THE proposed tribal bill threatens to displace wild species – the original citizens of the forest. In the process, tribal communities will, ironically, be the worst sufferers.

Na rahe baans, na baje bansuri... If the bamboo vanishes, with it will go the sound of the flute.

The proposed tribal bill wishes to redress injustices meted out to long-suffering tribal communities in India, but the ‘solution’ will worsen the plight of tribals by wiping out the few remaining forests that wildlife groups have against all odds fought to protect for over half a century. We argue that the consequences of this tragedy will be social mayhem, triggered in large measure by the destruction of the subcontinent’s purest water sources.

Long before humans were even a blip on the evolutionary drawing board, the original citizens of the forest – the many forgotten species that homo sapiens think nothing of destroying – had formed themselves into highly organised societies with effective (ecological) laws that allowed the use of resources, while enabling each distinct community to flourish. This was achieved without depleting the common food and water base of the collective. In this society there was no such thing called waste. The lifestyle of every creature was designed so as to leave the next generation as, if not more, secure. Species that stepped out of line, died.

It was into this haven of plenty that the ape that learned to hunt and till the soil, was born. With alarming rapidity, humans began to refashion the world – inexpertly. When we were hunter-gatherers thousands of years ago, the garden of plenty was virtually inexhaustible. With the advent of agriculture, the forests retreated. The industrial revolution and urbanisation deepened the problem. British colonisation finally tipped the scales as hunting and timber extraction combined and forest species vanished.

The tribal communities of India who were once in harmony with the forests now became well and truly unrooted. Without the forests from whence their genius sprang and on which their survival depended, they too vanished, more so after independence than before.

Over the centuries, the tribal people of India have always been handed a short straw. They are the ones who were displaced by India’s large dams, mines and mega-projects. They are the ones who were forced to share their scarce space and resources when India pushed refugees from Bangladesh and oustees from hundreds of mega-projects into their fragile forests. And with the passage of every year, millions of urban profit seekers began to take advantage of innocent tribal communities by offering them cash for the real estate in their possession.

Today a veritable mishmash of people occupy the forests of India. And conflicts are legendary. Assam’s Nellie massacre is just one tragic example. Lesser conflicts unfold each day, but do not make the news.

True forest dwellers tried to retreat further and further away from uninvited competition. Some succeeded. The vast majority failed.

With the rest of the rabble, therefore, tribal people too are now condemned to live as ‘encroachers’. Clearly something must be done to remove the crushing burden of injustice from their innocent lives. Valmik Thapar, writer and historian of forests suggests: ‘Tribal cultures can only be sustained in completely undisturbed and inviolate habitats. Their traditional beliefs and rituals sprang from healthy forest ecosystems. As forests deteriorated, tribal cultures vanished. Today, our protected wildlife areas reveal the last vestiges of pristine forests and not surprisingly these are the last sites of living, traditional, tribal culture. Why would anyone want to destabilise these cultural oases?’

Protecting forests and tribal cultures While social activists criticise the existing paradigm of development, they see no contradiction in championing laws that usher precisely such development strategies into the heart of wildlife areas, which conservationists have managed to keep relatively free from commercial harm. Today the only places where original forest cultures can be seen are in and around these wildlife sanctuaries, national parks and inaccessible places such as the North Sentinel Islands and the deep Northeast of India. Wildlife laws do not support forced displacement from protected forests. But neither do the laws allow market forces to use tribal communities as conduits to extract raw materials for exploitative markets that recognise no consumption limits. If younger members of tribal communities wish to avail of modern amenities, they must be provided the means to move out of protected wildlife habitats. Social activists who prevent them from doing so, themselves stand accused of abusing the human rights of such communities.

 

Extract from Sanctuary, Vol. XVI No. 5, October 1996, exhorting social activists to help protect wildlife almost a decade ago. We seem to have failed, but will continue to try and build bridges ‘As we go to press constituents of Tiger Link, a forum launched in February 1995 in defence of the tiger, have decided to escalate their battle by taking it to the people. This may well prove to be the last hope for the species because the voice of many tribal groups and leaders such as Medha Patkar of the Narmada Bachao Andolan, and Dr. B. D. Sharma, ex-Commissioner Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, has been joined to that of socially conscious wildlifers in defence of natural India and the tiger itself. To succeed, however, these groups will have to climb the wall built by powerful but visionless men guided by the light emanating from the World Bank. The outcome of this battle will be determined by the ability of very diverse groups to get together in joint purpose. Saving the tiger amounts to saving forest cultures which are in retreat even faster than the tiger itself.’

