क्षमा करें, इस कहानी में ही उपलब्ध है%LANG:

The devastating floods that recently hit several river valleys of the Uttarakhand mountains have brought back to the fore the need to reconsider how development is conducted in the region, as well as the viability of creating “ecologically sensitive zones” in the Indian Himalaya. While the floods were caused by a massive amount of rain in a short span of time, some speculate that the unprecedented level of destruction from the deluge was the result of unsound development, deforestation and global warming.

In response to the disaster, environment minister Jayanthi Natarajan and other officials are urging the Indian government to honour its pledge to create “eco-zones” in the region, such as the one proposed for the 100-kilometre stretch from Gangotri to Uttarkashi. This area was hit hard by widespread flash floods last August, but is now suffering from a second and even more devastating event only ten months later.

These floods have heightened the urgency to create eco zones. These proposals were prompted in part by the concerns of those who opposed the construction of hydroelectric dams on one of the last free-flowing stretches of the Upper Ganga River (also known as the Bhagirathi), which emerges from the Gaumukh glacier. The recent deluge that engulfed houses, bridges, temples and roads provides proof that such dams—three of which were halted by the government in 2010—represent outdated models of development that are inappropriate, short-sighted and dangerous.

In theory, establishing eco-zones could help enforce environmental regulations and curb the construction of hotels, houses and dams in sensitive and flood-prone areas. If all of the planned dam projects are scrapped, the hills will be safe from the dynamite blasting used to build run-of-river hydroelectric dams. In contrast to reservoir dams, run-of-river projects direct water out of the river and into tunnels where it is dropped at high pressure down a steep incline for energy production. The water from such dams is typically released back into the river after about ten kilometres.

Dams ditched on the upper Ganga

The cancelled dams on the upper stretch of the Ganga, however, would have created a veritable cascade of projects leaving much of the riverbed dry in low-flow winter seasons. Before construction was halted, residents living nearby worried that the lack of water in the sacred river would hinder the practice of Hindu cultural and religious rites of passage. Villagers also blamed dam construction for the loss of local springs and the increased frequency of landslides and road accidents. Adding to the debate, environmentalists cautioned that the heavy monsoon flows would also carry high loads of corrosive silt that would damage the turbines, hampering their productivity, and therefore the rationale for building the dams in the first place.

In light of these concerns and the recent collapse of infrastructure near the dam sites, leading environmental activists argue the Indian government would do better to improve losses from wasteful electricity transmissions and promote energy reduction in agriculture, business and industry.

While there is an urgent need to promote sound and holistic development policies in places such as the Uttarakhand Himalaya, it is vital to consult mountain residents and address their needs in culturally sensitive ways. Overlooking their voices in the planning process could lead to the failure of well-intended policies.

Local opposition to eco-plans

Before the recent floods hit, for instance, there was a major backlash against the closure of dams on the upper stretch of the Ganga because some people worried the government would not allow any future development projects in the region once it became an eco zone. For a time, these movements gained traction because even though large hydroelectric projects have many drawbacks, they also offer attractive opportunities for employment and income generation in poor regions of the Himalaya.

Proponents of dams on the upper Ganga have in recent years argued that the only alternative to these projects was sustained poverty and rising male migration out of the region, which has increased the workloads of women left behind to tend to fields and livestock.

While the recent disasters have put the pro-dam arguments into perspective, by showing the short-term benefits and limited longevity of such projects, the urgent need to take locals concerns and livelihood struggles into consideration remains.

The danger, as historian Ramachandra Guha pointed out long ago, is that policy makers try to promote a conservation model once prominent in places like the US that prioritises the preservation of ecosystems over the lives of the people that are dependent on them. Instead, what is needed are sound and sustainable ways of economic activity that promote jobs without destroying the beauty of the mountains or endangering the lives of millions of people. A focus on ecological as well as human resilience will prevent the development debate shifting from a resource extraction model to an ill-suited national parks model.

Dams or no dams, big changes are taking place in the mountains and any eco-zone policy must address the multitude of challenges simultaneously. If the climate change science is correct, in the coming years the region will experience increasingly erratic water supplies, with periods of scarcity followed by devastating floods; continued retreat of Himalayan glaciers; and more frequent crop failures. Although governments have started to address these phenomena through national action plans, more proactive measures are needed to support fragile Himalayan ecologies and the people who live there.

While large dams on the Ganga may be unsustainable (and potentially at odds with cultural and religious practices), it is vital to look for alternative, people-centered forms of “development” that make life more prosperous—and safe—for mountain residents.

Georgina Drew is a lecturer in anthropology and development studies at the University of Adelaide and has worked in the Himalaya for over a decade.

2 comments

  1. Ram Basnet |

    Article seems ending in a quandary of sustainable development, that is just a concept, without any substance for practice. Though local people might be attracted by opportunities of and aspiration for infrastructure building in the Himalaya, but their survival depends only on preservation of Himalayan environment. Importantly, environmental preservation is not necessarily a US model, as here author argues echoing Guha, who brought this concept in a different context. Remember, there are people’s initiatives in these regions not for so called development, but for environmental preservation from Chipko women to current Sadhus. At the end environmentality emerges once people are supported and encouraged to lead preservation. Therefore, there may be some opposition to ending infrastructure development in the Himalayas, particularly by some elites and those benefitting from development works, we need preservation at the Himalayan scale. Please do not label them alien agenda of preservation.

  2. Abhijit Sinha |

    The author mentions: “Although governments have started to address these phenomena through national action plans…” Sadly, that’s not happening — except Solar, the remaining 7 Missions have yet to get into action mode.
    This Himalayan tragedy — let’s not forget Himachal Pradesh where the magnitude may have been less, but the consequences of exploitation are the same (as per feedback shared by Centre for Science and Environment students team airlifted from Sangla valley on way back from Rikangpio, headed by programme manager Sharmila Sharmila) — is a wake up call for all research groups and civic society organisations to UNITEDLY put pressure on not just the state and central governments of India, and also the international bodies like SAARC and perhaps even the UN.
    The China side of the Himalayas also need to be put in the picture — with some odd news of sudden reservoir release and/or glacier lake overflow that may have built up pressure on the Indian side.
    Fragmentary eco-zones will not work. It has to be a holistic approach — which does not suit the contractor-politician-bureaucrat nexus manipulating the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), Government of India.

प्रातिक्रिया दे

आपका ईमेल पता प्रकाशित नहीं किया जाएगा. आवश्यक फ़ील्ड चिह्नित हैं *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.