Toxic Assets or Toxics as Assets
by Pankaj Sekhsaria
The New Indian Express, 21st Oct. 2010
http://expressbuzz.com/biography/toxic-assets-or-toxics-as-assets/216983.html
If there is one term that defines the tailspin the world economy experienced recently, it is ‘toxic assets’. The phenomenon has been hugely analysed and debated but little has been discussed on the coinage of the term itself. Who used it first? What was its purpose? Has it had any particular implications? Would the responses to the crisis have been different if toxic assets were called something else, say ‘legacy assets’?
It is believed that the term toxic assets was coined and popularised by the founder of Countrywide Financial, Angelo Mozilo, who used ‘toxic’ to describe certain mortgage products in early 2006: “(The 100% loan-to-value subprime loan is) the most dangerous product in existence and there can be nothing more toxic...” he is recorded as having said in an e-mail he sent in March 2006.
What is particularly intriguing here is the crossing over of ‘toxic’, from its primary usage in the environmental context into the realm of finance. This offers, both, an interesting metaphor on the one hand and an important commentary on the other.
It doesn’t need much to see the contradiction in putting toxic and assets together; it’s the ultimate oxymoron. If it’s an asset, it is positive and welcome. If it’s toxic it is best avoided, even better disposed. What does their juxtaposition in ‘toxic assets’, then imply? Is it a dichotomy of the real world or can it be dismissed merely as a play of words?
Language does not just modulate the experience of the real world, it often becomes the experience itself. It is language that we use again to change the experience, like when a new term ‘legacy assets’ was created for the purpose. Most readers are likely to have missed it earlier in this essay because it does not have the power, the influence or the history of ‘toxic assets’. ‘Legacy assets’ or ‘legacy loans’ as they are also called, were in fact, a re-branding exercise attempted by the US Treasury in March of 2009 to make more palatable and sellable what were now widely known as ‘toxic assets’. The term, however, is so firmly embedded in public memory that it has been impossible to dislodge.
‘Toxic assets’ has made the boundary between financial and environmental risks unexpectedly and visibly porous. The same was done a while ago in the climate change debate as well — in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), a financial instrument that offers a solution to the climate crisis by transacting in ‘carbon credits’. CDM is a politically sensitive issue; economically an uncertain one and has been seen, empirically, as rather unsuccessful so far: trade in carbon is increasing but there seems to be no commensurate reduction in carbon emissions.
The question then is this: Was the creation of trading in carbon, implicitly, an effort to ‘repackage’ a certain toxicity as an asset. That the packaging has been widely successful is evident in the growing interest in the idea. A number of developing countries including India have bought into it fully and have now created multiple scenarios of economic revenues through different forms of carbon trading.
That ‘waste is a misplaced resource’ is a commonly accepted principle. It has been shown that excretions from one system, particularly in nature, are productively used in another. For this to happen, however, the waste needs to be thrown completely out of the system first; inside it becomes toxic and extremely dangerous. This also assumes that there are clear boundaries between systems and that waste moves across these boundaries.
While carbon is an integral part of the system of the Earth, its excessive accumulation is the toxicity that threatens. This toxicity is now being promoted as an asset for a transaction that will now happen before its removal from within the system.
The irony is that the climate change crisis is built on the notion of the Earth as a single, unified entity: it doesn’t matter where and when the emissions happen or who is responsible because the consequences are to be faced by all. The problem this raises for carbon trading is evident. If the Earth is indeed one, there is no ‘other backyard’ to put the waste (carbon) into; it’s the reverse of the ‘toxics assets’ case. The argument that carbon trading will work is, then, in direct opposition to the notion that there is one Earth because carbon emissions can’t be toxic and an asset at the same time!
The options that this leaves us with are two: that the Earth is not one entity or that climate change is not a problem that we should be worrying about. Neither might be acceptable, but then it cannot be dismissed as mere word play either!
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Saturday, October 16, 2010
BBC Does a Columbus -
- finds the lost tigers of Bhutan
On September 20, BBC published a report in its Earth News section of its web edition that has had the global wildlife and conservation community abuzz with excitement. In the article, ‘Lost tiger population discovered in Bhutan mountains’, editor Earth News, Matt Walker, described with unconcealed enthusiasm the expedition where the BBC team “left (camera) traps at an altitude of between 3,000m and 4,100m” in the Bhutan mountains for many months and returned eventually with footage of two adult tigers—one male and one female. “The discovery,” the report says, “has stunned experts, as the tigers are living at a higher altitude than any others known and appear to be successfully breeding.” Veteran cameraman Gordon Buchanan, who was on the expedition, was reportedly moved to tears when he saw the footage.
In a world starved of good news about wildlife, the global media lapped up this discovery. The BBC claim was relayed and published widely with no questions asked at all. It didn’t occur to anyone to ask what a ‘lost tiger population’ meant? When was it lost for it to have been discovered now? The BBC team had got the footage for sure, but how did they know where to put up the cameras in the first place?
The report does acknowledge the Bhutan Ministry of Agriculture and Forests and Forest Guard Phup Tshering, but the heroes of the entire episode are, of course, the BBC crew and conservationist Alan Rabinowitz, President of conservation organization, Panthera, and leader of the expedition. Walker credits Rabinowitz with having “suspected that tigers may also be living at higher altitude, following anecdotal reports by villagers suggesting that some were roaming as high as 4000m (13,000ft).”
The matter begs serious questioning: if local people had already known of the presence of the tigers, how can anyone claim their discovery? Why is it that local knowledge and understanding continues to be secondary to television crews and scientists?
BBC’s claim is not questionable only on semantics grounds and on its politics of lost, found and discovery, but also from the fact that there is considerable ‘hard’ evidence of the presence of tigers at high altitudes. For instance, a 2001 report of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) – Bhutan Program says that in “September 1999, a camera trap set up by a wildlife survey team captured a tiger at 3,400 meters, the highest altitude ever recorded for a tiger. In its note on the ThrumshingLa National Park, the Bhutanese Tourism Ministry notes: “the park made news in the year 2000 when a WWF-supported survey team captured a camera-trap image of a tiger at 3,000 meters – the first photographic evidence that the magnificent creatures exist at such high altitudes.” More recent documents like The Tiger Action Plan for the Kingdom of Bhutan 2006-2015 published by the Nature Conservation Division of Bhutan’s Ministry of Agriculture along with the WWF Bhutan Program and the May 2010 National Tiger Recovery Program Summary of Global Tiger Initiative also note that the tiger in Bhutan inhabits ranges from an altitude of 100m to 4100 m about sea level. Another camera trapping study conducted in 2008 in the Jigme Dorji National Park found both pugmarks and pictures of tigers at an altitude between 3,700 and 4,300 meters above sea level. Even the web page of IUCN’s Red List of threatened species observes that tigers have been recorded in Bhutan upto 4,500 meters above sea level.
