The Green Hole in Indian Politics: Why Climate Change Remains Sidelined

This briefing explores grassroots activism and challenges with India's environmental stance, and looks at lessons from Europe with respect to India's climate governance. This piece was written by Falguni Lalwani and edited by Ruyi Liu.

---

Introduction 

Throughout history, political institutions have struggled to address long-term systemic crises. Climate change, a critical crisis of the 21st century, exemplifies this inertia. India’s post-independence policies prioritised economic growth over sustainability. Prime Minister’s Nehru’s industrial vision has a persistent emphasis on large infrastructure projects. While this approach has accelerated economic development, it has exacerbated environmental degradation. 

Rural areas face erratic monsoons and agrarian distress, while urban centres grapple with water shortages and pollution. The World Bank estimates that climate change could reduce India’s GDP by 10% by 2100, pushing millions into poverty. Despite these risks, environmental concerns remain marginal in electoral politics, unlike in Europe, where Green Parties play a central role. What explains the persistent sidelining of environmental considerations in India’s political arena, and what changes can be implemented to shift this trajectory?

Grassroots Activism and Challenges in India's Environmental Governance

Grassroots environmental movements in India have long challenged both state authority and corporate dominance, embodying a struggle deeply intertwined with survival, equity, and social justice. Early efforts such as the Chipko Movement in 1973, which employed innovative tactics like tree-hugging to spotlight the devastating impacts of deforestation on community livelihoods, set the stage for later campaigns. In the 1980s, a wave of scientific advocacy emerged as environmentalists and journalists pushed for policy changes informed by empirical evidence—a momentum exemplified by the Silent Valley Movement, which succeeded in halting a hydroelectric project that threatened Kerala’s rich biodiversity. As India moved into the post-liberalisation era, rapid economic growth became the overriding narrative, triggering a backlash that marginalised environmental concerns despite movements like the Narmada Bachao Andolan warning of displacement and ecological degradation.

Yet, as inspiring as these grassroots efforts have been, they have also laid bare the deep-seated structural limitations of India’s environmental governance. Rooted in its colonial past, the nation’s framework for managing natural resources was initially designed to centralise control, as seen in the Forest Act of 1980. This approach continued with later policies such as the Forest Conservation Amendment Act of 2023, which further concentrated decision-making power while undermining indigenous rights and local stewardship.

While modern initiatives like the National Green Hydrogen Mission and the Energy Conservation Amendment Act of 2022 suggest progress, they coexist with an unyielding dependence on coal—India being the world’s second-largest consumer—highlighting a fundamental contradiction. Legislative measures such as the Biodiversity Amendment Act of 2023, criticised for weakening conservation efforts and eroding indigenous protections, further underscore a governance model that prioritises industrial and elite interests over the voices of grassroots communities. Meanwhile, the constitutional arrangement that places the environment in the Concurrent List . Although central authorities frame overarching climate strategies, state governments—being closer to the daily impacts of climate change—often find their policy implementation hampered by political inertia. This inertia manifests in delayed decision-making, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and competing political priorities like economic growth over climate action, which collectively hinder the timely allocation of resources and undermine the effectiveness of local climate actions. This confluence of vibrant grassroots activism and systemic governance challenges illustrates not only the emerging concern for environmental justice in India but also the profound structural limitations that continue to impede a cohesive and effective response to the climate crisis.

Institutional Challenges in Climate Governance in India

India’s electoral landscape remains strikingly indifferent to climate change. In the 2019 general elections, for instance, climate change barely featured in political manifestos, with major parties devoting only a fraction of their actions to environmental concerns. The Bharatiya Janata Party mentioned climate issues in just 116 out of over 18,000 words, and even the comparatively detailed Congress manifesto allocated a mere 1,043 words out of nearly 23,000. This minimal attention persists despite the growing urgency of climate challenges, as evidenced by the populist and identity-driven focus of the 2024 elections. While some renewable energy targets are mentioned, such commitments often lack specificity, urgency, and a comprehensive strategy—thus reinforcing a system where short-term socio-economic issues eclipse long-term environmental priorities.

