the term environmental security a farce, hoax and humbug going by the crude reality of capitalist and realist angle development? Are the modern state and the capitalist empire using the words like sustainable development, ecological balance, green development, afforestation and other fanciful words to mask their crude agenda and manipulate people to gain acceptance and acknowledgement and promote their economical interests? Are development projects what governments vow for lop-sided and contributing to the physical, social, economical and environmental backwardness? Going by the economic policies that governments or political authorities have been adopting across the globe, it is appropriate that aforementioned questions boggle the minds of people who aspire for the equitable distribution of the natural resources and the planet that is free of exploitation and destruction. In the light of unlimited destruction under the banner of development, it is wise to understand the Achilles heel in modern-day economics.

Security and national interest

The recent protests against the proposed Very Low Frequency (VLF) radar station to be set up in the Damagundam forest zone of Vikarabad district in Telangana has once again brought the debate of development vs ecological balance to the fore. Can security and national interest be compulsions enough to wipe out the green cover that has been spread over 2900 acres of forest land? Can electronic sensors, concrete and electromagnetic waves replace the role of oxygen? Though the issue of Damagundam is localised, it serves as a testimony of the functioning of the modern-day state. Be it Amazon forest in Brazil or Damagundam in Telangana, India, the theme of development vs environment appears the same all over the world. Destruction, displacement and delusion (3Ds) are the flip side of development.

Contrary to popular perception, development in the post-liberal era is asymmetrical, exclusive to a few segments, concentrated, centralized, authoritarian and skewed towards the super-yacht classes. At a time when climate change and a looming biodiversity crisis have been forcing a concerned humanity into action, governments all over the world are turning a blind eye to the imminent threat.

Crony-capitalist tendencies

It is a no-brainer to say that capitalism leaves no stone unturned in order to maximize profits. It hates barricades, restrictions and scrutinies. What it loves is unrestricted access to resources even at the cost of the planet. The roots of modern-day inequality lies in disoriented economics. Development projects have accelerated inequalities rather than progress. Since media, academics and other important socio-economic organs are being controlled by corporates and crony-capitalists, the voice of beleaguered sections remain largely unheard not only by governments but also by the civic capital and intelligentsia too. The modern-state appears accommodative to only a few while remaining inaccessible to a large chunk of its citizens.

It appears that governments under the guise of national interest have been trying to bypass the due conventions and obligations that are meant to be fulfilled and followed before green-flagging the development projects. It is preposterous on the part of governments to go ahead with the projects in which the costs outweigh benefits. If a project is not civilian in nature and does not create large scale employment and is meant for military purposes, the governments can station them at locations devoid of green covers.

Dichotomy in government policies

There exists a dichotomy in the approach of the governments all across the world. On the one hand, they set  targets to achieve a greener planet and call for immediate action to mitigate the disastrous effects of climate change and on the other they multiply so-called development projects by eliminating the green cover. Though it is easy to understand the economic costs involved in degradation of the natural environment in the form of mitigation and restoration efforts at times of disasters, governments have been emphasising the short-term gains over long- term ones owing to their oligarchic and crony-capitalist interests.

Anti-nationals, anarchists, trouble mongers, barbarians, proxies are the terms that are being used by the governments to refer to people who fight for the cause of the environment. Labelling and name-calling have become neo-normal in the age of neoliberalism. It is not wrong to state that it is not the people who raise their voice for the preservation and protection of nature who are regressive but governments.

Need to redefine development

Governments should recognise the fact that unaddressed environmental concerns will transform into a radical form of action if not into eco-terrorism. The religious terrorism that Middle East nations have been experiencing these days may turn into environmental terrorism down the line due to progressive resource crunch and the steady degradation of natural resources. Ever since the post-world war period, governments have leaned towards the destruction over determinism of nature in seeking to strike a balance between economic development and ecological balance. The presumption that capitalist development is a panacea for all ills has proven to be wrong. Now, the time has come to redefine the term called development to make it inclusive, one that has zero negative effects on nature in the larger interest of the planet.

(The writer is a columnist on contemporary issues and international affairs. Views are personal. He can be contacted at vamshikrishnaalphahunsa@gmail.com)