|
|
Article in Times Of India dated 30th April 2000 -
The
battlelines are drawn in Borivli
by
Sunjoy Monga (environmentalist)
The Nivara Hakk Suraksha Samiti has been fighting
the cause of encroachers in Borivli National Park
for years now. Its contention: all the encroachers-a
whopping 300,000 of them - should be resettled within
the park. Ranged on the other side is the Bombay Environmental
Action Group which points out that this will have
grave repercussions on the city’s water supply and
green lung. As the high court-ordered demolition at
the Park gets under way, the debate hots up.
The Nivara Hakk Suraksha Samiti (NHSS), having realised
that itsattempt to pressurise the high court had bommeranged,
couldn’t have got a better protagonist than V. P.
Singh, who reportedly stated at a recent rally that
forests could be created elsewhere. Yes, pinch yourself.
We continue to be silent spectators to the nonsense
perpetrated politicians and some NGOs who have brought
the issue of encroachments, be they on Park lands
or railway lands, to such a distressing point.
The Mumbai High Court Order of May 7, 1997 directed
the post-1995 hutments be evicted from National Park.
Expectedly, dubious protectors showed up to shed crocodile
tears. It must be remembered that in 1998,some 22,000
encroachments were removed and 160 acres restored
to the Park. Why did NGOs and politicians not oppose
those demolitions?They didn’t because it involved
encroachers who weren’t on the voter list. In fact,
if the NHSS was so sincere about the issue, why didn’t
it approach the Supreme Court to challenge the May
1997 order? At recent rallies, an oft-repeated demand
has been for more time for slum-dwellers. Why should
additional time be given? It is only a ploy to further
regularise under some excuse. The court order provided
dequate time-frame for rehabilitation. Pre-1995 encroachers
were to pay a nominal sum of Rs. 7,000 per family
for alternative accommodation,with a facility to pay
in instalments. By the March 22 deadline, only
5,400 families had paid. Many had been misled, apparently
under the assurance that they would not be evicted.
Mumbai’s National Park is a unique ecological asset.
More Crucially, its lakes provide fresh water upon
which everyone-politicians and NHSS included-depend
for their deeds and misdeeds. This patch of green
is Mumbai’s indispensable lung, Today, when many
parts of the country are engulfed in horrifie drought,
we are fortunate to have a regular supply of fresh
water. This is because of forests in Borivli. All
token gestures like tree plantation programmes will
serve no purpose if this National Park is not strictly
protected.
A mere three per cent of India’s area is under Protected
Area
Net-work. Shouldn’t this be kept sacrosanct? Is the
NHSS prepared to state that there should be no environment
protection, no National Park? Do they not know the
encroachments they feign to safeguard violate every
possible lave-the Indian Forest Act, Wildlife protection
Act and Forest Conservation Act? And they want these
regularised into housing projects.The National Park
is not a site for any slum rehabilitation scheme!
Time-and-again these ‘protectors’ have resorted to
arousing passion by presenting affected parties as
tribals. This despite knowing that presumably none
of those being evicted are tribals but those being
evicted are tribals but those who began settling from
the late ‘70s with political backing. Poaching, illegal
distilling and human-animal conflict were some of
the ‘gifts’ these well backed intruders bestowed on
the beleaguered forest.
Tragically, for numerous developmental projects, title-holders
have been made homeless. But when encroachers are
to be removed-not for a giant project like a big dam,but
to save a wilderness and a larger populace, pseudo-sympathy
creeps in. NHSS regards environmental activists as
anti-people. That is whimsical and silly. The fact
that NHSS would rather have people continue to live
in slums built by slumlords should indicate its true
purpose.
Is the welfare of a city and its larger populace,
above all, its incomparable wilderness, of less importance
than unauthorised beneficiaries? Is the last stronghold
of our biodiversity and our waters to be swallowed
under a blanket of violations and bogus compassion?
One reason for asking for more time is to now, after
three years, pretend to look for alternate lands.
And the alternate lands being considered are coastal
lands. Violation upon violation. One really wonders
what’s going on. Who knew, the services of Laloo Prasad
Yadav might be roped in next.
Why must we be silent spectators to this nonsense
perpetrated by politicians and
some NGOs?
Controversys 
|
|
|