All of this has been completely ignored in BBC’s claim and the plethora of media reports that appeared in the wake of this ‘find’ and ‘discovery’. There was one voice of contestation that came, not surprisingly, from wildlife researchers in Bhutan. Not surprisingly, further, this voice has been completely drowned out. The online news site www.kuenselonline.com published a report on BBC’s claim with a title that was as subtle as it was instructive. “Cameras catch big cat at 4,000 m plus”, the headline said, followed by the subtitle “Further evidence of the wide range of the tiger in Bhutan”. The reported noted incisively that Bhutanese wildlife conservationists were not calling it a ‘discovery’ but only more ‘evidence’ to prove that tigers do roam the jungles of Bhutan at an altitude as high as 4,100 m. Sonam Wangchuk, head of the Bhutanese Wildlife Conservation Division noted about their findings of about a year ago: “We’ve found pug marks and droppings (of tigers) at the Jigme Dorji Wangchuck national park. The only thing we don’t have is a footage of them.”
The gulf between the reality on the ground and what has been claimed is too evident to have been missed. There are no lost tigers in Bhutan. There is no way anyone could have found or discovered them.
----
A shorter version of the same story with the title 'BBC does a Columbus' was published in the 'Down to Earth' issue of October 15-31, 2010
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/node/2085
On September 20, BBC published a report in its Earth News section of its web edition that has had the global wildlife and conservation community abuzz with excitement. In the article, ‘Lost tiger population discovered in Bhutan mountains’, editor Earth News, Matt Walker, described with unconcealed enthusiasm the expedition where the BBC team “left (camera) traps at an altitude of between 3,000m and 4,100m” in the Bhutan mountains for many months and returned eventually with footage of two adult tigers—one male and one female. “The discovery,” the report says, “has stunned experts, as the tigers are living at a higher altitude than any others known and appear to be successfully breeding.” Veteran cameraman Gordon Buchanan, who was on the expedition, was reportedly moved to tears when he saw the footage.
In a world starved of good news about wildlife, the global media lapped up this discovery. The BBC claim was relayed and published widely with no questions asked at all. It didn’t occur to anyone to ask what a ‘lost tiger population’ meant? When was it lost for it to have been discovered now? The BBC team had got the footage for sure, but how did they know where to put up the cameras in the first place?
The report does acknowledge the Bhutan Ministry of Agriculture and Forests and Forest Guard Phup Tshering, but the heroes of the entire episode are, of course, the BBC crew and conservationist Alan Rabinowitz, President of conservation organization, Panthera, and leader of the expedition. Walker credits Rabinowitz with having “suspected that tigers may also be living at higher altitude, following anecdotal reports by villagers suggesting that some were roaming as high as 4000m (13,000ft).”
The matter begs serious questioning: if local people had already known of the presence of the tigers, how can anyone claim their discovery? Why is it that local knowledge and understanding continues to be secondary to television crews and scientists?
BBC’s claim is not questionable only on semantics grounds and on its politics of lost, found and discovery, but also from the fact that there is considerable ‘hard’ evidence of the presence of tigers at high altitudes. For instance, a 2001 report of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) – Bhutan Program says that in “September 1999, a camera trap set up by a wildlife survey team captured a tiger at 3,400 meters, the highest altitude ever recorded for a tiger. In its note on the ThrumshingLa National Park, the Bhutanese Tourism Ministry notes: “the park made news in the year 2000 when a WWF-supported survey team captured a camera-trap image of a tiger at 3,000 meters – the first photographic evidence that the magnificent creatures exist at such high altitudes.” More recent documents like The Tiger Action Plan for the Kingdom of Bhutan 2006-2015 published by the Nature Conservation Division of Bhutan’s Ministry of Agriculture along with the WWF Bhutan Program and the May 2010 National Tiger Recovery Program Summary of Global Tiger Initiative also note that the tiger in Bhutan inhabits ranges from an altitude of 100m to 4100 m about sea level. Another camera trapping study conducted in 2008 in the Jigme Dorji National Park found both pugmarks and pictures of tigers at an altitude between 3,700 and 4,300 meters above sea level. Even the web page of IUCN’s Red List of threatened species observes that tigers have been recorded in Bhutan upto 4,500 meters above sea level.
All of this has been completely ignored in BBC’s claim and the plethora of media reports that appeared in the wake of this ‘find’ and ‘discovery’. There was one voice of contestation that came, not surprisingly, from wildlife researchers in Bhutan. Not surprisingly, further, this voice has been completely drowned out. The online news site www.kuenselonline.com published a report on BBC’s claim with a title that was as subtle as it was instructive. “Cameras catch big cat at 4,000 m plus”, the headline said, followed by the subtitle “Further evidence of the wide range of the tiger in Bhutan”. The reported noted incisively that Bhutanese wildlife conservationists were not calling it a ‘discovery’ but only more ‘evidence’ to prove that tigers do roam the jungles of Bhutan at an altitude as high as 4,100 m. Sonam Wangchuk, head of the Bhutanese Wildlife Conservation Division noted about their findings of about a year ago: “We’ve found pug marks and droppings (of tigers) at the Jigme Dorji Wangchuck national park. The only thing we don’t have is a footage of them.”
The gulf between the reality on the ground and what has been claimed is too evident to have been missed. There are no lost tigers in Bhutan. There is no way anyone could have found or discovered them.
----
A shorter version of the same story with the title 'BBC does a Columbus' was published in the 'Down to Earth' issue of October 15-31, 2010
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/node/2085
Translocation of 'problem' animals is no solution to the human-wildlife conflict
THE NEED FOR MORE PROACTIVE SOLUTIONS
The New Indian Express, 16th Oct 2010
http://expressbuzz.com/magazine/the-need-for-more-proactive-solutions/214728.html
A first of its kind satellite tracking project to monitor leopards in India recently released data of a young male leopard’s remarkable journey from the hinterland to the forests of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park in Mumbai. The leopard that was trapped in a well in the small town of Alephata, in Pune District was fitted with a satellite collar and released in the nearby forests of Malshej Ghat. In the 23 days that followed, the animal walked through agricultural lands, densely populated human habitations, across roads, a railway line and swam across a creek to cover a distance of 120 kms and reach the green oasis in the heart of India’s commercial capital.
