The development of environmental sociology has been hugely influenced by the modern environmental movements. Social scientists are at the forefront of attempts to understand the forces behind environmental destruction, as well as attempts to contribute to the policy debate. Today the movements emerging as a reaction to the development practices have gained new attention in academics especially in sociology. The case of environmental decay like, contamination of ground water, degradation of flora and fauna, genetical disordering and livelihood problems i.e., decline of fishing wealth and the fertility of agricultural land, dams and displacement associated people's struggle and  industrial and state discourses  attract sociological investigation.

This paper is an attempt to underline the problems of unsustainable development and people's protest against it. The problems faced by the local people in their daily life are also taken into consideration. Some of the efforts of people from Kerala for protecting their environment is finding place in this paper. This paper is divided into four parts first part is a general introduction about environmental and social movements, second section is case study of four environmental movements from Kerala third section is analysing different role of people for organised struggle and last section is concluding the paper.

"Terms like 'social movements' and 'people's movements' are sometimes used interchangeably, sometimes with different meanings. Though there are distinctions between people's movements and social movements, at this stage a precise classification would be premature. What is required for the present is a broad, pragmatically evolved concept with which the wide variety of people's responses to the multifaceted crises in their lives can be probed and collective efforts to bring about social change identified (Mushakoji, 1993: xi)." "The people's movements are the result of broader-based people's responses to ecological, ethnic or gender conflicts. Some of the people's movements have sustained over time; others are eruptions and die down after a while (Wignaraja, 1993: 17-18)." 'Social movement is the weapon of the weak against the strong whether viewed globally or within the confines of state-societies (Oommen, 2004: 184).' Della Porta and Diani (1999) define social movements in terms of four elements: "as (a) informal networks, based on (b) shared beliefs and solidarity, which (c) mobilize around conflictual issues, deploying (d) frequent, varying forms of protest". Wilson (1973, 23-27), distinguished four kinds of social movement- "transformative movements which aim to change the entire social structure often by violent means; reformative movements that aim at partial change, typically to offset prevailing injustices and inequalities; redemptive movements whose aim is to change radically the (decontextualized) individual, emphasizing personal betterment and alternative movements which aim to counter conventional cultural norms in favor of more self-sufficient and/or sustainable lifestyles."

"Social movements can be defined as collective action with some stability over time and some degree of organization, oriented towards change or conservation of society or some sphere of it (Garreton, 1997: 67)." Jan Nederveen Pieterse (1992: 6), identified various terms used to describe collective action. They include "attitudinal terms such as dissent, opposition, resistance, protest, defiance; terms emphasizing methods of action such as riot, violence, jacquerie, rebellion, mutiny, revolution, petition, demonstration, consciousness raising; general terms with normative or political overtones such as class struggle, liberation, emancipation, participation, empowerment and social science terminology such as collective behaviour, collective action, social movement."

According to the standard definition of a social movement, "it is a deliberate collective endeavour to bring change in any direction and by any means, it should have some degree of organization and normative commitment and active participation on the part of its' members Shah, 2008: 18)."

There are several co-existent discourses of development, of which M. Hobart (1993: 11-12) identifies three: "(i) the discourse of developers, (ii) the discourse of local people, and (iii) the discourse of the national government and its local officials." In 1987, the World Commission on Economic Development (WCED) provided what has been the most enduring definition of sustainable development: "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”."

People's Struggles and Experiments in Kerala

Now we focus our discussion to various struggles in Kerala that have environmental characteristics. The following section of the article examines the interventions of people and their ramifications on people’s struggles with a focus on the debates in the context of Kerala. After analysing the conceptual debates, the article moves on to discuss the different environmental struggles in detail. victims formed chains of struggles in different parts of the state. The endosulphan affected people of Kasaragod, the victims of digging and leveling of paddy fields and destruction of rocks and hills, the protesters against the sand mining, the people of Plachimada who lost their life saving water, the people of Elur and Chaliyar whose water was dangerously polluted by the industries, are the people of some of these ‘small’ struggles.  A large number of sufferers and the affected people of Kerala came in struggle for their basic life and livelihood while the mainstream political organizations went on with ritualized activities. Neither they came to the real questions of the suffering people nor could they understand the formations of these people’s struggles. Those ‘big’ organizations still accused these ‘small’ struggles as going counter to the united focuses of the ‘big’ struggles (Neelakandan, 2009).

