Protecting Orans: A Balanced Approach

Context

Orans, or sacred forests, hold great cultural, ecological, and spiritual significance for local communities in Rajasthan. Recognizing their importance, the Supreme Court, in December 2024, issued a landmark judgment in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India. The ruling aimed to enhance the conservation of orans by bringing them under formal legal protection. While the court’s decision is well-intended, its approach—integrating orans into existing environmental laws—raises concerns about the potential consequences of formalization on local communities and traditional governance systems.

Understanding Orans and Their Importance

Orans have been preserved by local communities since ancient times and are considered sacred, often associated with a deity whose idol is placed within the forest. A common belief is that cutting trees using an axe is prohibited, as it may invoke the deity’s wrath. Beyond their religious and social significance, orans contribute to the environment by preserving local flora and fauna and improving water conservation. They trap surface runoff, recharge groundwater, and serve as vital resources for maintaining traditional water sources. Many villages in Rajasthan manage orans through informal community-based institutions as part of broader watershed conservation efforts.

Challenges of Formalizing Orans

Despite the Supreme Court’s intent to support community-led conservation, the method of formalization poses several risks:

1. Reclassification as Forests: The judgment classifies orans as ‘forests’ under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, granting them legal protection. However, exemptions in the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, allow for the diversion of forest land for activities such as zoos, safaris, and ecotourism without central government approval. This could open orans to exploitation, conflicting with local traditions and leading to loss of community access.
   
2. Community Governance at Risk: The ruling also proposes declaring orans as ‘community reserves’ under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. While this allows local representation in reserve management, ultimate decision-making authority remains with the State, reducing the influence of traditional community-led governance.
   
3. Exclusion from Rights under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006: The court suggests declaring orans as ‘common forest land’ under the FRA, allowing communities to claim rights. However, only communities meeting specific eligibility criteria can claim these rights, potentially excluding informal community groups that have traditionally managed orans. This could displace existing governance structures rather than strengthening them.
   

The Way Forward

A more effective approach would focus on empowering existing community institutions instead of imposing rigid legal structures. The Supreme Court has recommended that the Ministry of Environment develop a comprehensive policy for oran conservation. However, this policy should not replace informal governance models with centralized control. Instead, successful community-led practices should be identified, supported, and replicated in similar regions. Local communities must be involved in decision-making, ensuring that their knowledge and customs continue to play a central role in oran management.

Conclusion

While the Supreme Court’s decision to protect orans is a step in the right direction, the process of formalization might inadvertently weaken community-led conservation efforts. Instead of imposing a top-down approach, policies should reinforce traditional governance models, with the State and civil society playing a supportive role. Empowering local communities is key to preserving orans in a way that respects both their ecological importance and cultural heritage.

How is China’s foreign policy structured?

Context

China’s foreign policy is shaped by both the Communist Party and the government. Unlike India, where the government and political parties function separately, in China, the Communist Party of China (CPC) holds ultimate authority. Two key bodies play a central role in decision-making: the Politburo Standing Committee (PBSC) and the CPC Central Committee’s Foreign Affairs Commission (FAC). Additionally, the International Department of the CPC (IDCPC) serves as the party’s diplomatic arm, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) executes foreign policy at the state level.

Key Decision-Making Bodies

1. Politburo Standing Committee (PBSC): This is the top political decision-making body in China. It sets the overall direction for policies, including foreign relations.
2. Foreign Affairs Commission (FAC): This body oversees policy coordination, manages inter-departmental communication, and makes key foreign policy decisions. It is led by President Xi Jinping, with Li Qiang as the deputy head. The Office of the FAC, headed by Wang Yi (who is also China’s Foreign Minister), plays a crucial role in gathering information, setting agendas, and advising leaders.

Role of the CPC’s International Department (IDCPC)

The International Department of the CPC (IDCPC) is responsible for diplomatic outreach on behalf of the party. Led by Liu Jianchao, the IDCPC engages with political parties in over 150 countries to strengthen the CPC’s global legitimacy. It operates through regional bureaus, such as the ‘South and Southeast Asian Affairs’ bureau, which studies political developments and maintains relationships with key political groups. The IDCPC also plays a significant role in South Asia, including hosting delegations from India’s major political parties.

