English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Sadhguru’s Draft Policy for River Revitalisation: plant trees along river sides

Published

on

By Rashme Sehgal

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev’s recently concluded ‘Rally for Rivers’ is an attempt to come up with a comprehensive plan to rejuvenate our rivers. He criss-crossed across sixteen states in an attempt to build up a mass movement to help farmers and state governments get involved in tree plantation as being one key areas through which river rejuvenation can take place.

For the first time, he elaborates on the draft policy presented to the Ministry of Water Resources on what steps need to be taken for river revitalization.

Q. What does your draft policy on River Revitalization focus on?

A. The draft policy for river revitalization focuses on the health and life of the river as a living entity. It proposes tree plantation along the river sides as a means for “source augmentation”.

Q. What does source augmentation mean?

A. It means an overall increase in the actual quantum of water in the river.

Q. What does the policy of giving missed calls indicate and why was so much focus given on this? Was it an attempt to create a wider participation base?

A. If we aggressively implement this policy, it will take anywhere between 15-25 years to get a 15-20% rise in the river flows. This means four to five governments would have come and gone by the natural democratic process. How do we keep these five governments in the next twenty-five years focused on one policy? This is why the missed call. If a large part of the electorate votes for it, no government is going to ignore it. Not just this government, but whoever comes to power in the next twenty-five years. It will be in all of their minds that the entire nation wants this long-term policy for the well-being of our rivers.

Q. You have been quoted as suggesting we have 20,000 km of riverine land which can be used for river-based agriculture. Does this land include the flood plains of our rivers which are inviolate because this land is where our rivers are allowed to regenerate themselves and which are being violated by systematic encroachments?

A. The length of all major rivers put together makes up around 20,000 km. The land that we are proposing to implement the solution is laterally 1 km on either sides of the river. So if the solution were to be implemented for all the large rivers from their origin to the estuaries where they meet the seas it will be 40,000 sq km. The solution of transitioning from regular farming to tree-based agriculture is only in the privately owned farm lands. On government owned lands and the land that belongs to the river, appropriate native and endemic vegetation will be planted, ranging from trees, shrubs and grasses based on scientific studies. But to begin with, we are suggesting tree plantation at a 1 km distance to exhibit the results of the solution we propose, especially the effects of tree-based farming for farmers.

We are not asking for resettlement or removal of already existing villages or other establishments in this region. We are only suggesting a change in cultivation pattern in the target area from field crops to tree-based crops. This suggestion is based on observed improvement in our farmer’s income when shifted from field-based crops to tree-based crops. We at Isha have been working with a group of 1000 farmers, and some of them have transitioned to tree-based farming and realized better incomes. To begin with, we are suggesting that governments demonstrate this model initially in a continuous 100 km stretch to see its impact. Once this model has its impact on the river and farmers’ livelihood, it will have the acceptance and willingness of farmers and hence may expand organically in a few years’ time.

Planting trees on riversides have varied impact on the river and the soil in the area. Trees are known to improve inland rainfall by seeding the clouds from their evapotranspiration, pollen and other material, curtail soil erosion during floods, stabilize microclimate and improve the groundwater levels.

Q. What are the comprehensive steps you have outlined for river rejuvenation?

A. The overall solution proposed in the policy recommendation document submitted to the government contains details include developing tree cover by planting trees on a minimum of one kilometre width on either side of the river along the entire river’s length.

For government owned riverside lands and river banks, we recommend plantation of native and endemic trees along with appropriate native shrub land and wetland varieties. This plantation need not be restricted to the 1 km recommendation and can extend beyond these boundaries.

In the case of private land, planting of horticulture and multi-purpose tree plantation by farmers and other citizens is suggested. The width of agro-forestry in farm lands is suggested to be as many villages that fall on the minimum of one-kilometre lateral distance from the river, as a whole.

The policy recommendations we suggest are towards making these proposed solutions happen. They are broadly classified into specific aspects that are directly related to: revitalization of river flow; engaging and involving all the communities that will be affected by the policy changes; de-risking all the farmers who are the majority stakeholders in this project, in target areas when they transition from one type of farming to another; and coordinated institutional functioning of government ministries and departments.

In the detailed approach for implementation we detail how the proposed 1 km tree-based farming for farm land and afforestation of entire government land beside rivers can be implemented. The implementation plan details our economics of tree farming for farmers, the forward and backward linkages required to make the economics happen, the roles and responsibilities of all the stakeholders – the farmers, industries, government and the larger nation as consumers of tree-based produce. Along with these the document also covers the scientific basis for the proposed solution.

Q. We have experts like physicist Prof Vikram Soni and water man Rajendra Singh and many others who have emphasised a policy to end encroachments on our river flood plains. Just doing this will allow rivers to regain their flow and allow them to rejuvenate themselves especially during the monsoon months. What do you feel about this?

A. We can suggest prospectively what can happen on the floodplains, but we cannot suggest retrospectively to evict existing settlements. Having the floodplains for rivers themselves would have been great, but the reality is, it is not the case. We have to work within the constraints of the existing land use pattern. We can have restrictive and prohibitive regulations for prospective use of the floodplains. For this to happen we need to first establish the boundaries of what land belongs to the river. Right now we don’t have such a mapping. Even if we were to find that some of the land that belongs to river is being used by farmers, we can only suggest changes in the farmer’s existing land use patterns to move from field crops to tree-based farming.

Q. River interlinking has not worked anywhere in the world? What do you feel about this especially since our government is going ahead with it?

