BENGALURU — A recent analysis has brought to light a growing concern: the scientific community’s apparent silence on environmentally destructive projects in the Western Ghats. The article, which highlights the Sharavathi Pumped Storage Project (PSP) and the Hubballi–Ankola Rail proposal as prime examples, argues that while scientists and conservationists may agree on the need for forest protection, their unified opposition often crumbles when faced with specific, real-world projects.
The author, R.S. Tejus, suggests that this hesitation and division are weakening resistance efforts, allowing projects to move forward despite warnings from experts and courts. This silence, the article states, is contributing to the fragmentation of the Western Ghats, a vital ecological corridor that is now fractured by dams, roads, and power projects. Evidence of this degradation is cited through the increasing frequency of floods and landslides in regions like Kodagu and Kerala.
Fear of Retaliation and Misuse of the Forest Rights Act
The piece delves into the reasons behind the scientific community’s muted response. It posits that a major factor is fear of retaliation, with scientists concerned that strong opposition could lead to loss of funding, stalled careers, or denied research permissions. This institutional caution, combined with political pressure, results in a lack of clear and courageous voices when forests are most in need.
The article also criticizes the implementation of the Forest Rights Act (FRA), stating that while its goal of delivering justice to tribal communities is important, its execution has led to widespread deforestation. It particularly highlights that the law’s most crucial safeguard—the notification of Critical Wildlife Habitats (CWHs)—has never been used in India, leaving protected areas vulnerable to disturbance.
Diverging Opinions and the On-the-Ground Reality
The analysis includes perspectives from various experts, revealing a divided conservation landscape.
• Dr. T.V. Ramachandra of IISc recounts how scientific warnings about projects, such as those in the Sharavathi region, are often ignored by policymakers who “have no knowledge about these issues.” He laments low attendance at talks and a lack of implementation of scientific findings.
• Debi Goenka of Conservation Action Trust offers a more scathing critique, claiming that “most scientists are not conservation oriented” and that retired forest officers, particularly senior ones, “have not really worked even before retirement.”
• Professor Mewa Singh of the University of Mysore presents a counterpoint, insisting that not all active scientists are silent. He points to groups like the Association of Indian Primatologists that have taken a clear stand against the Sharavathi project, though he acknowledges that service rules can sometimes prevent government employees from speaking to the press.
• Retired Karnataka PCCF B.K. Singh provides a different perspective, noting that in a diverse country with 1.42 billion people, it is unrealistic to expect everyone to stand for conservation. He adds that study findings are dynamic and that opinions among academics can vary.
The article concludes that these wide-ranging divisions, combined with the unmet basic needs of local communities and misallocated funds, leave forests undefended. It serves as a call to action, emphasizing that the protection of the Western Ghats is not just an environmental issue but a matter of national security, as the region is a source of India’s major rivers and crucial to its water security.