By Arpita Saikia
Last month, a news from this corner of the country captured headlines. It was the protest accompanied by hunger strike led by Green Tech Foundation, Meghalaya, against proposed “development” projects in the Lumpongdeng island in the Umiam lake. The Foundation, especially its chairperson B. Nonglang, displayed immense courage and determination in ways only few can. Despite his deteriorating health due to hunger strike he remained unwavering in his stand for the environment. The protest was finally called off after a written assurance from the Tourism Department of Meghalaya. However, the delay in taking meaningful steps sheds light on the reluctance of those in authority to engage sincerely with public and environmental concerns.
This month, Deepor Beel of Guwahati, Assam is witnessing something that’s nothing short of an ecological crisis. The green canopy has disappeared in several areas because trees are being felled for a project to build an elevated railway track aimed at preventing elephant deaths on the existing railway line. Despite the protests of the locals, trees were felled under heavy security. Environmentalists have expressed deep concern over the large-scale felling of trees and have demanded their translocation. They argue that repeated disruption in the name of infrastructural development around the Deepor Beel area is weakening the ecological stability of the wetland which is already fragile.
Both these instances share one common concern, i.e. the protection of the environment. The GTF Meghalaya’s demand was the exclusion of Lumpongdeng island from the project. In case of the latter, the Deepor Beel Protection Committee has expressed that it supports the proposed corridor to prevent elephant deaths but opposes the large scale environmental damage. In neither case has the criticism been directed against development or the change itself, but rather against a model of development devoid of responsibility and sustainability. India is a signatory to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which emphasizes sustainable cities, climate action, and the protection of life on land and water. However, action such as the one seen in Deepor Beel raise questions about how sincerely these commitments are being implemented on the ground. Sustainability cannot and should not remain confined to papers and forums while blind eyes are turned to the ecological destruction going on in reality.
What makes the situation even more complicated is that the felling of trees for this proposed elevated railway project is being justified as a measure to prevent elephant deaths on the railway tracks. However, according to an article published by ThePrint in 2023, the number of such incidents in the area had already come down to one. This was made possible through collaborative efforts between local volunteers, known as Haati Bondhu (“Friends of Elephants”), and forest guards, who would alert station masters to slow down or halt trains whenever elephants were spotted near the tracks, thereby preventing accidents. These point to the possibility that careful deliberations, community participation, and discussions could have produced solutions far better than mercilessly cutting down trees and threatening the ecological balance.
The very act of laying railway tracks and roads through the area was itself an intrusion into an elephant corridor. There is no denying that these projects improved connectivity and made development more accessible for people living in the outskirts. However, in an age when discussions surrounding environmental protection, ecological conservation, and sustainability dominate public discourse, cutting down forests in the name of wildlife protection appears to be a lazy, unimaginative, hasty, short sighted and paradoxical. It becomes difficult to not remember the famous line from Agricola of Tacitus, “ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacern appellant” which means “They make a desert and call it peace” because in an attempt to “protect” wildlife, an ecosystem crucial for biodiversity is itself being destroyed.
It is deeply ironic that Narendra Modi introduced the concept of “Lifestyle for the Environment” (LiFE) in Glasgow on 1 November 2021, calling upon “the global community of individuals and institutions to drive LiFE as an international mass movement towards mindful and deliberate utilisation instead of mindless and destructive consumption to protect and preserve the environment.” Yet, the news from across the country continues to flood the media where locals and environmentalists are seen raising voice against government projects for development. Be it Sonam Wangchuk’s protest in Ladakh demanding constitutional safeguard of the region to protect the fragile ecosystem, the voices and concerns raised against the proposed projects on the Andaman and Nicobar islands, the ongoing protests against the Bauxite mining project in the districts of Rayagada and Kalahandi in Orissa, one can hardly overlook the possibility that “Lifestyle for the Environment” risks becoming yet another glittery idea on documents.
It leaves us with difficult questions to ponder upon. If not for nature, and if not for the people, then development is truly for whom? Will there come a day when development and environmental protection move hand in hand, without people having to wage hunger strikes and prolonged protests merely to defend the ecosystems? Is sustainability a myth? What good is a future if nothing remains?
