ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS. PARKS, DAMS IN INDIA

INDIA’S GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

The primary central government body in India for environmental protection is the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). It plans and guides environmental policies, forest conservation, and pollution control programs across the country. Key Sub-Organizations and Agencies include: 1) the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), which manages air and water quality standards and fights pollution; 2) the Biodiversity Authority (NBA), which protects local plant and animal life and natural resources; 3) the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB), which stops illegal trade in animals and forest goods; and 4) the .National Green Tribunal (NGT), which Acts as a special court for quick action on environment law breaking.

The National Committee on Environmental Planning and Coordination (NCEPC) was established in 1972, following the Stockholm Conference, to investigate and propose solutions to environmental problems resulting from continued population growth and consequent economic development. In 1980, the Department of the Environment was created. The NCEPC no longer exists today as it was absorbed into newly created Ministry of Environment and Forests in 1985 (now the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change).

The sixth development plan (1979–84), which for the first time included a section on environmental planning and coordination, gave the planning commission veto power over development projects that might damage the environment; this policy was sustained in the seventh development plan (1985–90). The National Environmental Engineering Research Institute has field center areas throughout the country. [Source: Worldmark Encyclopedia of Nations, Thomson Gale, 2007]

National Parks and Reserves in India

There are 668 protected areas (PAs) , extending over 161,221.57 square kilometers (4.9 percent of India’s total land area), including 102 national parks, 515 wildlife sanctuaries, 47 conservation reserves and four community reserves. There are also 39 tiger reserves and 28 elephant reserves. UNESCO has designated five protected areas as World Heritage Sites. More are being added all the time. If those under active consideration are approved the list of protected areas would include 166 national parks. [Source: Yahoo Answers, 2013, Report of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India- Protected Area Network]

In 1975 India had only 5 national parks and 126 wildlife sanctuaries. In 1987 it had 54 national parks and 248 sanctuaries. At that time nearly 12 percent of Indian forested land had been aside for wildlife, an area of more than 38,610 square miles. [Source: Geoffrey C. Ward, Smithsonian, November 1987]

The Indian Board of Wildlife was created in 1952 by rich British landowners and industrialists, many former hunters, to preserve India's wildlife. International attention focused on India wildlife in 1969 when the International Union for Conservation of Nature held conference in New Delhi with representatives from 100 countries. In 1970 India outlawed the shooting of tigers and 61 endangered species. [Source: by John Putman, National Geographic September 1976]

In 1972, there were 150 wild life sanctuaries. Many were on small pieces of land surrounded by farms and villages. Some were no larger than large city parks in an American city. The parks with the most wildlife in many cases were the hunting preserves of local maharajahs. The animals in Asia come into contact with humans much more frequently than the animals in Africa, which partly accounts for why many more people are killed by wild animals in the Indian subcontinent than in Africa.

Streams have been diverted and wells have been dug in the dry parts of some national parks to provide wildlife with drinking water. One goal is set up corridors to allow animals from different groups to breed, strengthening the gene pool of the species. But there is little chance these corridors will ever become a reality. Land set aside for them on conservation maps has already been taken over by farms and pastures.

India's national parks might be in even worse shape than they are were it not for the fact that the country's first prime ministers Jawaharlal Nehru, his daughter Indira Gandhi, and his grandson Rajiv Gandhi were all conservationists.

Environmentalist Groups in India

Key environmental organizations in India include 1) the Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS), which focuses extensively on wildlife research, bird conservation, and nature education; 2) the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) based in New Delhi, which conducts public-interest research and advocates for policy changes regarding air pollution, water management, and sustainable development; 3) the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE) and Kalpavriksh, which work to bridge science, governance, and community rights; 4) the Wildlife Trust of India (WTI) and WWF-India, which actively protect endangered species and natural habitats through emergency wildlife rescues and ecosystem restoration programs; and 5) the Environmentalist Foundation of India (EFI), a grassroots organization that mobilize local communities to restore polluted lakes, ponds, and local wildlife habitats across India. [Source: Google AI]

