Man And Environment
Smt. Indira Gandhi, late Prime Minister of India, Plenary Session of United Nations Conference on Human Environment, Stockholm 14th June, 1972
It is indeed an honour to address this Conference-in itself a fresh expression of the spirit which created the United Nations-concern for the present and future welfare of humanity. It does not aim merely at securing limited agreements but at establishing peace and harmony in life-among all races and with Nature. This gathering represents man's earnest endeavour to understand his own condition and to prolong his tenancy of this planet. A vast amount of detailed preparatory work has gone into the convening of this Conference guided by the dynamic personality of Mr. Maurice Strong the Secretary General.
I have had the good
fortune of growing up with a sense of kinship with nature in all its
manifestations. Birds, plants, stones were companions and, sleeping under the
star-strewn sky, I became familiar with the names and movements of the
constellations. But my deep interest in this our `only earth' was not for
itself but as a fit home for man.
One cannot be truly
human and civilized unless one looks upon not only all fellow-men but all
creation with the eyes of a friend. Throughout India, edicts carved on rocks and
iron pillars are reminders that 22 centuries ago the Emperor Ashoka defined a
King's duty as not merely to protect citizens and punish wrongdoers but also to
preserve animal life and forest trees. Ashoka was the first and perhaps the only
monarch until very recently, to forbid the killing of a large number of species
of animals for sport or food, foreshadowing some of the concerns of this
Conference. He went further, regretting the carnage of his military conquests
and enjoining upon his successors to find "their only pleasure in the
peace that comes through righteousness".
Along with the rest
of mankind, we in India--in
spite of Ashoka have been guilty of wanton disregard for the sources of our
sustenance. We share you concern at the rapid deterioration of flora and fauna.
Some of our own wildlife has been wiped out, miles of forests with beautiful
old trees, mute witnesses of history, have been destroyed. Even though our
industrial development is in its infancy, and at its most difficult stage, we
are taking various steps to deal with incipient environmental imbalances. The
more so because of our concern for the human being--a species which is also
imperiled. In poverty he is threatened by malnutrition and disease, in weakness
by war, in richness by the pollution brought about by his own prosperity.
It is said that in
country after country, progress should become synonymous with an assault on
nature. We who are a part of nature and dependent on her for very need, speak
constantly about "exploiting" nature. When the highest mountain in
the world was climber in 1953, Jawaharlal Nehru objected to the phrase
"conquest of Everest" which he thought was arrogant. It is surprising
that this lack of consideration and the constant need to prove one's
superiority should be projected onto our treatment of our fellowmen? I remember
Edward Thompson, a British writer and a good friend of India, once
telling Mr. Gandhi that wildlife was fast disappearing. Remarked the
Mahatma--"It is decreasing in the jungles but it is increasing in the
town".
We are gathered here
under the aegis of the United Nations. We are supposed to belong to the same
family sharing common traits and impelled by the same basic desires, yet we
inhabit a divided world.
How can it be otherwise?
There is still no recognition of the equality of man or respect for him as an
individual. In matters of colour and race, religion and custom, society is
governed by prejudice. Tensions arise because of man's aggressiveness and
notions of superiority. The power of the big stick prevails and it is used not
in favour of fair play or beauty, but to chase imaginary windmills--to assume
the right to interfere in the affairs of others, and to arrogate authority for
action which would not normally be allowed. Many of the advanced countries of
today have reached their present affluence by their domination over other races
and countries, the exploitation of their own natural resources. They got a head
start through sheer ruthlessness, undisturbed by feelings of compassion or by
abstract theories of freedom, equality or justice. The stirrings of demands for
the political rights of citizens, and the economic rights of the toiler came
after considerable advance had been made. The riches and the labour of the colonized
countries played no small part in the industrialization and prosperity of the
West. Now, as we struggle to create a better life for our people, it is in
vastly different circumstances, for obviously in today's eagle-eyed
watchfulness we cannot indulge in such practices even for a worthwhile purpose.
We are bound by our own ideals. We owe allegiance to the principles of the
rights of workers and the norms enshrined in the charters of international
organizations. Above all we are answerable to the millions of politically
awakened citizens in our countries. All these make progress costlier and more
complicated.
On the one hand the
rich look askance at our continuing poverty--on the other, they warn us against
their own methods. We do not wish to impoverish the environment any further and
yet we cannot for a moment forget the grim poverty of large numbers of people.
Are not poverty and need the greatest polluters? For instance, unless we are in
a position to provide employment and purchasing power for the daily necessities
of the tribal people and those who live in or around our jungles, we cannot
prevent them from combing the forest for food and livelihood; from poaching and
from despoiling the vegetation. When they themselves feel deprived, how can we
urge the preservation of animals? How can we speak to those who live in
villages and in slums about keeping the oceans, the rivers and the air clean
when their own lives are contaminated at the source? The environment cannot be
improved in conditions of poverty. Nor can poverty be eradicated without the
use of science and technology.
