Does tribal development in India centre around two axes, those of displacement and of rehabilitation? Give your opinion.
Question source: drishtiias.com
Write a timed answer in the appCurrent affairs to use in your answer
Vedanta seeks a return to Niyamgiri, 13 years after gram sabhas said no · 27 September 2026 · Covers one part · use it in the body
Use Niyamgiri to argue that tribal development also turns on a third axis, community consent through gram sabhas, which here stopped a mining project before it went ahead.
- In Orissa Mining Corporation v. MoEF (April 2013), the Supreme Court let gram sabhas decide whether mining would affect the Dongria Kondh's religious, cultural and community rights; all 12 rejected it in 2013.
- The Union Environment Ministry then rejected forest clearance in January 2014, and the project was shelved for about 13 years.
- In September 2026 Vedanta's Anil Agarwal sought revival and the Odisha CM reportedly assured help; tribal leaders vowed resistance, testing whether a gram sabha 'no' is lasting.
Tribal Affairs Ministry says Forest Rights Act has no provision for gram sabha consent · 7 September 2026 · Covers one part · use it in the body
Use the gram sabha consent dispute to argue that tribal development hinges on whether communities get a say before displacement, not only on rehabilitation after it.
- Forest clearance precedes diversion of forest land for projects; a 3 August 2009 Environment Ministry circular required States to certify FRA rights were settled, with gram sabha consent.
- Parliament's Committee on Public Undertakings found clearances averaged 106 months and recommended 70 to 75% 'qualified super-majority consent' of affected gram sabhas for large hydropower projects.
- Way forward: settle FRA claims first and in time, adopt a single time-bound consent rule, and ensure fair benefit sharing and rehabilitation to make consent easier to give.
Editorial: The push to dilute gram sabha consent for forest diversion · 9 September 2026 · Covers one part · use it in the body
The consent debate shows that the key tribal question is whether communities can refuse displacement, not only how they are rehabilitated afterwards.
- Parliament's Committee on Public Undertakings suggested a 70 to 75% consent threshold among affected gram sabhas for large hydropower projects, citing 106-month forest clearance delays for NHPC projects.
- The Hindu's editorial argues a threshold would let a village losing sacred groves or ancestral land be outvoted by villages only marginally affected.
- Way forward: complete rights settlement before diversion, time-bound gram sabha meetings with translated documents, and better benefit-sharing and rehabilitation.