"Several academic studies have been done on these disparate and incongruous inputs whichIndia is well known for.It can be argued that with its population size, and other problems,India cannot have sustainable growth; in fact, sustainable growth as such is a misnomereconomically.The UN vaguely stated (Bruntland, 1987) that growth is OK provided it wasdone in a sustainable fashion.In fact, it is only now with the global economic meltdown thatit is being realized that unfettered economic growth is not sustainable.According to studiesdone in 1990's, sustainability will follow from growth once a certain income level is reached,According to the Green Path Research paper; a wealth shift in the poorest countries alignsfrom agriculture and fishing towards industries, and in the richer countries from industrieswith services. Economic growth is linked to Environmental quality.Another study submittedin 2007 to the Indian Government by Jadavpur University (9) also dwells on some aspectsand is attached in part.Of interest is the case of waste disposal by Indian industries.The pollutants being dumpedinto the Jamuna near the Taj Mahal is a case in point.Similarly, one hears almost daily ofErin Brockovich type cases in India, where Industries dump chemicals into landfills andwater used by neighbouring villages is badly polluted.Or take the case of Union Carbide inBhopal where a duplicate of the plant in Institute Virginia was built, knowing full well of theleaks and other effects of such chemicals.Thermal waste from nuclear reactors into riversand ponds irreversible changes the ecology by depleting marine life, birds and increase inmosquito levels causing malaria and loss of output from workers. A few cases have come outin the press where toxic waste that by law is banned from being disposed of in foreigncountries is towed to India and sold to scrap dealers in Gujarat etc. India has thus become a dumping ground for junk and e-waste from the advanced countries.Old computer instead of being donated to the rural schools and colleges are being incineratedand used to extract the gold plating on the electrical contacts. It appears there is a thrivingbusiness in such extraction of rare and noble metals from computers, which is possible onlyby burning causing pollution in the process.This type of pollution harms the water bodies,where degradation by micro organisms requires Oxygen involving BOD.Sustainable manufacture would necessarily entail: Reduction in waste, recycling, lowerenergy consumption, lower pollution (both chemical and thermal waste). To take some ideasfrom the Jadavpur University study (9), economic, social and environmental issues needconsideration.Sustainability implies caring for common resources like the air, water, andglobal temperatures. Increasingly of importance, are common intellectual property, internetresources and the like.I term these variables "UNSEEN" indicators of sustainability, as theyaffect economic well-being, along with atmospheric effects.According to Greenpath research(10):Structural and technological change:With economic growth, the structure of a nation'seconomy can change in ways that have repercussions for environmental quality. SCALE EFFECT: The scale effect is associated with a negative relationship betweeneconomic growth and environmental quality at all income levels.COMPOSITION EFFECT: Changing the composition of output. Increased wealth isassociated in the poorest countries with a shift in the composition of GDP from agricultureand fishing to industries, and in wealthier countries from industry to services. This mechanism suggests that countries will have different environmental problems at differentlevels of development. The EKC theory suggests that this leads countries to have betterenvironmental quality at the extremes of the income scale. The changing composition ofoutput effect could lead to an EKC for certain environmental problems, such as industrialpollution.A third way is that as countries grow wealthier they may also alter their industrialcomposition to focus less on polluting industries like steel manufacturing and more oncleaner industries such as computer industries. This would also lead to an EKC for industrialpollution if above a certain income level country switched to cleaner industries. TECHNIQUE EFFECT: This mechanism creates a positive correlation between economicgrowth and environmental quality. Evidence:Shifting Composition of GDP.Survey of evidence:Some studies find no evidence of a change in the industrial mix as high-income countriesgrow wealthier, but there is a shift in the composition of GDP away from the industry. Other studies have found evidence of movement of dirty industries from high income topoorer nations as these nations become wealthier. In other words, the EKC is simply an artifact of the current world structure of inequalitybetween nations as well as trade