By Salam Rajesh
It does sound fascinating that trees and rivers have rights of their own, to live, flourish and flow naturally without any intervention from humans in the negative sense.
Just the other day, on 09 June earlier this year, the small Canadian town of Terrasse-Vaudreuil in Quebec became the first municipality in the world to officially adopt the principles of the Universal Declaration of Tree Rights.
The resolution recognized trees as living beings and a common human good, with rights to life, natural growth, integrity and regeneration. The resolution stressed that humans must act in ‘fraternity and solidarity’ with trees in the same terms as human beings.
So, after all, a tree is not just something that humans plant, chop down, or build around, but is an element that people have a responsibility to safeguard and nourish as similarly as a human would raise his or her own child.
The concept of according personhood to trees, and rivers, have since been doing the rounds, with of course the frowns and scorns from the different quarters who cannot comprehend the reason why non-living things must be treated at par with living beings.
The advocates of this new, intriguing concept argue that it is not only about giving trees legal personhood, rather it is about changing the way humans see them, that is, from objects at humans’ disposal to an integral part of the living world.
The idea has already received more than 87,000 signatures worldwide, campaigners said. The Canadian town now plans concrete programs to protect its tree canopy, plant more trees and raise awareness. The goal, as the campaigners put it, is to move from an ‘egocentric’ worldview to an ‘eco-centric’ one, where humans no longer see themselves as the centre of the world, rather sharing the space with other ‘living beings’.
The text of the Universal Declaration of Tree Rights is interesting by itself. The declaration is an international ethical and civil-society framework launched in Paris (November, 2018) to redefine trees as living beings with intrinsic values rather than just being mere objects, property or resource.
The declaration is based on few fundamental core principles. Firstly, it recognized trees as living organism – ‘sensitive, living entities essential to Earth’s systems and climate balance’.
Secondly, and importantly, humanity must act towards trees in a spirit of ‘fraternity and solidarity’. This resounds why humans must share the space with the other ‘living beings’ in shared responsibility towards planet Earth, more so now with climate change concerns heaping down upon the planet, threatening lives and properties.
At the grassroots, communities have since adopted the declaration based on four fundamental local rights of trees, namely, life, natural growth, integrity and regeneration. This is fundamental in letting trees, and forests, regenerate healthily to sustain life on Earth.
Quite interestingly, the National Assembly in France presented a draft (05 April, 2019) titled as “Déclaration des droits de l’Arbre” during a colloquium organized by the French association A.R.B.R.E.S. (Arbres Remarquables: Bilan, Recherche, Études et Sauvegarde).
The draft sought a proposal for legislative reform recognizing trees as living beings deserving stronger legal protection. The colloquium discussed legal protection for trees and urged for adopting an official declaration on the rights of trees.
The proposed declaration contained four articles. Article 01 defined the tree as a living organism occupying both the soil and the atmosphere through its roots and crown, and describes its ecological functions.
Article 02 stated that the tree is a living being sensitive to changes in its environment and should not be reduced to a simple object, and affirmed that trees require sufficient underground and above-ground space for their full development and that damage to branches, trunks, root systems, or exposure to toxic substances weakens them.
Article 03 stated that trees should be respected throughout their entire life cycle and proposed that trees be considered subjects of law, including within rules governing human property.
Article 04 argued that certain remarkable trees, because of their age, appearance or history, should receive enhanced protection as shared bio-cultural heritage comparable to natural monuments.
According to A.R.B.R.E.S., numerous communities have since adopted the draft since 2019, including cities such as Bordeaux, Bayeux, Bobigny, Caen and Fontainebleau, with additional municipalities continuing to join in subsequent years.
Meantime, too, as similarly as the call to respect the rights of trees, the All India Rivers Forum is launching a countrywide campaign (Riverhood Action Week, 27 September-03 October, 2026) to highlight the rights of rivers through an appeal for humans’ solidarity to safeguard rivers and their futures. Based on the theme ‘Rivers for Life: Not for Sale’, the campaign seeks to garner public support in revitalizing rivers to sustain ecosystems, livelihoods and for a better planet.
So, for Manipur and its people, it is time now to dwell into these concerns on the global forum at the local context. Is it imaginable for the people here to consider trees, and rivers, as living beings?
For one thing, the concept is not an entirely new one for the indigenous people settled in the State. The concept and practice of worshipping trees as sacred and as a living entity has been there all this time. The issue is that the concept has not been officially recognized by the State institutions.
The Meitei, and so is the same for the Zelaingrong community, consider specific trees as sacred and revered. The concept of Umang-laikon (sacred groves) is in itself an informal traditional institution that respects trees as par with other living beings. No one is supposed to harm trees, and other living objects, within the Umang-laikons.
The State administration could take a leaf out of the Canadian initiative to respect trees as living entities, which in other words is fundamentally essential in today’s concerns over global warming and climate change implications.
