National security, religion present new challenges to India's environment

Security and religion may become additional vetoes on climate change action

Each day brings even more alarming news about the continuing and even accelerated depletion of India’s environment, its rich bio-diversity and its precious ecological assets. Its rivers are clogged with plastic waste and contaminated by hazardous chemicals. The air in our cities has become toxic and dangerous and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. We have ended up at the edge of a vortex that threatens to suck our people into a spiral from which there may be no escape. And restating Mahatma Gandhi’s prescient warning, we may soon leave the earth stripped bare like locusts.

The current pandemic raging across the world is a resounding reminder of the dangerous consequences of continuing with a pattern of economic activity that is based on burning fossil fuels, extracting minerals and raw materials that leave behind irremediable ecological scars, where agriculture, too, is being industrialised using technologies that create a cycle of increasing toxicity of soil and air in pursuing higher yields.

There was a faint expectation that the pandemic would finally lead to the adoption of a recovery path that is green and ecologically sustainable. What one sees in India today leaves one deeply apprehensive about the future. The need for accelerated recovery is becoming an argument for even less environmental regulation than usual going forward.

The ongoing farmers’ protests reflect, at a deeper level, the ecological crisis that is upon us. Punjab, Haryana and western UP have been the crucible of India’s Green Revolution. What provided quick increases in the yield of food crops like rice and wheat was the strategy known as the Intensive Agricultural Development Programme. This involved the planting of high-yielding varieties and the intensive use of chemical fertilisers, water and eventually toxic pesticides to protect the crops from pests. This strategy could only be sustained through ever rising subsidies for the inputs involved, including for fertilisers, water and power.

The introduction of minimum support price became a critical component of this strategy in order to provide a degree of insurance to the farmer. This strategy has run out of steam and is yielding diminishing returns. The ecological and more importantly the social consequences are alarming. And this includes stubble burning. The states concerned are not suitable for either growing rice or sugarcane but they do because subsidised water and power combined with high and guaranteed prices make them viable for the farmer. They are reluctant to make a shift to a more appropriate cropping pattern and more sustainable practices because no effort has been made to hand-hold them in the transition. Meanwhile, these states have a high incidence of cancer, suffer from multiple health-related issues and a mood of dejection and disappointment among their youth since few alternatives are in sight.

One has to accept that there is bound to be pressure on the environment from a still rising population. We have made a fetish of the so-called demographic dividend but the reality is that even if the two hands cannot find work, the mouth still demands to be fed for sheer survival. Trees in the forest will be cut to win a small patch on which to cultivate a few crops or to build a small dwelling. Forests will get denuded to feed the hearth at a modest home. This much is understandable and any climate change action must be based on the principle of equity at home as much as we demand it in multilateral fora.

Illustration: Binay Sinha

Climate change action, such as promoting renewable energy or enhancing energy efficiency cannot yield results in terms of sustainable development unless it is understood and pursued as part of a larger ecological challenge. A reduction in carbon emissions by retiring coal-based power plants may be commendable but if, in the meantime, hundreds of acres of forest have been cut to make way for a highway, then what is lost as a carbon sink may cancel out what has been gained by abandoning coal. A hydo-electric power project may produce clean energy, but what has been lost in the bargain in terms of pristine forests, the loss of riverine life and, in many instances the pile up of project debris, which blocks the natural drainage in the area?

We now have two additional challenges confronting us in preserving our threatened ecology. One is the national security argument. The other is the religious sentiment imperative. It is reported that the runaway at Dehradun airport has to be extended to accommodate military aircraft in view of the heightened Chinese threat. For this several hundred hectares of the already threatened Rajaji National Park must be cleared. I have seen how much damage has been done to the fragile ecology of the Himalayas because of compelling military demands. There will be more such activity, thanks to the recent Chinese incursions in eastern Ladakh.

The demand for national security is powerful enough to veto any reservations on ecological grounds even if alternatives may be available. Then there is religious sentiment which, too, may be used as an argument to veto environmental considerations. Again one hears that large tracts of forest may be cleared to accommodate pilgrims expected at the Kumbh Mela at Haridwar. Thousands of idols laden with toxic chemical paints must be immersed in rivers and the seas, causing massive pollution, because otherwise the religious sentiments of people may be hurt. The Chaar Dham project has already led to a four-lane highway being planned into some of the most pristine and vulnerable mountainous regions of India. Great pride is being taken in having enabled devotees to drive in style right up to the sacred shrines. A few voices of caution are now being silenced by adding the security argument. We need these highways to carry heavy military equipment to our contested borders. When security and religion come together who dares to raise any objections?

It is necessary to cater to urgent national security requirements and this may involve having to set aside environmental considerations but this should be the exception not a blanket veto. The same goes for respecting religious sentiment. Door-to-door delivery is not necessary to solicit redemption.

The writer is a former foreign secretary and senior fellow, CPR