Category: Op-ed

स्मृति शेष: भारत को पर्यावरणीय विवेक देने वाले वैज्ञानिक थे माधव गाडगिल

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan

संस्थागत निर्माण उनके विरासत का एक और महत्वपूर्ण पहलू था। भारतीय विज्ञान संस्थान में सेंटर फॉर इकोलॉजिकल साइंसेज की स्थापना में उन्होंने अहम भूमिका निभाई।

भारत के लंबे ऐतिहासिक प्रवाह में बहुत कम ऐसे वैज्ञानिक हुए हैं जिन्होंने जनमानस पर गहरी छाप छोड़ी हो। माधव गाडगिल उनमें से एक थे। 2010 के दशक में, उनके नेतृत्व में तैयार की गई वेस्टर्न घाट्स इकोलॉजी एक्सपर्ट पैनल (WGEEP) की रिपोर्ट जिसे गाडगिल रिपोर्ट के नाम से जाना जाता है, ने देश भर में तीखी बहस छेड़ दी। यह रिपोर्ट अखबारों के पहले पन्नों से लेकर प्राइम टाइम टीवी चर्चाओं, जनसभाओं और राजनीतिक मंचों तक चर्चा का विषय बनी। किसी वैज्ञानिक आकलन को लेकर शायद ही पहले कभी इतना तीव्र विरोध हुआ हो, और उसी तीव्रता से गाडगिल की बौद्धिक कठोरता और स्पष्टवादिता का समर्थन भी किया गया हो।

डॉ. गाडगिल से मेरी व्यक्तिगत मुलाकातें सीमित रहीं—एक आमने-सामने की भेंट और एक संक्षिप्त फोन बातचीत। इसके बावजूद, मुझे हमेशा ऐसा लगा कि मैं उन्हें अच्छी तरह जानता हूं। इसका कारण वे विचार थे, जो उनके लेखन में झलकते थे, और वे संस्थान थे, जिन्हें उन्होंने गढ़ा और पोषित किया। मेरे आसपास के कई पर्यावरणवादियों में वे एक अत्यंत प्रभावशाली व्यक्तित्व के रूप में उपस्थित थे। वेस्टर्न घाट्स रिपोर्ट के प्रकाशन के कुछ समय बाद, सेंटर फॉर साइंस एंड एनवायरनमेंट (CSE) में उनसे मेरी मुलाकात हुई। हमने रिपोर्ट के कुछ पहलुओं की आलोचना की थी, और उसी पर चर्चा करने के लिए वे आए थे। उस बातचीत में मुझे न केवल उनकी तीक्ष्ण बुद्धि का अनुभव हुआ, बल्कि यह भी स्पष्ट हुआ कि यह विषय उनके लिए कितना व्यक्तिगत था। वेस्टर्न घाट्स उनके लिए मात्र एक भौगोलिक क्षेत्र नहीं था; वह एक जीवित पारिस्थितिक इकाई थी, जिसके क्षरण को रोकना वे अपनी नैतिक जिम्मेदारी मानते थे।

मेरी दूसरी बातचीत 2021 में हुई दस मिनट से भी कम समय का एक फोन कॉल। मैं भारत के वनों के लिए एक इकोलॉजिकल इंडेक्स विकसित करने पर काम कर रहा था, जिसमें जंगलों के स्वास्थ्य का आकलन केवल वृक्षावरण (कैनोपी कवर) के आधार पर नहीं, बल्कि जैव विविधता, पारिस्थितिक कार्यों और स्थानीय समुदायों की आजीविका पर निर्भरता जैसे मानकों पर किया जाना था। डॉ. गाडगिल न केवल एक अग्रणी पर्यावरण वैज्ञानिक थे, बल्कि गणितज्ञ भी थे, इसलिए मैं चाहता था कि वे इस पद्धति की समीक्षा करें। उन्होंने ध्यान से सुना, विचार में रुचि दिखाई, और फिर अत्यंत विनम्रता से मना कर दिया। क्योंकि वे उस समय अपनी आत्मकथा लिखने में पूरी तरह व्यस्त थे। उस संक्षिप्त संवाद से भी उनकी बौद्धिक उदारता और जिज्ञासा स्पष्ट झलकती थी। हालांकि, गाडगिल की विरासत व्यक्तिगत स्मृतियों से कहीं आगे जाती है; वह उनके कार्यों में स्थायी रूप से अंकित है।

मेरे सहित अनेक लोगों की पर्यावरणीय चेतना उनके लेखन के माध्यम से विकसित हुई। रामचंद्र गुहा के साथ सह-लेखन की गई पुस्तकें This Fissured Land और Ecology and Equity भारत के पर्यावरणीय इतिहास को समझने के लिए आधारभूत ग्रंथ मानी जाती हैं। इन पुस्तकों ने ऐसी अवधारणाएं सामने रखीं जो एक साथ क्रांतिकारी भी थीं और सहज भी। प्राकृतिक संसाधनों का टिकाऊ उपयोग, जन-आधारित संरक्षण, और पर्यावरणीय विस्थापितों की अवधारणा आज भी ये विचार वैश्विक पर्यावरणीय विमर्श को प्रभावित कर रहे हैं। इन पुस्तकों ने अहिंसा, शाकाहार और मिश्रित खेती जैसी भारतीय परंपराओं को पर्यावरणीय दृष्टि से समझने का दृष्टिकोण दिया। इस लेखन ने मेरे भीतर यह विश्वास गहराया कि यदि संरक्षण लोगों से कटकर किया जाए, तो वह न नैतिक होता है और न ही प्रभावी।

सार्वजनिक नीति में उनका योगदान भी उतना ही महत्त्वपूर्ण रहा। जैव विविधता अधिनियम और WGEEP रिपोर्ट इसके प्रमुख उदाहरण हैं। स्थानीय समुदायों को जैविक संसाधनों के प्रबंधन और लाभ का अधिकार देने के उद्देश्य से बनाया गया जैव विविधता अधिनियम आज भी कमजोर क्रियान्वयन के कारण सीमित प्रभाव ही डाल पा रहा है। वहीं, WGEEP रिपोर्ट—जो पूरे वेस्टर्न घाट्स को पर्यावरण-संवेदनशील क्षेत्र घोषित करने और एक नए राष्ट्रीय प्राधिकरण पर आधारित शासन संरचना की सिफारिश करती थी—को ‘अव्यवहारिक’ कहकर किनारे कर दिया गया। वेस्टर्न घाट्स रिपोर्ट पर मेरी मुख्य आलोचना उसकी कमांड-एंड-कंट्रोल शैली की शासन व्यवस्था को लेकर थी, जिसमें आर्थिक और बाजार-आधारित उपकरणों की कमी थी। पर्यावरण प्रबंधन में बाजार तंत्र पर अविश्वास डॉ. गाडगिल के दृष्टिकोण का हिस्सा था, और इसलिए उनके प्रस्तावों में ये तत्व अनुपस्थित रहे। साथ ही, समुदाय-आधारित प्रबंधन पर उनका भरोसा आज एक ऐसे यथार्थ से टकराता है, जहां समुदाय स्वयं अधिक औद्योगिक और उपभोगवादी होते जा रहे हैं। फिर भी, ये तनाव उसी व्यापक और आवश्यक बहस का हिस्सा हैं, जिसका सामना करने के लिए डॉ. गाडगिल ने भारत को विवश किया।

