THE Congress Party has always been sensitive to tribal issues and this is amply reflected in the Common Minimum Programme of the UPA government. I would like to quote three paragraphs from the common minimum programme that highlight the UPA government’s concern about tribals and their livelihood issues in the forest areas.

‘The UPA will urge the states to make legislation for conferring ownership rights in respect of minor forest produce, including tendu patta, on all those people from the weaker sections who work in the forests.’

‘The UPA administration will take all measures to reconcile the objectives of economic growth and environmental conservation, particularly as far as tribal communities dependent on forests are concerned.’

‘Eviction of tribal communities and other forest-dwelling communities from forest areas will be discontinued. Cooperation of these communities will be sought for protecting forests and for undertaking social afforestation. The rights of tribal communities over mineral resources, water sources, etc. as laid down by law will be fully safeguarded.’

To fulfil the above issues the Government of India asked the Ministry of Tribal Affairs to draft a comprehensive bill. They in turn coopted certain activists who have been agitating on tribal issues in the drafting committee.

The draft bill was sent to the Ministry of Environment and Forests for comments and all hell broke loose thereafter. Notwithstanding the fact that the draft bill was a secret document, it was leaked to the environmentalists and wildlife conservationists, resulting in immediate strong lobbying against it.

Before we go further, I would like trace the history of forest rights of the people living in the forest areas. Before the British came in, the ruling princes had rights over the forest and in far-flung areas. The tribals lived on forest produce and also by cultivating parts of the forest area. Over the centuries, the tribals were driven into the hills and forests by people who came from the North and took possession of the fertile lands in the river valleys. The Englishmen brought in the Indian Forest Act 1927, taking away the rights of the forests from the tribals and made provisions in the Forest Act that denied the inherent rights of the people. They also started the process of scientific exploitation of the forest areas and thereafter, set up the Forest Research Institute in Dehradun and instituted the forest services. Some of the enlightened rulers also adopted scientific management of forests to raise revenue.

Soon after independence, the Government of India transferred the rights over forests to the states thereby enabling different state governments to exploit the forests to raise revenues. Unfortunately, in the process the inherent rights of the tribals and forest-dwellers were restricted to the nistari rights where they were given the right to free grazing and fuelwood even as those over timber and non-timber produce remained with the state government. Over the years, the unholy nexus between the forest contractors and representatives of the government for the incentive of getting tribal votes, encouraged large scale felling of forests.

In 1976 the Constitution was amended and forests were brought under the concurrent list to enable the Parliament to pass the Wildlife Conservation Act.

 

As the denudation of forests had become alarming, the Forest Conservation Act was passed in 1980 by the Parliament at Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s initiative. By enacting the Forest Conservation Act, the Government of India took away the rights of state governments to convert forest land for non-forest use. The state government now had to seek permission from the Government of India for any development work within the forest area, even if it meant taking an electric line through the forest. The cut-off date of 25 October 1980 was decided for regularizing the encroachments of forest dwellers on forest land.

The definition of forest as mentioned in the Forest Conservation Act was of a forest as defined in the Indian Forest Act 1927. In 1996, however, the Supreme Court enlarged the definition of forest to cover even those areas which were notified as village forests on revenue land. This gave immense power to the officers in Paryavaran Bhavan such that anyone who wanted to set up an industry, take up mining leases or projects of irrigation, road, power involving even a fraction of an acre had to use all their resources to get a clearance from the Paryavaran Bhavan in New Delhi.

In 1995, T.N Godavarman filed a public interest litigation on the issue of depletion of forest areas. This came as a great opportunity for the mandarins of Paryavaran Bhavan to further increase their stranglehold on any subject concerning forests. They also obtained a court order to improve service conditions of the Indian Forest Services. They managed a directive from the Supreme Court that the Collector should not write the confidential report (CR) of the divisional forest officer (DFO), nor should any officer of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) write the confidential report of officers of the Indian Forest Services. The Godavarman case still continues in the Supreme Court. But through different orders the Supreme Court has set up an empowered committee to look into each case of conversion of forest land for non-forest use and report to it. This, in literal terms, implies that the Supreme Court has assumed the management of forests.

Unfortunately, the public interest litigation never discussed the rights of forest-dwellers; nor do they have the means to raise their voice or be heard in the Supreme Court.

The forest villages were set up by the Britishers for housing the labour employed in the commercial exploitation of forest areas. They were only given pattas to cultivate some part of the forest land for their livelihood. The people in forest areas got employment through forest activities of the state government. But after the restrictions imposed on forestry practices by the Supreme Court, the misery of the people living in forest villages deepened and most families suffered from malnutrition. Although the Supreme Court empowered committee has recommended the conversion of forest villages into revenue villages, unfortunately this is being done on a case to case basis through a lengthy and tedious procedure. Clearly it will take a long time for all forest villages in the country to be converted into revenue villages.

