Tasneem Kabir
Towards the end of February, the government released the J&K Stone Crusher/Hot & Wet Mixing Plants Regulation Rules, 2021, sparking a debate between the pro-development and pro-environment camp when it comes to remote and difficult-terrain bound areas like J&K and the North Eastern parts of India.
The aforementioned notification has gone ahead and recognized stone crusher and mixing plants as completely distinct from the plants one finds in the mineral mining industry. This brings the stone plants into the ambit of “industrial units,” and thus the heavy regulation and licensing that comes with running plants of the mineral mining category stand done away with. This doing away of the requirement/clearance of a license for operating stone crushing plants, the government claims, will usher in with full force “ease of doing business” by creating a “business-friendly environment.”
Environmentalists and conscious citizens have raised out loud their concerns regarding what they see as a disastrous move for the state’s environment. The doing away of the stringent requirements will attract more and more enterprising individuals towards this lucrative industry, resulting in a massive upsurge in pollution levels. Further, it is also being averred that the state of Jammu & Kashmir is already facing an issue of excessive dust lining the streets and walkways, and this move of the government is sure to exacerbate it.
Further, we come to the issue of sustainable development. The Google definition of sustainable development is a mode of economic development that is conducted without the depletion of natural resources. In today’s time and age, sustainable development has international statutory backing: the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), also known as the Global Goals, were adopted by all United Nations Member States in 2015 as a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity by 2030.
In fact, one need not look as far as the UN at all. Here in India, the law is very particular about maintaining ecological harmony. In the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court said (in its obiter dicta) that the right to a clean environment is part of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. References to the environment have also been made in the Directive Principles of State Policy as well as in judicial interpretations to the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by our Constitution. Article 51-A (g) states: “It shall be duty of every citizen of India to protect & improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures.” It is nobody’s case that the legislators are not citizens upon whom said duty does not apply.
Despite all this legal framework in place, the government has chosen to move forth with this modus operandi of roping in entrepreneurial “development.” A point to bear in mind here is that the framework of current Indian environmental laws was created only after, and as a response to, the Bhopal Gas Tragedy in 1984. The Environment (Protection) Act, passed in 1986, was supposed to set up a legislative, regulatory, and administrative mechanism in India to ensure that environmental violations were redressed, and the principle of polluter’s pays and administrative oversight conducted to ensure that industrial accidents such as the Bhopal Gas Tragedy did not occur again. It appears that the government is treading on a similar path vis-a-vis the stone crushing industry in the ecologically sensitive state of Jammu and Kashmir. Policy commentators have time and again flagged this characteristically Indian approach of taking curative measures, never precautionary ones – an approach that allows much of the damage to take place before the nation wakes up to the detriments fully.
Yet, all hope is not lost when it comes to this particular issue. One socio-legal way to work around this deed already done is to ensure that, in lieu of the compulsory licensing, a compulsory afforestation policy is instated. In order to compensate for the dust/air pollutants released into the air for the project, afforestation should be undertaken in proportions that would produce twice as much oxygen and purify twice as much air. Such steps of simultaneous compensation as the entrepreneurs move along the way would ensure both environment-human bonhomie as well as a strong renewal of Corporate Social Responsibility. Apart from the compensatory afforestation, greenbelts around the perimeter of various project appurtenances in the form of selected stretches along reservoir periphery can also be undertaken to manage environmental issues at the root. Plantation of fruit bearing trees, ornamental trees, avenue plantation, and shade trees along with shrubs, climbers etc. and fast growing trees can be done to reap the twin benefits of nature preservation and beautification.
In summary, one can arrive at the conclusion that post the revocation of Article 370, the government of the day is insistent on ushering in what it calls speedy “development,” and it is no state citizen’s desire to cause hindrance to this growth. However, given the terrain and the endemic flora and fauna of intrinsic value that thrive here, as well as the population so accustomed to an air made pure by the mighty Himalayas themselves, one is not wrong in expecting strict safeguards for any industry that might potentially tamper with the delicate balance of the environment that sustains us. Perhaps the government is right in de-clubbing mining and sand-crushing, for they are indeed two very distinct activities. But the government will be all the more right and justified in doing is the imposition of safeguards that ensure us the right to live in a healthy environment granted by the glorious Constitution itself.