Wildlife First is an environmental group focused on saving the remaining tracts of forest in the Western Ghats. Greenpeace India is a chapter of Greenpeace. Vandana Shibam, the founder of the Foundation of Science-Technology and Ecology, is one of most prominent environmentalists in India. Women in northern India were pioneers in protests against deforestation. In 1973, 3,000 women led by Chandu Prasad of the Daholi Gram Swaajiya Mandal (DGSM), a Dasholi village citizens group, in Uttaranchal, worried that deforestation would threaten their livelihoods, stood in front of a grove of cedar trees to protect them from being cut down by a logging company. The women said they would “hug the trees” to protect them. Their effort became known as the “chipko” movement (“chipko”” means “hug” in Hindi). The next year women in another village destroyed bridges to prevent loggers from gaining access to another forest. In 1976, the government banned deforestation. In Uttaranchal, every village has a conservation committee comprised of villagers and state officials. Three fourths of the councils are led by women.

Conservation in India is primarily a middle-class movement. Prosperous Indian families have donated a great deal of time and money to help Indian wildlife. Environmentalist are sometimes accused of being communists. Biologists often look for work outside the country because there are few conservation and teaching jobs on India.

Villagers are also active. In the early 2020s, in Maharashtra’s Ratnagiri district, thousands of villagers protested plans for a proposed $40 billion oil refinery and petrochemical complex in the ecologically sensitive Konkan region. The project, backed by Indian state-owned oil companies, Saudi Aramco, and Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, was expected to become one of the world’s largest refineries. Protesters opposed land acquisition and feared pollution, deforestation, damage to water sources, and losses to fishing and mango farming. The proposed site included laterite plateaus, fishing villages, mango orchards, and hundreds of ancient petroglyphs. Fishermen said the project could restrict fishing near offshore crude-oil facilities and threaten the livelihoods of tens of thousands of people. Alphonso mango growers also feared that air pollution and environmental changes could reduce crop yields.[Source: Nikhil Inamdar - BBC News, Barsu, June 16, 2023]

Opposition to the refinery had continued for nearly a decade and had previously forced authorities to abandon the original site at Nanar. When soil testing began at the newer Barsu site in 2023, protesters blocked roads and some were detained after police used batons and tear gas. Local activists also questioned land-acquisition practices and argued that villagers had not been adequately consulted. Supporters of the project argued that it would bring investment, employment, and economic development to Ratnagiri, a relatively less industrialized part of Maharashtra. Government estimates suggested the refinery could increase Maharashtra’s economic output and create thousands of jobs. The dispute therefore reflected a broader conflict between industrial development and the protection of local livelihoods, ecosystems, and cultural heritage in the Konkan region.

Treehuggers and the Chipko Movement

According to The New Yorker: In 1730, the maharaja of Jodhpur needed wood for a new palace in the compound, so he sent soldiers to cut down khejri trees in the desert village of Khejarli. The trees are sacred to the Bishnoi people, and a villager led a protest by wrapping her arms around a trunk. The soldiers brutally broke up the demonstration, slitting the throats of three hundred and sixty-three people. The protesters are said to have been India’s first environmental activists, giving rise to the term “tree-hugger.” [Source: Dorothy Wickenden, The New Yorker, December 12, 2022]

The Chipko movement was a grassroots forest-conservation movement that emerged in the Himalayan region of present-day Uttarakhand in the 1970s. The movement became known for villagers, particularly women, embracing trees to prevent them from being cut down. The word “Chipko” means “to hug” or “to cling to,” reflecting this form of nonviolent protest. [Source: Nikhil Mehta, importantindia.com, May 27, 2016]

The movement grew from concerns that commercial logging and deforestation were damaging forests that local communities depended on for fuel, fodder, water, agriculture, and other necessities. Activists argued that forests also helped prevent soil erosion, landslides, and the loss of water resources. The movement gained national attention after protests in the Garhwal Himalayas, including the 1974 action at Reni village led by Gaura Devi and other local women.

Chipko activists called for greater local participation in forest management and for restrictions on logging in environmentally sensitive areas. They argued that forests should be managed for long-term ecological protection and the sustainable needs of nearby communities rather than primarily for commercial timber production. The movement helped make forest conservation and community rights central issues in India’s environmental debate and influenced later forest-protection campaigns.

