Today senior activists from among the Adivasi communities and others participating in the struggle for land are facing repression, false cases and externment orders. A Delhi-based group, Janhastakshep had approached members of intelligentsia and social and political activists belonging to different organizations to lend their support to an open petition addressed to the Hon’ble President of India on the issue of attack on Adivasis asserting their forest rights and opposing atrocities against them for opposing illegal felling of forest in Burhanpur district of Madhya Pradesh.

“In order to crush the struggle of the Adivasis the local administration has externed the leader of the Jagrit Adivasi Dalit Sangathan (JADS), Madhuri from the district. Around 150 signatories from India and abroad have signed the petition both in their individual capacity and also on behalf of their organizations. The petition sent to President Draupadi Murmu’s Secretariat, along with the signatures has been also released to the press.

Activists have alleged that these attacks by the forest department and other authorities are a continuance of the repression allegedly suffered by forest dwellers and Adivasis for over four months, since March 2023. Antaram Awase, a young Adivasi activist, has spoken to the media recently of the crackdown on villagers, filing multiple cases citing encroachment and deliberate disobedience of government orders. The most recent in the list of atrocities perpetrated against them, the villagers say, is an externment order against the human rights defenders who have been actively questioning the state in the region.

Strangely, even though a large part of the Burhanpur district is earmarked as a scheduled area, the tribal communities living there have for long been bereft of forest rights. Villagers of Siwal, along with residents of 15 other villages in the district, have been demanding they be recognised as forest dwellers and their rights under the Forest Rights Act be protected.

Four months ago, in March 2023, two Adivasi activists associated with the Jagrit Adivasi Dalit Sangathan (JADS) had claimed that they were threatened with arrest during police questioning following the arrest of 35 other Adivasi activists after a face-off with the Forest Department in Madhya Pradesh’s Burhanpur region. The two had also then been called for questioning.

The region has seen a history of violence against Adivasi communities by the notorious Forest Department. The Forest Department periodically attempts to illegally “evict” Adivasis of Pachayat Baldi from their land by using force, sometimes employing violence and intimidation tactics such as illegal detention, physical assault, and even money extortion. This is a violation of section 4 (5) of the Forest Rights Act which does not recognize eviction at all. These section of the emancipator law states that forest dwelling persons from a Scheduled Tribe or other traditional communities should not be evicted or removed from the forest land they occupy until the recognition and verification procedure is complete.

In a statement released by JADS then, they detailed the following: JADS activists received a call from the locals of Baldi Panchayat on February 2, 2023 informing them about the illegal arrest of four people – two men and two women. They were picked up from their homes and taken to an unknown location with no information given to their families, a violation of settled law and jurisprudence. At this stage when this happened, JADS activists immediately contacted the DFO (District forest officer) and District Collector, Burhanpur, asking them to intervene in the matter and ensure that due process of law was followed. Anxiously looking for those who were picked up, other villagers went to the Range Office in Burhanpur and heard shouts and screams and other sounds of torture from the office building. Thereafter there was a reported clash between villagers and the forest staff after this. It was after this ‘confrontation’ that around 20 men and 15 women were arrested by the police while they were on their way back to their village.

The very next day, Antaram Awase, a young Advissi activist, and Nitin, a graduate from TISS, went to meet the DFO, SP and District Collector, to find out what had happened. Instead, they found themselves implicated in the conflict for merely speaking to the arrested villagers on the phone. The two were in fact not in Burhanpur at the time.

These two activists, Antaram and Nitin have been working with JADS for over five years and are at the forefront of the campaign to spread awareness about legal Forest Rights. JADS, currently active with tribals across four districts in MP – Barwani, Khargone, Khandwa and Burhanpur – is a community led organisation and plays an important role in highlighting illegal fellings of trees on Adivasi land and underhanded attempts to suppress their forest rights. The attempt to implicate the two JADS activists can only be read as an attempt to suppress this campaign. It was in 2018, that this struggle demanding legitimate rights had intensified. So did the state’s crackdown.

A protest and its aftermath

In April this year, over a thousand women and men – all belonging to tribal communities – staged a three-day protest against the tacit support given to widespread and illegal tree felling by the Madhya Pradesh government, emphasising that felling at such a scale is impossible without the implicit support of the state government itself.

While the officials didn’t relent to the villagers’ demands at all, JADS accuses the forest and state administration of illegally evicting many eligible FRA claimants. The district has over 10,000 FRA claims pending, some even belonging to those illegally evicted, the villagers allege.

Every act of protest, the organisation claims, is met with state repression, they stress.

Among the state actions earlier this year was the externment of Madhuri Krishnaswami of the JADS. Krishnaswami, who has been actively involved in organising the community and agitations in the district, has been booked in as many as 21 forest offence cases for alleged offences between October 2022 and January 2023. It is these cases that the protests were against. However, Krishnaswami’s name was added only in May, after the protests.

Krishnaswami is additionally named in five police cases out of which two have been disposed of already and others are pending investigation. These cases, mostly accusing her of unlawful assembly, have triggered her externment from the district.

Rights activists from the region call this part of the administration’s tactic to break the movement. “They are going after the leaders one by one. Many Adivasi women, who are at the forefront, are also getting targeted by forest officials. Like the Britishers, the Madhya Pradesh government too is hellbent on criminalising the community for fighting for their rights,” Awase said.

Adivasi activists allege that, since 2019, there have been multiple instances of human rights violations in the region. Between August and September 2020, several persons from the region – all belonging to the Adivasi community – were picked up under alleged false charges, detained by the forest officials and allegedly tortured. In one such incident, two Adivasi youths were handcuffed to a window railing and allegedly beaten up all night, before they were produced in court.

Those booked in multiple cases mostly work as farmers or farm labourers. Appearance before court means missing out on a day’s earnings. “As it is we have been spending a great deal of time organising and agitating against the state’s unjust attitude towards us. And now we have an additional challenge of appearing before the court every other week,” said an activist, who too has been booked in multiple cases.

The villagers’ demand as lawful claimants of the forest land gets complex with the government’s allegation of felling of trees. The region over the past decade has witnessed deforestation on a massive scale.

Awase says that he, along with other members of the organisation, had moved to notify both the forest and the district administration about the large-scale destruction of the forest cover. “These are all Sagon trees. They sell for crores of rupees. As some people from nearby villages indulged in the criminal act of destroying the forest cover, we wrote to the officials. No action was taken against those involved,” Awase alleges.

Those allegedly involved in the felling of trees also belong to the tribal community, activists say. This, Nitin explains, is a parallel phenomenon seen in the region where many from the Adivasi communities make a desperate attempt to claim stakes on the land. “If the state were serious about implementing the FRA law in the region, destruction of forest cover could have been brought under control,” he adds.