Another important CPC body involved in foreign policy is the United Front Work Department (UFWD). This department manages relations with overseas Chinese communities, handles affairs related to Hong Kong and Taiwan, and influences international narratives on China’s ethnic policies, particularly regarding Tibet and Xinjiang.

State-Level Diplomacy: The Role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA)

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) is a government institution responsible for implementing China’s foreign policy. It is part of the State Council and is led by the Foreign Minister, who has varied in importance over time. Initially, under Premier Zhou Enlai, the MFA was highly influential but later saw a decline in power. Today, it primarily manages China’s diplomatic corps, issues official statements, and serves as the main interface between China and the world.

However, under President Xi Jinping, the MFA’s role has gained prominence. Xi actively oversees foreign affairs and directly engages with diplomats and ambassadors. This indicates a more centralized approach to foreign policy decision-making.

Other Institutions Involved in Foreign Affairs

In addition to the PBSC, FAC, IDCPC, and MFA, other institutions like the National Security Commission, the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, and the National People’s Congress also contribute to foreign policy discussions.

Conclusion

China’s foreign policy is unique in its structure, requiring engagement at multiple levels. Both party and state institutions influence decision-making, making it essential for other countries, including India, to carefully study the CPC’s policies and strategic objectives. Understanding these key institutions can help policymakers navigate diplomatic relations with China more effectively.

The implications of treating Virtual Digital Assets as taxable properties

Introduction

As digital economies grow and blockchain technology changes global finance, governments worldwide are working on classifying, regulating, and taxing Virtual Digital Assets (VDAs). India’s Income Tax Bill, 2025 introduces a structured legal framework for VDAs under Section 2(111), bringing India’s tax laws in line with global standards. Countries like the U.K., the U.S., Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, and the UAE mostly treat VDAs as property or securities.

VDAs as Property and Capital Assets

• The Income Tax Bill, 2025 officially categorizes VDAs, including cryptocurrencies and NFTs, as property under Section 92 (5)(f) and capital assets under Section 76(1).
• This means that profits from selling or transferring VDAs will be taxed under capital gains rules, similar to real estate and stocks.
• For instance, if someone buys Bitcoin for ₹10 lakh and sells it for ₹20 lakh, the ₹10 lakh profit will be taxed under capital gains, either as short-term or long-term depending on the holding period.
• This classification ensures that VDAs are taxed properly, preventing their misuse as unregulated financial instruments. Similar tax policies exist in the U.K., New Zealand, and Australia.

Taxation and Compliance

• The bill imposes a 30% tax on income from VDA transfers, continuing a rule set in 2022.
• Unlike other assets, no deductions (except the purchase cost) are allowed. Costs like mining expenses, transaction fees, and commissions are not deductible.
• Example: If someone buys Ethereum for ₹5 lakh and sells it for ₹7 lakh, the ₹2 lakh profit will be taxed at a flat 30%, with no deduction for transaction costs.
• In contrast, countries like the UAE offer 0% personal income tax on VDA gains in certain cases.
• A 1% Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) applies to all VDA transactions, even peer-to-peer (P2P). The exemption threshold is ₹50,000 for small traders and ₹10,000 for others.

Mandatory Reporting and Asset Seizure

• VDAs must be reported in tax filings; failure to do so will classify them as undisclosed income, leading to penalties (Section 301).
• Tax authorities can seize VDAs during tax investigations, similar to how cash, gold, or real estate is confiscated (Section 524(1)).
• The U.K. follows a similar approach, allowing courts to freeze or seize crypto assets in legal cases.
• Under Section 509, crypto exchanges, wallet providers, and traders must report transactions in a specific format to prevent money laundering.
• VDAs are also included in Annual Information Statements (AIS), ensuring automatic financial tracking.

Aligning with Global Standards

• India’s approach to treating VDAs as property and capital assets aligns with international norms.
• The U.S. SEC classifies many crypto assets as securities, subjecting them to financial market regulations.
• However, despite progress in taxation and classification, India lacks a clear regulatory framework for investor protection, market regulation, and enforcement mechanisms.
• A comprehensive policy is needed to balance financial regulation, consumer rights, and technological advancements for a secure digital asset ecosystem.

Conclusion

India’s decision to tax and regulate VDAs is a step toward global alignment. However, further policy measures are necessary to address regulatory gaps and ensure a safe, structured digital asset market.