Safe ecology and environment: A distant dream

By Bhushan Parimoo

Achieving a safe and healthy environment will remain a distant dream unless society wakes up to its collective responsibility. Environmental protection cannot be achieved through government policies and regulations alone. It requires active public participation, responsible individual behaviour and a shared commitment to preserving the natural resources on which life depends.

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, recognised that human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. Every person is entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature. The right to development must be fulfilled equitably, taking into account the environmental and developmental needs of both present and future generations.

The principle remains as relevant today as it was more than three decades ago: environmental protection must be an integral part of development, not an afterthought.

Environmental protection is a collective responsibility

Environmental problems are best addressed when citizens participate in decision-making at every appropriate level. People must have access to environmental information held by public authorities, including information about hazardous materials, polluting activities and risks affecting their communities. They must also have meaningful opportunities to participate in decisions that affect their surroundings and access to judicial and administrative remedies when environmental laws are violated.

Governments have a responsibility to enact and enforce effective environmental legislation, establish appropriate standards and ensure that development priorities reflect ecological realities. But legislation alone cannot change the situation unless it is supported by public awareness, administrative accountability and a willingness among citizens to alter harmful practices.

The environment encompasses everything that surrounds us: land, water, air, flora and fauna. These elements are intricately interconnected, and damage to one inevitably affects the others. Pollution of a river, for instance, does not remain confined to the waterbody. It threatens aquatic life, contaminates adjoining land, affects agriculture and ultimately endangers human health.

Former Bolivian President Evo Morales captured this relationship in a striking observation: while human beings cannot live without Mother Earth, the planet can survive without them. Humanity must recognise that its survival depends on respecting the natural systems that sustain life.

An alarming environmental situation in Jammu and Kashmir

The unchecked impact of human activity on the environment in Jammu and Kashmir is a matter of serious concern. Deforestation, air pollution, water contamination, indiscriminate waste disposal and the wider consequences of climate change are increasingly visible. These problems are compounded by the failure of administrative agencies to work in a sufficiently coordinated manner.

Environmental governance cannot succeed when departments responsible for monitoring pollution, protecting forests, managing waste, regulating development and safeguarding public health operate in isolation or at cross-purposes. Environmental degradation does not respect departmental boundaries. An effective response therefore requires coordinated planning, clear accountability and continuous monitoring.

Pollution takes several forms, including water, air, noise and light pollution. Each has consequences for human health and ecological stability, but water contamination deserves particular attention because of its direct implications for public health and everyday life.

Agricultural runoff, industrial discharge, urban waste and untreated sewage are among the major sources of water pollution. When sewage enters rivers, streams, lakes or drinking-water supplies, it introduces harmful microorganisms and disrupts the natural balance of aquatic ecosystems.

Exposure to contaminated water can cause illnesses such as typhoid, dysentery, cholera and other gastrointestinal infections. Wastewater may contain pathogenic bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites, including organisms associated with E. coli infections, salmonellosis, hepatitis A and giardiasis.

Improper disposal of solid waste adds to the problem. Plastic bags, discarded packaging, fishing lines and other refuse accumulate in waterbodies, threaten aquatic organisms and contribute to the deterioration of natural habitats. Air pollution, meanwhile, exposes people and animals to harmful gases and particulate matter, with consequences extending well beyond urban centres.

These are not merely environmental concerns. They are questions of public health, social justice and economic security.

Water pollution and its economic consequences

Waterborne diseases impose a considerable burden on households, particularly those with limited access to healthcare and safe drinking water. Jammu and Kashmir cannot afford to treat water contamination as a routine administrative issue when it threatens lives, livelihoods and household incomes.

Reports cited in discussions of water quality in parts of Jammu have raised concerns about the presence of harmful E. coli bacteria in water samples. Such findings underline the need for transparent water-quality testing, timely public disclosure of results and prompt corrective action wherever contamination is detected. The extent of contamination, however, must be assessed through reliable, representative and regularly updated monitoring.

The economic consequences of waterborne illness can be equally damaging. Sick family members lose working days, children miss school and households incur additional expenses on medicines, medical consultations and transport. Poor families, particularly in rural areas, are often the least equipped to absorb these costs.

Research cited in this context has estimated that affected households can lose a significant proportion of their annual working days and income to waterborne infections. Such estimates should be interpreted in light of their geographical coverage and methodology, but the underlying concern is undeniable: unsafe water creates a cycle of illness, lost productivity and financial hardship.

Investment in safe drinking water, sewage treatment, drainage systems and regular water-quality surveillance is therefore not simply an environmental expenditure. It is an investment in public health, economic productivity and human dignity.

Administrative action offers some hope

Although the overall environmental situation remains worrying, some initiatives offer grounds for cautious optimism. Environmental conservation and development must not be treated as competing objectives. Sustainable development is possible only when ecological protection is built into the development process.

