Author: mkukrishna

by

AIPSN Comments/Suggestions to Consultation Paper, 2021 on Proposed Amendments in the Forest (Conservation) Act (1980) released by MoEF&CC on 2.10.2021

Click here for the pdf of this post

1 Nov 2021

AIPSN Comments/Suggestions to Consultation Paper, 2021 on

Proposed Amendments in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 released by MoEF&CC on 2nd Oct 2021

click here to see the email sent to fca-amendment@gov.in 

Click here for the pdf of the letter sent to MoEFCC 

 

As per the Circular F. No. FC-11/61/2021-FC dt 20th Oct the last date for submitting comments/suggestions was given as 1.11.2021. Please find attached the AIPSN Comments/Suggestions to Consultation Paper, 2021 on Proposed Amendments in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 released by MoEF&CC on 2nd Oct 2021. All the comments received and the responses must be made publicly available with full transparency.

The All India People’s Science Network (AIPSN) is the largest network of organizations working on policies and actions related to science, technology and society in India, comprising over 40 member organizations across the country. We would firstly draw attention to the fact that the response period to the Amendments in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was initially set at only 15 days from issue of the consultation paper and extended by 15 days only after requests for extension. It is essential that more time be given for public responses to enable wider consultation and more intensive discussions on such integral policy changes. Time period for such consultations should be at least 30 days as called for by the Pre-legislative Consultation Policy.

AIPSN also disapproves of the fact that no actual Text of Amendments are being put forward for Consultations, instead a “Consultation Paper” has been offered. This is not satisfactory, and it is also possibly not legally correct. Actual text of Amendments may have very different language, with quite different implications, that the language used in the Consultation Paper to which responses are now sought.

Nevertheless, we are submitting our comments and suggestions based on consultations with member organizations from different states and field level engagement with local communities, with the assumption that the Text of a proper set of Amendments will subsequently be re-circulated for comments by the public.

  1. Amidst global action on climate change, India’s Nationally Determined Commitments (NDC) under the Paris Agreement on climate change targets creating ‘carbon sink’ of additional 2.5 to 3.0 billion tons of CO2 equivalent by 2030. Along with the massive investments this would require in afforestation, maintaining and recovering forest cover, and prevention of deforestation, India has also pledged to restoration of among the largest amounts of degraded and deforested land in Asia, as part of the Bonn challenge. Forest policy is central to fulfilling these commitments and the Forest Conservation Act (FCA) 1980 lays the foundation for India’s current forest governance framework. The FCA (1980) prioritizes forest conservation and halting deforestation, and was a major shift away from the focus on timber extraction in the British era law, the FCA (1927). The Amendments in 1988 brought in provisions of participatory forest management and the Forest Rights Act (2006) further secured the rights of forest dwellers. Any further amendments to the FCA (1980) are therefore expected to continue strengthening people’s rights while enabling India to meet its forest and green cover targets, protect the rights of tribals and other forest dwellers, and promote sustainability.
  2. In this context, we are dismayed to see that the proposed Amendments to the FCA will neither help India meet its commitment targets nor secure the rights of the forest dwelling communities. Rather, the ‘Consultation Paper’ weakens regulatory systems and promotes transfer of forest land for non-forestry purposes through various means including effectively changing the definition of ‘forest’ land. At the same time, the rights of tribal people and other forest dependent communities fail to find a single mention in the Paper! In many cases where confusion or problems in existing FCA regulations are pointed out, only problems faced by private, corporate or institutional landowners are considered, but problems of forest-dwelling communities are never even mentioned, nor are ecological issues considered. And wherever solutions to such problems are offered, they often involve simply removing such situations from coverage under the FCA solutions, rather than providing for more effective regulation through consideration of the special circumstances. The possibility of providing for State-level regulation of such problem cases, which is likely to be more effective and provide a timely response, rather than solutions from distant Union Government authorities, is also never considered. The proposed amendments will therefore encourage private, corporate or other institutional takeover of lands earlier recognized as forest land for non-forestry purposes at the cost of both the local communities and the environment. Unfortunately, this follows recent trends in MoEFCC notifications and rules diluting environmental regulations such as the Draft EIA Notification 2020.

To elucidate and clarify the above, we offer the following detailed responses to different specific provisions in the Consultation Paper for consideration and hope that responses received and discussions leading to issue of Amendments etc be placed transparently in the public domain.  The numbering of Paragraphs below follows the numbering pattern in the Consultation Papers. The suggested Amendments seek to provide exemption of different kinds in various contexts for conversion of forest land to non-forestry purposes to private landowners, corporate entities and government departments or institutions. These are discussed below, with our suggestions recorded in some cases.

B1       describes various scenarios wherein, over the years, different kinds of lands have come to be defined as “forest” by different Local, State or Union authorities as also by what may be termed common law usage and customs, with some of these definitions as “forest” being termed “arbitrary.” The Discussion Paper claims that this results in all kinds of anomalies and injuries to interests of different parties, especially private land owners who are deprived of the right to use their private lands for non-forest purposes. The Paper goes on to argue that landowners often leave such land fallow and do not allow any vegetation to grow on it lest it be declared a “forest.” The Paper then recommends that the scope of application of the FCA be defined more in a “more objective manner.”

There is no evidence provided in the Paper as to the extent of such anomalies and the circumstances under which they arose. In many cases, such lands have been classified as “forests” by State Forest Departments and/or State Governments as a result of customary usage and practice with substantive rationale for the same which cannot be dismissed as “arbitrary.” There is also no recognition of the already existing distinction between unclassified forests, un-demarcated forests, deemed forests, protected forests, and reserved forests etc which cover many of the aspects touched upon in B1 and in defining which State Governments and State Forest Departments have a big role. The Paper also does not go into what the envisaged “objective criteria” may be to define “forests” and who will lay down these criteria. This is a prime example of why the Paper cannot be responded to as “Amendments” to the FCA since the latter would presumably have spelled out these criteria which could then be specifically responded to. As it stands, the problematic as stated in B1 lends itself to sweeping and equally arbitrary recommendations in the Paper.

If at all required, it is suggested that a comprehensive exercise be undertaken involving MOEF&CC, State Governments, State Forest Departments, representatives of tribal communities and other forest-dwellers and other stakeholders to evolve criteria to broadly categorize “forest lands” and examine in what manner provisions in the FCA could be applicable to them or whether any specific amendments are required in special categories. Formal Amendments to FCA may thereafter be formulated and placed appropriately in the public domain for scrutiny and comments. It is specifically recommended that no unilateral re-classification of “forest lands” by the MoEFCC be done on the basis of the vague “anomalies” described in B1.

B2       deals with lands currently held by different mostly Government agencies like the Railways and Ministry of Road Transport, particularly “Right of Way” (ROW) lands held on either side of the main non-forest projects for which exemption had been granted from FCA provisions. B2 argues that in some cases, the project agency has undertaken plantations under different Government programmes and had obtained classification of these plantations as “protected forests,” having in mind perhaps jatropha plantations for biodiesel etc., so as to obtain protection for such plantations. B2 claims that now there is considerable “resentment” among such Agencies about the restrictions accompanying such classification if they wish to use such ROW lands for non-forest purposes. B2 proposes to exempt all such lands acquired before the coming into effect of the FCA in 1980 from provisions of the Act.