Related:

Adivasis of Burhanpur rejoice as all demands get fulfilled, verification of claims for the entire district

Minister inquires about implementation of FRA in states, MoTA dodges any accountability

Tribals Allege Officials Use Forest Rights Act to Harass, Demand Money; Picket DM’s Office

First Fired Upon, Now Criminal Cases Registered Against Tribals in Madhya Pradesh

The post Externment orders, atrocities against Burhanpur Adivasis, activists appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The bench comprising of Justices Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that the right to be heard should be granted to all individuals asserting their legitimate claims to forest land.

The court observed that the authority responsible for hearing these claims, which is the forest officials, has the jurisdiction to determine the merit of the claim of possession during the hearing process and it is not the identity or social category of the appellant that determines their access to forest land.

The judgement is from a case where the land in question was already in the possession of the certain citizens and thus was declared a reserved forest. However, the Forest Settlement Officer, after considering the claims of the appellants, affirmed their rightful claim over the land. Furthermore, the Forest Department challenged this decision, resulting in the Allahabad High Court ordering the eviction of the appellants.

The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the relief granted in the earlier judgement of Banwasi Seva Ashram vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh which protected Adivasi communities from eviction based on Forest Rights Act 2006, was exclusively applicable to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, or other backward communities.

The court recognised that forest communities encompass not only Adivasi and other backward communities but also various other groups residing in the forests. It acknowledged that certain groups may not receive institutional recognition as forest dwelling communities due to various socio-political and economic reasons. Additionally, the court acknowledged the existence of ancestral forest dwellers who, due to a lack of documentation, may struggle to prove their status and therefore not have the requisite documents. Thus, by adopting a broader interpretation of forest communities, the court sought to protect the interests of multiple communities that may face harm if the Banwasi judgement were narrowly applied. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the decision passed by the Forest Settlement Officer and ordered the upholding of the rightful claims of the appellants.

The entire judgement may be read here:

Related:

Forest Conservation Bill 2023: too many exemptions, discretion to Centre

Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill: North-east to bear the brunt

TN: 158 people in two villages get title deeds under the Forest Rights Act, 2006

UP Forest Dept. had no authority to intrude over ‘revenue land’: CJP-AIUFWP to NHR

Adivasi women attacked in UP, CJP-AIUFWP move NHRC

The post Supreme Court affirms right of forest inhabitants, prevents it from being limited to recognized communities appeared first on SabrangIndia.

What Marx and Engels said in 1848 still holds very scientific and real relevance today, after nearly two centuries when we speak of rights of the people and classes dependent on natural resources.

The most essential and basic of natural resources– the Forests and Land– are a major bone of contention between various class and caste groups in our society and the country.

Today right from Kashmir in the north to Kanyakumari in the south there is fierce battle going on for the control of these resources between the forest peoples and corporations backed by the state, crony capital and other powerful state & international agencies.

The struggle around forest resources is almost three centuries old here. Ever since British colonial power colonized India essentially to take control over our natural resources for the primitive accumulation of their capital. Today however, in 21^st century India it is more acute than ever before.

The first battle of the fight for independence and sovereign rights over natural resources was waged by Indian Adivasis in the forest areas in the eighteenth century. Their battle still continues today even after our country attainted independence from British colonial power in 1947.

The natural forest were plundered for industrial expansion and monocultures was (were) encouraged and promoted in pristine natural forest(s) only to meet the need of growing industrial production. Communities living inside deep forests and depending on these resources were termed as ‘ enemy of the state’. These ‘enemies of the state’ who were the real custodian of the forest wealth were kept out of control of “eminent domain” by colonial power and their local allies in order to build a colonial Indian Nation State.

This contradiction still persists and this is what is termed the British Colonial legacy. This unfortunately continues even after India became independent in 1947.

Forest peoples belonging to the forest villages known as Tongia villages who planted million of hectares of forest especially timber to enable British economic growth were not even counted in the Census records of the citizens in independent India! They were invisible, no records about them existed in any statistical figures and not even in maps until now.

Similarly the nomadic tribes like Van Gujjars spread all over the sub Himalayan range were also missing in the Census of this country until the New Legislation on forest Resource recognised them, for the first time, as a category for forest dwellers.

“The Scheduled Tribe and Other Forest Dwellers Recognition of Rights Act of 2006” (Forest Rights Act, 2006) was passed by our august Parliament in December 2006. What a tragic fate of the forest people that this still needs to be made known to the rest of the world.

Likewise the millions of Adivasis, Dalits and other forest dwellers residing inside the forest were regarded as encroachers, insurgents, outsiders or Naxalites before, until the 1980’s. They always remained as ‘ Outsiders’ (outside the purview of the newly constructed Indian state) and therefore unwanted.

The transfer of power from British colonial regime to Indian leaders were full of such contradictions. Some of our greatest martyrs Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev ,Chanrashekhar Azad and Babasaheb Ambedkar cautioned Indians on this distinct and dangerous possibility much before India attained the independence.

They categorically said that this transfer of power from British will leave Dalits, Adivasis and Other (Economically Poor) Backward Peoples without any real independence. That was echoed after many years by a grass root leader Munnilal, a Dalit iconic leader of the All India union of Forest working people (AIUFWP) from Haripur Tongia of Haridwar district, Uttarakhand.

He has equated the enactment of the FRA 2006 as the moment of “real independence” for the forest villages in 2006. Until then they considered themselves still “Gulam” (slaves) within independent India. This is a common refrain from Adivasi people who often say, “sarkaar to hum ko chahti hi nahi hai” ( The government does not love us).

The continuous plundering of the forest after independence that continued in the name of “national development” has reached an impasse. Today, with climate change looming large over the earth and India, it is no longer feasible to continue the destruction of forest resources with the serious detrimental impact –that this model of ‘development’—has had, both on the environment and ecological balance.

The people residing in the forest area are considered as “most poor” according to Earth summit that took place in Rio de Jineiro in 1992. The people living inside the forest area being turned into displaced refugees and without safe employment in cities they are the poor, hungry and most vulnerable groups across our country .

However as a national trade union of the forest working people it has been our experience that the age-old battle on control over the forest resources is still being waged strongly under the leadership of the forest peoples across the country.

It is the women from these communities who are also leading the battle of safe guarding their resources from corporate loot. We have found that wherever such battles are being waged and where women are at the forefront, the assaulting state agencies are on the backfoot.

We are at a critical stage.

