Ramesh seeks archaeological survey of Gujarat forest

Union Environment and Forests Minister Jairam Ramesh has urged Gujarat to undertake a thorough archaeological survey of the Girnar reserve forest, which is home to the Asiatic lion, as it could contain historical relics.

In a letter addressed to Chief Minister Narendra Modi dated April 21, the minister has pointed out that he was giving the advice on the suggestion of noted historian from the Delhi University, Nayanjot Lahiri, who recently visited the reserve forest and found the remnants of two stupas, possibly of Mauryan dynasty heritage.

According to Lahiri, many loose bricks were also found around it indicating there could have been other stupas in the vicinity.

‘Therefore, it is urgent, that there is a complete survey of the stupa with accurate line drawings and photographs followed by careful archaeological conservation,’ the minister said.

Green bona fides?

Minister for environment and forests Jairam Ramesh has said he was under ‘pressure’ to overlook violations of environmental norms while clearing certain projects. He has not named the projects which he was reportedly forced to give his nod to. However, one can surmise this could have happened in relation to those projects he turned down initially, only to give his assent eventually.

That the minister was under tremendous pressure from ministries such as mines, surface transport, etc that are keen to green signal projects to boost ‘development’ was never in doubt. What is problematic about Ramesh’s candid confession, however, is that it raises questions over the depth of his commitment to the cause of environment. If he is indeed convinced that environmental regulations are being violated, why did he waver and give in? He should have dug in and convinced his ministerial colleagues with strong arguments.

Had he been really convinced over the violations, he should have stepped down on a matter of principle, rather than give his assent and then grumble. Huffing and puffing on environmental issues is not enough. One needs to run with the issue till the very end. With his revelation Ramesh has indicated, sadly, that he lacks the stamina to run the marathon on environment issues.

Ramesh has infused the environment ministry with a new energy. This was a ministry that had become largely irrelevant over the past decade. Ramesh not only raised its profile, but also has pushed environmental issues to the fore of public discussions. He has rightly argued that we cannot deforest or pollute our way to prosperity.

Yet, with his confession that he buckled to pressure on several projects, it does seem that these arguments were empty bluster aimed at scoring points with activists. Was Ramesh’s passionate espousal of the cause of India’s dwindling forests, its tigers and magnificent marine life only confined to rhetoric?

Ramesh will find that giving the go-ahead to projects that violate norms will not be problematic if he assiduously implements the ‘polluter pays’ principle. That is, if a mining project envisages destruction of forest land, it will be given the green signal only if it engages in reforestation, rehabilitation and so on in a way that it undoes all the damage done. That way, neither Ramesh nor the public will regret his green signalling development projects.

Article By : Sanctuary Asia 

The Politicisation of Forest India

This article  by: Bittu Sahgal Sir, sanctuary asia.


People who claim that people and animals can co-exist should wake up and smell the forest. It's burning.

Yes it is possible for dense wildlife populations to live with very thin human populations. Yes it is possible for dense human populations to live with very thin wildlife populations (not the large carnivore variety). But the recent trend of social activists to suggest that tiger reserves be turned into raw material sources for markets, with forest dwellers harvest, transporting and supplying all manner of goods from tendu patta and mahua flower to bamboo, sand and stones to urban middle men, is just plain suicidal. This is neither going to enrich any forest dwellers nor benefit wild species, which will just vanish, as they have been vanishing from every human dominated landscape in the past 50 years.

Neverthless, this much is true. The rural constituency is vital to the future of wildlife. And forest dwellers living OUTSIDE our protected area network should be the first beneficiaries of all economic inflows and outflows. But this should be for livelihoods that enhance the ecosystem, not deplete it. Sanctuary has been trying for some time to communicate this concern with those who champion the Forest Rights Act, but with little success.

The truth is that villages next to wildlife areas do bear the brunt of conservation costs, yet no policy offers them sustenance for saving wildlife, only for exploiting bamboo, or tubers, or tendu patta etc., which is a lose-lose proposition and has never enriched anyone but the tendu barons, or the timber mafia, or the stone and sand mafia.

Yet social activists, who are otherwise decent and honest, seem unwilling to accept the fact that turning forest dwellers into conduits for unlimited urban demand condemns them to the loss of their resource base and a life of permanent serfdom. This is why the Prime Minister's Office and the National Advisory Council keeps coming up with more and more populist schemes (the latest being permission to harvest bamboo from forest that the tiger needs) at the cost of our ecological security.

Meanwhile as this politicisation of forests continues apace, social activists continue to bask in the belief that it is their 'power and brilliance' that is helping them win the day against the 'wildlife wallahs'.

Without forests, where is the question of forests rights?

Forest dwellers and those living around forests should have GUARANTEED employment and livelihoods, but not as conduits to supply forest biomass to bottomless markets. They should in fact be recognised officially as ecosystem farmers - caregivers for Intensive Conservation Units (ICUs) who are respected across the world, whose food, water, health, education and financial well-being should become our national objective. Unfortunately, many human rights activists and social workers whose understanding of the ecological imperative is not quite up to scratch, believe that turning such communities into channels that end up feeding gluttonous urban demands amounts to offering them legitimate livelihoods, even though this ends up exhausting their larder and driving them to penury in the long run. Here is one such example of tendu, Diospyros melanoxylon, which even the most sensible activists continue to champion in a most senseless way:

BY : Bittu sehgal Sir, sanctuary Asia,