Dattatreya T. Devare, a Bengaluru-based environmentalist and civic activist, is a prominent voice in advocating for sustainable urban development and environmental conservation. As a trustee of the Bangalore Environment Trust (BET), he’s been instrumental in protecting trees and promoting greener urban transport solutions. Devare is particularly recognized for his legal activism, which has established crucial processes to prevent indiscriminate tree felling in cities. He was recently in Guwahati to deliver a public lecture on tree felling for infrastructure.
In this interview with Paresh Malakar, Devare discusses his lifelong connection to nature and the escalating conflict between urban development and environmental preservation.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
Paresh Malakar: My first question is about your involvement in tree preservation. What drew you to this issue?
Dattatreya T. Devare: My love for trees, nature, flowers, and gardening runs in my family. I’m originally from Pune. In the 1950s, my father, who was the vice principal of Navroz Ji Wadia College, would visit Bangalore to get plants. Our college garden became one of the best in Pune. My mother was also very interested, and my sister and her husband even founded the Rose Society in Pune. My brother and sister-in-law have also created a beautiful garden around their house there. So, all of us are extremely interested in trees, gardens, and greenery.
From 1971 to 1986, I lived in a house in Pune with a large vacant plot. I spent all my free time, including weekly holidays, planting all kinds of trees in that garden. That was my deep love for gardening. I also worked for the Tatas in a factory in Pune, which had an enormous amount of greenery, consciously planted by the top leadership of Tata Telco (Tata Motors).
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
In 1986, I moved to Bangalore for a job. From 1986 until about 1995-96, Bangalore was truly a garden city. It had many open spaces, trees everywhere, and urbanization hadn’t really started, so traffic wasn’t an issue. It was heavenly. My factory had 73 acres of land around it, with gardens and even a vineyard. For some time, I was in charge of administration and looked after this entire estate. During that period, I was known as the person whose permission was absolutely necessary to touch any tree on our campus. Some managers used to joke about it, but I was very firm that no tree would be touched.
Then Bangalore started growing, especially with the IT industry’s arrival. I was in Bangalore for a few months in 2001, and even then, while traffic was heavy, MG Road still had trees on both sides.
Absolutely, that was about 20-23 years ago. Bangalore started urbanizing very rapidly, and the need was felt to widen roads. That’s where the deterioration began. The reason I got into the environment movement was because my office was on MG Road. MG Road had a beautiful boulevard between the parade ground and the road, with many beautiful trees planted on it. My office was on the fourth floor, right opposite that boulevard, and I used to see those trees growing every day.
One day, I read in the papers that the boulevard was going to be destroyed for the metro line. I knew they would cut these trees, so I started making inquiries. I then learned about the Bangalore Environment Trust, which was trying to preserve trees in the city. Through the local newspaper, Deccan Herald, I got in touch with a trustee. He confirmed that the trees would be removed and that they were planning the first experiment of tree transplantation in Bangalore around 2007. I asked if I could be involved, and they welcomed me. Another elderly trustee and I worked closely with the contractor and were fully involved in this experiment. Five trees were removed from the MG Road Boulevard and transplanted into the Manik Shah Parade Ground nearby.
Unfortunately, due to my professional work, I had to travel a lot and couldn’t monitor the transplanted trees’ progress closely. The metro authorities had borne the expenses but also didn’t pay enough attention. Sadly, all five trees died. One lived for almost a year, but eventually, it also died. That’s how I first got involved with the Bangalore Environment Trust.
It’s interesting because, as I talk to you, I’m thinking about how we perceive the environment. Do we see it as something external, or is there a bond between trees and us? The way you narrated your upbringing in Pune and Bangalore, it seems trees, flowers, and plants were always part of your family, not outside it. We belong to them, and they belong to us. Am I right in thinking that?
You are absolutely right as far as my family is concerned. Trees, flowers, etc., are an integral part of our lives. There’s a very strong bond with the trees you’ve grown up around. The connection is very deep and strong.
Just to give you an example: the place where I grew up in Pune has approximately 20 100-year-old trees. Recently, about six to eight months ago, the local corporation planned to cut them down. Someone had gone to court against this, and I happened to know him. I approached him and said, “Look, as far as our family is concerned, we have an emotional connection to these trees. At any cost, these trees must not go.” He told me that he had met several people with similar sentiments.
