On 10/20/07, Subid K.S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > no, let me explain. If, if, by the treatment of life of a particular sect > affect the environment, it need a discussion at least.
Isn't it too naive! When was the issue of environmentalism came in to the mind of society? After, all the forest land got converted for the rich. When the privileged lot, made sure that they have safe residential areas, and all development, they wanted to save the forest. But why? Talking of the lifestyle of particular 'sects' , simply 'traibal', 'dalit' communities. The whole history of the landgrabbing of the rich/uppercastes became so naturalised, and it beacme normal. While Adivasi, Dalit, land less people's land grabbing, became an atrocity on nature. Let me tell you, 'nature' and 'forest' are also very conveniently defined for this purpose. Also why we only talk of environmental protection when it comes to Adidasi, dalit land? Let them also take their share of what is left, I think there needs to be a level play ground to talk of our 'romantic forests'. As the access to property and wealth is not equal among different 'sects', I feel that those 'sects' have a right to encroach. Aryan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