It must be underlined here that these Agencies had, in the first place, obtained clearance for using these lands, perhaps much of them in forest areas, for non-forest purposes, and thereafter sought declaration as “forests” after 1980 when they benefited from it, and now want exemption from FCA when they feel they could benefit from non-forest uses of this land. It should further be noted, these lands have not been used for the originally sanctioned Projects. This whole issue is now further complicated by the fact that the Government now proposes to “monetize” many such assets through long-term leases to private parties, and therefore such benefits will accrue to these private and corporate parties, even though the ROW lands are not being used for the original purpose for which they were acquired.

As such, there is no justification for a blanket, unconditional exemption from FCA. Parties which consider themselves to be affected may seek such exemption and the cases may first be considered by the State Governments and their relevant agencies/committees who had given the lands for the projects in the first place, and then by the MoEFCC and its relevant Committees. Since the land is not being used for the original purpose, the concerned former land-owning agency may even rule that land be taken back by them.

 

B3 (i), (ii) and (iii)      deal with potential cases of private landowners allowing their lands to deliberately not only lie fallow, but clear of any vegetation or tree-like growth so as to ensure that they are not classified as “forest” which would then render these lands unusable by the farmer for any other purpose.   The Paper then recommends that provisions be made to ensure that these lands do not come under purview of the Act, arguing that this will enable “tree owners” to freely grow trees, thus aiding India’s tree cover and carbon sequestration programmes. This seems a rather odd recommendation considering that plantation is already widely practised in India for poplar, eucalyptus, teak and other species with due ability to cut trees for sale. If such lands are completely outside forests of any description and located in land otherwise classified as agricultural land, then there should be no difficulty in making suitable provision to allow the farmer to switch between tree plantation and any other farming activity. However, if such lands are located within any kind of “forest” as variously defined under the FCA and relevant Supreme Court rulings, then no such relaxation may be considered, as this would lead to rampant deforestation, corruption and false declaration of “non-forest land” even inside forests. It should be noted that similar provisions for “production forests” under PPP in so-called “degraded forest lands” as provided for in the Draft Indian Forest Act 2019 have been met with widespread objections from different quarters including the state governments.

B4       relates to supposed confusion or conflict regarding status of land as registered in revenue or forest records, and the possibility of doubt or litigation regarding tree plantation or “afforestation” projects in such lands, once again on the grounds of further enabling “agroforestry or other tree plantation systems.” It is not understood why this point figures in this Paper relating to possible amendments to the FCA. As in B3 above, provision may be made to allow aggrieved farmers engaging in plantation activities outside forests i.e. in agricultural land to apply to local relevant authorities to clarify status, with the understanding that tree plantation activities in non-forest agricultural lands be regarded on par with other kinds of cultivation, avoiding any possibility of getting included in the proposed amended FRA 2019 as “production forests.”

B5       suggests exemption for 0.05 ha for each road/rail access passing through strip plantations on either side of road/rail tracks to “amenities/habitations [that] have developed all along such lands.” There is much confusion here. For instance, it is not known whether such “amenities/habitations” are legal or are unauthorized, and if the latter why such access should be provided rather than these being removed from the forest lands. Secondly, it is also not clear how many such accesses of 0.05ha each will be required or constructed. Therefore, this is another case in which blanket exemption cannot be granted, rather case-by-case exemption may be granted based on examination of the specifics of each case. This is another case in point in which more reasoned response cannot be given unless the exact wording of the proposed Amendment is provided.

B6       calls for declaring certain areas as “pristine” in view of their unique ecological and other values, and suggests that this would require prohibiting non-forest activities which the current FCA may not permit being regulatory rather than prohibitory.  The clear implication is that at least some if not all human activities be prohibited in these areas. The proposal harks back to the idea of “Go- No Go” areas in forests once considered by the Ministry. Certain pristine and biodiversity-rich areas may indeed be kept away from industrial or commercial activities, and this is very much already in the hands of MoEFCC and its duly constituted Expert Committees, provided they are allowed to function on scientific basis without political interference biased in favour of “ease of doing business.”  Examination of properly and independently prepared EIA would enable protection of such pristine areas which have, however, been repeatedly violated by MoEFCC itself by permitting large-scale activities even in critical wildlife habitats. The recently amended Draft EIA 2020 is further evidence of the intention of the Government to provide exemption to many activities in ecologically sensitive areas. All such attempts are manifestly against the spirit of FCA and deserve to be opposed. Perhaps the real intention of this suggestion is to prohibit any human dwelling or other sustenance activity including for traditional tribal or forest-dweller inhabitants. No violation of the Forest Rights Act should be permitted through the back door. A properly drafted Amendment would clarify the real purpose of this suggestion, and clearly reasoned response can only be given after that.

B7       suggests blanket exemption for building infrastructure etc along the international border areas for securing strategic and security interests. Such exemption was also sought in the Draft EIA 2020 but was opposed by many when it was put forward for public response. AIPSN had suggested even in that case that blanket clearance of undefined “security interests” is untenable and that a case-by-case approach, with duly constituted Expert Committees cognizant of the security concerns, would be preferable rather than a blanket exemption.

B8       points to the confusion between Sub-sections 2(ii) and 2(iii) of the Act relating to mining and other such leases, and points out that while 2(iii) allows long-term leasing by paying only the NPV, the 2(ii) requires detailed and protracted procedures and payments, thus privileging 2(iii) and enabling project promoters to violate the letter and spirit of the Act in many ways. This is a serious matter and must be resolved, especially since all kinds of provisions are being made in favour of mining companies and similar industries citing “ease of doing business.” Therefore, in this case, it is essential that a properly formulated Amendment is put forward enabling a considered and reasoned response.

B9       proposes that technologies like Extended Reach Drilling (ERD) which are considered by the Ministry to be environmentally friendly should be exempt from purview of the Act.  Forest areas have buffer zones and inflows and outflows of rivers which could be affected by these and other similar new technologies. For instance, implementation of ERD in two projects in Assam has met with opposition. A case-to-case decision may be taken based on EIA and expert examination of impacts of the new technology rather than a blanket exemption.

B10     suggests permission being given to “bonafide” structures up to 250 sq.m. for forest protection measures and/or residence within forests as defined under the Act and read with applicable Supreme Court judgements. Here again, since what is or is not “bonafide” will require some examination, it is better that such exemptions be granted on case-by-case basis and a properly formulated Amendment be placed for response by the public and concerned citizens.

B11    suggests that activities considered “ancillary” to forestry such as zoos, safaris, Forest Training infrastructures should not be perceived as “non-forestry” activities and therefore could be exempted from the FCA. Under the proposed amendment, many different and undesirable forms of tourism-related activities in forested areas could gain exemption from FCA if not properly examined. There is already a concerted effort to promote tourism in wilderness areas. A new ‘Guidelines on Ecotourism in Forest and Wildlife Areas 2021’ has been drafted. While the FCA (1980) has been placed in the public domain the new eco-tourism guideline has till now been kept away from public scrutiny.