Wildlife biologist Vidya Athreya, who is lead researcher of Project Waghoba (www.projectwaghoba.in) that seeks to study leopard presence and behaviour in human-dominated landscapes, believes that this proof of the leopard’s journey has important policy implications to deal with cases of human-wildlife conflict across India. The first indications of this had been evident to her in 2003, when she started researching human-leopard conflict in the agriculture-dominated landscapes of Western Maharashtra. It is linked to a spate of incidents in the forests of Yawal WLS located in Jalgaon district of Maharashtra. These forests are inhabited by a range of wild animals including large carnivores such as leopards. They have also been dotted with human settlements for a very long time and yet there had been no instances of conflict with the carnivore that is one of the most intelligent and adaptive of wild cats. All this suddenly changed towards the end of 2003. The two-month period from October 31 to December 24 saw six vicious attacks by leopards in the region that had not experienced a single one till then. The attacks stopped only when trap cages were put up and two leopards were caught in them. These were the same animals that had, only a few months ago, terrorised the human population in the agriculture-dominated landscape of Junnar near the city of Pune. Labelled ‘straying’ animals, they were trapped here and as per existing management policy moved 400 km to the forests of Yawal, where they were released back into the ‘wild’.The identity of the leopards, the reason for their presence and the explanation of the attacks lay in a small electronic tag that lay inserted at the base of the tail of these animals. They had been electronically tagged before release as part of a pioneering research project by the Maharashtra Forest Department and assisted by Athreya and wildlife veterinarian Dr Aniruddh Belsare. The rice-grain-sized tag can be read like a bar-code in the supermarket and it was hoped that the tagging would help track the problem animals once they were captured and set free elsewhere. In the case of Yawal, Athreya and Belsare had shown that translocation of the problem leopards was no solution at all; it lay at the root of the problem. The translocation of the animal from the area of conflict had in fact caused the conflict to move to new areas. The animals had taken the conflict with then, and significantly, to an area where it had never existed. The explanation lies in a simple fact of animal behaviour and biology. Translocated animals are forced to negotiate unfamiliar territory and this increases the chance of conflict. The stress encountered during the move itself can also result in an animal becoming more aggressive and problematic. Territorial animals like bears, leopards and tigers have a very strong homing tendency and instinctively try to return to the area from which they have been moved. “In the case of Yawal,” notes Athreya, “one of the problem animals was captured 90 km from its site of release in the direction of Junnar, the town from where it had been brought. ”This was borne out again earlier in June this year, when an elephant from a herd responsible for large-scale damage was captured in the Hassan district of Karnataka. It was moved to the Bandipur National Park but had walked back 70 km towards its home territory within days. In another documented case in 2005, a herd of 20 elephants was relocated from the Hambantota town in south east Sri Lanka to the Yala National Park. One of them was radio-collared by the Centre for Conservation and Research and the Sri Lankan Department of Wildlife Conservation to track the progress of the relocation process. The collared animal, the researchers found out, was back at its original site in Hambantota in a few days time. There is increasing evidence that translocation of what are considered ‘problem animals’ is no solution at all. “Translocation,” says Athreya, “is a procedure commonly used to deal with people or animals which are a problem. It is reactive and involves large amounts of resources. What we require are proactive processes, but these can be devised only after a careful analysis of the problem, be it conflict between villagers and wildlife in protected areas or in croplands.” Modern technology like micro-chipping, use of satellite and radio collars and innovative research projects are for the first time, giving important insights into the hitherto unknown outcomes of translocation projects. — The writer is an environmental researcher, writer and photographer. psekharia@gmail.com
(Also see: http://pankaj-atcrossroads.blogspot.com/2009/02/leopards-of-akole-v.html)
The New Indian Express, 16th Oct 2010
http://expressbuzz.com/magazine/the-need-for-more-proactive-solutions/214728.html
A first of its kind satellite tracking project to monitor leopards in India recently released data of a young male leopard’s remarkable journey from the hinterland to the forests of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park in Mumbai. The leopard that was trapped in a well in the small town of Alephata, in Pune District was fitted with a satellite collar and released in the nearby forests of Malshej Ghat. In the 23 days that followed, the animal walked through agricultural lands, densely populated human habitations, across roads, a railway line and swam across a creek to cover a distance of 120 kms and reach the green oasis in the heart of India’s commercial capital.
