Answer

Introduction

Mining in ecologically sensitive and tribal regions poses serious governance challenges, particularly when community rights and environmental concerns are sidelined. In Meghalaya, uranium deposits in Domiasiat and Wahkaji have been opposed by Khasi groups since the 1980s. The Union Environment Ministry’s 2024 office memorandum (OM) exempting atomic, critical, and strategic minerals from public consultation has further deepened tensions, raising questions of federalism, consent, and sustainable development.

Body

Governance Challenges in Mining of Uranium in Tribal & Ecologically Sensitive Areas

• Bypassing Community Consent: The 2024 OM exempted uranium mining from public consultation, reducing Khasi groups to mere spectators despite decades of resistance.
• Erosion of Procedural Safeguards: Issuing executive OMs instead of transparent public hearings weakens scrutiny and undermines democratic processes.
  Eg: The Environment Ministry OM (2024) bypassed the standard EIA consultation mechanism.
• Undermining Sixth Schedule Autonomy: Central directives dilute the constitutional powers of autonomous councils to protect tribal rights and land.
  Eg: The Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council was urged to invoke its Sixth Schedule authority.
• Historical Mistrust from Jharkhand: Experiences of unsafe mining and neglect of community voices in Singhbhum created distrust of uranium projects.
• High Ecological and Health Risks: Uranium mining exposes communities to radiation hazards and irreversibly damages fragile landscapes  of state.
• Risk of Prolonged Legal Battles: Unilateral mining decisions trigger legal challenges and delay, eroding legitimacy of governance.
  Eg: Communities may challenge the OM citing Niyamgiri (2013) and Sixth Schedule protections.

Measures for Sustainable & Inclusive Resource Management

• Restore Public Consultations: Mandatory consultations must be reinstated to rebuild trust and ensure participatory decision-making.
  Eg: Withdrawing the 2024 OM would uphold transparency in uranium mining.
• Strengthen Sixth Schedule Institutions: Empowering local councils can safeguard constitutional autonomy and tribal interests.
• Adopt FPIC Principle: Free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) aligns with global best practices for democratic resource governance.
• Explore Alternatives to Uranium: Energy security must not rely solely on uranium, given its ecological and social risks.
• Institutionalised Dialogue Platforms: Structured dialogue between the State and tribal leaders can prevent coercion and foster consensus.
• Balance Development with Sustainability: Policy must weigh national development goals against irreversible ecological impacts.

Conclusion

A sustainable mining framework requires transparency, consent, and ecological safeguards rather than coercion. The Hoda Committee on mineral policy stressed balancing resource development with tribal rights and environmental protection. Upholding Sixth Schedule autonomy, restoring consultations, and diversifying energy strategies will make India’s resource governance more inclusive and future-ready.

DOWNLOAD PDF