Sign up now
to enroll in courses, follow best educators, interact with the community and track your progress.
4th March- The Hindu Editorial - Part-3 (in Hindi)
322 plays


Subhodeep Das
Dream of Achieving Big l YouTube & Facebook : UPSC360

Unacademy user
The latest decision on eviction of forest dwellers and other traditional cast by supreme court is really considerable.The investigating agency in forestryvillage is Gramsabha which is not so much competent and of full efficacy to handle this issue with proper measures. If any how,claims of this dwellers has been rejected ,they don't know the further procedure to prove their interests.State government should come with better survey and investigation with subdivision al committee who may precide the decision Gramsabha. Even if these people are coming under the ambit of enchroachment,they should be provide wider window to settle out with CAMPA. They are our own people and demand needful help.
Subhodeep Das
a year ago
Rahul Jaiswal
a year ago
thanks sir

  2. Failing the forest Both human rights and wildlife rights groups have not used the Forest Rights Act as a conservation tool UBHODESP

  3. On February 13, the Supreme Court ordered the eviction of more than 10 lakh Adivasis and other forest dwellers from forestland across 17 States. February 28, the court stayed its controversial order and asked the States to submit details on how the claims of the dwellers were decided and the authorities competent to pass final rejection orders. Supreme Court has now made it clear that there will be no forcible eviction Partial result of human rights- and wildlife rights-based groups - Activism. UBHODESP

  4. The first myth that needs to be busted for the wildlife lobby is that when a right is recognised of a forest dweller/Adivasi on a piece of land, it doesn't mean that he/she will cut down all the trees in that area. strongest note of dissonance between the two groups On the other hand, when forestland is 'diverted' for big development projects, like mining or highways or roads, it is actually clear felled or submerged. Main reason of forest loss If this fundamental difference between 'recognition of rights' and 'diversion' were accepted, the groups at loggerheads would in fact find grounds for commonality. UBHODESP

  5. Supreme Court -2013 when it asked the gram sabhas to take a decision on whether the Vedanta group's $1.7 billion bauxite mining project irn Odisha's Niyamgiri Hills could go forward or not. It thus affirmed the decision-making power of the village councils of Rayagada and Kalahandi under the FRA. All 12 gram sabhas unanimously rejected mining in the hills. There have been hundreds of cases that offered both these divergent groups the opportunity to come together for the cause of the environmentand communities casteacether for the cause of the UBHODESP

  6. Most of them have been quick to respond when the judiciary steps in, but have been missing when it comes to the tedious groundwork of working with the gram sabhas and ensuring that genuine claims are filed. UBHODESP