Mir Iqbal Hussain
A tree is often the first thing we remove when we want to make space. For a road. For a building. For a factory. For a project. We call it development and move on. But perhaps we need to pause and ask a simple question: What are we actually losing when we cut those trees? I was reminded of this recently while looking at a piece of Custodian land very close to my house in a village of Budgam. The land once had a good number of apple trees.
For people travelling along the nearby road, the trees added beauty to the landscape. They were part of the village scenery and, more importantly, they were living assets. Then the trees were removed during the clearing of the land. Today, the land lies almost idle. The trees are gone. The beauty is gone. And the purpose for which such clearing was considered necessary is not readily visible.
It made me wonder: Was removing the trees really the only option? This is not just the story of one piece of land in one village.
Kashmir has many such stories. India has many more. Across the world, forests and trees continue to give way to roads, industries, buildings and other forms of development. The circumstances may be different, but the question remains the same: Must development always begin with the removal of nature? A recent Food and Agriculture Organization report has offered an important reminder. Forests are not simply standing timber. They are closely linked with food, nutrition and livelihoods. More than five billion people worldwide depend on forests and trees in different ways.
Forests provide fruits, nuts, wild foods and medicinal resources. They protect soil and water, support agriculture, provide habitat and contribute to the livelihoods of millions. For people living close to forests, these are not academic facts. They are part of everyday life. I recall a lesson from a Class 8 Science textbook that brought this whole issue closer to home. The lesson described a village where unemployment was a problem. The government decided to establish a factory to provide jobs. But there was a catch: trees in the village would have to be cut down to make room for the factory.
The students were asked whether the decision was right. Some said yes. The factory would provide employment. Others said no. Cutting the trees would damage the environment. Then one student gave an answer that stayed with me. He said the factory should be established, but outside the area occupied by the trees and plants. The villagers could get employment and the trees could remain. After all, he said, we are part of the environment and should protect it.
“Development decisions in expanding areas like Budgam must balance immediate progress with long-term environmental sustainability. True development is not about choosing between economic growth and nature, but finding solutions that create jobs while preserving the vital ecosystems that sustain us.”
A Class 8 student had perhaps understood something that our development plans sometimes forget. It does not always have to be jobs versus trees. Good planning can sometimes give us both. That is where the principle of sustainable development becomes important — not stopping development, but finding ways to meet our economic and social needs without unnecessarily destroying the natural systems on which our lives depend. A factory can create jobs. A road can connect communities. A building can provide a service. Development is necessary. But before a project begins, why can’t we ask one more question? Can the project be designed in a way that saves the trees? Why not map valuable trees before clearing land?
Why not treat existing green spaces as assets? Why not consider the ecological value of mature trees before deciding that they are obstacles?
And where cutting is genuinely unavoidable, why should replacing that ecological value be treated as an afterthought?
An apple tree in Kashmir is not merely a tree. It can provide fruit and income. It gives shade and beauty, provides habitat and holds the soil. For countless families across the Valley, apple trees are also part of their livelihood and way of life. Multiply that by thousands of trees and the loss is far greater than the timber obtained from them. Kashmir is already under pressure from changing weather, water concerns, land-use changes and biodiversity loss. At such a time, existing trees and forests deserve greater consideration, not less. The same lesson applies beyond Kashmir.
From a village in Budgam to a rapidly expanding city, the development debate often comes down to the same question: How much are we willing to sacrifice today for progress, and how much of that sacrifice is actually necessary?
Perhaps the answer should not be found after the trees have been cut. It should be found before the first tree is felled. We often say that we are protecting the environment for future generations. But the environment is not something separate from us. It is the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we grow and the land on which we live. That Class 8 student’s answer deserves to be remembered: Build the factory. Create the jobs. But save the trees if there is a way to do both. That is not anti-development. That is simply better development. And perhaps the most important question we should ask before clearing any green space is not: “What can we build here?” but:“What can we build without destroying what is already giving life to this place?”
(The author is a teacher and Environmental Science researcher pursuing a PhD in Environmental Science. The views, opinions and conclusions expressed in this article are those of the author and aren’t necessarily in accord with the views of “Kashmir Horizon”)