Must there be
conflict between technology and a truly better world or between enlightenment
of the spirit and a higher standard of living? Foreigners sometimes ask what to
us seems a very strange question, whether progress in India would not mean diminishing of
her spirituality or her values. Is spiritual quality so superficial as to be
dependent upon the lack of material comfort? As a country we are not more or
less spiritual than any other but traditionally our people have respected the
spirit of detachment and renunciation. Historically, our great spiritual
discoveries were made during periods of comparative affluence. The doctrines of
detachment from possessions were developed not as rationalization of
deprivation but to prevent comfort and ease from dulling the senses.
Spirituality means the enrichment of the spirit, the strengthening of ones
inner resources and the stretching of one's range of experience. It is the
ability to be still in the midst of activity and vibrantly alive in moments of
calm; to separate the essence from circumstances; to accept joy and sorrow with
some equanimity. Perception and compassion are the marks of true spirituality.
I am reminded of an
incident in one of our tribal areas. The vociferous demand of elder tribal
chiefs that their customs should be left undisturbed found support from noted
anthropologists. In its anxiety that the majority should not submerge the many
ethnic, racial and cultural groups in our country, the Government of India
largely accepted this advice. I was amongst those who entirely approved.
However, a visit to remote part of our north-east frontier brought me in touch
with a different point of view-the protest of the younger elements that while
the rest of India
was on the way to modernization they were being preserved as museum pieces.
Could we not say the same to the affluent nations?
For the last quarter
of a century, we have been engaged in an enterprise unparalled in human history--the
provision of basic needs to one-sixth of mankind within the span of one or two
generations. When we launched on that effort our early planners had more than
the usual gaps to fill. There was not enough data and no helpful books. No
guidance could be sought from the experience of other countries whose
conditions--political, economic, social and technological--were altogether
different. Planning in the sense we were innovating, had never been used in the
context of a mixed economy. But we could not wait. The need to improve the
conditions of our people was pressing. Planning and action, the improvement of
data leading to better planning and better action, all this was a continuous
and overlapping process. Our industrialization tended to follow the paths which
the more advanced countries had traversed earlier. With the advance of the 60's
and particularly during the last five years, we have encountered a bewildering
collection of problems, some due to our shortcomings but many inherent in the
process and in existing attitudes. The feeling is growing that we should
re-order our priorities and move away from the single-dimensional model which
has viewed growth from certain limited angles, which seems to have given a
higher place to things rather than to persons and which has increased our wants
rather than our enjoyment. We should have a more comprehensive approach to
life, centred on man not as a statistic but an individual with many sides to
his personality. The solution of these problems cannot be isolated phenomena of
marginal importance but must be an integral part of the unfolding of the very
process of development.
The extreme forms in
which questions of population or environmental pollution are posed, obscure the
total view of political, economic and social situations. The Government of
India is one of the few which has an officially sponsored programme of family
planning and this is making some progress. We believe that planned families
will make for a healthier and more conscious population. But we know also that
no programme of population control can be effective without education and
without a visible rise in the standard of living. Our own programmes have
succeeded in the urban or semi-urban areas. To the very poor, every child is an
earner and a helper. We ar experimenting with new approaches and the family
planning programme is being combined with those of maternity and child welfare,
nutrition and development in general.
It is an
over--simplification to blame all the world's problems on increasing
population. Countries with but a small fraction of the world population consume
the bulk of the world's production of minerals, fossil fuels and so on. Thus we
see that when it comes to the depletion of natural resources and environmental
pollution, the increase of one inhabitant in an affluent country, at his level
of living, is equivalent to an increase of many Asian, Africans or Latin
Americans at their current material levels of living.
The inherent
conflict is not between conservation and development, but between environment
and reckless exploitation of man and earth in the name of efficiency.
Historians tell us that the modern age began with the will to freedom of the
individual. And the individual came to believe that he had rights with no corresponding
obligations. The man who got ahead was the one who commanded admiration. No
questions were asked as to the methods employed or the price which others had
to pay. The industrial civilization has promoted the concept of the efficient
man, he whose entire energies are concentrated on producing more in a given
unit of time and from a given unit of manpower. Groups or individuals who are
less competitive and according to this test, less efficient are regarded as
lesser breeds--for example the older civilizations, the black and brown
peoples, women and certain professions. Obsolescence is built into production,
and efficiency is based on the creation of goods which are not really needed
and which cannot be disposed of when discarded. What price such efficiency now,
and is not recklessness a more appropriate term for such a behaviour?
All the `isms' of
the modern age--even those which in theory disown the private profit
principle--assume that man's cardinal interest is acquisition. The profit
motive, individual or collectives, seems to overshadow all else. This
overriding concern with self and Today is the basic cause of the ecological
crisis.
Pollution is not a
technical problem. The fault lies not in science and technology as such but in
the sense of values of the contemporary world which ignores the rights of
others and is oblivious of the longer perspective.
There are grave
misgivings that the discussion on ecology may be designed to distract attention
from the problems of war and poverty. We have to prove to the disinherited
majority of the world that ecology and conservation will not work against their
interest but will bring an improvement in their lives. To withhold technology
from them would deprive them of vast resources of energy and knowledge. This is
no longer feasible not will it be acceptable.
