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 rainfall; 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 proposed initiative by highlighting that this very initiative addresses fundamental human rights as a critical welfare priority. Besides, 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 a forest-zone 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?
(b) What are the socio-economic, administrative and ethical challenges in balancing environmental conservation with human development?
(c) What substantial alternatives or policy interventions can be proposed to ensure that both environmental integrity and human dignity are protected? (Answer in 250 words)
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 rainfall; 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 proposed initiative by highlighting that this very initiative addresses fundamental human rights as a critical welfare priority. Besides, 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 a forest-zone 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?
(b) What are the socio-economic, administrative and ethical challenges in balancing environmental conservation with human development?
(c) What substantial alternatives or policy interventions can be proposed to ensure that both environmental integrity and human dignity are protected? (Answer in 250 words)
The case presents a complex ethical dilemma between constitutional obligations for social welfare and environmental conservation, highlighting the tension between immediate human needs and long-term ecological sustainability in policy-making
Stakeholders Involved
- Homeless populations seeking shelter and dignity.
- Tribal and nomadic communities dependent on forests for livelihoods and culture.
- Forest ecosystem including trees, medicinal plants, and biodiversity.
- Wildlife whose habitat and safety are threatened.
- District administration and government fulfilling constitutional obligations.
- Future generations entitled to a stable climate and environment.
- Environmental activists and civil society advocating conservation.
- Local economy linked to ecosystem services like soil fertility and water regulation.
(a) Can deforestation be ethically justified?
- Deforestation for housing cannot be ethically justified in an ecologically sensitive zone.
- Utilitarianism: Long-term harm of biodiversity loss, climate disruption, and soil erosion outweighs short-term benefit of housing.
- Virtue ethics: Emphasises stewardship, responsibility, and care for future generations.
- Constitutional duties: Article 48A directs the State to protect the environment; Article 21 protects both right to shelter and right to clean environment.
- Precautionary principle: Irreversible ecological damage should not be accepted as a trade-off for welfare.
(b) Challenges in balancing environment and development
Socio-economic Challenges
- Displacement of tribal and nomadic communities dependent on forests.
- Loss of ecosystem services (water regulation, soil fertility, pollination).
- Rising inequality as marginalised groups bear disproportionate costs.
- Heightened vulnerability to disasters like floods and landslides.
Administrative Challenges
- Conflicting mandates of welfare and environment ministries.
- Weak inter-departmental coordination and bureaucratic delays.
- Limited expertise in eco-sensitive planning and impact assessment.
- Pressure on district authorities from political and public demands.
Ethical Challenges
- Rights conflict: Homeless people’s right to shelter vs. future generations’ right to healthy environment.
- Justice dilemma: Immediate relief vs. long-term sustainability.
- Duty conflict: Constitutional obligation for welfare vs. environmental conservation mandate.
(c) Alternatives and policy interventions
| Time Frame | Policy Interventions |
|---|---|
| Short-term Measures | - Vertical housing on urban wastelands under PMAY-U guidelines. - Slum rehabilitation via in-situ upgradation (e.g., Rajiv Awas Yojana). - Public-private partnerships to develop affordable housing on industrial or non-forest government land. |
| Long-term Solutions | - Compensatory afforestation at 3:1 ratio under the Forest Conservation Act. - Promote eco-restoration housing using green building norms, renewable energy, and sustainable materials. - Livelihood diversification for tribals through eco-tourism, skill training, and agroforestry. - Urban planning reforms with transit-oriented development and integrated green belts. |
True welfare must be sustainable. Ethical governance requires protecting both human dignity and environmental integrity. Development should follow the principle that “present needs must be met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own.”
Answer Length
Model answers may exceed the word limit for better clarity and depth. Use them as a guide, but always frame your final answer within the exam’s prescribed limit.
In just 60 sec
Evaluate your handwritten answer
- Get detailed feedback
- Model Answer after evaluation
Crack UPSC with your
Personal AI Mentor
An AI-powered ecosystem to learn, practice, and evaluate with discipline
Start Now