Breaking down the question

The statement is drawn from ecofeminist thought, above all Vandana Shiva's argument that the dominant model of development is an extension of Western patriarchy which displaces the feminine principle — the nurturing, regenerative relationship between women, nature and subsistence. The phrase do you agree with this view? Why? demands a reasoned position, not a summary; you must engage the claim critically and justify your stance.

Two ideas need unpacking. Western patriarchy here is not merely male dominance but a whole worldview — mechanistic, extractive and profit-driven — that Shiva calls maldevelopment. The feminine principle, drawn from the concept of prakriti, denotes the productive, life-sustaining creativity that this model suppresses. The question asks whether contemporary Indian development indeed embodies this masculinised, nature-conquering project.

The related concerns of gendered harm are discussed in the note on violence against women.

How to approach it

Present the ecofeminist thesis fairly, agree with its core insight, then qualify it with the critiques so that your position is defensible rather than dogmatic.

  • The thesis — Shiva's account of development as Western patriarchy displacing the feminine principle.
  • The supporting evidence — displacement, ecological degradation, and the gendered burden of maldevelopment.
  • The critiques — essentialism, romanticisation, and Bina Agarwal's materialist corrective.
  • A qualified agreement grounded in sustainability and gender justice.

Model answer

The view expressed in the statement is Vandana Shiva's ecofeminist critique of the dominant development paradigm. In her account, the model of progress India imported is a projection of Western patriarchy — a mechanistic worldview born of the scientific revolution that treats nature as inert matter to be conquered and exploited for capital. This model, she argues, displaces the feminine principle, the prakriti through which women, working close to forests, water and soil, sustain life and regenerate resources. Development thus becomes maldevelopment: dams, monocultures, mines and industrial agriculture that generate growth figures while destroying the subsistence base on which the poor, and especially women, depend.

There is substantial evidence for the thesis. Large development projects have repeatedly displaced communities, degraded forests and rivers, and dispossessed women of the commons — fuel, fodder and water — that they manage. The Green Revolution's chemical, capital-intensive agriculture marginalised women's traditional seed-keeping and knowledge. Environmental costs fall disproportionately on women, who must walk further for water and fuel as ecosystems decline. Movements such as Chipko, in which women embraced trees to prevent felling, dramatise the collision between an extractive development project and a subsistence ethic of care. To this extent I agree that mainstream development has been masculinist, extractive and blind to ecological and gendered costs.

However, the thesis must be qualified rather than accepted wholesale. Critics, notably Bina Agarwal, argue that Shiva's position is essentialist — it assumes a natural, almost spiritual bond between women and nature, when in reality women's closeness to the environment arises from their material location in the division of labour, not from an innate feminine essence. Agarwal's feminist environmentalism grounds the relationship in property, poverty and work rather than in metaphysics. The view also risks romanticising subsistence and tradition, which were themselves patriarchal and often harsh for women, and it can appear to reject modern development altogether, ignoring the education, health and mobility that development can bring to women. Maria Mies's linkage of patriarchy, capitalism and colonialism sharpens the political economy but shares the essentialist danger.

My considered view is a qualified agreement. The statement correctly diagnoses a real defect — the dominant development model has indeed been extractive, ecologically destructive and gender-blind, imposing its heaviest costs on women and the poor while calling the result progress. But the remedy is not a return to an idealised feminine past; it is a reoriented development that is ecologically sustainable and gender-just, valuing women's knowledge and work without freezing them into a natural role. I agree with the critique of maldevelopment while rejecting its essentialist framing, and I locate the answer in sustainable, participatory development that treats women as agents rather than as symbols of nature.

Examiner's perspective

Examiners use this question to test whether candidates can engage a strong theoretical claim critically. The most rewarded approach presents Shiva's ecofeminist thesis accurately — Western patriarchy, the feminine principle, maldevelopment — supports it with concrete Indian evidence such as displacement, the Green Revolution and Chipko, and then deploys Agarwal's materialist critique to avoid essentialism.

Weak scripts either endorse the statement uncritically as an anti-development slogan or dismiss it without grasping the argument. Strong scripts show command of the debate, distinguish a valid diagnosis from a contestable metaphysics, and arrive at a clear, qualified judgement anchored in sustainability and gender justice. Because the question explicitly asks why, an argued and evidenced conclusion is what secures the top band.