संस्थागत निर्माण उनके विरासत का एक और महत्वपूर्ण पहलू था। भारतीय विज्ञान संस्थान (IISc) में सेंटर फॉर इकोलॉजिकल साइंसेज की स्थापना में उन्होंने अहम भूमिका निभाई। आज यह केंद्र देश के सबसे प्रतिष्ठित पर्यावरणीय अनुसंधान संस्थानों में गिना जाता है। यहां से प्रशिक्षित अनेक पर्यावरण वैज्ञानिक आज भारत भर में संरक्षण विज्ञान, नीति निर्माण और जमीनी क्रियान्वयन में प्रभावशाली भूमिका निभा रहे हैं। गाडगिल भारत की कुछ सबसे निर्णायक पर्यावरणीय आंदोलनों से भी जुड़े रहे। केरल की साइलेंट वैली में बांध निर्माण के पर्यावरणीय औचित्य पर सवाल उठाने वाले वैज्ञानिक अध्ययन में उनकी भूमिका अहम थी। इस हस्तक्षेप ने भारत के एक अत्यंत समृद्ध उष्णकटिबंधीय वन को बचाया और भारतीय पर्यावरणवाद के इतिहास में एक मील का पत्थर स्थापित किया।

माधव गाडगिल अपने क्षेत्र की एक महान विभूति थे। जलवायु परिवर्तन, जैव विविधता के क्षरण और बढ़ती सामाजिक असमानता जैसे गहराते पर्यावरणीय संकटों के इस दौर में, भारत को और अधिक गाडगिलों की आवश्यकता है—ऐसे विचारकों की, जिनमें बौद्धिक साहस हो, नैतिक स्पष्टता हो, और भिन्न मतों से संवाद करने की तत्परता हो। उनका जीवन हमें यह सिखाता है कि विज्ञान अपने सर्वोत्तम रूप में केवल दुनिया को समझने तक सीमित नहीं रहता; वह दुनिया की रक्षा करने और उसे बेहतर बनाने का माध्यम भी होता है।

Madhav Gadgil, the scientist who gave India an ecological conscience

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan

In an era of accelerating ecological crisis — of climate change, biodiversity loss, and deepening social inequities — we need more Gadgils: Thinkers with intellectual courage, moral clarity, and the willingness to engage with diverse views

In the long arc of Indian history, only a handful of scientists have truly captured the public imagination. Madhav Gadgil was one of them. In the 2010s, his Report of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP), widely known as the Gadgil Report, commanded newspaper front pages, primetime television debates, heated public meetings, and sharply divided political platforms. Rarely has a scientific assessment been so fiercely attacked and so passionately defended for its intellectual rigour and plain-speaking.

My own encounters with Dr Gadgil were fleeting: One meeting and one short phone call. Yet, like many environmental advocates of my generation, I feel I knew him well — through his ideas, writing, and the institutions he helped build and nurture.

I met him once at the Centre for Science and Environment, sometime after the Western Ghats report was released. We at CSE were critical of certain aspects of the report, and Gadgil had come to engage with us. What struck me during that interaction was not just his formidable intellect, but how deeply personal the issue was to him. The Western Ghats were not an abstract landscape to him; they were a living ecological entity whose degradation he felt morally compelled to prevent.

My second interaction was a phone call in 2021, lasting no more than 10 minutes. I had taken on an assignment to develop an ecological index for India’s forests — one that would define forest health based on biodiversity, ecological functions, and economic dependence, rather than the prevailing canopy-cover-based classification. I desperately wanted Gadgil to review the methodology, knowing that he was not only a leading ecologist but also a mathematician. He listened patiently, became excited about the idea, and then gently declined, explaining that he was fully occupied with writing his autobiography. Even in that brief exchange, his intellectual generosity and curiosity were unmistakable.

Yet Gadgil’s legacy needs no personal anecdote. His life and influence are etched firmly in his work.

Like many others, my own ecological conscience was shaped by reading his books. Dr Gadgil’s two books, co-authored with Ramachandra Guha—This Fissured Land and Ecology and Equity — are foundational texts for understanding India’s ecological history. They advanced ideas that were both radical and intuitive: Sustainable use of natural resources, inclusive conservation, and the concept of ecological refugees — ideas that continue to shape environmental thinking worldwide. They also offered ecological explanations for Indian traditions such as non-violence, vegetarianism, and mixed agriculture. These works profoundly shaped my thinking on natural resource management and reinforced a belief that conservation, when divorced from people, is neither ethical nor effective.

Among his most consequential public policy contributions were the Biological Diversity Act and the WGEEP report. The Biodiversity Act, which sought to empower local communities to manage and benefit from their biological resources, remains poorly implemented. The WGEEP report was shelved largely because it was deemed unimplementable — owing to its recommendations of declaring the entire Western Ghats as an eco-sensitive zone and a governance framework that relied on a new national-level authority, with corresponding institutions at the state and district levels, for enforcement.

My own critique of the Western Ghats report was of the command-and-control governance model, which excluded economic and market-based instruments. Gadgil had an innate distrust of markets to manage ecology sustainably, and his solutions excluded them. At the same time, his deep faith in community stewardship is being tested by a reality in which communities themselves are becoming increasingly industrial and consumerist. These tensions, however, are part of the larger and necessary debate that Gadgil compelled India to confront.

Institution-building was another cornerstone of his legacy. At the Indian Institute of Science, he played a foundational role in building the Centre for Ecological Sciences into one of the country’s most respected hubs for ecological research. Generations of ecologists trained there now influence conservation science, policy, and practice across India.

Gadgil was also a participant in some of India’s most consequential environmental movements. He was part of the scientific scrutiny that questioned the ecological wisdom of damming Silent Valley in Kerala — an intervention that helped save one of India’s richest tropical forests and marked a defining moment in Indian environmentalism.

Madhav Gadgil was a colossus in his field. In an era of accelerating ecological crisis — of climate change, biodiversity loss, and deepening social inequities — we need more Gadgils: Thinkers with intellectual courage, moral clarity, and the willingness to engage with diverse views. His life reminds us that science, at its best, is not merely about understanding the world, but about defending and improving it.

India’s antibiotic obsession

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan

I have travelled extensively over the past three decades and never once fallen sick outside India — until my visit to Brazil last month for COP30. A simple viral infection ended up becoming a mirror, revealing how differently India and Brazil approach antibiotic use, and why this difference matters.

In India, like most people, I rely on a familiar ecosystem of doctors, chemists and well-meaning advisors. Over time, one becomes comfortable with this formal-informal health care network. For routine illnesses like coughs and colds, I consult them, weigh their advice, and take (or avoid) medication accordingly. The advice, however, is predictable. Every time I have had a viral infection, the prescription has included an anti-allergic and an antibiotic — even when the doctor clearly diagnosed it as viral.

The justification was always the same: “Take antibiotics to prevent a secondary bacterial infection.” It never mattered that antibiotics do not treat viruses. Prevention became a catch-all excuse. A couple of years ago, this approach backfired. After one course of antibiotics, I developed a lingering cough that lasted months. Since then, I have been cautious with antibiotics.

