Defining a forest

What is a forest? Odd as it may sound, the country does not have an unambiguous concept of a forest. Neither the Indian Forest Act, 1927, nor the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, defines what a forest is though they bar all non-forestry (read economic) activities on forest land. To compound the ambiguity, the Supreme Court ordered in a landmark decree that the dictionary description of forests, which in itself is vague, be used for determining forest land. Though the ministry of environment and forests has started evolving a uniformly applicable definition of forests, its draft definition only makes matters worse. Its note on the subject, circulated to the states for their comments, describes a forest somewhat tautologically as "an area notified as forest in any Act or recorded as forest in any government record". What makes this absurd is the explanatory addendum that avers, inter alia, that even water bodies and deserts will fall in the sway of this definition.

This is not a matter of semantics. Such a twist to the concept of forests will extend the forest ministry's ambit of control over a vast additional area, rendering all of it out of bounds for any economic activity. Besides making it hard to get land for industrial and development purposes, it will jeopardise the livelihood of the forest-dependent population, fanning the fires of Naxalism. The area that will be most affected is the already troubled north-eastern region, where the bulk of the land is traditionally community-owned but which would become "protected" forest land under the new definition. More than 90 per cent of the geographical area of Nagaland falls in this category. From this stand-point, the new definition will also conflict with the objectives of the tribal rights Bill, passed by Parliament in December last year, which grants full rights to forest dwellers, mainly tribal, over the land and produce of the forests in which they have traditionally lived.

Though the new interpretation of forests excludes plantations meant primarily for the paper and pulp industry (which will seem strange to many), it is bound to be inimical to many other segments of the economy and especially of agriculture, including the upcoming horticultural sector. The result of defective semantics will be heightened conflict between the objectives of conservation and livelihood sustenance, on the one hand, and between national and local interests, on the other. It will also add a new edge to the longstanding rivalry between the revenue and forest departments, and also lead to conflict between the Centre and the states over who controls the land.