In September 1990, six Cabinet-approved circulars were passed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) outlining guidelines for the resolution of disputes by regularising claims on forest lands for leases valid prior to the passage of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The guidelines stressed the need for long-term alternative livelihoods for tribal communities. As expected, state governments were tardy and most claims remained unresolved. On 3 May 2002, the intellectually-feeble MoEF suddenly did a volte face. It issued a directive asking for the summary eviction of all illegal encroachers by 30 September 2002. By issuing a counter policy when the first policy itself was yet to be implemented, uncounted tribal communities were threatened with homelessness. Under justifiable pressure from outraged human rights NGOs, the MoEF later issued a clarification advising state governments to set up committees to review disputed land claims and to find alternative economic rehabilitation solutions for forest dwellers.

It is in this extremely unsatisfactory scenario that the proposed Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill 2005, (STB) has been mooted. We can and must restore dignity and self-sufficiency to the lives of traditional forest communities whose purpose, as near as possible, emulates the North Sentinelese of the Andamans, who reject modernity and ‘the market’. But India’s wounded, surviving, wildlife habitats certainly cannot be used as coinage to deliver justice to tribal communities displaced by dams, or otherwise extirpated from once-forested areas. This is what the STB seeks to do.

As of now we are back to square one, with nothing to show but broken promises and failed agendas. Neither the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, nor the MoEF have covered themselves in glory. Ideally, tribal activists and wildlife groups should be working in tandem to demand accountability from these two non-performers. The proviso, of course, being that solutions must be framed within the context of the survival of natural forests and the wild species that maintain such forests.

The simple demand now is to shift the ‘Forest’ portfolio from the MoEF to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA). The STB cannot be passed unless this is done. But this move will condemn all forests to oblivion. The MoTA has never once in its existence demonstrated a concern for natural forests. Its task all along has been to ‘bring tribals (including the Jarawa and North Sentinelese) into the mainstream.’

True tribal communities need pristine forests There was a time when much of India was clothed in dense forests. Tribal communities such as the Maria Gonds seen here in Bastar, were then able to take their sustenance from such forests with practiced ease. Today, the only dense forests that remain are the ones protected by wildlife and forest laws. Around these protected forests Bhils, Baigas, Gonds and Korkus are still in touch with their cultures. When forest lands are converted to revenue lands, a process that the tribal bill will enable, trees will vanish; wildlife will vanish; water sources will dry up. Instead, social activists and wildlife experts should work out ways to make tribal communities the first beneficiaries of forest biomass for their bonafide use. This should not involve feeding bottomless markets with forest produce from sanctuaries and national parks.

Yet, proponents of the STB doggedly insist the proposed legislation will do no harm, merely ‘correct historical injustices’. Clearly, they have not thought through their good intentions. Praveen Bhargav of Wildlife First puts the problem in sharp perspective: ‘In India, unlike in the heartland of the vast rain forests of Amazonia, we are not talking of very primitive cultures that are simply living off the land at very low densities of four or five people per 100 sq km. Rather, we are dealing with entire villages, people with aspirations for permanent agriculture, improving their economic status and raising livestock to generate cash incomes from virtually bottomless markets.’

None of the above can be satisfied if India agrees that wildlife sanctuaries and national parks are crucial assets that must to be protected for posterity. But tribal communities will nevertheless be fed false promises by transient politicians who, on the issue of the STB, make strange bedfellows with social activists who normally heap justified abuse on them. We can thus expect still more injustice to be inflicted on tribals whose hopes for land will be falsely raised.

 

But there is another issue that cries out for attention. What about the injustices to the wild species that dwell in the forests – the ones that plant the mahua and jamun trees, clean stream water and render soils fertile? The pressure of human ‘development’ has already herded these gardeners of our Eden into tiny isolated pockets. If these protected forests, national parks and sanctuaries are further dismantled, which they will if millions of tribal families are gifted the right to use millions out of the remaining 68 million ha. of forest, our wildlife is doomed. What is more, this will push the nation towards an even more vicious human-animal conflict as elephants, wild boar, tigers and leopards are forced into closer contact with humans who will poison and trap them in retaliation.

‘But people will protect the forest,’ say the social activists plaintively, without once caring to explain how people will do this against international wildlife trade cartels. It is difficult enough today to implement existing forest and wildlife laws. Tomorrow when thousands of gram pradhans, who themselves have unending complaints against wild animals, are asked to implement protection laws, wildlife protection will become a cruel joke.

