Over the last five decades, the relationship between economic growth and environment—in terms of finiteness of resources or environmental preservation—has been extensively studied both by economists and scientists. The main driving force behind these studies is the urge to save the earth for our next generations. And thus emerged the concept of ‘sustainable development’—the “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland Commission, 1987)—towards the end of the 20th century as a new paradigm of economic development. This development has indeed emphasized the need for: one, participatory, multi-stakeholder approach to policy making; two, mobilization of public and private resources for development; and three, using the knowledge, skills and energy of all the groups concerned with the future of planet and its inhabitants.

However, accomplishment of 12 out of the 17 sustainable development goals calls for action on climate change. True, during the last ten years, the concern for global warming or climate change among the public has considerably gone up, but nothing substantial is happening. For, the success of the deal on climate change depends on rich countries’ agreeing to offer substantial funding to the poorer countries to help them cut their emissions, besides of course, they themselves undertaking substantial cuts in their own emissions. On the other hand, the unabated rising emissions and stocks of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are ringing alarm bells: at the current level of emissions, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is feared to rise from the present 400 ppm to 700 ppm by the end of the century. This in turn is likely to increase the global temperature by 3.5 oC. Gernot Wagner and Martin Weitzman, the authors of the book, Climate Shock, drawing our attention to the likely repercussions of a hotter planet, advise that we should insure ourselves against the climate change—a challenge that is “almost uniquely global, uniquely long-term and uniquely irreversible and uniquely uncertain.” Asserting “what we already know is bad and what we don’t know is potentially much worse”, they insist that policy makers, shedding their ‘cognitive dismissal’ and treating climate as a risk management issue, must take reasoned action more urgently. Despite such accumulation of knowledge about the potential of climate change to cause grave harm, global leadership is still grappling with the challenge of promoting an ethical shift toward a world of low carbon emissions aided by pro-environment living norms.

Interestingly, the first paper of this issue, “The Aral Sea Crisis in Central Asia: Environment, Human Security and Gender Concerns”, by K B Usha, describing how extensive irrigation, overexploitation, overuse of pesticides and other toxic chemicals meant for increasing crop yields during the erstwhile Soviet era led to increased salinity, water contamination, loss of diversity and climate change in the Aral Sea region, draws our attention to the set of problems posed by this anthropogenic environmental disaster. Analyzing the impact of environmental changes on the human wellbeing and security, the author indeed brings to focus a new issue: ‘gender concerns’. She observes that the absence of alternate means of subsistence and the evaporation of free health services during the post-Soviet transition period disproportionately impacted women and children. Focusing on the persistent patriarchal exploitative social order and structural inequality that was inherent in the Central Asian societies that obviously makes women more vulnerable to these man-made climatic changes, the author advises the policy makers of environmental governance to pay due attention to the unique challenges posed to the security of women and children of the region, lest survival of the region itself will be in jeopardy.

Moving on to the next paper, “The Image of Indonesia in the World: An Interreligious Perspective”, we have its author Syahrin Harahap, who classifying the post-Soeharto Indonesia into three broad categories—one, the harmonious open and fair Indonesia; two, secular, liberal and western-oriented Indonesia; and, three, Indonesia saddled with religious conflicts resulting in tension and terrorism—analyzes the underlying forces thereof from an interreligious perspective. The author further suggests a way forward for Indonesia’s good standing in the comity of world nations. Simply put, the author asserts that if Indonesia desires to flourish, it must project a harmonious, open and fair image of itself to the world at large.

The next paper, “Sociopolitical Status of Minority Communities of Bangladesh: A Policy Analysis”, by Rohidas Mundhe, observes that the newly emerged Bangladesh is facing the twin problems of national identity and nationalism due to political interpretations of majority and minority identities and the devices adopted for political discourses. The author states that due to continuous institutional discrimination, both politically and economically, marginalization of minorities resulted in confrontational politics and problems of separatism. Asserting that a state based on a particular religion is not only dangerous to the people of different faiths, but also to the very state itself, the author recommends that to make the society more inclusive, Bangladesh must have a secular state of the ‘principled-distance’ variety. Secondly, the author insists that the civil, political and legal rights granted by the constitution must be upheld if the secular state has to work well. He opines that in the ultimate analysis, it is the politically and humanely conscious citizenry that alone can best safeguard the institution of democracy.

In the last paper, “Agricultural Inputs and Outputs Trade in South Asia”, the author, Ram Kumar Jha, tracing the declining gross domestic product derived from agriculture in all the South Asian countries with a simultaneous decline in employment in agriculture from 59.2% as of 2000-2002 to 47.1% by 2010-2012, opines that the availability of better quality inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, and agricultural machinery, is likely to increase the cereal yield across all the South Asian countries. To give a further boost to the growth in the agricultural inputs/outputs of the region, the author recommends establishing the most favored nation regulations among South Asian countries.

-- GRK Murty
Consulting Editor