The other disputed issue relates to old habitations before the Indian Forest Act 1927 came into being. The disputed claims of the forest settlement run into lakhs of acres of forest land and the people who are in possession of such land have been continuously harassed by forest officials as being encroachers. Although in some states a forest settlement officer was appointed, but the disposal of such cases was very poor.

B.D. Sharma, a retired IAS officer of the Madhya Pradesh cadre, has been raising issues concerning tribals ever since he was Collector Bastar and is closely identified with the plight of tribals in India. Through the Bharat Jan Andolan he managed to influence the government to set up a committee to look into tribal issues. Subsequently, a committee under Dilip Singh Bhuria, a former Member of Parliament, was set up to extend the provisions of part IX of the Constitution concerning panchayats to the scheduled areas. The Bhuria Committee produced a revolutionary report which was submitted to the Government of India and B.D. Sharma was able to influence Purno Sangma who was then Speaker of the Lok Sabha to have the recommendations of the Bhuria Committee report incorporated in a constitution amendment, which was known as the Panchayat Extension to the Scheduled Areas Act 1996 (PESA).

Purno Sangma, himself a tribal, persuaded all political parties to pass this bill with wide-ranging ramifications in the Parliament without any discussion. Through this bill the gram sabha was empowered to take decisions on issues of land, water, forest and minerals. However, the relevant laws and rules of the Government of India and the state government are yet to be amended to make PESA implementable.

 

The Scheduled Tribe (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill 2005, is a honest attempt to give the rights to forest dwelling scheduled tribes, but the safety valves incorporated in the bill may well negate the very intent of the government. As per the draft bill, every decision of the gram sabha will go for ratification to a sub-divisional committee and a district committee. The composition of the committees has been kept open to be decided through rules that are to be framed later. Consequently any government which is not sensitive to the cause of the tribals can veto any proposal of the gram sabha (Section 6).

Unfortunately in the debate between the supporters and opponents of this bill, the important issue of livelihood of forest dwellers has been completely lost. What is important is to provide livelihood to all forest dwellers and not only to the scheduled tribe forest dwellers. Although a majority of forest dwellers belong to the scheduled tribes, there are a large number of scheduled caste (SC) and other backward castes (OBCs) whose economic condition is no different from the STs, and their rights cannot be ignored. We will not be able to look after the interest of the tribals effectively until and unless we involve the other forest dwellers also.

The forests cannot be conserved by forest employees alone until and unless all stakeholders, who are forest dwellers, are involved in the conservation and preservation of forests, including wildlife. The forest should not be seen merely as a source of revenue for the state but as a source of livelihood for the forest dwellers.

 

All encroachments on forest lands prior to 25 October 1980 should be settled and all forest villages converted into revenue villages. This does not require any amendments in the present law. The task can be easily accomplished provided there is strong political will in the government.

Post-1980 encroachments too can be taken up by the state governments through formulating a scheme in which encroachers are assured livelihood with food security in protecting the forest and making them owners of the timber and non-timber forest produce. They can be given employment in water harvesting schemes or digging a pond/dug well, and permitted inter-cropping between the rows of tree plantation. Through drip irrigation the plantation can be raised in a short time and the timber productivity would also go up.

The revenue earned by the states can be given back to the forest dwellers after deducting logging, hauling and storage charges. This has been attempted in Madhya Pradesh. All this can be done in as little time as the next couple of years, without amending any law.

Despite the Forest Conservation Act, no state could check the depletion of forest area nor save the dwindling wildlife because it is not humanly possible. It was only once the community was empowered and involved through participatory management of forests in the nineties that the decline has been arrested. The satellite images have shown an increasing trend of forest cover in most states. In my opinion, instead of introducing legislation, either in the form of forest conservation and wildlife preservation acts or in the form of a tribal bill, it would be more fruitful to draft a new Indian Forest Act which would give rights of forest to the forest dwellers and involve them in the conservation and preservation of forests. Such an act should incorporate provisions to give employment and livelihood to the forest dwellers, make them owners of timber and non-timber forest produce, and clarify the definition of ‘forest’. The state should become a facilitator of scientific management of forests rather than a sole proprietor of forest produce.

 

An estimate of the total revenue from timber and non-timber forest produce of all states in the country would be less than Rs 3000 crore. If the state governments are compensated for this loss, either totally or substantially, they will be less likely to object. The amount of money that is currently being spent on STs through the tribal sub-plan could easily be used to compensate state governments in scheduled areas and from the budget in the non-scheduled areas.

Therefore, instead of going into the merits and demerits of the proposed scheduled tribe bill there is a need to redraft the Indian Forest Act, so that the abundant natural resources of forests become a major source of livelihood and employment for all forest dwellers and at the same time ensure that the forest and wildlife are scientifically managed. We can regenerate our denuded forest lands through the involvement of stake holders who are the forest dwellers. This was successfully done in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s. Why is India lagging behind?