The leopard when it was found trapped in the well. It was collared as part of the research project by the team (below). On the right is lead researcher, Vidya Athreya (Photo Courtesy: Project Waghoba)
Wildlife biologist Vidya Athreya, who is lead researcher of Project Waghoba (www.projectwaghoba.in) that seeks to study leopard presence and behaviour in human-dominated landscapes, believes that this proof of the leopard’s journey has important policy implications to deal with cases of human-wildlife conflict across India. The first indications of this had been evident to her in 2003, when she started researching human-leopard conflict in the agriculture-dominated landscapes of Western Maharashtra. It is linked to a spate of incidents in the forests of Yawal WLS located in Jalgaon district of Maharashtra. These forests are inhabited by a range of wild animals including large carnivores such as leopards. They have also been dotted with human settlements for a very long time and yet there had been no instances of conflict with the carnivore that is one of the most intelligent and adaptive of wild cats. All this suddenly changed towards the end of 2003. The two-month period from October 31 to December 24 saw six vicious attacks by leopards in the region that had not experienced a single one till then. The attacks stopped only when trap cages were put up and two leopards were caught in them. These were the same animals that had, only a few months ago, terrorised the human population in the agriculture-dominated landscape of Junnar near the city of Pune. Labelled ‘straying’ animals, they were trapped here and as per existing management policy moved 400 km to the forests of Yawal, where they were released back into the ‘wild’.The identity of the leopards, the reason for their presence and the explanation of the attacks lay in a small electronic tag that lay inserted at the base of the tail of these animals. They had been electronically tagged before release as part of a pioneering research project by the Maharashtra Forest Department and assisted by Athreya and wildlife veterinarian Dr Aniruddh Belsare. The rice-grain-sized tag can be read like a bar-code in the supermarket and it was hoped that the tagging would help track the problem animals once they were captured and set free elsewhere. In the case of Yawal, Athreya and Belsare had shown that translocation of the problem leopards was no solution at all; it lay at the root of the problem. The translocation of the animal from the area of conflict had in fact caused the conflict to move to new areas. The animals had taken the conflict with then, and significantly, to an area where it had never existed. The explanation lies in a simple fact of animal behaviour and biology. Translocated animals are forced to negotiate unfamiliar territory and this increases the chance of conflict. The stress encountered during the move itself can also result in an animal becoming more aggressive and problematic. Territorial animals like bears, leopards and tigers have a very strong homing tendency and instinctively try to return to the area from which they have been moved. “In the case of Yawal,” notes Athreya, “one of the problem animals was captured 90 km from its site of release in the direction of Junnar, the town from where it had been brought. ”This was borne out again earlier in June this year, when an elephant from a herd responsible for large-scale damage was captured in the Hassan district of Karnataka. It was moved to the Bandipur National Park but had walked back 70 km towards its home territory within days. In another documented case in 2005, a herd of 20 elephants was relocated from the Hambantota town in south east Sri Lanka to the Yala National Park. One of them was radio-collared by the Centre for Conservation and Research and the Sri Lankan Department of Wildlife Conservation to track the progress of the relocation process. The collared animal, the researchers found out, was back at its original site in Hambantota in a few days time. There is increasing evidence that translocation of what are considered ‘problem animals’ is no solution at all. “Translocation,” says Athreya, “is a procedure commonly used to deal with people or animals which are a problem. It is reactive and involves large amounts of resources. What we require are proactive processes, but these can be devised only after a careful analysis of the problem, be it conflict between villagers and wildlife in protected areas or in croplands.” Modern technology like micro-chipping, use of satellite and radio collars and innovative research projects are for the first time, giving important insights into the hitherto unknown outcomes of translocation projects. — The writer is an environmental researcher, writer and photographer. psekharia@gmail.com
(Also see: http://pankaj-atcrossroads.blogspot.com/2009/02/leopards-of-akole-v.html)
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Protected Area Update - New Issue - October 2010
Dear Friends,
Below is the list of contents of new issue of the Protected Area Update (Vol. XVI, No. 5), October 2010 (No. 87). Please do forward this to other elists where you think this will be relevant. The entire issue can also be downloaded from the Kalpavriksh website at
http://www.kalpavriksh.org/protected-area-update/174-protected-area-update-2010
If you want to receive the Update in the Word format write to me at the email below
We are, in fact, very happy to announce that all back issues of the PA Update are now available in their pdf forms from
http://www.kalpavriksh.org/protected-area-update
I would also likely to again point out that the PA Update continues to need funds and support. Any contribution, big or small, is welcome and if you would like more details on how you can help or if you any ideas, please do write to me at psekhsaria@gmail.com
Many thanks
Pankaj Sekhsaria
Editor, Protected Area Update
C/o Kalpavriksh
---
Protected Area Update
Vol. XVI, No. 5, October 2010 (No. 87)
Editor: Pankaj Sekhsaria
Editorial Assistance: Reshma Jathar
Illustrations: Madhuvanti Anantharajan
Produced by
The Documentation and Outreach Centre, Kalpavriksh
http://www.kalpavriksh.org/documentation-a-research-centre
Ideas, comments, news and information may please be sent to the editorial address:
KALPAVRIKSH
Apartment 5, Shri Dutta Krupa, 908 Deccan Gymkhana, Pune 411004, Maharashtra, India.
Tel/Fax: 020 - 25654239.
Email: psekhsaria@gmail.com
Website: http://kalpavriksh.org/protected-area-update
---
Publication of the PA Update has been supported by
- Foundation for Ecological Security (FES)
http://fes.org.in/
- Duleep Matthai Nature Conservation Trust
C/o FES
- MISEREOR
www.misereor.org
- Greenpeace India
www.greenpeace.org/india/
- Association for India's Development
www.aidindia.org
- Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
www.rspb.org.uk/
- Indian Bird Conservation Network
http://www.ibcn.in/
***
Information has been sourced from different newspapers and the following websites
http://wildlifewatch.in/
http://indiaenvironmentportal.org.in
Below is the list of contents of new issue of the Protected Area Update (Vol. XVI, No. 5), October 2010 (No. 87). Please do forward this to other elists where you think this will be relevant. The entire issue can also be downloaded from the Kalpavriksh website at
http://www.kalpavriksh.org/protected-area-update/174-protected-area-update-2010
If you want to receive the Update in the Word format write to me at the email below
We are, in fact, very happy to announce that all back issues of the PA Update are now available in their pdf forms from
http://www.kalpavriksh.org/protected-area-update
I would also likely to again point out that the PA Update continues to need funds and support. Any contribution, big or small, is welcome and if you would like more details on how you can help or if you any ideas, please do write to me at psekhsaria@gmail.com
Many thanks
Pankaj Sekhsaria
Editor, Protected Area Update