Almost all the forest area in our country — that is a landmass of almost 24% of the total –is endangered, and it is in these areas that these battle is bin waged, whether small or big. And, significantly, these are all democratic struggles which often are dubbed as “anti-state and terrorist acts.”

The government continues unchecked on its path of taking over of natural resources by surpassing all the laws, even our Constitution to ensure narrow gains for crony capitalist forces and big industries, of these major ones today are Adani and Ambani.

In this context the enactment of the FRA in 2006 needs to be viewed critically. The outgoing NDA government (2004) under the leadership of Atal Bihari Bajpai in 2003 strongly advocated the enacting a legislation on forest rights and made such a promise to the Adivasi and the forest people. This realization, suddenly from a deep slumber, was due, in large part, to the rising of Maoist activities in the forests of Andhra Pradesh and some other regions.

To win the vote bank of Adivasis, the outgoing government made these promises: that that if they come to power again, they would enact such a central legislation that ensures the rights of Adivasis over the forest resources and forest land.

However the NDA suffered a humiliating defeat and the United Progressive alliance (UPA-I) was elected with a majority with the very active support of the left parties. This combination was fairly progressive for a time and various people oriented legislation were enacted in Parliament between 2004-2014, of which FRA 2006 was one.

The coming of the Act was a blessing in disguise for the forest peoples. In 2002 there had been a massive and brutal eviction drive in the forest area where elephants were used to crush the villages in places like Assam and demolitions of homes and dwellings took place in various other areas as well. These incidents also mobilised the forest people against the anti-people NDA government which then compelled the government to backtrack and propose a progressive progamme for Adivasis.

The enactment of FRA is in itself a great historical achievement in the history of the forest area as well in history of India after Independence as there was, until then, not a single special Act that recognised the rights of the people over these vast resources.

All previously existing laws such as Indian Forest Act 1927 (IFA), The Wildlife Protection Act 1972, The Forest Conservation Act 1980 were too general, not positioning or addressing the traditional rights of the forest people. In fact the legacy of terming the forest people as “encroachers” that was started by the British and legally sanctified through enactment of the IFA continued to be the instrument used by Indian State to evict and displace millions of forest people from the forest.

Historically, evictions actually started much before the Act of 1927 was enacted. The foundation of modern development was thus on the graveyards of the millions of our Indigenous peoples who sacrificed their everything in the name of ‘national development’ within which they were not given or did not have any dignified place.

Ironically, this space is still not there, rather the state still sees them as a threat to their capitalist interests.

Adivasis and Forest Dwellers saw a ray of light in 1988 when the guidelines for a new forest policy was pronounced. Some glimmer of hope, their rights figured. Again, this came about in response to the unrest that surfaced in many forest area. The government of India was compelled to respond.

The New Forest policy was based on six crucial circulars brought out in favor of protecting the forest and the forest people by the then Rural Development Commissioner, S.R Sankaran.

This major development laid the foundation for coming of a Special Act on Forest Rights that was finally adopted by new government (UPA-I) in their Common Minimum Programme (CMP) 2004. The law was passed by the Lok Sabha in December 15, 2006 and thereafter in the Rajya Sabha.

The Act is clear and unequivocal. Section 13 states that FRA 2006 will supersede all the general Acts applied in the forest areas. Besides, the provisions of the “Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, will be legally and administratively viewed “in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force save as otherwise provided in this Act and the provisions of the of any other law for the time being in force.”

The preamble of Act of 2006 says that the Objective is to –

• To undo the historical injustice occurred to the forest dwelling communities
• To ensure land tenure, livelihood and food security of the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers
• To strengthen the conservation regime of the forests by including the responsibilities and authority on Forest Rights holders for sustainable use, conservation of biodiversity and maintenance of ecological balance.

Where are we now?

Even though we have for after, 59 years after Independence and 56 years after India gave itself the Constitution with Schedules V and VI guaranteeing self- rule for the Scheduled Trines (STs), a Special Act for the Forest areas and Forest peoples, the forest bureaucracy and the state agencies that have appropriated massive land and forest areas are not ready to give up their control.

The implementation of FRA 2006 has been dogged by a lack of political will. Even after 17 long years of the enactment of the law, forest peoples have not got their control over forest resources. The colonial Forest department along with the state as a whole are hand in glove with each other to weaken the spirit of the Act. The aim is to refuse to relinquish control that, which in turn, means that the Act looses its strength.

To render the FRA more ineffective these agencies are trying to strengthen previous laws like the Forest Conservation Act 1980, talking about bringing amendments so as to dilute and divert the issue from provisions of the FRA 2006 altogether. Governments and other vested interests are quite aware that it is not possible to dilute the FRA completely as it is an Act of Parliament. If the Forest Rights Act, 2006 were to be implemented in its true spirit, the Forest Department may be rendered useless, less than a decorative piece.

A ready implementation of the law will bring with it some drastic and fundamental changes in overall character of bureaucratic functioning and handling of other resources, such as land and allied natural resources.

Recently the Ministry of Environment (MoEF) has moved some amendments in the FCA 1980 to divert the discussion away from implementation of FRA 2006. Hence the intense debate around this law but little around the crucial FRA 2006. The more dogged and focused the struggle of Adivasis and Forest Dwellers to get FRA 2006 implemented, there will be a push back and these moves by both governments  and the forest bureaucracy will be diluted. That has been the studied experience of the AIUFWP.

Once the gram sabha (village councils) are empowered under FRA 2006, it is they, at the ground level who will deal with all such laws that have been brought in basically to permit the erosion of resources and have nothing really to do with forest conservation.

Similarly the Environment Policy of 2020 is also an eye wash. This policy has not been brought in consultation with people. From the point of view of Adivasis and Forest Dwellers , the 2020 Environment Policy has just been brought in to take control over the resources and keep people away. Today when there is much awareness among people why is the critical debate on such policies not taking place in consultation with people? The corporate agenda of the government needs to be exposed and be challenged.

Bhumi Adhikar Andolan a national level front on the rights to land and forests has strongly criticised the government regarding these policies, holding protests and issuing heir statements.

Of late, it is clear that the present NDA-II government appears to be specifically targeting all hill States be it North East or Kashmir, first through the abrogation of Articles 370, 371, 372 and 374. Serious signs of unrest in the form of ethnic clashes are witnessed in Manipur, Nagaland, Assam, Arunanchal Pradesh and Tripura. No political solution is even being attempted. The AIUWFP believes that such unrest is politically motivated and being created to hand over these huge resources to the companies.

There is an urgent need to build a wider people’s movement against this corporate loot to safeguard our resources and also our forest people. The unity of the poor and the local communities who are entirely dependent on these resources is the only solution. But this will not happen automatically, the initiative should be taken by the social movements to stop this corporate loot and work towards the unity of the Indigenous people to protect and safeguard rights and resources.