patterns, rather than a generalized relationship betweenenvironmental quality and economic growth. In order for the composition effect to be able to effect improvements in environmental qualityacross all nations, one would need to look at changes in consumption patterns with changingincome levels to see if above a certain income level a dematerialization of spending patternswas evident. If people started spending more income on services and goods with cleaner and less resourceintensive production processes, then it would be the case that increased income led to achange in the composition of GDP away from resource consumption and polluting activities. However, we generally witness increased material consumption as countries grow wealthier,suggesting that any improvements in the composition of GDP in terms of decreases inenvironmental degradation reflects the movement of environmentally degrading activities toother nations.Energy Use: While increased energy efficiency with GDP growth appears to occur inwealthier nations, energy intensity continues to growth with GDP in most developingcountries (Goldenberg, 1998). In other words, there is an inverted U-shaped relationshipbetween income level and energy intensity per unit GDP. This "decoupling" could contribute to an EKC for environmental problems associated withenergy use. A study by J. Timmons Roberts and Peter Grimes (1997) finds evidence for aninverted U-shaped curve for carbon dioxide emissions per unit output versus GDP. They findthat this is a result of efficiency improvements in a collection of wealthier countries since1970 while other countries became less efficient.They also find that the scatter in the regression has increased over time, suggesting that thereis increasing variability in energy efficiency for countries at given income levels. As newenergy efficient technologies have become available, adoption has been uneven.Industry: Wheeler and Martin (1992) examine the adoption of cleaner technologies in thepulp and paper mill industry. They find that income level is not related to the rate oftechnology adoption. Valerie Reppelin-Hill (1998) considers the adoption of cleanertechnologies for steel manufacturing. She finds that income level is unrelated to the rate ofadoption for higher income countries, but there is a positive correlation for lower incomecountries. Acsmoglu and Robinson (20) find that changes brought about by democratization lead tochanges in income distribution and subsequent Gini effects which have results on thepollution levels. Higher growth allows Government to spend on social welfare and fooddistribution and other schemes including possible environmental cleanups.From a plot of CO2 emissions versus income in India (Fig 2) it is clear that for this importantpollutant, the turning point has yet to be reached.In fact, from the results of a panel study byManagi and Jena(2007), theresults for India show a negative effect of income onenvironmental productivity.They infer that the Kuznets effect has yet to occur for India orthat the EKC hypothesis does not apply. Similarly, Dinda (2004) has inferred that the EKChypothesis applies only to some pollutants if at all, and that time series analysis of panel datashould be attempted. On the other hand, causality effects were studied by Das et al, (2014)from panel data for fourteen Indian States, indicating a positive Gini effect with realeconomic development. They conclude that the EKC hypothesis is valid Conclusion:To avoid a massive influx of rural poor to the urban centers, rural technology andimprovement of the standards in the rural areas is a must, keeping in mind the words andphilosophy of Mahatma Gandhi that the strength of India lies in its villages and provide themwith self-reliance.However, the literature does not present a clear view of the mechanisms linking economicgrowth and environmental technological change. The debate is still ongoing regarding thebeneficial effects of growth in Pollution past a certain income level.Technologies that allow for reducing the impact of production activities on environmentalquality are more available in wealthier countries due to the overall technologicaladvancement in these countries. This results, in part, from greater financial support forresearch and development,(Ruttan, 2001) Leapfrog Technologies.The case of India and Leapfrog technology has been discussed byGoldemberg (1998). Guivarch (2012) discusses the decoupling possibilities for GDP andPollution in the case of India with the use of Leapfrog technologies which may be analternative mechanism to avoid the "Kuznets Trap".Turning points in the EKC vary bycountry and type of pollution. In the case of CO2, the turning point appears as $80,000 forCO2, and for BOD at about $24000 per capita, (UNIDO (2004)). However, others have foundno correlation to support the EKC hypothesis for India,( Managi and Jena(2007). "