ARUNDHATI ROY AND PRADIP KRISHEN GRAB TRIBAL LAND IN MP
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Arundhati Roy pretends to be a campaigner for tribal rights. Yet she
and her husband are in the thick of a controversy over grabbing
tribal land in Pachmarhi. Vivek Trivedi reports
The Pioneer
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Arundhati Roy, the maverick novelist turned activist, who recently
was under a raging controversy triggered by her 'seditious remarks'
on Kashmir and pretends to be a campaigner for tribal rights is now
along with her husband in the thick of a controversy over grabbing
tribal land in Pachmarhi.
Roy, who during her teenage years had embarked on a homeless
lifestyle, staying in a small hut with a tin roof within the walls of
Delhi's Feroz Shah Kotla and making a living selling empty bottles,
shot to prominence after inking the novel God of Small Things in
1996, which got her the prestigious Booker's Prize 1997. Ever since
then, the writer has devoted herself solely to politics, publishing
two more collections of essays as well as working for social causes.
The novelist has hogged limelight in the last decade for her
activities in socio-political plots like Sardar Sarovar Dam project,
India's nuclear weapons programme and corruption of power company
Enron.
However, apart from these socio-political plots, the land plot
purchased by Roy's second husband in Pachmarhi, a picturesque tourist
destination in Hoshangabad district of Madhya Pradesh has every now
and then put the pro-environment outbursts of this writer cum
activist's into suspicion.
Roy's personality has never been an unknown entity for the denizens
of Madhya Pradesh ever since, she bagged the Booker's Prize in the
year 1997 and ensured active association with the Narmada Bachao
Andolan (NBA), opposing the mega Sardar Sarovar Project in subsequent
years.
The God of Small Things author, who has earned an image of a
passionate activist, fighting tenaciously for bringing justice on
social and environmental causes over the years, suddenly decided to
fish in troubled waters by making some objectionable remarks on the
Kashmir problem recently.
"Kashmir should get azadi from bhookhe-nange Hindustan," said
Arundhati Roy at a seminar last month, where the Maoists hosted
Kashmir secessionist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani, which witnessed
large-scale protests by Kashmiri Pandits. However, the controversial
remarks had failed to impress many across the country and generated
flak from socio-political circles.
The crusader of environment conservation and tribals' rights also has
a link in Madhya Pradesh, which puts her image under a cloud. The
land plot purchased by her second husband and filmmaker Pradip
Krishen has mired this writer-activist into a long drawn
environmental controversy.
Krishen had purchased a plot in Bariaam village situated around 7 km
from Pachmarhi from a local resident Sharif Ahmed in 1992. The
filmmaker had purchased two pieces of land, out of which he sold out
one later on and used the second one for constructing a house. The
construction work began in 1992 and concluded four years later in
1996.
The Bariaam village is located on the main highway to Pachmarhi falls
within the Special Area Development Authority's (SADA) jurisdiction.
This is also a part of the Pachmarhi wildlife sanctuary and
provisions of Wildlife Act 1972 prohibit holding any land title in
the area.
The Union Forest and Environment Ministry also has declared it as
part of an eco-sensitive zone under the Environment Protection Act.
Krishen had purchased the land with few others in the year 1992. He
completed construction of the house towards the end of 1993, in time
for his wedding with Roy in January 1994. In between other buildings
also came up in the area from 1993 to 1996. Writer Vikram Seth's
sister Anuradha, a forest officer Nishkant Jhadav and a doctor
Jagdish Chandra Sharma also owned land in the notified area.
In between, the Pachmarhi Special Area Development Authority (SADA)
had served a 'stop building' order on Krishen and Arundhati. The
couple however hit back and alleged that they were being targeted for
opposing a new development plan for the Pachmarhi area in which
hotel-building would be allowed at the cost of despoiling the beauty
and sylvan backdrop of the gorgeous tourist destination.
The SADA notice, served on March 12, mentioned that under Section 16
of the state Town and Country Planning Act, 1973, the land use of
Pachmarhi and its neighbouring areas had been frozen. It accused
Krishen of building his house at Bariaam without valid permission
from the Town and Country Planning Organisation (TCPO) and directed
him to stop all construction activity. The notice may well be the
precursor to a demolition order.
The Forest Department did not lag behind on this issue and local
forest officials insisted that Bariaam village had been part of the
wildlife sanctuary since 1977. So the plot of land acquired by
Krishen violates a provision of the Wildlife Protection Act, amended
in 1991, under which no new rights of property can be created in a
protected area. However the couple had maintained that Bariaam was a
revenue village and it was not in the Army cantonment or within the
boundaries of the sanctuary or the national park.
A new twist came in the row, as a local Naib Tehsildar from Pachmarhi
cancelled the land title change, which had taken place in March 1992,
in favour of Krishen. Roy's husband and others soon approached the
Jabalpur High Court against the move and challenged the decision of
the Naib Tehsildar.
The High Court however directed the petitioner to instead appear
before the revenue appellate authority, which was SDM in this case.
Krishen however told that court that time limit of making an appeal
in the case had passed and the court had granted the relaxation in
the matter. The order was pronounced in February this year. In
compliance with the High Court order, the petitioner has presented an
application before the SDO (civil).
There is still some room for respite to Krishen and Arundhati, if the
SDM's verdict goes against them, Roy, Krishen and the others can file
an appeal with Bhopal and Hoshangabad Commissioner Manoj Shrivastva.
The verdict
Roy and Krishen had got embroiled in the land controversy in 2003
when the local administration claimed their elevated bungalow
overlooking twin hillocks and vast rolling greens, was in notified
forestland.
Then SDM Niyaz Ahmad of Pipariya had acted upon a complaint filed by
Vijay Singh, a tribal that Roy's husband and three others, including
Aradhana Seth, sister of writer Vikram Seth, had allegedly encroached
on tribal land. Later, Roy's husband and a few others had moved the
Jabalpur High Court against the verdict of the local administration.
The High Court in its verdict, has rejected the appeal and has asked
Arundhati's husband to appear before a sub-divisional magistrate. The
order has come four years after the Madhya Pradesh Government had
served a notice on Krishen and others for encroaching on tribal land.
Pachmarhi in Biosphere Reserve Programme
The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation
(UNESCO) has included Pachmarhi in Man and Biosphere Reserve
Programme in 2009. The Man And Biosphere (MAB) Programme develops the
basis within the natural and social sciences for the rational and
sustainable use and conservation of the resources of the biosphere
and for the improvement of the overall relationship between people
and their environment. It predicts the consequences of today's
actions on tomorrow's world and thereby increases people's ability to
efficiently manage natural resources for the well being of both human
populations and the environment.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/297320/Arundhati-Roy--Pradip-Krishen-grab-tribal-land-in-MP.html
More at:
http://www.dailypioneer.com
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.