The man-made disaster in Joshimath reveals an unethical approach to development. Factors like location, geological faults, and construction projects contributed to the disaster. Ethical analysis involves environmental and development ethics, prioritising the environment and local well-being. Ignoring recommendations for commercial interests undermines ethical development, neglecting the needs of the locals
Arguably, or it goes without any argument, the man-made disaster at Joshimath reflects on India’s development journey sans ethics. Following the massive cracks identified in the buildings in Joshimath town and the subsequent evacuation of people from the area, it has once again raised the discussion around the dire need for ethical (also environmentally friendly) development activities.
The natural and anthropogenic reasons for the disaster highlight several factors, including the location of Joshimath in a seismic zone, reactivation of geographical fault, landslides caused by the undercuts by Alkananda and Dhauliganga, and the construction of large-scale development projects such as NTPC’s 520 MW Tapovan-Vishnugad Hydroelectric power project and Char Dham project-road expansion activities.
Warning about such a disaster, a previous study on Joshimath, the Mahes Chand Mishra committee-1976, observed that “Joshimath is a deposit of sand and stone — it is not the main rock — hence it was not suitable for establishing a township”.
Both the natural and anthropogenic reasons for the Joshimath disaster merit further (re)thinking and require action on development activities so that a balance can be struck between the environment, native people, and larger developmental interests. Accordingly, such man-made disasters warrant critical analysis from an ethical perspective. Ethical analysis in this context includes two dimensions (which should not be seen as binaries): environmental ethics and development ethics.
Considering humans as part of the environment, environmental ethics engages with man’s moral relationship with the environment and its non-human constituents, including the moral status of the environment. The natural reasons show that the environment of the Joshimath area is already naturally fragile and thus needs special attention and care. Consequently, any deviation from taking special care gives rise to environmental ethical concerns, questioning humans’ responsibility towards protecting and sustaining the environment.
Arguably, the successive governments’ apathy and negligence of the Mishra committee report-1976 have adverse effects on the Himalayan environment, including the natives of the regions. Thus, the charges on the successive governments and the agents of development being unethical are not only on the eco-centric ground — which attributes moral standing to the environment and claims its protection for the environment itself — but also on the anthropocentric ground — which claims that the environment needs to be protected merely for the well-being of humans.
Furthermore, when talking about development ethics, it deals with the moral justification that is grounded in any developmental policy or project(s). It mainly has two perspectives: a cost-benefit utilitarian account and an anti-cost-benefit holistic account.
According to the former, development is justified since it maximises benefits over costs. This justification underpins the traditional Western notion of development that primarily considers economic development. Hence, undertaking developmental actions, including large-scale infrastructure projects, is justified since all these actions can improve the economic standard of the locals as well as the State.
However, considering that humans are endowed with multiple needs and flairs (social, political, economic, and cultural, to broadly cite), “development ethics should not be divorced from the hope, expectations, and aspirations of ordinary people.”
In the context of developmental actions, concerning morality, fundamental questions arise: development for whom, by whom, and, most importantly, at the cost of what? Accordingly, development ought to be inclusive of critical evaluation and legitimate justification to strengthen itself. For example, there is a need to critically reflect on how far economic values and interests need to be emphasised and whether environmental concerns should be compromised with economic values, among others.
In this context, legitimate justification provides a descriptive ground based on the approachable norms to demonstrate why economic values cannot be considered absolute and thus makes a case for the rationale of considering other values and interests to an equal extent. To put it in a broader perspective, such an argument entails that development is meant for a certain end — human well-being.
Thus, before implementing any development projects, it is essential to understand the term “development” and focus on the basic requirements, including the desires, expectations, and aspirations of people, as well as the cultural, social, and environmental values of the area where the project aims to be implemented. The harmony between the objective of a development activity and the requirements of the local people proves authentic praiseworthy development and can prevent undesirable anti-development legacies and disasters.
However, such a desirable and inclusive model of development is only possible through a deliberative democratic procedure of decision-making that includes the freedom of the local people and enables their participation in the developmental policy-making process.
On the contrary, a justificatory reason for ignoring the Mishra Committee seems to be that the suggestions made in this report do not promote the commercial interests of the state and the state-supported private actors. Consequently, immense construction work resumed in the name of development in this fragile area.
But the question remains unanswered: should we call it ethical, all-inclusive, and praiseworthy development in which the economic benefit of the state and some private individuals overshadow the suffering and vulnerabilities of the local people? As Danis Goulet says, “societies are more human or more developed, not when men and women ‘have more’ but when they are enabled ‘to be more’.” Unfortunately, the development activities carried out, in general and in and around environmentally fragile areas, are neither inclusive towards critical evaluation nor capable of providing legitimate justifications and thus fail to withstand ethical and moral scrutiny.
(The writer is a former ethical Consultant at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru.)