Now Is The Time To Listen To The Himalayas Before It Gets Too Late

Disasters are not new to Uttarakhand. The 1991 Uttarkashi earthquake, the Malpa landslide in 1998 and the deadly Chamoli earthquake a year later had killed hundreds of people, but the worst was yet to come. In 2013, flash floods swept away thousands of people. Several other disasters have struck Uttarakhand in recent years. In 2021, Chamoli was again hit by flash floods. More recently, Joshimath was hit by land subsidence that forced hundreds of residents to relocate to temporary shelters.

On December 27, 2016, the foundation stone of the Char Dham project was laid to widen the highway connecting the Chota Char Dham circuit of Yamunotri, Gangotri, Kedarnath and Badrinath. The aim was to provide the lakhs of pilgrims visiting the sacred shrine annually with an all-year connectivity, thereby boosting tourism in the Himalayan state. The Silkyara-Barkot tunnel was being built as a part of this project.

Small-scale landslides, allegedly linked to the Char Dham project, have also continued. All these disasters have demonstrated just how savage nature can be when it is fiddled with. However, whenever a tragedy strikes the Himalayas the age-old debate on the environment vs development takes the centrestage.

Is The Problem Local Or Global?

A study done by the US-based Utah University in the aftermath of the 2013 flash floods attributed the disaster to a rising rainfall trend in the northern part of India in the month of June. This increase in rainfall was in turn blamed on an increased load of greenhouse gases and aerosols.

Simply put, climate change was one of the major causes of the 2013 catastrophe. Was Uttarakhand alone responsible for climate change? More recent examples have reaffirmed that rising emissions by some is the cause of suffering of many others. Economists refer to this phenomenon as a negative externality.

The negative effects of greenhouse gas emissions are external to those producing them. Just as the National Capital Region suffers due to stubble burning in neighbouring areas, small states that have very limited contribution to GHG emissions have to suffer due to increasing emissions by the rest of the world. So the argument that development activities in Uttarakhand are solely responsible for the disasters it is facing today does not hold much water. It may still suffer due to the development activities in neighbouring states.

Widening The Perspective

The environment vs development debate has been viewed only from a narrow perspective. This is because: On the one hand, policymakers get adamant to see their proposal get the green light and they tend to bend the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment. On the other, environmentalists start resisting every development proposal. At times, their objections are genuine. However, often they protest to settle political scores.

This has led to a trust deficit between environmentalists and policymakers, which has widened so much that development and environment protection are now seen as two mutually exclusive ideas. Consequently, we are left with only two options – either development or environment protection.

Operating on this principle, we have been asking the wrong questions. Instead of asking whether we should build roads and highways or not, we must ask what we should build, how we should build and where we should build?

It is evident that the Himalayan region has a limited appetite for construction activities. Before rushing into projects, a proper analysis of the development needs of the region must be carried out, priorities must be identified and all stakeholders must be involved.

Professor L Venkatachalam, Officiating Director and RBI chair, Madras Institute of Development Studies, is of the opinion that any project in the Himalayan region “must be scientifically assessed through a multi-disciplinary approach”.

“There must be an extensive dialogue between geologists, hydrologists, anthropologists, environmentalists, and economists,” he added.

How To Develop?

Involving bioengineering techniques to stabilise road-side slopes and building green roads are not enough. The unique Himalayan geology must be taken into account. Prof Venkatachalam said drilling and blasting through geologically sensitive areas will create structural cracks and faults that bioengineering cannot fix. “Topically planting vegetation can prevent soil erosion, but how can it save a mountain whose very foundation has been disturbed and altered? Sooner or later, nature will run its course. Non-explosive alternatives and drilling can help avoid such scenarios. With the right impetus, support and funding, research in this domain can save millions of lives in the years to come,” he said.

Where To Develop?

Not all mountains are the same. Some stretches can easily handle the construction load and some are geologically fragile. An unbiased multi-disciplinary ecological assessment can help identify areas that are vulnerable. India’s civil engineers must give due importance to the unique geological and hydrological profile of the region. Picking the right hills for construction is key.

With the right amount of funding and research, India has reached the dark side of the moon. If the resources are made available, it can surely innovate and find ecologically sustainable construction practices. A win-win for all – Isn’t it?

(Shivani is a Certificate of Merit holder in public policy management from IIM Kozhikode. She specialises in environmental policy. Views expressed are personal)