The road to hell... paved with good intentions Two years ago a vociferous campaign was launched to give tribal people ‘rights’ over wild species. The instrument then was the infamous biodiversity bill, which sought to overwrite the wildlife and forest laws of India. This bill was eventually passed, but with its destructive clauses removed. This is exactly what needs to be done to de-fang the tribal bill. Wildlifers strongly support the idea of working with and securing the future of tribal communities. But the way forward is certainly not to render the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 useless. For all the flaws in its implementation this document is recognised the world over as one of the best pieces of wildlife legislation ever written. What tribal and wildlife groups must now do is to sit, clause by clause, and see how traditional forest community rights can be safeguarded, while ensuring that the pristinity and sanctity of forests is enhanced.

The MoEF is probably one of India’s least capable ministries, with the MoTA running a close second. Not far behind would be the Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR). All three ministries draw their purpose from the existence of forests, yet none seem even remotely committed to the defence, or even the understanding, of natural forests.

 

This is why the MoEF continues to parcel off vast portions of natural forests for dubious ‘developmental’ projects. It is also why the MoTA thinks nothing of condoning the felling of forests to ‘give employment to tribals.’ As for the MoWR, from its very inception it has considered forests to be expendable impediments in its path, rather than liquid assets without which the water security of India would die.

What the tribal bill wants to do: 1. Give rights to between two and 20 million tribal families over forest lands. 2. Make gram sabhas responsible for enforcement, by over-writing the wildlife and forest acts. 3. Convert forest villages into revenue villages to bring modern development. What it will actually achieve: 1. Millions of hectares of forest land could be further damaged, affecting tigers, elephants and rhinos. 2. As forest lands are converted to agriculture, water sources will perish. 3. Commercial interests will use tribals to claim forest real estate.

Vanishing tigers, permission for mines and industries in protected areas, diverting forest land for non-forest use, monoculture plantations, mismanaged tourism, fake environment impact assessments, promised relocations that never see the light of the day – those responsible for managing forests, the custodians of wild-life, have failed the nation. Eco-lethal projects continue to be the order of the day in wild India. Clearly the sorry state of affairs in forest India is the result of the MoEF’s monumental failure, embodied in its mandate to exploit rather than protect our natural resources. This is mirrored by the same attitudes and failures in the various states, ruled by governments with short-term objectives.

The recent tiger crises and the nexus between poachers, forest staff and local villagers is clear as daylight. In the case of Sariska, all players within the system failed the tiger but the greatest blame must surely fall on the Rajasthan Forest Department, not just for failing to protect but also for concealing the tiger deaths to escape responsibility.

This is what social activists quoted as a rationale for handing over charge of forests to village communities. But they forget that it was the villagers who actually poisoned and trapped the tigers.

 

Nevertheless, the suggestion that ‘people want to protect’ has hypnotic appeal. But it has one fatal flaw: local communities are not the forest dwellers of yore. Apart from a few notable examples such as the North Sentinelese and the Jarawa, the vast majority harbour aspirations no less eco-lethal than our own. Such aspirations were subdued because there was no real ability or incentive to destroy forests. The proposed STB will provide this incentive by offering forest dwellers the legal right and the means to profit from altered land-use patterns.

The end result? Forests will vanish, to be replaced by farms and wastelands. This is precisely why one cannot see rich forests on revenue lands, where wildlife and forest laws do not apply.

We see then, the fact that the human aspirations of the vast bulk of forest dwellers are not what social activists claim they are is what sets the STB up for failure. If the current wildlife and environment laws have proven difficult to implement thanks to political interference and lack of resources, then the STB will prove to be grossly unimplementable.

 

While the cut-off date has, for instance, been fixed at 1980, proving that someone was in possession of land a quarter century ago is almost impossible. It stands to reason that any gaps in systematic and adequate documentation will create confusion about legitimacy, leaving gaping loopholes that almost any gram sabha could manipulate one way or the other. Nevertheless, the STB asserts that the gram sabha will be in charge of the first rung of administration, deciding the validity of claims and later monitoring the use of that land.

The STB piously ‘prohibits’ anti-conservation activities and commercial cultivation, somewhat like King Canute who ordered back the ocean waves. The naïve presumption being that corruption and a lack of ecological foresight is a disease that afflicts only forest departments, not gram sabhas.

Of course, it is now official that ‘non-tribal’ forest dwellers are to be excluded from the act. Where does that leave the many Bangladeshis in Assam and Orissa, or the baan workers of Saharanpur, or the dalits, or the millions of non-tribals in West Bengal, Maharashtra, Kerala and Karnataka? Would the STB not antagonise these marginalised communities and lead to conflict with the tribals over land claims? Would a ‘green gold rush’ for land not be unleashed upon our nation? It stands to reason that as claims are painstakingly verified and settled, hordes would be motivated to migrate to disputed forest lands to try their luck. Even if they are later proved ineligible, they can count on someone to champion their ‘human right’ to live illegally in the forest. Eviction then would be both ‘difficult and heartless.’

