Answer

Introduction

Large-scale infrastructure development in ecologically fragile regions often undermines disaster resilience by disrupting delicate geological and hydrological balances. While intended for connectivity, projects that bypass carrying capacity audits act as “risk multipliers,” converting manageable natural hazards into catastrophic “man-made” disasters in sensitive zones like the Himalayas.

Body

How Infrastructure Development Undermines Resilience

• Slope Destabilisation: Extensive hill-cutting at near-vertical angles violates the natural “angle of repose” of fragile mountain geology, triggering chronic landslides.
• Hydrological Disruption: Construction activities frequently block natural drainage channels and underground springs, leading to subsurface water pressure and land subsidence.
• Deforestation Impacts: Removing deep-rooted trees like Deodar and Oak eliminates the natural biological anchors that bind soil and absorb heavy rainfall.
  Eg: The felling of nearly 7,000 Deodar trees in 2025 has been cited as a major factor in escalating landslide risks in Uttarakhand.
• Muck Dumping: Indiscriminate disposal of debris into riverbeds raises river levels, causing “man-made” flash floods even during moderate rainfall.
• Project Fragmentation: Avoiding comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) by breaking large projects into smaller chunks prevents a cumulative assessment of ecological risk.

Case Study: Char Dham Road Widening Project

The 889-km Char Dham Pariyojana illustrates the tension between strategic infrastructure and ecological safety in the high-seismic Zone V of the Himalayas.

• Landslide Escalation: The adoption of a 12-metre-wide road standard (DL-PS) has led to the emergence of over 800 active landslide zones along the route.
  Eg: Strategic border routes to Badrinath and Gangotri are frequently blocked during monsoons, rendering the “all-weather” road unusable.
• Tunneling Hazards: Rapid drilling without adequate geotechnical surveys has led to structural failures and ground instability in towns.
  Eg: The Joshimath land subsidence crisis (2023) and the Silkyara tunnel collapse were linked to intensive construction in the sensitive MCT zone.
• Riverine Degradation: Illegal muck dumping in the Bhagirathi Eco-Sensitive Zone has altered the river’s character, threatening the purity and flow of the Ganga.
• Loss of Resilience: By prioritising engineering over ecology, the project has turned a pilgrimage corridor into a “permanent hazard regime,” increasing the human cost of climate-induced events.
  Eg: The Dharali disaster (2025) showed how widened roads and debris worsened the impact of torrential rains on local settlements.

Conclusion

Infrastructure in fragile zones must transition from an “engineering-only” exercise to a “science-based” resilience framework. Prioritising intermediate road widths (5.5m) and adopting bio-engineering over vertical cutting is essential. As the Himalayas warm faster than the global average, national security and regional development must be built on the foundation of ecological stability, ensuring that the “Path to Progress” does not become a “March towards Ecocide.”

DOWNLOAD PDF