Environmentalists in India

Sunderlal Bahuguna is an environmentalist and former Gandhi disciple who walks the mountains of the Himalayan region decrying the evils of deforestation. He told Smithsonian magazine the unfortunate story of one village: "150 years ago the village people here were well off. Then an Englishman began commercial timbering in the 1850s. When the Raja of Tehri saw how profitable it was he took control of the forest away from the people and reserved them for big timber interests. Our deodars ( a species of cedar) were chopped down to make railroad ties for the East India Company. Denied access to the forests, which traditionally had provided them with fodder, fuel and food, the villager were left with nothing...I tried to find the causes of poverty among these people," he said. "I decided it was due to deforestation which led to soil erosion, murderous landslides and the drying up of water resources. [Source: Smithsonian magazine]

Bahuguna educated people on the dangers of deforestation by walking from village to village as Gandhi did in the 1940s, informing villagers through village council meeting, school lectures, and meetings with farmers and villager elders. He also taught children tree hugging conservation games and encouraged people to abandon their wasteful ways and plant trees. One Indian environmentalist said that Bahuguna and his methods “achieved more in 10 years than the forest department could have done in 100 years.”

Arun Krishnamurthy, who grew up around lakes and green spaces in Chennai, founded the Environmentalist Foundation of India after organizing a local pond cleanup as a young man. The organization later developed a large volunteer network and worked to restore polluted lakes by removing waste and installing systems to improve water quality and wildlife habitat. By 2025, the group had restored 185 lakes and operated in 16 Indian states. [Source: Ciara Nugent, Time, October 13, 2022]

Ramesh Agrawal of Chhattisgarh, used India’s Right to Information Act to investigate coal and industrial projects and help villagers challenge developments that threatened farmland, forests, water, and livelihoods. His campaign against a proposed coal mine by Jindal Steel and Power led the National Green Tribunal to revoke the project’s environmental clearance in 2012 after finding serious problems with the public consultation process. [Source: Shashank Bengali, Los Angeles Times, April 28, 2014; Nita Bhalla, Reuters, April 30, 2014; goldmanprize.org]

Agrawal’s activism also demonstrated the risks faced by environmental campaigners. In 2012, he was shot and seriously wounded at his internet café after opposing the coal project. Despite his injuries, he continued helping rural communities use information and environmental laws to challenge industrial projects. In 2014, he received the Goldman Environmental Prize for his grassroots environmental work.

Anti-Dam Movements in India in the 1990s

The protests against the Tehri and Narmada dam projects during the 1990s represent pivotal moments in India's modern environmental movement. Both campaigns shifted the public debate from a narrow focus on industrial growth to broader concerns regarding social justice, ecological stability, human rights, and sustainable development. These projects were criticized for causing widespread displacement of rural and indigenous communities, submersing vast areas of fertile land and forests, and failing to provide adequate resettlement or rehabilitation plans for affected residents.

The opposition to the Narmada dam projects, primarily spearheaded by the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) under the leadership of social activist Medha Patkar and Baba Amte, targeted large-scale dam construction along the Narmada River, most notably the Sardar Sarovar Dam. The movement mobilized displaced villagers, tribal groups, and environmental activists through non-violent tactics, including prolonged hunger strikes, massive rallies, and satyagrahas. A major victory occurred in 1993 when international pressure and sustained grassroots protests forced the World Bank to withdraw its financial support for the project.

Thousands of people were displaced by the Narmada dam. More than 60 percent of them were tribals or Dalits ("untouchables") and members of lower castes. People displaced were promised a new plot of land, and to access to health and education services. As part of some of the resettlement programs each adult received five acres of land. People who were moved 605 kilometers (40 miles) to their new homes complained the soil was poor and full of rocks and there wasn't enough water. They were temporarily housed in 12-x-20 sheds, that were cold in the winter and hot in the summer, while they built new houses for themselves. The land was so poor in some places that many of the displaced were forced to go to the towns to get work. It is estimated that thousands of people might be displaced without being compensated or given new place to live.

