




































Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 4 (1): 13–20, January 2021 

 
COMMENTARY 
 

Imagining Sustainability Beyond COVID-19 in India  
 

Bejoy K. Thomas,  Soumyajit Bhar  and Shoibal Chakravarty   

 
Abstract: The COVID-19 lockdown in India saw a spate of news stories 
suggesting improvements in environmental conditions. In this article, we caution 
against optimistic narratives of environmental revival. First, we analyse air pollution 
data before and during the lockdown to show that these improvements were 
temporary and a by-product of the severe restrictions placed on the normal 
functioning of the economy. Second, drawing upon data on income and inequality, 
we suggest that the human suffering witnessed during the lockdown was a result of 
widening social disparities since the 1990s. We argue that environmental priorities 
cannot be separated from social concerns, and equity has to be at the centre of 
imagining sustainability beyond the pandemic. 

Keywords: COVID-19; Equity; Environmentalism; Degrowth. 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

India went into forced confinement with a national lockdown from March 
25, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Even as the pandemic 
spiralled into an unprecedented public health, economic, and humanitarian 
crisis, anecdotes of environmental revival began to emerge in different parts 
of the country. In this article, we caution against such optimistic narratives 

                                                        
 Associate Professor in Humanities and Social Sciences. Indian Institute of Science 
Education and Research (IISER), Dr. Homi Bhabha Road, Pashan, Pune 411 008, India. 

bejoy@iiserpune.ac.in.  

 Doctoral Student, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), 
Bangalore, 17/589, M. G. Road, P. O. Chinsurah, Dist. Hugli 712101, India; 
soumyajit.bhar@atree.org. 

 Senior Researcher, Divecha Centre for Climate Change, Indian Institute of Science, 
Bangalore 560012, India; shoibalc@gmail.com. 

Copyright © Thomas, Bhar and Chakravarty 2021. Released under Creative Commons 
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) by the author.  

Published by Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), c/o Institute of Economic 
Growth, University Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007.  

ISSN: 2581-6152 (print); 2581-6101 (web). 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v4i1.315 

https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v4i1.315


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [14] 

of environmental revival. First, we analyse data on air pollution before and 
during the lockdown and suggest that the improvements in environmental 
indicators were unplanned and temporary. Given the scale of economic and 
social disruption, the environmental improvements were meagre. Second, 
drawing upon data on income and inequality, we argue that the scale of 
human suffering India saw during and after the lockdown was a result of 
widening disparities in income, wealth, and opportunities since the 1990s. A 
more considered position should take into account the implications for 
equity and justice when we think of sustainability during the pandemic.  

 

2. AIR POLLUTION BEFORE AND DURING THE LOCKDOWN 

Except for a handful of studies undertaken immediately after the lockdown 
(e.g., Lokhandwala and Gautam 2020; Kumar and Managi 2020), the 
narrative surrounding improvements in environmental indicators was 
driven by observable cues in nature, like stories of rivers appearing cleaner 
in Bangalore, or of air becoming clearer in Delhi, or of a stretch of the 
Himalayas becoming visible from Jalandhar. 

We used weekly running averages of daily means of an Air Quality Index1 
based on PM2.5 for four metropolitan cities that represent the major 
geographic regions in India—Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai, and Chennai—to 
see the effects of the lockdown. Since the air is generally clearer during 
spring, which coincided with the beginning of the lockdown, any 
comparison with just the preceding months would be misleading. So we 
looked at data for the same period from previous years (2019, 2018, and 
2017) in addition to the 2020 data to understand the additional effects of 
the lockdown on air quality. Our results showed a general improvement in 
air quality compared to the previous years in all cities, though this was 
accompanied by local variations in weather and sources of pollution (Figure 
1). It can be concluded that the national lockdown did improve air quality, 
but the effect wo temporary, especially given the strictness of the lockdown 
measures. Air pollution returned to pre-COVID-19 levels in China and 
Europe when lockdown restrictions were lifted (Carrington and 
Kommenda 2020). The case in India is unlikely to be any different. 