Towards this, we, that is the AIUFWP and its allies have also initiated a national level process of bringing all natural resources based groups such as forest, fisheries, land, agriculture and other working people in this initiative to launch a nation-wide struggle to save our resources, save the planet Earth and remove poverty and establish social justice.

(Roma is the general secretary of the AIUFWP)

Related:

Forest Conservation Bill 2023: too many exemptions, discretion to Centre

Minister inquires about implementation of FRA in states, MoTA dodges any accountability

UP: Tribals Protest In Mirzapur, Demand Implementation Of Forest Rights Act, Allege Harassment

GuttiKoyas (Maru) Adivasis from Chhattisgarh face eviction in Telangana

A year of exacerbated attacks on Dalits and Adivasis, arguably two of the most marginalised sections of the Indian population

Are over 1,10,000 Adivasis & Forest Dwellers at risk of eviction and loss of livelihood?

Chhattisgarh: A minor dead in missile strike on Koya Adivasis

The post How a battle is being waged within India’s forests, for rights over land and resources appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Additionally, 154 titles were given under community rights to 3 villages in Polur, 11 in Sandavasal, 36 at Nattaanur, 49 at Jamunamarudur and 56 at Melpattur, reported DT Next.

The officials of the Department of Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare informed the publication that 39.522.23 hectares of the forest land has been covered under rights conferred through the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (also known as Forest Rights Act) with vigour. The beneficiary tribals and other forest residents will now be able to farm on the land and use minor forest produce.

Tiruvannamalai Collector B. Murugesh was quoted in by The Hindu as saying, “some of the minor forest produce that can be collected on allotted forest land includes Indian gooseberry, ‘haritaki’ (Kadukai), ‘soapnut’ (Pundhikottai), tamarind, and honey”.

This however, does not make them the owner of the lands. The collector was quoted by DT Next as saying, “While 1,021 individuals belonging to the ST community have been accorded this permission it will only confer rights on them and they cannot ever claim rights to the land they use inside forests.” He further stated that this is for the first time that such rights are granted to the Scheduled Tribe community members.

154 tribals have also been issued the rights on “a community basis”.  This means that they will have the right to graze, access to minority forest produce, irrigation system, etc.

They shall further form an expert team to reevaluate the applications for the title rights that were initially rejected. The team shall comprise Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) Arani, District Tribal Welfare Officer (Tiruvannamalai), and Tahsildars for Adi-Dravidar, Tribal Welfare, and Jamanamarathur taluk. According to DT Next, individual forest rights shall then be provided to those found eligible.

Minor Forest Produce under the Act

Under section 2(i) of the The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (Forest Rights Act) “minor forest produce” is defined as,

“ ‘minor forest produce’ includes all non-timber forest produce of plant origin including bamboo, brush wood, stumps, cane, tussar, cocoons, honey, wax, lac, tendu or kendu leaves, medicinal plants and herbs, roots, tubers and the like.”

Further, it appears that Tiruvannamalai administration has conferred rights under section 3(1)(c) of the Act which gives the “right to ownership, access to collect, use and dispose of minor forest produce which has been traditionally collected within or outside village boundaries” to the Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers.

The rights granted to these tribals are different from the land rights defined under Section 3(1)(a) as the right to hold, settlement, and ownership or for self-cultivation for livelihood. This means that individual rights are for habitation or livelihood but community rights also include the right to access water bodies, grazing, or any other traditional personal access. However, since there is no differentiation between community forest resource rights and community land rights by the Ministry for Tribal Affairs, it cannot be understood how many of each are conferred every month.

As per a Press Release by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, in March 2021, under the Van Dhan tribal startups programme, a component of the ‘Mechanism for Marketing of Minor Forest Produce (MFP) through Minimum Support Price (MSP) & Development of Value Chain for MFP’ Scheme emerged as a huge success in the Jawadhu Hills. In 2020, they set up production units which are run by tribals which have touched the production capacity of 1 tonne. Approximately, 17,770 tribals are involved in the process. This has helped in empowering the tribals.

Out of the 80,000 people living in Jawadhu, 98% are tribal which means out of 78,400 tribals, only 17,770 were involved in the Van Dhan scheme which suggests that the government needs to do a lot more for these people. Moreover, the District Collector of Tiruvannamalai in his statement (mentioned above) had said that such rights are being conferred to the Scheduled Tribes for the first time. It is interesting to note that still, in 2021, 17,770 tribals of Jawadhu Hills were reaping the benefits of the Van Dhan start-up scheme.

Tamil Nadu is one of the worst performing states when it comes to conferring forest rights but this step is in the right direction.

In April this year, 158 tribals were given title deeds in the Krishnanagar district of Tamil Nadu.

Related:

Forest resource rights vs. Land rights under Forest Rights Act

U’khand Forest Dept admits faults in eviction notices issued to Van Gujjars

What is the Forest Rights Act 2006 and how are we defending it

The post TN: More than 1,000 people of Jawadhu hills get title rights under FRA appeared first on SabrangIndia.

During the ongoing special Budget Session of the Parliament, on February 6, 2023, Lok Sabha member Shri Syed Imtiaz Jaleel (AIMIM) inquired with the government regarding the traditional forest dwellers present in the country. Shri BishweswarTudu, Minister of the Tribal Affairs, then provided the number of district-wise villages/habitations in each State who have claimed Community Forest Resource Rights under Section 3(1) (i) of FRA along with the number of claims that have been approved by the Gram Sabha. The data, as on November 30, 2022, is as follows:

The total number of claims that were received by the state governments, up to November 30, 2022, were 44,66,617, out of which 42,97,245 were claims of the individuals and 1,69,372 were claims for community rights.

With regard to the number of titles distributed up to November 30, 2022, the government informed that a total of 22,49,671 titles have been distributed, out of which 21,46,782 were individual titles and 1,02,889 were community titles. Additionally, the government also provided the details regarding the extent of forest land for which titles have been distributed, which came to a total 1,68,29,864.60 acres. Out of these 1,68,29,864.60acres, the titles distributed over individual claims were for 45,68,053 acres while the community titles were for 1,22,61,811 acres; which means more than 80% of total land for which titles have been distributed, has been given to community claimants.

Chhattisgarh was the state with the highest number of claims received until November 30,2022 with 9,22,346 claims and it also topped in the number of titles distributed with 4,91,805 titles; out of these 4,46,041 titles were given to individuals. Second in line is Odisha with 6,45,343 claims and 4,62,160 titles disbursed.

