| Who is Debi Goenka and why is he
so angry?
Debi Goenka is an Indian who cares for the environment as
represented by the air, land and water around us. He is angry
because people at large are allowing a micro-miniscule coterie
of so-called 'decision makers' to destroy the natural heritage
of India. He is even more angry because millions of people
who are most affected by such destruction, which results in
poisoned drinking water, floods, droughts and disease, cannot
find the wherewithal to fight for their right to a clean environment.
And why is a Marwari gentleman from Rajasthan involved
in this 'Save the World' exercise? Aren't the 'Goenkas' better
known for their money-making skills?
I was born in Bombay. My father worked in a mill in Parel.
The fact that our family originates in Rajasthan means nothing.
But if some kind of tenuous connection must be drawn, then
traditionally, since resources are scarce in Rajasthan, there
is an in-built trait to conserve resources. Frankly, in the
ultimate analysis, the only way the world can be saved is
if all of us voluntarily agree to cut down on the demands
we make on the environment. This obsession with consuming
more as a way to convince ourselves that we are happy is fraught
with personal and societal disaster.
Why wildlife and why BEAG?
The sense of freedom and joy that one experiences in the wilderness
is difficult to put into words. You feel insignificant and
filled with peace and connected to the whole of creation.
It is impossible not to be moved when confronted by natural
systems untouched by humans. It really hurts when a politician
or industrialist destroys this to make yet more money. When
I go to a forest or to pristine hill country I can almost
feel my mental batteries being recharged. Saving even one
square kilometre, or even one tree from destruction here is
worth every conceivable effort.
I used to work for the World Wildlife Fund-India. But in
time I discovered that environmental protection needed more
action and less talk. So I joined the Bombay Environment Action
Group (BEAG) in 1983. I had been watching how Shyam Chainani
would take on the most powerful forces without fear or favour
and felt that his was the brand of environmental defence most
suited to my temperament and purpose. When he offered me a
job with BEAG, I readily accepted. I have been here since
and have never regretted a day of it. This is an action group
in the best sense of the word. We do not seek controversy,
but are not afraid of controversial issues.
What can ordinary people do to help the environmental
movement?
To begin with they can wake up to the realisation that they
own the mangroves, beaches, rivers, lakes, forests and streams
that unscrupulous people are stealing. It would help if they
discovered that every product they consume or acquire, including
this copy of Sanctuary magazine, comes from their environment.
These resources are meant for everyone to utilise - sustainably.
Once this environmental consciousness is created and so-called
ordinary people become active, only God will be able to come
to the help of the politicians and the contractors of this
world!
Why do human rights groups accuse you of not caring for
the welfare of adivasis?
This is perhaps because of the stand taken by me in some cases.
When the Maharashtra Government tried to regularise encroachments
on forest lands, we took the stand that the Forest Conservation
Act must not be contravened. If forest land was to be allotted,
an equivalent area of (very tough to come by) non-forest land
would have to be made over to the forest department. Regularising
encroachments is a never ending vortex. It gives politicians
a license to loot forests. With each election the flood gates
are opened to still more forest loss. This was interpreted
as being anti-tribal by some groups, which either considered
forests as expendable, or failed to recognise their own role
in promoting the politician-timber-mafia nexus. I wish people
would do their homework before publicly opposing something
they don't understand. Our Borivli petition was quickly branded
anti-tribal by some, even though our fight was squarely against
slum lords and politicians who had exploited ordinary citizens.
Less than one in a hundred people affected were tribals and
that too largely by birth, not tradition or custom.
Are people not more important than wildlife?
Each species tends to be more loyal to its own. Homo sapiens
is the most powerful animal on earth. But we are just one
organism among millions, and are dependent on the existence
of the uncounted species of plants and animals we are annihilating.
Unfortunately, we tend to forget this fact whenever it suits
us.
At another level, as a stronger species, are we not charged
with a correspondingly greater responsibility to look after
'lesser' life forms on the planet? Society teaches us to protect
the (alleged) weaker sex, the elderly and the young. Why can't
this attitude of the stronger looking after the weaker extend
to wildlife?
Should we ask Salman Khan that!
Salman Khan needs to be asked more than that. Contrary to
his macho image, shooting half-tame protected species like
blackbuck and chinkara is pure cowardice. Leave alone conservationists,
shikaris too are scathing about spotlight-wielding, shooting-from-the-jeep
rich kids who respect neither tradition nor law.
What was the turning point in your life that pushed you
into defending the environment?
I don't think that there was a 'point'. It was more a series
of events, or destiny perhaps. Though I was always interested
in wildlife, I had no real exposure to the natural world as
represented by mega-fauna such as the tiger, elephant or lion,
until I joined the WWF-India when I was studying at Ruia College
in Bombay. We had an active hiking club and twice a month
during the monsoons, we would vanish into some Western Ghats'
paradise or the other. It was here that nature pervaded my
soul, so to speak. The vision of the monsoon falling on thick
green forests has to be experienced to understand its magic
and power. These hikes underscored for me the tremendous ecological
transformation taking place between urban Bombay and rural
Maharashtra. To put it mildly, this transition was stark and
shattering. In a short capsule, you are shown how urban sprawl
and industrialisation destroys India. As a birdwatcher, I
must also confess to a touch of selfishness that all wildlifers
probably share. I want to continue to enjoy my birdwatching!
To do this, bird habitats have to be saved. I was able to
make this decision (to fight to save nature as a way of life)
earlier than most. I was probably helped by my lack of desire
to accumulate wealth. Conventional money-oriented career options
never occurred to me.
What pressures do you or BEAG face from the powerful people
you fight?
