GO 49 to create new tiger conservation reserve kept in abeyance over Adivasi concerns
The State government's decision comes in the wake of concerns raised by tribals and public representatives across tribal areas and detailed discussions held with various stakeholders.
The GO.49 dated May 30, 2025, issued by Environment, Forests, Science & Technology department, potentially displaces tribal residents in more than 330 villages from their traditional habitat and restricts their forest rights and livelihoods. It aims at converting 1.49 lakh hectares across multiple forest ranges in Kumurambheem-Asifabad district, including Asifabad, Kerameri, Rebbena, Tiryani, Kagaznagar, Sirpur, Karjelli, Bejjur, and Penchikalpet into the 'Kumurambheem Conservation Reserve' as an extension to Kawal Tiger Reserve.
Adivasi organisations who led sustained protests had maintained that the order was violative of their rights as per Panchayats Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act, 1996, that aims at empowering tribal communities in the country's Scheduled Areas. The government, sensing widespread protests, called for a report from the District Collector to address the situation comprehensively.
Later, the situation was also studied and reviewed by Minister for Forests Konda Surekha, Adilabad District In-charge Minister Jupally Krishna Rao and Minister for Panchayat Raj Dansari Anasuya. According to officials, the findings and recommendations were submitted to Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy by the District Collector on July 11, and the decision to withhold the order until further notice followed on Monday.
Ms. Surekha stated: 'Congress government is people's government. We will never take any decision that harms the rights or livelihoods of Adivasis and tribal communities. The concerns of the local people have been heard, and action has been taken accordingly. The welfare of every citizen, especially our tribal brothers and sisters, remains our top priority.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
27 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
MV Act changes on the anvil to make guidelines mandatory for states
NEW DELHI: The Centre is working on a proposal to amend the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act to ensure that key guidelines issued by the Union Government become binding on states, government sources said. The move aims to address the current legal ambiguity arising from the concurrent nature of legislation on motor vehicles, where both the Centre and states have law-making powers. Officials say delays or inaction by some states on critical reforms create a legal vacuum, hampering the uniform implementation of road safety and transport policies. 'If states don't act on certain matters, important reforms are left out. The idea is to avoid a situation where nothing moves forward due to jurisdictional gaps,' a source said, adding that discussions are underway and the final proposal is likely to be taken up soon. The proposed changes would make select Central guidelines mandatory, particularly those related to road safety, vehicle regulation, and transport policy.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Bihar sachiv fails to recognise RJD vidhayak. Then came a Panchayat-style threat
In a scene straight out of the Panchayat web series, a Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) MLA appeared to be locked in a spat with a local panchayat secretary — not on screen, but in real life.A purported audio clip, featuring Bhai Virendra, an RJD legislator from Maner, has gone viral on social media. In the recording, the MLA can be heard berating a government official over the phone for not recognising him and then threatening to hit him with to the viral clip, Bhai Virendra had called a local panchayat secretary in his constituency to enquire about the status of a death certificate for one Rinki Devi. However, when the secretary failed to recognise him, the MLA erupted. "You don't know Bhai Virendra? You want me to introduce myself? The whole country knows me," the voice, purportedly of Bhai Virendra, can be heard saying. The secretary, unfazed, responds, "If you speak respectfully, I will do the same. If you talk crooked, I will talk crooked. I am not scared of you".The MLA hits back, "Joote se maarunga (I will hit you with a shoe) and you can file a case if you want. You don't follow protocol. You dare to say who is Bhai Virendra?"The official, maintaining his composure, insisted that he wasn't aware of the MLA's identity and asked for a straight conversation. "Please talk about the work. Your request is already in process," he says, urging the MLA to refrain from issuing the verbal volley continued, with the MLA saying, "You have no right to this job if you don't know your local MLA. Transfer? This won't stop at transfer. Where are you even from?"LISTEN TO THE AUDIO HERE The exchange bears an uncanny resemblance to the tension between MLA Chandrakishore Singh and Secretary Abhishek Tripathi in the Amazon Prime show Panchayat, where ego, power, and protocol routinely collide in the dusty lanes of rural Today could not independently verify the authenticity of the viral clip, although the voice resembled that of Bhai Virendra. The RJD MLA has not publicly responded to the viral clip yet.- EndsMust Watch
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Uncertainty around US tariffs will not be over after August 1, even with signed trade deals