The prescription On my fourth day in Brazil, I fell ill. You never truly know where viral infections come from — long flights, crowded airports, air-conditioned taxis, or poorly ventilated conference halls. I followed my usual routine: steam inhalation, saline gargles, warm fluids and paracetamol. But by Day Six, the fever and congestion worsened, so I consulted my doctor in India.

As expected, he prescribed paracetamol, an anti-allergic, a broad-spectrum antibiotic, throat soothers, vitamins and a cough suppressant. Armed with the prescription, I went to a chemist — and what followed was eye-opening.

First, the chemist refused to accept my Indian prescription. Brazilian law requires a prescription from a local doctor. Second, he separated what he could sell without a prescription — lozenges, vitamins, paracetamol — from what he could not: antibiotics. Third, he directed me to a 24×7 government urgent-care centre and advised me to consult a Brazilian doctor. Reluctantly, I went.

The centre was spotless, efficient and welcoming. Though I spoke only English and the staff only Portuguese, a translation app bridged the gap. They took basic details and a copy of my passport. There was no consultation fee.

The doctor examined me thoroughly. I showed him the Indian prescription. He glanced at it politely and set it aside.

“You have a viral infection,” he said. “It will resolve on its own in 10-12 days.”

His prescription was astonishingly simple: paracetamol in case of high fever, a throat lozenge, and a saline nasal rinse. No antibiotics. No anti-allergic.

When I mentioned that my sputum had turned yellowish-green — something many Indian doctors treat as a sign of bacterial infection — he smiled gently. “That is a myth. Viral infections can also produce coloured sputum,” he said. In effect, he refuted much of what I had been told about cough and cold management in India.

I returned to India still mildly symptomatic. Out of curiosity, I got a sputum culture done. After three days of incubation, the report showed moderate growth of a bacteria. My Indian doctor immediately advised me to start antibiotics. The Brazilian doctor, however, responded: “This does not require antibiotics. Minor bacterial growth often resolves naturally.”

This time, I chose to trust him. Thirteen days after falling sick, I have recovered — without taking a single antibiotic or anti-allergic.

A systemic failure I share this not to criticize Indian doctors, but to highlight a systemic failure. Across the world, antibiotics are viewed as curative medicines — to be used only when truly necessary. In India, they are used preventively, routinely prescribed for viral infections that the human body is fully capable of handling.

This misuse and overuse are key reasons India is now the epicentre of the global antimicrobial resistance (AMR) crisis. The numbers are alarming:

λ An estimated 300,000 deaths in India are directly attributable to AMR.

λ Indian Council of Medical Research surveillance shows widespread resistance to commonly used antibiotics like ciprofloxacin, amoxicillin and azithromycin.

λ Many Indian hospitals report 40-70 percent resistance rates among bacteria causing pneumonia, bloodstream infections and urinary tract infections.

And this is not solely due to human misuse. India is also indiscriminately pumping antibiotics into its food chain. In poultry and livestock production, antibiotics are used not just to treat illness but as growth promoters to fatten animals quickly. These drug-resistant bacteria travel from farms to food to humans.

The result? As my own test result suggested, most Indians are walking reservoirs of resistant bacteria. When we eventually contract a serious infection — one that truly requires antibiotics — we may find our options limited or ineffective.

Implementation paralysis The tragedy is that we already know what to do. In 2016-17, the Government of India convened a committee to develop the National Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance (NAP-AMR). I was a member of that committee. We created a multi-sectoral plan for 2017-2021, spanning human health, agriculture and environmental waste. A revised plan for 2025-29 was released in November 2025.

Yet, the first plan largely remained on paper. Implementation was hampered by weak regulation, inadequate surveillance and a health care culture that favours quick fixes over medical discipline.

The real difference between India and countries like Brazil is not medical expertise but strict enforcement of a policy. It is the refusal to prescribe and sell antibiotics unless absolutely necessary. My Brazilian doctor summed it up best: “Use antibiotics when they are needed, not when you are worried.” We need this culture of medical discipline and strict enforcement to solve the AMR crisis.

 

Why Beijing Can’t Be Delhi’s Model

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan

Yes, China massively reduced urban air pollution. Some of its strategies are worth studying. But an authoritarian govt can implement changes a democracy can’t. And India can’t spend as much as China did. We need our own solution

There is a Hindi idiom – chutki lena – that loosely translates as teasing, trolling, mocking or putting someone down. Social media today is full of people taking chutki over air pollution in Delhi. The recent tweet by Chinese Embassy spokesperson, offering a “step-by-step guide” on how Beijing tackled air pollution, falls into this category. It is unsolicited, overly generic and not helpful regardless that the Chinese capital on Thursday suffered a rare smog (AQI climbed to 214) after years of pollution clean-up efforts.

Researchers in India, including myself, have followed Beijing’s air quality journey closely for years. We have studied the “Beijing model”, examined its successes and understood its limitations. One must first recognise a basic reality about information coming out of China:it is tightly controlled and never complete.While general descriptions of actions taken and headline pollution reductions are widely available, crucial information is missing.

Data on regulatory enforcement, economic costs, public expenditure, private sector liabilities, worker displacement, compensation and social costs are largely absent. Without this information, simply lifting the Beijing model and superimposing it on Delhi is neither feasible nor responsible.

That said, there is no denying Beijing has achieved remarkable improvements in air quality in a relatively short period. India can – and should – learn from their experience. But learning does not mean copying. We must clearly distinguish between what can be replicated, what cannot, and what is unique to India and therefore requires additional solutions beyond anything Beijing did.

What to learn from Beijing
Value of a regional action plan. The Beijing-Tianjin- Hebei (BTH) regional framework enabled coordinated action across an airshed, leading to significant emission reductions. However, it is important to understand the administrative simplicity behind it.

BTH region covers about 2.2L sq km under two centrally administered municipalities Beijing and Tianjin – and a single province, Hebei, with 11 cities. Coordinatingaction across this region, while challenging, was administratively manageable.

Replicating this approach for Delhi is far more complex. A meaningful regional plan for Delhi would need to cover areas within a 150km radius, spanning six states (Delhi, Punjab, Haryana, UP, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan), urban local bodies and cantonment areas. Delhi is governed by three authorities – Centre, state and municipal corporations, cantonment aside. So, we’ll require an entirely new administrative and governance model to make regional action work.

Public transport and vehicle electrification are other areas where Beijing offers important lessons. Many measures Beijingadopted-stricter emission standards, cleaner fuels, and scrapping old vehicles-are also being attempted in Delhi, but with limited success.

A key difference is that Beijing actively curtailed the growth of private vehicles; Delhi has not. But like Beijing, we need to build world-class public transport across all of NCR. Similarly, rapid electrification of transport is essential.

In many ways, Beijing’s air pollution crisis helped catalyse China’s rise as the world leader in electric vehicles. China converted an environmental crisis into an economic opportunity; India should aim to do the same.

Reduction of coal use and strict regulation of power plants and industries is another critical lesson. While Delhi has shut down its thermal power plants and shifted many industries to the outskirts, coal use within the broader airshed remains substantial. Beijing not only reduced coal consumption by nearly 90% but also enforced extremely stringent emission standards. For example, the particulate matter standard for coal power plants in China is 10 mg/m³ or lower; in India, the standard is 30-100 mg/m³-3 to 10 times higher.

