Rights stuck on paper

The new law on forest dwellers’ rights, a key initiative of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, has remained virtually unimplemented in most states—perhaps because it is flawed in its approach. Even as the law seeks to benefit one set of people, it bows in the direction of those who see dangers in what is proposed to be done. Indeed, those who are opposed to what the law proposes are firmly in situ and have a say in what is to be done under the new law. In any face-off between potential beneficiaries who are unorganised and often unaware of the intricacies of the law, and government officials who are past masters in obfuscation and delay, it is easy to see who will win. It is this basic contradiction that has prevented speedy implementation of a law that is supposed to benefit many millions of poor tribal households.

 

The acrimonious debate between supporters of traditional tribal rights (many of them forest-dwellers who say they were dispossessed by forestry officials over the years) and environment/wildlife activists (who fear that allowing more people into forests will further affect forest cover and wildlife), which began when the measure was first mooted, has not stopped with the enactment of the law. The result has been a series of court cases challenging the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (recognition of forest rights) Act, 2006 on a variety of grounds, continued bureaucratic skirmishing, and no real action on the ground. Though in several cases the courts have allowed state governments to issue land deeds to tribals and forest dwellers in forest tracts (after excluding game sanctuaries and bio-reserves), this process is yet to begin in right earnest in most states, including states with large tribal populations like Orissa. The setting up of a committee headed by the cabinet secretary to oversee the implementation of the law has failed to make much of a difference.

Forest officials have a say, along with panchayats, in deciding who will get which piece of land. But as might have been expected, forestry officials are tacitly siding with wildlife activists in painting the law as an instrument to legalise encroachment into forests, and spelling disaster for forest cover, bio-diversity and wildlife. Forestry officials in New Delhi recently by put out numbers claiming that at least 1.62 million hectares of forest land were already under encroachment in various states, with Assam, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh being the worst affected. The forest dwellers’ benefactors, on the other hand, are dismayed as they feel that the law does not go far enough to protect the livelihood of forest-dependent populations. The law extends the right to land to even non-tribal forest dwellers but requires that potential recipients had to be living at the particular sites for more than three generations. This automatically debars many forest dwellers, including victims of evictions and resettlements. Also excluded is a sizable chunk of people, including tribals, who live on the fringes of forest land but rely almost exclusively on forest produce for their livelihood. Even those who get land rights may not have unrestrained access to forest produce, as earlier forest conservation laws kick in.

When there are twin objectives that seemingly work at cross-purposes, what is needed is a process that resolves conflict at the operational level. This is supposed to have been ensured by making panchayats the key decision-makers. However, it does not seem to be working that way. It is early days yet, but a review may be unavoidable.