june 29, 2013

Economic & Political Weekly EPW june 29, 2013 vol xlviII nos 26 & 27
7
A Himalayan Tragedy
The long-term issues exposed by the Uttarakhand oods need urgent attention.
T
he devastating oods in Uttarakhand and Himachal
Pradesh, that have taken over a thousand lives and
destroyed in their wake villages, towns and the fragile
mountain region, have to be viewed as an unprecedented disaster
on any count. The suddenness of the cloud burst, the force of
the water, the extent of destruction, the vast numbers affected,
the difcult terrain for rescue operations and the substantial
death toll, all add up to one of the biggest natural calamities in
recent history. Yet, the response to the crisis, from governments,
politician of all hues and the media, has been mostly shallow
and uninformed. It has oscillated between nger-pointing and
opportunistic politics to generalisations about causation.
At one extreme end of the spectrum we heard about Gujarat
Chief Minister Narendra Modis fantastical claim that his govern-
ment had single-handedly rescued 15,000 stranded Gujarati
pilgrims in less than two days, and on the other were tirades
about the lack of disaster management. Between these ex-
tremes, one a gment of imagination and the other an exagger-
ation, lies a vast area of self-evident truths that neither individual
politicians nor governments and policymakers seem prepared
to face. Even as the full extent of the disaster sinks in, it is
important to address the questions which arise within a larger
perspective of environmentally sustainable development in
ecologically fragile regions.
First, we have to acknowledge that when a natural disaster of
this proportion occurs, in this case a cloud burst that dumped huge
quantities of water into already swollen rivers turning them into
deadly destructive torrents, you can never be completely prepared.
Yet, if a warning system had been in place, such as radars and
climate prediction instrumentation, some of the damage could
have been mitigated. The world over, such systems have helped
minimise loss of life. Despite knowing that such destructive
oods can happen given the terrain of the region, Uttarakhand
does not possess basic climate forecasting equipment and has to
depend on the neighbouring states of Punjab and Uttar Pradesh to
get this information. The ensuing delay can mean the difference
between life or death for the people living in such a disaster-prone
area. Clearly, such a facility must be put in place immediately.
Also, apart from an early warning system, a disaster-prone area
must have a disaster management plan. A quick response can
save lives. Uttarakhand apparently had prepared a disaster
management plan in 2007 but going by its response to this crisis,
it is evident that essential elements were not in place.
The second question is whether and to what extent human inter-
ference exacerbated the problem. It is evident that successive
governments in Uttarakhand have failed to formulate land use and
development policies that are ecologically sensitive and sensible.
As a result, buildings were permitted on oodplains of the very
rivers that today have wreaked such destruction. The increase
in such unsafe construction is linked to the noticeable increase in
religious tourism in recent years. While this brings in substantial
revenues to the state and also provides employment to many in the
region, the pressure of hundreds of thousands of additional people
within a short time span can adversely affect local ecologies. For
instance, while in the past pilgrims would walk or use horses and
ponies to make their way to shrines in the upper reaches of
Uttarakhand, today they can travel by cars, jeeps and even heli-
copters. Such tourism has also increased the demand for accom-
modation and other facilities, an inevitable outcome of a growing
yatra economy. Why did the government not respond to the
many concerns raised about this by environmentalists and other
concerned groups in the region? Is it not possible for Uttarakhand
even now to adopt a policy like the one in Bhutan where tourism
is regulated to minimise the pressure on the local environment?
The third issue concerns the kind of development policy that
should be followed in the region. For instance, questions have
been raised about the rush to construct mini- and micro-dams
on Himalayan rivers in order to tap the maximum potential of
hydroelectric power. Although many of these dams are run-of-
the-river and not storage dams, they still disturb the environ-
ment because they require rivers to be diverted through tunnels
to generate power. The construction of these tunnels and other
infrastructure unsettles the mountainous terrain and in the
event of an earthquake, or even a cloud burst, contributes to a
greater quantity of rocks and sediment crashing down. Micro
and mini projects, or run-of-the-river ones, may not be as
destructive as large storage dams, yet the cumulative effect of
scores of these on the river, its ow patterns and carrying capacity
and the local ecology may be signicant. What has to be evalu-
ated is the fragility of the entire region and whether multiple
interruptions of natural river ows are sustainable. Such an
assessment has not been made while clearing hydroelectric
EDITORIALS
june 29, 2013 vol xlviII nos 26 & 27 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
8
projects. And even if the building of such dams cannot be linked
directly to the recent calamity, it is imperative that the entire
dam-building exercise be looked at afresh. This is important not
just for Uttarakhand but also for the entire region and beyond.
The tragedy in Uttarakhand might have been caused by
climatic factors beyond the control of humans. But it is amply
clear that environmentally insensitive development policies
combined with a lack of preparedness for such disasters
have compounded it. Even as the casualty gures grow by
the day, it is essential that some of these long-term questions
be addressed with the same urgency as the immediate rescue
and relief.