Unchecked Industrialization, Environmental Degradation, Risk Society, Spatial Justice

Introduction

Recently, the Supreme Court of India took suo motu cognizance with respect to the deforestation activities being undertaken in the Kancha Gachibowli Forest, Telangana. Shrubs and bushes were felled, big boulders and rocks were removed with the help of machinery, and some deer and peacocks were seen in said area. Adjacent to the deforested area, administrative buildings with three helipads were observed. The Supreme Court noted that a huge development activity is being undertaken in the area. This followed large-scale protests at the University of Hyderabad campus in Telangana against the destruction of the forest. The trigger came when the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation was given the green flag to develop and auction this biodiverse land parcel. The destruction of this green cover, which is a haven to 220 species of birds and 734 species of flowering plants, reflects a dangerous and unsustainable trajectory of continued destruction of natural ecosystems. This will likely lead to severe water crisis, poor air quality, and rising temperatures, rendering Rangareddy district, especially Gachibowli, unlivable for future generations.

In this context, the author adopts the lens of Risk Society, coined by Ulrich Beck in his book Risk Society – Towards a New Modernity. Primarily, the focus lies on the application of this lens to showcase how the successes of industrialization create unforeseen risks which begin to overshadow the benefits of progress, with climate hazards and environmental disasters increasing. Further, Beck’s lens will be applied to the concept of Spatial Justice, professed by Edward Soja, reflecting a multi-faceted approach, as all those oppressed or subjugated by a narrow understanding of ‘development’ suffer from the consequences of unjust geographies.

Ulrich Beck’s Lens of Risk Society: Rapid Industrialisation as Trigger

Beck outlines three epochs of modernity: pre-industrial society, industrial society, and risk society. The pre-industrial era was defined by a stable, agrarian economy in which risks were largely natural and localized. With the emergence of industrial society came large-scale production, urbanization, and technological innovation, fundamentally reshaping social structures and the global economy. However, this transformation also introduced new, human-made risks, such as pollution and resource depletion-that extended far beyond local contexts. The third epoch, the risk society, arises from the unchecked acceleration of modernization. In this phase, risks are no longer external or incidental but are generated by the very system of development intended to foster progress. These systemic threats have grown so pervasive that they increasingly overshadow the benefits of material development.

Beck traces the historical evolution of modernity through a compelling analogy: “just as nineteenth-century modernization dissolved feudal society and gave rise to industrial society, contemporary modernization is now dissolving industrial society, giving way to a new phase, reflexive modernity.” Beck’s risk society thesis captures growing anxieties about the environmental and social fallout of industrial and techno-scientific development. He argues that the industrial era has placed human life under continuous threat, where material progress, inherently transient, has been misperceived as a measure of advancement, evident in accelerating environmental degradation. The compounding ecological consequences of capitalist development are brought into sharp focus through disasters such as Chernobyl and Bhopal, which serve as vivid illustrations of manufactured risk. Manufactured risks, unlike natural risks which are typically localized, stem from human activities, particularly technological and industrial development. They carry global implications, making them more complex and difficult to predict.

At the heart of the risk society lies a profound transformation: the move from a relatively stable, ordered industrial society to one marked by insecurity and fragmentation. In earlier epochs, nature and culture were treated as distinct; in modernity, nature has become increasingly humanized, “the risk society begins where nature ends.” Capitalist practices have generated a vast and growing array of environmental threats, including air pollution, climate change, and acid rain. Two key trends emerge from this intensifying entanglement between society and the environment: first, environmental risks are increasingly global, with local actions producing far-reaching consequences; second, the escalating scale of ecological crises has heightened public consciousness of humanity’s impact on the planet. Together, these developments reflect how risk has become a universal condition, both in its global reach and in its growing presence within collective awareness.

Application of Beck’s Lens: Dimensions of Spatial Justice

Beck argues that while industrial modernity was defined by the distribution of ‘goods’, the risk society is characterised by the distribution of ‘bads’. These ‘bads’, such as environmental degradation are more ‘democratic’ in nature, as even those with wealth and power cannot easily escape their effects. Unlike earlier times, when the privileged could insulate themselves from natural threats, risks like climate change transcend social and economic boundaries. Beck claims that this shift creates space for citizens to challenge the authority of scientific expertise and to cultivate a new form of reflexivity. This possibility emerges from the erosion of traditional social structures, which has given rise to greater individual freedom. This process of individualization opens up the potential for individuals to play a more active role in shaping the direction of modernity. In this sense, the risk society is not only marked by growing dangers, but also by the opportunity to resist the dominance of industrial and bureaucratic systems, and to intervene in ways that may prevent future catastrophes. Drawing upon this opportunity for collective resistance in case of manufactured risks identified by Beck, the concept of the risk society intersects with the concept of spatial justice in their shared critique of how modern structures—whether technological, industrial, or spatial—produce and perpetuate systemic inequalities.

