GS Paper I 2025 · Q19
15 marks · 250 words Women, population, poverty & urbanisation X-Ray · Core #34Achieving 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 · The Brundtland Report (1987) puts 'the needs of the present' first; in India those needs are a poor family's fuel, land and wages.
Cover
- Conflict: forest and wildlife curbs limit forest produce and grazing; sand and quarry curbs hit informal workers.
- Conflict: coal phase-down threatens jobs in eastern districts; clean-fuel costs and plastic bans burden small units; projects displace people.
- Complement: the poor suffer degradation first — dirty air and water, droughts, floods, heat waves.
- Complement: forests, fisheries and commons are the poor's assets; Ujjwala (about 10.35 crore beneficiaries) cut indoor smoke.
- Green jobs: rooftop solar, MGNREGA watershed works, natural farming, PM-KUSUM.
- Reconciling tools: Forest Rights Act 2006, DMF and CAMPA funds, just-transition plans, payments for ecosystem services, CBDR.
Close with · The conflict is real in the short run and false in the long run; designed well, environmental protection becomes India's widest anti-poverty programme.
Add value (verified)
- The Brundtland Report, Our Common Future (1987), defines sustainable development as meeting present needs without compromising future generations.NCERT Class 12, India: People and Economy, ch. 6 Planning and Sustainable Development in Indian Context ↗“The report defines sustainable development as a "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."”
- Ujjwala beneficiaries reached about 10.35 crore as on 1 December 2025.Year End Review 2025: Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas — PIB ↗“Under the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana, the number of beneficiaries reached about 10.35 crore as on 1 December 202”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2025, GS Paper I — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 16 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 318words · Minimalist IAS
The Brundtland Report (1987) defines sustainable development as meeting 'the needs of the present' without compromising future generations. In India those present needs are a poor family's fuel, land and wages, so green growth must ask whether the poor gain from it or pay for it.
Where the conflict is real
- Forest livelihoods: wildlife and forest curbs limit access to minor forest produce and grazing; curbs on sand mining and quarrying hit informal workers.
- Energy transition: a coal phase-down threatens jobs and district revenues in eastern India; costlier clean fuels and plastic bans burden small units and vendors.
- Land: solar parks, protected areas and river projects displace people who seldom share the gains.
- Time horizons: environmental gains are long term; a poor household's needs are immediate.
Where the two reinforce each other
- Poor bear degradation first: dirty air and water, droughts, floods and heat waves strike hardest those with no savings cushion.
- Nature is their capital: forests, fisheries and village commons are the assets of the poor, so conservation protects livelihoods.
- Clean energy as welfare: Ujjwala's LPG beneficiaries reached about 10.35 crore by December 2025, cutting smoke in poor kitchens.
- Green jobs: rooftop solar, watershed works under MGNREGA and natural farming; PM-KUSUM solar pumps cut farmers' diesel bills.
| Green policy | Risk to the poor | Pro-poor design |
|---|---|---|
| Forest conservation | Lost forest produce | Forest Rights Act 2006 |
| Mining regulation | Displacement | District Mineral Foundation |
| Coal phase-down | Job losses | Just-transition plans |
Reconciling the two
- Rights-based conservation: community forest resource rights under the Forest Rights Act 2006 make dwellers stewards, not encroachers.
- Sharing gains: District Mineral Foundation funds for mining-affected communities, plus payments for ecosystem services.
- Global equity: 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, because the poor depend most on nature; designed well, environmental protection becomes India's widest anti-poverty programme.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 16 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