Protestors of Narmada dam blocked highways and went on fasts. Tribals took up bows and arrows and declared "war on the government." Environmentalist organized villagers and brought the project to a halt in the courts. The acclaimed Indian novelist Arundhati Roy campaigned against dam building and was spokesperson for the "Save the Narmada Movement." Her second novel “The Greater Common Good” — after her breakthrough Booker-winning debut “God of Small Things” — was about millions of people being displaced by dams. In October 2000, the Indian Supreme Court approved the building of the Narmada dam. and it was built

Construction of the Sardar Sarovar dam was halted in 1994, 40 meters short of its 138 meter height. In October 2000, a majority decision by India's Supreme Court ruled that the construction should be resumed and the dam should be completed as quickly as possible. The project was initially funded by the World Bank. In 1993, the World Bank withdrew a loan of the project after a study commissioned by bank found the provisions for the displaced people was nonexistent. The Japanese government also has withdrawn funding.

The movement against the Tehri Dam on the Bhagirathi River in the Himalayan region of Uttarakhand gained national momentum under the leadership of Gandhian activist Sunderlal Bahuguna. Protesters emphasized the grave ecological risks of building a towering 260-meter dam in a seismically sensitive mountain zone, warning of potential catastrophic failure and the submergence of the historic Tehri town and neighboring villages. Through repeated hunger strikes and peaceful demonstrations, activists raised awareness about seismic hazards and local sovereignty over natural resources.

The anti-Tehri and anti-Narmada movements fundamentally transformed how major development infrastructure is evaluated in India. By highlighting the human and environmental costs of mega-projects, these protests spurred intense legal battles in the Supreme Court, exposed systematic flaws in government policies, and established non-violent resistance as a central strategy for environmental advocacy.

India Cracks Down on Greenpeace

In 2014–2015, the Indian government increased restrictions on Greenpeace and several other foreign-linked environmental organizations, accusing them of interfering with economic development and threatening the country’s economic security. Intelligence officials alleged that campaigns by Western-funded nongovernmental organizations were delaying major development projects and could have reduced India’s economic growth by 2 to 3 percent annually. Greenpeace was specifically described as a potential threat because of its opposition to coal-based energy projects. [Source: Shashank Bengali, Los Angeles Times, January 13, 2015]

Indian government and ruling-party officials accused the organizations of acting as foreign-funded political or economic agents rather than independent environmental groups. Greenpeace and other activists rejected the allegations and said the restrictions were intended to suppress criticism of the government’s development and energy policies.

The crackdown focused largely on groups campaigning against India’s coal industry, which supplied about 80 percent of the country’s domestic electricity at the time. The government argued that India needed expanded coal production to provide electricity to a population in which about one-quarter of people lacked access to power and to support economic development. Environmental groups, however, argued that coal projects caused pollution, deforestation, land acquisition problems, and other environmental and social damage, and they questioned the transparency of coal-block allocations.

Authorities restricted Greenpeace’s access to foreign funding in 2014 and reportedly imposed similar measures on several U.S.-linked organizations, including the Sierra Club, 350.org, Avaaz, and the Bank Information Center. In January 2015, Greenpeace staff member Priya Pillai was prevented from traveling to London, where she planned to meet British lawmakers about alleged environmental and human-rights violations connected to a proposed coal mine in Madhya Pradesh. Officials cited security reasons but did not publicly provide detailed justification.

Anti-Coal Movement in India in the 2020s

In central India’s Chhattisgarh state, activist Alok Shukla has led a grassroots campaign against coal mining in the Hasdeo Aranya forest for more than a decade. The forest contains an estimated five billion tons of underground coal and has attracted mining companies, including Adani Group. The campaign has involved protest marches, pressure on lawmakers, court cases, and sit-in demonstrations by residents of the forest’s tribal communities. [Source: AFP, April 30, 2024]

A major victory came in 2021, when the Indian government established an elephant reserve covering about 180,000 hectares (445,000 acres) of the threatened forest. The reserve blocked 17 proposed mining sites from development. However, six proposed sites were left outside the reserve. Five remained dormant, while another, operated by Adani Group on behalf of the Rajasthan state government, was already producing coal and seeking to expand. Shukla said his goal was to prevent any further mines from opening and to stop the cutting of trees in the forest.

