Mentor’s Comment

This article analyses the growing ecological and governance crisis in the Indian Himalayas, reflected in frequent disasters and infrastructure decisions that ignore scientific and policy safeguards. Using the Char Dham road-widening project as an example, it shows how unsafe land use, poor engineering choices, and weak policy coordination are increasing disaster risks in a highly fragile mountain region.

Why in the news?

The Himalayas experienced nearly 331 days of climate impacts in 2025, resulting in over 4,000 deaths, with Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand bearing the heaviest toll. Despite repeated disasters from cloudbursts, landslides, avalanches, and flash floods, the government has approved large-scale infrastructure expansion in disaster-prone zones. This includes the felling of nearly 7,000 Deodar trees for the Char Dham road-widening project.

Why is the Himalayan disaster risk escalating?

1. Climate intensification: High-altitude regions have warmed 50% faster than the global average since 1950, increasing extreme rainfall, glacial melt, and flash floods.
2. Near-continuous exposure: 2025 recorded 331 days of climate impacts, indicating a permanent hazard regime rather than seasonal extremes.
3. Hazard convergence: Cloudbursts, landslides, avalanches, and land subsidence increasingly interact to produce compound disasters.

Why is infrastructure expansion central to the crisis?

1. Unsafe land use: Cutting unstable slopes for wide highways, drilling tunnels without adequate geological surveys, and large hydropower construction directly destabilise fragile terrain.
2. Slope destabilisation: Excessively steep hill-cutting violates the natural angle of repose of Himalayan geology, creating permanent instability.
3. Muck dumping: Indiscriminate disposal of excavated debris into rivers and slopes accelerates erosion and flood risk.

What makes the Char Dham road-widening project problematic?

1. Incorrect road standard: Adoption of the DL-PS (12-metre paved surface) standard in a disaster-prone region contradicts ecological and geological constraints.
2. Project fragmentation: Bypassing a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment through artificial project segmentation.
3. Scale of impact: Nearly 700 km of widened roads have generated over 800 active landslide zones, frequently closing strategic border routes.
4. Delayed remedies: Retrofitting slopes with fibreglass bolts and wire mesh comes eight years after large-scale destabilisation, limiting effectiveness.

Why are Deodar forests ecologically irreplaceable?

1. Slope stabilisation: Extensive root systems bind fragile soils, reducing landslides and debris flows.
2. Avalanche buffering: Forest cover acts as a natural barrier against glacial debris and snow avalanches.
3. River health: Deodar forests regulate water temperature, sustain dissolved oxygen, and maintain water quality in snowmelt-fed streams.
4. Microbial regulation: Antimicrobial compounds from leaf litter suppress harmful bacteria while promoting beneficial microbial communities.
5. Legal recognition: Located within the Bhagirathi Eco-Sensitive Zone (≈4,000 sq km), established in 2012 to protect the Ganga’s last pristine stretch.

Why is ‘tree translocation’ scientifically flawed?

1. Ecological specificity: Centuries-old Deodars perform site-specific functions that cannot be replicated elsewhere.
2. Functional loss: Uprooting effectively nullifies root-based slope stabilisation and microbial regulation.
3. Absence of alternatives: No suitable terrain exists to recreate identical ecological conditions.

How does governance failure amplify disaster risk?

1. Policy contradiction: Current development initiatives violate the National Mission for Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem (NMSHE).
2. Mandate dilution: NMSHE prioritises glacier monitoring, biodiversity protection, hazard mitigation, and sustainable livelihoods, but lacks implementation authority.
3. Short-termism: Persistent prioritisation of immediate economic gains over long-term disaster resilience.
4. Regulatory erosion: Repeated warnings by the National Green Tribunal remain weakly enforced.

Why is climate change a ‘risk multiplier’ in the Himalayas?

1. Erratic rainfall: Intensifies cloudbursts and flash floods.
2. Glacial melt acceleration: Creates a dangerous ‘water-peak phase’ of high runoff and catastrophic floods.
3. Future scarcity: Post-glacier retreat phase leads to prolonged water scarcity and drought.

What human behaviours worsen ecological stress?

1. Unregulated tourism: Exceeds carrying capacity in fragile zones.
2. Vehicular pressure: Heavy traffic on unstable mountain roads increases slope stress.
3. Waste mismanagement: Absence of functional solid-waste systems contaminates water sources.

Conclusion

Disaster resilience in the Himalayas is no longer optional but foundational to national security, ecological stability, and economic sustainability. Infrastructure decisions that ignore geological reality and ecological limits convert development into systemic risk. Scientific planning, policy coherence, and accountability must precede expansion in one of India’s most climate-sensitive landscapes.

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

Attend Now