"The local struggles are part of the process of global transformation currently under way. They are modest manifestations of a search, non-theorized and non- verbalized, for an alternative scientific and technological culture; an alternative development paradigm; an alternative concept of state and security; and, with their stress on non-violence and justice and peace, an alternative civilization (Shiva, 2010: 277)." she gos on to argue that, "Although grass-roots ecological struggles are seemingly local episodes, their reverberations are global in import, if only because survival on the local plane is impinged upon by forces that are nonlocal in origin—such as the dominant proselytizing scientific and technological culture; the development paradigm forcibly imposed through conditionalities of loan and aid and trade; and overarching all this, the hard national-scientific state (Shiva, 2010: 277)."

The sectors that were the main constituencies of Kerala model of development declined and taken over by the market. The land, soil, forests, river, sea etc. were considered by the ‘mainstream’ not as bio existential factors, but as easy profit and income generating market resources. The people who lived depending on land, water, sea, fields, and forests were thrown away to the margins of society. The ideology of society became the social Darwinist ideology of ‘survival of the fittest’. Those people who fought for the real problems of life were isolated. These struggles emphasized on dalit, adivasi/tribal women and environment. The society and media both neglected them. Mostly they viewed these issues as ‘local’ and temporary (as some postmodern social problems). But these problems rose in number and severity, and by the end of 1980s they affected some part of the middle class also(Neelakanthan, 2009: 55-58). The main question is that, how has the state responded to these types of conflicts and demonstrations of protest by their victims?

Chaliyar River Prottection Struggle against grasim Factory

The first EMS ministry of Kerala signed an agreement with the Birlas to start a pulp factory in Mavoor, about 20 km east of Calicut city on the bank of river Chaliyar. M.A.Rahman (2009), points out that the first ever-popular environmental collective, the Chaliyar movement, actually originated by the sole efforts of a common, layman of the village on the bank of Chaliyar, Vazhakkadu, called K.A.Rahman popularly known as ‘Adrai’. But most of the historical documentations about the movement has unfortunately forgotten the local hero of the movement who himself was a victim of the Gracim factory that polluted the river and air and endangered the ecological and health habitat of the region so badly.

 It was in 1972 that K.A.Rahman formed “Chaliyar Jala Vaayu Shudheekarana Committee ’ (Chaliyar Water and Air Purification Committee). That must be the first ever organization for the protection of the environment in Kerala. It was seven years before the rally led by Joncy Mash against the SilentValley project in 1979. The studies condected by KSSP were also crucial to the success of the struggle. One of the most popular slogans of the Chaliyar environmental struggle was “kudchina vellam Gulmalaakkuna Birla company benda benda” (No, No to the Polluter of Drinking Water Birla Company). This dialectal and localized form of linguistic and cultural expression itself reflects the roots, sources and the nature of the participants of the struggle. It can be said undoubtedly that it is this layman’s language of struggle that led the struggle from the grass roots. It is very important to note about the Chaliyar struggle that it triggered and influenced the origin and development of many such struggles and environmental movements in Kerala and elsewhere in the country. The struggle against Endosulphan in the Northern part of Kerala was started following the Chaliyar movement. Finally the company was laid off in 1982. The movement has been succesful and now Chaliyar is a clean river.