We recommend that, with the exception of Forestry Training Infrastructure of limited and appropriate size which should be properly defined here, zoos and safaris and related facilities should be examined on case-by-case basis depending on the forest concerned. No blanket exemption should be granted to such facilities. Again, a properly drafted Amendment would enable a more reasoned response.

B12     suggests that if a compensatory levy has already been obtained at the time of initial lease, further levy at the time of renewal of lease is “not rational.” On the contrary, since the compensatory levy is specific to the period of lease when first levied, it is only rational that a further proportional levy for the period of extended lease, covering inflation and increased costs, should also apply.

B13     proposes exemption for survey and investigation activities whose “impact is not perceptible.” In the first place, this is a highly subjective and unscientific assumption. There must be a case-by-case examination of what the survey and exemption entails, how much environmental impact it would cause and what would be the economic cost of any damage caused etc. The Draft EIA 2020 had also suggested exemption of this activity. It may be recalled that exploratory drilling for oil had been granted permission in the fertile 3-crop area in the Thanjavur delta area, but public furore by affected farmers had led to withdrawal of this order. We recommended proper EIA and thorough examination of all such activities preparatory to actual industrial or commercial activities.

 

 

For clarifications contact:

 

P.Rajamanickam                                 Dr. D. Raghunandan

General Secretary AIPSN                   Convenor, AIPSN Environmental Desk

Mobile 9442915101                            Mobile 9810098621

Email: gsaipsn@gmail.com                Email: raghunandan.d@gmail.com

 

 

by

Implement and Strengthen regulatory effectiveness to protect Indian food and agricultural systems

 AIPSN Press Release

28 Oct 2021

Implement and Strengthen regulatory effectiveness

to protect Indian food and agricultural systems

click here to see the pdf of the press release 

             AIPSN has written a letter to Chairman GEAC with copies to the Minister of MoEFFC, Minister of Commerce&Industry and Secretary DBT to bring to their attention the widely circulated news in national media (e.g. The Hindu front page dt 21.10.2021 and The Hindu Editorial of 21.10.2021) about the discovery of Genetically Modified rice in a consignment that was exported from India recently to EU countries.

Rice being one of the biggest agricultural exports, such incidents will dearly cost us given the fact that our country exported Rs 65000 crore worth rice in the financial year 2020-21. Being a major commodity exported this affects our reputation and also MSPs paid to our farmers.

In June 2021, France has claimed that 500 tons of genetically modified rice was discovered in the consignment imported from India. The issue concerns 500 tons of broken Indian white rice which was imported into Europe, transformed into rice flour, resold and put on the market in many European countries as an ingredient in (among other things) chocolate sweets from the Mars company (M&M’s Crispy) and baked goods. After the news came out, the Government has rightly asked the EU to provide details and has also identified Maharashtra based exporter as the party involved while pointing out that the consignment was given a non-GMO certification by an independent agency before it was shipped to France.

Another article mentions that the rice flour made from the GM broken rice was marketed in several European countries, United States and many other countries. The alerts regarding GM rice from India led to withdrawal of many batches of GM flour.

In India for the last few years various GM rice varieties are at different stages of confined field trials. These give rise to concerns in the context of GM seeds contamination/leakage especially when coupled with poor regulation.

To-date India does not allow for GM rice cultivation. However, reports have already warned on how the increase in number of field trials for GM rice in India could lead to contamination or leaks. Global experiences show us that seed and food supply chains can get contaminated from field trials of GM crops in general and GM rice in particular. Fresh in memory is the 2006 GM rice fiasco in USA, where a GM rice variety, LLRICE601 under Bayer’s field trial, contaminated US rice and seeds. This eventually led to USA’s rice exports plunging in the subsequent years. The fiasco led Bayer paying huge compensation in lieu of damages caused to affected farmers. The GM Contamination Register contains records of GM contamination incidents since 1997. Analysis of the  database from 1997-2013 revealed that rice had the highest number of GM contamination incidents of all crops (accounting for a third of incidents).

In recent years there were reports on alleged illegal cultivation of “Bt brinjal”, “Bt soybean” and “Bt Maize”. The GM testing biosafety laboratory of ICAR NBPGR is entrusted laboratory and regularly tests the presence for GM contamination from samples sent to them from across the country.

It is unfortunate and of great concern that both GEAC and DBT have failed to take effective regulatory actions against the violators who without prior approvals from GEAC continue to market the GM crops and contaminate farmers’ fields. So far no attempts are known to have been taken to stop illegal GM crops and identification of perpetrators.  In early part of this century there were reports of Bt cotton sales by certain seed companies and commercial cultivation in states such as Gujarat in early part of this century without prior approval from GEAC. GM crop seed leakages from field trials tend to end up in our farms and food. It is an unfortunate truth that our regulatory system has been found ineffective in curbing this following another ban by Japan and South Korea on Canadian wheat imports.

Concerns have been raised many times in the past about how strictly trial fields are monitored, and as regards monitoring of protocols for separation of trial and farmers fields, as well as periodic testing of samples to guard against cross-contamination.

At the same time, there are also very serious questions about events at the EU/French end. The testing agency does not appear to be independent. There is no transparency regarding the testing data and procedures, and how effective or credible they are. Many doubts arise regarding the reported French findings. Past experience also shows that all manner of allegations arise in the EU, US or other advanced countries regarding agri-produce from India, which serve to damage the reputation of Indian agri produce in Western markets so as to suppress competition.

In this context, given the urgency of the matter AIPSN demands:

  • A thorough and independent(not only departmental as at present) investigation into the events behind these exports.
  • Full transparency regarding the findings, as well as protocols for monitoring, testing etc governing cross-contamination, and precautions and monitoring of entry of GM foods into the domestic or export markets.
  • The Government obtain from EU/French authorities all details regarding their findings, testing procedures and processes etc. and make it publicly available. GEAC must work with APEDA and European Authorities to obtain and make public the full details.
  • A penalty clause be instituted under the EPA 1986 to make the event developer legally liable for any unapproved releases of GMOs into the environment, including illegal cultivation of GMOs.
  • Event-specific test protocols (including details of questionable GM genes, primers etc.) collected from French/EU authorities be made available to accredited laboratories in public sector under ICAR.
  • Standard operating procedures (SOPs) should be immediately  made available and testing/diagnostic kits  for monitoring regulatory bodies like GEAC be developed and put into place for every complaint related to illegal GM cultivation in order to quickly fix  liability, assessment of contamination as well as compensating losses to farmers as may occur.
  • An inter-ministerial, independent empowered laboratory should be set up with GEAC facilitating the creation of such a body, to avert  illegal GM imports  (similar to  GM free  and Phyto-sanitary clearances issued routinely issued from ICAR NBPGR) to  avert breach of  India’s bio-safety and bio-security.
  • No field trials of GM crops should be permitted without public consultation to avoid possible contamination of our food, environment and seed supply chains.

AIPSN  urges the government to examine these suggestions to prevent further damage to Indian food and agriculture systems.

