Tribal Bill is Death Warrant for Tigers, forests

(from an article by Prerna Singh Bindra in The Pioneer/ New Delhi, April 2005)

home

If the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government have their way and The Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill, 2005, is passed this Parliament session, India stands to lose 60 per cent of its forest cover.

Under the proposed Act, each nuclear family of a forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes will be given land up to 2.5 hectares. It's estimated that once the land is doled out, over 60 per cent of India's forests would be handed over to 8.2 per cent of its population.

In January, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had chaired a meeting approving the Bill. If passed, Scheduled Tribes will have access to and ownership of minor forest produce, rights of grazing and access to traditional seasonal resources. Besides, they will have the right to self-cultivation.

All of the above, cautions the Bill, can be exercised for 'bonafide' livelihood needs, though how this will be ascertained and policed remains questionable.

The rationale being offered is that the Bill will 'correct the historical injustice.' It argues that forest rights on ancestral lands and habitat were not recognised when lands were consolidated under forest areas during the colonial period as well as in independent India.

The proposed Act will override the Forest Conservation Act (FCA), 1980 and the Wildlife Protection Act (WPA), 1972 - measures that were initiated and piloted by then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi. The powers of policing will vest with Gram Sabhas, making the Forest Department redundant. "The Indian Forest Service might as well pack up," says a highly-placed source in the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF).

Conservationists call this proposed Act a sell-out to vote-bank politics. India's leading tiger expert Valmik Thapar says the Bill has been drafted without intelligence. "I think those who have drafted the Bill should go to a forest and get their feet really dirty to understand tribal belief, culture and wisdom. Then, they will understand the strong objections to this Bill," he says. "Tribals," he believes, "have a traditional respect for nature." He adds: "We have battered their ancient cultures. The younger generation of tribals, say in their 20s and 30s, have no sanctity. In the garb of tribal rights, the mafia have encroached on forest land, cut trees and exploited forest produce. Several such cases are pending before the various empowered commmittees and courts."

Says PK Sen, former director, Project Tiger, "Forests and protected areas cannot be used as barter for the failure of the fruits of development not reaching the tribals, even after 50 years of planned development."

The Bill puts the burden of protection of forests, and thereby the tiger, on the beneficiary of the Bill, the tribal. "Sariska was the only tiger reserve where there was people's participation in the conservation of the tiger and its habitat. But the tiger has vanished in Sariska, and the CBI report says the Bawariya tribes residing within the reserve supported the poachers. Will this Act mark the beginning of many more Sariskas?" Sen questions.

Thapar reasons that the Bill, if enacted, will defeat its very purpose. "National parks and sanctuaries are like sacred groves and the Bill suggests that they can be used. This is ridiculous and even older generations of tribals would disagree. It may temporarily give power to the tribals to use the forest, but what happens when the forest goes? Not only does the tribal go but every vestige of his culture will be wiped out."

Though the PMO has stepped in to proactively deal with the tiger crisis, the fact that the PMO is pushing the Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill, 2005 that will effectively wipe out the tiger's habitat, smacks of double speak.

The Bill marks a reversal of India's conservation policy. A pet project of the UPA, it puts a question mark on the very existence of tiger reserves and sanctuaries which advocate a comprehensive rehabilitation package for forest dwellers.

The Bill is also in direct confrontation with the Supreme Court, which, in an order dated November 13, 2000, had banned dereservation of forests. It also contravenes the National Forest Policy, 1988, which demands that one-third of geographical area be under forest and tree cover.

The MoEF contends that it stands committed to safeguard tribal rights but without irreparable damage to natural resources. It is committed to regularise the pre-1980 encroachments under the 1990 guidelines issued under the FCA Act to recognise the rights of tribals. Under this, the MoEF has successfully regularised 3.66 lakh hectares of forestland.

It is also feared that the constitution of the Tiger Task Force might be another tool to advocate this pro-tribal bias, since barring two, other members' body of work espouse people's participation in conservation. A source in the forest department says that one of the mandates of the Tiger Task Force is to advocate people's participation in conservation. "Even if there is a note of dissent, the committee is just a cover-up to push this Bill. The report of this task force will help in piloting the Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forests) Bill, 2005," he claims.

A MoEF official argues, "There is no point in putting the word, 'Scheduled' in the Bill without understanding the needs of traditional tribes. Which are the traditional tribes we are talking about? Do they exist anymore? If so, where are they? What are their needs today in the changing milieu?" The Bill is being passed post-haste without proper dialogue and displays a clear ignorance of the issues, reducing 'tribal rights' to a mere populist measure.