We vs Nature: What Mahabharata Teaches Us About Environmental Rights

When I ask who the Pandavas’ biggest enemy was, the usual answers include the Kauravas—the 100 brothers, Shakuni, Karna, and more precisely, Duryodhana. In my view, however, the staunchest enemies of the Pandavas were the Nagas of Khandavaprastha, particularly Takshaka, their leader. Duryodhana merely wanted to prove himself superior to the Pandavas and claim rightful heirship to the kingdom, but Takshaka sought to wipe out the Pandavas entirely.

Why? When the Pandavas, especially Arjuna, burned the Khandavaprastha forest to build their palace, they prioritized their own needs but ignored nature. Native creatures were killed or displaced, and serpents, including Takshaka, suffered the most. This led Takshaka and his son Ashwasen to vow revenge. This might not be a very well-known episode from the Mahabharata, but believe me, this animosity was the very reason the Mahabharata was told in the first place. Indeed, Mahabharata has a lot to teach us.

From then to now, building has been one of the most destructive things we do to the planet—whether it’s constructing a house or a city. We cut down trees, dig into the earth, and displace organisms. We’re not just building; we’re also mining, polluting, and exploiting the earth and its ecosystems.

In the Mahabharata, Takshaka had his means of revenge. But in today’s world, if you cut down a tree, its kin won’t come back to seek revenge, nor will any other organism once their fight-or-flight response is over. Nature neither has legal rights to protect itself nor any means to seek justice.

The question is: even if such rights are granted by giving nature the status of a legal entity, is it practical to enforce such laws in our country?

In India, courts have granted legal personhood to animals in Haryana (2019), Sukhna Lake (2020), and the Ganga and Yamuna rivers (2017) to protect them from harm. However, enforcing these rights remains difficult, as seen when the Supreme Court stayed the ruling on the rivers.

In contrast, such legal experiments have succeeded in other parts of the world. The Whanganui River in New Zealand, granted legal personhood in 2017, has its guardians defending it in court. Colombia's Atrato River, granted rights in 2016, now has protections against pollution from mining. These cases demonstrate how legal personhood can help protect natural entities and support conservation.

What’s the difference? The success of nature’s rights in New Zealand and Colombia is closely tied to cultural and Indigenous involvement. The Māori people of New Zealand view the Whanganui River as a living ancestor, ensuring strong local guardianship. In Colombia, Indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities, who rely on the Atrato River, actively advocated for its protection. In India, while the Ganga and Yamuna rivers hold deep cultural significance, formal local or Indigenous involvement in their guardianship is less organized, complicating enforcement.

Second, clear legal frameworks and guardianship models have been key. In New Zealand, a structured system of guardianship with appointed representatives protects the Whanganui River. Colombia’s Atrato River benefits from a court-appointed system of human guardians. These clear legal roles ensure active defence and monitoring. In India, however, ambiguity over who represents the rivers and how their rights are enforced makes it harder to apply the legal rulings.

To replicate these successes in India and other regions, it is crucial to establish a dual approach: robust legal structures with strong government involvement and formalized local guardianship. Addressing these gaps will strengthen nature’s rights and protect vital ecosystems for future generations.

In many parts of India, we place metallic serpent figures during bhoomi poojan, a tribute to the land’s indigenous inhabitants and the life it once supported. This isn’t just about snakes; it symbolizes all forms of life and nature itself. Instead of mere tributes, let’s hope to turn this symbolic gesture into active protection from all actions that harm nature.