Movement against the Silent Valley Hydroelectric Project

One of the early and complete successes of environmental movements was the abandonment of the Silent Valley hydroelectric project in Kerala. It was the article of E.Unnikrishnan (published in Mathrubhumi Weekly (2008) that revealed the crucial role played by the zoology expert and an academician Joncy in the Silent Valley movement. That otherwise is understood as popularized and won by the KSSP. As for Silent Valley, the late prime minister's desire to carve a niche for herself in the international environmental community (and the influence of prominent individuals such as Salim Ali) played ho mean part in the final decision to scrap the project (Guha, 1988: 2581). This awareness among the people was created by the concerned citizens of the state, popularly known as the Kerala Shastra Sahitya Parishet (KSSP), wich can be loosly transilated into English as Kerala Scientific Literacy Society. Armed with a campaign theme of'science for social revolution', the kssp urges the government to adopt a 'prudent' application of science and technology for development. The measure of success the kssp has had in influencing development policies to follow an environmentally sound development path is borne out by its ability to stop or modify numerous ecologically controversial industrial and energy projects, including college and university teachers and students, professionals, homemakers, poets etc. The need for people's science was actually felt and later there came up statewide organizations to promote science and scientific temper among the ordinary men and women. People's science movement was born out of the Silent Valley Project (Punalekar, 1998: 37-38). While including elements of the Naxalite movement and radical Christian groups, Ecological Marxists are perhaps most closely identified with the Peoples Science Movements (for example, the Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishad), whose initial concern with 'taking science to the people' has widened to include environmental protection (Guha, 1988: 2580). Joncy gets fame and very importantly the recognition in the history of the environmental movements in the country, as M. A.Rahman observes, mainly because he shares the socially high valued tag of a scientist, academician or an intellectual. In this project, however, there was no local people's involvement as there was no displacement of people. The movement was fought primarily on environmental grounds and mostly at the intellectual level. Several literary figures also helped in the movement by highlighting the scenic beauty of silent valley. The major concerns of this movement were the adverse environmental impact on Silent Valley, one of the last surviving natural tropical forests in India and protecting a rare breed of monkey, lion-tailed macaque. With the active support from the International organizations like World Wildlife Fund (WWWF) and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) the movement assumed international importance. Finally they have called off the project and Silent Valley is prottected now.

Plachimada Struggle against Cococola Factory

The Plachimada struggle against the multinational corporate giant Coca Cola Company in Palakkadu, Kerala was a spectacular victory in the history of the people’s resistance against the exploitation of the ecological and environmental resources by the corporates. Despite its victory in the legal battle, it could not compensate for the pain inflicted upon the body of nature and natural resources in the region. The contractor who was assigned to remove the waste instead started making profit out of that by selling them out as a fertilizer to the farmers though fraud. The farmers could not identify the problem at the initial stage. Besides, the agriculture came flourished. However, Led, Cadmium, Zink, Manganese, and Chromium in the sledge reached the paddy fields and in turn to the ground water through the soil. The protests in Plachimada broke out only when it was found in drinking water wells. (Sitaraman, et al 2010: 28-33). Of late, the government has conceded to the demands of the protestors by cancelling the license of the company in that area. The government has also consituted a committee to look into the issue of compensation for the affected people.

Athirappalli Anti Dam Struggle

Athirappalli Satyagraha started on 25 February 2008. This is another success full movement in Kerala. The dam at Athirappilli (23metre height, 311-metre length) was proposed in Chalakkudi River above the Athirappilli - Vazhachal water fall (Trishur District in Central Kerala). The protests on environmental apprehensions started by the Chalakkudi Puzha Samrakshna Samithi (Committee for the conservation of Chalakkudi River) and ‘Nilanilp’ (Existence), an environmental activist group, by filing a case in Kerala high court. The first Satyagraha for Chalakkudi River was in 2005, December 23. By June 2005, a popular forum named ‘Chalakkudi river protection Forum’ has come to existence. Many socio political and environmental organizations have come in support of the indefinite Satyagraha that started in 2008. The socio cultural activists and intellectuals like Medha Patkar, Sugatha Kumari, Sukumar Azheekode, Prof. Sara Joseph, and Prof.K.G.Shankara Pilla et al. extended their support and visited the site of protest. However, the people of the area have openly opposed the project, while the government is on its way to implement it ruthlessly (Latha, 2009: 13). Now Government is not moving with this project due to the prottust by local community and others.