On the other hand, the lowest claims were received by Himachal Pradesh, with 3,021 claims and Bihar awarded the lowest number of titles which was 121. It is pertinent to note here that data of only 22 States and UTs has been provided by the Ministry. In all India consists of 28 states and 8 union territories.

It is further crucial to note that a crucial inquiry regarding the number of potential villages/habitations, district-wise, in each State where the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 (FRA) being implemented was also raised in the Lok Sabha.  In response to this question, Shri BishweswarTudu informed that it is the states that are responsible for implanting FRA. No data was provided on the same by the government.

The complete answer can be read here:

Whose rights does the FRA recognise?

The FRA 2006 enables traditional forest dwelling communities to apply for claims to land and forest produce upon which they have been dependent for their livelihood for generations. The Act recognises the rights of two types of forest dwellers –Adivasi or indigenous tribal communities, many of which as included in the list of Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFD).

Earlier this month, in February, hundreds of tribal people assembled and carried out a rally at dense forest areas of Dhekwah village in Rajapur gram panchayat of Marihan tehsil under Mirzapur district on Monday, demanding implementation of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) and the withdraw all cases registered against them.The protesters, who marched to the ‘stone rocks’ on the banks of Jharinagari Nala, also sought 200 days minimum work for labourers in a year on Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) job card and Rs 600 wage/day.

In January, the NCST, through its Chairman Harsh Chouhan, hadcemented its stand against the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2022 reiterating that the rules are violative of the Forest Rights Act, 2006. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change insists that these concerns are not legally tenable.While speaking to The Hindu, Chouhan had said that “The commission’s stand will be the same. It is the commission’s duty to intervene and recommend corrective measures whenever any rules run the risk of violating rights of tribespeople. This we will continue to do.”

In September 2022, the NCST Chairman had written to the Environment Ministry asking it to put the rules on hold for the rules have taken away rights of Scheduled Tribes to consent to any diversion project in forest areas.

CJP battle to ensure justice for the forest dwellers

Forest Dwellers in other states have been a part of this struggle for staking their claims over forest rights for years. Sabrang India’s sister organization, Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) along with its partner organization All India Union of Forest Working People (AIUFWP) have been helping Adivasis file these community land claims in different states such as Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh among others.

In November 2021, forest dwelling communities belonging to the Tharu Adivasi community residing in 20 villages of the Dudhwa region of Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh, filed their Objections to denial of community land claims with the district administration. These claims had been filed way back in 2013.

In August, 2022 it was reported that, as many as 16,000 claims were rejected in just two regions of Karnataka – Sagar and Shivamogga. Out of the total 16,424 applications filed in Sagar, only 505 were approved and 4,993 were rejected, leaving 10,926 applications pending. Similarly, out of the 19,191 applications filed in Shivamogga, 11,982 were rejected and only 236 approved, leaving 6,973 pending.

Related:

UP: Tribals Protest In Mirzapur, Demand Implementation Of Forest Rights Act, Allege Harassment

GuttiKoyas (Maru) Adivasis from Chhattisgarh face eviction in Telangana

A year of exacerbated attacks on Dalits and Adivasis, arguably two of the most marginalised sections of the Indian population

Are over 1,10,000 Adivasis & Forest Dwellers at risk of eviction and loss of livelihood?

Chhattisgarh: A minor dead in missile strike on Koya Adivasis

The post Minister inquires about implementation of FRA in states, MoTA dodges any accountability appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Ignoring the law that stresses that original inhabitants, traditional forest dwellers and Adivasis must not be evicted from Tiger Reserves, the MoEFCC, has recently simply stated that they will be rehabilitated so that they do not lose their traditional livelihood. No details on any modalities have, however, been provided.

During the ongoing Budget session of the Parliament, a list of questions was raised by Lok Sabha member Anubhav Mohanty from Biju Janata Dal regarding the country’s Tiger Reserve Forest (s) enquiring about:

(a) the number of Tiger Reserve Forests in the Country along with the number of Tigers;

(b) whether all the Tiger Reserve Forests fulfil the criteria fixed to be declared as Tiger

Reserve Forest; and

(c) the number of forests going to be declared as Tiger Reserve Forests

However, the most crucial question raised by Mohanty to the Minister of State in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change was about the manner in which the Government proposes to “rehabilitate” the inhabitants of such areas in such a fashion as to enable them to continue earning their traditional livelihood. To this Mr. Ashwini Choubey’s written answer read, “The Government of India through ongoing Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Project Tiger provide funding support for voluntary village relocation and rehabilitation of people from core areas of Tiger Reserves apart from facilitating convergence with other schemes of Government departments ensuring alternate livelihood support”.

What’s concerning here is that the minister’s response does not really answer the question. The answer merely informs that the government proposes to rehabilitate the inhabitants of the forest but does not explain the manner in which they propose to do so. The Wildlife Protection (Amendment) Act 2006 gives as much importance to the conservation of the tribal people and their livelihood as much it does to the conservation of tigers.

Article 38-O of the said Act (amended) is clear. The Tiger Conservation Authority may issue binding directions for the protection of tiger or tiger reserves but no such direction shall interfere with or affect the rights of local people particularly the Scheduled Tribes.

Article 38-O Powers and functions of Tiger Conservation Authority-

 (2) The Tiger Conservation Authority may, in the exercise of its powers and performance of its functions under this Chapter, issue directions in writing to any person, officer or authority for the protection of tiger or tiger reserves and such person, officer or authority shall be bound to comply with the directions: Provided that no such direction shall interfere with or affect the rights of local people particularly the Scheduled Tribes.

Section 38V (4) also states that while notifying an area as a Tiger Reserve, the TCA shall “ensure the agricultural, livelihood, developmental and other interests of the people living in tiger bearing forests or a tiger reserve.” Under Section 38V 3 (b), too “livelihood concerns of local peoples” has been mentioned and protected.

38V Tiger Conservation Plan. – 

(4) Subject to the provisions contained in this Act, the State Government shall, while preparing a Tiger Conservation Plan, ensure the agricultural, livelihood, developmental and other interests of the people living in tiger bearing forests or a tiger reserve. 

Moreover, the definition of “Tiger Reserve” includes “core or critical tiger habitat areas of National Parks and sanctuaries, where it has been established, on the basis of scientific and objective criteria, that such areas are required to be kept as inviolate for the purposes of tiger conservation, without affecting the rights of the Scheduled Tribes or such other forest dwellers, and notified as such by the State Government in consultation with an Expert Committee constituted for the purpose”.

