IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/indgen/v27y2020i2p183-204.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Does It Take to Clean the Ganga? Gendered Dimensions of Protest and Policy Perspectives

Author

Listed:
  • Anjali Dalal

Abstract

In the last two decades, pollution in the river Ganga has become a serious issue, affecting the socio-economic activities and the health of the communities living on the banks and adjacent areas of the river. The impact has been greater on women, because their day-to-day activities for survival are intimately connected with this water resource. The response of the government has been to drastically improve its environmental policies. Social activists on the other hand continued to mobilize civil society in regional protests, which finally led to the beginning of the ‘Save Ganga’ movement. Yet, both the strategies to clean the river pollution have been colossal failures. An analysis was undertaken of various government policies, reports and court judgements on the river’s pollution and a primary survey was done on three sites: Garhwal in Uttarakhand and in Varanasi and Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh to gauge the nature of women’s participation in the movements. It was found that there was greater participation by women in the hilly Garhwal region than in the plains of Uttar Pradesh. The research proved that women’s knowledge and experiences in environmental conservation had led to greater sustainability, in contrast to the results of the modern-technocratic approach of state officials and so-called environmentalists. The article seeks to locate the failure of the project of cleaning the river to the lack of gender sensitive environmental policies and insufficient participation of women in ecological activism.

Suggested Citation

  • Anjali Dalal, 2020. "What Does It Take to Clean the Ganga? Gendered Dimensions of Protest and Policy Perspectives," Indian Journal of Gender Studies, Centre for Women's Development Studies, vol. 27(2), pages 183-204, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:indgen:v:27:y:2020:i:2:p:183-204
    DOI: 10.1177/0971521520910966
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0971521520910966
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0971521520910966?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Agarwal, Bina, 2001. "Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry, and Gender: An Analysis for South Asia and a Conceptual Framework," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(10), pages 1623-1648, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lauren Pandolfelli & Ruth Meinzen-Dick & Stephan Dohrn, 2008. "Gender and collective action: motivations, effectiveness and impact," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 1-11.
    2. Pandit, Ram & Bevilacqua, Eddie, 2011. "Forest users and environmental impacts of community forestry in the hills of Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 345-352, June.
    3. Alkire, Sabina & Meinzen-Dick, Ruth & Peterman, Amber & Quisumbing, Agnes & Seymour, Greg & Vaz, Ana, 2013. "The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 71-91.
    4. Ghazala Mansuri, 2004. "Community-Based and -Driven Development: A Critical Review," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 19(1), pages 1-39.
    5. Salazar, César A. & Jaime, Mónica M., 2009. "Participación en Organizaciones de la Sociedad Civil en Chile. ¿Una Alternativa para Mejorar el Bienestar Económico? [Participation in Civil Society Organizations in Chile. Is it an Alternative to ," MPRA Paper 12797, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Sirisha C. Naidu, 2005. "Heterogeneity and Common Pool Resources: Collective Management of Forests in Himachal Pradesh, India," Others 0511004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Saito-Jensen, Moeko, 6. "Who gains or who loses from Joint Forest Management? Lessons from two case study areas from Andhra Pradesh, India," Scandinavian Forest Economics: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics, issue 42, April.
    8. Antinori, Camille M. & Rausser, Gordon C., 2003. "Does Community Involvement Matter? How Collective Choice Affects Forests in Mexico," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt83j385n0, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    9. Federica Ravera & Victoria Reyes-García & Unai Pascual & Adam G. Drucker & David Tarrasón & Mauricio R. Bellon, 2019. "Gendered agrobiodiversity management and adaptation to climate change: differentiated strategies in two marginal rural areas of India," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(3), pages 455-474, September.
    10. Anguelovski, Isabelle & Martínez Alier, Joan, 2014. "The ‘Environmentalism of the Poor’ revisited: Territory and place in disconnected glocal struggles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 167-176.
    11. Soe, Khaing Thandar & Yeo-Chang, YOUN, 2019. "Perceptions of forest-dependent communities toward participation in forest conservation: A case study in Bago Yoma, South-Central Myanmar," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 129-141.
    12. Hussein Luswaga & Ernst-August Nuppenau, 2020. "Participatory Forest Management in West Usambara Tanzania: What Is the Community Perception on Success?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, January.
    13. Johnson, A.F. & Kleiber, D. & Gomese, C. & Sukulu, M. & Saeni-Oeta, J. & Giron-Nava, A. & Cohen, P.J. & McDougall, C., 2021. "Assessing inclusion in community-based resource management: A framework and methodology," Monographs, The WorldFish Center, number 40982, April.
    14. Sayuni B. Mariki, 2013. "Conservation With a Human Face? Comparing Local Participation and Benefit Sharing From a National Park and a State Forest Plantation in Tanzania," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(4), pages 21582440135, November.
    15. Shames, Seth & Bernier, Quinn & Masiga, Moses, 2013. "Development of a participatory action research approach for four agricultural carbon projects in east Africa," CAPRi working papers 113, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    16. Killian, Bernadeta & Hyle, Maija, 2020. "Women's marginalization in participatory forest management: Impacts of responsibilization in Tanzania," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    17. Rachana Devkota & Laxmi Prasad Pant & Helen Hambly Odame & Bimala Rai Paudyal & Kelly Bronson, 2022. "Rethinking gender mainstreaming in agricultural innovation policy in Nepal: a critical gender analysis," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1373-1390, December.
    18. Frank Biermann & Michele Betsill & Joyeeta Gupta & Norichika Kanie & Louis Lebel & Diana Liverman & Heike Schroeder & Bernd Siebenhüner & Ruben Zondervan, 2010. "Earth system governance: a research framework," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 277-298, December.
    19. Bandyopadhyay, Sushenjit & Shyamsundar, Priya, 2004. "Fuelwood consumption and participation in community forestry in India," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3331, The World Bank.
    20. Rahut, Dil Bahadur & Ali, Akhter & Behera, Bhagirath, 2015. "Household participation and effects of community forest management on income and poverty levels: Empirical evidence from Bhutan," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 20-29.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:indgen:v:27:y:2020:i:2:p:183-204. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.