Tribals protest against Siramtoli flyover ramp
1
2
Ranchi: Several tribal organisations under the banner of Adivasi Bachao Morcha staged a one-day protest outside Raj Bhavan on Tuesday, demanding the removal of the ramp near the Siramtoli Sarna site and the full implementation of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA) in Jharkhand.
The demonstrators alleged that the ramp near the central Sarna religious site at Siramtoli obstructs large religious gatherings, especially during annual processions, and must be removed immediately. The protest saw participation from former minister Dev Kumar Dhan and Geetashree Oraon, among others.
The protestors also accused the state govt of failing to protect tribal constitutional rights despite 25 years of Jharkhand's formation.
"From land grabbing to lack of employment, the issues of tribal communities remain unaddressed. The govt has shown no sensitivity toward PESA, Sarna Code, and tribal land rights," said Prem Shahi Munda, convenor of Adivasi Bachao Morcha.
Key demands included declaration of sites like Marang Buru, Luguburu, and Mudhar Pahad as tribal religious places, a separate religious code in the census, and withdrawal of policies promoting alcohol in tribal-dominated rural areas.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
28 minutes ago
- The Hindu
NDC calls on government to reconsider decision to allow felling of rosewood trees in patta lands
The Nilgiri Documentation Center (NDC) has called on the Tamil Nadu government to immediately reconsider the Forest Department's decision to not renew the Tamil Nadu Rosewood Trees (Conservation) Act. The NDC said the 'decision not only goes against all norms of conservation,' but could be a major embarrassment to the government in the coming elections. The withdrawal of the act would allow for the felling of trees from private patta lands, with ecologists voicing their concerns that trees that are located within reserve forests too will be more prone to being targeted by illegal timber smugglers. 'The 1995 legislation enacted by the then Chief Minister Jayalalithaa was a first of its kind in the country to protect the rosewood tree. It was enacted in response to a widespread call led by the Save Nilgiris Campaign to stop the rampant illegal felling of the endangered native species of the State. The prompt action of the Chief Minister was hailed as a forerunner to conserve such trees in the other states coming under the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve,' said Venugopal Dharmalingam, honorary director of the NDC in a statement. 'At a time when conservation of native trees are given the highest priority by the governments and the courts, a decision of this nature should have been taken at the level of the Chief Minister. The dubious reasons given by the Forest Department to annul the act betrays a sense of insensitivity by the officials. Native trees like the rosewood cannot be grown anywhere or so easily. Withdrawing the act will be a clear licence for the illegal felling of the last of the ancient trees which are listed under the red book of the International Union of Conservation of Nature,' he added. He said rosewood trees, Dalbergia latifolia, listed as a 'vulnerable' species in the IUCN Red list, were found in the Nilgiris region of Tamil Nadu and the Western Ghats, particularly in areas like Anamalais, Mudumalai, and Gudalur. 'These trees are known for their high-quality timber and are a significant part of the Nilgiri Biosphere. A rosewood tree, estimated to be 200 years old, located in the Anamalai Tiger Reserve was declared a Heritage Tree of Tamil Nadu by the State Biodiversity Board in 2017,' he noted, adding that the species holds special significance to the Badaga community.
Hindustan Times
43 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC turns down plea for exclusive control of Mahabodhi temple to Buddhists
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a plea that sought handing over exclusive control of the Mahabodhi temple in Bihar's Bodh Gaya to Buddhists, and asked the petitioner to approach the high court. The Mahabodhi temple in Bodh Gaya, Bihar. (File Photo) The plea, filed by lawyer and former Maharashtra minister Sulekha Narayan Kumbhare, challenged the constitutional validity of the Bodh Gaya Temple Act, 1949, which entrusted a nine-member committee with the temple's management, of which a majority are Hindus. Refusing to entertain the petition, a bench of justices MM Sundresh and K Vinod Chandran, said, 'How can we issue mandamus? You please approach the high court. This is not maintainable under Article 32.' The petition claimed that the management of the Mahabodhi temple should be with the Buddhists and the Act was unconstitutional for violating the right of Buddhists to profess their religion and manage their religious institutions. 'Inclusion of members in the committee who are non-Buddhists i.e. Hindus is violative of protections guaranteed to the Buddhist citizens of India and the Lord Buddha himself guaranteed under Articles 19 (right to fundamental freedoms), 21 (life and liberty), 25 (freedom of religion), 26 (right to administer institutions), 28 and 29 (minority rights) of the Constitution of India,' the petition stated. Senior advocate Ravindra Laxman Khapre pointed out that due to mismanagement and indifference to the temple, the sacred Bodhi tree at the site is in danger of decay, as found out by a committee of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The bench dismissed the petition allowing the petitioner to raise these issues before the high court. 'We are not inclined to entertain the petition. Liberty is granted to approach the high court.' While the definition of Hindus includes Buddhists as well, the religious community was recognised as a minority in 1993 under the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992. The petition, filed by advocate Jaydip Pati stated that the Mahabodhi temple is the holiest Buddhist shrine in India and is also a World Heritage site since the year 2002, which is not under the exclusive management of Buddhists. It said, 'Though Buddhists are defined as being part of Hindus, their independent right to profess their religion is also recognized. The said recognition therefore confers rights of Buddhists to profess their religion as per their own choice.' The petitioner argued that the surroundings and vicinity of the area, including the area of the temple, which is now under the possession of the Bodh Gaya Temple Committee used to be under control of Lord Buddha. 'In effect, the idol of Lord Buddha is the owner of the land. It is therefore submitted that the ownership of the site is vested in Lord Buddha as a juristic person.'
