People's Democracy

Towards A Campaign For The Proposed

Amendments In The Tribal Rights Bill

Brinda Karat

THE Joint Committee of Parliament formed to examine the Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill 2005 has finalised its recommendations and moved amendments to the original Bill which has been placed on the table of both houses of parliament on May 23rd. The amended bill will now go to the cabinet for final approval. It is expected that it should be moved for consideration and passage in the forthcoming monsoon session of parliament.

The joint committee heard evidence from all the ministries involved namely, Tribal Affairs, Rural Development, Social Justice and Empowerment, Environment and Forests, Panchayat and Law and Justice. The committee received 109 memoranda from different organisations and heard 43 presentations from delegations and individuals. Among them were representatives of the Adivasi Ekta Mahasabha, Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh, the Kisan Sabha, the All India Agricultural Workers Association, the All India Democratic Women’s Association and many NGOs, specialists and individuals working on tribal issues in different states.

The joint committee under the chairmanship of Lok Sabha member Shri Kishore Chandra Deo consisted of 30 members of parliament representing all political parties including Baburao, Bajubang Reang and myself from the CPI(M). We had moved approximately 40 amendments to the bill. It is a positive feature that the committee after a detailed clause by clause discussion has unanimously approved all the substantive amendments moved along with those by several other members which have resulted in a much needed strengthening of the bill. All members noted the exemplary role of the chairman in this exercise. It is worth noting that a large number of the members were themselves tribal and had direct experience of the problems being faced and were therefore unanimous in their desire to undo the injustice faced by tribals.

BACKGROUND

It is well known but still requires reiteration to counter the utterly misleading propaganda by those against the bill that the bill does not grant any fresh or new rights but is limited to ensuring that existing rights of tribals are legally recognised. At present even according to the highly unsatisfactory data produced by the government 1.34 million hectares, that is just 1.73 per cent of total forest area has been “encroached” on, to use the highly discriminatory language of the MOEF ministry. The ministry has no information as to how many of these “encroachers” are tribals who have been denied pattas by precisely those departments who are now identifying them as encroachers. Lack of statistical data also helps to protect land and timber mafias who are the actual encroachers often with the connivance of the forest department.

Indeed in the course of the discussions it became crystal clear that the lack of primary data, the lack of legal definitions for words widely used including “forest land” has permitted the concerned departments to usurp rights including land rights from tribals and other marginalised sections. It is therefore important for our movements to question the statistical basis of the assertions of tribal encroachments. For example in an answer to a an unstarred question in parliament (December 23, 2005) the Ministry of Environment stated that within just two years, that is from 2001 to 2003 the extent of “forest land” had increased by as much as 6.30 lakh hectares. When further asked what was the criterion for takeover of such land as forestland the answer was simply that land could be so notified under the various provisions of law. But there was no answer to the actual question of what is the “criteria” for notification. So at present any government can notify land arbitrarily as forestland and once the land is notified its custody rests with the government. This could be called official land grab! .

Other terms without legal definition but with wide implications for both tribal rights and for conservation are terms such as “core area” “buffer zone” to describe areas, which are considered necessary for wild life protection. How are these areas to be decided? Is it not necessary to have a site by site scientific analysis involving experts in the field as well as local communities? Can it be left only to the ministry as at present? The need for clarity in definitions has also been highlighted by a recent amendment moved to the Wild Life Protection Act. Words like “buffer”,” core” “tiger bearing forests” to give a few examples were liberally used not only without any definitions but also to extend the rights of the ministry over larger areas excluding tribals. In fact it was only on the intervention of the CPI(M) that this amendment was postponed in the just concluded session of parliament to prevent any conflict with the recommendations on definitions in the Tribal Bill suggested by the Joint Select Committee.

It is thus necessary to question the lack of clarity on definitions and the equally deliberate selective information of statistics that have been the norm.

The propaganda that this bill by recognising tribal rights on forestland will be disastrous for forest and wild life conservation and protection, is again misplaced. In fact it is tribal populations who have conserved and protected forest cover. Thus 63 per cent of the dense forest cover of the country is in the 187 tribal districts presumably because it has been protected by tribal communities. Of the 58 districts where forest cover is 67 per cent and above, 51 are tribal districts. On the contrary it is different agencies of the government that are diverting land for non-forestry purposes. The Ministry of Mines for example has diverted as much as 9722.77 hectares of forest land in fifth schedule areas for mining in 137 projects in a single year of 2005. In just one multi-purpose project of Pollavaram in Andhra Pradesh which has just started over 2700 hectares of dense forestland will be submerged but the Ministry of Environment and Forests gave the clearance in a record 24 hours!