In Maharashtra, if a tree is more than 50 years old, it’s considered a heritage tree, and there’s some protection for them; they cannot be casually cut. The local corporation, however, claimed these trees were much younger. You know, would you cut a person like that? It’s impossible. A tree has grown in a place, it’s 50 years old, or even 30 years old, and you want to cut it?
Let me say that I probably have an extraordinary sensitivity to trees. When I’m on a road, I immediately notice if a branch has been cut. My eyes register it. When I travel with my wife, and I see a cut branch, I get restless and spontaneously say, “They’ve done this yesterday.” My wife is hesitant to sit with me because I’ll keep saying this all the time. This is the kind of connection I have.
So, I approached that person and asked what we could do to save these 20 100-year-old trees. He said they had gone to the National Green Tribunal in Pune. The corporation authorities were claiming the trees were 47, 43, or 41 years old, when everybody knows they are about 100 years old. He asked if I was willing to give an affidavit in court, stating that I’m 73 and have seen these trees since I was about 7-8 years old, so for about 65 years. My brother is 11 years older, so he has seen them for over 75 years. Both of us submitted an affidavit to the National Green Tribunal based on our personal experience, stating that these trees are at least 75 years old. Many other residents also came forward to give affidavits.
Luckily, the National Green Tribunal heard us, and those trees are still there. But we don’t know for how long, because unfortunately, the authorities today are hell-bent on destroying nature; they don’t care about these things. At least for the time being, they are there, and that was a big relief for us.
Now that you mention trees, plants, and flowers as an integral part, my sister, who loves plants and flowers, was telling me that when one of her plants died, she felt it was because plants don’t want to hear quarrels, and you should treat them well. They need human touch and conversation to flourish and be vibrant. Someone might think it’s just a belief, but I think there’s some truth in that.
Yes, yes.
My next question relates to this: Are trees, rivers, seas, mountains, air, water, land, and human beings all isolated from each other, or are we all a community?
Sir, there is no question that this whole thing is an integrated whole. Trees grow on earth; they require proper soil, nourishment, and sunshine. Almost everything must be looked at in a holistic manner. Today, we’ve developed a silo mindset, putting everything into different buckets and not looking at it holistically, which is very wrong because everything has interconnections.
Trees, for instance, provide us shade and protect us from heat. Carbon sequestration is also very important. Their roots hold the soil together, keeping it intact. They also curb air pollution. This is the beauty of nature; it’s all interrelated, interconnected, and everyone is dependent on the other. It’s very wrong and fallacious to look at these things as separate entities. They help us survive. What do we eat without trees? How do we survive? We eat fruits. How can we be so ungrateful to trees and our environment when our very survival depends on them?
Unfortunately, in the last 25-30 years, we’ve become obsessed with a term called development.
That’s it. The discussion has naturally led to this. How do we resolve the conflict between the environment and development? That’s what’s coming naturally.
Perfect, perfect. The flow is going very well. What I wanted to say was that while we all require grains, fruits, etc., for survival, once we survive, our needs change. We then look for convenience, comfort, and later, luxuries.
The concepts of convenience and luxury, particularly in an urban context, have changed considerably. Earlier, for instance, in a city, we used to walk. Pune, for example, was known as the city of bicycles, and even Bangalore 20-22 years ago.
Yes, 25 years ago, I saw girls and women cycling in Pune for the first time and was very happy. Today, in Assam, in Guwahati, girls are on two-wheelers, but for the first time, I saw them on cycles 22 years ago in Pune, where I was for 3-4 months.
As cities started growing, with this urban expanse, it became very difficult to walk or cycle. So, slowly, we started using motorized transport. This also got linked to increasing prosperity due to the country’s economic development. We went for two-wheelers, then cars, and now we are slowly moving into SUVs and luxury cars. It’s all linked to people’s aspirations for comfort, luxury, convenience, and status associated with cars.
That’s where I want to address this conflict between development and environment. Somehow, for whatever reasons, the word development today has become synonymous with wide roads, flyovers, elevated corridors, and so on.
And what I call vertical development. When development is horizontal, it touches everyone, but when it’s vertical, you see it from a distance. Now, what do we need? We need development to mean big buildings, big bridges, flyovers—everything big. It has to be very big. If it’s a statue, it has to be very big.
