It
is not often I criticize efforts to promote science. But today, I am compelled
to do so, and ironically in the interest of science. I refer to an article in in
The Hindu of today (2012-07-01) by
one Dr. Dhirendra Sharma entitled Ma Ganga
needs scientist Bhagirath!
The
article is against environmental movements in Uttarakhand, particularly in the
context of opposition to damming of rivers and generation of hydropower. More
specifically, the target appears to be Prof. G D Agrawal and his alter ego,
Swami Gyan Swaroopanand. It is to be noted that Prof. G D Agrawal was
successful in damming the Bhagirathi River in 2009 by going on a fast. And the
title of Dr. Sharma’s piece is a retort to that effort is only too obvious for
further clarification.
Dr.
Sharma is, of course, well within his rights to voice his opinion and if a newspaper
like The Hindu gives him space, more
power to him. But, it is also well within my rights to comment, in a space that
is at best a quasi-public forum, on this mental outpouring that does not appear
unmotivated.
I
recall, though I cannot give Chapter and Verse, that Dr. Sharma wrote against
movements such as that of Swami Gyan Swaroopanand (I specifically referred to
his putatively non-secular name) just when the leading environmental activist
was in the middle of one of his “environmental” fasts and was admitted to AIIMS.
The tone was pretty similar to the one discerned in the current piece.
Environmental concerns have to give way to economic growth, no questions asked
and no moderations to be accommodated.
The
point that Prof. G D Agrawal (in his current avatar as Swami Gyan Swaroopanand)
essentially makes is that such a victory for economic growth cannot but be
Pyrrhic. And, for the uninitiated, let me tell you that Prof. G D Agrawal is a “doyen of environmental engineers in India” and on whom I had
posted a piece earlier [1]. However, what Dr. Sharma had written, calling for
the “scientist Bhagirath”, implicitly downgrades Prof. Agrawal.
With
that prologue let me start refuting Dr. Sharma’s arguments and positions. He
starts off with the unsubstantiated assertion, “Scientific management of the
glacial rivers and lakes of the Himalayas is the only way [my emphasis] to take care of irrigation and drinking
water needs of millions of people in the Gangetic plains.” There is not even a
whiff of reducing the demand, or at least slowing down the rate of increase in
the demand, here and all throughout the article. It is like, we are going to
consume and consume more and let “Ma Ganga” take care of herself. Dam and damn
the Ganga!
The
article does not even mention sewage treatment plants along the river stretch
and water pollution controls to be mandated on industrial units, restrictions
on sand mining, to save “Ma Ganga”. The implicit argument: Obviously these will
cost money which we do not have, and also industry will incur additional cost,
which, of course, we cannot afford. This, if anything, is a war cry against
environmental activism.
As
an atheist, I am with Dr. Sharma in decrying use of religious idioms in the
campaign to make people bring aware about how the rivers, not just “Ma Ganga”,
are being abused. However, as you may notice from my post at [1], it is not a
raw condemnation as in the following: “There is no traditional [implicit
rejection of traditional methods as unscientific] or spiritual method available
to us to us to meet the 21st century demands for water and power,”
and, “development …cannot be achieved by washing our sins in the holy river.”
Dr.
Sharma has to do this because for him “Ma Ganga” comes under the “nothing
buttery” scenario – “Ma Ganga” is “nothing but” the source of our life comforts
no matter what we do, and that is that. There can be no claims on behalf of “Ma
Ganga”. In addition he repeatedly asserts that science can handle all the
challenges. This is “scientism” of the worst kind – the claim that science must
not be scrutinized and there is no need to look beyond science.
I
will substantiate what I have said above, beyond the opening statement in his
article that I had already commented upon: a. “[W]ith the advancement in science …we can plan and prepare for
their [natural resources] better management.” b. “[O]nly
scientific methods would restore purity of the mighty Ganga.” c. “Scientific knowledge gives us the
confidence for corrections and construction of water storage facilities and
hydropower generation, without damaging environment.” d. “With the scientific and technical experience
gathered from dam constructions … we are in a commanding position to build
strong and safe dams with sustainable development strategies in the Himalayas.”
e. “I appeal to our dharmgurus and acharyas to resist the temptation to arouse
emotions against scientific development
projects.”