 

For clarifications contact:

P.Rajamanickam                                  Dr. Soma Marla

General Secretary AIPSN                     Convenor, AIPSN Agriculture Desk

Mobile 9442915101                            Mobile 9811693750

Email gsaipsn@gmail.com                   Email marlass_ag@yahoo.com

 

by

WHO refusal of Emergency Use Approval for Covaxin

click here to read pdf of AIPSN Statement of 29 Sept 2021

click here to read the Press Release of the AIPSN Statement

WHO refusal of Emergency Use Approval for Covaxin

          All India Peoples Science Network (AIPSN) notes with sorrow and grave concern that the World Health Organization (WHO) has not granted Emergency Use Listing (EUL) for ICMR-Bharat Biotech’s (BB) Covaxin vaccine, but has asked BB for more technical details. This is a serious setback for Covaxin and for India’s vaccination programme in the country, and a blow to India’s plans to distribute vaccines to other countries. Many Indians traveling abroad, especially students, who took Covaxin, are already finding it difficult to obtain visas or entry into other countries which generally recognize only WHO-approved vaccines. This sorry state of affairs will continue as long as there is no public accountability, transparency along with scientific rigour.

Covaxin will also once again face vaccine hesitancy in India as it did during the earlier controversial approvals process. AIPSN had earlier urged the public disclosure of trial data and now mourns the serious damage done to the reputation of India by this flawed application to WHO regulators, which has also besmirched the standing of Indian science and regulatory systems, which will now come under heightened international scrutiny and suspicion.

Unfortunately, this was entirely foreseeable. BB has played ducks-and-drakes with regard to transparency of clinical trials data and respect for regulatory processes and institutions. In December 2020/January 2021, BB applied to the Indian regulator, DCGI for EUA with grossly inadequate data from clinical trials inviting rejection, followed by behind-the-scenes arm-twisting by the Union Government resulting in grant of EUA. More detailed results of Phase-3 clinical trials were then released by BB in installments, interim results two months later and complete trial data in June 2021. Despite much criticism from scientists and others in India, including by AIPSN, BB has regrettably not published these results in a peer-reviewed journal even to date, but has only posted a pre-publication paper. BB could get away with all this because of the open backing of the Union Government which echoed all excuses and justifications put forward by BB, such as saying in June 2021 that BB would publish results in a few weeks, and even recently announced that it was expecting WHO approval soon.  Criticism of this chain of events, and calls for greater transparency on clinical trial data by BB and also by its governmental partner ICMR, in the interests of Indian science and its international reputation, were attacked by the Government as anti-national and undermining the prestige of India and its scientists. The chickens have come home to roost with WHO’s refusal of EUL for Covaxin.

Compounding these errors of judgment by the Government and by DCGI bending to its will, India looks set to repeat these blunders in the approvals process for Zydus Cadilla’s ZyCov-D 3-dose Covid vaccine for those 12 years or older. Zydus had applied for EUA on 1st July 2021 based on interim data and obtained it on 20th August. However, this interim data has not been made public or published anywhere, even in pre-print form, raising the same concerns and criticisms as with Covaxin. Covaxin was one of the first Covid vaccines developed by a middle-income, and would have indeed boosted India’s prestige if it had obtained approvals in India and abroad with transparent and published peer-reviewed data. ZyCov-D too would similarly have enhanced India’s image as the only one of just 11 DNA-based vaccine candidates worldwide. Regrettably, the powers that be seem to have decided to follow a non-transparent government-ordered vaccine approval process that achieves precisely the opposite. As is said history repeats itself “First as tragedy and second time as farce”.

All India Peoples Science Network (AIPSN) urges the Government of India, its concerned ministries, departments, institutions and authorities of the need to adhere to scientific standards for conduct and analysis of clinical trial results, publication of results as peer-reviewed articles and complete transparency. Regulatory agencies should also assert their independence from both government and corporate interests, and make judgments based on scientific analysis. Vaccine producers must build transparency in this regard, while fulfilling their responsibilities and accountability. We need to ensure that urgent approval of vaccines, publication of clinical trial data and the safety and efficacy of the vaccine all receive equal and due importance.

 

For clarifications contact:

P.Rajamanickam, General Secretary, AIPSN

gsaipsn@gmail.com, 9442915101 @gsaipsn

by

AIPSN Call to Reconstitute National Steering Committee for National Curriculum Framework

Click here to read the AIPSN Press Statement

23 Sept 2021

 

“Reconstitute National Steering Committee for National Curriculum Framework”

 

The Union Ministry of Education has set up a National Steering Committee for the Development of National Curriculum Frameworks as per the perspectives of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. The Committee is expected to develop four National Curriculum Frameworks, namely,

1) National Curriculum Framework for School Education

2) National Curriculum Framework Early Childhood Care and Education

3) National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education

4) National Curriculum Framework for Adult Education.

According to the terms of reference, the 12-member Committee chaired by Prof. K. Kasturirangan will have tenure of three years. It will “discuss different aspects of School Education, Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE), Teacher Education and Adult Education keeping in focus all the recommendations of NEP 2020 related to these four areas for proposing curriculum reforms”.

It is a matter of deep concern that the entire span of educational curriculum reform, from the early childhood years to adult education, has been entrusted to a small committee with no expertise in these crucial areas. Members include educational administrators and even entrepreneurs. This seems to be in line with the trend of the National Education Policy 2020 to usher in private players while making subservient established institutions of public education. Indeed surprisingly, no faculty members of NCERT are included, even though it is the apex national body responsible for the development of curricula; rather, the Director of NCERT is expected to ‘assist’ the Steering Committee.

A National Curriculum Framework is meant to provide a sound academic basis to guide a range of curricular interventions, for the development of syllabi, textbooks, teaching learning processes and assessments. It is worth noting that the Steering Committee for the NCF 2005 had thirty five members, with eleven from NCERT and twenty four persons from across the country with experience and expertise in different domain areas. These included eminent academics from the social sciences, sciences, language and mathematics; school teachers, principals of schools and colleges, educationists, and leaders of educational and rights based NGOs. An even larger group of well known experts were invited as members of the different Focus Groups to work on the set of position papers.

AIPSN calls for a re-constitution of the Steering Committee with persons having a deep understanding about learners in diverse and disparate socio-cultural contexts, disciplinary knowledge of school education and domain expertise in teacher education/adult education, as well as sound experience of the pedagogical processes required to develop a National Curriculum Framework. Moreover, if there is serious concern for the future of all our learners, the Committee will need to address the challenges of education with commitment to the Constitution and a focus on equity, quality and inclusion.

 

For clarifications contact:

P.Rajamanickam, General Secretary, AIPSN

gsaipsn@gmail.com, 9442915101 @gsaipsn

by

No to Oil Palm plantations in India’s Bio-diversity hotspots

Click here to read the pdf  of AIPSN Position Paper on Oil Palm Mission

Click here to read the pdf of this Press Release 

 

Press Release – 13 Sept 2020

 

AIPSN Statement  on recently announced Mission on Oil Palm

 “No to Oil Palm plantations in India’s Bio-diversity hotspots”

The Union Government recently approved a new and poorly conceived National Mission on Edible Oils-Oil Palm (NMEO-OP) with an ecologically damaging focus on large-scale cultivation of Oil Palm in the North-East and the Andaman Islands purportedly due to favorable rainfall and temperature conditions here. It is proposed to raise additional area under Oil Palm plantation to reach around 1 million ha by 2025-26, with production of Crude Palm Oil (CPO) of around 2.8 m Tonnes by 2029-30, aiming to reduce edible oil imports and boost domestic production.

