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 the 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 ar 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
This speech can be found here.
