The paradigm warrior in pursuit of environmental justice

Parul Malhotra

She's into redefining paradigms. Picketing the World Bank office in New Delhi, educating tribal groups and farmers in rural India, lecturing multinationals, are her preferred weapons. That’s Vandana Shiva, the celebrated eco-feminist, for you. Author of eleven books, winner of the prestigious Right Livelihood Award—or the “alternative Nobel”—and guest speaker at numerous universities on issues such as eco-feminism, agricultural ecology, biotechnology, intellectual property rights and globalisation (she claims all of them fit neatly under the umbrella of environmental justice) is no stranger to awards.

Which is probably why she takes the latest accolade—Asiaweek magazine has recently ranked Ms Shiva as the fifth most powerful communicator in Asia—in her stride.

“I have known for a long time that global corporations who are making everyone run scared just now—from the World Trade Organisation, to our premier and finance minister—run scared themselves when I sit across the table and debate with them,” she says with a broad smile. Yet, she refuses to take herself too seriously. “Now how much that translates into any other form of power, I have no idea”, she guffaws. But, after a pregnant pause, she adds that her success as a communicator is a result of her deep convictions: “I don’t say, write or act upon anything unless I am deeply convinced myself”.

Interestingly, this “powerful communicator” is often accused of distorting facts. Jairam Ramesh, member of the Congress party says, “She’s so scholarly and articulate, so of course she’s a good communicator. But unfortunately, with her, any resemblance to facts is totally coincidental. She’s been proven wrong many, many times. In fact, her misinformed convictions make her dangerous”.

A senior member of the Bharatiya Janata Party concurs. The gentleman, who had occasion to participate in a debate with her, was left ruing the encounter as a complete waste of time. “Her facts were just wrong. I spent most of my time correcting them instead of debating with her”.

Fellow NGO activist Pradeep S Mehta of the Centre for International Trade, Economics and Environment (CITEE), also wonders about her communication abilities. “Although she can communicate well, she’s been able to get through to only those who remain in tight compartments. She’ll not be able to convert those who are in the know. Moreover, she doesn’t like to enter into a debate on a serious platform”.

A respected intellectual property expert, part of the Indian government’s team on IPR issues, is also a bit sceptical. “We had to dismiss two petitions which she filed against the Indian government, alleging bio-piracy by international companies, because her own statements were found to be inconsistent”.
Critics question her credibility. Mr Mehta feels she’s too much of a jetsetter and accuses her of hypocrisy. “She talks about sustainable agriculture, yet uses chemicals on her farm.” So does the BJP functionary. “If she’s so anti-MNCs why does she go off to (the World Economic Forum at) Davos, that ultimate rich club of the MNCs”?

Others doubt her motives. “She’s a lobbyist out to scuttle the economic progress of India. Where does she get her funding from?”, asks one.

Ask Ms Shiva about the violent feeling she inspires (her website was recently hacked and linked to a pornographic site), and she returns matter of factly: “You have to treat both (love and hate) with equal detachment. It’s the price you pay for the work you choose to do.”

Press on and she points out that her international work and subsequent recognition are a logical progression of her work at home. “From 1982-1985 I concentrated on local issues because by that time I’d already travelled the world and been an international expert. But during that time I realised that every one of the projects I was working on had been financed by the World Bank. So in 1984-85 I started to study World Bank financing. Then, when in 1985, I was asked to spearhead the Save the Rain Forest campaign, (“I’d done all the studies on rain forests”), that was the start of linking back internationally”.
Ask her why liberal, forward-looking Indians remain sceptical of her activism and she tells you that it stems from an Indian trait: pulling down someone who’s successful.”The West has a civilisational crisis. They’ve recognised that they need to find an alternative. That’s why my writings have struck a chord with them”.

Her various critics notwithstanding, Ms Shiva does have a substantial following, within and without India. Which is probably why Asiaweek believes an increasing number of governments, multilateral institutions and global corporations are listening to her words of wisdom. But Rome wasn’t built in a day and Ms Shiva, the paradigm warrior, was effectively born 19 years ago, in 1982.

After finishing her PhD in Foundations of Quantum Theory in 1979, she dabbled in science and taught science policy for a while. Then, in 1982, she did a study on mining in the Doon valley for the ministry of environment, a study which resulted in the first ever Supreme Court judgment stopping economic activity on grounds of environmental destruction. “That study made me realise that there was an entry-vacuum of an independent research system and so, the same year, I set up the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy”.

1982-1985 found Ms Shiva working on local issues: forest conservation in the Himalayas, water issues, mining in the Doon valley, campaigns against dams etc. By 1985, she had started to focus on agro-ecology. At the same time, two of her books Violence of the Green Revolution (which arose from her study on Conflict over Resources for the United Nations University) and Staying Alive, became huge hits abroad, perhaps as a result of her initial fame (remember ‘Save the Rain Forests’?).

By 1987 she had graduated to debunking globalisation and strongly opposing intellectual property rights which she felt were tools used by MNCs to perpetuate their monopolies. This latter was nicely timed, with the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations (1986-1993) under way and, by 1995 when the World Trade Organisation came into existence, she was firmly perched on the anti-globalisation bandwagon. Her latest addition, to an already lengthy list of causes, is agricultural biotechnology. “Genetic modification of crops is manipulation of life,” she declares with evident distaste.