In a recent and deeply troubling development, the Himachal Pradesh high court has ordered the cutting down of over 3,000 fully fruit-laden apple trees that were reportedly planted on forest land under encroachment. Images of farmers watching helplessly as healthy, productive trees – laden with red, shining apples – were being axed to the ground have surfaced across media platforms, evoking pain, outrage, and most importantly, confusion.

What is the meaning of environmentalism if it fails to empathise with life itself – both human and ecological? What does it mean to care for the environment?

If the answer lies merely in a black-and-white legalistic view of forest encroachments, devoid of socio-ecological understanding, then we risk confusing compliance with conscience. 

Environmental stewardship, by its very definition, must entail empathy – towards trees, towards people, and the ecosystem as a whole. And this act of felling healthy, fruit-bearing apple trees, regardless of their legal status on forest land, is neither scientific nor ecologically sound.

In the name of forest protection

At the heart of the issue is a paradox: we are destroying trees to "protect" forests. Any day, anywhere, cutting down trees – especially healthy, fruit-bearing ones – goes against the principles of environmental conservation. Whether these trees are growing on legally-owned orchards or on encroached government land, they remain living organisms contributing to ecological health. They sequester carbon, regulate temperature, retain soil moisture, attract pollinators, and in this case, even feed people.

The fruit trees in question were not concrete structures, nor were they invasive alien species wreaking havoc on biodiversity. They were, quite literally, nurturing life. The urgent need to reclaim forest land cannot be an excuse for ecological destruction masquerading as environmental justice. By that logic, tomorrow, one could order the bulldozing of traditional mud houses or community plantations that serve no commercial interest but occupy the ‘wrong’ parcel of land.

A long-term ecological process

It is understandable – even justifiable – that the government seeks to reclaim forest land from encroachments. Forests are critical ecological assets, and their encroachment, especially for concrete and commercial purposes, has long-term repercussions for biodiversity, climate resilience, and water security. But forests are not bureaucratic checkboxes; they are evolutionary systems.

The ecological succession of a forest – from grassland to shrubs to diverse tree species like oak (Quercus spp.), Cedrus deodara, and others – takes decades. It is not as if cutting apple trees today would miraculously bring back cedar or pine forests tomorrow. If the objective was ecological restoration, then a more meaningful strategy would have been to initiate reforestation on these lands gradually, in phases, while allowing the existing apple trees to live out their productive cycles.

The forest department, in consultation with ecological experts, could have simultaneously planted native tree saplings on the fringes or in planned succession. Over a period of years, these saplings would grow into young forests while the apple orchards continued to offer fruit, carbon sequestration, and livelihood to communities. 

Such coexistence is not only scientifically viable – it is the very model of participatory environmentalism that the world today advocates.

Fence, harvest and transition

One could propose a far more pragmatic alternative that balances legality, ecology and humanity. The entire belt of so-called encroached land could have been fenced and formally taken under state control. 

Rather than axing the trees, the horticulture department could have been tasked with managing the orchards temporarily, harvesting the fruit and directing the proceeds to public welfare – perhaps even to flood victims, who currently reel under the weight of displacement and loss across Himachal.

This transitional approach would have served multiple objectives:

1. Ecological protection: No new encroachment could occur within the fenced area.
2. Public welfare: The fruit harvest could be monetised for flood relief, generating goodwill and redistributing public resources effectively.
3. Phased reforestation: Simultaneous plantation drives with native species could begin, ensuring that in 10–15 years, true forest ecosystems would begin to emerge.

Instead, the state chose the path of destruction – instantaneous, irreversible and deeply damaging.

NGT and its false equivalence with green justice

If the argument for the axe is that "law is law”, then why is this strictness not uniformly applied? 

The National Green Tribunal (NGT), for instance, has taken robust positions against illegal constructions, particularly cement and concrete structures on forest land and eco-sensitive zones. In multiple orders – for instance, NGT Application No. 141/2014 and several others – it has recommended immediate demolition of resorts, guest houses and hotels built on forest land or violating environmental clearance norms.

There is a world of difference between cutting down a fruit-laden tree and razing a multi-storey concrete structure. One is alive, regenerative and integrated into nature; the other is dead material encasing ecological violation. The same urgency that the state now exhibits in cutting down apple trees must be applied to illegal tourism infrastructure, hydro projects flouting environmental norms, and real estate expansion that eats into common and forest land under the garb of "development".

Where are those demolition orders being implemented with the same swiftness?

Reimagining justice through empathy and ecology

Environmental justice cannot be procedural alone; it must be ethical and ecological. 

The farmers who planted these trees – right or wrong in their land claims – were not mining the hills or building shopping malls. Their trees stood tall, providing shade, feeding birds, sequestering carbon and nourishing generations. To reduce them to “encroachments” is to deny the moral and ecological value of life.

The courts and the State must reimagine their role – not as punitive enforcers of colonial-era forest laws, but as stewards of both ecology and equity. Reclaiming forests should begin with a vision of forest rejuvenation, not mere land recovery. 

We need long-term strategies where ecology leads, science supports and communities participate. It is in this convergence that true environmental restoration can take root.

Cut red tape, not trees

The high court’s order is a lesson in how not to reclaim forests. It shows how, in the absence of nuance and empathy, even well-intentioned actions can become deeply harmful. If the goal is to save the forests of Himachal, then we must start with respect for trees, people, and for nature’s slow, sacred rhythms.

Let us not forget: it takes years to grow a tree. It takes a second to cut it down. And in that second, we don’t just fell a tree – we fell our faith in a system that claims to protect the environment.

We must stop confusing axes with action.

This is a call to conscience – not just for the courts and forest officials, but for all the people who believe that protecting the environment must begin with protecting life.

Tikender Singh Panwar has authored three books on urbanisation. He is the former deputy mayor of Shimla, and currently a member of the Kerala Urban Commission.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.