Environment movements, when understood from the broadest perspective, are essentially raising the issues that affect the people who are directly dependent on natural resources for their living. These are essentially the poorest people, who are also socio-economically the weakest and are impacted by projects and activities that are passed off in the name of development. The people on whose behalf trade unions fight are also the poorest and socio-economically the weakest. A significant number of such people come from the area where the so-called developmental activities are taken up. Environment and labour movements share much as their constituencies are common in a major way.



The Need for Collaboration

The governments that take decisions about the projects and policies that affect the people are the target of influence for both the labour movement and the environment movement. In broad terms, one can see a lot in common in terms of the specific issues that the two streams of social campaigns raise. Many times they operate in the same or close geographic areas. So, ideally the environment and labour movements should be collaborating with each other. That way they could also bring together the two kinds of movements, adding to the strengths of each other. That unfortunately is not the case. Let us understand this situation in case of large dams in general and some specific examples like the Narmada in particular.

Like most movements around large dams, the Narmada movement started by raising the issues of large scale displacement and the possibilities and ways of achieving just resettlement. The issues than expanded to include the issues of environmental destruction, issues of costs, benefits, impacts and their distribution and also the possibilities of finding less destructive options. The movement went on to raise the issues of development policies and decision-making processes.

The movement started in the villages to be affected by the Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) and many times the focus of the movement was the dam site. That was the place where a large number of labourers employed by the governments and the various contractors worked. A large number of people working thus came from the communities affected by the project in various ways. If the two movements had worked together, each would have increased in strength.

The organised labour movement (except some exceptions like the Vadodara Kamdar Union in Baroda that closely and consistently united with the concerns and struggle of Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA)) did not collaborate or support the Narmada movement. On the contrary, most of the major labour Unions and their parent political parties, including those of the left were seen to be on the opposite camp many times. In fact on numerous occasions one could see statements of labour Union leaders criticising the NBA and also joining hands to oppose the agitation of affected persons.

The main reason why this happened was that the leadership of the labour unions take a political view of the issues around projects like SSP. And they see that to further their political agenda in the electoral battles, they must be seen to be supporting projects like SSP and hence seen to be opposing movements like NBA that were seen to be against such projects for various reasons. This is a situation peculiar to Gujarat where SSP is perceived by the politicians as their lifelines.

But if we go to other states the situation is not much different regarding the stand that labour unions take or do not take on issues around such projects. For example, in Himachal Pradesh, where a large number of dams in the form of hydropower projects are coming up, when some left leaders were approached to join the struggle of the local communities to get greater say in the decision making process or even getting the basic project information before the public hearings, the left leaders involved in the labour struggles did not come forward.

This situation has come about firstly because the labour movements perceive that all that governments do in terms of development projects is all right. They see that their mandate is to ensure the rights of the labour employed for the projects. And here too they see their mandate to look at only the issues related to monetary compensation of the labour. When it comes to other rights of the employed (e.g. the safety in operations, pollution and health related issues, etc) the labour unions have rarely taken up these issues except in a few instances. Asking the questions on justifiability, optimality, viability or democracy in the decisions around such projects, is not even in the horizon of the thinking of most labour union leaders.

The Unions leadership has come to perceive all the movements on above issues as against development as they perceive it and hence they would not support such causes. In Himachal Pradesh, it is only recently that some of the unions have some times supported the struggle of the displaced communities for just compensation.

It is of course not entirely the case that the all the individuals in the labour movements do not understand these problems. Far from it, most individuals (except many of those that are full time leaders) would support the cause of the environmental movements if they had the opportunities. But the leadership, when they start seeing everything in the light of electoral politics at state or national level, fail to understand or support the environmental issues.

The companies that get contracts for building dams and related works invariably employ labourers from the states or areas outside and far away from the places where the projects are to come up. This helps the contractors to keep the labourers depend on the mercies of the contractors and this goes against the interests of the labourers. This also goes against the interests of the local population as many of them in need of such employment opportunities do not get the work as the contractors do not employ the local persons including those adversely affected by such projects. This is a situation that is at the intersection of the labour and environment movements. But in overwhelming majority of situations labour movements do not try to get the local labourers employed for the projects, though such issues should very much fall in their mandate.

Another reason for this situation is that many labour union leaders see environment issues as anti labour. It is of course true that there have been instances where the labour versus environmental issue is raised in justifiable way, though in most cases it is raised in rather manipulated ways. It is also true that many times the way environmental issues are raised, the results have gone against the immediate interests of the labourers. When industries are closed to stop pollution of environment and the workers employed at the industries lose jobs, the labour unions oppose such moves and perceive environmental issues in anti labour light. In such cases many times it is not the case of the environmental movement that there should be injustice with the employees. Courts for example, when ordered that certain industries must close down or shift out of Delhi, should have also required that measures to take care of the concerns of the employees, both organised and unorganised, is built in the orders. In fact had those fighting for the labour and the environment collaborated in such cases, they would not become cases of labour versus environment.

Of course the whole situation is far more complicated then can be dealt in a small article. Experience shows that a lot would have to be done by both camps if the two kinds of movements are to come together to first understand each other and finds ways of collaborating with each other. Lack of such collaborations is in fact harming the interests of the labour and also the environment.