Credence of a popular belief does not necessarily become an evidence of that belief

The Diwali season has had its predictable landmarks. The crescendo of rising prices has been in the headlines. There has been token and dramatic government action to establish its responsiveness. Many have played their role in blaming crackers for the air pollution in Delhi. When any theme becomes as common as that of pollution the courts cannot be left far behind. The strange thing about Delhi pollution is that it starts rising, almost exponentially, a few days before Diwali and continues for a week-10 days after Diwali. Crackers neither begin that early, nor go that late.

The galloping rate at which pollution multiplies cannot be attributed in volume or spread to the depth of cracker experience. Eye witnesses testify that in the neighbourhood agricultural areas of Delhi, fires are set to the stubble during this period and the rest is a matter of the smoke streaming across the territory of the national Capital.

A belief reportedly gaining ground is as follows: The role of crackers in spreading pollution is incontrovertible. When something reaches that intensity of belief, evidence is seldom asked for and a suo moto case is made out in popular psyche against the reported provocation, in this case 'crackers causing the present level of pollution'.

It can be nobody's case that crackers do not cause pollution. What really needs examination is the extent and depth of pollution and its correlation to the causative factor. The correlation with the causative factor, in the absence of any evidence-based study, very often becomes a matter of popular belief. In the camouflage of this belief many other causes can walk in undetected.

It is said that the burning of the stubble around Delhi is a convenient way of getting rid of that agricultural waste. It is possible to keep the timing of the agricultural waste during Diwali season and get away without too much of attention.

Be that as it may, it belies a popular notion of village 'simplicity' which is fed to popular psyche from the school text book stage. They believe that those practicing agriculture are 'simple' people who are delinked with nuances of 'information technology' and are invariably victims of urban exploitation. This is glib. One has to spend some time in villages, at a participatory level, to appreciate their sharpness and information. It is indeed as it should be. To appreciate that would be an important step in finding an effective solution.

Effective solution to Delhi's extra-ordinary pollution level cannot stop with chants on its 'undesirability' and unilateral verdicts on crackers as the 'prime cause'

The truth is, this Diwali season the Air Quality Index across NCR has been more disastrous than usual. Given the court's mandate, reference crackers, there was tangible reduction at least in the noise of crackers on the Diwali eve and on Diwali. The air pollution, nevertheless, rose in a significant measure as compared to in previous years. The linkage therefore in a dramatic reduction in bursting of crackers and an equal rise in air pollution needs an explanation. It does give rise to the hypothesis of the 'death of innocence' in rural areas and a deliberate attempt to walk through with nonchalance, a road of convenience.

The time has come to recognise that credence of a popular belief does not necessarily become evidence of that belief.

As information technology and reach of social media grows beyond just the word of mouth, there is bound to be the 'death of (presumed) innocence'. One says this because very often, innocence is based in fond beliefs or popularly held notions. That gives credence to certain partial truths which become larger than life size. So-called 'innocence' can be constructively educated.

(The writer is a management consultant. The views expressed are personal.)