Role of Vigilant citizens for success of the movements

Role of Citizens action groups and public interest groups in environmental protection is very important. Citizen action groups can do the most at the local level. They can rally experts from different fields to educate the public on the hazards of unsound pollution and the proper alternative practices. Alliance should be created between, scientists, naturalists, journalists, and activists who can carry on the struggle and educate masses. This things were properly used in Kerala. Sundarlal Bahuguna (2007: 20-21) argues that, there has been much dependence on political leaders and parties for change. However, in most cases they are captives of the system. There may be exceptions who may initiate some radical changes, but the sanction for such changes should come from the people, because in a democracy, 'Will, not force, is the basis of the state'. The will of the people will build public opinion. These will be in the form of small local initiatives, small voluntary groups (not NGO's which implies a body which is supplementary to the government and a part of the establishment) of humanitarian scientists, social activists and compassionate literary men, artists and journalists. In Eloor, we have seen that the movement was backed by a very active citizenry and the association of citizen scientists and intellectuals proved helpful for the movement to gain legitimacy within the larger society.

Attitude of mainstream political parties towards the struggles were indifferent still people from different political parties came together for protecting their environment. When it comes to leadership structure of the movements from Kerala is that local people were participated in most of the environmental movements unlike Narmatha Bachao Antholan. Intelectuels were providing knowledge for public through article writing and other means. We can say that mass media have played a big role for organising this many environmental movements from Kerala. Kerala boasts the largest consumption of newspapers, magazines and books per capita in India (Parayil, 1996: 943).Kerala has the largest newspaper reading population in the world. Intellectual weeklys are crucial to take the issues to the people through articles, stories, poems, interviews etc. Role of environmental activist poets like Sukatha Kumari is also very important for taking issue to people. There are a large number of weeklys printing in Malayalam like Mathrubhumi, Madhyamam etc. that play a very important role in forming the debates in the public sphere in state.

To conclude we can clearly say that, in Kerala we can see a different kinds of organising by people. If any issue happens immediately people will come together and form people's collective and start protesting against any problem. Irrespective of political parties people are joining together for different protests in Kerala. After going through all these environmental movements from Kerala we can clearly say that most of the environmental movements from Kerala were successful. Suppos if we are taking Narmatha Bachao Antholan or Tehri dam struggle or Polavaram project from Anthra Pradesh those movements were not success full even though all these movements got vider publicity and international attention. But movements from Kerala were not had this kind of famous outside leadership and most movements were fought by local people but still all these movements were mor successfull. We can say that literacy rate avareness of people are some of the reasons for success of these movements from Kerala.

1. Bahuguna, Sunderlal. 2007. “People’s Programme for Change” in Sunderlal Bahuguna et.al (eds.) India’s Environment: Myth & Reality. Dehra Dun: Natraj Publishers: A 1-15.

2. Divan, Shyam and Armin Resencranz. 2008. Environmental Law and Policy in India: Cases, Materials and Statutes. New Delhi: Oxford.

3. Dube S, C. 1988. Modernization and Development: The Search for Alternative

4. Eloor, Purushan (Transcribed by Dolly and Jeo Jose). 2005. “Apakadakaramaya Malinyangal Poye Theeroo” (Mai., Hazardous Waste Must Go Away). Jagrathayude Keraleeyam Monthly, 7 (2): 3-6.