C/o Kalpavriksh
PROTECTED AREA UPDATE
News and Information from protected areas in India and South Asia
Vol. XVI No. 5
October 2010 (No. 87)
LIST OF CONTENTS
EDITORIAL
Many reasons to oppose a PA
NEWS FROM INDIAN STATES
ANDHRA PRADESH
Demands for removal of speed breakers inside Nagarjunsagar Srisailam TR
Culling of wild boars to be allowed in state
ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Tiger density goes up in Pakke TR
ASSAM
River islands of Assam are new corridors for wildlife
FD officials to be allowed use of firearms
Poachers killed, apprehended in two different incidents in Orang NP
Elephant killed in road accident on NH-37 in Kaziranga NP
Investigation demanded into forest official involvement in Kaziranga NP rhino poaching
Road widening threat to wildlife in Sonitpur Elephant Reserve and buffer of Nameri Tiger Reserve
Women take up frontline jobs of protection in PAs, other forest areas
GUJARAT
Details of wildlife cases filed by Amit Jethva
Tourism department requests for more permits in Gir; FD refuses
Committee to recommend critical wildlife habitats met only once in three years
KARNATAKA
An estimated 1000 pangolins hunted in two months in Bellary region
KERALA
Special measures proposed for newly declared Malabar WLS
Five Biodiversity Heritage Sites for state
MADHYA PRADESH
MoEF asks MP to scrap the proposed Patrolling the Tiger Land plan
MAHARASHTRA
Students renew demand for plastic ban in Bhimashankar WLS
NHAI proposes eight underpasses on NH-6 through forests between Navegaon-Nagzira and the Tadoba-Andhari TR
State cautioned against curtailing area of proposed Mansinghdeo WLS
MEGHALAYA
Wildlife awards instituted for conservation in the Garo Hills
ORISSA
Call for more protected areas in Orissa
Three member MoEF team to look into elephant deaths in Simlipal TR
TAMIL NADU
Buoys to mark boundary of the Gulf of Mannar National Park
UTTARAKHAND
Threat to wildlife in Rajaji NP from traffic and industries
Gomukh to Uttarkashi stretch of River Bhagirathi to be declared eco-sensitive
Uttarakhand government against expansion of Askot WLS
WEST BENGAL
Deer die during transportation from Bibhuti Bhushan WLS to the Sunderbans
Elephant attacks train in Mahananda WLS
NATIONAL NEWS FROM INDIA
Cheetah re-introduction proposed in Kuno-Palpur WLS, Nauradehi WLS and Shahgarh region in Jaisalmer district
2nd bench set up to hear Godavarman (Forest) Case in the SC
National Environmental Sciences Fellows Programme
No move to split the Indian Forest Service
Newsletter of the Nilgiri Natural History Society
SOUTH ASIA
NEPAL
Tiger population increases in Chitwan NP
Meeting of Indo-Nepal border forest officials to discuss conservation issues
SRI LANKA
Horton Plains slender loris, a primate considered extinct, but now photographed
INTERNATIONAL NEWS
Call for applications for the Whitley Award
UPCOMING
International Workshop on amphibians in the Western Ghats
TIGER RESERVES IN INDIA
DESIGNATED BIOSPHERE RESERVES IN INDIA
PERSPECTIVE
Tourism in and around PAs - A Paradigm shift needed
EDITORIAL
MANY REASONS TO OPPOSE A PA
News and Information from protected areas in India and South Asia
Vol. XVI No. 5
October 2010 (No. 87)
LIST OF CONTENTS
EDITORIAL
Many reasons to oppose a PA
NEWS FROM INDIAN STATES
ANDHRA PRADESH
Demands for removal of speed breakers inside Nagarjunsagar Srisailam TR
Culling of wild boars to be allowed in state
ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Tiger density goes up in Pakke TR
ASSAM
River islands of Assam are new corridors for wildlife
FD officials to be allowed use of firearms
Poachers killed, apprehended in two different incidents in Orang NP
Elephant killed in road accident on NH-37 in Kaziranga NP
Investigation demanded into forest official involvement in Kaziranga NP rhino poaching
Road widening threat to wildlife in Sonitpur Elephant Reserve and buffer of Nameri Tiger Reserve
Women take up frontline jobs of protection in PAs, other forest areas
GUJARAT
Details of wildlife cases filed by Amit Jethva
Tourism department requests for more permits in Gir; FD refuses
Committee to recommend critical wildlife habitats met only once in three years
KARNATAKA
An estimated 1000 pangolins hunted in two months in Bellary region
KERALA
Special measures proposed for newly declared Malabar WLS
Five Biodiversity Heritage Sites for state
MADHYA PRADESH
MoEF asks MP to scrap the proposed Patrolling the Tiger Land plan
MAHARASHTRA
Students renew demand for plastic ban in Bhimashankar WLS
NHAI proposes eight underpasses on NH-6 through forests between Navegaon-Nagzira and the Tadoba-Andhari TR
State cautioned against curtailing area of proposed Mansinghdeo WLS
MEGHALAYA
Wildlife awards instituted for conservation in the Garo Hills
ORISSA
Call for more protected areas in Orissa
Three member MoEF team to look into elephant deaths in Simlipal TR
TAMIL NADU
Buoys to mark boundary of the Gulf of Mannar National Park
UTTARAKHAND
Threat to wildlife in Rajaji NP from traffic and industries
Gomukh to Uttarkashi stretch of River Bhagirathi to be declared eco-sensitive
Uttarakhand government against expansion of Askot WLS
WEST BENGAL
Deer die during transportation from Bibhuti Bhushan WLS to the Sunderbans
Elephant attacks train in Mahananda WLS
NATIONAL NEWS FROM INDIA
Cheetah re-introduction proposed in Kuno-Palpur WLS, Nauradehi WLS and Shahgarh region in Jaisalmer district
2nd bench set up to hear Godavarman (Forest) Case in the SC
National Environmental Sciences Fellows Programme
No move to split the Indian Forest Service
Newsletter of the Nilgiri Natural History Society
SOUTH ASIA
NEPAL
Tiger population increases in Chitwan NP
Meeting of Indo-Nepal border forest officials to discuss conservation issues
SRI LANKA
Horton Plains slender loris, a primate considered extinct, but now photographed
INTERNATIONAL NEWS
Call for applications for the Whitley Award
UPCOMING
International Workshop on amphibians in the Western Ghats
TIGER RESERVES IN INDIA
DESIGNATED BIOSPHERE RESERVES IN INDIA
PERSPECTIVE
Tourism in and around PAs - A Paradigm shift needed
EDITORIAL
MANY REASONS TO OPPOSE A PA
There have been many reasons and arguments against the creation of new protected areas (PAs) or the expansion of existing ones. The general impression is that governments and forest departments are always keen on expanding the PA network and communities or those who speak on their behalf are the ones opposing these moves.
The picture on the ground is actually more complex and this issue of the PA Update has two interesting examples – one from Uttarakhand and another from Maharashtra. In both these cases it is the state machinery that is against the expansion (or creation) of protected areas for reasons that have nothing to do with interests of wildlife or of the local communities. An interesting parallel was seen more than a decade ago when the Himachal Pradesh Government denotified about 10 sq km of the Great Himalayan National Park on the pretext that local communities were being negatively impacted by the national park. The real reason was that the Parbati Hydel Project had been held up and the only way to get it through was to have the river valley excluded from the PA.
Now, in Uttarakhand the state government is opposing the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) recommendation for expansion of the Askot Wildlife Sanctuary on the grounds that this will restrict their capacity to tap the high hydro-electric potential of the area. Already there are 14 such projects proposed within the existing sanctuary area (PA Update Vol. XVI, No. 2) and many others in the entire region. Local communities here have also been opposing the protected area, but then, they (at least some of them here) have also vehemently opposed the spree of dam building that the region is likely to see. The cancellation of the Loharinag Pala Hydel Project and the decision to declare the Gomukh – Uttarakashi stretch of the River Bhagirathi as an eco-sensitive zone is perhaps one outcome of this.
