Transnational Activism and Environment

Transnational activism can easily slide into a new form of colonialism.

Without indigenous knowledge, and relationship to the land, it is easy to literally “muddy the waters.” Greta Thunberg may think she means well about environment protection and hence may have been led to believe the farmers protests in India are about protecting agriculture and farming. The reality is far more complex. In Punjab, agricultural policies have poisoned the land, have affected the water table, create stubble burning that affects Delhi air quality every year, and creates health hazards like the prevalence of cancer. It is not environmentally friendly. We are not talking about this though. Following a policy of skimming the land for the money, poisons the very well that gives us food and wellness. Colonial extraction of land led to depletion of soil quality, disruption of community through distorted incentive structures like the ones put forth by the opium trade. Some people made money by aligning with colonial powers, but it was at a huge cost to people. Both India and China dealt with the aftermath of the opium trade, a seemingly profitable plan with brutal histories. The aftermath of forced migration, brutal carving of nation states has led to ethnic strife, and an imbalance of natural resources. Agricultural policies need to be driven by indigenous knowledge and interests of sustaining the environment. Transnational movements make this job both difficult and impossible. Addicted as people have become to escalation of emotions on social media, and the prevalence of technology, the kind of considered thought that is needed to address environmental challenges for this century are becoming difficult within democratic setups. This poses danger for all parties.

Why?

The knowledge and lives are local, the laws are national, and the media is transnational. Very few people are able to see these layers and go beyond the easy approach of simply considering one layer. It is very easy to become extractive and colonize through a simple focus on revenue. Ignorance of these relationships between the layers of reality leads to destructive behavior like colonization in the pursuit of self-interest. Greta is misinformed about what is good for farmers in India. She needs to spend years studying the context before tweeting. As a young person she may mean well, as many climate activists do. She may need to be coached about why a “white savior” may not be the best panacea for India, where there are many indigenous voices and knowledges.

Rihanna is a different story. Her case is much more about media and celebrity culture, and the power of American popular culture on the minds of people. We do not know the source of her interest in India. What we do know is she is among the top ten twitter accounts in the world with more followers than the PM of India. Her reach is huge due to the cultural capital of being a celebrity icon. There are no checks and balances on social media that are agreed upon.

Would you like me to add more layers to this? Why are young women the faces of transnational activism? Many scholars have analyzed this, but it is time to pay more attention to the creation of certain icons who apparently stand for social change. Many young men are also doing yeomen work on climate change education and creating awareness about inequities. So why do we not hear more about young male transnational activists?

Do we really know what stories we are buying? What drives our attention? Where solutions lie? How incentives work? How much media literacy does the average citizen have about the levers that work behind lobby and endorsement networks? So where does the path forward lie for the looming environmental challenges?

Everyone needs to ask these questions. Easy answers for a complex multilayered problem will continue to create more problems than solutions. The more transnational activism holds ground, the more local people might react by resorting to nationalisms that might appear narrow minded. Traditional education has not prepared people for the realm of transnational onslaught of media and technology. The friction of worldviews harms everyone when everyone wants to shout, and nobody listens. Solutions can only come through considering multilayered realities. Making change only works when it rests on the foundation of education and awareness. That is not glamorous work. It does not pay either. However, that is where roots lie, and where water and nutrients do their play. We simply see the fruit. Change does not happen in a day. It needs to grow organically.

Local activists, scholars, leaders, businesspeople and educators can use this time to study a particular state. They can figure out what can be done locally for farming, land, water, wellness and capital, through contextual approaches. This is deep painstaking work and not done through tweets. It requires collaboration. Solutions can emerge from people if they work together. People need to recognize social media outrage will not solve problems. That may appear gratifying in the short term but will not help in the long term. Worse, it will leave a collateral damage of social strife and a trust deficit within communities. Transnational activism does not care for this fabric of trust. It can be seen as disrespecting the principle of self-determination, where people own their choices. It is this disregard for the local community that will render it ineffective. There are many people organizing locally to do excellent work in this realm. They are not looking to transnational activists for solutions. Local self-determination needs to lead the way, rather than prescriptions based on agendas. Every country and people need to figure this out for themselves. People need to support this local self-determination, whether at the local level, or at the national level.

Growing plants takes patience. Lots of it. It is a muddy, slow and silent affair. It is highly rewarding.