Greek mythology speaks of an unfortunate king, Oedipus the King of Thebes. He was 'unfortunate' as it turned out that he married his own mother unknowingly. When the ultimate realisation dawned upon him, the poor guy ended up plucking out both his eyes by himself,overwhelmed by guilt and remorse.
Time has flown.We no longer live in those mythical era of Oedipus.But it seems that the legacy of the Greek king still linger amongst us;though not quiet in the conservative sense. Nature is often conferred a Mother figure and this unfortunate mother has given birth to a multitude of Oedipuses who compete among themselves to violate Her. They shaved off her beautiful green locks, pierced deep her delicate body and still they continue their deeds,perhaps until her last breath.
Eminent ecologist and botanist Madhav Gadgil,aggrieved by this unchecked violence against nature,made an attempt to mitigate the impact of human interventions on nature,in one of world's most ecologically sensitive area. Given an opportunity as the head of Western Ghats Ecology Experts Panel(WGEEP),Prof. Gadgil made a comprehensive study on the ecology of Western Ghats and in the report that he submitted,he recommended that the entire Western Ghats should be declared as Ecologically Sensitive Area; banning any kind of industrial activities there and any kind of proposed development projects should be given consent in consultation with the local self governments.Surely, these suggestions might have hurt the Oedipal sentiments of someone who had seen an endless supply of resources in the Ghats, to quench his thirst for more profit. All of a sudden, a new committee is formed under a space scientist to evaluate the report authored by the distinguished botanist.He catches a plane,goes for a trip over the Ghats,uses Google Maps,identifies rubber and other plantations as dense forests,returns and submits another 'High Level' report to MoEF. In the new report,the scene completely changes.
The Kasturirangan report divided the entire Western Ghats area into two different areas or 'landscapes'-'Natural Landscapes';which cover about 40% of the total Ghat region and 'Cultural Landscapes';the remaining 60%. Former includes those areas identified as ecologically fragile by the committee and the latter contains the human settlements. No further development or industrial activities could be set up in Natural Landscapes and those activities were thrown open in Cultural Landscapes. The discretion of local self governments was taken off.
Protests were kicked off when the farmlands of many farmers were included in the Natural Landscape in-spite of absence of any ecological issues,and they were asked to stay put their agricultural practices in these farmlands. This suggestion obviously led to the dismay of the poor farmers. The protests and cries which subsequently emerged,demanding the repeal of Kasturirangan report,largely attained a political color,rather than its ecological shades which should have been the prime focus. Although the Environment Minister Mr.Veerappa Moily assured that the implementation of the report will follow only after a consultation with the Chief Ministers concerned,his most recent stances show that the crisis is nowhere near a solution.
Nobody requires even a guesswork to speculate what might have happened. Industrialists and big-shot corporates who dream of making astronomical profits by ripping apart Western Ghats-declared as the second most ecologically sensitive area after Amazon by UNESCO-finds Gadgil report a threat to their plans as it recommends a blanket-ban on industrial activities in the area, and also because the Gadgil report conferred the power to local self governments to take decisions in the Ghats regarding industrial and construction projects:a move in which the industrialists undoubtedly know their plans would be rejected before the local bodies. With some connivance with MoEF,they bring about the Kasturirangan report,where sites of their interests are purposefully included in the so called ‘cultural landscapes’, where they can continue their rape on ecology. Then they continue to snatch the poorest-of-the poor farmer off his only means of livelihood-his land for cultivation-by including it under the fancy name ‘natural landscape’. And they takes away the crucial right of the local self government to decide on their life-and-death issue.
The Greek Oedipus,even taking into account his biggest mistake,fares a lot better than his modern day counterparts. The Greek showed,even though belated,a certain amount of remorse. It is doubtful whether,even if those softer feelings strike the modern Man,anything of his race be left to express his sorry.