The answer dated March 21, 2022 may be read here:

Theory vs. Reality

While in theory, the Government maybe providing funding support for “voluntary” village relocation and rehabilitation of people, the reality may well be different. According to 2006 estimates of the Ministry of Environment and Forests there were 1487 villages with a population of 3.80 lakhs in just the 28 tiger reserves of which 273 villages and 1.1 lakh people lived in what the Ministry calls the “core” area, that is the area in which according to the Ministry there should be no human habitation for the needs of tiger conservation. In the adjacent “buffer” area also substantial numbers of tribal families had their rights to livelihood seriously restricted causing great distress.

In Chattisgarh, the State Government had to go to the Supreme Court in an appeal to permit tribals and local communities living in 313 villages in the 15 protected areas in the State the right to collect at least minor forest produce which is the basis of their livelihood. This was because, the Ministry for Environment (MOEF) –as a result on an earlier Supreme Court order —did not permit even plucking of leaves or collection of honey in any protected area of the State. This despite the fact that there was nothing to show, no data, or environmental impact study that the collection of minor forest produce would adversely affect bio-diversity conservation concerns.

Most of the wildlife sanctuaries are in tribal dominated Vth schedule areas. But in none of these sanctuaries have the claims of tribals been settled and in many they are considered encroachers to be evicted. The situation remains more or less the same in sanctuaries all over the country where tribals face eviction or are banned from collection of minor forest produce which is their livelihood. Many of the forests declared protected areas are in the Vth and VIth Scheduled Protected areas where there are very specifically delineated rights of self-governance for tribals recognized by law as for example under the Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act 1996 but which are being violated.

These amendments to the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 were passed before the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 that draws strength from the Indian Constitution and as much as we understand “our” law we need to know that the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 was also amended to recognise the inherent rights of Adivasis and Forest Dwellers.

Related:

UP Forest Dept. had no authority to intrude over ‘revenue land’: CJP-AIUFWP to NHRC

Tug of war between two ministries, Adivasis rights slip through the cracks

Fact-finding report demands action against officials who fired on protesting Adivasis in Kaimur

Legal muscle to defend Forest Rights

The post Are over 1,10,000 Adivasis & Forest Dwellers at risk of eviction and loss of livelihood? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Since 2013, members of the Tharu Adivasi tribe of Dudhwa region, in Lakhimpur Kheri district of Uttar Pradesh (UP) have been awaiting the approval of their community rights claims under the  Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA). Procedural delays have kept them deprived of their rights for eight years! Yet they have continued their peaceful struggle.

Governments have come and gone, administrators have changed, but the resolve of the Tharu Adivasis remains unshaken. A representative and one of the leaders of the Tharu community, Sehvaniya, said the community has not lost hope. “The government is not paying any attention to the process. The district level officials are coordinating well but we have told them that they do not have the power to reject the claims. If there are any defects they can just return the claims and inform us about the same. When we spoke to the Welfare Officer, while submitting our objections to the rejection letter, he assured us that they will resolve this issue for us,” says Sehvaniya.

In their objections submitted to the Welfare officer of the district, the community has mentioned specific provisions of the FRA to demonstrate that the district committee has no power to reject their claims. Sehvaniya explains, “We told them that you have not bothered to read or look at FRA and have just plainly rejected our claims. They had pre-decided to just reject them; had we not read through the laws, we would not have known what to do. They are referring to the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union Of India & Ors (1997) 2 SCC 267 but the legislature has formulated FRA and we will go by the law.”

They are hopeful as they have been assured of a meeting with the District Magistrate (DM). “We will ask for a meeting with the DM soon but before that we will need to understand our rights and the law better so that we are better prepared to have a discussion. They often comment that our claims and objections and communications with them are drafted by outsiders but that is not the case, we understand the laws and the legal process and we draft by ourselves with a help in understanding our rights and laws. They tell us some defect is there in our claims so we tell them you need to assist us in understanding the law so that the process becomes easy for us,” says Sehvaniya advising caution.

When asked about what has been the overall attitude of the forest department generally, she says, “The forest department does not cooperate with us, they have stuck to their ways of filing false cases against us. We are allowed to take lakdi (firewood) but they do not let us; we tell them that it is in the law but they say they do not go by it. They also set fire in the forests sometimes which destroys the habitat for the animals. There is not one family where a member has not had a false case against them. We just want our claims to be approved so the forest department’s behavior towards us changes.”

Sehvaniya says that they do receive cooperation from the police but they are also not much aware about forest rights and the laws “so they also get stuck between us and the forest department” She also added that there are some forest officers who come on transfer and if they try to help them in any way, they get adversely affected in one way or the other.

She sounds hopeful and resilient as they are eager as a community to learn and know about their rights and follow proper legal procedure as prescribed in the FRA, to finally get their community rights.

Related:

8 years on, Tharu tribe’s struggle for land rights continues
UP: Merely 20% land rights claims approved by district committees
Forest rangers relent; release Forest Rights Committee Chairman in face of resounding dissent

The post What keeps the Tharu Adivasis going in their quest for Community Forest Rights? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

With resounding the cries of ‘Jal-Jungle-Zameen’ (water-forests-land), forest dwelling communities belonging to Tharu Adivasi community residing in 20 villages in Dudhwa region of Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh, filed their Objections to denial of community land claims with the district administration.

These objections come in wake of rejection of their community land rights claims which they had filed way back in 2013 and which have remained in limbo more or less, considering the amount of time that has passed.

The forest dwelling community is deeply disappointed with the way the process has been handled until now. In their objections, they have pointed out that the manner in which their claims have been rejected is not in accordance with the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA). They have stated that the District Level Committee that has rejected their claims does not have the authority to do so, while citing many provisions of FRA.

Community forest rights recognised under the Forest Rights Act are important for securing livelihoods of the forest communities and for strengthening local self-governance of forests and natural resources.

The claims filed by 20 villages in Dudhwa, Lakhimpur Kheri district were rejected at the District Level Committee, and hence they filed their objections to this rejection at the State Oversight Committee under the FRA.

The objections raised are as follows:

1.     The District Level Committee does not have the power to reject the claims made by the villagers.

Section 6(3) of FRA states that the Sub-Divisional Level Committee is to examine the resolution passed by the Gram Sabha, and prepare the record of forest rights and forward it through the Sub-Divisional Officer to the District Level Committee for a final decision.

Further, sub-section 5 of section 6 also reiterate that the District Level Committee is supposed to consider and finally approve the record of forest rights prepared by the Sub-Divisional Level Committee.

Thus, the power of the District Level Committee is to approve the record of the forest rights as prepared by the Sub-Divisional level Committee.