The US tariff saga has gone through many twists and turns. And many more are likely left. The ratcheting up of tariffs last month is broader and higher than expected. In late May, the view was that while the extant US average tariff rate was around 13-14 per cent, it was headed towards 18-20 per cent. Much of the increase was expected to be focused on ASEAN, where the tariff rate would be raised to that of China's to eliminate transshipment of Chinese exports to the US via the region. While those on Vietnam and Indonesia were in line with expectations, the additional tariffs on Brazil, Canada, and Mexico were not. Nor was the higher 50 per cent rate on copper. However, negotiations are ongoing, including with India, the EU, and Korea. If this week's Japan deal is any guide, tariffs on these economies will likely be half of the threatened levels. But, even at the reduced rate, if these, along with those on EU and the likely extensions of global sectoral tariffs to semiconductors and pharmaceuticals, are realised, then the effective tariff rate could well exceed 20 per cent. All eyes are therefore on August 1, which is the new deadline set by the administration for countries to finalise trade deals. But there is an upcoming and surprisingly overlooked event that could easily make these trade deals moot and plunge the tariff discussions into more uncertainty. On May 28, the US Court of International Trade (USCIT) ruled that tariffs imposed using the provisions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) overstepped the authority granted by the Act. The ruling did not consider the current conditions in the US to be a 'state of emergency,' which is needed to invoke IEEPA, to be convincing nor the use of tariffs to address it. Tariffs could be imposed, if the government so desired, but via the other options at its disposal. Not IEEPA. A federal appeals court granted the government a stay on the order and is slated to begin hearing arguments on the appeal on July 31. All the universal, reciprocal, and fentanyl-related tariffs are based on IEEPA. The tariffs unaffected are the Section 301 tariffs on China imposed under Trump 1.0 and extended by the Biden administration, and the global sectoral tariffs on aluminum, autos and auto parts, copper, and steel that were imposed under Section 232. It is unclear how the appeals court will rule. But regardless of the decision, either party is likely to move the case to the Supreme Court. If the tariffs under IEEPA are eventually disallowed by the US Supreme Court, the government will shift to other options. Tariffs are central to this administration's economic agenda and will thus be pursued. Unlike those under IEEPA, the tariffs under the other options are more cumbersome, limited in scope, and significantly more resource intensive. But they can be implemented in a compressed time frame if the administration so desires. A potential sequence of such actions could be the following. Use Section 122 to impose tariffs of 15 per cent for 150 days on all countries (justified to address balance of payments needs or to prevent a significant depreciation of the dollar). At the same time, ratchet up the tariffs on China that were imposed under Section 301 in Trade War 1.0 by both the Trump and Biden administrations. Keep tariffs on steel and aluminum at 50 per cent (as on copper) and raise that on autos from 25 per cent to 50 per cent. Hasten the ongoing Section 232 (sector specific on grounds on national economic security) investigations into semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and lumber to bring these under the tariff net of 25 per cent – 50 per cent. Use Section 338 to impose tariffs on countries that are deemed to discriminate specifically against US commercial interests (such as digital services taxes by Australia, the EU, Canada, India, and others, although the taxes are imposed on other countries too). Complete Section 301 investigations on large trading partners (some are ongoing, for example, on the EU and Brazil). These investigations are resource intensive as they need to first identify the specific policy of a trading partner that is the basis of 'unfair competition 'and then quantify the 'harm' that such policies impose on US consumers for each product and for each country. The tariff rate needs to be commensurate with the harm caused and, thus, differ, from product to product for each country. Finally, roll all tariffs under Sections 301 and 232. As one can imagine, this is an arduous and uncertain process. However, the direction of travel is more certain — the average effective tariff rate is likely to settle close to 20 per cent. Needless to say, the country- and product-specific impact of Sections 301 and 232 tariffs could be vastly different than under IEEPA. Markets so far have largely shrugged off the announced new tariffs. This is understandable given the quick deescalation after the strong market and corporate reaction to the Liberation Day tariffs; the possibility that the August 1 deadline is postponed; and the eventual negotiated tariff rates could be different from those announced. However, a court ruling on IEEPA could well turn both the August 1 deadline and the trade deals moot, including potentially that with India. If the basis of these deals, that is, IEEPA, is no longer admissible, then we are headed for renegotiations with tariffs under sections 301 and 232. These could be starkly different than those that are being negotiated now. The uncertainty around US tariffs will not be over after August 1, even with signed trade deals. US courts might well upset the best laid plans of mice and men. Continued uncertainty is the only certainty. The writer is Chief Emerging Markets Economist, J P Morgan. Views are personal