One of BEAG's key purposes is to demonstrate that it is possible
to stand up to the high and mighty and win. If there is determination
and professionalism all of us can get similar results. When
we succeeded in stopping the industrialisation of the Murud
Janjira area, for instance, a lot of people were upset. And
when we stopped the denotification of 3,500 sq. km. of zudpi
(scrub) jungles in Maharashtra's Vidarbha area still more
powerful people were upset. But that did not worry us. We
managed to save some very valuable public assets for posterity
and will continue to do so. Most 'powerful people' that we
wind up opposing are ones who have made money very quickly.
This includes gangsters, politicians and businessmen alike.
Where do gangsters come into the picture?
They come in when big money is to be made. Years ago we took
up the issue of illegal buildings in Bombay, in what was known
as the 'FSI Fraud'. To obtain a higher floor space index,
that is to say a larger built-up area for buildings, government
records were tampered with. Though Collectors had pointed
this out to the State Government, no action was taken for
well-known reasons. BEAG challenged the FSI fraud cases in
court and we succeeded in getting some demolition orders.
Then the gangsters stepped in. Yusuf Patel threatened our
lives. Businessmen use different tactics. When they discover
that they cannot buy us, they try to run vilification campaigns
in yellow rags that they influence with their money.
Be sure that people we oppose try to use every method in
their power to intimidate us. But we refuse to yield. And
they eventually back down. You need spine to defend the environment.
You also need to be intellectually and financially independent.
The only way a non-government organisation can achieve this
kind of security is by building up a corpus - enough money
to allow it to continue to work, irrespective of opposition.
Strengthening credible groups financially is one way 'ordinary'
people can participate in extraordinary battles.
The Bombay High Court supported BEAG on the forest land
encroachments case in Borivli, Mumbai. Are courts now our
best means of defending wild India?
The Borivli judgement was a signal victory. It made the impossible
possible by ordering the removal of a quarter of a million
encroachers. This makes it theoretically possible to extend
this to other national parks and sanctuaries. Without the
Borivli judgement, a thriving business would have continued
unopposed between slum lords in league with local politicians.
The slum lords would grab forest land and the politicians
would regularise such encroachments. In the process, the national
park at Borivli, which is vital to the water security of Mumbai,
would have been lost. Today the Court is one of the most effective
means of defending our environment, but this is mainly because
most wings of government and their decision makers are more
interested in destroying nature for their short-term gains.
Wasn't the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF)
created to prevent this from happening? Does the MoEF serve
any purpose?
Of course it serves a function. It is the perfect archive
for environment-destroying proposals. If you want a catalogue
of the destruction of India's environment, you need look no
further than the MoEF, which cold-bloodedly clears project
after destructive project. It is extremely unfortunate that
even in the MoEF, there are only a handful of people who think
their job is to protect the environment. The majority are
merely facilitators for the destruction of India.
Talking about destroying India's environment, what is
your view on the World Bank? It claims to want to clean up
the planet with its 'aid'?
I do not think the World Bank wants to or can clean up the
planet. We tend to forget that the Bank is not an environmental
group - it is what its name suggests, a Bank with a mandate
to make money. No money is really 'free'. The aid comes with
long strings attached. And World Bank projects professing
to clean up the planet are actually intended to exploit it
even more.
Which brings us to a problem in your own backyard. Hafeez
Contractor, the Mumbai-based architect, wants to reclaim Mumbai's
coastline to create a 'city forest' and wants the Coastal
Regulation Zone (CRZ) Rules scrapped. He says he is an environmentalist.
If I remember right Hafeez Contractor called all environmentalists
'jokers'. By his own definition then, he is a bad joke and
so is his coastline reclamation project. His idea of reclaiming
land to create a green belt is a recipe for environmental
disaster. Mumbai's coastline is not a playground for the rich
and famous. It is a food and sustenance source for more than
one lakh Koli fisherfolk. Destroying the ecology of the coast
to create manicured gardens seriously harms the environment.
Besides, who are these people fooling anyway? If Contractor's
project, God-forbid, sees the light of day, it will be financed
by builders not philanthropists. 'Contractors', not the citizens
of Mumbai, will be the beneficiaries of altered CRZ Rules.
There are so many areas in Mumbai that badly need planting
and cleaning. If Contractor really wants to help he can start
here without causing ecological havoc, at a fraction of the
cost of his silly project. But the moot point is, does he
want to save or destroy Mumbai's environment?
You are fighting to save Mahabaleshwar, Panchgani and
several other hill stations in India. What is the fate of
hill stations in India?
In a word, pathetic. But it is still not too late to save
such valuable spaces that mean so much not only to the environment,
but even the spirit of human societies. Fortunately, nature
has a tremendous self-generating capacity and can recover
from the devastation and wounds we inflict. But such ecological
assets must be given the time and space to heal themselves.
We must provide an opportunity for Mother Nature to heal herself.
Where did India go wrong?
We blindly copied the western model of 'development' and thereby
treated our most valuable resource - our people - as our largest
'problem'.
Is the 'Environment vs. Development' debate destined to
unfold ad infinitum, or is there some resolution in sight?
It's a problem of definition. If development does not integrate
hard environmental concerns, how can it be called development
at all? A more accurate word would be 'devil-opment'. But
seriously, the debate will continue to unfold till the long-suffering
public elects the right kind of people to represent them.
I, for one, long for a resolution so that I can take more
time off to visit and savour some of the natural havens people
like us are trying to save.
Do you want to be a part of Debi Goenka's battle to save
India's environment?
You could do so by supporting the Bombay Environment Action
Group. Mention whether you wish to offer your time, or resources,
or both. The BEAG is a registered charitable trust. Donations
are tax-exempt.
Bombay Environment Action Group,
Kalbadevi Municipal School, Second floor, Room No. 54,
Mumbai 400 002.
E-mail: debi.beag@SoftHome.net
Fax: 5701459. |
