Inevitably, attempts are now being made to shift the blame for the disaster.\u00a0 The New Indian Express provides two perspectives<\/a>.\u00a0 First, they report the words of an anonymous senior geologist from the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation:-<\/p>\n \u201cWe have loose soil here. The rocks are hard only in the deeper portions. So when it rains incessantly or heavily, chances are that the soil will erode,\u201d the geologist, who has worked in the region, said requesting anonymity…”To avoid such incidents where development projects are coming up, we must ensure maximum plantations. Only the plants with roots that can reach the sub-surface should be planted in consultations with experts,\u201d he said, adding that in Uttarakhand, which has hard rocks, the retaining walls should have steel nets to keep the earth stable.<\/em><\/p>\n Vegetation is of course important in landslide management, and it brings many other benefits.\u00a0 But there is no evidence that vegetation, or lack thereof, was the cause of the landslide at Tupul.\u00a0 Indeed, the deep-seated nature of the failure indicates that vegetation was probably essentially irrelevant.\u00a0 The clear evidence of slope cutting is likely to have been far more significant, although as I noted previously<\/a> this needs to be investigated properly.<\/p>\n Secondly, the article quotes one or more railway officials in relation to the landslide:-<\/p>\n \u201cWhen a hill is cut for a project, the angle and the slope need to be maintained. It was adhered to,\u201d he said … A railway official blamed jhum cultivation for the recent incident.<\/em><\/p>\n
![\"A](\"https:\/\/blogs.agu.org\/landslideblog\/files\/2022\/07\/22_06-Manipur-8.jpg\")