The report is that Delhi is suffering its worst smog in 40 years. Of course, the story concerns how people are suffering. But what about the pet dogs and cats living in that sprawling city? The airborne pollution is choking the city. The Scottish historian William Dalrymple has lived in Delhi for 40 years and he’s never seen anything like the smog that he is experiencing presently.
It chokes the lungs of residents throughout the city. The dirty air even penetrates the luggage reclaim area at the airport where Dalrymple arrived recently. He said: “There was a terrible smell of poisonous fumes. I couldn’t actually see clearly because of the haze.”
Airborne pollution has got consistently worse in Delhi over the past decade. Dalrymple laments “a city embalmed in an all-enveloping burial shroud of pollution”. A beautifully but scary description from an award-winning author.
He claims that Delhi has become a deathtrap. The air quality index reading is several times more than the acceptable range. And the concentration of toxic minute particles called PM 2.5s has been recorded at 130.9 times the World Health Organisation’s recommended levels.
Visibility has been reduced to a few metres in places. The city has turned gray and ashen. It’s the kind of picture one can conjure up of London in the 1940s. It appears that Delhi is around a hundred years behind the UK in terms of ensuring decent air quality in India’s capital.
The smog is indeed dangerous. Dalrymple lives on the outskirts of Delhi at a farmhouse and when he got there he had burning at the back of his throat and he was retching from the smoke. He says that in the winter the air used to be clear compared to the “sticky heat of the summer”. But those winter “blue skies and gentle sun” have gone.
The government has failed to tackle the problem despite the chronic health conditions that this kind of air pollution causes.
The newspapers never, ever show a concern for the companion animals living within this toxic environment. They are the true innocent victims. They are dependent on humans for everything and they have failed miserably.
India frequently ranks among the world’s most polluted countries regarding air quality. Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata often experience hazardous air quality levels. This is due to vehicle emissions, industrial and construction dust, agricultural burning and the use of fossil fuels i.e. a dependence on coal for power generation. It appears that India has shown little desire to wean themselves off coal-fired power stations. This is because of a drive towards greater industrial production and economic wealth but at the expense of health.
I have mentioned air quality but India is also famous for plastic pollution as it is among the largest producers of consumers of plastic and much of it ends up as pollution due to poor waste management, single-use plastics and poorly managed waste systems resulting in millions of tonnes of plastic washing into the oceans.
India has made strides in recognising and addressing some of these issues such as imposing bans on some plastic products but the country struggles with enforcement and scalability of solutions.
In Delhi, citizens are advised to stay indoors but I believe that if outdoor pollution is heavy then you will possibly in some situations have even worse pollution inside the home. Hospitals are seeing an influx of patients with respiratory illnesses. It’s a medical emergency across northern India. Some home owners have air purifiers but they struggled to cope.
The Delhi government has ordered schools to close. Work has stopped on construction sites generating dust. Some vehicles have been banned from entering the city. Airport and railway stations are still open but there are delays.
Think of the pets. That’s my message. We don’t know how many pet cats and dogs there are in Delhi. They do, remarkably, have a cat fancy in India by the way. That means there are people who breed and show their purebred cats at cat shows. I believe that I was personally responsible for instigating that movement by the way.
We know that in 2023 there were about 23 million households with pet dogs and 1.7 million households with pet cats in India.
According to a 2022 survey, dogs are the most popular pet in India with 60% of respondents owning a dog while 34% of respondents own a cat.
We must also remember the community cats or the stray cats in Delhi and wider India. A report found that 60.5% of dogs and 9% of cats in India live in the streets or shelters. The overall pet population in India is reportedly 31 million as at 2021 up by 10 million a decade ago.
There are many pet dogs and cats in Delhi. They are suffering. Humans have an obligation to think of them as well as themselves. They are seriously harming their companion animals with this heavy load of airborne pollution. It’s time for change. It’s time for the government to commit to change. There is no doubt in my mind that the Delhi government has failed to commit to cleaning up the air. They just don’t want to tackle it because it’s too difficult and too expensive they think.
The Delhi government could do a lot worse than look at how the UK government cleaned up London’s air in the 1950s.
In 1930s and subsequent decades with the infamous Great Smog of 1952, London was famous for chronic air pollution. The smog with a mix of fog and air pollution mainly caused by widespread burning of coal in homes, factories and power plants. The smog killed thousands of people.
How did they resolve the problem? They instigated legislation with the Clean Air Act of 1956. This was landmark legislation and the cornerstone of their fight against smog.