However, the Mission’s thrust on the ecologically fragile bio-diversity hotspots of the NE and the A&N Islands is highly problematic. Oil Palm plantations, especially in the world’s major producing areas of Indonesia and Malaysia involving massive deforestation, have been observed be a major driver of biodiversity loss.  Deforestation including clearing of grasslands would certainly be involved in the Andamans, as indeed happened in the mid-1970s during earlier such plantation there which Forest authorities objected to. The Andamans also saw displacement of many Jarawa and Onge extremely vulnerable indigenous tribes. Due to these adverse impacts, the Supreme Court in 2002 imposed a ban on commercial and monoculture plantations, and introduction of exotic species, in the A&N Islands.

Niti Aayog and the Union Government have been pushing hard to overcome this SC stay. But Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) recommended, in a January 2020 report, that introduction of Oil Palm should be avoided in biodiversity rich areas, including grasslands, without detailed studies on its ecological impact. Instead, the Union Government called for submission to the SC of a joint report by ICFRE and the more favorable ICAR Institute of Oil Palm Research (ICAR-IIOPR). Again, in its affidavit to the SC in August 2020 accompanying the confidential report, ICFRE underscored the absence of relevant data, and reiterated its call for comprehensive studies on the ecological impact in the A&N.

The Union Government’s decision to launch NMEO-OP Mission has therefore clearly been taken in the face of staunch and repeated opposition by ICFRE, brushes aside the call for prior studies, and appears to be a political decision, rather than one guided by evidence and expert opinion.

In the NE, while government spokespersons claim that plantations will only be agricultural lands, past experience shows that shortage of cultivable land, and tribal rather than personal ownership of forest lands in the NE, would inevitably lead to deforestation or conversion of forest fringe areas.  Further, Oil Palm plantations in so-called degraded and waste lands near forests also tend to drive encroachment of forests and subsequent deforestation as witnessed earlier in India.

Currently, Mission schemes favor large farmers and corporate leases of community land or other commons due to long gestation periods and high water demand, potentially straining groundwater resources. Many experts have therefore suggested that, even elsewhere in India, promotion of Oil Palm among small farmers with appropriate support would yield more equitable socio-economic benefits and increased sustainability. Others have suggested that, if similar subsidies as provided in the Mission are extended to conventional oilseed cultivators, their productivity too could be boosted substantially as evidenced in earlier Oilseed Missions. Even industry leaders have said that the Mission goals could be met by focusing on groundnut, soyabean and mustard along with Oil Palm.

In sum, programmes for expansion of Oil Palm plantation in India require a research- and evidence-based, locale-specific and multi-dimensional plan to expand Oil Palm acreage wherever economically feasible and ecologically suitable. Oil Palm cultivation in the most ecologically vulnerable A&N Islands, in violation of earlier Supreme Court directions and without rigorous studies, should be ruled out. Mission activities in the biodiversity rich and ecologically sensitive NE should proceed only in limited areas with great caution and based on prior studies. NMEO-OP needs to be thoroughly re-cast in conjunction with efforts to boost productivity of other oilseeds in different parts of India.

For clarifications contact:

P.Rajamanickam, General Secretary, AIPSN

gsaipsn@gmail.com, 9442915101 @gsaipsn

by

Need to uphold Constitution, Scientific Temper and Humanity in judicial interventions

Click here to see the press statement from AIPSN

 

Need to uphold Constitution, Scientific Temper and Humanity in judicial interventions

             All India People’s Science Network (AIPSN) expresses its unhappiness with the judgement of the Allahabad High Court in Javed vs UP state, issued on 1 Sept 2021, for citing several religion mythical scriptures as the culture of our nation and making observations that have no scientific basis (quote from judgment “Scientists believe that cow is the only animal that inhales oxygen and also exhales oxygen. Panchagavya is made out of cow’s milk, curds, ghee, urine and dung and is known to help in several incurable diseases. According to Hindu religion, 33 crore gods and goddesses reside in the cow” ) . In this case, Javed, who is on trial for killing a cow was denied bail.

AIPSN strongly objects to the lack of scientific temper and secularism in the observations given in the judgement, wherein a subset of scriptures of a specific religion are utilised and pronounced as the culture of our nation and importantly is used to deny bail to a human being.

India is a country with religious, linguistic, cultural, social, ethnic diversity which constitutes the “Idea of India“. Our freedom struggle united all against colonial oppression and fought to overthrow the colonial rule. That unity helped us to have our own Constitution. It is the duty of every citizen and those who take public office to uphold the Constitution to develop scientific temper, spirit of inquiry and humanism.  The observations in the Javed vs UP State case relating to the cow as the only animal that inhales and exhales oxygen and with special properties, attributed to its body and excreta, have no scientific basis.  Evolutionary biology has shown that all animals including cows and humans have a common origin and follow similar respiration physiology of inhaling air, from which part of oxygen is absorbed in the blood and exhaling carbon dioxide and other substances, like nitrogen and some amount of oxygen too.

AIPSN is shocked at the scientific fallacies in the judgement and is alarmed that these unscientific observations would be cited in later cases and may also create disharmony in our society. A rationalist and scientific approach is is always essential in a legal document. Leading legal personalities such as B.R. Ambedkar ,  Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer of our country were very vocal in their opposition to pseudoscience and we and our judiciary should follow that path.

In the last few years, we have come across a large number of pseudoscientific statements made by government functionaries, both at the central government as well as various state governments. It seems the Indian Cow is one of the pet areas about which a lot of nonsensical stuff is uttered. The anti-science atmosphere created in such a process is reflected strongly in faith based judgement devoid of legal arguments, and with falsification of science. Such observations, as in the case, cited here, also goes against the secular fabric of our Indian constitution.

AIPSN notes with concern these observations reflected in this judgment as they are without scientific evidence going against the scientific temper while  foisting one community’s supposed beliefs upon the entire country and all its diverse cultures. AIPSN looks forward to appropriate corrective action.

We the people of India need to raise our voice against such attempts which disrupt the fabric of our nation. In this situation, AIPSN strongly rejects the faith based observations relating to the cow in the judgement arising in the Javed case as they are against secularism and scientific temper. We look forward to the display of scientific temper, thus upholding an important component of the Constitution, in all legal proceedings and judgements.

In particular, AIPSN appeals to the scientific community to protest against such unscientific proclamations that have the danger of creating cleavages in our society and also goes against our constitutional duty to protect scientific temper.

For clarifications contact:

P.Rajamanickam, General Secretary, AIPSN

gsaipsn@gmail.com, 9442915101 @gsaipsn

 

by

All India Save Education Day on 05th September Teachers Day

Click here to read the Press Release for Save Education Day 5th Sept 2021

 

Click here to read the related AIFUCTO Circular AIFUCTO GS Circular 26.08.2021

Time has come for more vigorous protest against the stubborn and undemocratic attitude of the Government of India and showing our teeth against undemocratic, unscientific, retrograde and exclusionary nature of NEP.

Joint Forum for Movement on Education (JFME) considering the gravity of the situation has a given a call for All India Save Education Day on 05th September, 2021 to be more demonstrative of our protest against NEP to Save Education, Save Campus and Save Nation.