China’s SO2 standard is 35 mg/m³, whereas in India even relaxed limits of 100-600 mg/m³ were exempted for nearly 75% of coal-based power plants. Without enforcing strict pollution norms, meaningful air quality improvement is impossible. This is one of Beijing’s clearest lessons.

What won’t work here

Shutting down or relocating more than 3,000 heavy industries, as Beijing did, would effectively de-industrialise the entire region. Such an approach would be economically disastrous, socially destabilising and politically untenable in India.

Then there is the question of cost. While exact figures are unavailable, it is clear that Beijing spent billions of dollars to clean its air. That scale of expenditure is simply not feasible for India. Any clean air plan for Delhi must work within the country’s fiscal constraints.

Finally, Delhi faces challenges Beijing never had to confront. The most prominent is stubble burning. Beijing’s air quality was not affected by seasonal agricultural fires in the way Delhi’s is. Any serious clean air plan for Delhi must directly address this problem. Similarly, clean cooking fuel was never an issue for Beijing.

China transitioned most households to gas by the early 2000s and launched a Clean Heating policy in 2013 to move residential heating away from biomass and coal. In contrast, biomass use for cooking and heating remains a major source of pollution in Delhi-NCR and must be tackled head-on. Lastly, the Delhi airshed also faces a major challenge from pollution generated by lakhs of informal micro and small enterprises – from jaggery and confectionery makers to small metalworkers and many others. These enterprises must be supported to shift to clean fuels.

In sum, while Delhi can and should learn from Beijing-andfrom other cities around the world-itmust develop its own clean-air strategy and make it work in Indian conditions. From a researcher’s perspective, it is clear Delhi’s air pollution challenge is far more complex than Beijing’s ever was. Social media chutki may earn likes and retweets, but cleaning Delhi’s air requires far more than a step-by-step guide.

 

 

 

 

 

दिल्ली-NCR की तरह मुंबई में भी बिगड़े हालात… जानें क्यों वायु प्रदूषण सिर्फ हवा से जुड़ी समस्या नहीं

Posted on by Pratima Singh

प्रदूषण के चलते पहले तो सिर्फ दिल्ली-एनसीआर की हालत खराब थी, लेकिन अब इसने मुंबई को भी प्रभावित करना शुरू कर दिया है।

दिल्ली-NCR में शनिवार को कई जगह AQI 450 के ऊपर चला गया, तो सीजन में पहली बार GRAP-4 लागू करना पड़ा। राजधानी के लिए बीता माह भी प्रदूषण के लिहाज से बेहद चिंताजनक रहा था। नवंबर के 24 दिनों में एयर क्वॉलिटी इंडेक्स 300 के ऊपर रहा यानी बहुत खराब और 3 दिन तो यह 400 के ऊपर चला गया मतलब गंभीर। दिल्ली-NCR के साथ-साथ इस बार चिंता मुंबई ने भी बढ़ाई है। नवंबर के मुकाबले अभी हालात भले कुछ सुधरे हुए लग रहे हों, पर AQI कई जगहों पर 150 के आसपास है यानी स्वास्थ्य के लिए नुकसानदेह।

कमजोर सुरक्षा: मुंबई की समुद्री और तटीय हवा ने लंबे समय तक शहर के आसमान को साफ बनाए रखने में मदद की, लेकिन अब यह प्राकृतिक सुरक्षा धीरे-धीरे कमजोर पड़ रही है। पिछले कुछ वर्षों में मुंबई में धूल और सूक्ष्म कणों से होने वाला प्रदूषण बढ़ा है। कई बार AQI ‘खराब’ स्तर तक पहुंच रहा है। अब यह मानना सही नहीं रह गया कि उत्तर भारत के शहरों की तुलना में मुंबई वायु प्रदूषण से सुरक्षित है। भले ही मुंबई की हालत अभी दिल्ली जैसी गंभीर न हो, लेकिन हालात बिगड़ने के संकेत साफ दिख रहे हैं। अगर समय रहते ठोस नीतियां और सख्त प्रशासनिक कदम नहीं उठाए गए, तो स्थिति और खराब हो सकती है।

प्रदूषण के कारण: मुंबई की हवा खराब होने के तीन बड़े कारण हैं- वाहनों से निकलने वाला धुआं, औद्योगिक गतिविधियां और निर्माण व तोड़फोड़ से उड़ने वाली धूल। शहर में गाड़ियों की संख्या तेजी से बढ़ी है, ट्रैफिक जाम आम हो गया है और सार्वजनिक परिवहन की लास्ट-माइल कनेक्टिविटी कमजोर है। इसके अलावा नवी मुंबई और तलोजा जैसे इलाकों में छोटे और मध्यम उद्योग भी हवा को नुकसान पहुंचा रहे हैं, जहां अब भी पुरानी तकनीक और ज्यादा प्रदूषण फैलाने वाले ईंधनों का इस्तेमाल होता है।

निर्माण की कीमत: मुंबई के लिए सबसे गंभीर लेकिन कम समझा गया खतरा धूल प्रदूषण है, जो बड़े निर्माण और पुनर्विकास कार्यों से पैदा हो रहा है। मेट्रो, कोस्टल रोड, ट्रांस-हार्बर लिंक और अन्य बड़ी परियोजनाओं के कारण शहर में लगातार खुदाई और निर्माण चल रहा है। निर्माण स्थलों से और कच्चा माल ढोने के दौरान भारी मात्रा में धूल हवा में उड़ती है। धूल नियंत्रण के ठोस इंतजाम न होने से PM10 स्तर तेजी से बढ़ रहा है और आसपास के इलाके प्रदूषण के हॉटस्पॉट बनते जा रहे हैं।

तालमेल की जरूरत: सर्दियों में हालात और बिगड़ जाते हैं, क्योंकि दूसरे राज्यों से आने वाला प्रदूषण भी इसमें जुड़ जाता है। मध्य प्रदेश और गुजरात में पराली जलाने से उठने वाला धुआं और धूल जब हवा के साथ मुंबई पहुंचते हैं, तो हालात बदतर हो जाते हैं। अगर राज्यों के बीच बेहतर तालमेल और साझा एयरशेड प्रबंधन नहीं हुआ, तो यह मौसमी समस्या और गंभीर होगी। धूल प्रदूषण रोकने के लिए मुंबई महानगर क्षेत्र की नगर पालिकाओं ने सड़क सफाई, पानी का छिड़काव, एंटी-स्मॉग गन और निर्माण सामग्री को ढक कर ले जाने जैसे कदम शुरू किए हैं। ये प्रयास जरूरी हैं, लेकिन इनका पालन अक्सर ढंग से और सख्ती से नहीं हो पाता।

सख्त नीति: मुंबई को तुरंत एक सख्त धूल नियंत्रण नीति की जरूरत है, जिसे सिटी बाइलॉज में शामिल किया जाए और इसकी रियल टाइम मॉनिटरिंग हो। इसके लिए नगर निगम, परिवहन, PWD, पुलिस और अन्य विभागों को मिलकर काम करना होगा। राष्ट्रीय स्वच्छ वायु कार्यक्रम (NCAP) के तहत समिति मौजूद है, लेकिन समर्पित धूल न्यूनीकरण सेल को सक्रिय भूमिका निभानी होगी।