5. Eloor, Purushan , Periyarinte Kathanakatha (Mai. The Painful Story of Periyar), in Anil Kumar Vadavathoor(ed), Grameenam. (Mai. The Rural), CUSAT

6. Escobar, A. 1995. Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

7. Gadgil Madhav and Ramachandra Guha. 1995. The Use and Abuse of Nature in Contemporary India. New Delhi: Oxford.

8. Guha Ramachandra, 2009b. Environmentalism A Global History, New Delhi, Oxford.

9. Guha Ramachandra. 2009. “The Unquiet Woods Ecological Change and Peasant Resistance in the Himalaya”, New Delhi: Oxford.

10. Guha, Ramachandra. 1988. “Ideological Trends in Indian Environmentalism”, Economic and Political Weekly, 23 (49): 2578-2581.

11. Hadden, G. Susan. 1987. “Statutes and Standards for Pollution Control in India”, Economic and Political Weekly, 22 (16): 709-711 & 713-720.

12. Hannigan, A. John. 1990, “Apples and Oranges or Varieties of the Same Fruit? The New Religious Movements and the New Social Movements Compared”, Review of Religious Research, 31(3): 246-258.

13. Hannigan, John. 2008. Environmental Sociology, London: Routledge.

14. Hobart, M. 1993. An Anthropological Critique of Development: The Growth of Ignorance. London: Routledge.

15. James, P.J. 2008. “NGO Prathilomamaanu; Athu Samarangale Thakarkkum” (Mak, NGO is Retrogressive; It Will Destroy Struggles). Mathrubhumi Weekly, 86 (41): 52- 55.

16. Joy, P.K. 1988. “Industrial Air Pollution” in Alexander, K.M. and M.Balakrishnan (eds.) Environmental Issues: Problems and Solutions. Golden Jubilee Publication: University of Kerala: 310-321.

17. Karan, P. P. 1994. “Environmental Movements in India”, Geographical Review, 84 (1): 32-41.

18. Kothari, R. 1990. Rethinking Development: In Search of Human Alternatives. New Delhi: Ajanta Publications.

19. Kovel, Joel. 2008. The Enemy of Nature: The Enemy of Capitalism or the End of the World? London: Zed Books.

20. Krishnakumar R. 2004. Pollution Unchecked, Frontline 21 (20):

21. Larafia, E, Johnston, H. and Gusfield, J.R. 1994. New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

22. Latha, A. 2009 “Athirappalli Satyagraham Oru Varsham Pinnitumpol” (Mak, As Athirappalli Satyagraha Passes One Year). Mathrubhumi Weekly, March 1: 12-13.

23. Latha,A. 2010. “Puzhakk Nuna Kondu Vilayidanavumo?” (Mak, Can a River Be Priced with Lie?). Mathrubhoomi Weekly, 187 (50): 8-17.

24. Menon, Leela. 2001. “Periyar: A Confluence of Cultures", The Hindu Rivers: July 01,

25. Little, Paul E. 1999. “Environemnts and Environmentalism in Anthropological Research: Facing a New Millennium”, Annual Review of Anthropology, 28: 253-84.

26. Madsen, Stig Tof. 1997. “Between People and the State: NGOs as Troubleshooters and Innovators” in Staffen Lindberg (ed.) Social Movements in Development: The Challenge of Globalization and Democratization. London: Macmillan Press: 252- 274.

27. Manivasakam, N. 2008. Environmental Pollution. New Delhi: National Book Trust.

28. Mukeijee, Radhakamal. 1968. A Study in Social Ecology. Bombay: Popular Prakashan.

29. Nair, K. N. and R. Sridhar 2005. Cleaning up Kerala: Studies in Self-help in Dealing with Solid Waste. New Delhi: Daanish Books.

30. Nair, K. N., Antonyto Paul and Vineetha Menon. 2008. Water Insecurity, Institutions and Livelihood Dynamics: A Study in Plachimada, Kerala, India, New Delhi: Daanish Books.

31. Neelakandan, C.R. 2008. Janakeeya Samaram, NGO, Videsha Fund (Mak, People’s Struggle, NGO and Foreign Fund), Mathrubhumi Weekly, 1.86 (40): 32-39.

