The Indian Himalayan Region (IHR), comprising of 11 Indian states and two union territories, is ironically struggling for its very survival despite the region’s well acknowledged ecological, strategic and economic importance to the country. This is not an exaggerated statement, as even the Apex court’s division bench comprising of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, recognising the deepening ecological crisis in Himachal Pradesh in a matter concerning “green area” construction restrictions in Shimla, felt compelled to state: “If things proceed the way they are as on date, then the day is not far when the entire State of Himachal Pradesh may vanish in thin air from the map of the country. God forbid this doesn’t happen”.
The destruction of Himalayas has also become what leading political scientist PB Mehta in his article ‘Wars, pollution, exam scandals – no one did it, it happens’ aptly calls “causeless phenomena”, like sentences without subjects. These discourses conveniently remove agents behind actions and according to him is prevalent across an astonishing range of policy challenges. Policies and decisions which have brought the IHR to the brink of an ecological crisis are anonymized by invoking generalized phrases like system, governance or judiciary when we speak about ills plaguing these mountain states. This frustrates the task of fixing accountability on any particular agency or authority of the government, for the unsustainable manner in which the region is developing (or being destroyed). A case in point is Ashok Kumar Raghav Vs. Union of India and Ors., a PIL filed in the apex court seeking direction to the Union for determining carrying capacity of all ecologically fragile areas, hill stations, high-altitude areas, highly visited areas and tourist destinations in all the 13 states/UTs in the Himalayan region, amongst other things. In an amusing development in this matter, Union of India requested the Hon’ble SC to order 13 Himalayan states for assessing their carrying capacity and proposed setting up an expert committee to evaluate action plans submitted by each one of them. The whole case was turned on its head when the government that should have been held responsible for not getting the said studies done joined the issue with the petitioner, making the question of accountability totally infructuous, in fact redundant.
Before we begin to plead for course correction about the development paradigm being followed in the IHR, we need to ask some questions. We have to pin point the policy decisions and actions or inactions that have made the seismically sensitive, still growing Himalayas more vulnerable. We have to identify anthropogenic factors that have been exacerbating and amplifying the threats to its fragile ecology.
At the highest level there has been and for a while, a clear understanding about Himalayan ecosystem being vital to the ecological security of the Indian landmass and also about its enhanced vulnerability to both climate induced disasters and man-made development. The culmination of this long-standing understanding was the ‘National Mission for Sustaining Himalayan Ecosystem’ under ‘National Action Plan for Climate Change’ way back in 2010. Recognising the need to protect and preserve Himalayan ecology, first the Planning Commission and now the Niti Aayog have made IHR a distinct policy category. Niti Aayog has been endeavouring for translating Himalayan ecological concerns into cross-ministerial, cross-state policy roadmaps. Himalayan State Regional Council has been constituted recognising the need to translate the vision of sustainable development in IHR into reality. It identified mountain-specific structural constraints and acknowledged that generic (plains-oriented) planning frameworks do not address mountain specific concerns. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Indian Roads Congress (IRC) have strict criteria for linear infrastructure projects like roads in the mountains. There are Model Building Bye-Lawsand the National Building Code (NBC) for Hill Regions, while the central government has institutionalized river-basin level constraints for the development of hydroelectric power projects in the mountains including elevation thresholds, e-flows, basin scale cumulative assessment, location limitations etc. Since the IHR spans Seismic Zones IV and V, NDMA has formulated distinct Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Himalayan hazards.
Similar logic of structural constraints led to mountain states being treated as special category states by successive Finance commissions over the years before it was discontinued. In the same spirit, due to geographical disadvantages for development, Revenue deficit Grant was given to these states. It was acknowledged that mountain states have high cost of governance and infrastructure construction, have low level of industrialization, do not attract massive private investments, have low internal tax base and are encumbered by ecological stewardship in terms of preserving forests and major river basins.
The understanding of the vulnerability and fragility of IHR seems to be confined only to scientific literature, lofty ideals of various missions and policies. Courts, especially the apex court, make very apt and insightful observations in many matters. However, without having any intent of pointing fingers, information regarding many PILs filed against developmental projects in the IHR are in public domain and they don’t tell us a very encouraging story either.
On the ground we see climate induced natural calamities, which have started to occur with higher frequency and greater ferocity, turning into man-made disasters due to unscientific development . We see life and property, including national highways, hydroelectric power dams, buildings both government and private, and other infrastructure facilities routinely getting washed away in monsoon flooding or GLOF induced flooding in Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim and other areas in the region.
The question that begs answer is why are the states in the IHR pursuing development that is more like an invitation to their own ultimate annihilation. Most of these states in any case face financial crunch due to aforementioned reasons which are further aggravated by populist measures and financial profligacy. It is evident that in the name of fiscal discipline and economic growth, enhancing own source revenue and industrialisation to generate revenue, the whole understanding about the fragility of the ecology of the area is being totally ignored. The only resource most of the mountain states have is its natural resources. Over tourism, construction of superhighways to facilitate more and more footfalls, indiscriminate construction, opening up of its pristine forests in the name of eco-tourism to generate revenue, bumper to bumper hydroelectric projects, indiscriminate mining are the result of desperation to generate revenue.
The fate of IHR is lost in the dialogue of the deaf, as unfortunately no one is listening. All constituents of the system are participating in this discourse as if it is someone else’s doing.
It is time we walk the talk, pursue a scientifically informed developmental model in IHR. Hopefully we don’t have to lose more lives, see more Joshimuths, more dams bursting, more national highways washed away before some course correction is done and IHR is treated as a national treasure due to its critical importance to the country.