In Maharashtra, similarly, the long pending notification of the Mansinghdeo Wildlife Sanctuary is being held up because part of the land belongs to the Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra. The Corporation which has logged these forests for timber has in the past opposed handing over the land for inclusion in the sanctuary and the decade old proposal continues to languish. In 2004 (PA Update 50) it had even moved an application before the High Court, arguing that it would lose nearly Rs. 1400 crores if the ban on timber logging was implemented in the 10 km radius of PAs as had been suggested.
This is a situation we have seen happening repeatedly with only minor variations in the script. In the present scheme of protected areas and wildlife conservation, local communities are clearly the most dispensable entities. And in the present dominant paradigm of ‘development’ and primacy to commercial interests it is protected areas, wildlife and local people that are all together in being at the bottom of the list of priorities, if they find a place in that list at all.
There are different sets of people opposing wildlife conservation and protected areas for different reasons. It is important to realize that it is generally one set that manages to have its way.
The picture on the ground is actually more complex and this issue of the PA Update has two interesting examples – one from Uttarakhand and another from Maharashtra. In both these cases it is the state machinery that is against the expansion (or creation) of protected areas for reasons that have nothing to do with interests of wildlife or of the local communities. An interesting parallel was seen more than a decade ago when the Himachal Pradesh Government denotified about 10 sq km of the Great Himalayan National Park on the pretext that local communities were being negatively impacted by the national park. The real reason was that the Parbati Hydel Project had been held up and the only way to get it through was to have the river valley excluded from the PA.
Now, in Uttarakhand the state government is opposing the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) recommendation for expansion of the Askot Wildlife Sanctuary on the grounds that this will restrict their capacity to tap the high hydro-electric potential of the area. Already there are 14 such projects proposed within the existing sanctuary area (PA Update Vol. XVI, No. 2) and many others in the entire region. Local communities here have also been opposing the protected area, but then, they (at least some of them here) have also vehemently opposed the spree of dam building that the region is likely to see. The cancellation of the Loharinag Pala Hydel Project and the decision to declare the Gomukh – Uttarakashi stretch of the River Bhagirathi as an eco-sensitive zone is perhaps one outcome of this.
In Maharashtra, similarly, the long pending notification of the Mansinghdeo Wildlife Sanctuary is being held up because part of the land belongs to the Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra. The Corporation which has logged these forests for timber has in the past opposed handing over the land for inclusion in the sanctuary and the decade old proposal continues to languish. In 2004 (PA Update 50) it had even moved an application before the High Court, arguing that it would lose nearly Rs. 1400 crores if the ban on timber logging was implemented in the 10 km radius of PAs as had been suggested.
This is a situation we have seen happening repeatedly with only minor variations in the script. In the present scheme of protected areas and wildlife conservation, local communities are clearly the most dispensable entities. And in the present dominant paradigm of ‘development’ and primacy to commercial interests it is protected areas, wildlife and local people that are all together in being at the bottom of the list of priorities, if they find a place in that list at all.
There are different sets of people opposing wildlife conservation and protected areas for different reasons. It is important to realize that it is generally one set that manages to have its way.
---
Protected Area Update
Vol. XVI, No. 5, October 2010 (No. 87)
Editor: Pankaj Sekhsaria
Editorial Assistance: Reshma Jathar
Illustrations: Madhuvanti Anantharajan
Produced by
The Documentation and Outreach Centre, Kalpavriksh
http://www.kalpavriksh.org/documentation-a-research-centre
Ideas, comments, news and information may please be sent to the editorial address:
KALPAVRIKSH
Apartment 5, Shri Dutta Krupa, 908 Deccan Gymkhana, Pune 411004, Maharashtra, India.
Tel/Fax: 020 - 25654239.
Email: psekhsaria@gmail.com
Website: http://kalpavriksh.org/protected-area-update
---
Publication of the PA Update has been supported by
- Foundation for Ecological Security (FES)
http://fes.org.in/
- Duleep Matthai Nature Conservation Trust
C/o FES
- MISEREOR
www.misereor.org
- Greenpeace India
www.greenpeace.org/india/
- Association for India's Development
www.aidindia.org
- Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
www.rspb.org.uk/
- Indian Bird Conservation Network
http://www.ibcn.in/
***
Information has been sourced from different newspapers and the following websites
http://wildlifewatch.in/
http://indiaenvironmentportal.org.in
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Activists Use Legal Weapons to Stop Thermal Power Plants
Activists Use Legal Weapons to Stop Thermal Power Plants
By Pankaj Sekhsaria
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52636
HYDERABAD, India, Aug 27, 2010 (IPS) - Green activists have various ways of pushing their causes, from enlisting movie stars to launching protests, but India’s campaigners have also been quietly using legal weapons to try to get the projects they oppose, such as thermal plants, stopped or reversed.
This trend bears watching in the light of two cases where decisions affecting such projects, many of which are on the drawing board in different parts of India, have been made in courtrooms.
In July, the death of two protesters led to the cancellation of the environmental clearance of a thermal power plant project in southern Andhra Pradesh state, a decision that green activists took as victory.
But just a day before the Jul. 14 violence at the Nagarjuna Construction Company Power Projects Ltd project site at Sompeta, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition to stop a similar power plant project in the same district – Srikakulam.
This project by East Coast Energy Pvt Ltd is at Bhavanapadu in the wetlands area of Naupada village.
Lawyer Ritwick Dutta, representing the Paryavaran Parirakshana Sangham and other appellants says that Naupada is recognised by the Bombay Natural History Society and BirdLife International as a key habitat of the endangered Spot-billed Pelican, which breeds only in peninsular India, Sri Lanka and Cambodia.
Dutta had argued the case against the 12,000-crore (2.5 billion U.S. dollar) Nagarjuna project before the quasi-judicial National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA), which eventually cancelled the environmental clearance for the 2,640-megawatt plant.
In fact, the firing by police in Sompeta occurred at about the same time that the case was being argued before the appellate authority in New Delhi.
The results in the Nagarjuna and East Coast cases are different, but highlight how courtrooms are increasingly being asked to decide the fate of these projects – many already with environment clearances – in lawsuits by non-government groups protesting schemes that they say would displace communities and harm sensitive environments.
But Sanjay Upadhyay, a New Delhi-based Supreme Court lawyer, says that the trend of plaintiffs approaching the courts in environmental matters cannot be a long-term solution to deciding policy.