32. Neelakanthan, CR. 2005. Elur Prathisandhi Puthiya Dishabodham Srishtikkumo? (Mak, Would Elur Crisis Ignite New Vision?), Jagrathayude Keraleeyam Monthly, 7 (2):.51-53.

33. Neelakanthan,C.R. 2009. Janakeeya Samarangalum Madhyamangalum, (Mak, People’s Movements and Media), Prabodhanam Weekly, Annual Issue :55-58.

34. Omvedt, Gaik 1993. Reinventing Revolution: New Social Movements and the Socialist Traditions in India. London: An East Gate Book.

35. Oommen T. K. 1995. Alien Concepts and South Asian Reality Responses and Reformulations, New Delhi: Sage.

36. Oommen T. K. 2004. Development Discourse: Issues and Concerns, New Delhi: Regency Publications.

37. Oommen, T. K 1997. “Social Movements in the Third World” in Staffen Lindberg (ed.) Social Movements in Development: The Challenge of Globalization and Democratization. London: Macmillan Press: 46-66.

38. Oommen, T.K. 2004. Nation, Civil Society and National Movements: Essyas in Political Sociology. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

39. Oommen, T.K. 2010. “Protest against Displacement by Development Projects” in T.K. Oomme (ed.) Social Movements II: Concerns of Equity and Security, New Delhi: Oxford: 317-335.

40. Padmanabhan V. T. 1988. “Is IRE All That Safe?” Economic and Political Weekly, 23 (10): 469.

41. Padmanabhan, V. T. 1986. “Health Hazards at IRE Plant”, Economic and Political Weekly, 21 (50): 2197-2198.

42. Padmanabhan, V. T. 1986. “The Number Game: Occupational Health Hazards at Indian Rare Earths Plant”, Economic and Political Weekly, 21(10/11): 443-452.

43. Padmanabhan, V. T. 1987. “All within Limits: Radioactive Waste Disposal at IRE”, Economic and Political Weekly, 22 (9): 379-384.

44. Panchu, Sriram. 2010. “Bhopal Gas Leak Case: Lost Before the Trial”, Economic and Political Weekly, 25 (14): 10-11.

45. Parameswaran, M.P. 1998. “The Three Environment Concept” in Alexander, K.M. and M.Balakrishnan (eds.) Environmental Issues: Problems and Solutions. Golden Jubilee Publication: University of Kerala: 363-373.

46. Parayil, Govindan. 1996. “The Kerala Model of Development: Development and Sustainability in the Third World”, Third World Quarterly, 17 (5): 941-957.

47. Paul, A. C. andPillai, K, C. 1978. Pollution Profile of a River, Springer, 10, 133-146.

48. Pearce, D. and E. Barbier. 2000. Blue Print for a Sustainable Economy. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

49. Peritore, N. Patrick. 1999. Third World Environmentalism : Case Studies From the Global South, Florida : Florida University Press.

50. Periyar rehabilitation projects hanging fire, The Hindu, Jun 07, 2006

51. Pieterse Jan Nederveen, 1992. “Emancipations, Modem and Postmodern” in Pieterse Jan Nederveen (ed.) Emancipations, Modern and Postmodern. London: Sage.

52. Pieterse,Jan Nederveen. 2001Development Theory: Deconstructions/Reconstructions. New Delhi: Vistaar Publications.

53. Pillai, Mohanan, P., 1990. “Whither State Sector Enterprises in Kerala?”, Economic and Political Weekly, 25 (7/8): M9-M16.

54. Plachimada panel to submit report next month, The Hindu, 06/11/2009

55. Porta, Donatella Della and Mario Diaimi. 2006. Social Movements-An Introduction. UK: Blackwell Publishing.

56. Prasad, M.K. 1998. “Environmental Education” in Alexander, K.M. and M.Balakrishnan (eds.) Environmental Issues: Problems and Solutions. Golden Jubilee Publication: University of Kerala: 353-362.

