The Vice President of India, Shri M. Hamid Ansari
has said that we need to move towards implementing a framework of
sustainability that synthesizes both the human and the environmental elements
of security for sustainable human development. He was delivering the 6th
Prof. Moonis Raza Memorial Lecture, here today, organised by the Prof. Moonis
Raza Memorial Trust.
Speaking about Prof. Moonis Raza, the Vice President
said that his work blurred the boundary between traditional human geography and
environmental science, synthesizing both natural and socio-economic elements of
geography, and its impact on the human landscape. A Muslim by birth, a Marxist
by orientation and an agnostic in matters metaphysical, Moonis sahib was
acutely aware of the sociological imperatives of the Indian scene, he added.
The Vice President said that sustainable development
cannot be achieved by technological solutions, political regulation or
financial instruments alone. We need to change the way we think and act, he
added.
The Vice President said that the human security
approach is tied intrinsically to the idea of sustainable human development,
which envisions not only generating economic growth but distributing its
benefits equitably, regenerating the environment rather than destroying it, and
empowering people rather than marginalizing them. It is increasingly apparent
that approaches to development, based merely on economic values are
insufficient, he added.
The Vice President said that the articulation of
views by some members of the new Administration in the United States has raised
questions on the future of sustained global action on climate change and may
put at risk the immediate goals and commitments to mitigating climate change
impact and promoting sustainability. He further said that the developing shift
in the global system, from an outward-looking to a more inward-looking stance,
would also create challenges for strengthening global cooperation. It is sad to
conclude that the travellers of spaceship earth continue to be mired in
conflicts of narrow self-interest and are yet to reach a consensus on how to
change the disastrous trajectory we are on, he added.
Following is the Text of Vice
President’s Lecture:
“It is an honour to be invited to deliver the 6th
Moonis Raza memorial lecture.
Professor Moonis Raza, Moonis bhai to his
friends and acquaintances of my generation, was more than an academic. He was a
leading light of the progressives group in the Aligarh Muslim University of the
early and mid fifty’s of the last century and, in a period when ideological
predilections were candidly proclaimed, he espoused them with rare vigour and
commitment.
Contemporaries like Athar Parvez saheb have recorded
for posterity his informal mannerism on visits to Aligarh years after he left
the campus. This trait of his personality has been recalled by many others in
later years in Delhi.
Moonis saheb's tenure
as Vice Chancellor of Delhi University is remembered as productive in terms of
overall growth and educational activities. He was a co-founder of the
Jawaharlal Nehru University and left his imprint both on its physical
surroundings as on its liberal ethos that now seems to have become a matter of
concern to some people whom Alexander Pope would have described as narrow
souls.
His academic calling
was that of a geographer with a focus on human
geography. His work blurred the boundary between traditional human geography
and environmental science, synthesizing both natural and socio-economic
elements of geography, and its impact on the human landscape. He taught that
culture, society, economics and politics all contribute to our changing natural
environment and that it is only by appreciating these factors that we can make
sense of the complex relationships between people and places and prepare for
the challenges that lie ahead.
Some in this audience would recall that ten years
after the Stockholm Conference of 1972 on Human Environment, a reinforced
awareness of the deterioration of environment and natural resources took shape
in the UN General Assembly in 1983 through its decision to establish the
Brundtland Commission whose report in 1987 coined the term ‘Sustainable
Development’ and defined it as development that meets the need of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
demands.
The Report focused on three dimensions of
sustainable development: environment, the economy and community. Inspired by
this, an attempt was made to promote sustainability in higher education through
the Talloires Declaration of 1990. Moonis Raza was one of the movers behind
this Declaration and its ten point action plan mooted by the Association of
University Leaders; the latter included a commitment to increasing awareness of
environmentally sustainable development for a sustainable future.
At a time when globalisation, rapid population
growth and human migration are placing increased pressure on our natural
resources, there is a need to understand better what Moonis Raza called ‘the
world around us and our place within it’.
We live in a dynamic, human-dominated ecosystem in
which non-linear, abrupt and irreversible environmental changes are becoming
frequent. Governance for sustainability in this epoch of human activities that
impact on the Earth’s ecosystem requires a re-definition and re-evaluation of
the objectives, underlying values and norms of our actions, as also of
knowledge systems, power structures and concept of security.
Recent years have seen a paradigm shift in how we
perceive and define security. By placing people, rather than territories, at
the centre of the security rubric, we developed the concept of ‘human
security’. This goes beyond traditional notions of national and military security
and includes issues such as development and respect for human rights. It
provides an integrated comprehensive framework for designing, developing and
evaluating humanitarian affairs and capacity building initiatives in emergency,
transitional and development contexts. It recognizes that today’s globalizing
societies continue to be affected by old threats such as inter-state wars and
internal conflicts as also newer and recurring challenges that undermine both
people and their institutions. This has entailed an expansion of the meaning of
security, shifting the focus from only the survival of States to both survival and
dignity of human beings.
In large measure, human security is dependent on
peoples’ access to natural resources and vulnerabilities to environmental
change — and a substantial part of environmental change is directly and
indirectly affected by human activities and conflicts. The environment thus
impacts human survival, well-being and dignity —all aspects of human security.
Consequently, the human security approach is tied
intrinsically to the idea of sustainable human development, which envisions not
only generating economic growth but distributing its benefits equitably,
regenerating the environment rather than destroying it, and empowering people
rather than marginalizing them.
