Hindus believe that Lord Ram used the Ram Sethu to travel from Bharatbhumi to Sri Lanka to defeat the demon Ravana . It is believed that Ram Sethu was built by the holy vanar sena of Lord Rama . It is believed that it is a site that is so sacred that mere sight of the Sethu at Sethubandha Rameshwaram gets rid of all ones sins . To Hindus the Ram Sethu is a matter of faith and the Ram Sethu is a “sacred site”. The local people at Rameshwaram and the surrounding areas also strongly hold that belief .
All over the world as the demon of development is progressing at a break neck speed , the biggest victim of development has been culture and nature . To cultures and peoples who have historic , traditional and religious ties with the land they live in, the biggest conflict that has arisen is between the idea of development and the idea of “sacredness” and “sanctity” of certain areas , which have been treated as sacred by the culture / tradition / religion of the people of the surrounding area or those indigenous / local to that area .
In this context there has been lately over the last decade a fructification of a very long struggle to protect sacred sites of local and indigenous people . The idea of the need to protect “sacred sites” is fast becoming an integral part of the law of environment and the norms and regulations dealing with development .
There has been an international movement for the recognition of “sacred sites” , be they be by the Native American Tribes of the USA and Canada[1] , the Aborigines of Australia [2], or the tribes of South America and Africa which have not stepped into “civilization” as we know it [3].
This struggle has been reflected and articulated in various International Treaties and Covenants , some of which have formulated guidelines , which India has actually complied with , though some would say selectively .
The protection of “ sacred spaces” today has become an integral part of Environmental jurisprudence .
The Convention of Biological Diversity ,1992 had been signed by India. The Convention broadly laid down the obligations of various countries in the world to protect biological diversity or the diverse plant and animal species which exist in the world today . It created a regime as to how to protect some of the most important and fragile “environmental hotspots” and “ biodiversity zones” . It also created obligations on all countries of the world to protect and preserve the remaining biological diversity of the planet . The Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman’s Case[4] directed the Government of India to implement the Convention . The Government of India in pursuance of it’s obligations came out with the Biological Diversity Act , 2002 .
The said Convention also created a Secretariat which comes out with guidelines from time to time to protect various aspects of the environment .[5]
The Secretariat under Clause 8 (j) of the Convention dealing with respect and preservation of practices of local and indigenous communities has come out with a guideline to protect “sacred spaces” known as the Akwe Kon Guidelines i.e. “Akwé:Kon Voluntary Guidelines for the Conduct of Cultural, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Regarding Developments Proposed to Take Place on, or Which are Likely to Impact on, Sacred Sites and on Lands and Waters Traditionally Occupied or Used by Indigenous and Local Communities,” [6]named after the words of a Native American tribe meaning “ everything is creation”, which lays down that before allowing any project the impact on “sacred sites” have to be considered , addressed and resolved to the benefit of those who hold it sacred.
The said Guidelines in Article 6 (e) defines “ sacred site” as “ Sacred Site : may refer to a site, object, structure, area or natural feature or area, held by national Governments or indigenous communities to be of particular importance in accordance with the customs of an indigenous or local community because of its religious and/or spiritual significance”
Though the said guidelines are voluntary , the Government of India has in it’s 3rd Annual Report to the Secretariat of the Convention , as to the implementation of the said Convention clearly stated that it is implementing the said Akwe Kon Guidelines [7]. In the said report submitted to the Secretariat , the Government of India said that in pursuance of the said Guidelines it was protecting 19,000 “sacred groves” all over India and was taking various measures for fuller and better implementation of the Guidelines in India .
The Government of India has further in it’s New Environment Impact Assessment Guidelines ( framed under Rule 5 (3) of the Environment ( Protection ) Rules , 1986 ) of 14th September , 2006 , has for the first time included “sacred site” in the Checklist mentioned in Appendix II clause 7.3 . The said checklist specifically demands that the intending project specifically declare that whether any “sacred site” of the local people is going to be affected by the intended project and how the pursuers of the project intend to address such grievances and protect such “sacred sites” . Needless to say that such compulsory obligations to protect sacred sites was not there in the older 1994 guidelines .
