Mount Abu is the only hill station that Rajasthan has; it is a hot spot of tourism due to its splendid diverse landscapes, its religious cultural heritage, which generates a good source of income and employment to its local and rural masses. The region has been recognized as an important tourist destination, and is the backbone of the economy of the people residing here. The local populace under the oldest Municipality in India, are today at a quandary as to what is going to happen to their future, with the Collector's notification of turning the whole of Mount Abu into a Sanctuary. Property rights have long been recognized as a cornerstone of individual liberty and economic prosperity. As long as people are secure in their right to use, alter, and trade their belongings as they see fit, freedom and an ever-increasing standard of living are the result. However, not all rights to property are clearly defined. When property rights are unclear or absent, people are skeptical. In order to avoid these stumbling blocks and to strengthen the protections for individual freedom, every effort should be made by the state to vest clearly defined private ownership rights in areas where there are planning to overrun by introducing laws of the state.. One of the most important lessons that 21st Century geopolitics teaches is that property rights and individual freedom are vital human rights, as important as freedom, equality, ethics and speech.
Ambiguities in law and how they are implemented are crucial. Fears and apprehension have gripped the locals of Mount Abu, the public at large have been notified that within a specified period to air their grievances as why this area should not come under the control of the forest. The Municipality which has been running this town from the 18th century today is found wanting. I personally feel that my freedom to movement and those of my kith and kin in no way should be compromised. It's ironic to promote freedom of animal movement and restricts those of liberal individuals. Sanctuary and Park rules when implemented on urban areas have a cascading effect. How will the needs of the people, particularly communities that critically depend on tourists be met if the specters of displacement of the local people by officials of the forest department are implemented? Whose responsibility will this be? A few simple observations before I sign off. There is fear and apprehensions amongst the locals which was never there. Bitterness, skepticism and hostility are the order of the day.