The environmental
problems of developing countries are not the side effects of excessive
industrialization but reflect the inadequacy of development. The rich countries
may look upon development as the cause of environmental destruction, but to us
it is one of the primary means of improving the environment for living, or
providing food, water, sanitation and shelter; of making the deserts green and
the mountains habitable. The research and perseverance of dedicated people have
given us an insight which is likely to play an important part in the shaping of
our future plans. We see that however much man hankers after material goods,
they can never give him full satisfaction. Thus the higher standard of living
must be achieved without alienating people from their heritage and without
despoiling nature of its beauty, freshness and purity so essential to our
lives.
The most urgent and
basic question is that of peace. Nothing is so pointless as modern warfare.
Nothing destroys so instantly, so completely as the diabolic weapons which not
only kill but maim and deform the living and the yet to be born; which poison
the land, leaving long trails of ugliness, barrenness and hopeless desolation.
What ecological projects can survive a war? The Prime Minister of Sweden, Mr.
Olof Palme, has already drawn the attention of the Conference to this in
powerful words.
It is clear that the
environmental crisis which is confronting the world, will profoundly alter the
future destiny or our planet. No one among us, whatever our status, strength or
circumstance can remain unaffected. The process of change challenges present
international policies. Will the growing awareness of "one earth" and
"one environment' guide us to the concept of "one humanity"?
Will there be a more equitable sharing of environmental costs and greater
international interest in the accelerated progress of the less developed world?
Or, will it remain confined to a narrow concern, based on exclusive self-sufficiency?
The first essays in
narrowing economic and technological disparities have not succeeded because the
policies of aid were made to subserve the equations of power. We hope that the
renewed emphasis on self-reliance, brought a about by the change in the climate
for aid, will also promote search for new criteria of human satisfaction. In
the meantime, the ecological crises should not add to the burdens of the weaker
nations by introducing new considerations in the political and trade policies
of rich nations. It would be ironic if the fight against pollution were to be
converted into another business, out of which a few companies, corporations, or
nations would make profits at the cost of the many. Here is a branch of
experimentation and discovery in which scientist of all nations should take
interest. They should ensure that their findings are available to all nations,
unrestricted by patents. I am glad that the Conference has given thought on
this aspect of the problem.
Life is one and the
world is one, and all these questions are inter-linked. The population
explosion; poverty; ignorance and disease, the pollution of our surroundings,
the stockpiling of nuclear weapons and biological and chemical agents of
destruction are all parts of a vicious circle. Each is important and urgent but
dealing with them one by one would be wasted effort.
It serves little
purpose to dwell on the past or to apportion blame, no one of us is blameless.
If some are able to dominate over others, it is at least partially due to the
weakness, the lack of unity and the temptation of gaining some advantage on the
part of those who submit. If the prosperous have been exploiting the needy, can
we honestly claim that in our own societies people do not take advantage of the
weaker sections? We must re-evaluate the fundamentals on which our respective
civic societies are based and the ideals by which they are sustained. If there
is to be a change of heart, a change of direction and methods of functioning,
it is not an organization or a country-no matter how well intentioned--which
can achieve it. While each country must deal with that aspect of the problem
which is most relevant to it, it is obvious that all countries must unite in an
overall endeavour. There is no alternative to a cooperative approach on a
global scale to the entire spectrum of our problems.
I have referred to
some problems which seem to me to be the underlying causes of the present
crises in our civilization. This is not in the expectation that this Conference
can achieve miracles or solve all the world's difficulties, but in the hope
that the opinions of each national will be kept in focus, that these problems
will be viewed in perspective and each project devised as part of the whole.
On a previous
occasion I have spoken of the unfinished revolution in our countries I am now
convinced that this can be taken to its culmination when it is accompanied by a
revolution in social thinking. In 1968 at the 14th General Conference of UNESCO
the Indian delegation, along with others, proposed a new and major programme
entitled "a design for living". This is essential to grasp the full
implications of technical advance and its impact on different sections and
groups. We do not want to put the clock back or resign ourselves to a
simplistic natural state. We want new directions in the wiser use of the
knowledge and tools with which science has equipped us. And this cannot be just
one upsurge but a continuous search into cause and effect and an unending
effort to match technology with higher levels of thinking. We must concern
ourselves not only with the kind of world we want but also with what kind of
man should inhabit it. Surely we do not desire a society divided into those who
condition and those who are conditioned. We want thinking people capable of
spontaneous self-directed activity, people who are interested and interesting,
and who are imbued with compassion and concern for others.
It will not be easy
for large societies to change their style of living. They cannot be coerced to
do so, nor can governmental action suffice. People can be motivated and urged
to participate in better alternatives.
It has been my
experience that people who are at cross purposes with nature are cynical about
mankind and ill-at-ease with themselves. Modern man must re-establish an
unbroken link with nature and with life. He must again learn to invoke the
energy of growing things and to recognize, as did the ancients in India centuries
ago, that one can take from the Earth and the atmosphere only so much as one
puts back into them. In their hymn to Earth, the sages of the Atharva Veda
chanted-I quote, "What of thee I dig out, let that quickly grow
over, Let me not hit thy vitals, or thy heart".
So can man himself
be vital and of good heart and conscious of his responsibility.