Instead, he says in an interview, internal mechanisms and administrative systems inside the government must be strengthened, so that conflicting issues are resolved before clearances are issued in the first place. "Internal arrangements are very weak and systems can’t be run by courtrooms", Upadhyay pointed out.
According to the 2009 report by the environmental group Kalpavriksh entitled ‘Calling the Bluff: Revealing the state of Monitoring and Compliance of Environmental Clearance Conditions’, the Ministry of Environment and Forests clears 80 to 100 projects every month with a range of environment and social conditions.
Thermal power accounts for more than 70 percent of India’s electricity supply. Its annual per capita electricity consumption has increased from 566.7 kilowatt-hours in 2002-03 to 704 kwh in 2007-08.
Among India’s southern states, Andhra Pradesh has the highest installed capacity in coal-based utilities, which generate nearly 6,700 mw.
State officials explain that thermal power plant projects represent a total investment of up to 85,000 crore rupees (18 billion dollars) in Srikakulam alone, aside from providing 10,000 mw of power altogether.
But former government bureaucrat E A S Sarma, now convenor of the Forum for a Better Visakha, argues that none of these projects should be allowed in the coastal areas of Andhra Pradesh.
"These are coming up under the policy of the state government to promote merchant power plants, where land is being given cheap to the developers at the cost of the coastal environment and livelihoods of the local people," he said.
A report by the environment ministry notes that the area where the Nagarjuna project was to proceed has significant biodiversity, including medicinal plants and at least 120 bird species. T Rama Rao, vice president of the Sompeta-based Paryavaran Parirakshan Sangham (Environment Protection Committee) that is leading the opposition to the project along with Teera Pranta Matsyaka Aikya Vedika (Coastal Fisherfolk Unity Platform), says nearly 250,000 people from 24 fishing and 40 farming villages would have been affected by it.
At least six thermal plants are planned in Andhra Pradesh. Some, like the 2,630-mw project at Bhavanapadu by East Coast Energy – the subject of the July decision upholding the environment clearance thus far – and the 2,640-mw plant of Alpha Infra Prop Pvt Ltd at Komarada in neighbouring Vizianagaram district already have environment clearances.
The fatal shooting of two protesters in July seems to have inspired other communities to stand up for themselves.
Sarma observed, "It is now clear to people that the government itself is violating the law. They have realised their strength and opposition to projects here has gained strength in the last few days."
"The larger issue is that we have created systems that are guzzlers of energy," he added. "We can’t hope to keep adding megawatts like we have been doing so far. The demand for electricity has been artificially created and we have to work on steps like reducing transmission losses, using more efficient end-use devices, and make our systems more efficient."
Meantime, Nagarjuna’s corporate communications head, P L Murari, said the company "would do anything to address the genuine concerns of the local people regarding setting up of the power plant."
But the NEAA’s order cancelling the Sompeta project clearly states: "The Ministry should undertake survey of all wetlands in Srikakulam district for their ecological sensitiveness as soon as possible and pending this, no project should be cleared in such locations." (END)
By Pankaj Sekhsaria
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52636
HYDERABAD, India, Aug 27, 2010 (IPS) - Green activists have various ways of pushing their causes, from enlisting movie stars to launching protests, but India’s campaigners have also been quietly using legal weapons to try to get the projects they oppose, such as thermal plants, stopped or reversed.
This trend bears watching in the light of two cases where decisions affecting such projects, many of which are on the drawing board in different parts of India, have been made in courtrooms.
In July, the death of two protesters led to the cancellation of the environmental clearance of a thermal power plant project in southern Andhra Pradesh state, a decision that green activists took as victory.
But just a day before the Jul. 14 violence at the Nagarjuna Construction Company Power Projects Ltd project site at Sompeta, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition to stop a similar power plant project in the same district – Srikakulam.
This project by East Coast Energy Pvt Ltd is at Bhavanapadu in the wetlands area of Naupada village.
Lawyer Ritwick Dutta, representing the Paryavaran Parirakshana Sangham and other appellants says that Naupada is recognised by the Bombay Natural History Society and BirdLife International as a key habitat of the endangered Spot-billed Pelican, which breeds only in peninsular India, Sri Lanka and Cambodia.
Dutta had argued the case against the 12,000-crore (2.5 billion U.S. dollar) Nagarjuna project before the quasi-judicial National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA), which eventually cancelled the environmental clearance for the 2,640-megawatt plant.
In fact, the firing by police in Sompeta occurred at about the same time that the case was being argued before the appellate authority in New Delhi.
The results in the Nagarjuna and East Coast cases are different, but highlight how courtrooms are increasingly being asked to decide the fate of these projects – many already with environment clearances – in lawsuits by non-government groups protesting schemes that they say would displace communities and harm sensitive environments.
But Sanjay Upadhyay, a New Delhi-based Supreme Court lawyer, says that the trend of plaintiffs approaching the courts in environmental matters cannot be a long-term solution to deciding policy.
Instead, he says in an interview, internal mechanisms and administrative systems inside the government must be strengthened, so that conflicting issues are resolved before clearances are issued in the first place. "Internal arrangements are very weak and systems can’t be run by courtrooms", Upadhyay pointed out.
According to the 2009 report by the environmental group Kalpavriksh entitled ‘Calling the Bluff: Revealing the state of Monitoring and Compliance of Environmental Clearance Conditions’, the Ministry of Environment and Forests clears 80 to 100 projects every month with a range of environment and social conditions.
Thermal power accounts for more than 70 percent of India’s electricity supply. Its annual per capita electricity consumption has increased from 566.7 kilowatt-hours in 2002-03 to 704 kwh in 2007-08.
Among India’s southern states, Andhra Pradesh has the highest installed capacity in coal-based utilities, which generate nearly 6,700 mw.
State officials explain that thermal power plant projects represent a total investment of up to 85,000 crore rupees (18 billion dollars) in Srikakulam alone, aside from providing 10,000 mw of power altogether.
But former government bureaucrat E A S Sarma, now convenor of the Forum for a Better Visakha, argues that none of these projects should be allowed in the coastal areas of Andhra Pradesh.
"These are coming up under the policy of the state government to promote merchant power plants, where land is being given cheap to the developers at the cost of the coastal environment and livelihoods of the local people," he said.
