Cutting down forests for votes

The sage exception that the Bill would not apply to existing national parks NPs and sanctuaries is actually not that helpful, as the majority of NPs have not yet been notified. Sariska has not been notified after 20 years of its proposal. In other words, village rights have largely not been settled/extinguished. Clearly, the Bill would then apply to these un-notified parks.

The problems which will be created by the Bill are very real to foresters. Witness the politically motivated agitation re-launched by ineligible Gujjars of Rajaji, who had agreed to the generous scheme under implementation after 20 years of consultation, with full judicial review, using just the letter to Chief Secretaries. With the Bill, the entire FD case is weakened. At least in this case, the state is not yet yielding, citing the imminent notification of the Rajaji park. What of other locations, where the state is less committed to conservation? What of Assam and Orissa, where the state is actively encouraging settlement of forests by illegal migrants from our eastern neighbour? It8217;s not difficult to categorise the settlers as tribals, after all.

Why just 2.5 hectares? The next government would increase the area, and that would justly constitute progress. Why just tribals? Why shouldn8217;t poor SC/STs benefit? Why not poor cultivators, regardless of caste? Why not old zamindars, who had hereditary rights to forest land? Where does this cycle of give-aways end? Does anyone really believe the 50 tree limit could ever be implemented? Can the limit be implemented today in Palamau and Valmikinagar where truckloads of trees are being taken out daily? Or in Indravati, Sariska, Hazaribagh, or Orang 8212; all settled and fast spinning out of control of the FD? Has anyone asked the Foresters? Does it matter what their views are, once we have decided to help the tribals government-style, full of promise, but empty on delivery and integrity?

Every clear thinking person must oppose this great political give-away which would destroy what8217;s left of the country8217;s forests.Instead, we must influence the government to conduct a long-overdue forest settlement of India. By means of which, forest villages are systematically,transparently, and voluntarily resettled outside forest areas. Some forest lands may also be used for this purpose. In this manner, development can judiciously reach the absolutely cut-off, disenfranchised, and remote forest-dwelling populations. This has eminently successful precedents, for both human and animal, from Melghat, Kuno-Palpur, Panna, Kanha, and now, Chilla.

Villagers across the country are willing to be resettled, provided they get a better deal, properly executed, with their input at every stage, and monitored by the Courts and NGOs. The Centre should initially budget a nationwide scheme of Rs 500 crores annually, which should suffice to resettle approx 200 villages. These villages can themselves apply for a centrally-sponsored, but locally-designed package. The Forest Department can manage this programme, since it has a stake in its success. The norms for this resettlement should follow those proposed in the separate Draft Tribal Policy, such as providing equivalent areas of land, facilities for irrigation, drinking water, education, health care, and so on. The passage of the pernicious Bill is taking place precisely at a time when the current tiger crisis indicates that the small and fragmenting national parks we have are simply unable to protect sensitive animals like the tiger. The passage of this Bill will naturally beget the recognition of such forest land rights for other castes and communities. Shepherded by other land-hungry partisan ministries, the mandalisation of forests will totally denude India.

The author has just written a book on Sariska National Park