Pahalgam, Sep 3, : The fragile ecological landscape of Pahalgam is facing renewed questions over construction activity in areas falling within or adjoining protected wildlife and forest zones, with sources alleging that several new huts have come up near Mamal under the guise of renovation.The allegations assume significance because the legal framework governing Pahalgam has long placed restrictions on fresh construction in designated forest and wildlife areas. The J&K High Court has previously recorded that existing structures in such areas could continue, but no further construction would be permitted, while repairs and renovations could be considered only through the prescribed process and in accordance with the Master Plan.Sources familiar with the developments informed the news agency Kashmir News Trust that influential persons have exploited the distinction between renovation and reconstruction to raise structures beyond the scope of existing huts. They claimed that while even alterations to existing structures are subject to regulatory scrutiny, fresh construction has allegedly been allowed to take place in an area where ecological restrictions are supposed to be particularly stringent.The allegations raise a fundamental question: if construction in a protected zone requires clearances and fresh construction is restricted, who authorized the structures that are now reportedly coming up near Mamal?The issue is not merely about a few huts. Pahalgam’s forests, slopes, streams and deodar stands form part of an ecological system that protects the valley from the consequences of increasingly erratic weather. The recent devastation in the Himalayas, including the catastrophic floods in Nepal, has once again demonstrated the enormous human cost that can follow when fragile mountain environments are subjected to rising climatic pressures and poorly planned development. Experts have warned that warming Himalayas, unstable slopes and changing precipitation patterns are increasing the complexity of mountain disasters.Against that backdrop, continued alteration of Pahalgam’s natural landscape deserves far greater scrutiny. The question is no longer simply whether a structure has received a construction permission; it is whether the cumulative destruction of forests, slopes and natural drainage systems is increasing the vulnerability of communities and visitors in one of Kashmir’s most environmentally sensitive destinations.Locals and environmental observers have also raised concerns over the alleged cutting of old deodar trees in the Pahalgam forest landscape. The removal of mature trees for construction or expansion would represent a loss that cannot be measured merely by replacing the timber or planting saplings elsewhere.Pahalgam has already had a long history of disputes over construction and encroachment. In earlier proceedings, the High Court was informed of extensive structures in forest and wildlife areas, including the Mamal forest belt, and directed authorities to identify and document structures in prohibited zones.Yet allegations of fresh construction suggest that the old battle between conservation and commercial pressure may not have ended.The irony is particularly stark at a time when the Government itself is expanding wildlife infrastructure in the Pahalgam landscape. An official notification issued this year provides for acquisition of land at Laripora for extension of the Kashmir Wildlife Zoo, underscoring the stated importance of protecting and developing wildlife-related infrastructure in the area.The Wildlife Department and other concerned authorities therefore face a basic accountability question: if the alleged constructions near Mamal are authorized, under what provision and after what scrutiny were the permissions granted? If they are unauthorized, why have they been allowed to progress?Efforts to contact the concerned Divisional Forest Officer for his response did not materialize.For Pahalgam, the issue goes beyond one disputed construction. Once mature forests are cut, slopes disturbed and protected landscapes progressively converted into private structures, the damage is not easily reversible. In a Himalayan region already confronting climate uncertainty, treating ecological safeguards as obstacles to development could carry a far greater price than the construction itself. [KNT]
Comments are closed.