The absence of public anger and campaigns against spiralling pollution in India has much to do with lacklustre messaging and communication.
According to a report in the Lancet, more than 1.6 million deaths occurred in 2021 due to air pollution, with fossil fuels like coal and natural gas responsible for 38% of them.[1] While the exact figures may vary depending on which study one relies on, one undeniable fact remains—air pollution is a critical environmental crisis.
Despite its severity, air pollution and pollution in general have not been given the prominence they deserve in public discourse. The urgency of the issue is not adequately reflected in government messaging or public awareness campaigns.
Government initiatives and implementation challenges
In January 2019, the Central Government launched the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) to improve air quality across Indian cities. The initiative aims to engage all stakeholders and reduce particulate matter concentrations. However, the effectiveness of such programs depends not just on their design but also on their implementation.
The NCAP aims to reduce air pollution across Indian cities by targeting a 40% reduction in PM10 levels by 2025-26. While some cities have shown improvements, the effectiveness of NCAP varies significantly. In Uttar Pradesh, cities like Bareilly, Rae Bareli, and Ghaziabad are projected to meet their targets, with Bareilly expected to see a 70% reduction in PM10 levels.[2] However, Gorakhpur and Prayagraj may see PM10 levels rise by 50% and 32%, respectively. A national study found no significant reduction in PM2.5 levels due to NCAP, suggesting that whatever observed improvements were likely influenced by COVID-19 lockdowns rather than policy effectiveness.[3]
Several factors impact air quality, including meteorological conditions, industrial emissions, vehicle pollution, and open biomass burning. While city-specific action plans exist, challenges such as data limitations, inconsistent implementation, and environmental complexities hinder progress. Machine learning models predict continued variations in air quality, highlighting the need for stricter regulations, enhanced emission controls, increased public awareness, and improved monitoring systems. Additionally, research suggests air quality improvements have been greater in wealthier areas, underscoring the need for policies that ensure equitable environmental benefits for all communities.[4]
More recently, many news houses reported on the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) Report on pollution control measures in Delhi. The report highlighted several shortcomings revealing issues with air quality monitoring stations, including improper placement—many were located near trees on multiple sides, affecting data accuracy. Additionally, concerns were raised over flawed pollution control certificate issuance.
Why is there no political will?
The core issue regarding pollution is not merely the weak implementation of pollution control measures but the lack of political will to do anything tangible about pollution. However, deeper inquiry would lead to another problem — the electorate does not make pollution the central issue.
Air pollution remains absent from the list of priority concerns for many citizens, despite its devastating health impacts. If people do not perceive it as a pressing issue, they will not demand stronger policies or hold policymakers accountable.
Why does air pollution fail to gain the public’s attention despite its deadly consequences? The answer lies in inadequate communication. The seriousness of air pollution is not being effectively conveyed to the masses, preventing it from becoming a major electoral issue.
Why is communication important?
When breast cancer survivor Fanny Rosenow attempted to place an advertisement in The New York Times for a support group, she was informed that the newspaper could not publish the words “breast” or “cancer”. Instead, the editor suggested using the phrase “diseases of the chest wall” prompting Rosenow to drop the idea. This was the early 1950s. From this to the call for the War on Cancer in the 1970s by the Nixon Administration in the US, there was a radical change in how cancer was perceived and understood by both the political class and the masses. A significant amount of this change was driven by the messaging campaigns spearheaded by philanthropist-activist Mary Lasker.[5]
Pulitzer-winning author Siddhartha Mukherjee writes in his book
The Emperor of All Maladies:
“The empire of cancer was still indubitably vast—more than half a million American men and women died of cancer in 2005—but it was losing power, fraying at its borders. What precipitated this steady decline? There was no single answer but rather a multitude. For lung cancer, the driver of decline was primarily prevention—a slow attrition in smoking sparked off by the Doll-Hill and Wynder-Graham studies, fuelled by the surgeon general’s report, and brought to its full boil by a combination of political activism (the FTC action on warning labels), inventive litigation (the Banzhaf and Cipollone cases), medical advocacy, and counter marketing (the ant tobacco advertisements).”
The takeaway from this is that messaging and creating a narrative over a problem that needs to be solved is an important if not the most necessary element in fighting the problem. India’s fight against pollution lacks this very element thus making it a difficult fight.
What do Indians think of pollution?
The discourse surrounding pollution in India has long been dominated by macro-level concerns—climate change, biodiversity loss, and long-term ecological degradation. While these issues are undeniably critical, their abstract nature often fails to resonate with the average citizen, who perceives them as distant or intangible.
For example, a 2022 study found that Indian farmers, while being aware of meteorological changes, were not informed enough to tie those changes to climate change and thus take action accordingly. [6]
The immediate health impacts of pollution—such as acute respiratory distress, cardiovascular crises, and developmental delays in children—are far more proximate and personally relevant. Reframing pollution narratives to foreground these immediate health risks can bridge the gap between scientific urgency and public mobilisation, transforming passive awareness into actionable engagement.
Limitations of current narratives
The prevailing discourse on pollution in India often employs broad, depersonalised terminology— “respiratory diseases,” “air quality indices,” or “greenhouse gas emissions”—that obscures the lived experiences of affected individuals. For instance, while the term “respiratory diseases” is technically accurate, it lacks the specificity needed to convey the urgency of conditions such as asthma exacerbations, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or paediatric pneumonia.
Similarly, discussions of climate change tend to focus on global temperature projections or sea-level rise, which appear remote to urban residents grappling with daily air quality advisories. This abstraction creates a psychological disconnect, as individuals prioritize immediate threats over distant risks—a phenomenon well-documented in behavioural psychology.[7]
Moreover, the current narrative often frames pollution as an intractable, systemic problem, fostering a sense of fatalism rather than agency. Terms like “air pollution crisis” or “environmental degradation” evoke collective responsibility—with actionable messaging neither for the individual nor for any organized group. This passivity is exacerbated by the lack of localized, granular data on health impacts, which prevents communities from understanding their specific risks. For example, while Delhi’s annual PM2.5 levels are widely reported, few citizens are aware that exposure to these particulates increases the risk of heart attacks or that children in polluted regions face a higher risk of neurodevelopmental delays.[8] [9]
Additionally, both the narrative and the solutions to air pollution are city-centric. This approach has relegated Delhi’s Air Pollution issue, for example, to be an issue of the people of Delhi, and its government whereas in reality, it is the issue of the whole of northern India. Experts have recommended mitigation of pollution at an air shed level instead of political boundaries, but that recommendation has not been paid attention to by the governments.[10]
The imperative of immediate health impact narratives
To overcome these limitations, pollution narratives must pivot to emphasize immediate, localized health risks. Such a shift aligns with the principles of risk communication, which prioritizes clarity, specificity, and personal relevance. By highlighting the direct consequences of pollution—e.g., “exposure to PM2.5 increases your risk of a heart attack this month” or “children in this neighbourhood face a higher risk of asthma attacks”—communicators can evoke responses that will call for accountability from the administration.
For example, in a study that examined the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) of the USA, it was found that people who believed that their chance of getting cancer is high due to pollution were more likely to worry about the harms of Indoor and Outdoor pollution.[11]
Cases in Delhi and Mumbai demonstrate that spikes in PM2.5 levels correlate with an increase in hospital admissions for respiratory distress.[12] Framing pollution as a trigger for acute health crises—rather than a chronic risk—can shift the perception of people.
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) has been linked to endothelial dysfunction and thrombosis, increasing the likelihood of myocardial infarction.[13] Communicating this risk in terms of “increased heart attack risk” can resonate with middle-aged populations, who may perceive cardiovascular health as a personal priority.
Prenatal exposure to PM2.5 is associated with low birth weight and cognitive delays, with affected children scoring lower on developmental milestones by age two and three.[14] Framing pollution as a threat to children’s futures can mobilize parental action.
Older adults with diabetes or hypertension face amplified risks from pollution, including accelerated cognitive decline and cardiovascular complications.[15] Targeted messaging to caregivers and healthcare providers can amplify awareness of these vulnerabilities.
Flip the narrative, draw in attention
Narrative and design, both are crucial to effectively reframe pollution narratives. Here’s how:
1. Localisation and personalisation: Make it about the person, local communities. Tailor messages to specific demographics and geographies. For example, in agricultural regions, emphasise the link between crop burning and paediatric asthma; in urban centres, highlight the cardiovascular risks of vehicular emissions. Use localised data—e.g., “In your district, pollution causes 500 hospitalisations annually”—to enhance relevance.
2. Behavioural Triggers: Pair health risks with actionable solutions.
For instance,
“Wearing an N95 mask reduces your PM2.5 exposure by 95%”
Or
“Switching to public transport can lower your heart attack risk by 10%.”
Such messages empower individuals with tangible steps, reducing perceived helplessness. This would also enable the public to call for better transport systems.
3. Emotional Engagement: Leverage storytelling to humanize the issue. Profiles of affected families can evoke empathy and urgency. Media partnerships and social campaigns can amplify these narratives, fostering collective identity around pollution mitigation.
The challenge
India’s pollution crisis demands urgent public engagement, yet the entities best positioned to initiate messaging face significant barriers. The government, ostensibly responsible for leading communication, has failed to translate initiatives like the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) into actionable, localized health advisories. NCAP’s focus on technical targets (e.g., PM10 reductions) lacks clarity on immediate health risks like heart attacks or asthma exacerbations, while political fragmentation and opaque data (e.g., poorly placed air quality monitors) erode public trust.
Organisations of citizens and civil society (CSOs), which could bridge this gap, are increasingly stifled. Government crackdowns—such as revoking Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) licenses and labelling activists as “anti-national”—have crippled their ability to operate with better efficiency.
Mainstream media, another potential messenger, is compromised by ownership ties to polluting industries. Corporations that profit from fossil fuels, construction etc. often control news outlets, leading to biased or minimal coverage of pollution’s health impacts. Sensationalist reporting during Delhi’s smog crises, for instance, prioritizes political blame over data-driven narratives on cardiovascular risks.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives, meanwhile, are undermined by conflicts of interest. The largest CSR spenders in environmental campaigns—such as energy conglomerates or construction firms—are often the biggest polluters. Their messaging, even when well-intentioned, risks green-washing, as seen in superficial “sustainability” ads that avoid addressing root causes like coal dependency or vehicular emissions.
In this landscape, very few credible, independent entities can consistently convey pollution’s health risks to the public. This usually leads to a communication void, leaving most citizens unaware of actionable steps to protect their health or demand policy accountability.
How do we overcome?
To address the lack of effective public messaging on pollution, it is crucial to empower grassroots leaders and enable community-driven initiatives that can advocate for change with political influence. Rather than relying solely on government agencies, civil society organizations, or corporate-backed campaigns—many of which face restrictions or conflicts of interest—mobilising of affected communities can create bottom-up pressure for policy action.
One approach is to engage farmers’ organisations by highlighting how climate change contributes to lower crop yields and how sustainable practices can help mitigate pollution. Similarly, student-led movements in schools and colleges can foster long-term engagement by equipping young citizens to push for policy reforms. Self-help groups led by women can serve as powerful advocacy networks, spreading awareness at the grassroots level. Auto-rickshaw drivers and urban workers, who are disproportionately exposed to poor air quality, can be mobilized to demand cleaner transportation policies. Low-income city dwellers, who lack access to air purifiers or private healthcare, can be organized to push for better pollution control measures. By harnessing these diverse networks, a broad and powerful coalition can be built to demand transparent air quality data, stricter enforcement of pollution controls, and citizen-focused policies that put public health first.
The driving force behind this movement should be community leaders, supported by civil society organisations and even political stakeholders. This is an opportunity for genuine grassroots leadership to emerge—one that rises to confront a pressing and tangible crisis.
What we need is an immediate coalition for change
To amplify grassroots efforts, technology and data must be democratised. Mobile apps and community-led air quality monitoring initiatives can provide hyper-localised data, enabling citizens to track pollution levels in real-time and understand immediate health risks. For instance, low-cost sensors deployed in schools and hospitals can generate actionable insights, such as linking spikes in PM2.5 to asthma exacerbations in children, empowering parents and educators to demand accountability.
Education is another critical lever. Integrating pollution’s health impacts into school curricula can cultivate a generation of informed advocates. Student-led projects, such as mapping pollution sources in their neighbourhoods or organizing drives to call for action, can foster agency and long-term engagement. Similarly, vocational training programs for urban workers—auto-rickshaw drivers, street vendors—can include modules on air quality awareness, equipping them to advocate for cleaner transportation policies.
Policy reforms must align with grassroots momentum. Governments could incentivize community-based initiatives through grants or tax breaks. Moreover, cross-sector collaboration is vital. Universities can partner with NGOs to conduct localized health studies.
Our narrative, the power of the narrative
Reframing India’s pollution crisis as a public health emergency, rather than an abstract environmental issue, is the linchpin to meaningful action. By prioritizing immediate, localized health risks—such as heart attacks, asthma attacks, and developmental delays—communicators can bridge the gap between scientific data and public mobilization. Grassroots movements, armed with technology, education, and policy support, can transform passive awareness into collective action, compelling policymakers to prioritize health over political or economic interests.
The fight against pollution is not merely about cleaner air; it is about reclaiming agency. When citizens perceive pollution as a direct threat to their families and communities, they become powerful advocates for change. India’s battle against this silent killer will be won not through top-down mandates alone, but through a bottom-up revolution—one narrative, one neighbourhood, and one life at a time.
(The author is a legal researcher with the organisation)
[1] Team, E. (2024). Human-caused air pollution led to 1.6 million deaths in 2021 in India: Lancet report. [online] Carbon Copy. Available at: https://carboncopy.info/human-caused-air-pollution-led-to-1-6-million-deaths-in-2021-in-india-lancet-report/#:~:text=Policy%20and%20Finance-,Human%2Dcaused%20air%20pollution%20led%20to%201.6%20million%20deaths,2021%20in%20India%3A%20Lancet%20report&text=According%20to%20the%202024%20Report,%E2%82%85)%20in%202021. [Accessed 27 Feb. 2025].
[2] Bera, O.P., Venkatesh, U., Pal, G.K., Shastri, S., Chakraborty, S., Grover, A. and Joshi, H.S. (2024). Assessing the impact of the National Clean Air Programme in Uttar Pradesh’s non-attainment cities: a prophet model time series analysis. The Lancet Regional Health – Southeast Asia, [online] 30, pp.100486–100486. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lansea.2024.100486.
[3] Kawano, A., Kelp, M., Qiu, M., Singh, K., Chaturvedi, E., Dahiya, S., Azevedo, I. and Burke, M. (2025). Improved daily PM 2.5 estimates in India reveal inequalities in recent enhancement of air quality. Science Advances, [online] 11(4). doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adq1071.
[4] Anjum Hajat, Hsia, C. and O’Neill, M.S. (2015). Socioeconomic Disparities and Air Pollution Exposure: a Global Review. Current Environmental Health Reports, [online] 2(4), pp.440–450. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-015-0069-5.
[5] Mukherjee, S., 2010. The emperor of all maladies: a biography of cancer. Simon and Schuster.
[6] Datta, P., Bhagirath Behera and Dil Bahadur Rahut (2022). Climate change and Indian agriculture: A systematic review of farmers’ perception, adaptation, and transformation. Environmental Challenges, [online] 8, pp.100543–100543. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2022.100543.
[7] Mariconti, C. (2011). Understanding the Disconnect on Global Warming. APS Observer, [online] 22. Available at: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/understanding-the-disconnect-on-global-warming [Accessed 27 Feb. 2025].
[8] Krittanawong, C., Qadeer, Y.K., Hayes, R.B., Wang, Z., Thurston, G.D., Virani, S. and Lavie, C.J. (2023). PM2.5 and cardiovascular diseases: State-of-the-Art review. International Journal of Cardiology Cardiovascular Risk and Prevention, [online] 19, p.200217. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcrp.2023.200217.
[9] UNICEF(2017), Danger in the Air: How air pollution can affect brain development in young children, Division of Data, Research and Policy, Available at: https://www.unicef.org/sites/default/files/press-releases/glo-media-Danger_in_the_Air.pdf
[10] Sirur, S. (2023). Exploring airshed management as a solution to India’s pollution woes. [online] Mongabay-India. Available at: https://india.mongabay.com/2023/09/exploring-airshed-management-as-a-solution-to-indias-pollution-woes/ [Accessed 27 Feb. 2025].
[11] Ammons, S., Aja, H., Ghazarian, A.A., Lai, G.Y. and Ellison, G.L. (2022). Perception of worry of harm from air pollution: results from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). BMC Public Health, [online] 22(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13450-z.
[12] Chakraborty, R. (2024). Mumbai’s poor AQI and erratic temperatures fuel respiratory ailments. [online] The Indian Express. Available at: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/poor-aqi-temperatures-respiratory-ailments-9747736/ [Accessed 27 Feb. 2025].
[13] Basith, S., Manavalan, B., Shin, T.H., Park, C.B., Lee, W.-S., Kim, J. and Lee, G. (2022). The Impact of Fine Particulate Matter 2.5 on the Cardiovascular System: A Review of the Invisible Killer. Nanomaterials, [online] 12(15), p.2656. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12152656.
[14] Hurtado-Díaz, M., Riojas-Rodríguez, H., Rothenberg, S.J., Schnaas-Arrieta, L., Itai Kloog, Just, A., Hernández-Bonilla, D., Wright, R.O. and Téllez-Rojo, M.M. (2021). Prenatal PM2.5 exposure and neurodevelopment at 2 years of age in a birth cohort from Mexico city. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, [online] 233, pp.113695–113695. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2021.113695.
[15] Li, N., Chen, G., Liu, F., Mao, S., Liu, Y., Liu, S., Mao, Z., Lu, Y., Wang, C., Guo, Y., Xiang, H. and Li, S. (2020). Associations between long-term exposure to air pollution and blood pressure and effect modifications by behavioral factors. Environmental Research, [online] 182, p.109109. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.109109.
Related:
Noise Pollution Ban: Unequal standards for diverse practices?
Indian Coal Giants Pushed for Lax Pollution Rules While Ramping Up Operations
Pollution Control Norms for Coal-Fired Power Plants Relaxed Despite Modi’s Commitment to Environment