जवाबदेही का मुद्दा: वायु प्रदूषण केवल हवा से जुड़ी समस्या नहीं है, यह शासन और सार्वजनिक जवाबदेही का मुद्दा है। मुंबई को एक ऐसी मजबूत अथॉरिटी या टास्क फोर्स की जरूरत है, जो सभी विभागों को एक साथ जोड़कर काम करे। इसमें राज्य सरकार, नगर निगम, वैज्ञानिक, स्वास्थ्य विशेषज्ञ और नागरिक समूह शामिल हों। अभी काम कई विभागों में बंटा है, इसलिए तालमेल कमजोर रहता है और नियम तोड़ने वालों पर सख्त कार्रवाई नहीं हो पाती।

विकास बनाम सेहत: लोगों और संस्थाओं के व्यवहार में बदलाव लाने के लिए कानूनी जवाबदेही जरूरी है। दंड कठोर किए जाएं और AQI खराब होते ही निर्माण कार्य पर रोक, कचरा व पत्तियां जलाने पर प्रतिबंध और उद्योगों की कड़ी निगरानी जैसे नियम बिना ढील के लागू हों। प्रदूषण फैलाने वाले से ही कीमत वसूली जाए। सवाल विकास बनाम साफ हवा का नहीं, बल्कि ऐसे विकास का है जो लोगों की सेहत को नुकसान न पहुंचाए। सही योजना, कड़ाई से अमल और तकनीक के जरिये जल्दी सुधार संभव है। साफ हवा का मतलब है स्वस्थ लोग, इलाज का कम खर्च और रहने के लिए बेहतर शहर।

 

 

We don’t think, so we can’t breathe

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan

Core causes of India’s air pollution crisis have been clear for 25 years: burning of biomass and coal.
Still, the bickering continues. And the Delhi problem spreads to Mumbai, Bengaluru, Hyderabad

Every winter, Delhi’s air pollution debate follows a familiar script. We look for villains, argue over blame, ignore science and solutions. This year has been no different – except that it has bordered on the absurd.
Pollution season opened with the Supreme Court allowing “green crackers”, followed by Delhi govt’s failed cloud-seeding experiment. Soon after came official data claiming a 90% reduction in stubble burning in Punjab and Haryana. Overnight, stubble burning was declared “not a problem”. Even though scientific evidence told a very different story.

A paper from ISRO and an independent analysis by my colleagues showed that stubble burning continued widely across Punjab. Haryana, UP, and MP, significantly contributing to pollution in Delhi-NCR. Real issue was not theabsence of fires, but the failure of monitoring. Govt agencies rely largely on polar-orbiting satellites that pass over India in the early after- noon. As farmers simply shift the burning to late afternoon and evening, a large proportion of farm fires is no longer being detected.

Instead of fixing the monitoring system, we wasted weeks in tu-tu main-main over whether stubble burning or Delhi’s local sources were to blame. Lost in this noise was a far more important question: how prepared were institutions such as MCD. Delhi Pollution Control Committee, and Commission for Air Quality Management for the pollution season? As usual, we forgot to demand real solutions or hold institutions accountable.

All this is particularly frustrating because the core causes of India’s air pollution crisis have been known for at least 25 years. In 1999, more than 200 scientists from across the world participated in the Indian Ocean Experiment, led by the renowned atmospheric scientist V Ramanathan. Thisstudy identified a massive brown haze which they called the “Asian Brown Cloud” – stretching over the Indian subcontinent and the Indian Ocean from Oct to Feb.

Their findings were unequivocal. This haze was largely caused by the burning of biomass in homes and fields, and fossil fuels (especially coal) in industry and power plants. Pollution travelled thousands of kms, altered rainfall patterns, reduced agri productivity, and caused widespread respiratory and cardiovascular disease

When UNEP published the findings in 2002, some prominent Indian scientists questioned the terminology and intent. The phenomenon was renamed the “Atmospheric Brown Cloud with a focus on Asia”, while the warnings were largely ignored by govts.

A quarter century later, air pollution has become a pan-India crisis. Cities such as Mumbai, Bengaluru, and Hyderabad, which once had relatively clean air, now routinely fail to meet national air quality standards. This deterioration is not accidental. It is the direct result of our persistent failure to address the primary sources of pollution identified decades ago.

What pollutes India? | Over the last five years, Indian scientific institutions have produceda growing body of research that policymakers have largely ignored. A 2024 study involving researchers from prominent institutions, including earth sciences ministry found that about 50% of PM10 and PM2.5 in Delhi during the peak pollution season comes from biomass-burning sources. Another study from IIT-Kanpur, published in 2023, showed that biomass burning (especially residential heating) is the main driver of intense and frequent night-time haze in Delhi during Janand Feb.
Similar findings have emerged from other parts of the country Together, they point to a clear conclusion: open burning of biomass (whether for cooking and heating in homes, in small industrial and commercial establishments, or in agricultural fields) is the single largest source of air pollution in India. Without sharply reducing biomass burning, we simply cannot clean the country’s air.

The second major source of pollution is coal use in industries and power plants. A 2023 study by my colleagues estimated that around 37% of India’s PM2.5 emissions come from industry and power generation. Vehicular pollution is the third largest source, especially in cities.
Basically, what we burn the most, pollutes the most. India burns around 220cr tonnes of fuel and waste every year. About 85% of this iscoal and biomass; petrol, diesel and gas together account for only 15%. Unsurprisingly, most of our pollution comes from coal and biomass. Add dust from roads, construction sites and barren land, and the picture becomes even clearer.

No short-cuts | Solving India’s air pollution crisis requires a clean energy transition and an “all-of-the-above” approach.

  • Biggest gains will come from the residential sector. Transitioning households to LPG, biogas or electricity for cooking and heating would eliminate a large share of PM2.5 emissions and prevent nearly 800,000 premature deaths each year from indoor air pollution. This is difficult, but achievable through targeted policies such as a strengthened PM Ujjwala programme that provides adequate incentives for low-income households to abandon biomass completely
  • Industry must be the next priority Encouraging MSMEs to adopt cleaner fuels and technologies, such as electric boilers and furnaces, combined with strict monitoring, can substantially Teduce emissions. For large industries and power plants, enforcementof strict emission standards must be non-negotiable.
  • Eliminating stubble burning remains essential to reducing severe pollution episodes in Oct and Nov. In just 45 days, stubble burning emits as much PM2.5 as all vehicles in India do in an entire year. The solutions- technology, market access, incentives, penalties – are well-known and proven.
  • Scaling up electric vehicles and public transport will steadily reduce urban pollution, but this requires ambitious targets and serious investment, not slogans. Finally, local sources (dust, construction, garbage burning, congestion) must be tackled by empowered and accountable urban local bodies.

Real progress on the above action plan will only begin when we stop bickering over science. So, acknowledging the true impact and sources of our pollution crisis is the first step towards meaningful action.

