It is always a tough choice for anyone when asked to choose between nature conservation and human welfare. Sometimes even people and governments miss certain points when taking a stance on issues involving both of these.
Suppose you are poor and homeless and the government has decided in favour of you announcing to construct and gift a house to you under a welfare scheme. But the issue is you are not the only one to get so. There are lots of other beneficiaries as well. To provide houses to all, residential complexes need to be built which requires a huge chunk of land. It's a great and definitely an appreciable decision by any government. Everybody needs a permanent shelter. Even the poor must be entitled to one. But the issue is where to allot such a huge chunk of land? How to acquire?
If you are one of the beneficiary and if you are asked that the land acquired to provide houses to all beneficiaries is acquired by clearing natural resource - forests, is it okay for you? Forest of not just 4-5 acres, Its more than 150 sqkm. What's your answer? Will you happily accept? Can you live there all your life without any regret? Or Do you like to suggest the government construct houses in already cleared spaces/barren lands a little away from forest/industrial areas?
In my opinion, the second option should be opted. And this option becomes too important if the forest is a mangrove one i.e. it is spread across in a coastal area.
Why so?