Among other environmental indicators, data on river water quality showed 
mixed results with regards improvements following the lockdown (CPCB 
2020). The lockdown is estimated to result in a 7% decrease in global 
annual CO2 emissions (Le Quéré et al. 2020). India‘s CO2 emissions reduced 

                                                        
1 We sourced this data from AirNow, which collects current and historical air quality data. 
https://www.airnow.gov/. Accessed August 12, 2020. 

https://www.airnow.gov/


[15] Bejoy K. Thomas, Soumyajit Bhar and Shoibal Chakravarty 

by an estimated 3.6% (1.7%–5.6%) during January–April 2020 compared to 
annual emissions in 2019. The projected emissions reduction over the 
calendar year 2020 could vary between 5.2% and 8.7% (midpoint estimates) 
depending on the continuation of lockdown measures and the severity of 
the economic slowdown. However, these reductions have to be looked at 
not in isolation, but in the context of the disruption that the lockdown has 
caused to the economy and livelihoods. 

Figure 1: Air pollution in major cities, 2017–2020 (January 1–June 30) 

 

Data Source: AirNow, https://www.airnow.gov/.  

Note: The dotted lines show the beginning (March 24) and middle (April 28) 
phases of the lockdown and the beginning of Unlock 1.0 (June 1) in India. 

 

 

 

https://www.airnow.gov/


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [16] 

3. UNEQUAL SOCIAL IMPACT 

The Indian economy witnessed a massive slowdown in the aftermath of the 
lockdown. The gross domestic product (GDP) fell by 23.9% during April–
June 2020 compared to the same period during the previous year (GoI, 
2020). The economic slowdown has had a significant impact on the 
livelihoods of urban and rural working populations, particularly casual 
workers and the self-employed in the informal sector (Kapoor 2020), urban 
migrant labourers, and small agriculturists, pushing a large number of them 
into hunger. The unemployment rate shot up to 23.52% from 7.76% 
between February and April 2020, with urban areas hit the hardest, and 
small traders, labourers, entrepreneurs, and salaried employees suffering the 
most.2 The Azim Premji University COVID-19 Livelihoods Survey (Kesar et al. 
2020) found that 66% of the respondents had lost their jobs, with urban 
casual and self-employed workers being the worst affected. In the 
agricultural sector, 85% of the farmers surveyed could not harvest or sell 
their produce or sold it at a lower price than normal. Supply disruptions 
have in turn led to an increase in the prices of essential food items 
(Narayanan and Saha 2020). 

The severe impact on the poor and vulnerable must be understood within 
the broader context of India‘s rising inequality in recent decades. Whether 
measured in terms of income, consumption, or wealth, various estimates 
based on diverse data sources all point to an increase in inequality between 
different socio-economic groups. Chancel and Piketty (2019) showed that 
inequality in incomes and top income shares showed a declining trend until 
the 1970s and began making a turnaround in the mid-1980s, owing to the 
shift from a regulated system to a market economy. They estimate that 22% 
of India‘s income is held by the richest 1%—the highest income 
concentration since Independence. Anand and Thampi (2016) found a 
similar trend in wealth inequality, with wealth getting concentrated among 
the top 10% in recent decades. They also found a widening gap between the 
share of profits and wages in manufacturing after 2002, indicating that the 
gains from growth are disproportionately distributed in favour of the 
already wealthy. The income and employment impacts of COVID-19 are 
likely to be significantly higher on those working in the poorer informal 
sector, agricultural workers, and the self-employed, and will likely 
exacerbate inequality.  

Our own estimates from the two nationally representative India Human 
Development Survey (IHDS) datasets (combined urban and rural sample) 

                                                        
2 This is as per the estimates of the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE). See 
https://unemploymentinindia.cmie.com/ Accessed September 18, 2020. 

https://unemploymentinindia.cmie.com/


[17] Bejoy K. Thomas, Soumyajit Bhar and Shoibal Chakravarty 

indicate a high Gini coefficient of .53 during 2004–05 and .55 during 2011–
12. We looked at expenditure on food, non-food, and luxury items3 across 
households belonging to different income deciles for 2011–12, the latest 
available IHDS data (Figure 2). Luxury items include those goods with the 
highest environmental impact. On average, households in the top decile 
spend 5.6–8.2 times more money than households in the bottom deciles on 
luxury consumption, whereas the ratio for food (2.1–2.4) and non-food 
(3.1–4.1) expenditure is far less. The consumption of the poorer and 
middle-income households is limited to subsistence or essentials, with the 
significant environmental footprint coming from the affluent. 