57. Prasanna Kumar, V. 2007. Geomorphology of Kerla. Thiruvananthapuram: International Centre for Kerala Studies.

58. Punalekar, S.P. 1998. “Sociology of Environment” in S.N. Pawar and R.B. Patil (eds.) Sociology of

59. Pundir, J.K. 2006. “Sociological Concerns of Ecology and Environment-Some Emerging Issues” in, .Sukant.K Chaudhury (ed.J Culture, Ecology and Sustainable Development. New Delhi. Mittal Publications: 45-52.

60. Rahman,M.A. 2009. “Kudchina Vellam Gulmalaakkuna Birla Company Benda Benda” (Mak, No, No to the Polluter of Drinking Water Birla Company). Mathru bhumi Weekly (February 22).pp. 52-55.

61. Ramakrishnan, P. S., 2008. Ecology and Sustainable Development Working with Knowledge Systems, New Delhi: National Book Trust.

62. Rammohan, K. T., 2000. “Assessing Reassessment of Kerala Model”, Economic and Political Weekly, 35(15): 1234-1236.

63. S. Sitaraman, S. C. A.Vijayachandran, and N.Ramachandran. 2010. Malinyam Malinyam Kondu Shudheekarikkaanavumo? (Can the garbage be cleaned by garbage?). Mathrubhumi Weekly February 28:28-33.

64. Scambler, Graham. 2002. Health and Social Change: A Critical Theory. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

65. Scott, Alan. 1990. Ideology and the New Social Movements. London: Unwin Hyman Ltd.

66. Seethi, K. M. 2000. “Cleaning Chaliyar River: Pollution Control or Jobs?” Economic and Political Weekly, 35(3): 97-99.

67. Seethi, K. M. 2001. “Travancore Titanium: Pursuing a Quixotic Project”, Economic and Political Weekly, 36(4): 271-273.

68. Sethi, Harsh. 1993. “Survival and Democracy: Ecological Struggles in India” in Ponna Wignaraja (ed.) New Social Movements in South: Empowering the People. New Delhi: Vistaar Publications: 122-161.

69. Shah, Ghanshxam. 2008. Social Movements in India: A Review of Literature. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

70. Sharama, S.L. 2006. “Rethinking Sustainable Development- Ecology and Culture in India’s Developmental Context” in .Sukant.K Chaudhury (ed.) Culture, Ecology and Sustainable Development. New Delhi. Mittal Publications: 27-44.

71. Shiva, Vandana in Association with J. Bandyopadhyay et al. 2004. Ecology and the Politics of Survival: Conflicts over Natural Resources in India New Delhi: Sage. Natraj Publishers: B: 16-23.

72. Shiva, Vandana. 2010. “Ecology Movements in India” in T.K. Oomme (ed.) Social Movements II: Concerns of Equity and Security, New Delhi: Oxford: 275-296.

73. Thakkar, Humansu. 2007. “Water Pollution Control: Role of Community and Public Action” in Mahesh Rangarajan (ed.) Environmental Issues in India: A Reader. New Delhi: Dorling Kindersely: 247-274.
74. Tripathi. P.M. 2006. “Environment and Sustainable Development” in .Sukant.K Chaudhury (ed.) Culture, Ecology and Sustainable Development. New Delhi. Mittal Publications: 99-110.
75. WCED (The World Commission on Environment and Development) 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
76. Webster, Andrew. 1990. Introduction to Sociology of Development. London: Macmillan Press.
77. Wignaraja, Ponna. 1993. “Rethinking Development and Democracy” in Ponna Wignaraja (ed.) New Social Movements in South: Empowering the People. New Delhi: Vistaar Publications: 4-29.
78. Wilson, J. 1973. Introduction to Social Movements. New York: Basic Books.
79. Worster, Donald. 1987. “The Vulnerable Earth: Toward A Planetary History”, Environmental Review, 11(2): 87-103.