The administrative leadership responsible for forests, environment and ecology has a significant role in steering policy towards this balance. The efforts of the concerned authorities to strengthen environmental regulation and address the use of harmful materials deserve attention wherever they produce measurable improvements.

One example cited in this context is SRO 251, intended to restrict the sale, production and distribution of specified non-biodegradable, non-recyclable and potentially carcinogenic PVC products, including PVC cutlery. Such measures can help reduce plastic pollution, provided their scope is clearly defined, enforcement is consistent and practical alternatives are accessible and affordable.

The effectiveness of an environmental order, however, cannot be judged by its announcement alone. Its impact must be assessed through inspections, compliance data, penalties for violations and evidence of reduced pollution.

There is also a need to revive traditional practices that were often more environmentally responsible. Until relatively recently, many social functions relied on locally available, reusable or biodegradable materials instead of disposable plastic products. Such practices offer useful lessons for contemporary society.

The objective should not be to romanticise the past or reject modern conveniences. Rather, it should be to recover practices that remain relevant, adapt them to present-day needs and make environmentally responsible choices practical for ordinary citizens.

Constitutional guarantees and the right to a healthy environment

The right to a clean and healthy environment is not merely a matter of public preference. It has a strong constitutional foundation in India.

Article 47 of the Constitution directs the State to regard the improvement of public health, nutrition and living standards as among its primary duties. Article 48-A, introduced by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, provides that the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.

Fundamental Rights also provide important safeguards. Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to encompass the right to a clean and healthy environment. Articles 14 and 19 have also featured in environmental jurisprudence, depending on the circumstances of particular cases.

Together, these constitutional provisions establish that environmental protection is central to public welfare. The Directive Principles articulate the responsibilities of the State, while judicial interpretation of Fundamental Rights has strengthened the legal protection available to citizens.

India has also enacted legislation to address different dimensions of environmental degradation, including the protection of water and air quality and the regulation of activities that cause environmental harm. The challenge is not simply a shortage of laws. It is ensuring that existing provisions are implemented effectively, violations are detected promptly and accountability extends to all those responsible.

A constitutional promise has little practical meaning for a family whose drinking water is contaminated, whose neighbourhood is overwhelmed by waste or whose livelihood is threatened by environmental degradation. The test of governance lies in whether these guarantees translate into tangible improvements in people’s lives.

Relearning the lessons of our elders

Society has inherited a profound responsibility to preserve the environment for future generations. Our elders, many of whom had limited formal education by contemporary standards, often managed natural resources through practices shaped by necessity, experience and a close relationship with their surroundings.

Traditional communities developed ways of using local resources, reusing materials and living within ecological limits. Not every traditional practice was sustainable, and contemporary scientific knowledge has much to contribute. Yet dismissing inherited wisdom simply because it predates modern technology would be a serious mistake.

Today, we pride ourselves on scientific advancement, institutional expertise and technological progress. But progress becomes hollow when it is accompanied by reckless consumption, disregard for public spaces and indifference towards the consequences of our actions.

Greed, convenience and the pursuit of immediate gains often take precedence over long-term ecological security. The resulting damage is passed on to future generations, who will have to bear the costs of decisions they did not make.

Citizens must therefore recognise their own role in environmental protection. Avoiding single-use plastics, segregating household waste, preventing sewage and refuse from entering waterbodies, conserving water and reporting environmental violations are practical steps that can collectively make a difference. Schools, community organisations, businesses and local institutions must also become active participants in this effort.

At the same time, responsibility cannot be shifted entirely onto individuals. Governments must provide the infrastructure and services that enable people to act responsibly, enforce environmental laws without discrimination and ensure that polluters do not escape accountability.

The road ahead

Jammu and Kashmir still has a long way to travel before it can claim to have secured a safe and healthy environment for its people. Pollution continues to threaten natural resources, public health and the ecological foundations of the region’s economy. Some dangers are immediately visible; others accumulate silently until their consequences become difficult and expensive to reverse.

The task ahead demands more than periodic campaigns and official declarations. It requires sustained environmental monitoring, reliable public information, stronger enforcement, coordinated administration and the active involvement of citizens. Development projects must be evaluated not only for their immediate economic benefits but also for their long-term ecological and social costs.

A clean environment should not be viewed as a luxury that society can afford only after achieving economic prosperity. It is one of the foundations of prosperity itself. Without clean water, breathable air, healthy soil and functioning ecosystems, neither public health nor sustainable economic development is possible.

The real question is whether we are prepared to change our behaviour and hold institutions accountable before the damage becomes irreversible.

If society continues to place short-term convenience above ecological responsibility, a safe environment will remain a distant dream. But if citizens, institutions and governments accept their respective responsibilities and work together, the possibility of a healthier future remains within reach.

The Earth does not need humanity’s assurances. Humanity needs the Earth. Recognising this simple truth, and acting upon it, may be our most important responsibility to the generations that follow.

The writer is a Jammu-based environmentalist. He can be reached at blparimoo@gmail.com.