Long-term human settlement in a forest area will inevitably necessitate the need for development of such ‘basics’ as roads, water supply, electricity. And such infrastructure will inevitably conflict with wildlife conservation imperatives. This will particularly hurt ancient communities that still know how to live off the forest, without modern amenities. Apart from a few highly academic anthropologists, few people are even aware of, leave alone in touch with, such remote communities.

Instead, urban activists have chosen to champion the dispossessed and the victimised and they want to use forest India to deliver their justice, claiming that those to whom pattas, or plots are given will use them judiciously and sensitively, without impacting nature.

What such activists ignore is the manner in which the trappings of modern life are dangled in front of tribal communities who are eventually used as a front by commercial interests, either to grab lands or forest resources.

The ‘daft’ bill provides for a one-time regularisation of land holdings up to a maximum of 2.5 ha. among tribals who can prove they were in possession of the land in 1980. It does not take into account that with progressive generations, the number of people dependent on one plot of land has increased and this will lead to division and sub-division among family members. When these smaller plots of land become inadequate for subsistence requirements, the tribals with no options of selling or commercial cultivation, will most probably move beyond their legal boundaries and technically become ‘encroachers’ again. As usual, we will come full circle. And then some social activists will pop up and induce an about-to-be elected politician to hand out more forest land to deliver ‘justice’ all over again.

What we need is a more permanent, long-term solution, and not a ploy to win eight per cent of the tribal vote by pretending to solve a problem. The forests of India can probably accommodate the bona fide needs of genuine forest dwellers. But the fragments of remaining land cannot support increasing populations of market-dependent communities and their livestock. It would be a monumental error to try and turn back the pre-colonial clock without understanding the realities of today and the fragility of relic ecosystems.

It is our position that those supporting tribal issues are not anti-wildlife and genuine wildlife people cannot be against traditional tribals either. Dedicated wildlifers and human rights activists must find the wisdom to unite to counter the common enemy – timber mafias, land grabbers and industries, particularly mining and large dams. And yes, the knowledge base of tribal communities is desperately needed to protect wildlife, particularly as this is being misused today by poachers. Forest India is crying out for good governance. This neither the MoEF, nor the MoTA are capable of providing. Perhaps a new federal ministry for the protection of forests and wildlife, with a mandate to protect traditional tribal communities could be the answer. But this needs unity, not Mad Max style warlords willing to kill for a cause, while refusing to live and let live.

 

Equal and opposite reactions ‘Tribal and wildlife activists should be working together to protect forests and the Campaign believes that the protection of forests and respect for community rights must go hand in hand, or neither will occur. This fact is recognised by conservation authorities the world over… The Campaign regards the tribal bill as a major step forward in recognising the forest communities’ rights and resolving the century-long conflict between forest communities and an authoritarian, corrupt and repressive forest bureaucracy.’ – Pradip Prabhu, National Convenor, Campaign for Survival and Dignity ‘Tribals were wrongly stripped off their rights under the colonial rule. But we can’t undo history. It will be a greater mistake to try and restore the pre-colonial situation. Instead, we must share the economic fruits of our mega-diversity with the locals and address their livelihood concerns. It’s sheer madness to tinker with the sanctity of the old growth (core) forests.’ – H.S. Panwar, Member Tiger Task Force ‘The task is to reverse the endangered symbiosis between forest and people by checkmating commercial and profit-making interests in the forests by empowering those who actually live in and around the forests, thereby weakening the powerful hold of the mafia and other destructive external commercial interests.’ – C.R. Bijoy, National Front for Tribal Self Rule ‘Tribal communities are no longer the simple, traditional people they once were, utilising forests just for sustenance. We should tread with caution before providing them with special facilities that may end up wiping out forests and wildlife, which are key to India’s water security.’ – Joydeep Bose, Wildlife Trust of India. ‘Satellite imagery confirms that the forests of India have virtually vanished where they were not protected by wildlife laws. The tribal bill if passed will be the death knell for Indian wildlife.’ – Bikram Grewal, Author and Publisher ‘Tribals need inviolate forests to sustain their cultures. The North Sentinelese have such forests. If this is the formula for protection, wildlife and social groups can unite.’ – Valmik Thapar, Member, Tiger Task Force