To situate myself in this larger frame of enquiry, I use a case study of Bangalore. Environmentalist and Researcher Harini Nagendra, through her book Nature in the city, dives into the ecological history of Bangalore city. Her argument began with the relevance of nature in our cities and she brings forward that, ‘the population growth of Bangalore city was because of nature not despite it’. Through artefacts such as stone and copper plates from the 6th century, she informs that the starting point of the settlement was with the creation of tanks or lakes, to collect rainwater. This gives us an insight on early closed relationship residents had with nature.
In my previous studio engagement in Bidar city, also evidently portrayed this relationship, through use of the Karez system. The karez system brought out the early water cultures and it’s linked to the natural system. The close relationship between urban settlements and nature or natural resources is as old as the settlements themselves. Early cities were located close to rivers and lakes as well as cultivated lands to ensure a regular supply of food and water. (Ravi, 2019). The karez system which is an underground water harvesting system still portrays its relevance as a functional water harvesting and transportation system.
Cities shape and in turn are shaped by their natural environment (Ravi, 2019). One can observe a close relationship between cities and nature or natural resources. Coming back to the case study of Bangalore, Harini Nagendra further gives a scenario of Bangalore ecology around the sixteenth century, where rulers and citizens planted millions of trees in the dry plateau over subsequent years. Settlements were greened with fruit trees such as mango, jackfruit, tarmirid, which provided a mutual engagement of residents with nature. The author offers an interesting insight here by adding that the administrators planted trees and residents watered and cared for them.
Over the years Bangalore provided a landscape view of resources below in the form of tanks, lakes; and resource above in the form of trees and agriculture. Subsequently, when piped water began in 1890, people forgot the importance of their local resources. The example of Sampangi lake transformed into a sports complex, leaving behind a small tank for ritual practices. “Rituals such as, following the celebration of overflowing of lakes during monsoon by praying homage to the lake Goddess, is disappearing” (Nagendra, 2016). The author further looks at nature in various parts of the city in form of nature in personal space, nature and poverty, nature on the road, nature in public spaces, sacred nature, and blue nature. While engaging with the idea of nature and poverty: vegetations in the slum, the author shares a very interesting insight. Prior to beliefs, the slum dwellers shared an incredibly strong bond with nature. People in slum used nature in ingenious ways by planting useful native trees for various benefits and also showed an emotional connection with their natural surrounding.
In our cities today, we are viably dependent on our natural resources like air, water, food and natural resources; but also our cultures are inherently tied to the natural environment (Ravi, 2019).
Today in cities we engage in one way transaction with our resources. The connect, culture and identity which once nature provided our getting blurred. Thus what kind of a relationship do we share with nature? Hence it is important to redefine our relationship with nature? We need to re-understand, what does nature mean for community dwellers of the city and what motivates them to engage with nature around them? Different neighbourhoods have different environmental characteristics, different, ecosystems, and different levels of sustainability ( Tuts, 2019)
While talking about Sustainable cities, Mr Armor Ravi mentions that the forced separation between human and nature sets us apart from our environment which could have been useful for frontier cultures. With such a booming population, we exert tremendous pressure on Earth’s biosphere. He insists us to reimagine cities as vulnerable places dependent on the fragile environment for their food, water and clean air. (Ravi, 2019)
To further substantiate the need for such a study, and elaborate on the point of separation between human & nature. In the essay The end of nature, Environment and Society, the author bring forth the idea of the end of nature (in these modern times), by defining nature separate from human society.
Natural resources provide essential ecosystem services such as clean air and water, rich and diverse source of food and flora which are critical for the survival of cities. We need to completely rethink the relationship between people, cities and the biosphere to plan, develop and manage human settlements within the local and global resource and ecological boundary (Ravi, 2019).
Famous anthropologists and social scientist Gregory Bateson said, “The major problem in the world are the results of the indifferences between how nature works and the way people think” (Bateson, 2010).
This statement further enables me to explore how can we rethink in-tune to natural principals, to define our relationships of cities and nature. Gregory Bateson further shares that we can define things through relations and delicate interdependencies in an ecological system. Thus my inquiry is further inclined to indulge forward with this thinking and question the motivation, relationships and interdependencies of city dwellers and nature.
Comments