THE fact that the Government of India has finally put up a draft tribal bill on the website of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs is a positive sign that it has realized that the proposed bill is not all what it was meant to be. It has also settled the earlier confusion that arose because at least three different drafts of the bill were circulating on the internet.

It has also settled some of the confusion regarding the potential beneficiaries – these are now defined as ‘Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes’ – FDSTs in short. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA), has also attached an introduction and a note to the draft bill, and we must thank them for this because the ignorance and false propaganda that pervades the entire document is self-evident to all those who are familiar with the forests and tribals.

First, let me try and dispel a few romantic myths. The most popular one is that tribals love forests and wildlife. Well, in a sense, perhaps they do, as much as we urban dwellers all love our ration shops and supermarkets. The second myth is that tribals live in harmony with nature. This is also true to an extent, if you can accept the fact that burning the forests and killing all forms of wildlife can be considered harmony. The third myth is that there is a symbiotic relationship between tribals and forests – but to me, this relationship seems to be as symbiotic as the village moneylender and his victims.

Let me explain why I am saying this. The traditional tribal existence within forests was one in which tribal communities survived by carrying on the practice of shifting cultivation (also called jhum). This practice involved the cutting down and burning of large patches of forests. Each patch was then cultivated by a tribal family. Since these forest soils are normally thin and not very productive, they could support the cultivation of coarse grains such as bajra and jowar. Most of these lands had no access to irrigation and a number of crops were rainfed. The cultivation on a particular plot normally continued till the soil lost its fertility (tribals obviously did not have the ability to provide artificial inputs in the form of fertilizers and pesticides). And once the land lost its productivity, this cycle was repeated again and again.

This is one of the reasons why the tribals did not have any title to the land. Obviously, as long as they were the only occupants/users of these large stretches of forests, there was no conflict and there was no problem. There was also no curb on their destructive tendencies, but since the forest areas were huge and the tribal populations small, the forests could regenerate naturally and survive.

 

All this changed with the British invasion. Besides destroying the entire country, they also caused a ‘grave historical injustice’ to the tribal community. The proposed Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill, 2005 seeks to remedy this grave historical injustice that has been inflicted on tribals.

What the proposed tribal bill seeks to do is shocking: (i) It is intended to apply to national parks, sanctuaries and reserved forests; (ii) It seeks to override the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, and the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972; (iii) It seeks to give title to land to those encroachers who were occupying lands as on 25 October 1980 (the date when the Forest Conservation Act came into force); (iv) Whilst the bill seeks to confer rights on these encroachments, it does not deal with how the tribals will benefit from lands that cannot be cultivated (most of these are poor rain-fed rocky soils unfit for agriculture) and cannot be sold or transferred; and (v) The most important value of the forests, i.e., its role in providing water, is completely ignored.

If the bill as proposed is enacted, it means that every tribal who was occupying forest land as on 25 October 1980 would be given title of up to 2.5 hectares of this land. This will override the existing provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. It will also negate a whole series of orders passed by various courts in India for the protection of our forests and protected areas. It will lead to a situation whereby the entire forest areas will be honeycombed with encroachments which will inevitably lead to a situation whereby wildlife species that need large tracts of undisturbed forests to survive would disappear.

This brings us to another issue – one that has been highlighted by the tribal lobby as ‘tribals versus tigers’. As far as I am concerned, there is no justification for the ‘versus’ – both tribals and tigers need to survive. The only difference is that whilst tribals have some options of surviving without forests (barring the primitive tribes), the tigers have none.

 

Unfortunately, there are just a handful of these primitive tribes left; most other tribal communities – just like you and me – have been bitten by the bug of consumerism and the benefits of modern urban attractions. Most tribals no longer wish to live in isolated areas that have no electricity, water, sanitation, education and health facilities. And it is a sad fact that despite the thousands of crores having been spent on the provision of basic facilities such as schools, health centres and tribal ashrams, most of rural India still does not have access to even the most basic infrastructure facilities. And the tribals have also realized that despite all the promises made to them, it is only in urban centres that they can hope to get facilities of this kind.

Just giving forest lands to tribals, particularly lands that are degraded and not fit for cultivation, will be of little benefit to the genuine tribals, since they do not have the ability to provide inputs to improve the productivity of these lands. The fact that shifting cultivation cannot be permitted in this day and age is accepted by almost all sections of society – even the tribal bill seems to accept this since the tribals are to be given ‘ownership rights’ only to the land that they actually occupied as on 25 October 1980 – obviously this will not permit them to burn down and cultivate new patches of forest lands. The lands proposed to be allotted to the tribals cannot be sold or transferred either. The question is: What will they do with this land? Will they really benefit from this?

The tribal bill does not indicate how infrastructure to these areas will be provided. Will roads, electricity lines, water pipes, health centres and schools also be excluded from the purview of the wildlife and forest acts? And has any exercise been carried out to determine how much land will be required for these facilities? It is not clear why the government is not considering an alternative package for tribals that will give them a chance to enter the mainstream of society, if they choose to do so.

 

The significance of the FCA is also being overlooked – in fact, there is a concerted campaign to make the FCA the villain of the piece. In reality, the FCA did not prohibit the diversion of forest lands to anyone; it does, however, require the state governments to compensate for the loss of forest lands and to take prior permission of the Centre before they actually divert forest lands for non-forestry use. And since the FCA came into force on 25 October 1980, through the committed efforts of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, that date has become the landmark for this issue.

We must also remember that encroachments in forest lands have been regularized over the years. In Maharashtra, all forest encroachments were regularized up to 31 March 1974 as per a government resolution. The cut-off date was sought to be extended to 31 March 1978 by another GR, and then to 31 March 1979 by yet another GR, keeping in mind the need to garner votes for elections. Unfortunately for the politicians, the FCA put a stop to this unhealthy practice.

And whilst it is undisputed that management of forest lands should be with the participation of local people, it cannot be done by tribals (or anyone else for that matter) bypassing the forest department. It is ironical that a bill that seeks to ensure ‘transparency’ for tribals was sought to be introduced in a most non-transparent manner. We have to thank our lucky stars that some young MPs, who were aware of the ground realities, managed to at least open it for discussion.

What has also emerged from this whole exercise is the total inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the MoEF in protecting forests, wildlife and the water resources of our country. It has been a dismal failure, preoccupied with its high stakes clearance of projects that destroy the very areas it is mandated to protect.

It is high time that the MoEF is split up into two separate ministries – one for environment and the other for forests – so as to ensure that the forest lands in our country are protected for the sake of our water resources, genetic diversity, ethical and religious considerations, and for posterity. It is painfully obvious that the MoEF has been unable to live up to its task of protecting our forests and instead has been bending over backwards to clear industrial and infrastructure projects that destroy forests. Divesting it of its responsibility to protect forests will be a step in the right direction. But to hand over forests to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs is certainly not a great idea!