Wayanad devastation manifests the wages of an unforgivable political sin
By K Raveendran
The Union government’s decision to issue a fresh draft notification for nearly 56,825 sq km of the Western Ghats as an Eco-Sensitive Area (ESA) in the wake of the catastrophic landslides that ravaged Wayanad, flattening entire swathes of settlements, markets, and public spaces can only be seen as a knee-jerk reaction, rather than a strategic, well-thought-out approach to the region’s chronic environmental challenges.
The Western Ghats, a biodiversity hotspot and a critical environmental zone, have long been in the crosshairs of both developmental pressure and conservation efforts. The Ghats have been the subject of numerous environmental discussions and revisions over the years. The latest draft issued in July 2022 marked another iteration in a long series of notifications aimed at addressing the complex balance between development and conservation in this ecologically sensitive region. A five-member committee was formed to tackle the issues raised by various states, ensuring that discrepancies related to village names and ESA boundaries were rectified. Despite these measures, the persistent revisions underscore a larger, more troubling trend of stalling and superficial fixes rather than substantive changes.
The root of the problem lies in the broader context of environmental governance and political dynamics. The ongoing saga of the Western Ghats’ notification can be traced back to the Gadgil Committee’s recommendations in 2011. Led by eminent ecologist Madhav Gadgil, the committee proposed a comprehensive and stringent set of measures aimed at conserving the Western Ghats. The Gadgil Report highlighted the region’s vulnerability and advocated for a robust protective framework, categorizing it into three zones based on their ecological sensitivity. This framework sought to restrict certain types of development in the most sensitive zones, ensuring that the ecological balance of the region was maintained.
However, the Gadgil Committee’s recommendations were met with fierce resistance from various state governments, particularly Kerala. The states’ objections were primarily driven by concerns over potential economic impacts and the possible curtailment of developmental activities that were seen as crucial for local economies. The political calculus behind this resistance was evident—balancing environmental concerns against the demands of local populations and the economic imperatives of their constituencies.
This resistance culminated in the formation of a second committee, led by K. Kasturirangan, which produced a revised report in 2013. The Kasturirangan Report diluted many of the original recommendations, relaxing several restrictions and reducing the extent of the proposed ESA. This compromise was seen by many as a capitulation to political pressure rather than a principled stance on conservation. The subsequent modifications failed to resolve the core issues and, in many respects, compromised the integrity of the original recommendations.
As the situation stands today, the notification of the Western Ghats as an ESA continues to be a contentious issue. The latest draft, which is ostensibly a response to the Wayanad landslides, reflects a superficial attempt to address a deep-seated problem. The landslides themselves are symptomatic of the broader environmental crisis affecting the region—a crisis exacerbated by deforestation, unsustainable agricultural practices, and rampant urbanization. Simply issuing a fresh draft notification does not tackle these underlying issues. Instead, it risks being seen as a performative gesture that fails to address the systemic failures in environmental governance.
The reluctance to fully implement the Gadgil Committee’s recommendations has had far-reaching consequences. It meant that illegal activities, including encroachments and unregulated construction, have continued unabated in sensitive areas. The patronage extended by some state governments to violators, often motivated by electoral gains and economic incentives, has undermined genuine conservation efforts. This has led to a situation where environmentalists, like Madhav Gadgil, who advocate for robust protective measures, are often vilified and labelled as obstructionists or even “ecology terrorists” by those who benefit from the status quo.
In the context of Wayanad’s landslides, the real question is whether the latest draft notification will lead to meaningful change or merely serve as another delay tactic. The devastation witnessed in Wayanad was not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern of environmental degradation that has long been ignored or inadequately addressed. The repeated cycle of issuing draft notifications, followed by revisions and stalling, suggests a lack of genuine commitment to addressing the root causes of the environmental crises affecting the Western Ghats.
Addressing the environmental challenges in the Western Ghats requires more than just issuing notifications. It demands a fundamental shift in how environmental policies are formulated and implemented. There needs to be a concerted effort to balance developmental needs with ecological preservation, guided by scientific evidence and long-term sustainability rather than short-term political and economic gains. The political will to enforce these measures must be matched by a genuine commitment to uphold environmental standards and hold violators accountable.
The Western Ghats’ issues cannot be resolved by mere administrative gestures. A comprehensive and integrative approach is needed, one that respects the ecological importance of the region and incorporates the concerns of local communities while firmly committing to conservation. Only then can we hope to prevent further disasters and ensure that the Western Ghats are preserved for future generations. (IPA Service)