The New Year dawned
with the notification of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional
Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, (Forest
Rights Act) as well as the Rules. Many people are either for or against
it. There are those who believe that historical injustice has been done
to forest dwelling tribals and other communities especially during the
reservation process. Tiger advocates are under the impression that the
last portions of forest lands will be handed over to these communities
who cannot coexist with wildlife and especially tigers. The truth
probably lies in between.
It has taken
almost two years for the government of India to formulate the Act and
the Rules. The wait is finally over. The dilatory tactics applied,
however, show a plain lack of understanding of the intent and purpose
of the Act. Clearly, the two most vulnerable categories, the tiger and
tribal, have suffered.
In the melee, have we lost the real debate amid the tigerwallahs and
the tribalwallahs and sacrificed both the tiger and the tribal? The
present impasse on the Forest Rights Act, which will have a tremendous
bearing on its implementation, hinges around misinformation,
exaggeration and lack of understanding on the amount of land to be
transferred, ownership, process of recognition, the cut-off date,
duties and the scope of the Act.
The preamble, which is the basis of any legislation, is categorical in
its intent—to recognize and vest forest rights in those who have been
residing in forests for generations, but whose rights could not be
recorded. These rights include the responsibility and authority for
sustainable use, conservation of biodiversity and maintenance of
ecological balance. These are well established principles globally,
where security of tenure is the cardinal principle to ensure an
effective conservation strategy. Forest management since the mid-1970s,
including the forest policy, clearly recognizes the central role of
communities in forest management.
What are these perceptions and exaggerations? Does the Act hand over
4ha of forest land to every tribal family? No, the recognition is about
existing occupation up to a maximum of 4ha, to be validated in a
three-level scrutiny process where every department concerned,
including forest, tribal, revenue and panchayat, would be involved in
verifying the veracity of the claims based on sound evidence.
The Act is not about regularizing encroachment, it’s about recording
unrecorded rights
The rationale for 4ha of land can certainly be questioned. This magical
figure is a bargain between the 2.5ha envisaged earlier on the basis of
existing forest village rules to the “as is where basis is” advocated
by the joint parliamentary committee. There is no scientific or legal
basis for the 4ha figure. Another contentious issue is the cut-off
date. In my view, this Act has no relevance to a cut-off date.
Historical injustice has to be proved by historical records. 13
December 2005 is not a historical date. A cut-off date hints at
regularization of encroachment and is certainly a reason for acrimony
from the tiger lobby. But this Act is not about regularization of
encroachment; it is about recording unrecorded rights and following a
due process.
Tiger advocates claim that several thousand hectares will be
transferred to tribals and ownership will be granted by the Act. The
Act nowhere mentions either ownership (except for minor forest produce)
or forest land transfer. It only secures tenure and usufructs on forest
land to those who have been residing since generations.
Some also argue that the gram sabha, the lowest unit of governance,
cannot be given the important task of initiating the recognition
process for it lacks capacity. Why are we so reluctant to rely on the
wisdom of the ordinary gram or gaon? And who really conserves forests?
Aren’t the daily wagers involved in forestry, watchers, guides,
informers, knowledge holders on forest, the village boy who shows the
tigers to the urban tiger enthusiasts, members of the same forest
dwelling communities? This Act is about their security on the land they
live on.
So, who is the real threat to India’s wildlife and tigers? We have not
yet been able to crack the wildlife crime syndicate even after 35 years
of the Wildlife (Protection) Act. Instead we focus only on the Salman
Khans and the Pataudis. The sad fact is that we have failed to devise
effective strategies to tackle wildlife crimes—the biggest reason for
wildlife depletion in our country.
Another contentious issue in the Act is that of “critical wildlife
habitat”. This has also been pitted against the critical tiger habitat
under the Wildlife (Protection) Act. A close look makes it clear there
are only minor differences regarding jurisdiction and nothing else. The
process of declaring both these habitats is the same and making them
inviolate follows a similar process.
Further, the ongoing discourse about forest rights seems to suggest
that these rights are absolute and override all existing provisions of
conservation-oriented laws. This is a classic case of missing both the
letter and the spirit.
The Act does not bar the operation of other laws and it gains supremacy
only to the extent of the process of recognition of forest rights.
It is the Rules which fall short of expectations as they do not
elaborate the process of conserving and managing forests.
http://www.livemint.com/2008/02/03232126/Missing-the-tribal-for-the-tre.html
Copyright © 2007 HT Media.