Please where ever possible organize demonstrative action either in front of Rajabhavan or State Capital or university or college campus on the day.

Submit memorandum to the state as well as Central government on our stand on NEP and also highlights state issues.

Organize JFME at your level and carry on the program.

Click here to read the related JFME Circular JFMECircular-22.08.2021

Click here to read the related JFME Statement JFME Joint Statement July 25

Click to read the AIPSN Campaign note in English and Hindi 

by

National Scientific Temper Day NSTD 2021

Read the NSTD appeal in

english, hindi, bengali, odiya, assamese, marathi, kannada, telegu, malayalam, tamil

Visit https://aipsn.in to read the appeal and endorse or see the signatories

AIPSN Press Release

click here to get the AIPSN Press Release pdf 

National Scientific temper day (NSTD) on 20th August, 2021

            All India People’s Science Network (AIPSN), comprising of 40 member organisations, has been observing 20th August as the National Scientific Temper Day (NSTD) in the memory of Dr. Narendra Dabholkar, who was assassinated on 20th August 2013. Campaigns have been launched every year along with fraternal organisations and movements throughout the country. This year the campaign focuses on the need for Scientific Temper to fight Covid and the need to oppose promotion of Astrology by Governmental efforts.  So far almost all the states of India and nearly 200 districts started to observe this day through webinars, outdoor programmes, poster rally in social media, and mass meetings obeying Covid rule. As part of the NSTD observance, signature campaigns both online (https://aipsn.in) and offline in local languages in States have involved thousands of activists, scientists and educationists. A twitter campaign was also undertaken on 20th with the hashtag #NSTD2021 #LongLiveDabholkar. This year NSTD 2021 was observed by conducting two all India level Webinars to  understand the issues by state committees; all India  webinars focusing on women and Youths  on scientific temper; release of all India statement in nearly 8 languages; web based signature campaign currently with more than 1500 signatures; preparation of posters in nearly 10 languages for social media campaign in all states; state level webinars in nearly 20 states; physical meeting of NSTD campaign in 200 districts; demands of different states to enact anti superstition bill; miracle explanation and pledge taking on the 51 A (h) part of our constitution in all branches of PSM; articles highlighting NSTD in local dailies in different states were the highlights of NSTD-2021.

All India People’s Science Network (AIPSN) and its constituent bodies note with concern the recent announcement by IGNOU to start ‘MA-Jyotish’ course from the current academic year. We also note similar courses have been running in at least a handful more public funded universities. We note that authorities in these universities are defending such courses by claiming that these courses fulfill the NEP 2020 recommendation of introduction of ‘Indian Knowledge Systems’ in curriculum at all stages.

India has a rich tradition of knowledge generation in multiple fields including astronomy, mathematics, metallurgy and philosophy. The tree of modern science is watered by all great cultures of the past in different ways and in different eras. Some of the Indian contributions to this collective knowledge are undeniably significant and they will occupy a crucial part in any wholesome learning of science.

Astrological predictions have been invariably shown to fail in any controlled statistical test. There is no scientific basis for believing that planets have any meaningful effect on the human body. The astrological principle that the effect of planets would vary based on your birth chart even defies plain logic.  Introducing such an unproven and illogical field as a teaching course by IGNOU is promoting superstition by governmental effort. Further, its introduction goes against Article 51A (h) of the Indian Constitution which stipulates that it is the fundamental duty of every Indian citizen to adhere to scientific temper. Promoting scientific temper, which is a fundamental duty for each one of us, requires us to oppose the promotion of pseudoscience, especially by governmental bodies.

We express our great concern in regard to the encouragement and promotion of fake data, pseudoscience and irresponsible decisions by the Central and some state governments, on the one hand which have contributed to the spread of the pandemic, and the neglect of a planned response based on scientific policy on the other. Covid cannot be fought without scientific temper. Fighting Covid scientifically requires the reversal of policies promoting private health care for profit leading to the neglect and decline of effective public healthcare systems in most states of India.  Fighting Covid requires effective implementation of a national policy for universal free vaccination on a crash basis. It requires planning based on honest data collection. While wasting huge sums in self advertisement on free vaccination, the Central government and several state governments are failing in practice at the ground level to ensure adequate supplies of vaccines, oxygen and even the proper disposal of the dead bodies of those who succumbed to Covid. Media organizations reporting accurately the situation on the ground are being systematically targeted and sought to be silenced by the misuse of the state apparatus. Thus the government itself is promoting fake data and actively trying to suppress the truth.

We appeal to all citizens, mass organizations and educational institutions to participate in the National Scientific Temper Day (NSTD) observances for August 20th for promoting scientific temper in these challenging times and to raise our voices against the brutal killing of Dabholkar, Pansare, Kalburgi and Lankesh and condemn the threatening of intellectuals for their writings or holding seminars.

The NSTD 2021 campaign by AIPSN and fraternal organisations have demanded:

  1. Astrology (i.e. predictive part of Jyotishastra) related courses should be discontinued from every public funded university. Instead of that we demand the introduction of Astronomy in Indian universities.
  2. Reversal of privatization policies and restoration of scientific policy for ensuring good quality public health care as a universal right.
  3. The government stops its attacks on media reporting honestly on the Covid situation.
  4. Respect be shown to our constitutional article 51a(h) for actively promoting scientific temper at a mass level in order to effectively combat and defeat the Covid pandemic.
  5. An atmosphere of tolerance, debate and dissent which helps science and scientific temper to flourish.
  6. Culprits involved in the assassination of Narendra Dabholkar, Govind Pansare, MM Kalburgi and Gauri Lankesh are punished.

 

 

For clarifications contact:

P.Rajamanickam, General Secretary, AIPSN

gsaipsn@gmail.com, 9442915101 @gsaipsn

by

AIPSN Position Paper on Lakshadweep and Controversial Islands Development Plan

click here to see the pdf of the position paper

click here to read an article published in NewsClick relating to this issue

Lakshadweep and Controversial Islands Development Plan:

(World Environment Day, 5 June 2021)

 

World Environment Day falls on 5 June each year, and the theme for the coming decade has been declared as ‘Ecological Restoration’. Tragically, however, a central concern in India these days is the ecological and human disaster unfolding in the Lakshadweep archipelago in the Arabian Sea, as well as in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands chain on the eastern flank of peninsular India in the Indian Ocean, all in the name of ‘island development.’

In a keynote address to a Conference of Parties to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification in 2019, the Prime Minister of India, Shri Narendra Modi, announced an increase of India’s commitment to restoration of degraded lands from 21 million hectares to 26 million hectares by 2030. India’s Nationally Determined Commitments (NDC) under the Paris Agreement on climate change pledges to reduce emissions intensity of GDP by 33-35% by 2030, increase share of renewable energy in electricity generation to 40% of total by 2030 (stepped up further since then with a new goal of 450 GW of renewables compared to 175 GW earlier).  These and other similar commitments have often been made by the PM and other government leaders to international audiences and in different international Treaties. These promises are made while repeatedly citing Indian (Hindu) traditional and civilizational values of respect for nature and sustainable lifestyles.