In the neo-liberal framework with corporate sector committing crores of rupees in projects to exploit India’s vast natural resources for huge profits, the diversion of forestland can only increase. The mineral wealth of the country is in the tribal districts. The poorest people live on the richest land. In state after state MOUs are being signed with MNCs which will mean takeover of forestland and huge numbers of forest dwellers being dispossessed. It is thus all the more necessary to bring in a bill, which will ensure the primacy of tribal rights over forestland so as to give tribal communities some protection against displacement. This will require a comprehensive movement on issues like land acquisition, relief and rehabilitation policies and so on.

The double standards being used to deprive tribals of their rights in the name of conservation of forests while permitting loot of the areas in the name of development must be exposed and strongly condemned in our campaigns.

Tribals and particularly tribal women whose livelihood depends on the use of minor forest produce have faced terrible repression and sometimes brutality including sexual assault and harassment at the hands of the forest guards and other officials. In a discussion recently with the National Women’s Commission it was suggested that a record be compiled of the number of cases against tribal women by the forest department or other authorities. In 2004 it was found that in Orissa there were as many as 11,424 cases by the Forest department on tribals, men and women involving forest produce of less than 100 rupees. This shocking revelation gives a glimpse of the horrible situation that tribals face. Thus the struggle over control of minor forest produce is extremely important if the traditional livelihood of forest dwelling communities is to be protected.

ISSUES AND AMENDMENTS

Inclusion of non-tribal forest dwelling communities

An important amendment in the bill is to include the rights of non-tribal traditional forest dwelling communities while at the same time keeping the focus squarely on tribal rights. According to some official estimates the percentage of such communities could be as high as 36 per cent outside the northeast states, mainly scheduled castes and most backward communities. They include those communities who may be recognised as scheduled tribe in one state but not recognised as such in another. It would have disastrous social consequences if these communities, poor and deprived, are evicted from the forests leading to widespread distress and injustice. At the same time there is an apprehension and danger of illegal encroachers benefiting under this inclusion clause. The amendment therefore differentiates between the conditions of eligibility for the non-tribal traditional forest dwellers. A separate section has been included in the bill in which the term “traditional forest dwellers” is defined as those having lived in the forest for three generations. The name of the bill will be changed to include other traditional forest dwelling communities. At the same time the nodal agency for implementation of the bill is retained with the Tribal Affairs Ministry. This inclusion will strengthen unity of communities who have been living together in the forest for generations and enable them to unitedly access right being made available to them under the Bill.

Cut-Off Year and Land Rights

The committee has moved two important amendments in this connection. The bill had kept 1980 as the cut-off year. This was presumably based on a Supreme Court judgement in 2000, which had struck down a MOEF circular which had suggested recognition of land rights till 1993 and suggested 1980 as the cut-off year. The concern of the MOEF to have a cut-off year is legitimate because as more and more profits are to be had in controlling areas of bio-diversity including forest areas, unscrupulous elements could utilise any open ended clause for their own benefit. At the same time the cut-off year of 1980 if retained will convert a law meant to help tribals into one that will become an instrument for mass evictions. Tribals in most parts of the country do not have requisite proof prior to 1980 because of denial of registration. Moreover tribals displaced from forests due to various projects since 1980, in the absence of rehabilitation may have had to settle in other forest areas. The 1980 cut-off date would therefore mean double and sometimes triple dispossession. The amendment is to keep the date of the introduction of the bill, that is December 13, 2005 as the cut-off mark. At the same time there is another amendment which enumerates the various types of evidence which may be accepted to meet the eligibility clause.

The bill had wrongly put a ceiling of 2.5 hectares per nuclear family. This is patently discriminatory and far lower than land ceilings anywhere in the whole country. Moreover the land held by tribals and traditional forest dwelling communities is usually unproductive, often in hilly areas, stony, dependent on rain for irrigation. The concept of nuclear families mentioned in the bill may vary among different tribal communities and between regions. The amendment is therefore to do away with any such ceiling.

An important amendment has been moved in relation to communities living within national parks and sanctuaries and protected areas. At present there are 592 protected areas in the country. The arbitrary actions of various authorities in evicting communities from such areas as well as curtailing their rights to minor forest produce is well documented. The bill, as mentioned earlier had reference to “core” areas and “buffer zones”. The amendment has suggested that these concepts should be replaced by “critical wild life habitat.” The area required is to be decided by an expert committee on a site-specific basis. Communities living in these identified areas will in the first instance be given the same rights as those living in other areas. This is to prevent any arbitrary eviction. However government may relocate communities with their consent and on the basis of an agreed relief and rehabilitation package, provided that the communities have the right to return if the agreed package is not implemented within an agreed time framework. The amendment therefore recognises and addresses the concern of conservationists for specific areas free of human habitation while at the same time preventing a fatwa raj where such areas are decided arbitrarily without any consultation or regard for those who have been living in such areas for generations.

The question of shifting cultivation is also very important particularly for the northeast states. The amendment recognises the rights of shifting cultivators without conditions.

(To be continued)