समन्वित प्रयासों के जरिए ही प्रदूषण पर नियंत्रण हो पाएगा

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan

पिछले एक दशक से अधिक समय से दिल्ली में वायु प्रदूषण नियंत्रण के लिए कई तरह के प्रयोग किए गए हैं जैसे ‘ऑड-ईवन स्कीम’, स्मॉग टावर, वाटर कैनन, पौधरोपण, ग्रेडेड रिस्पॉन्स एक्शन प्लान (जो सर्दियों में उद्योग, निर्माण और वाहनों पर प्रतिबंध लगाता है), और अब क्लाउड सीडिंग। इन प्रयासों के बावजूद शहर की हवा आज भी जहरीली बनी हुई है। मूल कारण स्पष्ट है- ये प्रतिक्रियात्मक कदम प्रदूषण की जड़ तक नहीं पहुंच रहे हैं?

दिल्ली, राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र (एनसीआर) का सिर्फ 2.7 प्रतिशत हिस्सा है, दुनिया के सबसे अधिक शहरीकृत, औद्योगीकृत और कृषि-प्रधान क्षेत्रों के केंद्र में स्थित है। इसलिए इसकी हवा पड़ोसी जिलों से आने वाले प्रदूषण से अत्यधिक प्रभावित होती है। अध्ययनों से पता चलता है कि दिल्ली के वायु प्रदूषण का केवल 30 से 50 प्रतिशत हिस्सा शहर के भीतर से आता है, जबकि शेष 50 से 70 प्रतिशत बाहर से आता है। इसका मतलब है कि प्रदूषण कम करने के लिए एक क्षेत्रीय दृष्टिकोण अत्यंत आवश्यक है।

इसके अलावा, दिल्ली-एनसीआर में प्रदूषण के मुख्य स्रोत खाना पकाने, गर्मी देने और सूक्ष्म व लघु उद्योगों में बायोमास का इस्तेमाल तथा आसपास के राज्यों में कृषि अवशेष जलाना है। ये गतिविधियां कुल पीएम (पार्टिकुलेट मैटर) 2.5 प्रदूषण का 50 प्रतिशत से अधिक योगदान देती हैं लगभग 30 प्रतिशत प्रदूषण कोयला और अन्य जीवाश्म ईंधन पर निर्भर उद्योगों और बिजली संयंत्रों से आता है। यानी दिल्ली-एनसीआर के पीएम 2.5 प्रदूषण का 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक हिस्सा ठोस ईंधनों- विशेषकर बायोमास और कोयले से उत्पन्न होता है, जबकि वाहनों की हिस्सेदारी लगभग 10 प्रतिशत है। यदि दिल्ली वास्तव में हवा सुधारने को लेकर गंभीर है, तो इसे अप्रभावी और ऊपरी उपायों पर निर्भर रहना बंद करना होगा। ये त्वरित उपाय वास्तविक समस्या को हल किए बिना अर्थव्यवस्था को नुकसान पहुंचाते हैं। असली समाधान केंद्र सरकार और दिल्ली, हरियाणा, पंजाब, उत्तर प्रदेश और राजस्थान के बीच सहयोग से ही संभव है- जो प्रदूषण को उसकी जड़ों पर नियंत्रित करे। इस सहयोगी प्रयास को एक नए शासन ढांचे और संस्था के माध्यम से लागू किया जा सकता है, जो संयुक्त रूप से क्लीन एयर एक्शन प्लान लागू करे। इसके लिए राज्यों को साझा हित के लिए कुछ अधिकार त्यागने होंगे। यह इस तरह संभव है – केंद्र सरकार को दिल्ली और इसके आसपास के इलाकों को एक ‘एयर पॉल्यूशन कंट्रोल जोन’ घोषित करना चाहिए। इस जोन में वायु प्रदूषण से संबंधित सभी कदम समन्वित रूप से लागू किए जाने चाहिए। आदर्श रूप से यह जोन पूरे एयरशेड को कवर करे, जो दिल्ली के आसपास लगभग 300 किमी तक फैला है। लेकिन मौजूदा संस्थागत ढांचे को देखते हुए इस जोन में दिल्ली-एनसीआर और उत्तर प्रदेश के चार अतिरिक्त जिले- अलीगढ़, हाथरस, मथुरा और आगरा शामिल किए जा सकते हैं। यह लगभग 150 किमी के दायरे में 8 करोड़ की आबादी को कवर करेगा। हालांकि इसमें पंजाब और हरियाणा के वे प्रमुख कृषि क्षेत्र शामिल नहीं हैं, जहां पराली जलाना आम है, लेकिन इस मुद्दे को अवशेष प्रबंधन के विशेष कार्यक्रमों से संबोधित किया जा सकता है।

एक समन्वित स्वच्छ वायु कार्ययोजना की निगरानी और क्रियान्वयन के लिए एक नई सशक्त एजेंसी का गठन किया जाना चाहिए। इस एजेंसी में केंद्र और राज्य सरकारों दोनों के प्रतिनिधि निर्णयकारी स्तर पर शामिल हों। इसे पर्याप्त अधिकार देने के लिए एक वरिष्ठ सचिव-स्तरीय कार्यरत केंद्रीय अधिकारी को इसका प्रमुख बनाया जाना चाहिए। एजेंसी के जिला कार्यालय हों, अपनी तकनीकी और प्रशासनिक टीम हो और यह इस जोन में वायु प्रदूषण नियंत्रण की नोडल एजेंसी के रूप में कार्य करे- अन्य केंद्रीय और राज्य एजेंसियों के ऊपर अधिकार रखते हुए।

ऐसी संस्थाएं दुनिया में पहले से मौजूद है- जैसे 1967 में स्थापित कैलिफोर्निया एयर रिसोर्सेज बोर्ड, जिसने लॉस एंजिल्स जैसे शहरों में प्रदूषण नियंत्रित किया। चीन में भी बीजिंग-टियांजिन-हेबेई क्षेत्रीय समन्वय परिषद है। दिल्ली और पूरे भारत की वायु गुणवत्ता में सुधार तब तक संभव नहीं जब तक कि स्वच्छ ऊर्जा की ओर तीव्र संक्रमण, कृषि अवशेष जलाने में कमी और धूल नियंत्रण के लिए ठोस योजना न बने। आगामी पांच वर्षों में वायु गुणवत्ता में महत्वपूर्ण सुधार लाने के लिए उच्च-प्रभाव वाली रणनीतियां अपनानी होंगी। जैसे-

स्वच्छ हीटिंग ईंधन : भारत में 90 प्रतिशत से अधिक घर सर्दियों में गर्मी के लिए बायोमास और ठोस ईंधन पर निर्भर रहते हैं, जिससे दिसंबर-जनवरी में भारी प्रदूषण बढ़ता है। चीन द्वारा अपनाई गई एक प्रमुख नीति राष्ट्रीय ‘क्लीन हीटिंग फ्यूल नीति’ थी। जबकि भारत में भी ऐसी दीर्घकालिक नीति विकसित करने की जरूरत है, लेकिन अल्पकाल में दिल्ली सरकार सिर्फ बिजली आधारित हीटिंग सुनिश्चित कर सकती है और खुले में जलाने पर सख्त रोक लगा सकती है।

