Q. 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. Inspite of the ecological and social costs, the administration argues in favour of the said proposal 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 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?
(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?
UPSC Mains 2025 GS4 Paper
Model Answer:
(a) Ethical Justification of Deforestation for Housing
Deforestation for housing presents a complex ethical dilemma requiring nuanced analysis beyond simple yes/no answers.
Arguments for justification:
– Rights-based approach: Article 21 guarantees dignified life including shelter
– Utilitarian view: Greater happiness for homeless outweighs environmental costs
– Social justice: DPSP mandates state duty towards vulnerable citizens
Arguments against:
– Deontological ethics: Destroying ecologically sensitive zones is inherently wrong
– Inter-generational equity: Violates sustainable development principles
– Intra-generational injustice: Displaces tribals to benefit homeless—shifting burden, not solving poverty
Verdict: Noble ends don’t justify destructive means when alternatives exist.
(b) Challenges in Balancing Conservation with Development
Socio-economic challenges:
– Difficulty valuing ecosystem services monetarily
– Inequitable distribution—benefits to few, costs to many
– Livelihood displacement of forest-dependent communities (tribal NTFP collectors)
Administrative challenges:
– Political pressure for visible short-term gains
– Departmental silos—Housing vs Environment Ministry conflicts
– Weak EIA implementation despite robust laws
– Data deficiency on ecological sensitivity
Ethical challenges:
– Anthropocentrism vs Ecocentrism debate
– Inter-generational justice concerns
– Means-ends dilemma in governance
(c) Alternative Solutions and Policy Interventions
Immediate alternatives:
– Brownfield development: Utilize abandoned industrial sites (like old mill lands)
– Vertical housing: High-rise affordable complexes on smaller parcels
– In-situ upgradation: Improve existing slums through PMAY
– Rental vouchers: Financial support for market accommodation
Long-term interventions:
– Integrated planning: Demarcate inviolable “no-go” ecological zones
– Community conservation: Empower tribals under Forest Rights Act
– Net Positive Policy: Mandate biodiversity enhancement exceeding losses
– Green architecture: Incentivize eco-friendly materials (bamboo housing, mud construction)
– Transparent governance: Strengthen mandatory EIA/SIA processes
Conclusion:
True development integrates human dignity with environmental integrity—innovation over trade-offs ensures sustainable, equitable progress.
