During the mid 80's decade of twentieth century, the negative aspects of development were discussed at large. Which one among the following was NOT such important ?
- (a)Degradation of natural resources
- (b)Environment pollution
- (c)Politics and Development
- (d)Displacement and Rehabilitation of masses
Correct — C, Politics and Development. By the mid-1980s the critique of the dominant, growth-first model of development focused on its ecological and human costs — the degradation of natural resources, environmental pollution, and the displacement and rehabilitation of people uprooted by large projects. 'Politics and Development' is a neutral field of academic study about how political systems shape development; it is not itself one of these recognised 'negative aspects', so it is the odd one out the question asks for.
- (a)Degradation of natural resources — Wrong (i.e., it IS a negative aspect) — over-exploitation of forests, soil and water was a central concern of the 1980s development critique, so it belongs to the list.
- (b)Environment pollution — Wrong (it IS a negative aspect) — industrial and urban air/water pollution was a defining negative consequence of the period (underscored by the 1984 Bhopal disaster).
- (d)Displacement and Rehabilitation of masses — Wrong (it IS a negative aspect) — development-induced displacement by dams, mines and industry, and the failure to rehabilitate the displaced, was a major criticism of the era.
By the 1980s a worldwide rethink of 'development' stressed that rapid, resource-intensive growth carried heavy costs: depletion and degradation of natural resources, pollution, and the uprooting of communities. This critique fed directly into the 'sustainable development' idea popularised by the Brundtland Commission's 1987 report, Our Common Future.
This is a 'find the odd one out' item: three options name genuine costs/consequences of development, while one names an academic sub-field. Read each as 'is this a negative aspect of development?' — resource degradation, pollution and displacement clearly are; the study of 'politics and development' is not, so it is the exception.
- 1980s critique of development emphasised environmental and social costs
- Development-induced displacement (large dams, mines) and poor rehabilitation was a key grievance
- The 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy sharpened concern over industrial pollution
- This debate led into 'sustainable development' — the Brundtland Report, Our Common Future (1987)
- Mis-reading the 'NOT' and picking a genuine negative aspect
- Assuming every developmental theme (like 'politics and development') is automatically a 'cost' of development
UPPSC/UPSC use 'which is NOT' framing on development critiques — read the stem carefully and test each option against the exact category asked.
No directly related past PYQ was found.
- practice — not a real PYQ
The 1987 report 'Our Common Future', which popularised the concept of sustainable development, was produced by the
- (a)Club of Rome
- (b)World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission)
- (c)Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
- (d)United Nations Development Programme
Answer(b) World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission).
- practice — not a real PYQ
In the Indian context, 'development-induced displacement' is most directly associated with
- (a)large dam and mining projects
- (b)the spread of primary education
- (c)the Green Revolution's use of HYV seeds
- (d)urban metro-rail networks only
Answer(a) large dam and mining projects — the classic cause of mass displacement and rehabilitation debates.