The Ram Sethu clearly and unequivocally falls under the definition of “sacred sites” under the Akwe Kon guidelines and therefore is clearly entitled to protection .
There have been other major Declarations ,Conventions and Guidelines for the protection of “sacred sites” namely :
The Tokyo Declaration on the Role of Sacred Natural Sites and Cultural Landscapes in the Conservation of Biological and Cultural Diversity[8] states amongst others : We…
“Call upon governments, international organisations, non-governmental organizations,
religious institutions, indigenous and local communities to work together to ensure respect for religious and spiritual traditions and practices linked to sacred natural sites, and to protect such sites against desecration and destruction “
UNESCO has come out with Draft Guidelines for protection of “sacred sites” titled “UNESCO /IUCN Guidelines for protection of sacred natural sites”[9] .
The other relevant conventions are the UNESCO Conventions of , “Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage” and “Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage”. The said Conventions have been ratified by India.
In the Vth World Parks Congress in South Africa in September 2003, delegates produced the Durban Recommendations on the Cultural and Spiritual Values of Protected Areas [10], which called for the recognition of the spiritual values of protected areas around the world, and the full inclusion of indigenous communities and spiritual leaders in the management of sacred natural sites.
Now it has been the view of the Supreme Court that International Conventions can be used as tools to interpret Fundamental Rights and municipal statutes even if they are not ratified.[11] . The obligations under the Convention are therefore binding on the Government of India.
The Government of India is as usual intently trying to shore up it’s duplicitous anti people and anti Dharmic , and Marxist ideology , whereby on one hand it is attempting to rush through a project in the supposed name of “development” for the benefit of a few corrupt allied politicians , even though it hurts the sentiments or possibly because it hurts the religious sentiments of millions of Hindus , whom it has always taken for granted , all the while playing the savior of small / insignificant “sacred groves” which it supposedly is protecting , since it seems to be fashionable and in line with “liberal” International consensus .
The Ram Sethu case has gone a long way to expose the present Government’s hypocrisy ……
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Yablon Marcia ; “Property rights and sacred sites: federal regulatory responses to American Indian religious claims on public land” ; Yale Law Journal ( May , 1 , 2004 ) < http://www.sacredland.org/PDFs/Yale_Law_Article_5.04.pdf > ( 10.06.2008)
[2] Central and Northern Land Councils ; “ Our Land , Our Life” ; < http://www.clc.org.au/media/publications/olol.asp#history > ; ( 10.06.2008)
[3] Prussin , Labelle ; “ Non Western Sacred Sites : The African Model” ; < http://www.jstor.org/pss/991536 > ( 10.06.2008 )
[4] 2002 (10) SCC 606
[5] Article 24 of the Convention.
[6] < http://www.sacredland.org/PDFs/Akwe_Kon_Guidelines.pdf > ( 10.06.2008)
[7] Answers to Question 59 and 60 of the Report .
[8] < http://www.sacredland.org/PDFs/Tokyo_Declaration.pdf > (10.06.2008 )
[9] < http://www.sacredland.org/PDFs/UNESCO_Guidelines_v5.pdf > (10.06.2008 )
[10] Chapter V.13 ; pages 168-170 ; < http://www.sacredland.org/PDFs/Durban_recommendations.pdf > ( 10.06.2008 )
[11] Vishakha 1997 (6) SCC 241 para 14 & 15 : PUCL v. UOI 1997 (3) SCC 433 para 13 , 20 , 22 :
V.O. Tractororexport 1969 (3) SCC 562 ; para 16 : Intellectuals Forum 2006 (3) SCC 549 ; para 82
Also See : Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel (1970 ) (3) SCC 400 ; para 29 .
No comments:
Post a Comment