Shukla and local residents have maintained a sit-in protest in Hariharpur village for about two years. The village could be affected if the proposed mine expansion goes ahead. The Chhattisgarh government approved the expansion in 2022, but tree-felling was halted after residents blocked the work. Since then, Shukla and groups of villagers have continued the protest at the proposed expansion site.

The movement began in 2012, when Shukla found that many residents had accepted coal mining as unavoidable even though they did not want to surrender their land. He traveled between villages explaining legal options and constitutional protections available to tribal communities. Residents involved in the campaign said they faced attempted bribery, threats of violence, and warnings of legal action. Shakuntala Ekka, one of the early participants, said it took time for residents to organize and join the campaign.

Many people living in the Hasdeo forest depend on subsistence farming and gathering food from the surrounding forest. For some residents, the expansion of mining has raised concerns about losing land and changing their traditional way of life. Shiv Prasad Khusro, who gave up his family home and farmland for compensation when mining began more than a decade ago, joined the sit-in to warn other residents. He said the compensation money was quickly spent and that some former landowners were later forced to work as day laborers.

The Hasdeo campaign is also part of a wider debate over India’s dependence on coal. India is the world’s third-largest greenhouse gas emitter and has pledged to reach net-zero emissions by 2070. Coal, however, remains the country’s main fuel for electricity generation. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has said coal remains important for meeting growing energy needs and reducing poverty, while environmental activists have argued that economic development should not require continued destruction of forests.

Shukla was announced in April 2024 as one of the recipients of the Goldman Environmental Prize for his environmental campaign. He described the movement as more than a struggle to protect forests, saying it also challenged prevailing ideas about economic development. Adani Group said its charitable arm was committed to improving the quality of life of communities around its mine and accused some activists of seeking to damage the company’s reputation.

Modi’s Forestry and Environmental Policies

Dorothy Wickenden wrote in The New Yorker: Developing nations like India are in an especially painful bind: coping with cascading environmental catastrophes while pursuing rapid industrial growth. Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India claims to have found a way to do both. At the U.N.’s 2019 climate summit, he pledged to restore sixty-four million acres of degraded land by 2030. He also oversees one of the world’s fastest-growing economies. [Source: Dorothy Wickenden, The New Yorker, December 12, 2022]

Modi’s critics say that, in the rush to join the developed world, India is devastating the environment. Warnings from scientists are ignored, as dams, roads, and power lines are built in fragile habitats. In recent years, the Modi administration has taken steps to nullify the Forest Rights Act, which enabled Indigenous people and other forest dwellers to resist development projects in their homelands. A young participant at the E.R.A. conference described Modi’s India to me as “development on steroids.”

Attempting to replenish India’s tree cover, Modi, like his predecessors, has invested heavily in “compensatory” planting. For the state forest departments that implement these plans, biodiversity is a relatively new concern; following colonial precedent, they have historically regarded native shrubs, grasses, and climbers as “weeds” or, worse, as “junglee.” Under pressure to plant quickly and extensively, they install fast-growing, thirsty saplings, with little thought to whether they’ll survive.

The success rate of such initiatives is low. One recent study, published in a Royal Society of London journal, examined a hundred and seventy-six sites in tropical and subtropical Asia. After five years, an average of forty-four per cent of the trees had died. In October, when the online journal Yale Environment 360 surveyed tree-planting efforts in the Philippines, Turkey, India, and elsewhere, it found that scientists described them as poorly designed and mismanaged at best. Often, they “fail to grow any forests at all.”

Under Modi pledge to plant millions of trees, businesses and cities introduced tiny forests helter-skelter. Scientists note that the groves often require earthmovers, truckloads of fresh soil, and—for the first few years—weeding, manuring, and copious watering, in regions where water is scarce. There are not yet any hard data proving these forests’ long-term survival rates in India.

Image Sources: Wikimedia Commons

Text Sources: Library of Congress, CIA World Factbook, Ministry of Tourism, Government of India, National Geographic, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Smithsonian magazine, Encyclopedia.com, Live Science, The Conversation, The New Yorker, Time, BBC, CNN, Reuters, Associated Press, AFP, Lonely Planet Guides, Google AI, Wikipedia, The Guardian and various websites, books and other publications.

Last updated October 2026