It is a reflection of the times that we are living in that there is inevitably a political angle to people embracing the cause of the environment and wildlife. At the same time, a genuine love for the environment and wildlife attracts the moniker, ‘anti-development.’ Recently, when a pregnant elephant died tragically after eating a pineapple stuffed with crackers, the Centre responded immediately and ordered an investigation.
From Maneka Gandhi to an ordinary party worker, everyone in the BJP shed tears for this tragedy. But there was hardly anyone who mourned the deaths of migrant workers who died on highways due to hunger. This is not to say that we must neglect incidents such as the death of the elephant but to understand that we can prevent such tragedies in the future only if our tears and sorrow are genuine.
The day the elephant died tragically in Palakkad district, an environmental disaster occurred in Assam leaving its biodiversity completely vulnerable. The disaster was the result of leakage of natural gas from Oil India Limited (OIL), a nearby oil plant, that entered the Dibru-Saikhowa National Park near Baghjan in Assam and has not stopped since May 27.
Subsequently, a fire was also seen in the oil plant on June 10 and the fire is still raging. As a consequence of the leakage, two people lost their lives and more than 3000 locals have been evacuated. Even after the leak continued unabated for two weeks, the incident did not attract the attention of the mainstream media. Only after the death of two persons did the media turn its attention to the accident.
But this was nothing compared to the media focus on the Vishakapatnam chemical gas tragedy. On May 7, eight persons lost their lives in Vishakapatnam after poisonous chemicals leaked from LG Polymers. This accident created an atmosphere of fear in the coastal city so much that the media, in fact, compared this to the 1984 Bhopal gas leak.
After the massive forest fire in the Amazon forests in South America, the topic of environmental protection has captured the imagination of people all over the world and has given rise to a global debate. But this interest has brought to light another dimension to our obsessions with optics. Instead of spending time trying to understand the reasons for such accidents, we react to pictures and videos that go viral in the mainstream media and social media.
If a photograph from Amazon or Kerala can awaken our conscience, the photograph of the carcass of the endangered Gangetic Dolphins recovered in the Maguri-Motapung Beel swamp close to where the oil leak occurred in Assam should equally disturb us. The oil leak is bound to have a dangerous impact on the biodiversity of the area with innumerable variety of fish, snakes, birds, and other living organisms in the wetland area already having died after the oil leak.
The carcass of Gangetic Dolphins was found by the locals on May 31, four days after which the pregnant elephant was found dead in Kerala. Former minister Maneka Gandhi not only condemned the death of the elephant but tried to use the incident to create a communal divide. But the oil spillage in Assam that has had a devastating impact on the rich biodiversity of the area did not attract the attention of this wildlife activist. Other than a few people from the North East, no celebrity or wildlife activist or public personality has raised their voice about the biodiversity disaster in Assam.
Such selective responses lead us to wonder whether politicians value wildlife in the North East and whether they are even bothered about their survival. After the oil spillage, OIL, the public sector corporation, was slow in responding to the accident and much later invited foreign experts to provide suggestions on preventing the leak. By then, the damage caused to the local biodiversity and agricultural land was irreparable.
Assam has repeatedly seen attempts of industrialization that have been a cause of grave concern. Despite protests by various organizations, permission was granted to drill oil wells in seven areas near the same Dibru-Saikhowa National Park. The company argued that it would not conduct drilling operations in areas in eco-sensitive zones. A few days before this, the National Board for Wildlife (NBW) gave permission for coal mining, again in one of the most eco-sensitive zones, Dehing Patkayi Elephant Reserve Forest.
North East India has been in the news in recent days for several reasons. The dense forest area and the rich presence of mineral ore in the North East have caught the attention of industrialists. Thanks to the Adivasis and tribals in these parts who protect the forests, the North-Eastern states have retained their greenery and rich forest belts.
Citing the menace of Naxalism, the government is building national highways to favor big industries and also trying to prevent industrial accidents from getting publicized. We have reached a situation where we remember the North East only during Naxal operations.
On June 4, ten employees lost their lives, and more than 40 employees were injured in an explosion in a factory in Gujarat. The incident that occurred in the Prime Minister’s home state was covered up.
It’s very clear that those favoring a few corporate giants are behind such a cover-up. Today, we have reached a situation where enemy states do not have to attack India using missiles. The country has danger lurking in the form of several reactors and industries. If the government does not focus on their protection and safety, these symbols of development have the capacity to very well destroy our future.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Couples marrying against parents' wishes can't claim police protection as right: Allahabad HC
Prayagraj, Apr 16 (PTI): The Allahabad High Court has observed that couples who marry of their own will against the wishes of their parents cannot claim police protection as a matter of right unless there is a real threat perception to their life and liberty.
The court gave the ruling while deciding an application filed by a couple seeking protection.
It said the court can provide security to a couple in a deserving case but in the absence of any threat perception, such a couple must "learn to support each other and face the society".
Justice Saurabh Srivastava made this observation while hearing a writ petition filed by Shreya Kesarwani and her husband seeking police protection and a direction for the private respondents not to interfere in their peaceful marital life.
The court after going through the averments made in their petition, disposed of their writ petition, noting that there was no serious threat perception to the petitioners.
Disposing of the writ petition, the court observed, "There is no requirement of passing any order for providing police protection to them in the light of judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs State of UP and another, wherein it has been held that the courts are not meant to provide protection to such youths who have simply fled to marry according to their own wishes."
The court also observed that there was no material or reason to conclude that the petitioners' life and liberty were in peril.
"There is not even an iota of evidence to evince that private respondents (relatives of either of the petitioners) are likely to cause physical or mental assault to the petitioners," the court noted.
In addition, the court noted that the petitioners had not submitted a specific application in the form of information to the concerned police authorities to file any FIR against the alleged illegal conduct of the private respondents.
However, noting that the petitioners had already submitted a representation to the superintendent of police (SP), Chitrakoot district, the court said, "In case the concerned police find a real threat perception, they will do the needful in accordance with law."
Against this backdrop, the court stressed that if any person misbehaves or manhandles them, the courts and the police authorities are there to come to their rescue.
In its decision dated April 4, the court disposed of the plea, holding that the petitioners cannot claim security as a matter of course or right.
