Arrey Forest: Native Environment vs Rigid Headway

“The Earth has enough resources for our need but not for our greed.”
This most often quoted phrase by Mathma Gandhi depicts his concern for nature and the environment, which initially gives a warm idea of how he envisioned the future generations to tend Mother Nature. Through the eyes of a man whose primary focus is development, it is condescending to believe he would even consider the existence of nature, wildlife, or anything that disturbs or is an obstacle to his developing habitat.

By: Gaurpriya Singh Roy

The Earth has enough resources for our need but not for our greed.”

This most often quoted phrase by Mathma Gandhi depicts his concern for nature and the environment, which initially gives a warm idea of how he envisioned the future generations to tend Mother Nature. Through the eyes of a man whose primary focus is development, it is condescending to believe he would even consider the existence of nature, wildlife, or anything that disturbs or is an obstacle to his developing habitat.

Let’s talk politically. 

In 1991, in his budget speech, finance minister Manmohan Singh declared: “We cannot deforest our way to prosperity, and we cannot pollute our way to prosperity”. These were his prescient words. While India had strong environmental legislation even in the pre-1991 era – the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972, Water Act of 1974, Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980, Air Act of 1981, and the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986 – this ‘Environment vs Growth’ debate has become much more salient in post-reform India. 

For instance, problems, and thus environmental issues, have entered the mainstream. As the pressure on the environment has increased with development, environmentalism has evolved from an ‘elite’ issue discussed in seminars and conferences to a real issue affecting people’s daily lives, health, and livelihoods. Consider the water table declines and extended droughts in Vidarbha and Bundelkhand. 

For example, water logging in Punjab’s Malwa region has harmed the livelihoods of over 2 lakh farmers, or the pollution caused by unrestricted mining and thermal power generation using low-quality coal in Chandrapur, Maharashtra which causes 10,000 people to become ill with respiratory conditions each year. Also, considering the pollution of the Ganga, where effluent and sewage treatment capacity cannot treat even half of the flow. 

Second, there has been a surge in organized environmental advocacy. The Rio Convention (1992), the Kyoto Protocol (1997), and the subsequent ritual of annual climate change summits culminating in the Paris Agreement (2015) have elevated the environment’s global profile. In India, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have used Public Interest Litigation (PILs) and Right to Information (RTI) as practical effective tools for mobilizing action. As a result, no self-respecting government can now be accused of being soft or insensitive to environmental issues, at least in rhetoric.

Third, judicial activism has gained traction. The Supreme Court established a quasi-judicial body called the “Central Empowered Committee” (CEC) in 2002 to “monitor the implementation of the Hon’ble Court’s orders and place reports of non-compliance before the Court” concerning forestry issues, giving the committee broad powers. Since then, CEC has been an active watchdog on forestry issues, working quietly and efficiently. In popular perception, it was judicial action that forced the government to convert the entire fleet of buses in Delhi to CNG in 2001. A series of impromptu interventions by the court culminated in establishing a National Green Tribunal in 2011 as a professional empowered judicial body to adjudicate environmental and forestry-related cases.

As a result of these developments, the latest fad is “balancing” growth and environmental protection. This is a breath of fresh air in vocabulary. But have we discovered the proper mechanisms for striking such a balance? 

Not yet: Environmental issues are hotly debated, from the Sardar Sarovar Dam to the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant to Kanpur’s polluting tanneries. Over the last few years, the National Green Tribunal has heard over 1,600 cases, which is only the tip of the iceberg.

Thus, at what cost do we proceed with our buildout? 

Toward a brighter future for the upcoming generations to look at should be our prime focus rather than handing them a world full of concrete and rust, we should keep our center of attention towards providing them with a new and nourishing environment where their minds and body thrive with health and joy rather than forcing them into a world where they know no humble but only brutal growth. 

Leave a comment