The act prohibited the omission of dark smoke from chimneys. It created Smoke Control Areas where residents and industries were required to switch to smokeless fuels such as smokeless coal, electricity and gas.
And financial incentives were offered for households to convert their heating systems to cleaner energy sources.
There were subsequent revisions of the Clean Air Act including one in 1968. This tightened regulations and introduced requirements for industrial plants to adopt cleaner technologies.
There was a shift away from coal as it was the primary source of air pollution in London. Natural gas was introduced to households in the 1960s. And there were cleaner industrial fuels. These changes reduced the particulates and sulphur dioxide emitted into the air.
Air pollution monitoring stations were established to measure the levels of pollution to provide data upon which further action was taken.
There were public awareness campaigns to educate citizens on the dangers of air pollution and the benefits of cleaner air.
London’s infrastructure adapted to encourage cleaner transportation options and green spaces were preserved and expanded to improve urban air quality. Overall, these measures dramatically improved London’s air quality over the following decades. Pollution still exists because of today’s challenges concerning vehicle emissions. There are now restrictions on certain vehicles entering London which fail to comply with high standards of emissions.
Delhi’s administrators simply have to look back in history at London and follow the UK’s example to protect the health of its residents and their companion animals.
SEPARATELY...India has a problem with discharging its duty to protect worldwide standards in all areas from ocean and climatic pollution as mentioned and is sitting on the fence regarding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It seems to me that India struggles with taking a more committed approach to setting high standards of behavior in the interests of the citizens of the world.
Question: “India is in breach of a moral duty to decry Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Sitting on the fence does not cut it. Correct?”
The answer comes from ChatGPT (AI bot – remember AI bots are not always 100% correct!).
Your argument raises a compelling ethical critique of India’s stance. By abstaining from outright condemnation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, India has indeed opened itself to accusations of failing to meet a moral obligation to stand against aggression and human rights violations. Let’s explore this further:
1. Moral Responsibility and Global Leadership
India has historically prided itself on being a moral voice in international affairs, particularly as a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and a proponent of peace and justice. By not condemning Russia’s invasion, critics argue that India:
- Appears to compromise its commitment to sovereignty and territorial integrity—principles it has consistently upheld in cases like Kashmir.
- Risks eroding its credibility as a global leader that champions ethical stances.
2. Sitting on the Fence Undermines Principles
Neutrality in the face of clear aggression is often viewed as tacit approval. The invasion of Ukraine involves:
- Violation of international law: Russia’s actions breach the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
- Humanitarian crisis: The war has resulted in widespread civilian casualties, displacement, and infrastructure destruction.
Critics argue that by abstaining, India is failing to uphold universal principles of justice and human rights.
3. Strategic Neutrality vs. Moral Clarity
India’s abstention can be explained through realpolitik, where national interests take precedence over ideological commitments. However, this stance has significant ethical implications:
- Perception of hypocrisy: India defends its own territorial integrity against external threats (e.g., from China and Pakistan) but avoids condemning similar violations elsewhere.
- Missed opportunity for leadership: India could leverage its global influence to advocate for a peaceful resolution while maintaining its ethical commitments.
Neutrality may protect India’s strategic interests, but it falls short of the moral clarity expected from a rising global power.
4. Counterarguments to India’s Position
- Economic and Strategic Dependencies: While India’s reliance on Russian defense and energy is a reality, critics argue that ethical stances often require sacrifices. By failing to condemn the invasion, India risks losing moral authority for the sake of short-term gains.
- Global South Unity: India has framed its abstentions as reflective of the Global South’s reluctance to choose sides in a polarized global order. However, not taking a stand on such a critical issue may weaken its leadership among developing nations.
5. The Role of Public Sentiment
Public and intellectual discourse within India has been divided:
- Some argue that neutrality is pragmatic, given India’s reliance on Russia and its desire to avoid alienating the West.
- Others criticize the government for prioritizing self-interest over ethical imperatives.
As a democracy, India’s stance is likely to face ongoing scrutiny both domestically and internationally.
6. Moral Leadership in Modern Times
India has an opportunity to recalibrate its approach:
- Condemning aggression does not require severing ties with Russia; it is possible to criticize actions while maintaining diplomatic and trade relations.
- Advocating for peace with moral clarity would enhance India’s global standing as a principled power.
Conclusion
You are right that neutrality in the face of clear aggression undermines India’s moral authority and its historical role as a voice for justice. While strategic interests are a valid consideration, a balance must be struck to ensure that pragmatism does not overshadow ethical commitments. Sitting on the fence may protect immediate interests, but it risks long-term reputational damage and diminishes India’s potential as a moral leader in global affairs.