Exactly. As a result of this obsession with development, which one of our environmental colleagues in Bombay prefers to call “devil-opment,” what’s happening now, especially in Bangalore, and I see it all over the country, especially in Bangalore and Pune, is continuous widening of roads, building of flyovers, and underpasses. This is at the root of the massive tree felling that has started. In Bangalore, for instance, the moment we started widening roads, many very big, majestic trees had to be sacrificed. This led me to the connected issue of urban mobility, which is also an area of interest for me. I realize that the bulk of tree felling is happening because we today prefer big cars over non-motorized transport, walking, cycling, and public transport.
Yes, that’s the trend. But is there nothing we can do about it?
I remember something from Bertrand Russell’s autobiography. About 150 years ago, his grandmother used to say that there shouldn’t be permission for any new houses to come up in London. What Russell’s grandmother recommended then almost applies to all Indian cities today. Having spent roughly 28 hours here in Guwahati, I can imagine what a great, beautiful place this must have been, because even now it is reasonably green in certain pockets. Of course, the main roads and avenues have no trees left.
Another thing I wanted to ask is, when we live in a city or a place, what is it that remains the same, that defines that place? We call it heritage. If you cut all the trees and demolish all the old buildings, constantly making new things, is that civilization?
It is not at all civilization, sir. If an old building is dilapidated and the structure cannot survive, the first effort should be made to restore it if possible. If it just cannot be restored, then it’s alright to demolish. But intact structures and heritage properties should not be removed at all, and neither should trees.
Unfortunately, in our country, trees are not recognized as heritage property. Some years ago, the Pune Municipal Corporation asked citizens to inform them about heritage properties around their houses. I wrote to them, providing pictures of the trees I’m talking about, which were saved by a colleague, arguing that trees should also be considered heritage property. But unfortunately, it hasn’t happened. An attempt in Karnataka five years ago also did not succeed. A city gets its character from its heritage and history. If you don’t have that, what is the identity of a place? The natural environment defines it. If you get away with that, what remains of the place? This is destruction, not development. It’s very true. I really don’t understand what we achieve by doing this.
We’ve been discussing so many things. Finally, this madness of development—I think maybe “development” has already become an ugly word. It was a good thing, but whatever we’ve seen in terms of development has a very ugly connotation for me. Is it not so?
Sir, that ugly connotation is for you and me. But for a lot of people, the word development is still synonymous with big buildings, vertical towers, flyovers, and stuff like that. A flyover with a tree-lined avenue is not the concept of development for many people. That’s very unfortunate. While I do see some youngsters getting disillusioned with the kind of development that is happening, so there is some ray of hope, the authorities are still very hell-bent on this notion of development. They want more and more development. Maybe development means more money, more commission.
Now, if we have to protect our environment, if we have to save and protect trees, who are the main stakeholders? That’s what I want to know from you.
The primary stakeholder is the citizen. Yes, because ultimately, trees matter to citizens. They are the primary stakeholders. Unfortunately, the citizen as a stakeholder has the least amount of say in the matter, which is unfortunate.
The other stakeholders are, of course, the government and semi-government authorities, which are supposed to bring us development, the so-called development. Then, the other stakeholder is the media, and in the current situation, not just the mainstream print and visual media, but also the social media. That’s also a big stakeholder. And then, the stakeholders are our courts. Just as the courts are supposed to protect our fundamental rights, they are also expected to protect our heritage, our environment, our nature, our trees, and our greenery.
I must mention here that while the courts have many times given us very good orders, unfortunately, there is no consistency. Sometimes we get very good orders; sometimes we may not. The unpredictability about court decisions is also a matter of concern. So, all these stakeholders have to work very closely together. That is also missing, because every stakeholder has his own agenda, and they find it very difficult to come on the same page and deliver what is really required by our society.
All of us who are in the environment movement or trying to do something always face the challenge of how to get all these stakeholders to come together, see things the same way, and get proper decisions from the authorities, including the courts. This is really a very big challenge. But there are people all over. I was very glad to meet a number of concerned citizens of Guwahati yesterday and the team that has gone to the court, struggling and doing a lot for this city. I am very, very sure that with their determination and commitment, they will succeed in this endeavor.
Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts with us and with our audience. I hope our audience will appreciate whatever you have said.
Thank you very much. I would like to thank you for having me on this. It has been a pleasure to discuss this issue, which is very dear to me. Thank you so much.