Following the 1991 liberalisation, India's state-business nexus has undergone a profound transformation. Kanta Murali’s analysis illustrates that dismantling the licensing system allowed private capital to penetrate sectors previously under strict state control. Business power has shifted from a passive veto role to one that actively sets the political agenda. Murali highlights that, since market reforms began, corporate interests have not only grown significantly but now dominate policy-making—evidenced by data showing that by 2019, a few companies contributed earnings. Moreover, opaque political financing tools such as electoral bonds further entrench corporate influence in state policy, reinforcing a system where business clout consistently outweighs long-term environmental concerns

In the absence of robust political action, the judiciary has often been compelled to step in as an arbiter of environmental justice. Landmark cases, such as MC Mehta v. Union of India, have expanded the constitutional right to life to encompass environmental protections. Courts have issued orders to curb industrial pollution, safeguard ecologically sensitive areas, and enforce emission standards.

However, these judicial interventions, though incremental, remain inherently limited. While they provide critical relief in specific instances—such as attempts to mitigate Delhi’s recurring air pollution crisis—they are fundamentally reactive, piecemeal in their approach and lack the resources or democratic mandate to drive systemic change. In other words, the courts’ piecemeal approach cannot replace the proactive, comprehensive legislative reforms necessary to address India’s climate emergency

Comparative Perspectives: Lessons from Europe for India's Climate Governance Challenges

Comparing India’s climate governance with Europe’s approach highlights profound differences in both political engagement and institutional design. In Europe, green politics emerged as a direct response to environmental degradation and industrial overreach. Early successes, such as the establishment of the German Green Party formally in 1980, eventually paved the way for broader coalitions that integrated environmental priorities into national policy frameworks. Initiatives like the European Green Deal demonstrate how ambitious targets for renewable energy, carbon neutrality, and social justice can be embedded within a comprehensive political strategy.

In stark contrast, India’s political discourse has long been dominated by a development-centric narrative that prioritises short-term electoral gains over sustainable, long-term planning. Despite a rich legacy of grassroots movements that have challenged state and corporate power, these efforts have not coalesced into a unified national green political force. Instead, entrenched institutional barriers—such as the state–business nexus, fragmented policy making, and an electoral system that sidelines climate issues—have contributed what this blog refers to as the “green hole” in Indian politics.

Given this context, there are several pathways for India to realign its political priorities. First, Indian political parties need to reframe their agendas to integrate environmental sustainability alongside economic development. This could involve setting clear, actionable climate targets like those seen in European models, thereby shifting the discourse from short-term populism to long-term resilience.

Second, decentralising environmental policymaking by empowering local governments can help bridge the gap between the localised impacts of climate change and national policy responses. Local authorities, being closer to the immediate challenges of climate vulnerability, are better positioned to implement adaptive measures and drive community-based solutions.

Third, reforming the state–business nexus by increasing transparency in political financing and curbing corporate influence could pave the way for more balanced and effective environmental policies.

Finally, establishing institutional mechanisms—such as environmental performance indices or dedicated climate accountability measures—could help integrate climate considerations into electoral processes, gradually shifting voter expectations toward sustainability. While Europe’s success in integrating green politics demonstrates that institutional reform and public mobilisation are achievable, India’s prospects hinge on a fundamental shift away from its historical focus on rapid development and short-term electoral gains, toward a model that recognises climate governance as an essential pillar of social justice and economic security.

Conclusion

India’s environmental governance remains constrained by deeply embedded structural challenges, despite a vibrant legacy of grassroots activism. The persistent prioritisation of economic growth over sustainability, coupled with the overwhelming influence of corporate interests in policy making, has sidelined environmental concerns in electoral politics. While judicial interventions have offered limited relief, they cannot substitute for systemic legislative reforms. Lessons from Europe suggest that integrating climate concerns into political agendas, decentralising governance, and curbing corporate influence are crucial steps forward. Ultimately, India’s ability to confront its climate crisis depends on reframing environmental sustainability as a central pillar of both economic and social policy.