It is increasingly apparent that approaches to
development, based merely on economic values are insufficient. There is a need
for a broader emphasis on sustainable development. This understanding has led
to the identification of a more focused field- environmental security- which
examines how the environment is connected to security. In such examinations,
human beings and social relationships become the objects, or preferably
subjects, that are to be secured from environmental threats — not States.
Environmental change can have direct and immediate
effects on well-being and livelihoods. Thus water scarcity, besides being an
immediate or remote cause of war may still engender insecurity by contributing
to dehydration-related death, reducing food production, and undermining
livelihood opportunities. It can also have a variety of impacts ranging from
health to economic productivity to political instability and can impact
individuals, families, communities, social organizations, and particularly
affects marginalized and vulnerable groups. While some environmental problems
are localized, others are widespread and can have an impact on future
generations.
The links between people, nature and economies are
inescapable when looking at environmental security and development as they
relate to human security. Aspirations for security and development tend to go
beyond efforts to protect individuals from environmental threats or protect the
environment from human actions. They are being increasingly based on practical
steps to seize upon the opportunities presented by the environment, in
recognition of its inherent value, and its deep connections to human beings,
societies and economies- to bring about development that is sustainable.
The idea of sustainable development developed
steadily to the Rio de Janeiro Conference of 1992. It was nurtured over the
subsequent decade by ‘Local Agenda 21’ activities and the 2002 World Summit on
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. Climate change and sustainability were
again the focus of the UN’s COP21 climate change conference at Paris in
December 2015, which saw the adoption of the ‘universal climate agreement’ for
global action.
The fundamental insights that launched the idea of
sustainability are firmly established today. There is growing realization that
efforts to protect nature will fail unless they simultaneously advance the
cause of human betterment much as efforts to better the lives of people will
fail if they fail to conserve, if not enhance, essential resources and the
environment.
The challenge is to make this understanding work for
all people everywhere, including poor and marginalised.
The jubilation of reaching a consensus at Paris COP
has been tempered with caution and criticism. Far from being a Marshall plan
for planet Earth, the climate Agreement is being seen as a ‘mixed bag’, with
one activist group arguing that governments failed to put humanity’s interests
above ‘narrowly defined and short-term interests’, adding that the deal only
offers a ‘frayed life-line to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable
people’.
Other critics of the Agreement have said that only
the vague promise of a new future climate funding target has been made, while
the deal does not force countries to cut emissions fast enough to forestall a
climate change catastrophe, which will only ramp up adaptation costs further in
the future.
Implementing of global measures would, in any case,
be meaningless without a united front of seemingly disparate interests, be they
anti-austerity groupings on the one hand, or climate change activists on the
other. Environment, economy and politics are vast, but related peas in a
complex pod.
The articulation of views by some members of the new
Administration in the United States has raised questions on the future of
sustained global action on climate change. This may put at risk the immediate
goals and commitments to mitigating climate change impact and promoting
sustainability. The developing shift in the global system, from an
outward-looking to a more inward-looking stance, would also create challenges
for strengthening global cooperation.
Today, more than ever, we need to move towards
implementing a framework of sustainability that synthesizes both the human and
the environmental elements of security for sustainable human development. This
is needed for ensuring the survival, livelihood and dignity of people, and to
provide systemic solutions to our myriad problems - human migration, climate
related disasters, recurring famines, chronic poverty, pandemic diseases and
extreme inequalities among others, while underscoring the persistence,
interdependence and universality of a set of freedoms which are fundamental to
human life.
Sustainable development cannot be achieved by
technological solutions, political regulation or financial instruments alone.
We need to change the way we think and act. This requires education and
learning for sustainable development, at all levels and in all social contexts,
to enable us to, constructively and creatively, address present and future
global challenges and create more sustainable and resilient societies.
Nor can individual initiatives be underplayed since
environmental pollution or degradation is as much an individual act as a
community one.
Practiced consistently, small steps facilitate
both gradual evolution and rapid revolution for lasting positive change.
A former Indian Prime Minister, addressing a global
conference on environment had pointed out,
“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?”
This was said in 1972. It is sad to conclude that
the travellers of spaceship earth continue to be mired in conflicts of narrow
self-interest and are yet to reach a consensus on how to change the disastrous
trajectory we are on. We do, nevertheless, need to thank those early pioneers –
including human geographers like Professor Moonis Raza - who drew attention to
the criticality of the problem.
One last word about the social awareness of the
personality we have gathered here to honour. A Muslim by birth, a Marxist by
orientation and an agnostic in matters metaphysical, Moonis sahib was acutely
aware of the sociological imperatives of the Indian scene. In a paper in
September 1994 he dwelt upon the communal situation and in that context
analysed the socio-economic situation of the Muslim community, whose
‘Indianness and Muslimness’, he said, are defining characteristics that can
neither be ignored nor underplayed.
Drawing upon the then available data, he emphasised
both the socio-economic plight and regional specificities of the community and
concluded that ‘since development is indivisible ‘the destiny of the Indian
Muslims is an integral component of the destiny of India, and the destiny of India
is irrevocably linked with the destiny of Indian Muslims. The two are
inseparably intertwined, contingent upon and flowing from each other. The
agenda of our times, therefore, calls for the progress of India along with the
advancement of its Muslim citizens, and simultaneously for the advancement of
its Muslim citizens along with the advancement of India.’
That was 12 years before the Sachar Committee Report
of 2006 and its correctives, and 20 years before ‘sub ka saath, sub ka
vikas’ of May 2014. A couplet of Mirza Ghalib comes to mind; an optimist
would say that both remain work in progress.
Jai Hind.”
***
KSD/BK