The alarming decline of Anchar Lake is not merely the story of one water body losing its expanse. It is a stark warning about the manner in which Kashmir’s natural assets have been allowed to deteriorate in full public view. If the lake has indeed shrunk from 19.5 square kilometres to barely 4.5 square kilometres, the figures represent not just an environmental loss but a governance failure of enormous proportions. CPI(M) MLA Mohammad Yousuf Tarigami’s visit to Anchar Lake with members of the Legislative Assembly’s Committee on Environment has once again brought the crisis into public focus. His question — “Where is the water? Where is the lake?” — captures the visible tragedy of a water body that once formed an important part of Srinagar’s ecological and cultural landscape. The more disturbing reality is that this decline has not happened overnight. It is the result of years of encroachment, pollution, siltation, unplanned construction and administrative indifference. Anchar is not an isolated case. Dal and Wular, too, have faced the relentless pressure of human activity and official neglect. The allegation that influential people have occupied land around water bodies must not be treated as a routine political charge. It demands a transparent, time-bound and independent investigation. The law cannot be allowed to remain strict for ordinary citizens and negotiable for the powerful. Development cannot mean the destruction of the very landscape that gives Kashmir its identity. Whether the construction is a hut or a palace is beside the point. Any structure that alters the natural character, obstructs water channels or occupies protected land must be examined under the same legal framework. Selective enforcement has encouraged violations and weakened public faith in institutions. The repeated formation of committees and submission of recommendations has produced little visible improvement. Reports and assurances cannot revive a lake. What is needed is a clear restoration plan, a verified demarcation of lake boundaries, removal of encroachments without discrimination, treatment of sewage and strict monitoring of catchment areas. The responsibility must be fixed at every level where negligence or complicity is established. The degradation of Anchar will affect more than biodiversity. It threatens public health, worsens urban flooding, damages tourism and deprives future generations of a vital ecological resource. A dead or disappearing lake also signals the weakening of Kashmir’s natural resilience. The government must therefore treat Anchar as an environmental emergency, not another subject for speeches and committee visits. Political parties, legislators, civil society and local communities must work together, but the primary responsibility rests with the administration. Saving what remains of Anchar Lake is no longer an option. It is a test of whether Kashmir’s institutions can protect the land and water on which its future depends.