A. Interlinking of rivers is based on the assumption that some river basins have “surplus” water supply while others have a “deficit”, and by linking them, water supply can be more evenly distributed. However, from our interaction with a few scientists, we got to know that paradigm of “surplus” and “deficit” basins is a limited understanding and does not take into consideration varying climatic conditions. For instance, it is observed that the monsoons have weakened since the 1950s in various parts of India and rainfall in parts of the country is now happening for fewer days and often in very intense spells. The “surplus” basins may, in fact, face water stress due to this variation in rainfall.

A few interlinking projects have already rolled out. It would be ideal if we evaluate the economic gains from these projects and weigh them against the loss of natural resource capital, before embarking on new projects. Any new proposal for interlinking must strictly be evaluated on the basis of scientific and environmental merit and long-term sustainability, rather than on the basis of emotions and politics. And while assessing potential benefits, in the context of our tropical climate, we should account for the resultant loss of water via evaporation and ground seepage. In India, rivers are mostly forest-fed; therefore, bringing back the tree cover on either sides of the river is the only long-term sustainable solution to address water scarcity and reduce the impact of floods and droughts.

India News

India hits back at Shehbaz Sharif at UN, says terror will have consequences

India hit back at Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s UN speech, with New Delhi warning that terrorism will have consequences.

Published

on

India has responded to Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s remarks at the United Nations, delivering a strong message on terrorism and warning that such actions will have consequences.

The response came after Mr Sharif addressed the UN and raised issues concerning India and Pakistan. New Delhi rejected the narrative presented by the Pakistani prime minister and highlighted the issue of terrorism.

India’s message was delivered by Petal Gehlot, who represented New Delhi in the response to Pakistan.

India warns Pakistan over terrorism

India’s response focused on Pakistan’s record and its approach towards terrorism. New Delhi made clear that terrorism cannot be separated from its consequences and that those responsible cannot expect such actions to go unanswered.

The Indian side also pushed back against the claims and allegations made by Mr Sharif during his UN speech.

The exchange comes amid continuing tensions between India and Pakistan, with terrorism remaining a major point of disagreement between the two countries.

Shehbaz Sharif’s UN remarks

In his address, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif spoke about India-Pakistan relations and raised several issues concerning New Delhi.

India subsequently exercised its right of reply to respond to Pakistan’s statements at the United Nations.

New Delhi’s response underlined its position that terrorism remains a serious issue in the relationship and that there would be consequences for terrorist actions.

The latest exchange at the UN adds to the continuing diplomatic confrontation between the two neighbouring countries.

Continue Reading

India News

Veeramani POCSO case: Vijay questions Stalin over earlier probe

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has questioned MK Stalin over the handling of the Veeramani POCSO case, while Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected anyone.

Published

on

Actor Vijay

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned DMK president MK Stalin over the handling of the POCSO case involving Gem Granites founder R Veeramani. The political exchange follows renewed investigation into allegations involving minor girls.

Vijay’s remarks came as the ruling TVK stepped up its questions about how the case was handled during the previous DMK government. The party’s IT wing has alleged that the earlier investigation was weakened and questioned why a final report was filed.

The allegations have been rejected by the DMK. Stalin has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to protect anyone in the case and has called the allegations false and defamatory.

What did Vijay say about the Veeramani case?

Vijay questioned Stalin over the handling of the case and demanded an explanation from the former chief minister.

The TVK has specifically questioned why action was not taken against Veeramani during the previous administration and why the earlier investigation resulted in a closure report.

The party has also raised questions about the role of officials involved in the earlier investigation. These are political allegations made by the TVK and have not been established as facts.

What is the Veeramani POCSO case?

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse of minors involving R Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites.

The case came under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court rejected an earlier closure report and ordered further investigation. The expanded probe has subsequently identified additional alleged survivors who were minors at the time of the alleged offences, according to current reporting.

The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the earlier probe and whether there were any lapses in how the case was handled.

What has MK Stalin said?

Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected Veeramani.

He has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to shield anyone in the case. Stalin has also said that everyone responsible for the alleged offences, including anyone who aided or attempted to protect the accused, should face the law.

The DMK president has further said that the focus should remain on securing justice for the affected girls rather than making political allegations.

Why has the case become a political issue?

The Veeramani case has become the subject of a political dispute between the ruling TVK and the DMK over the handling of the earlier investigation.

The TVK is questioning the previous government’s handling of the case, while the DMK has denied that it intervened to protect the accused.

At this stage, claims about political interference or deliberate weakening of the earlier investigation should be treated as allegations unless established by the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.

Continue Reading

India News

Women wrestlers challenge Brij Bhushan’s acquittal in sexual harassment case

Four women wrestlers have challenged the acquittal of former WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and co-accused Vinod Tomar in a sexual harassment case.

Published

on

Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh

Four women wrestlers have approached a Delhi court challenging the acquittal of former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief and BJP leader Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in a sexual harassment case.

The wrestlers have also challenged the acquittal of co-accused Vinod Tomar. The matter is scheduled to be heard by a Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Courts.

The appeal challenges the order passed by an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on August 3, 2026, when Brij Bhushan and Tomar were acquitted in the case.

Wrestlers challenge court’s reasoning

In their appeal, the wrestlers have argued that the acquittal order is legally unsustainable and that the evidence was not assessed appropriately.

They have also alleged that the order relied on assumptions about how victims of sexual assault and harassment were expected to behave instead of assessing the evidence and circumstances of the complainants.

The challenge seeks judicial scrutiny of the findings that resulted in the acquittal of Brij Bhushan and Tomar.

Brij Bhushan was acquitted in August

The Rouse Avenue court acquitted Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh on August 3 in the sexual harassment case involving women wrestlers. The court’s decision followed consideration of the evidence and statements presented during the proceedings.

The case had emerged after several women wrestlers accused the former WFI chief of sexual harassment. The allegations had led to a major protest by wrestlers in 2023.

The latest appeal means the acquittal is now being challenged before a higher court.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com