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
MoEF trying to 'subvert' FRA: Over 90 forest rights groups writes to PM
Over 90 forest rights groups have written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, alleging that the Union environment ministry is attempting to "subvert" the Forest Rights Act (FRA) and demanding that Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav clarify his reported statement that the "FRA leads to forest degradation." PTI reached out to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change for comment. A response is awaited. The groups, comprising Chhattisgarh Bachao Andolan and Himdhara Environment Research and Action Collective of Himachal, among others, said in their June 28 letter, copies of which have been sent to the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) and the ministries of Environment, Tribal Affairs and Social Justice, that Yadav, in a statement published in a newspaper on June 5, "cited titles granted under the FRA as a reason for forest degradation." They called the statement "false, misleading, legally untenable and an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the FRA." They alleged that it is part of a "consistent series of subversion" by the environment ministry, which, along with the forest bureaucracy, has "stiffly resisted and disrupted" the implementation of the FRA for the last 16 years. The groups pointed to a 2009 report submitted by the ministry to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which said that the FRA had assigned rights to protect approximately 40 million hectares of community forest resources to village-level democratic institutions and that other forest-related laws needed to be fine-tuned in light of the Act. Citing data presented by Yadav in the Lok Sabha on August 7, 2023, the groups alleged that while the minister blamed the FRA, tribals and other forest rights holders for forest degradation, he "conveniently overlooked" the fact that the ministry itself allowed the illegal diversion of over 3 lakh hectares of forest land since 2008 for non-forest activities, leading to deforestation and without complying with the FRA. They further alleged that the ministry submitted legally untenable data on encroachments in Parliament and the National Green Tribunal. The letter claimed that the ministry makes no reference to the FRA or its statutory body, the Gram Sabhas. According to the law, the rights of forest dwellers recognised and vested under the FRA must be determined, demarcated, recognised and recorded. Only after this process is completed can the extent of encroachment be determined and, subsequently, eviction proceedings be initiated under state laws. The FRA prohibits eviction under Section 4(5) without satisfactory completion of this process. The groups also alleged that the National Tiger Conservation Authority, on June 19 last year, ordered the expedited relocation of 64,801 families from core areas of tiger reserves, in "complete violation" of the FRA, the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 and other applicable legal frameworks. They claimed that this has increased the risk of displacement, forced evictions, curtailment of rights and criminalisation of forest dwellers, pushing many into states of economic and social insecurity across the country. The letter also pointed out that the "India State of Forest Report 2023," published by the Forest Survey of India, blamed titles issued under the FRA for negative changes in forest and tree cover. The groups expressed concern over recent amendments to the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (now renamed Van Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan Adhiniyam, 1980), which were passed despite strong opposition from constitutional bodies like the NCST, scientists, conservationists, forest rights groups and forest-dwelling communities. They warned that these changes would "adversely impact India's forest and ecological security". The groups urged the prime minister to immediately halt what they termed as the environment ministry's attempts to subvert the FRA. They also demanded that Yadav publicly clarify and withdraw his statement linking the FRA to forest degradation and that the ministry immediately inform the Supreme Court and the NGT about the legal status of forest encroachments under the FRA, clearly stating that no action on encroachment can be taken until the FRA implementation process is complete.
