CPI(M) calls hartal on Oct. 24 in 7 Pathanamthitta villages over ESA

Mr. Jindal
3 Min Read

Keen to regain lost ground in central Travancore, the CPI(M) is seeking to capitalise on concerns among settler communities in the high ranges over the proposed Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA) notification.

Following its September 16 hartal in Idukki over land related issues, the CPI(M) will organise another hartal in seven villages in Pathanamthitta on October 24, demanding their exclusion from the Centre’s draft ESA notification, district secretary Raju Abraham said.

The hartal will cover Chittar, Seethathode, Aruvappulam and Thannithode villages in Konni taluk, and Vadasserikkara, Perunad and Kollamula villages in Ranni taluk. A vehicle rally to mobilise support for the protest will tour the villages in the third week of October.

Mr. Abraham said that if the draft notification is finalised, residents would have to obtain approval from an environmental authority to be constituted under the Forest Department for activities such as farming and house construction. He claimed that the Gadgil committee report envisaged turning these areas into wildlife corridors and alleged that the villages were already frequented by wild animals.

“The Centre had set September 25 as the deadline for filing objections to its seventh draft ESA notification. Yet, the State government did not seek the exclusion of even a single village in Pathanamthitta, betraying the people of the district,” he said.

Mr. Abraham said land transactions had already come to a standstill in the affected areas and residents could also face difficulties in obtaining land titles. “If they are unable to carry on their lives here, people may eventually be forced to leave their own land empty-handed,” he said.

He also accused the State government of ignoring demands for the villages’ exclusion raised by religious leaders, political party workers and community organisations in the region.

The Opposition’s campaign has put the UDF in Pathanamthitta under pressure. The ruling front maintains that its revised proposal has already excluded inhabited areas and agricultural land, and that villages sharing boundaries with forests cannot be excluded in their entirety.

Share This Article
Leave a Comment