Q8. In line with the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in the Indian Constitution, the government has a constitutional obligation to ensure basic needs – “Roti, Kapda aur Makan (Food, Clothes and Shelter)” – for the under-privileged. Pursuing this mandate, the district administration proposed clearing a portion of forest land to develop housing for the homeless and economically weaker sections of the society. The proposed land, however, is an ecologically sensitive zone densely populated with age-old trees, medicinal plants and vital biodiversity. Besides, these forests help to regulate micro-climate and rainfalls; provide habitat for wildlife, support soil fertility and prevent land/soil erosion and sustain livelihoods of tribal and nomadic communities. In spite of the ecological and social costs, the administration argues in favour of the proposal by highlighting that this way vulnerable groups’ fundamental human rights enjoy a vital welfare priority.
Besides it, it fulfils the government’s duty to uplift and empower the poor through inclusive housing development. Further, these forest areas have become unsafe due to wild-animal threats and recurring human-wild life conflicts. Lastly, clearing forest-zones may help to curb anti-social elements allegedly using these areas as hideouts, thereby enhancing law and order.
(a) Can deforestation be ethically justified in the pursuit of social welfare objectives like, housing for the homeless?
The situation presents a classic conflict between environmental ethics and social justice. It portrays the challenge of balancing the basic requirements of needy people who require homes to live against the needs of tribals who consider the forest to be their home. It also involves weighing the human needs against the environmental needs of multiple flora and fauna.
While ensuring shelter is a constitutional duty under DPSPs (articles 38, 39 of the Indian Constitution), indiscriminate deforestation violates the principle of sustainable development and the public trust doctrine. Moreover, as per the DPSP enshrined in Article 48A of the Indian Constitution, the State should also endeavour to protect and improve the environment and ensure that the forests are safeguarded.
Cutting down forests to give homes to needy people will not be able to maintain the expected balance between the two DPSPs.
Also, such a step would value the life and needs of humans more than the life of the living beings in the forests like the trees, animals, plants and various other organisms, which would be ethically unjustified.
Further, ecological degradation would undermine inter-generational equity by depriving future generations of environmental security. Thus, deforestation cannot be ethically justified if alternatives exist, as it sacrifices long-term collective welfare for short-term relief.
(b) Challenges in balancing conservation and development
- Socio-economic: Homelessness and poverty demand immediate redressal; tribal/nomadic livelihoods depend on forests; displacement risks cultural erosion; economically costly to clear entire forest lands and build new homes for people; possible enhanced cost of disaster preparedness.
- Administrative: Facing the wrath of tribal people being displaced; being responsible for environmental degradation and increasing the possibility of future disasters; planning entire settlement in such forest cleared lands is not easy; lack of effective rehabilitation policies and coordination across departments.
- Ethical: Justice vs. utility—prioritising housing rights of one group may violate ecological rights of many; inter-generational responsibility vs. present needs; human–wildlife conflict poses a moral dilemma of co-existence; fulfilling basic needs of humans to ensure dignity vs belittling the importance of forests and environment.
(c) Alternatives and policy interventions
- In-situ housing development: utilise wastelands, degraded land, or urban vacant spaces instead of ecologically sensitive forests.
- Vertical housing projects: Can be the focus of government schemes like PMAY to minimise land use and ensure maximum housing.
- Merging the ideals of different government initiatives: Linking PMAY with the ideals of Mission Life can provide policy direction to balance conflicting needs.
- Community-based decision making to reduce the chances of conflicts and negative impact on environments. Local panchayats need to be actively integrated in such decision making.
- Strengthened audits before major land use changes: making the process of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) robust to ensure that the ecological aspects are not ignored.
- Wildlife management strategies (corridors, buffer zones) to reduce conflict instead of large-scale deforestation.
- Spreading awareness among under privileged people about the rights of tribals and importance of forests in maintaining ecological balance. Short term solutions of clearing forest lands for creating human settlements will bring problems in the long run as seen during the massive floods ravaging north Indian states every year.
X-Factor: To handle such situations, motivation can be drawn from the ideals of Mahatma Gandhi who laid strong emphasis on distributive justice, but never ignored the importance of environmental well-being.
True welfare is holistic — it must harmonise human dignity with ecological integrity. Sustainable alternatives rooted in innovation and inclusive planning can secure shelter for the poor while preserving forests for future generations.