पराली जलाना खत्म करना: अक्टूबर-नवंबर में प्रदूषण के चरम स्तर का मुख्य कारण पराली जलाना है। इसे खत्म करना अत्यंत आवश्यक है। इसके लिए अल्पकालिक और दीर्घकालिक दोनों रणनीतियां जरूरी हैं। दीर्घकाल में, पंजाब, हरियाणा और उत्तर प्रदेश के कुछ हिस्सों में धान-गेहूं आधारित गहन कृषि से विविध फसलों की ओर परिवर्तन आवश्यक है। अल्पकाल में, तकनीक और प्रोत्साहन बड़ी भूमिका निभा सकते हैं। सबसे सरल तकनीकी समाधान यह है कि कंबाइन हार्वेस्टर को संशोधित किया जाए ताकि वे जमीन के और निकट कटाई करें और बैलर के साथ अवशेष इकठ्ठा करें। यह अवशेष उद्योगों को बेचा जा सकता है।

उद्योगों में ऊर्जा संक्रमण: बिजली संयंत्र और उद्योग दिल्ली-एनसीआर के पीएम 2.5 उत्सर्जन का लगभग एक-तिहाई हिस्सा हैं। इन उत्सर्जनों को कम करने के लिए तकनीकी उन्नयन और कड़ाई से अनुपालन दोनों आवश्यक हैं। बड़े उद्योगों में सख्त मानकों का पालन अनिवार्य किया जाना चाहिए। पुरानी थर्मल पावर प्लांट बंद करना और 2015 के उत्सर्जन मानकों को लागू करना अत्यंत जरूरी है, जो अब तक पूरी तरह लागू नहीं हुए है।

 

Falling sick in Brazil showed me what India gets wrong about antibiotics

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan

Across the world, antibiotics are viewed as curative medicines — to be used only when truly necessary. In India, they tend to be used preventively, routinely prescribed for viral infections that the human body is fully capable of handling
The tragedy is that we already know what to do. In 2016-17, the Government of India convened a committee to develop the National Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance (NAP-AMR). I was a member of that committee.

I have travelled extensively over the past three decades and never once fallen sick outside India — until my visit to Brazil last month for COP30. A simple viral infection ended up becoming a mirror, revealing how differently India and Brazil approach antibiotics use, and why this difference matters.

In India, like most people, I rely on a familiar ecosystem of doctors, chemists and well-meaning advisers. Over time, one becomes comfortable with this formal–informal healthcare network. For routine illnesses like cough and cold, I consult them, weigh their advice, and take (or avoid) medication accordingly. The advice, however, is predictable. Every time I have had a viral infection, the prescription has included an anti-allergic and an antibiotic — even when the doctor clearly diagnosed it as viral.

The justification was always the same: “Take antibiotics to prevent a secondary bacterial infection.” It never mattered that antibiotics do not treat viruses. Prevention became a catch-all excuse. A couple of years ago, this approach backfired. After one course of antibiotics, I developed a lingering cough that lasted for months. Since then, I have been cautious with antibiotics.

What happened in Brazil

On my fourth day in Brazil, I fell ill. You never truly know where viral infections come from — long flights, crowded airports, air-conditioned taxis, or poorly ventilated conference halls. I followed my usual routine: Steam inhalation, saline gargles, warm fluids and paracetamol. But by day six, the fever and congestion worsened, so I consulted my doctor in India.
As expected, he prescribed paracetamol, an anti-allergic, a broad-spectrum antibiotic, throat soothers, vitamins and a cough suppressant. Armed with the prescription, I went to a chemist — and what followed was eye-opening.

First, the chemist refused to accept my Indian prescription. Brazilian law requires a prescription from a local doctor. Second, he separated what he could sell without a prescription — lozenges, vitamins, paracetamol — from what he could not: Antibiotics. Third, he directed me to a 24×7 government urgent-care centre and advised me to consult a Brazilian doctor. Reluctantly, I went.

The centre was spotless, efficient and welcoming. Though I spoke only English and the staff only Portuguese, a translation app bridged the gap. They took basic details and a copy of my passport. There was no consultation fee.

The doctor examined me thoroughly. I showed him the Indian prescription. He glanced at it politely and set it aside.

“You have a viral infection,” he said. “It will resolve on its own in 10-12 days.”

His prescription was astonishingly simple: Paracetamol in case of high fever, a throat lozenge, and a saline nasal rinse. No antibiotics. No anti-allergic.

When I mentioned that my sputum had turned yellowish-green — something that some Indian doctors may treat as a sign of bacterial infection — he smiled gently. “That is a myth. Viral infections can also produce coloured sputum,” he said. In effect, he refuted much of what I had been told about cough and cold management in India.

I returned to India still mildly symptomatic. Out of curiosity, I got a sputum culture done. After three days of incubation, the report showed moderate growth of a bacteria. My Indian doctor immediately advised me to start antibiotics. The Brazilian doctor, however, responded: “This does not require antibiotics. Minor bacterial growth often resolves naturally.”

This time, I chose to trust him. Thirteen days after falling sick, I have recovered — without taking a single antibiotic or anti-allergic.

Why this story matters

I share this not to criticise Indian doctors, but to highlight a systemic failure. Across the world, antibiotics are viewed as curative medicines — to be used only when truly necessary. In India, they tend to be used preventively, routinely prescribed for viral infections that the human body is fully capable of handling.
This misuse and overuse are key reasons India is now the epicentre of the global antimicrobial resistance (AMR) crisis. The numbers are alarming:
An estimated 3,00,000 deaths in India are directly attributable to AMR.
ICMR surveillance shows widespread resistance to commonly used antibiotics like ciprofloxacin, amoxicillin and azithromycin.
Many Indian hospitals report 40-70 per cent resistance rates among bacteria causing pneumonia, bloodstream infections and urinary tract infections.
And this is not solely due to human misuse. India is also indiscriminately pumping antibiotics into its food chain. In poultry and livestock production, antibiotics are used not just to treat illness but as growth promoters to fatten animals quickly. These drug-resistant bacteria travels from farms to food to humans.
The result? As my own test result suggested, we are walking reservoirs of resistant bacteria. When we eventually contract a serious infection — one that truly requires antibiotics — we may find our options limited or ineffective.

Implementation paralysis

The tragedy is that we already know what to do. In 2016-17, the Government of India convened a committee to develop the National Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance (NAP-AMR). I was a member of that committee. We created a multi-sectoral plan for 2017-2021, spanning human health, agriculture and environmental waste. A revised plan for 2025-2029 was released in November 2025.

Yet the first plan largely remained on paper. Implementation was hampered by weak regulation, inadequate surveillance and a healthcare culture that favours quick fixes over medical discipline.

The real difference between India and countries like Brazil is not medical expertise but strict enforcement of a policy. It is the refusal to prescribe and sell antibiotics unless absolutely necessary. My Brazilian doctor summed it up best: “Use antibiotics when they are needed, not when you are worried.” We need this culture of medical discipline and strict enforcement to solve the AMR crisis.

