426
R. V. D’ Souza
and to redeploy such funds to provide positive incentives to local communities to
protect biodiversity.
5 Responses to the Report in Contiguous States
5.1 Differential Responses of State
The forming of the Gadgil Committee was the initiative of the central government.
The Committee mandated to determine ecologically sensitive zones and made recommendations for conservation, protection and rejuvenation of Western Ghats. The
report fixed the modalities for the establishment of the Western Ghats Ecology
Authority. But the ministry rejected the report submitted by the Panel and did not
release it to the public citing economic interests of the concerned states until it was
demanded by a public petition. When the ministry’s action was challenged, the ministry set up another panel under space scientist K. Kasturirangan, the second such
body constituted within a year to make recommendations on protecting the fragile
ecology of the Western Ghats.
When the Gadgil committee report was published it evoked mixed responses.
While the bureaucracy and the landed gentry widely opposed the recommendations
of the report it evoked a positive response from several other quarters while the
contiguous states reacted differently.
The Kerala government rejected the committee report and did not adopt any of
its recommendations. The third generation successors of the government-supported
settler farmers of yesteryears from the plains in the state of Kerala, who had an
entry into the then inaccessible jungles of the Ghats, became the significant base
for opposition against the report. They were a politically and communally powerful
lobby, and the government failed to provide the true implications of the report,
promoting opposition further. The Syrian Church which shared a huge interest with
the pressure groups of such farmers, and the powerful lobbies with business and
other vested interests in the Ghats, did not accept the restrictions enumerated in the
report. They affected the interests of these groups in various domains such as quarry,
construction, tourism or timber industries. The electoral interests also added to the
conundrum. Public protests were instigated, spreading rumours against the report,
saying that people would lose livelihoods, and would not be allowed to build houses,
shops, hospitals and roads. Rumours were spread that within the ESA babies would
have to be prevented from crying after six in the evening to avoid disturbance to wild
animals or state highways passing through ESA would become elephant corridors.
10
These strong protests in Kerala were fuelled by information asymmetries, ignorance
of the reports’ contents, attendant disinformation campaigns and rumour-mongering
and political partisanship, and created a panic situation (Nair and Moolakkattu 2017).
10 “I was dropped because I stood for Western Ghats Conservation”, Interview by Suchitra M., with
P. T. Thomas in Down To Earth, 04 July 2015.
R. V. D’ Souza
and to redeploy such funds to provide positive incentives to local communities to
protect biodiversity.
5 Responses to the Report in Contiguous States
5.1 Differential Responses of State
The forming of the Gadgil Committee was the initiative of the central government.
The Committee mandated to determine ecologically sensitive zones and made recommendations for conservation, protection and rejuvenation of Western Ghats. The
report fixed the modalities for the establishment of the Western Ghats Ecology
Authority. But the ministry rejected the report submitted by the Panel and did not
release it to the public citing economic interests of the concerned states until it was
demanded by a public petition. When the ministry’s action was challenged, the ministry set up another panel under space scientist K. Kasturirangan, the second such
body constituted within a year to make recommendations on protecting the fragile
ecology of the Western Ghats.
When the Gadgil committee report was published it evoked mixed responses.
While the bureaucracy and the landed gentry widely opposed the recommendations
of the report it evoked a positive response from several other quarters while the
contiguous states reacted differently.
The Kerala government rejected the committee report and did not adopt any of
its recommendations. The third generation successors of the government-supported
settler farmers of yesteryears from the plains in the state of Kerala, who had an
entry into the then inaccessible jungles of the Ghats, became the significant base
for opposition against the report. They were a politically and communally powerful
lobby, and the government failed to provide the true implications of the report,
promoting opposition further. The Syrian Church which shared a huge interest with
the pressure groups of such farmers, and the powerful lobbies with business and
other vested interests in the Ghats, did not accept the restrictions enumerated in the
report. They affected the interests of these groups in various domains such as quarry,
construction, tourism or timber industries. The electoral interests also added to the
conundrum. Public protests were instigated, spreading rumours against the report,
saying that people would lose livelihoods, and would not be allowed to build houses,
shops, hospitals and roads. Rumours were spread that within the ESA babies would
have to be prevented from crying after six in the evening to avoid disturbance to wild
animals or state highways passing through ESA would become elephant corridors.
10
These strong protests in Kerala were fuelled by information asymmetries, ignorance
of the reports’ contents, attendant disinformation campaigns and rumour-mongering
and political partisanship, and created a panic situation (Nair and Moolakkattu 2017).
10 “I was dropped because I stood for Western Ghats Conservation”, Interview by Suchitra M., with
P. T. Thomas in Down To Earth, 04 July 2015.