2.     This rejection by the District Committee indicates that either they are not fully conversant with FRA or this was done intentionally to deprive forest dwellers from their forest rights.

3.     The District Committee should have sent their recommendations over the community claims back to the Gram Sabha for reconsideration. The District Level Committee did not only reject the claims but also took many months to respond to the claims.

4.     District social welfare department and Sub-divisional level Committee have conducted a faulty probe into the claims. The letter of the District Level Committee is dated March 15, 2021 while the letter has been received by the village level Forest Rights Committees only on September 20, 2021. Even this letter was received only when the Committees wrote to Sub-divisional and District Level Committee to find out about the status of the claims.

5.     Further, the reasons mentioned for rejection of the claims are not only in contravention to FRA but are also unconstitutional. The case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union Of India & Ors (1997) 2 SCC 267 cited in the letter of the District level Committee is not applicable in this case, since section 4 of FRA surmounts and bestows in clear language, forest rights upon forest dwelling communities.

Section 13 of FRA also states, “Save as otherwise provided in this Act and the Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. FRA stands over and above the Indian Forests Act, 1927 and hence, it is wrong to reject forest rights claims basis the 1927 Act.

6.     When SDLC passed the claims with its comments then under which section of FRA have the claims been rejected by the DLC? Under FRA, claims cannot be rejected without any basis. Also, the claims have been pending since 2013 their approval was put on hold as per Forest Department orders. No strong grounds have been provided for rejection of the claims.

7.     Under section 4(7) of FRA, it is clearly stated, “The forest rights shall be conferred free of all encumbrances and procedural requirements, including clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, requirement of paying the ‘net present value’ and ‘compensatory afforestation’ for diversion of forest land, except those specified in this Act.”

Thus, the reference of the Godavarman case in the DLC’ rejection letter is erroneous. It is clear that notwithstanding anything contained in any forest related law, the provisions given in the Forest Rights Act will hold more prominence than anything else. This law supersedes any earlier law related to forest and the decisions given by the courts.

8.     In the case of village Surma, in spite of the order of the Allahabad High Court to displace the village in 2003, the Uttar Pradesh Law and Justice Department went against these orders and in 2011 under the Forest Rights Act they not only gave people proprietary rights on their residence and agricultural lands but also given revenue status, despite being in the core zone of tiger reserves. Due to which the above arguments made by the District Level Committee are automatically nullified.

9.     In the last paragraph of this order given by the District Level Committee, apart from the benefits of the schemes, it has been accepted that the individual claims of village Surma were accepted. It is important to note that when individual rights have been recognised under a law, then how can claims of community rights made under the same law be nullified. This double standard of eligibility and ineligibility in a single law proves that this decision taken by the district level committee regarding community claims is completely in violation of the law.

10.  That the District Level Committee has written in the letter that the people of this village neither live in the forests nor are they dependent on the forests for their livelihood. Whereas there are old records of the village being settled in the Dudhwa forest area for more than 200 years and the records are already presented before the SDLC.

11.   The DLC has passed the rejection order without making any reference to FRA. The meeting of the District Level Committee where the decision to reject the claims was made, was supposed to include three members of the tribal community or other traditional forest dwellers, as per FRA.

12.  That the FRA 2006 and the concerned 2008 Rules are a historic milestone in the lives of all Adivasis and forest dwelling communities that protect both their lives and livelihood. The enactment of this crucial legislation, through an Act of Parliament, was the result of a decade long struggle and articulation of India’s indigenous, Adivasi, other traditional forest dwelling communities and, in fact, marks a much-needed shift in jurisprudence by empowering local communities and their Gram Sabhas not only with governance but also protection of their livelihoods, forests and lands.

By not following proper procedure and rules, and by using delaying tactics, it defeats the purpose of the law that is meant to protect our interests. In fact, the enactment gives statutory life and teeth to Constitutional provisions already made for the Adivasi, Indigenous peoples and Forest Dwelling Communities under Schedules V, VI and XI of the Indian Constitution (Schedule IX deals with the North east).

13.  Such community claims cannot be rejected by an authority that does not have the power to do so. Moreover, the rejection of these claims was done in a hasty manner. It is a known fact that the relationship between forest dwelling communities/Scheduled Tribes with land is crucial and is also a source of livelihood for them. That land also gives them the social and economic security that they have been deprived of for years.

14.  Following the sudden and controversial order of the Supreme Court in February 2019 ordering “evictions” after being misled by the petitioners, both the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) took strong objection after which the Court has stayed operation of its own order.

In fact, a woman leader of the Tharu Community, Nevada Rana, along with another senior Adivasi woman leader Sokalo Gond, backed by the All India Union of Forest Working Peoples (AIUFWP) and Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP), have intervened in the Supreme Court. In this historic intervention, we have laid down an elaborate argument on the historic purpose of the FRA 2006 and how it is a “recognition of rights” law. (Intervention Application Nos 107284/2019 Sokalo Gond and Ors) 

The letter in Hindi may be read here:

Related:

Attacks on Tharu Adivasis: NHRC issues final warning to UP forest department for inaction
Covid-19 and Adivasi Empowerment: CJP’s unique contribution
Forest Rights and Covid-19: Through the eyes of UP and Uttarakhand grassroot activists

The post 8 years on, Tharu tribe’s struggle for land rights continues appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On June 22, 2021, the environment ministry invited consultancy organisations to express interest in preparing a draft comprehensive amendment to the draconian and colonial Indian Forest Act 1927. The government has used this draconian law of colonial origin to weaponise the forest department and control land and produce actually devolved to traditional forest dwellers under the Forest Rights Act of 2006.

This announcement comes after unsuccessful attempts to push through an amendment to this Act in 2019. The announcement may be read here.

In March 2019, it was the same ministry that circulated a draft amendment to the Indian Forest Act 1927, to overhaul the 1927 version. This had invited widespread protests and sharp criticisms. These controversial amendments included provisions that allowed the officers of the forest department to shoot anyone in the name of forest protection, with little threat of criminal action. They could even terminate the forest rights of any forest-dwellers by paying them a paltry sum of money (section 22A (2), 30(b)). Forest officials could also raid and arrest without warrants and confiscate the property of any forest-dweller. If the forest department accused anyone of possessing any illegal objects, the accused would have to prove their innocence, not the accuser. The proposed amendments may be read here.

If this draft had become law, it would have ended the rule of law in India’s forests and turned them into grim battlefields. It would have deviously overridden the Forest Rights Act 2006 (FRA), a law enacted after a century and a half long battle of indigenous peoples of the country.

