In traditional societies, conservation processes were perpetuated by various social mores and prohibitive measures incurred by both religious sanctions and the law of the land. The glare of modern science and technology has robbed us of that simple mode by its victory over nature in various ways. Undoubtedly modern life is indebted to science and especially modern technology in various fields especially medicine, medical and information technologies for making it much easier and care-free. But the big question is: At what price?

That brings us to a further issue namely, that of development vis-a-vis conservation. Indeed, the tremendous speed at which modern technology is developing cannot be compared with any progress made in the past. No doubt we have gained a lot from its progress. But after the initial euphoria, we have now realised that the cost is much too dear. People are drawing lessons from climate changes all over our planet ~ too many earthquakes, floods, cyclones, recent dust storms in China and disappearance of various flora and fauna or at best, changes in their features are all indicators of excessive interference with the ways of nature. Frequent floods, soil erosion, global warming and change in weather patterns, erratic rainfall, even eruption of volcanoes are some of the recent indicators of serious natural calamities. In this overall phenomenon, the human being is the main actor with modern technological activities geared to fulfil the needs of modern life.

In an effort to contain the denudation of nature, environmental laws are being enacted. As with many other issues, the poorer countries are victimised more than the rich ‘developed’ countries although the latter are more responsible for exploitation of nature for development projects. Traditional societies use nature for minimum sustenance, while developed countries exploit it for massive development schemes. The annual meeting on pollution control has become an expensive fiasco.

As an old civilization, we can attempt a historical evaluation. Both Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore respected nature and tried to restrict its use to the minimum in accord with our ancient ethos. The protection of the environment is part of the dharma (duty) of the king. Ashoka, Akbar and Shivaji planted trees, dug water-bodies and groves. The rights and duties of the people were mentioned in Dharmashastra and Arthashastra. For example, the destruction of plants and trees is generally prohibited, but for certain diseases and death, certain varieties of fruit, leaves or branches can be plucked. Even animal sacrifice is sometimes justified for the greater cause of nutrition and the need to maintain a balance in the natural world.

The Arthasastra also deals with protection of the people from natural calamities. But there can be a conflict of interest. For example, in relation to mining, the duty of the king to acquire wealth for his kingdom can clash with his duty to protect the earth. For good governance, detailed prescriptions and proscriptions are found in the texts. Subsequently, however, the political and social power structure became far more complicated, and is today extremely complex.

Given the long history of Indian civilization, many scholars believe that the survival rate of natural species is reasonable compared to many other civilizations where several natural species of animals were extinct after the invasion by foreign powers. Even the survival rate of people is much higher in India than in many Western countries where the natives were totally exterminated or at best reduced to a marginalized minority by the colonial powers. In many countries, excessive cultivation or misuse of land turned it into a desert and in some cases, changed the course of rivers.

Various rituals, indigenous rites and beliefs have historically helped conservation in a natural way. Many of these beliefs are not scientifically backed or proved, but nevertheless they have helped in saving the earth from too much exploitation. At another remove, ‘scientifically’ backed ideas overused the natural capacity of the earth, resulting in barrenness. Scholars, who work on the problem of sustainability and development, have observed that many rites or traditions that include the non-human part of nature have helped conservation and sustenance as well. For example, the tradition of not plucking fruits and flowers at night when the trees are supposed to ‘sleep’ or not to milk a cow for some months after a calf is born, or not to plough land for a certain period after a crop. Scientific farming has denuded the tradition of natural sustenance.

More importantly, modern technology/science does not consider its method as one possible option. It is, on the contrary, touted as the best method. The inclusion of “non-human nature” into our daily lives is considered as a dated concept and, therefore, ‘un-scientific’. My western friends are surprised when I tell them that the Sun and the Moon are witnesses in our traditional wedding ritual. Both Gandhi and Rabindranath respected this traditional ~ more of a symbiotic ~ relationship between man and nature, including other living species. Tagore revived several traditional festivals like Halakarshan (the beginning of tilling the agricultural land), Varsha Mangaland Basanta Utsav etc., to commemorate the onset of different seasons and connect people with nature.

Traditions and various rituals are non-modern methods of conservation and sustenance, but can nevertheless address modern requirements.

Since 1972, a raft of environmental laws have been enacted, the violation of which is punishable. But the precautions are not working. The natural calamities are rooted in the constant interference with the ways of nature. The victims are invariably the poorer and less powerful people. Ironically, it is this segment that lives closer to nature, with minimal exploitation. Rights have of late been granted to forest dwellers who have for generations used its resources for sustenance.

The Constitution’s Directive Principles of State Policy, in particular the 42nd amendment, have tried to clarify the duty of the State towards its citizens as well as environment. It also ensures that the environment is protected and improved. Since the days of Arthasastra, the law provides that protection of nature can improve the quality of life. But in this day and age, enforcement of the law can ensure development projects at the cost of the majority who do not enjoy its benefits and can suffer dislocation of their lives. Attempts are being made to demonstrate that development projects are attractive. But considering the poverty of a vast swathe of the populace, dislocation and loss of traditional mores cannot be compensated by trickle-down effects.

Indeed, we cannot go back to traditional methods, but can still reduce and modify our needs to help conservation. Nature-friendly technology cannot alone resolve the problem. On Earth Day, power consumption is stopped for one hour to save precious fossil-fuel. This economy in terms of usage was not unknown to us. In ancient India, many festivals were organised on the night of the full-moon. Subsequently, many places in the country volunteered to be without electricity to save power as well as to enjoy the light of the full-moon. Minimizing the use of motorized vehicles or paper (to save trees) are some other measures. Similar moves can be initiated to stop the mindless desecration of nature (which may backfire on us any day) in the name of development. Ironically, such perceived development benefits a fraction of the populace who live far away from nature and is still inaccessible to those nearest to it.

The writer is former Professor of Philosophy, University of Calcutta