The lens of spatial justice, introduced by Edward Soja highlights how injustice is not only experienced but also produced and sustained through the organization of space. Spatial configurations reflect and reinforce power dynamics, embedding inequality into the physical fabric of society. Spatial injustice is often imposed from the top down, through the political structuring of space by states and institutions. Therefore, spatiality should be understood as a positive obligation of the state, to ensure equitable governance and protect citizens from spatial exclusion. The state has a responsibility to embed justice within the spatial frameworks of its policies and planning, recognizing the socio-spatial causality of inequality. Traditional remedies like compensation, relocation, or resettlement often fall short, as they do not address the deeper, structural harm inflicted through spatial injustice. While the state wields the power to shape physical environments through development and planning, it frequently perpetuates exclusion by creating spaces that marginalize. Just spaces, then, cannot be simply imposed by the state—they must be co-produced through participatory engagement across all socio-spatial actors. Justice, in this sense, must be public and inclusive, allowing all groups the opportunity to shape its meaning. This vision of justice is rooted in human dignity, equity, and fairness. The pursuit of spatial justice carries symbolic power: it raises collective political consciousness and fosters solidarity through shared experiences of exclusion. At its core, spatial justice challenges binary models of development that displaces and marginalizes communities, especially tribal populations, by erasing their relationship to land and altering the spaces central to their identity. Integrating a spatial perspective into justice encourages pluralism and coalition-building, recognizing that those oppressed by narrow, growth-centric models of development often suffer from the consequences of unjust geographies.

Both frameworks expose the ways in which harm is embedded within systems designed to promote progress, and how these harms increasingly transcend traditional boundaries, affecting all social groups, albeit unequally. Just as Beck’s risk society reveals the limitations of relying solely on scientific or bureaucratic expertise, the spatial injustice perspective challenges top-down planning that marginalizes vulnerable communities. In both cases, the call is for a more participatory, reflexive engagement, where individuals and collectives reclaim agency in shaping their environments and futures. This convergence highlights a broader struggle for justice that is not only social or environmental, but fundamentally spatial and political.

The Case of Kancha Gachibowli Forest: Way Forward through the Intersection of Spatial Justice and Risk Society Theory

The cutting down of the Kancha Gachibowli forest, a biodiversity hotspot, home to numerous species of birds and plants reflects profound spatial injustice as the local communities are likely to bear the brunt of the environmental harm without having a say in the decision-making processes. The subsequent construction of administrative buildings with helipads reflect a form of spatial organization that prioritizes industrialization over ecological sustainability and the well-being of local communities. The forest, as a shared natural resource, is being commodified and transformed into an exclusionary space, where the benefits of development are disproportionately enjoyed by those in power, while the local environment and marginalized communities face the repercussions.

In terms of Beck’s risk society conceptualization, this deforestation exemplifies a shift from an industrial society based on the distribution of goods to a risk society characterized by negative externalities. While the major impact of destruction of Kancha Gachibowli Forest will be borne by the local community, its ramifications are not just localized but are creating global risks, as deforestation contributes to climate change, poor air quality, and water scarcity — threats that transcend social boundaries. Beck’s theory suggests that risks in the modern era are increasingly global, interconnected, and difficult to predict. In this case, the risk society is embodied in the government’s focus on rapid industrial development without addressing the long-term environmental consequences that will affect the broader population, including vulnerable communities and future generations.

Reflecting on Beck’s concept of reflexivity, this case presents a clear opportunity for citizens to challenge dominant narratives of development driven by powerful industrial and state interests. This is vividly exemplified by the widespread protests led by students of the University of Hyderabad against the destruction of the Kancha Gachibowli Forest. Their collective action reflects a growing political and ecological consciousness, a feature of reflexive modernity, where individuals and communities actively question and resist the systemic risks produced by narrow material development.

This case requires the intersection of spatial justice and risk society, where the destruction of natural spaces in the pursuit of short-term development becomes unsustainable, creating long-term, shared global risks. Overcoming these risks involve a collaborative, participatory approach to development, one that values both human dignity and environmental sustainability.