A report by the environment ministry notes that the area where the Nagarjuna project was to proceed has significant biodiversity, including medicinal plants and at least 120 bird species. T Rama Rao, vice president of the Sompeta-based Paryavaran Parirakshan Sangham (Environment Protection Committee) that is leading the opposition to the project along with Teera Pranta Matsyaka Aikya Vedika (Coastal Fisherfolk Unity Platform), says nearly 250,000 people from 24 fishing and 40 farming villages would have been affected by it.
At least six thermal plants are planned in Andhra Pradesh. Some, like the 2,630-mw project at Bhavanapadu by East Coast Energy – the subject of the July decision upholding the environment clearance thus far – and the 2,640-mw plant of Alpha Infra Prop Pvt Ltd at Komarada in neighbouring Vizianagaram district already have environment clearances.
The fatal shooting of two protesters in July seems to have inspired other communities to stand up for themselves.
Sarma observed, "It is now clear to people that the government itself is violating the law. They have realised their strength and opposition to projects here has gained strength in the last few days."
"The larger issue is that we have created systems that are guzzlers of energy," he added. "We can’t hope to keep adding megawatts like we have been doing so far. The demand for electricity has been artificially created and we have to work on steps like reducing transmission losses, using more efficient end-use devices, and make our systems more efficient."
Meantime, Nagarjuna’s corporate communications head, P L Murari, said the company "would do anything to address the genuine concerns of the local people regarding setting up of the power plant."
But the NEAA’s order cancelling the Sompeta project clearly states: "The Ministry should undertake survey of all wetlands in Srikakulam district for their ecological sensitiveness as soon as possible and pending this, no project should be cleared in such locations." (END)
Vanquished Voices (of the Andaman Islands)
COMMUNITIES
Vanquished voices
| With the passing away of Boa Senior of the Bo tribe, one more language has gone silent in the Andaman Islands. Will the administration wake up to the indigenous cultures that are dying out there, asks PANKAJ SEKhSARIA |
About 150 years ago 10 groups constituted the Great Andamanese community...
Last of the Bos: Boa Sr.
(Photo: Anvita Abbi)
Boa Senior of the Bo indigenous community in the Andaman Islands died on January 26, 2010 at the ripe old age of 85. The inevitable had to happen and yet every such passing leaves behind sadness and regret. In that sense Boa Sr. was like everyone else and at the same time unique in a hugely tragic sense.
With her death one more ancient language of these islands has gone silent forever. Boa Sr. was the last speaker of the Bo language and all that we have now are some recordings that may have been left behind. The fate of language neatly reflects the fate of the people themselves and the story of the Great Andamanese that Boa Sr. belonged to is no exception. About 150 years ago 10 groups (the Bo included) constituted the Great Andamanese community of the Andamans. The population that was nearly 5000 then is down to only about 50 today. It is also a little known fact that only four of the 10 original languages have survived and with Boa Sr. now gone, that number is further down by one.
Lack of sensitivity
There is a whole treasure house within these communities, their way of life and their languages that is on the verge of going silent. Boa Sr.'s is the inevitable silence of the dead, but it is another silence that is deafening for its lack of awareness and sensitivity. Her death was widely reported and accounts appeared in the press all over the world. What was striking however is that the official government machinery had no role at all to play in it. The news of Boa Sr.'s death was first reported by Dr Abbi and her team of linguists who have been working with the community for many years now. It was posted by them on the ‘andamanicobar' e-discussion group and then circulated further via a press release issued by Survival International, the London based tribal rights advocacy group.
The huge paraphernalia of the A&N Administration that includes the Tribal Welfare Department and the Andaman Adim Janjati Vikas Samiti (AAJVS) did not as much as even issue a note announcing the death, leave alone expressing their condolences. There was no mention on the website of the A&N administration or in ‘The Daily Telegrams' the daily newspaper published by the administration from Port Blair. Neither did any political party or other prominent group in the islands acknowledge the passing away of another community and another language.
One might argue that even if this were to happen it could have done nothing for Boa Sr or the Bo language. While that might be true, the larger concern is about what this apathy reflects for others in the future. These agencies are responsible for the welfare of some of the most vulnerable and threatened human communities like the Jarawa, Onge and Sentinelese that inhabit these islands. If they remain unacknowledged even in their death, what hope can there be for those that are just about hanging on to their survival? These are voices that are not just going silent; in more ways than one they are being vanquished.
Popular :Port Blair and Ross Island
(Photo: Pankaj Sekhsaria)
Even a change in history is sought – one of the most prominent demands in this light being the recent call by the All India Forward Block in the islands to rename the Andaman and Nicobar groups as Shaheed and Swaraj respectively, as suggested by Subhas Chandra Bose. It is not a new demand and has been made repeatedly since the 1950s by a range of historians and those with political interests. The enthusiasm to re-configure and reclaim this history, however, is striking in its ignorance of the larger context of these islands.
It is a question that renaming enthusiasts need to consider very carefully: How does one reclaim what was never yours in the first place? There are undeniable connections of India's freedom movement with the islands; best symbolized by the mutiny of 1857 and the Cellular Jail. There can be no denying that and neither can one deny the close bonds that a large section of the country feels with these islands, but that history does not go beyond a 150 years.
It has to be remembered that the Andaman and Nicobar Islands have been the traditional home of a number of aboriginal communities – the Great Andamanese, Jarawa, Onge and Sentinelese (in the Andamans), the Nicobaris and the Shompen (in the Nicobars) that have been living here for nearly 50,000 years. The 150 years that we want to claim now is like the blink of an eye in comparison. Injustices have been done and continue to be done to these communities in a manner that has few parallels in India. Their lands have been taken, their forests converted to plywood and agricultural plantations, and the fabric of their societies so violently torn apart that extinction looms on the horizon for many of them. The Great Andamanese who were at least 5000 individuals when the 1857 mutiny happened are today are only about 50 people. Two months ago the last member of the Bo community died and the administration did not even acknowledge her passing away. The Onge who were counted at about 600 individuals in 1901 census are only a 100 people today.
Worthy of study
These are people, like indigenous peoples everywhere, who have their own histories and their own names for the islands and places First the British gave them a name and now we want to call them something else . If indeed the places have to be renamed, should not an effort first be made to find out what the original people had first named them and which names are still in use by them? Should that not be the work of scholarship and historical studies? It would be a far more challenging and worthwhile exercise and perhaps not a very difficult one either because a lot of information does already exist.
If indeed the real and complete history of the islands is ever written, the British would not be more than a page and India could only be a paragraph. How's that for a perspective and a context?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)