Prior to independence and more soin the 1960s, there was considerable public debate on alternate development paths that would be in the best interests of all Indians. The social and environmental dimensions of development were also recognised in Indian planning: the need to maintain the health of the soil, to safeguard people’s livelihoods and to establish institutional mechanisms for a more participatory, decentralised development. Despite this awareness, the environmental and natural resources (upon which people depended for their livelihoods) were being increasingly undermined. Severe draughts and a food crisis in the 1960s, rising unemployment in the 1970s and the persistence of oppression and poverty led to questioning conventional ‘trickle-down’ theories of development and to a shift in emphasis to meeting the ‘basic needs’ of the people.
 
The political questions of development became more sharply etched with the emergence of popular environmental struggles in the 1970s, which focused attention on how different groups of people use and abuse natural resources. In the 1980s, the concept of ecologically and environmentally sustainable development emerged, apparently bridging over conflicts between the environment and development. The more recent concept of sustainable livelihoods is being projected as an advance over sustainable development. For many NGOs and development practitioners, ‘livelihood’ is a straightforward term, as defined in dictionaries; the means of living and sustenance.
 
The broader focus on livelihood rather than on incomes was also projected in a document called Agenda 21 (United Nations 1992), the non-binding ‘Plan of Action’ adopted at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Furthermore, the long-term objective of enabling all people to achieve sustainable livelihoods should provide an interesting factor that allows policies to address issues of development, sustainable resource management and poverty eradication simultaneously. The first programme objective is to provide everyone urgently with the opportunity to earn a sustainable livelihood.
 
In the late 1990s, these concerns provided the impetus for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and other agencies such as the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the British government’s Department for International Development (DFID), and international non-government organisations (NGOs) such as Oxfam to adopt their own versions of a Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) Approach. The UNDP defines SL as ‘the capability of people to make a living and improve their quality of life without jeopardizing the livelihood options of others, either now or in the future.’ It advocates a poverty reduction strategy in the context of sustainability.
 
Sumi Krishna weaves together a historical perspective on the varied dimensions of livelihood, development and citizenship. Drawing upon rich and diverse field-based researches in 13 states across India, the authors deal with complex and inter-related themes: the need to recognise women’s right to resources and their livelihood and employment strategies; the challenges of democratic governance and of restructuring institutional systems to make them responsive; and the role of women’s collective agency in development.
 
Reflecting upon and critically analyzing context-specific issues in several less-studied locations, Women’s Livelihood Rights: Recasting Citizenship For Development shows that there is much to be learnt from empathetic interaction with the collective struggles of the underprivileged women, and from action and dialogue in the field. The strong message across this volume is that feminist policies have to network strategically with other struggles in order to counter the resistance of traditional and contemporary patriarchal structures, and to work towards recasting citizenship for a gender-positive development that ensures women’s livelihood rights. q
 

 Back to Contents