Closer examination shows some of these targets to be modest at best, and many concerns persist on the conditions, qualifications and negative impacts related to these targets, as discussed further below. Perhaps more importantly, policies and actions of this government in India reveal its international stance to be mostly posturing, and the professed environmental concerns to be largely for the sake of image-building. Domestically, in sharp contrast, this government has systematically worked to promote ‘ease of doing business’ and consistently acted in favour of corporate industrial and commercial interests in extraction of value from nature at the cost of both the ecosystem and local populations. Mining, industrial and commercial projects inside forest areas and even infringing upon wildlife sanctuaries especially through the contrived device of ‘linear projects’ have now become commonplace. The transfer of wealth to corporations through shifting of natural public commons to private hands, has been facilitated by drastic dilution or reversal of several key environmental regulations.

Framing the Context: Changing Environmental Regulations

Earlier violations and piecemeal regulatory changes through executive notifications have been sought to be regularized through the draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification 2020. Draft EIA 2020 sought to vastly enlarge the categories of projects which require only cursory regulatory examination or even avoid regulatory clearance all-together.  It severely dilutes environmental appraisal norms and reduces, or even completely omits, the role of public consultations in many sectors, while allowing the central government unlimited authority by reducing clearance requirements for projects of ‘strategic importance’ the parameters of which remain undefined. Draft EIA 2020 also turns a blind eye to egregious violations of environmental regulations and outright illegal activities by permitting post-facto environmental clearance of impermissible projects after simply paying a small compounding fine. Following widespread opposition, this Draft is currently in limbo, but many of its provisions are being implemented nonetheless, and it appears that the trend of roll-back of environmental regulations and people’s participation in safeguarding them will continue.

Regulatory changes have also been brought about across various sectors including forests, water resources, coastal areas, land use, mineral resource extraction, industrial safety and hazardous materials. Key amendments have been introduced in the Land Acquisition Act 2015, diluting the earlier Act by increasing exemptions from local consent and social impact assessment. The Coastal Regulations Zone (CRZ) rules have also been weakened by reducing the exclusion zone from 100m to 50m and other measures that are expected to open up the fragile coastline, already subject to erosion and impact of sea-level rise, for industry, real estate and tourism. Experts say this would also be exploited by corporate houses including under the Sagarmala programme which envisions a ‘garland’ of major ports. The draft National Forest Policy of 2018 promotes the interests of forestry corporations and private players, and weakens the Forest Rights Act 2006 secured by prolonged and sustained struggles of forest dwellers and other popular movements. Between June 2014 and May 2018, less than 1% of proposed projects seeking clearance have been rejected by the wildlife authority. In the government’s scheme of things, issues of environmental damage and linked people’s survival, sustenance and livelihoods come a distant second to business interests, so much so that some have dubbed the concerned department the ‘Ministry against Environment!’ Government inaction on aspects like solid waste management, air pollution and river cleanliness continue to worsen local environments and adversely impact people’s health.

Government Inaction on Climate Change

The Government’s response to the challenges of climate change follows a similar dual path, a seemingly strong posture abroad including in the international negotiations, and contrasting weak actions domestically. To put things in perspective, while India’s NDC compares favourably with hitherto low-ambition emission cuts promised by developed countries especially the US, these targets have been rated by the well-reputed Climate Tracker as ‘moderate’ and compatible with the 2 degrees C goal. Perhaps more seriously, India continues to pursue an externally-driven climate policy driven mainly by foreign policy considerations. Domestic action to adapt or build resilience to serious climate impacts in India, which is considered among the most affected regions of the world, is scarce. This is in sharp contrast to the stance of most developing countries, especially the least developed countries (LDCs) and the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) who have approached climate change and international negotiations based on the severe impacts they are experiencing and the existential challenge posed by these impacts.

With worsening polar ice melt and sea-level rise, India’s coastal areas with over 170 million people are expected to be seriously impacted by coastal erosion, sea-water ingress and extensive permanent coastal submergence due to sea-level rise added to high tides and storm surges. The think tank Climate Central has projected that 36 million people could be affected in India in the near term, with the portal also providing extremely interesting data as well as dramatic interactive maps based on latest satellite data showing extensive inundation, particularly of densely populated urban agglomerations around Kochi, Mumbai and Surat on the west coast, and Chennai, Puri and Kolkata in the east. All these impacts are being worsened by rapid construction and other economic activities on or near the coast, and degradation of natural protective barriers such as mangroves.

There is an imminent threat for Lakshadweep and Andaman & Nicobar, with experts predicting that many of the islands may become uninhabitable by 2100 because of sea-level rise due to climate change. Yet, government action on any of these issues is insubstantial. Programmes initiated such as the Technology Missions under the UPA Government’s National Action Plan on Climate Change in 2008-10 have been allowed to drift and fade away, being under-funded and lacking political support especially under the present Government. Even serious scientific studies of climate impacts have not yet seen the light of the day, with one major study expected to release its report only in the next year or so. Adaptation actions mostly fall under jurisdiction of State governments which are starved of funds and lack the necessary knowledge and capabilities required, calling for the Central government to take the initiative and the major burden. It needs emphasis that adaptation programmes are cost intensive, and the later the actions are undertaken, the more expensive they will become. This is a monumental problem facing the present and future generations of the Indian people.  In this scenario, it is surprising that the main policy being discussed in the case of Lakshadweep is not on building protection against climate disasters, but instead on real estate development in the islands.

Recent Developments in Lakshadweep

The recently appointed Administrator of Lakshadweep, Praful Khoda Patel (he is the first political appointee to this post in the Union Territory and had earlier served as Home Minister in the Narendra Modi-led Gujarat government), has drawn up and sent to the Home Ministry for approval, a new Lakshadweep Development Authority Regulation 2021 and a whole raft of other draft Regulations on Panchayats, Prevention of Anti-Social Activities (PASA) and Animal Preservation. Together, these assign unquestionable authority to the Administrator including giving him total eminent domain powers over the territory and people of the Islands, enabling the administration to take-over of any part of the islands in the name of ‘development activities’ including ecologically damaging mining and extraction of mineral resources. This also allows forcible removal or relocation of any islander owning that land, despite the fact that over 95% of islanders belong to Scheduled Tribes whose lands cannot be easily alienated by earlier laws; to by-pass panchayats and other local government bodies; and, amazingly, placing any such actions by the Administrator beyond appeal or judicial review. The recent control asserted by the administrator extends beyond the environmental realm, with measures like relaxation of customary alcohol prohibition in the Muslim-dominated islands and even arbitrary reduction of Covid-19 related restrictions.

The Administrator claims that all these measures have been taken in pursuit of development of Lakshadweep ‘along the lines of the Maldives’.  His plans, so far unchecked by the Home Ministry under which the UT administration functions, mark out a developmental model which is sought to be imposed on the Lakshadweep people irrespective of their desires or interests. As a pre-emptive measure, the changes proposed allow for throttling of local opposition. In addition, measures taken by the Administrator include banning the sale, storage or consumption of beef, integral to the food habits of the overwhelmingly (95%) Muslim population with ST status; removing non-vegetarian food from school meals programmes; and closing down the islands’ only government-run dairy farm and ferrying in milk from Gujarat instead. There is also a clear attempt to de-link Lakshadweep from its historical links with Kerala by diverting supply ships from Beypore Port near Kochi to Mangalore in BJP-ruled Karnataka. Despite Malayalam being the lingua franca in Lakshadweep, recent news reports claim an attempt by the administration to shift its legal jurisdiction from the Kerala High Court to Karnataka High Court.

