Achieving sustainable growth with emphasis on environmental protection could come into conflict with poor people’s needs in a country like India – Comment.
Approach · directive: “comment”
What it asks · Weigh where environmental protection genuinely clashes with the needs of the poor and where the two reinforce each other, ending with a reconciled view.
It asks 2 things — answer each
- Comment: where environmental protection genuinely conflicts with the needs of the poor in India
- Comment: where the two reinforce each other, and how policy can reconcile them — a reasoned view
Open with · For a country with a large poor population, green growth must be judged by whether the poor gain from it or pay for it.
Cover
- Conflict: forest and mining restrictions can curb livelihoods of forest dwellers, quarry and sand workers; coal phase-down threatens jobs in eastern India.
- Conflict: costlier clean fuels and pollution curbs hurt small units and informal vendors (plastic bans); land for solar parks or protected areas can displace people.
- Complement: the poor suffer most from degradation — polluted air and water, droughts, floods and heat waves.
- Complement: the poor depend on natural capital — forests, fisheries, commons — so conservation protects their assets.
- Green jobs: rooftop solar, watershed works under MGNREGA, natural farming, eco-tourism; PM-KUSUM raises farm incomes.
- Reconciling tools: Forest Rights Act, DMF and CAMPA funds, just-transition planning, payments for ecosystem services, CBDR globally.
Close with · The conflict is real in the short run but false in the long run — policy must make the poor beneficiaries, not bearers, of the green transition.
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2025, GS Paper I — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 271 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS
For a country with a large poor population, green growth must pass one test: do the poor gain from it, or pay for it? They can do either, depending on how policy is designed.
Where the conflict is real
- Livelihoods: forest and wildlife restrictions curb forest dwellers' access to minor forest produce and grazing; curbs on sand mining and quarrying hit unorganised workers.
- Energy transition: a coal phase-down threatens jobs and district economies in eastern India; costlier clean fuels and pollution curbs burden small units and informal vendors, as plastic bans show.
- Land: solar parks, protected areas and river projects displace people who are seldom the beneficiaries.
- Time horizons: environmental gains are long term; the needs of the poor are immediate.
Where the two reinforce each other
- The poor bear degradation first: polluted air and water, droughts, floods and heat waves strike hardest those with no cushion.
- Natural capital is their capital: forests, fisheries and commons are the assets of the poor, so conservation protects their livelihoods.
- Green jobs: rooftop solar, watershed works under MGNREGA, natural farming and eco-tourism; PM-KUSUM raises farm incomes while cutting diesel.
Reconciling the two
- Rights-based conservation: the Forest Rights Act 2006 and community forest resource rights make dwellers stewards, not encroachers.
- Sharing the gains: District Mineral Foundation and CAMPA funds for affected communities; just-transition plans for coal districts; payments for ecosystem services.
- Globally, common but differentiated responsibilities keep the burden of mitigation off the poor of developing countries.
The conflict is real in the short run and false in the long run; policy must make the poor the beneficiaries, not the bearers, of the green transition.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify). UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.