Prakash Javadekar, the then environment minister, was quick disowned this draft in November 2020, in the face of widespread criticism. With an eye on that, Javadekar said, “We are completely withdrawing the draft amendment to the Indian Forest Act to remove any misgivings; the tribal rights will be protected fully and they will continue to be the important stakeholder in forest development.” Jawdekar’s statrement may be read here. 

It was then that the onus on drafting the changes was passed from government and its bureaucrats to private companies. The FRA 2006 recognises all conceivable forest rights except hunting, whether listed in the law. These pertain to the rights of individuals and the community and territorial rights of habitations. It effectively shifted the authority to protect forests, wildlife and biodiversity from the forest department to the gram sabha of these habitations. The law was enacted because “forest rights on ancestral lands and their habitat were not adequately recognised in the consolidation of State forests during the colonial period as well as in independent India resulting in historical injustice”.

Eighteen years before in a significant policy shift, the National Forest Policy, 1988 –in tune with national and international evolving understanding around forest conservation and the rights of India’s indigenous peoples– also recognised “the symbiotic relationship between the tribal people and forests”. Then, the passage of the FRA gave fuller expression to this goal.

It was under the NDA II government, with its inherent policy to transfer public resources to private capital that the central environment ministry, in March 2018, released the draft National Forest Policy as a replacement of the 1988 document. This draft completely ignored the FRA and its gram sabha-based governance structures. It brazenly promoted commercial plantation-centric investments that sought to manage forests through private entities, under the rubric of private-public participation. The aim was to increase tree cover and productivity to meet industrial and other needs – at the cost of negating the fact that more than half of India’s forests are currently within the jurisdiction of gram sabhas. This draft policy may be read here. 

It was several months and several protests before the tribal ministry responded. In June 2018, the tribal affairs secretary wrote to the environment secretary that the environment ministry doesn’t have “exclusive jurisdiction” to frame policies related to forests. In actual fact, 12 years before, on March 17, 2006, “all matters, including legislation, relating to the rights of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes on forest lands” had been carved out from the subject of forests from the environment ministry, and transferred to the tribal affairs ministry’s jurisdiction through an amendment to the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules 1961.

These may be read here. This put an end to the environment ministry’s perceived monopoly over forests. MOTA is on record saying that the draft National Forest Policy 2018 “disregarded the traditional custodians and conservatives of the forests, namely, tribals” and that it gave “a thrust to increased privatisation, industrialisation and diversion of forest resources for commercialisation”. What is to follow now is a fresh confrontation between the MoEF and MOTA as can be gleaned in the New Forest Policy (2020), not public yet.

A recent joint communication by the tribal and environment ministries signed a ‘Joint communication for more effective implementation of the Forest Rights Act’ on July 6, 2021. This is what former environment minister Javadekar called this “a paradigm shift from one of working in silos to achieving convergence between ministries and departments”. Apparently, the result of discussions between the two ministries since August 2020, the ‘joint communication’ said that, henceforth, “both ministries may take a collective view on the matter including issuing joint clarification, guidelines, etc.”

However, all matters relating to forest rights on forest land are today under the tribal ministry. It is in fact the nodal ministry for FRA implementation. And it has asked frontline forest staff to assist the gram sabhas with preparing conservation and management plans for the forests under their respective jurisdictions. They are to “integrate such conservation and management plans with the micro plans or working plans or management plans of the forest department”. This is contrary to the law. Gram sabhas have a free hand to make their own plans and also “to modify the micro plan or working plan or management plan of the forest department”.

State governments have also been asked “to give suitable instructions” to the gram sabhas to harness the joint forest management committees to protect and manage forests. These are admittedly entities under the control of the forest department – but ultimately the gram sabhas have the authority to “protect the wildlife, forest and biodiversity”.

Taken together, the tribal affairs ministry has asked the forest bureaucracy to take control of FRA implementation at all levels – again contrary to the law. India’s traditional forest dwellers and Adivasis are closely observing what the environment ministry will do next, and how the tribal affairs ministry will respond.

Related:

Compendium of Judgments on the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (June 15, 2016)
Counter Affidavit filed by MoTa in support of tribal rights in the FRA

The post Two ministries and India’s traditional forest dwellers, Adivasis appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Members of the Vantangiya tribe, the forest dwellers who live in Gorakhpur and adjoining districts, will for the first time since Independence participate in the panchayat elections on April 15. The tribes folk will exercise their right to vote and elect their own village head in the first-phase voting for Uttar Pradesh panchayat polls. The Gorakhpur Vantangiya villages will vote in the first phase when over 3,500 of tribal voters will choose their own gram pradhan, according to a report in the New Indian Express.

Gorakhpur district has five Vantangiya villages, the adjoining Maharajganj has 18 and Gonda and Balrampur have five each. These areas became revenue villages in 2017. The report quotes social activist Manoj Singh who says these elections will result in the “real empowerment,” of the tribes.

The villagers had voted for the first time in the 2019 general election, but it is the panchayat polls that will have a direct impact as they will choose a leader who is one of them, and who hopefully will be able to relate to their daily concerns and help solve  problems.

According to a 2019 feature in Down to Earth magazine, Vantangiyas have been settled in pockets of eastern Uttar Pradesh for a century, but didn’t have voting rights till the 1990s. They are said to be the one who turned barren lands into forests, however, as is the case elsewhere with other forest dwellers, they too did not have a right over forest produce and continued to lead impoverished lives. According to the report there are about 60,000 Vantangiyas living in Gorakhpur and Maharajgunj districts.

Who are the Vantangiyas and what is their story?

SanbrangIndia’s detailed news feature on the tribe had shown how their history can in fact be traced to when the British were expanding rail lines zeroed in onto the forest of Deori, Nainital, Pilibhit, Lakhimpur Kheeri, Bahraich, Balrampur Maharajganj, Gorakhpur and more in Uttar Pradesh. After passing the Awadh Forest Rules, the British cunningly captured the forests of Bahraich in 1861, and in 1885, they brought in the forest department to control the forest produce. For this, four ranges of Motipur, Chakia, Charda and Bhinga were at breakneck speed in the whole country. To lay a kilometre of a rail line, 60 Sakhu trees had to be sacrificed for their strength. The wood was used to lay sleepers below the railway line and the demand for the wood increased. The Forest officers in the newly minted forest department chopped down many Sakhu forests in the region. The feature on the origins and history of the Vantangiyas may be read here.

Related:

Allahabad HC has not ordered evictions of Surma villagers of Dudhwa Forest
Equity to be maintained between industrialisation and ecosystem: Orissa HC
The rich history of Vantangiya’s are threatened when villages like Mahbubnagar 

The post Forest dwellers to elect village heads for first time in UP appeared first on SabrangIndia.