Figure 2: Expenditure on food, non-food, and luxury consumption 

 

Source: Computed by authors using IHDS 2011–12 (rural and urban). 

The mainstream media has extensively covered the plight and vulnerability 
of migrant labourers. A study based on the 2004–05 IHDS reported that 
short-term, seasonal migrants (defined as those who migrate for a period of 
less than six months out of distress and other reasons) are more vulnerable, 
tend to be poorer, and are more likely to belong to lower castes than long-
term migrants (Desai and Chatterjee 2019). We found a comparable trend 
in the 2011–12 rural sample of IHDS. As Table 1 shows, short-term 
migration is likely to happen at lower levels of income. Looking at the 
marginalized communities—Dalits and Adivasis—separately, we found that 
65% of all short-term migrants among these communities are from the 
bottom two income quintiles. It was possibly this section of migrants—

                                                        
3  The food basket includes cereals, pulses, oils, eggs, and milk. The non-food basket 
comprises fuel, electricity, cable television/telephone, education, and services. The luxury 
basket includes jewellery, entertainment, vehicles, and recreation.  



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [18] 

short-term and vulnerable—who undertook precarious journeys back to 
their villages after the lockdown was announced (Rukmini 2020). 

Table 1: Proportion of rural short-term migrants 

Income quintiles Short-term migrants (%) Non-migrants (%) 

1 13.39 86.61 

2 10.39 89.61 

3 8.59 91.41 

4 5.77 94.23 

5 3.50 96.50 

Source: Computed from IHDS 2011–12 (rural) 

 

4. . IMAGINING SUSTAINABILITY 

The popular media narrative focused exclusively on visible changes in air 
and water to suggest that the environment benefitted from the lockdown. 
The studies undertaken immediately after the lockdown only reinforced this 
view, given that it is only expected that air quality would improve in the 
event of a shutdown of industrial activities and the suspension of vehicular 
traffic. However, these narratives paid less attention to the question of 
whether and how this could last beyond the lockdown, and more 
importantly, the normative question of whether this was tenable, given the 
disruptive impact that the lockdown had on livelihoods. A more reflective 
environmentalist response came from advocates of degrowth, who envision 
transforming production and consumption through downscaling by choice 
and in a participatory manner, at both the individual and national scale, 
thereby transitioning towards a sustainable future. The degrowth movement 
was quick to point out that a recession in a growth-centric economy can be 
devastating for the poor, and hence such an environmental revival is not 
tenable with the principles of justice (Hickel 2020). 

In broad sympathies with this position (Bhar 2020), we see several useful 
pointers from the responses to the pandemic in India as we envision the 
future of sustainability. First, the environmental improvements from the 
drastic measures were not as significant as the severe social distress that 
they caused, hitting the poorest and most vulnerable hardest. Unless we 
undertake carefully considered policies and long-term interventions, the 
system will go back to business as usual and could even worsen the current 
already high levels of inequality. Second, expectations about the speed at 
which ecological recovery can happen are misplaced. Clean rivers are not an 
indication that river health and aquatic biodiversity, which have been 
adversely affected by long periods of industrial pollution, have been 
revived. Third, the environmental challenge is not just about regulating 



[19] Bejoy K. Thomas, Soumyajit Bhar and Shoibal Chakravarty 

industrial growth, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, but also about 
addressing unsustainable consumption among the wealthy; concentration of 
incomes and wealth among a few; lack of opportunities for the 
marginalized; and effective non-existence of social security systems. 
Environmental priorities, therefore, cannot be separated from social 
concerns, and equity and justice will have to be at the centre of imagining 
sustainability beyond the pandemic. 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  

We thank the reviewers of the journal and Vinish Kathuria for comments 
on an earlier version.  

 

REFERENCES 

Anand, I., and A. Thampi. 2016. ―Recent Trends in Wealth Inequality in India.‖ 
Economic and Political Weekly 51 (50): 59–67. 

Bhar, S. 2020. ―Degrowth and COVID-19: Are We Drawing a Simplistic 
Connection?‖ Mongabay, 21 April. 
https://india.mongabay.com/2020/04/commentary-degrowth-and-covid-19-are-
we-drawing-a-simplistic-connection/  

Carrington, D., and N. Kommenda. 2020. ―Air Pollution in China Back to pre-
COVID Levels and Europe May Follow‖ The Guardian, 3 June. 
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/03/air-pollution-in-china-
back-to-pre-covid-levels-and-europe-may-follow  

Central Pollution Control Board. 2020. A Report on Impact of Lockdown on Water 
Quality of River Ganga. New Delhi: Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate 
Change, Government of India. 

