Why an opinion article on Delhi's air pollution upset many Indians | Janaki Lenin

Gardiner Harris, the South Asia correspondent for The New York Times, wrote a critique of Delhi’s abysmal air quality before fleeing to the US. Since then his story has been re-published by major news websites and shared widely online. Within nine months of the family moving to Delhi, Harris’ eight-year-old son Bram suffered respiratory distress, lost half his breathing ability, and had to take steroids regularly. Then the Harrises agonised if it was ethical to continue living in the city at the cost of their children’s health, especially when they had a choice. They could move elsewhere, while most of the city’s residents were grounded. Everyone he talked to advised him against raising his children in Delhi. A professor of preventive medicine in California said children from some of the most polluted parts of Los Angeles lost most or all use of their lungs. Los Angeles is far less polluted than Delhi. Another study said children never fully recovered even when they moved to better areas. But surprisingly, the Harrises persisted even after their son suffered another attack of asthma. The horror story didn’t end there. Harris mentioned the sewage drain that is the river Yamuna, widespread open defecation, shoddy construction that caused sewage to mix with freshwater piped to his house, and congested traffic. These are not special privileges reserved only for those living in Delhi. Open a newspaper on any day in the southern city of Chennai, and you’ll find similar stories. Harris said he finally had enough of the horrors of Delhi, and he was relocating to Washington. Many agreed with him. An article in Firstpost said Delhi “is beyond redemption. It is time to think of transferring the capital to some other place.” NDTV conducted an online poll asking readers if they agreed with Harris. An overwhelming majority did. But pretty soon, offended Indians got on Facebook and Twitter, engaging in their favourite pastime: shoot the messenger. The Daily O compared Delhi to Dickens’ London of squalor. While adding her share of anecdotes of how terrible the city is for its citizens, especially the poor, the writer accused Harris for his sense of entitlement. She then went on to list the things she loved about Delhi – elegant historic monuments, awesome Indian food – while describing the racism she faced while living in the US. This article served as a rallying call for miffed Indians who shared it again and again, while missing the point. Newslaundry trashed Harris’ article, calling it “the omnibus edition of a drain inspector’s report.” The writer dismissed a bunch of studies Harris cited that connect pollution to a range of illnesses. For an article that talks in excruciating detail of the cataclysmic effect Delhi’s air has had on the health of the author’s child—and the ethical dilemma faced by expats, whether they should risk raising their loved ones in this godforsaken metropolis—for all those morbid adjectives and gut-wrenching, bile-inducing descriptions, Harris quotes but a single scientific study. But the critic could find only one other study funded by a maker of air purifiers. He dismissed the World Health Organisation’s alarming values of particulate matter because the Indian government rejected them. Although the lack of scientific studies is not Harris’ fault, Newslaundry reserves its choicest adjectives for Harris. There was not a word on the faulty devices that measure pollution levels. The New York Times is not the only foreign publication to highlight Delhi’s pollution, nor was this the first time Harris has tackled Delhi’s air quality. He wrote an especially sharp article on the toll pollution takes on public health, and he even used Delhi’s annual half-marathon to highlight an issue that affects rich and poor alike. None of those stories elicited this level of outrage. So why did Indians react so negatively to this particular story? Was it because he delivered a parting shot before escaping Delhi? Harris’ account of his son’s struggle to take a breath of air humanised an environmental problem that had been discussed in numbers and facts. He showed up the lack of public outrage at the dismal quality of life in the city and highlighted the personal cost of living with pollution. His article didn’t surprise anyone who was following the issue. But his account of his son’s struggles got under the skin of Indians who may never have thought of pollution before, or not realised how bad it was, or even argued that it was necessary if India had to catch up with the developed world. And that hurt.