Widespread opposition by the locals has been met with heavy handed repression by the administration. Protesters have been arrested and incarcerated without trial using the PASR or ‘Goonda Act’. Local artisanal fishers have been attacked and their nets, gear and huts destroyed in the name of coastal regulations. Thousands of contract workers have been summarily laid off. The local people and their culture are seen as obstacles to be eliminated, while their island home is viewed as real estate and for its potential to generate wealth for the ruling state government. From the measures taken, the administrator seems hell-bent not only on stamping out dissent but also undermining the democratic roots of local governance and popular mobilization in Lakshadweep.

The Controversial Islands Development Plan

The recent proposals of this administrator cannot be seen in vacuum or as the actions of an individual alone, and applicable only in the case of Lakshwadeep. The larger and uncomfortable questions remain, particularly regarding the nature of the envisaged ‘development’ plans in the islands and the interests behind them. In June 2017 itself, the Indian Government had constituted an Island Development Agency under the Chairmanship of the Union Home Minister, which had mandated Niti Aayog to steer the programme for ‘Holistic Development of Islands.’ Important to note is how a body introduced by the government as ‘just’ a think-tank to replace the earlier supposedly authoritarian Planning Commission, is essentially acting as a centralized project planning and implementation oversight body with quasi-executive powers and outside all existing government structures, with accountability only to the home minister. Following preliminary studies, the CEO of Niti Aayog made a presentation to potential investors in August 2018, stating that the Government had accorded high priority to the development of the islands and was putting forward concrete and carefully worked out project ideas for the same. In order to further ease the path of investors, local Island Development Authorities were empowered to provide single-window facilitation to projects, with pre-obtained regulatory clearances for land use, environmental impact and so on!

More studies and information on the proposed projects are available in a May 2019 ‘think’ report by Niti Aayog staffers titled ‘Transforming the Islands through creativity and innovation’. Tourism related projects are central to the plans for Lakshadweep, unabashedly modelled after the Maldives. Plans for the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are even more ambitious and fanciful including several airports, container trans-shipment ports, a new greenfield city to act as a financial hub ‘on the lines of Singapore and Hong Kong,’ with strategic value given proximity to the Malacca straits. The Maldives is a group of larger islands with a high-end tourism model, with few links to the bulk of the island population although adding hugely to the Maldivian GDP. Even there, the strains of the current tourism-based model of development are showing both on local ecosystems especially on the coral reefs, the very lifeline of the archipelago, and in adverse socio-economic impacts.

 

The feasibility and desirability of the replication of these international models, both in Lakshadweep (a group of 36 small islands comprises just 10 inhabited islands, 17 uninhabited islands, 4 newly formed islets and 5 submerged reefs) and the contrasting Andaman and Nicobar group (consisting of 576 relatively larger islands of which only 38 are inhabited) is not examined. Instead, the Niti Aayog studies bemoan the stagnation of international tourists at 15,000 in A&N and 500-odd in Lakshadweep in contrast with 1.5 million foreign tourists hosted by the Maldives annually.  The potential of integrating island tourism with tourism in mainland India, whereby a wider set of attraction can be offered to international tourists, simultaneously promoting forms of environmentally friendly tourism and involving the local population in more sustainable tourism models are left explored. Rather, further studies by the Niti Aayog in association with international agencies, project feasibility of huge tourist inflows of 5,000-10,000 persons per day in the A&N islands which would be around 1.5 million per year in each of several islands, unimaginably, more than half the current foreign tourist arrivals in the whole of mainland India! Other Niti Aayog studies apparently also confirm such high carrying capacity estimates. This level can only be realized if all resources are ferried from the mainland, along with huge cost to the local ecology due to deforestation, change of land use patterns and disposal of the enormous quantities of wastes generated. With a large mainland back-up in India, the local population of the islands become virtually irrelevant.

Consequences of the Envisaged ‘Development’ Model

Lakshadweep is already suffering from severe coastal erosion, and experts predict that some islands may become uninhabitable due to sea level rise related to climate change. Various other negative ecological impacts are also predicted by experts such as coral reefs bleaching, damage to fish habitat and breeding grounds etc.

The Environmental Impact Assessment of Projects in the Little Andaman Island records the enormous ecological risks to pristine local forests, mangroves, marine life and endangered species such as Leather-backed Turtles. One of the proposed projects, in Little Andamans envisions a full-size airport and aerocity, expanded tourism centres, convention centres, and hospitals or ‘medicity’, a leisure district spread with a tourism SEZ and ‘nature’ retreats, and a development of a new 100 km east-west coastal ring road and a mass transit system. The total area of the island is only around 737 sq. kms – about the size of Mumbai or Hyderabad, of which 95% or about 700 sq. km is reserve forest. Of this, about 450 sq. km is designated as the Onge Reserve, home to this highly endangered early aboriginal tribe of whom there are only 100 or so persons left. This Project calls for clearing about 224 sq. km or 32% of the reserve forest with around two million trees and de-notifying 135 sq. km or about 30% of the Onge Reserve. But all this may not matter to Niti Aayog planners and their supporters in the Union Government. Even reported opposition from the forest department has met with little response from the government. The Union Environment Ministry has granted environmental clearance in the Andamans, coolly noting that the Onges, for instance, can simply be relocated elsewhere. Clearly, in this model of island development, the environment matters little and the local population matters even less.

 

In the three years since the Island Development plans were advanced, including the recent Little Andamans ‘super’ project dangling all kinds of inducements to the corporate sector, reports say that investors are yet to come forward, possibly due to the risks, challenges and viability doubts. But, irrespective of the actual tourist impact in these islands, the government in charge stands to make huge profits from land rents and prospective corporate deals.

As the Union Government grows more authoritarian and asserts greater authority especially in the Union Territories, environmental regulatory systems are being either captured or strangulated, and local populations are simply ignored or crushed in the name of development. National and internationally committed environmental goals like the forestry targets appear unrealistic in the face of systematic encroachment upon forest areas as discussed above, which cannot be offset by increasing ‘green cover’ outside forests, for instance along highways, since a group of trees however large simply cannot perform the same ecological services as a forest. The forests of Andaman cannot be compensated by afforestation in mainland India and neither can the lives of the indigenous peoples. Across India, not only have many of the recent changes been detrimental to the environment and people’s lives and livelihoods, they uniformly suppress people’s rights and seek to reverse many of the hard won regulations resulting from people’s movements in the past few decades. Institutional autonomy, regulatory structures and even judicial oversight are being systematically undermined in the field of environment as much as in other arenas of governance. Even the National Green Tribunal has been repeatedly attacked and sought to be weakened in several ways. While rarely compromising in the face of opposition by peoples movements, civil society organizations and experts, the relentless assault continues in different forms and across various theatres. This situation calls for urgent and large coalitions across the country to resist the grandiose so-called “development” plans of the current ruling dispensation.

 

For clarifications contact:

P.Rajamanickam, General Secretary, AIPSN gsaipsn@gmail.com, 9442915101 @gsaipsn