Central idea

The Uttarkashi tunnel collapse has thrown light on the major flaws in the infrastructure development in the Indian Himalayan Region

Key Highlights:

• The Char Dham Project in the Indian Himalayan Region (IHR) has raised concerns about the sustainability of the current development model.
• The focus is on the carrying capacity of the IHR, questioning the extensive road widening, hydropower projects, and tourism promotion.
• The geological sensitivity of the Himalayas, marked by earthquakes and frictional shear rocks, makes such infrastructure projects dangerous.

Challenges:

• Lack of adherence to mountain construction codes and basic safety protocols in the rush for construction projects.
• The fragmentation of the Char Dham Project into smaller sections for Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) raises questions about its comprehensive evaluation.
• The need to address the broader issue of carrying capacity in the IHR, encompassing hydropower projects, tourism, and road development.

Key Phrases:

• “Construction in this zone is dangerous” due to the sensitive geological nature of the Himalayas.
• The Supreme Court should address the issue of carrying capacity in the Himalayas, considering the impact of infrastructure on the ecosystem.
• The transformative phase in the IHR requires a reevaluation of the integration approach with new geographies.

Critical Analysis:

• The article criticizes the lack of seriousness in implementing safety measures, citing the Silkyara tunnel incident in Uttarakhand.
• Emphasis on learning from failures, international protocols, and the inclusion of local communities in monitoring structures are suggested for safer infrastructure development.

Key Examples and References:

• The Atal tunnel in Himachal Pradesh is cited as an exception with a rigorous safety protocol, contrasting it with the safety lapses in the Char Dham Project.
• The flash floods of 2013 in Uttarakhand are mentioned as the basis for initiating the Char Dham Yatra and subsequent infrastructure projects.

Key Data:

• The Char Dham Project is approximately 900 km long, broken into 53 sections for separate EIAs.
• Geological and geotechnical studies highlight the dangerous nature of construction in the Himalayas.

Key Facts:

• The carrying capacity discussion extends beyond the number of people to include infrastructure aspects like hydropower projects and roads.
• The importance of a legislative architecture that involves local communities and adheres to international protocols for safer infrastructure development.

Key Terms for value addition in your answer:

• Carrying capacity
• Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
• Geological sensitivity
• Transformative phase
• Safety protocols

Way Forward:

• Urgent dialogue on carrying capacity in the Himalayas, considering the total impact of infrastructure development.
• Adoption of international protocols and legislative architecture for safer construction, involving local communities and civil society.
• Reevaluation of the integration approach in the transformative phase of the IHR, ensuring stability and safety standards in infrastructure projects.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now