It’s a jungle out there

In her article, Karat challenges the jurisdiction of the Wildlife Act Amendment Bill and explains how the JPC wanted to strengthen the tribal bill. Wondering if it is “not necessary to have a site by site scientific analysis involving experts — as well as local communities” to redefine core forest areas, she claims that “words like ‘buffer’, ‘core’,‘tiger bearing forests’ were liberally used (in the Wildlife Amendment Bill) not only without any definitions but also to extend the rights of the (environment and forest) ministry over larger areas excluding tribals.”

In most reserve forests, dense old growth areas with no and/or little human habitation are marked as the ‘core’ and the peripheral forests form the ‘buffer’. All conservation models demand the villages in core areas be relocated to make room for inviolate forests. By challenging the definition of core zones, Karat obviously wants to legitimise human habitations even inside national parks and sanctuaries. This is in line with another recommendation that gives villagers the right to return if they are not “satisfied” with rehabilitation. Karat explains: “…give the right of final authority to the gram sabha which also has been redefined to include habitations — there is a greater danger of excluding legitimate beneficiaries if the power of final authority is given to those who are committed to clearing the forests of human habitation…” If the forest-dwellers are often taken for a ride in the rehabilitation drama, the political class must take most of the blame. Time and again this writer has encountered local leaders who have scuttled rehabilitation by misleading villagers — all for a handful of votes.

Going back to Karat’s doubt about the definition of ‘tiger bearing forests’, the self-explanatory term refers to the most pristine of our forests because the tiger, at the top of the food chain, best indicates a forest’s health. Moreover, the Wildlife Act Amendment Bill does not want to exclude tribals, as Karat alleges, but has provisions to address their livelihood concerns. After all, the Bill was based on the recommendations of the tiger task force led by Sunita Narain, one of the most vocal advocates of tribal rights.

Next, Karat argues: “Given the small extent of land involved when taken as a percentage of total forest land, the error of inclusion if the power is shifted to the gram sabha is far less dangerous than that of exclusion…” Anyone familiar with forests with human habitats knows that the ratio of the “small” forest land villagers physically occupy and the forest land they destroy is rarely less than 1:10. While their livestock graze off the green cover, they rob the forest of firewood, and so on. Karat just has to visit Kankwari village in Sariska. The healthy forest cover in the core area starts thinning as one approaches the village. Three kilometers from Kankwari all one finds is barren land, without a blade of grass. Over the years, I have seen this barren area grow as villagers and livestock have multiplied.

Karat’s next prescription encapsulates the absurdity of the tribal bill: “Expansion of certain development projects on up to one hectare of land without permission of the forest department such as health centers, primary schools etc.” How can she demand traditional forest rights for tribals assuming they can’t do without forest life and then seek to bring development into the forest to make their life modern? Karat also writes about “the responsibility of the government to…ensure that the vested interests who are the real criminals in destroying the forests for profit are prevented from doing so.”

If the greed of a handful of government officials who, according to Karat, determine the fate of our forests today can lead to so many illegal permits for mining and other mindless development projects inside forests, imagine the scenario when our forests comes into the custody of lakhs of equally corruptible men and women? Let’s face it. Tribals are not the natural custodians of our forests. Not anymore. Today they aspire to the so-called good things of life and understand money. Almost every poacher I know is a tribal who killed for profit. It doesn’t make them necessarily evil. It makes them just like you and me. Just like many of us take a bribe or fudge tax returns, many of them poach and, given a chance, will sell their forests.

To save the remaining pockets of old growth forests, villages must be rehabilitated with proper incentives. If there is not enough revenue land available, the government should petition the Supreme Court to allow conversion of some fringe forest land for development of villages shifted out of the best of our forests. Rehabilitation “fulfilling strict conditions” will be expensive but we cannot crib. We have destroyed our share of the green in the name of development. Now if we must stop tribals from exploiting their forests and still prosper, we have to share with them the profits we have already made by exploiting our forests. But Karat has already asked her cadres for “popular mobilisation to ensure” that the tribal bill is “not diluted by the government under pressure from different lobbies”.

Karl Marx once wrote: “Even a whole society, a nation, or even all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not the owners of the globe. They are only its possessors, its usufructuaries, and, like boni patres familias, they must hand it down to succeeding generations in an improved condition.” It will be unfortunate if the Indian Marxists fail to perform that responsibility.

The writer is a senior assistant editor with The Indian Express jay.mazoomdaar@expressindia.com