| Tigers or tribals? Tribals versus tigers. This is how the discussion on the Tribal Forest Rights Act is being framed. The law, which was enacted by Parliament a while ago, is aimed at conferring land rights on people who already live in forested regions. But these homes of the poorest also house the country’s magnificent wild animals, like tigers. It is critical that their habitat should be protected and future safeguarded. Is it possible to reconcile the interests of what seem to be two competing groups?
|
| |
| Two years ago, when the debate was stormy, I was asked to head a task force to suggest how tigers could be safeguarded. Over three months, the specialists we met believed that it was important to reserve areas for wildlife. Otherwise, they said, the tiger would not survive.
|
| |
| I approached the issue from different perspectives. I had for long understood that the future of people and forests is entwined. But I was willing to listen to the experience of those who believed in the tiger. If co-existence was not possible, we needed to find strategies to relocate people who lived in the tiger’s territory.
|
| |
| But what we found shocked me. After 30 years of wildlife conservation efforts, fronted by the country’s most powerful, we had forgotten people. In these 30 years we had managed to relocate 80-odd villages from protected reserves. We estimated that another 1,500 villages existed in just 28 tiger reserves. Worse, relocation was done in the most ham-handed and inhuman manner. The authorities had done just about everything to make people trespassers in their own land; everything to turn them against the tiger we want to protect.
|
| |
| Our answer was two-pronged. One, we agreed that inviolate space was important for wild animals. But the people who were making space for the tiger needed to be given a good deal—not marginal forestland which would make them more destitute. Two, we suggested the need to identify and prioritise relocation of those villages that were in the most critical of wildlife habitats. In the remaining villages, which would have to live in the reserves, we suggested a new bargain — sharing benefits of conservation with local communities, from preferential shares in tourism to collaborative management of our reserves.
|
| |
| This led to some developments. The government agreed to enhance the package for relocated families from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 10 lakh; it agreed to conduct a census of tigers in the country, which would pinpoint their presence in different habitats. The tiger census is the first step to identify the critical habitats that need to be protected and to list the human settlements that need to be relocated. With this done, the agenda of coexistence will need to kick in.
|
| |
| But unfortunately, the tribal versus tiger lobbies are bent on scoring points, not building consensus. First, the tiger lobby blocked the bill. Then, an uneasy truce was brokered to provide for the relocation of people and maintain their rights. In late 2005, the bill presented to Parliament included a provision that temporary pattas (land deeds) would be given to people who were to be relocated from sanctuaries and national parks. This would ensure that their rights were protected, but also it would ensure that the government would undertake their relocation within a time-bound schedule.
|
| |
| Then the tribal lobby, which has the advantage in Parliament, upped the ante. In late 2006, the Act, finalised by a Joint Parliamentary Committee dropped this clause. Inside, it inserted an altogether new term, critical wildlife habitats, which would need to be established as areas to be kept inviolate for wildlife.
|
| |
| This has led conservationists to react. They want all wildlife areas (some 600-odd) to be re-designated as critical wildlife habitats and removed from the ambit of the Act. Now they have the upper hand. For the moment, the Act is stalled. The next round belongs to the tribal lobby. It is, after all, a wrestling match.
|
| |
| In all this, let us be clear, the losers are tribals and tigers. It is not tigers versus tribals. It is everyone against them. |
| |
|
| |
Content Guide
