Every year as Diwali approaches, headlines about air pollution in Delhi remind us of the environmental challenges that loom over us. In response, Delhi, Haryana and Punjab instituted a ban on firecrackers this year, aimed at curbing the already deteriorating air quality. Yet, despite these clear government warnings and Supreme Court directives, the festival saw widespread firecracker use, further degrading air quality. For many, the solution is simple: retreat indoors, turn on the air purifier and insulate their private spaces from the public harm of toxic air.
This behaviour underscores a critical issue: when the government fails to ensure public goods like clean air, either you become wealthy enough to shield yourself, or you face the health consequences. In this increasingly materialistic world, where individual wealth is becoming the primary means to shield oneself from collective problems, the concept of collective action and shared responsibility is rapidly eroding. When affluent households can afford to insulate their private spaces with costly air purifiers, the very foundation of social trust and collective efficacy begins to weaken.
Distancing and the public-private conundrum
The phenomenon of ‘distancing’, discussed by Thomas Princen and colleagues, sheds light on the growing reliance on private solutions to shield against public harm. In our globalised supply chain, the environmental impacts of individual consumption are increasingly outsourced and geographically and culturally distanced from consumers. This separation allows people to largely ignore the environmental costs of their actions, as they are far removed from the consequences.
This distancing is apparent in the way air pollution affects different social classes within the same city. As firecrackers fill the skies with smoke and particulate matter, those who can afford air purifiers enjoy some level of safety, while marginalised communities – who cannot afford such luxuries – are left to bear the brunt of the pollution. This public-private divide highlights the shift in the very notion of environmental goods: clean air is no longer a shared public right but an exclusive commodity accessible to those with financial means.
Inverted quarantine
This privatisation of safety is encapsulated by sociologist Andrew Szasz’s concept of ‘inverted quarantine’. Traditionally, quarantine involves isolating a source of harm to protect the public. In contrast, inverted quarantine involves creating personal safe spaces within polluted environments. With air purifiers, bottled water and organic food, affluent individuals build a ‘commodity bubble’ to shield themselves from environmental hazards.
Szasz critiques this approach as it erodes collective action by promoting a sense of complacency. When those with resources can shield themselves from pollution, they feel less urgency to advocate for broader solutions. This cycle risks normalising environmental degradation as something inevitable, something to be managed privately rather than publicly addressed. As air purifiers top Diwali gift lists, the underlying message is clear: safeguarding one’s health is now a private responsibility, affordable only to those who can pay the price.
For Delhi’s marginalised population, however, such protection is out of reach. The cost of a basic air purifier equates to about 15 days’ wages for many, making it an unattainable luxury. Left without the means to shield their homes, they are forced to endure the health risks of pollution, underscoring the growing inequity in access to environmental protection.
Moreover, there is a psychological element driving this behaviour. Firecrackers, although they worsen air quality, provide immediate, short-term enjoyment that is relatively inexpensive compared to the long-term health investments required to mitigate pollution’s effects, such as air purifiers. The transient pleasure of bursting crackers can make it harder for individuals to recognise the long-term harm their actions cause, both to themselves and others. This disconnect between immediate gratification and future health risks creates an even larger obstacle to fostering collective action, further driving the public-private divide.
Decline of collective responsibility
The disparity in public and private environmental protection not only exacerbates social inequality but also weakens collective efficacy and social trust. Development aspirations increasingly revolve around securing wealth as a means to create a ‘clean’ private sphere – achieved through economic gains and consumer products that promise safety from public harm. In today’s system, financial success doesn’t just buy a better lifestyle; it buys the resources necessary for a healthier, safer living environment.
At the intersection of these private-public dynamics lies a pressing question about collective responsibility and environmental justice. How can society address environmental issues as a community if affluent households can insulate themselves from shared harm? The widespread defiance of the firecracker ban underscores this breakdown of collective action, where individual enjoyment takes precedence over public health. As environmental safety becomes a luxury, trust in government efforts to protect public welfare wanes, further undermining any collective response to these crises.
It is crucial to reflect on the notion that environmental goods like clean air are not just a privilege but a public right. When the good life is narrowly defined by the ability to shield oneself from pollution, society loses its collective responsibility to demand better public protections. Reimagining development aspirations – anchoring them in environmental stewardship, collective efficacy, and reinforced social trust – is essential to counter the current trajectory.
To shift this trajectory, we must prioritise a shared commitment to safeguard public goods. The worsening air quality in Delhi serves as a vivid example of how urgent this need is, yet it also shows that achieving it requires collective action. With the affluent few able to buy their way out of the problem and the marginalised left exposed, fragmentation along lines of wealth and privilege is worsening. Let us remember that protecting the environment should not be a private luxury. Only by working together can we ensure a cleaner, healthier and more equitable future for all.
Soumyajit Bhar and Kalpita Bhar Paul are assistant professors at School of Liberal Studies, BML Munjal University.