Delhi’s bad air: Govt has to get down to serious work

Posted on by Chandra Bhushan

For more than a decade, Delhi has experimented with various pollution control measures — the ‘odd-even scheme’, smog towers, water cannon, tree plantation, the Graded Response Action Plan or GRAP, (which restricts industry, construction, and vehicular activity during winter), and now cloud seeding. Despite these efforts, the city continues to suffer. The root cause is simple: these reactive measures do not address the core pollution problem.
Delhi, which constitutes only 2.7 percent of the National Capital Region (NCR), sits at the heart of one of the most urbanized, industrialized, and agricultural regions in the world. Consequently, its air is heavily influenced by pollution from neighbouring districts. Studies reveal that only 30 to 50 percent of Delhi’s air pollution originates within the city, while the remaining 50 to 70 percent comes from outside. This means that a regional approach is essential to reduce air pollution in the city.
Further, the main sources of pollution in Delhi-NCR are the use of biomass for cooking, heating, and in micro and small industries, along with the burning of agricultural residue in surrounding states. These activities contribute over 50 percent of total PM2.5 pollution. Another 30 percent comes from industries and power plants that rely on coal and other fossil fuels. In other words, more than 80 percent of PM2.5 pollution in Delhi-NCR results from solid fuels — particularly biomass and coal burning — with vehicles contributing about 10 percent. This estimate does not include dust from roads, construction sites, and barren land, which are also significant sources of particulate pollution.

If Delhi is serious about improving air quality, it must stop relying on ineffective, superficial solutions. These quick fixes do more harm than good by hurting the economy without tackling the root cause. The real solution lies in collaboration between the Central government and the states — Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan — to confront pollution at its source. This collaborative effort can be operationalized through a new governance framework and institution to implement a coordinated clean air action plan. This would require all states to relinquish some powers for the common good. Here’s how this can be achieved:

POLLUTION CONTROL ZONE
The Central government should declare Delhi and its surrounding areas an Air Pollution Control Zone. Within this zone, all air pollution-related measures should be implemented in a coordinated manner. Ideally, the zone should cover the entire airshed, spanning a 300-km radius around Delhi. However, considering the existing institutional set-up, this zone could include Delhi-NCR and four additional districts in Uttar Pradesh — Aligarh, Hathras, Mathura and Agra. This would encompass an area within a radius of about 150 km, with a population of around 80 million. Although this excludes key agricultural areas in Punjab and Haryana where stubble burning is rampant, that issue can be addressed through dedicated programmes aimed at eliminating crop residue burning.

EMPOWERED AGENCY
To oversee and implement a coordinated clean air action plan, a new empowered agency should be established. This agency should include representatives from both the Central and state governments at the decision-making level. To ensure adequate authority, it should be headed by a senior secretary-level serving officer of the Central government. The agency should have district offices, its own technical and administrative staff, and act as the nodal agency for air pollution control in the zone — superseding other Central and state agencies.
Similar agencies exist elsewhere, such as the California Air Resources Board, established in 1967 to tackle severe pollution in cities like Los Angeles. China has also created the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Regional Coordination Council to reduce pollution levels in Beijing. While India’s Central government has set up the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) in the National Capital Region and adjoining areas, it has not been very effective because it lacks resources, authority, and a proactive action plan.

REAL ACTION PLAN
Delhi’s air quality — and India’s overall — cannot improve without a rapid transition to clean energy, along with a credible plan to reduce agricultural residue burning and control dust. The plan should consist of high-impact strategies that can significantly improve air quality within the next five years. Sample the following:

PM UJJWALA 3.0
The study we have done at iFOREST shows that the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana has been the most impactful air pollution intervention in the past decade. Expanding access to clean cooking fuel across Delhi-NCR could reduce PM2.5 levels by 25 percent. Achieving this would require a new phase — PM Ujjwala 3.0 — to transition households to LPG or electricity for cooking. Research indicates that a 75 percent subsidy is necessary to enable exclusive LPG use in low-income households, costing about `5,000 to `6,000 per household annually — similar to the PM Kisan Samman Nidhi. In Delhi-NCR, this would cost around `6,000 crore to `7,000 crore per year, a fraction of the annual healthcare costs associated with air pollution-related diseases. This would be a profoundly pro-poor and pro-women initiative, especially considering that nearly 600,000 Indians — primarily women — die prematurely each year from indoor air pollution.

CLEAN HEATING FUEL
Across India, over 90 percent of households rely on biomass and solid fuels for heating during winter, contributing to severe pollution spikes in December and January. One of China’s pivotal air quality initiatives was a national clean heating fuel policy. While developing a similar long-term plan is essential, in the short term the Delhi government could ensure that only electricity is used for winter heating and enforce a strict ban on open burning. This approach would yield swift improvements in Delhi’s air quality.

END STUBBLE-BURNING
A major contributor to pollution spikes in October and November is stubble-burning. Curbing this practice would significantly reduce the occurrence of severe pollution episodes. Both short- and long-term strategies are required.

In the long term, agriculture in Punjab, Haryana and parts of UP must transition from intensive rice-wheat farming to diversified cropping systems. In the short term, technology and incentives can play a key role. The simplest technological solution is to modify or mandate combine harvesters that cut closer to the ground — like manual harvesting — and attach balers to collect residue. The residue can then be sold to industries.

Governments can launch an entrepreneurship-cum-market scheme to promote residue collection, processing, and sale. An incentive of `1,000 per acre, coupled with penalties such as fines or exclusion from government schemes for farmers who continue burning residue would be effective. This scheme would cost approximately `2,500 crore annually.

ENERGY TRANSITION IN INDUSTRY
Power plants and industry account for roughly one-third of annual PM2.5 emissions in Delhi-NCR. Reducing these emissions requires both technological upgrades and stricter enforcement. A scheme encouraging MSMEs to adopt cleaner fuel sources — especially electric boilers and furnaces — could significantly curb emissions. For larger industries, stricter compliance with pollution norms is essential. Shutting down older thermal power plants and enforcing the 2015 emission standards (still not fully implemented) will be critical.

TRANSITION TO EVs
Scaling up electric vehicles is crucial for reducing urban air pollution. Initially, the focus should be on transitioning two- and three-wheelers and buses, since these are already economically viable. Achieving 100 percent electrification of new two- and three-wheeler sales by 2030, and converting all new buses to electric in Delhi-NCR, would significantly reduce vehicle emissions. Setting a 30 to 50 percent electrification target for cars and other vehicles would further accelerate the transition to cleaner urban transport.

GREEN BELTS
Dust pollution from within Delhi and neighbouring areas, compounded by seasonal dust from the Thar desert, has a major impact on air quality. Creating a green belt around Delhi would serve as a natural barrier against incoming dust. Additionally, increasing green cover within the city — especially roadside and open-space greening — is essential to control local dust pollution.

STRENGTHEN MUNICIPALITIES
Local pollution sources — such as road dust, construction activities, open burning, traffic congestion, and poor waste management — are best managed by municipalities. Municipalities must be held accountable for addressing these issues year-round, not just during peak pollution seasons. Strengthening the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) to support municipal efforts will be key to achieving sustainable air quality improvements.

If we implement these measures, air pollution can be reduced by 50 to 60 percent within five years. However, this will not be easy. We will need to work with millions of households to adopt clean cooking and heating fuels, millions of farmers to stop stubble burning, hundreds of thousands of industries to reduce emissions, and vehicle owners to shift to EVs.

There are no quick fixes to improving air quality. Systemic changes are essential if we are to breathe clean air. Everywhere in the world, environmental progress has come from systemic, scientific, accountable, and long-term solutions — not quick-fixes. Delhi must learn this lesson.

Chandra Bhushan is one of India’s foremost public policy experts and the Founder-CEO of the International Forum for Environment, Sustainability & Technology (iFOREST)

 

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial