“Only one Earth” - 1972, representatives from 122 countries sat together at
Stockholm and made a decision that the Environment, a shared economic
resource, broadly putting it, should be preserved globally. This marks the
first step of bringing Environmental awareness to a geopolitical scale to be
injected into the judicial systems independently. This one big event was
followed by the Earth Summit 1992, Rio de Janeiro, where the main introduction
was of the term "Sustainability" - with the aim to promote and draw a map to
support development and environmental conservation for the present and the
future generations. 175 countries sat together and decided upon 27 different
principles to accommodate a healthy life for all while incorporating
protection of their environment within their development processes. Further
many such conferences were set up to accommodate more such terms within the
jurisdictions of various countries to support and also develop an economy
while also preserving natural resources for the future.
The problem in perspectives arises around the term “resource”. A
resource can refer to a habitat, a community, equity or any sort of
objectifiable component that can be converted to a state of profit or
survival- the baseline functions the same in a biological as well as an
economical context. Then we come to the term resource partitioning or resource
conserving; sustainable use which is primarily used to present the concept of
division of the food, land, etc. in such a way that promotes survival of both
the dependents and the resources.
Now from a political perspective, the constitution grants the right to
resources to all people of the country, irrespective of their social
standings. Then why is there still differentiation, why are there people still
suffering because of a right hand that puppeteers how much to be divided
between whom? When we have laws, when we have rights, when we are given a
voice to speak, why is it that the same voice is getting lost while reaching
the state?
The concept of sustainability has been highlighted numerous times in global
conventions can be seen best practiced by people or communities that are
directly dependent on these resources. We have around 75 known and identified
Particularly Vulnerable Tribal groups within 18 states and union territories
of India. Currently we have multiple such communities that have already
undergone or are undergoing displacement due to mining activities,
conservation schemes along with conservative forest laws that prevent the
people from basic rights like agriculture or other food gathering
practices.
The Wildlife (Protection) act (WLPA), 1972: Section 38 V (4) and the Forest
Rights Act 2006, allow and per say support the relocation of tribal
communities once an area is declared protected. The recent guidelines involve
a more social step, wherein relocation is carried out based on absolute
necessity and demands consent from each and every household. Further it states
that accommodation, equity as well as job compensations will be provided to
the displaced families for their loss and survival inconveniences. The
guidelines for these “voluntary” relocations are given by the Ministry of
Tribal Affairs (MoTA) and the National Tiger Conservation Authority
(NTCA).
One case base example of conservation displacement can be seen in the
Nallamala forest in Andhra, which houses the Chenchu tribe, a Particularly
Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG), with a decent tiger population was designated
a protected area resulting in the framework needing the core areas to be
cleared of their residents. Now, we question- for the sake of conservation we
initiate a trade-off- that complete preservation of natural resources, a
situation of poverty, unemployment and other factors like medical facilities
and basic amenities are brought to a state of chaos. Who is black who is
white? Why do we need to move a community fully dependent on the forest
surviving in a state of co-existence, or do we need to for the sake of
preservation? One explanation to this extreme situation lies in the
fundamentally colonial nature of our legal framework of the forest laws. The
India Forest Act of 1927 laid the legal frame-work on which subsequent laws
were based. The 1927 Act was constructed to support monopolization of
resources especially timber for the export as well as within India
transportation development as a source of revenue. It also categorized areas
into levels of protection directing full ownership to the state, marginalizing
traditionally dependent communities while also stripping them of their
livelihood by criminalizing any activity that made them dependent on the
forest including cattle-grazing, timber collection for firewood etc. This
exploitation then set into our current day laws wherein the state and the
authorities are given the primary power to still categorize priority areas and
extend to the marginalized communities for consent. The populations of
community dispersals have been known to migrate pan-India in search of jobs,
accommodation to achieve a lifestyle pertinent to that of a city or a town.
Increased poverty owing to absence of a skill set needed to survive in a
completely new economic environment has in turn led to an increased
marginalization of the communities.
“We were somewhere 60-30 kilometers deep in the forest, they brought us here,
changed our way of living, and when we were ready to accept and look forward
to living this way, suddenly if they [Government] don’t support us, what to
do? “– Male, 25-30 years, Displaced Chenchu.
“The government is doing good. It is providing mid-day meals in schools for
our children, but we don’t get any jobs for our gudem [settlement/habitation]
people. Nobody cares.”
“Of course, we are dependent on the forest. We are there by the forest.
Because the government isn’t doing anything, we are dependent on the forest.
For example, there are jaanakai [a type of berries], we need them because it’s
our food. We need all the fruits of the forest.” – Male, 30-35 years, Deep
Forest Chenchu
“The tigers roam around! Tigers, bears, and other animals co-exist with us. We
are together. Isn’t it because of our ancestors that the forest is alive? “–
Female, 55-60 years, Intermediate Forest Chenchu
(As stated in a research article from frontiers)
Who controls the system- the people or the state? Despite the laws being
changed to be more per say accommodative why are the same situations
repeating. The 2021 amendment of the EIA is another change that allows a more
robust system into the projects but also functions as a bypass to the central
authority. Why has the power been sub-letted from the state to now a new
standing authority practically functioning as a bypass to the system to simply
accelerate approvals. There is now lesser scrutiny in getting environmental
clearances for high-priority projects which have now been exempted from public
consultations. Despite these cases we have representatives that state- There
is no mutual exclusivity between development and tribal protection and that
they can coexist together- Union Tribal Affairs Minister, as published in The
Hindu.
True or False? How much of their end is being held up?
A 92,000 crore project passed recently- In 2023 itself EC was given by a
High-powered committee (HPC) formed to address primarily 3 concerns revolving
around coral reef protection, the leatherback turtle nesting sites and
apparent allegations that the project was covering sites which fall under
ecologically protected zones. The NGT denied disclosure to the public stating
that the HPC took the decision while dealing with all highlighted
issues.
The management committee for the biodiversity board set up are all
beneficiaries of the project- with involvement of the forest department,
integrated development corporations, WII and ZSI which are all consultants to
the NGT and MoEF&CC.
The Shompens (PVTG’s) and the Nicobarese are two tribal communities that are
under critical focus. Union Tribal Affairs Minister Jual Oram stated that
Development and tribal protection are not mutually exclusive and can coexist
through robust measures”. The administration-run Andaman Adim Janjati Vikas
Samiti (AAJVS), on one hand stated that the project will not cause community
displacement but in their March report stated that a relocation plan was
released for assisting the affected communities. People raised their voices
stating that the administration being linked to their central body, is taking
unjust and unconsented decisions which go against the 2006 FRA. There was
fabrication of evidence which was provided for the EIA assessments in the form
of displaced maps showing incorrect information regarding the coral reef
locations. Around 7-9 lakh trees are to be cut within the first phase of the
project itself- impacting the pristine evergreen forests of this region. The
island system is known for its dense forests along with coastal stretch which
supports a unique diversity of flora as well as fauna. The tree felling will
result in a loss of a great percent of highly endemic vascular plants along
with loss of habitat for mammals and birds like the endemic Nicobar shrew or
the Nicobar Megapod respectively etc. The project will also cause the
destruction of the fragile nesting sites of the leatherback turtles known to
carry out mass nesting at the Galathea bay and little Andaman. While
compensatory measures have been proposed but biologists and ecologists'
opinions state that there can be no replacement for the habitat, in the long
term there is only loss.
“There is insufficient water in the projections and propositions, very
few facilities, and the entire process has been shrouded in obscure claims” he
says. “It is being done in the name of national security, but even the former
naval chief, Admiral Arun Prakash, and Abhijit Singh of the Asia Maritime
Transparency Initiative have assessed the situation and said it doesn’t make
sense.”
In the name of development, on one side we have laws that support and justify
the displacement of socially and traditionally rooted communities along with a
loss of on the same right controlled hand we support the complete eradication
of a natural habitat for the sake of economic stronghold. Then when asked
questions we are being fed with shrouded lies.
We collectively need to fight and bring more awareness to these situations
that are being created in the name of economic growth and development. There
are people raising their concerns, raising their voices against a system that
is pre-defining what steps need to be taken on behalf of communities. We have
laws that try to promote transparency, but the game is played with inadequate
information, lack of situational understanding, suppression of voices etc.
What happens post-displacement, where are the job opportunities? Exposure is
there, accommodation is there but how does a person with a resource centered
skillset, not attuned to the city, suddenly be asked to shift and adjust to a
foreign environment where the opportunities are also limited along with an
adjustment to the urban labor market. The people are revolting and have been
so even in the past. Some fights have been successful but some have not.
Success is a celebration but the loss needs to be remembered.
The June 5th 2026 theme for Environment Day is “Inspired by Nature. For
Climate. For Our Future” to be held in Uzbekistan. We collectively need to
bring light to the fact that the future refers to the future of all the
citizens of our democracy, and not only people above an economical threshold.
The right to life and personal liberty under the constitution is a fundamental
right. Environmental justice is not a separate fight, the media is directional
in its information promoting false environmental advocacy, but through such
cases we get an insight upon the ground-reality of the situations. Through
these situations we observe a pattern of conflict between development and
environment but as stated by Arundhati Roy, it is about who gets the water,
who gets the land and who gets to make the choices. It is a game of capital
and control which is hidden behind environmental protection. The Revolution
which stands for all voices is burning and will burn till there is a system
which fights for the safety and security our constitution provides to
all.
Photo credits: Author
