Forest Regularisation Must Not Become a Reward for Ecological Destruction
SHIMLA: The recent move towards regularisation of forest encroachments in Himachal Pradesh raises serious ecological, moral and governance concerns for everyone who cares about the future of the Himalayas.
While genuinely landless and marginal families deserve humanitarian consideration, the larger and more disturbing reality cannot be ignored. Across many parts of Himachal Pradesh, forest land has been systematically occupied over decades through the destruction of natural ecosystems.
Large stretches of precious ban (oak) and deodar forests—ecosystems that took centuries to evolve—have been illegally cut, cleared and converted into commercial horticulture zones. In many cases, valuable timber was first extracted and sold before public forest land was gradually transformed into private orchards and cultivated holdings.
Today, some of these occupations are being considered for legal regularisation.
This sends a dangerous message: destroy forests, occupy public land, commercially exploit natural resources and eventually the system may legitimise the encroachment.
The issue is not merely about land ownership. It is about the weakening of Himalayan ecology itself.
Natural forests in the Himalayas are not empty land banks waiting for economic conversion. Oak and deodar forests are critical ecological infrastructure. They conserve water, recharge springs, stabilise slopes, regulate local climate, prevent soil erosion and provide protection against environmental disasters.
Replacing mature natural forests with horticulture plantations cannot compensate for the ecological services lost through the destruction of centuries-old forests.
At a time when Himachal Pradesh is witnessing increasing landslides, flash floods, drying water sources, erratic rainfall, climate instability and recurring ecological disasters, policies that indirectly reward forest destruction threaten the long-term security of the Himalayan region.
Having closely observed environmental changes across the mountains over the years, I believe the consequences of weakening natural forests are already becoming visible in the form of growing ecological vulnerability.
Equally troubling is the institutional failure behind this crisis.
Encroachments, tree felling, road construction, commercial horticulture activity and land conversion do not happen overnight.
Such developments continue for years in full public view. This raises legitimate questions about administrative accountability, enforcement failures and possible political patronage.
A clear distinction must be made between genuinely landless families surviving on small patches of land and large-scale commercial encroachments involving the destruction of ecologically significant forests.
Treating both categories identically would amount to injustice against law-abiding citizens and against future generations who will inherit an ecologically weakened Himalaya.
A fundamental question also deserves attention: what about the honest villagers and small farmers who never occupied forest land?
They respected the law. They protected forests. They survived on limited holdings without destroying public land.
Today, those who captured forests, cut ancient trees and converted public land into private profit stand to gain legal ownership, while those who followed the law receive little recognition for their restraint.
When illegality is rewarded and integrity is penalised, society sends a dangerous message to future generations—that obeying the law is for fools and encroachment is the path to success.
In my view, this is not merely an environmental crisis. It is a moral crisis in Himalayan governance.
The Himalayas are already under immense pressure from unregulated construction, road expansion, hydropower development, tourism growth and climate change. Legalising ecological destruction under political pressure risks accelerating environmental instability.
The forests of Himachal Pradesh are not merely state property. They are ecological assets held in trust for future generations.
Therefore, every proposal for regularisation must be subjected to independent ecological assessment. There should be satellite and ground verification of forest destruction, transparent disclosure of encroachment records, accountability for illegal felling and a clear distinction between subsistence occupation and commercial encroachment.
The future of the Himalayas cannot be sacrificed for short-term political convenience.
If natural forests disappear, no amount of compensation, policy correction or economic gain will restore the ecological security they provided for centuries.
The core question before Himachal Pradesh is not merely whether land should be regularised.
It is whether Himalayan governance is moving away from the protection of ecological civilisation towards the institutionalisation of mountain ecosystem extraction.
RESPONSES:
1. The article "Forest Land Regularisation Must Not Become a Reward for Ecological Destruction" raises valid concerns. However, since the proposed regularisation policy has not yet been made public, it may be too early to draw firm conclusions.
In my view, regularisation involves two distinct issues—government land and forest land. Forest land is particularly sensitive as most vacant land in Himachal Pradesh falls under the Forest Conservation framework, requiring Central Government approval for diversion.
The Forest Rights Act, 2006 already provides a comprehensive mechanism to recognise the rights of forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers.
It also permits diversion of forest land for essential public facilities such as schools, hospitals, anganwadis, roads and water infrastructure, subject to legal safeguards and Gram Sabha approval.
The Act goes beyond recognising rights. It empowers Gram Sabhas, village institutions and local communities to protect forests, wildlife, biodiversity, water resources and ecologically sensitive areas. It also provides for community forest resources and participatory forest governance.
The challenge before the government is to frame a policy that balances both objectives—recognising the legitimate rights of deserving people while ensuring community participation in conservation.
Any regularisation policy must strengthen, not weaken, the protection of Himachal's fragile ecology. It should be guided by the principle that rights and environmental stewardship must go hand in hand.
- PREM PAL RANTA, FORMER DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE.
2.Policy needs to be implemented in the spirit of law but the rot that persists in our governance raises serious questions of its sincerity.
-Dr MP SUD, PRESIDENT SDF HIMACHAL, IMI CHAPTER
