The Supreme Court certainly deserves a gesture of gratitude for quashing the Karnataka High Court judgment ordering a CBI probe into corruption allegations in the 1,000 MW Manga-lore power project. After all, now the Centre can go ahead and abide by its counter-guarantee commitments and darkness need no longer loom menacingly over power-deficient Karnataka.The only trouble is, with Cogentrix having already thrown in the towel, the apex court's action one whole year after arguments in the case concluded may be a classic case of too little, too late. Or should one make that a case of justice delayed, justice denied? At issue here is not just Cogentrix's enervating experience with nine PILs or the prospect of resuscitating the $1.3 billion project the numerous twists and turns in the Mangalore project call into question India's paradigm of development. Development that can be so easily held hostage by vociferous lobbies without being called upon to articulate any rational argument. Development that can beheld hostage as courts take their time disposing of PILs that evoke familiar visions of doom and of destruction.It is no one's case that environmental as indeed socio-economic consequences of any undertaking should not be investigated. They must be. Meticul-ously. Painstakingly. But when all development activities whether it be a power project, a dam, or research into genetically modified crops are repe- atedly met with a blind Luddite response, the intent of the PIL brigade becomes extremely suspect. Their well-honed strategies of wearing down the opposition not by eventually winning the cases but by instigating costly delays may win them brownie points at future Woodstocks, but if they carry on in this vein these activists will only end up shooting themselves in the foot. There are three popular perceptions of environmental activists. One, they are turn-of-the-century conscience keepers and their words and warnings must be religiously heeded. Two, they should be labelled eco-terrorists, out tostymie all progress. Three, their concerns may be couched in alarmist slogans, but the subtext merits serious study. It is the third perception that has thankfully held sway but, given recent history, may well give way to the second.Just consider the activists' response to the Co-gentrix drama. There is not even a token acknowledgement of the wisdom of the courts, neither a point-by-point rebuttal to concerns raised about bridging the ever-increasing electricity shortfalls, just a valiantly voiced resolve to carry on with the Struggle. Struggle for what? Against what? Cle-arly, with such PILs flooding the courts, an adequate environmental appraisal mechanism is required, so that projects can be expeditiously evalu- ated, concerns expeditiously disposed of. But the country must also engage in a wider debate on the price it is willing to pay for development. Power projects could take up precious land, they do pollute.But so do the lanterns that the people may have to resort to as electricity demandcontinues to outstrip supply. Field testing of genetically modified food could lead to micro catastrophes. But what about the macro catastrophes facing Indian farmers as their counterparts in other countries secure an advantage with high-yielding seeds?
