AMRITSAR: Since time immemorial, there has been a love hate relationship between man and Nature. Nature has been very benevolent and extends its bounty liberally. However, when exploited too much, it takes back in equal measure what it gives in abundance.

In the name of so called economic development, when nature is exploited to an extent that it can’t bear the burden (of the mad race for) economic growth, it crumbles under its own burden. Rapid population increase, dramatic changes in production and consumption patterns and massive rural-to-urban migration have transformed the way environment and natural resources are used. Ultimately, we are heading towards the collapse of ecological system thereby leading to the doom of the civilization.

This hasn’t happened only once. Unfortunately, it has been an on going story. Civilizations of Nile, Harappa, Mohenjodaro, Cyria and Mesopotamia became extinct less because of foreign hordes and evasions but more because of the neglect of ecological concerns. Noted historian Arnold Toynbee who studied the symptoms of rise and fall of twenty one civilizations concluded that the various civilizations became extinct when the greed for economic development overshadowed ecological concerns; the resultant imbalances in the ecological environment lead to the extinction of these civilizations. Sadly, this is going to be repeated.

In 1924, the father of our nation Mahatma Gandhi drew our attention to this aspect and asked us to maintain a healthy balance between economic growth and ecological environment emphasizing that ecology and economy have common roots which need to be nursed by proper education.  Noted environmentalist, Mr. S.L Bahuguna of the Chipko Movement fame - a living legend, in the voice of ecological concerns the world over minces no words in stating that the question no longer is that of striking a balance between economic development and ecological degradation but is that of survival or extinction. Moreover, true development is always based on a judicious balance between immediate and long-term requirements. There is a growing recognition that the watchword should not be exploitation but conservation. Development can hardly be sustained when the natural resources of soil, water and vegetation, the basic economic capital of a country, are depleted recklessly.

One can still find a writing displayed at Pingalwara, Amritsar by its founder Bhagat Puran Singh (also known by some as Mother Teresa of Northern India. In it, Bhagat Puran Singh, who started spreading environmental awareness many decades ago states, “In India alone 10.5 million hectares of green forest land is denuded every year, if it continues and afforestation or reforestation does not take place, India will become a man-made desert like the Sahara by the year 2010 A.D”.

Environmental degradation is now all pervasive, accelerating and largely unabated. This is manifested in polluted air, depleted biodiversity, degraded lands, exhausted aquifers and polluted aquatic and marine ecosystems, as well as increasing exposure to hazardous and toxic wastes. People’s health and longevity have suffered, natural resource based livelihood has been compromised, and ecosystem services and resources that underpin long term economic development are at risk.

 Our forest cover is shrinking fast. Rivers, the ground water as well as the deep sea have been polluted to an extent where a person gets poisoned. The air can better be called killer air because of the huge content of pollutants in it. The development activity is causing a hole in ozone layer and the Green house effect is resulting into global warming which in turn is causing the melting of polar caps of the earth. Glaciers measuring into hundreds of square kilometers have started melting fast; as a result, the sea level would rise and many islands and other countries will vanish from the globe. Thus, there is peril to our very survival. However, we are living in the fools’ paradise and continuing with perilous economic growth without taking any piece of advice from the chapters of history.

Review of Literature

B.B. Vohra (1986), emphasized that the highest priority should be given to restore forest cover with 33 percent of the geographical area of the country being brought under forests from the present level of 23 percent. Measures should be intensified to restore forest cover to the full where it is at present degraded, though the area is normally shown as under forests.

Dewan (1990), highlighted that environmental awareness is the prerequisite for effective tackling of environmental degradation. Educational policies play a vital role in bringing environmental awareness through setting up of appropriate curricula syllabus etc. In India also, there is a need of creating environmental consciousness.

Reich and Bowonder (1992), divided India’s burden of environmental problems into the “old” problems of water, sewage and waste disposal, and other forms of pollution related to poverty and infectious deposes. The “new” problem focus on industrial pollution, chemical usage in agriculture and the growing amounts of difficult-to-dispose wastes, related to a structural transformation of the economy.

Andersen (1994), emphasized that the traditional way of controlling pollution in Western Europe has been regulated by the use of standards (the command-and-control approach). It tends to force all businesses to adopt the same measures and practices of pollution control and thus accept identical shares of the pollution control burden regardless of their relative impacts. Among environmental researchers and policy makers, there is a growing skepticism towards this type of pollution control. It is argued that environmental improvement is progressing too slowly and, in some situations, is leading to even further deterioration of the environment. This has motivated policy makers to search for other solutions.

Zubrzycki (1997), highlighted that industrialization has long been held as synonymous with economic development. It has been considered as a means to the alleviation of poverty and raising standards of living. The priority to industrialize has often taken precedence over ‘cleaner manufacturing’. But of late a debate has started over the merits of industrialization versus its environmental consequences.

Vyas and Reddy (1998), studied the environmental problem faced by the third world countries. In their opinion it is a lot more complex than usually understood. Most of these countries are grappling with the problems of trade off between environment and development while struggling to get out of the low-level equilibrium trap. They found that the problems of global environment could be solved only through co-operation and mutual trust between the rich and the poor countries. In order to achieve sustainable growth, there should be balance between environment and development.

Eco News (1998), mention that India today is facing the double environmental threats of ecological poverty and land degradation, on the one hand, and rapidly growing toxification and pollution arising out of industrialization and economic growth, on the other hand.

Robert Sollow (1999), expressed “if sustainability is anything more than a slogan or expression of emotion, it must amount to an injunction to preserve productive capacity for the indefinite future”. Hence, while in the ecologists’ view natural resources have a value that goes beyond their productive use and cannot be substituted by other forms of capital, within the economists’ view natural resources can be consumed and substituted by other forms of capital, as long as productive capacity is maintained.

Toman (1999), examined the reaction of both economists and ecologists to the following statement: “if one accepts that there is some collective responsibility of stewardship owed to future generations, what kind of social capital needs to be intergenerationally transferred to meet that obligation? One view, to which many economists would be inclined, is that all resources- the natural endowment, physical capital, human knowledge and abilities are relatively fungible sources of well being. Thus, large scale damages to ecosystems such as degradation of environmental quality, loss of species diversity, widespread deforestation or global warming are not intrinsically unacceptable from this point of view, the question whether compensatory investments for future generations are possible and are undertaken. This suggest that if one is able to identify what are determinants of these “needs” and what types of resources are required to satisfy these needs, one should in principle determine which resources to transfer. An alternative view embraced by many ecologists and some economists, is that such compensatory investments often are unfeasible as well as ethically indefensible.