My
observations on the above:
On
(a) … the phrase “better management” is meaningless in the absence of what the
writer thinks is “better”. From the tone of the article and the exclusive focus
on economic growth, it is more like “exploitation” in the Biblical sense rather
than “informed stewardship,” which is the current thinking. Quite antediluvian,
I would say.
On
(b) …I have no issues except that there is no mention of untreated sewage
outfalls and untreated industrial effluents, while, “[p]ouring milk and dumping
bodies would not bring purity to any river” is mentioned prominently. That is,
what we do in the name of science and economics is OK but things in the name of
traditional practices and beliefs must be condemned. I am looking for some
balance. Alas, the article offers none.
On
(c) … obviously the author is unaware that the 600 km long reservoir of the
Three Gorges Dam is starting to show its ugly environmental colors.
On
(d) … that is a technocrat speaking, “strong and safe” dams. Where is the ecologist
who is concerned with the relations
that living organisms have
with respect to each other and their natural environment? After all, “Ma
Ganga” is not “nothing but” H2O molecules thrashing about and moving
on.
On
(e) … the activists are more against unbridled exploitation and argue for
stewardship of environment in the cause of sustained benefits from the natural
systems. What the author argues is more akin to killing the goose that laid the
golden egg! True, the phrase “sustainable development” finds its way in once,
but in its tone it is an insulting sop.
What
is given at (e) above comes after a series of irrelevant questions: Why these
gurus have not focused on animal sacrifice and female foeticide? Besides the
possibility of these rhetorical questions being wrong (in the sense these may
have been raised by some guru or the other), it is not incumbent upon the gurus
to raise only those questions that the author deems important!
More
points to criticize:
There
are major political problems associated with a dam much up stream of Aswan
across River Nile. Many dams across the American Northwest are being demolished
in the cause of salmons swimming upstream to spawn. Dams across the River
Mekong, originating in the plateau of eastern Tibet, is highly contentious
among the four riparian countries – Thailand, Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Vietnam
(one may want to add China and Myanmar into this mix!). When the author traverses
the globe – Russia, Canada, the US, Finland, Egypt – to add heft to his
arguments, I have similar rights to go where I wish to go, to try to skin that
fat turkey!
The
author condemns fasting as a means of protest, but only within the context of “saving
rivers”. More aggressive “fasting” against corruption as public protest goes
uncommented. If you would please recognize, I am directing the author’s
questions back to himself: why has the author not commented upon “fasting” in
the context of corruption?
But,
more significantly, it makes it clear that the target is Swami Gyan
Swaroopanand, aka Prof. G D Agrawal.
Let
me also inform Dr. Sharma, on the authority of Prof. E O Wilson of Harvard University
in his book The Future of Life, that
the Catskills Mountains filter water that serve New York City. The free
ecological service rendered by this process is reckoned in billions of dollars.
So, his parting question about that city providing clean water to its citizens
is at least partly answered. And, this will be to the benefit to the riverine
societies.
And,
by the way, the hydroelectric power produced by damming rivers in their remote
reaches will do little to help the local people, and if at all only during the
construction phase, as much of the power will be evacuated to far off places,
only to pollute the river by unregulated sewerage discharge from the population
centers and industrial effluent from industrial clusters. All that talk about people
– “doctors, engineers and teachers” – will be willing to work in rural areas is
just that, talk. We have the example of resistance to mandatory rural service
by doctors to go by.
The
article is also unscientific in a core sense – by denying, based on a reference
to a lone study, that Himalayan glaciers are receding. One last point: his
piece seems to be motivated by the hydropower lobby.
By
situating science outside of the context of its interactions with society in
all its facets and repeatedly stressing that science will do this and that, the
author resorts to the most unscientific arguments of “scientism”. As a
concerned layman I have to register a strong protest. Given my own limitations,
this is about as much as I can do in the service of science and society.
Raghuram
Ekambaram
References
4 comments:
Excellent article, Raghuram. You raise extremely pertinent questions. People like the article writer you've mentioned are only interested in exploiting the natural systems rather than saving them.
Thanks for the endorsement matheikal ... means a lot to me.
RE
Raghu, another well conceived and argued blog by you. There is one thing I despise about river water management is interlinking of river which is a disastorous idea
Thanks Balu ... and that is another item I add to the list of things APJ Abdul Kalam gets a discredit for, from me!
RE
Post a Comment