Chancel, L., and T. Piketty. 2019. ―Indian Income Inequality, 1922–2015: From 
British Raj to Billionaire Raj?‖ Review of Income and Wealth 65 (S1): S33–S62. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12439.   

Desai, S., and E. Chatterjee. 2019. ―Male Migration from Rural India: Divergent 
Pathways to Long-Term and Short-Term Migration.‖ 2019 Annual Meeting of 
Population Association of America, April 10–13, Austin, 
http://paa2019.populationassociation.org/uploads/192011.  

Government of India. 2020. ―Press Note on Estimates of Gross Domestic Product 
for the First Quarter (April–June) 2020–21‖. New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics and 
Programme Implementation, Government of India. 
http://www.mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/press_release/PRESS_NOTE-
Q1_2020-21.pdf.  

Hickel, J. 2020. ―What Does Degrowth Mean? A Few Points of Clarification.‖ 
Globalizations. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2020.1812222.  

https://india.mongabay.com/2020/04/commentary-degrowth-and-covid-19-are-we-drawing-a-simplistic-connection/
https://india.mongabay.com/2020/04/commentary-degrowth-and-covid-19-are-we-drawing-a-simplistic-connection/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/03/air-pollution-in-china-back-to-pre-covid-levels-and-europe-may-follow
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/03/air-pollution-in-china-back-to-pre-covid-levels-and-europe-may-follow
https://doi.org/10.1111/roiw.12439
http://paa2019.populationassociation.org/uploads/192011
http://www.mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/press_release/PRESS_NOTE-Q1_2020-21.pdf
http://www.mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/press_release/PRESS_NOTE-Q1_2020-21.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2020.1812222


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [20] 

Kapoor, R. 2020. ―The Unequal Effects of the Covid-19 Crisis on the Labour 
Market.‖ The India Forum, 27 July. https://www.theindiaforum.in/article/unequal-
effects-covid-19-crisis-labour-market.  

Kesar, S., R. Abraham, R. Lahoti, P. Nath, and A. Basole. 2020. ―Pandemic, 
Informality and Vulnerability: Impact of COVID-19 on Livelihoods in India.‖ CSE 
Working Paper 2020–01. Bengaluru: Azim Premji University. 

Kumar, S., and S. Managi. 2020, ―Does Stringency of Lockdown Affect Air 
Quality? Evidence from Indian Cities.‖ Economics of Disasters and Climate Change       
4: 481–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41885-020-00072-1.  

Le Quéré, C., R. B. Jackson, M. W. Jones, A. J. P. Smith, S. Abernethy, R. M. 
Andrew, A. J. De-Gol, D. R. Willis, Y. Shan, J. G. Canadell, P. Friedlingstein, F. 
Creutzig, and G. P. Peters. 2020. ―Temporary Reduction in Daily Global CO2 
Emissions During the COVID-19 Forced Confinement.‖ Nature Climate Change   
10: 647-653. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0797-x. 

Lokhandwala, S., and P. Gautam. 2020. ―Indirect Impact of COVID-19 on 
Environment: A Brief Study in Indian Context.‖ Environmental Research, 188, 
109807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109807.  

Narayanan, S., and S. Saha. 2020. ―Urban Food Markets and the Lockdown in 
India.‖ Working Paper 2020–017. Mumbai: Indira Gandhi Institute of 
Development Research. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3599102 

Rukmini, S. 2020. ―Why India‘s ‗Migrants‘ Walked Back Home.‖ Livemint, 28 May. 
https://www.livemint.com/news/india/why-india-migrants-walked-back-home-
11590564390171.html. 

https://www.theindiaforum.in/article/unequal-effects-covid-19-crisis-labour-market
https://www.theindiaforum.in/article/unequal-effects-covid-19-crisis-labour-market
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41885-020-00072-1
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0797-x
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109807
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3599102
https://www.livemint.com/news/india/why-india-migrants-walked-back-home-11590564390171.html
https://www.livemint.com/news/india/why-india-migrants-walked-back-home-11590564390171.html

