The Forest Rights Act was passed in 2006 following decades of struggle by forest-working peoples to redress the exclusionary legacy of colonial and post-colonial forest laws. The FRA acknowledges the rights of individual and community access to land, housing, and to minor forest produce, and grants the Gram Sabhas authority to manage and protect forests. The intent of the FRA was to transfer authority from the centralised forest-administrative bodies (like the Forest Department) to local communities and to make the Gram Sabha’s consent a precondition for the approval of any forest diversion. And de-centralisation was recognised as key to protection of both land rights and forest protection.

The Forest (Conservation) Act, enacted in 1980 –and hurriedly amended in 2023 without debate– has a centralised approach to conservation and, following amendments in 2023, has gone further still to consolidate centralized control over forest land. The amendments narrowed the definition of the term “forest” and included broad exemptions for strategic and commercial projects, and also authorised the regularization of diversions under the law. The amendments to the FCA have dismantled community consultation, removed environmental protection, and ultimately weakened the requirements to divert land from indigenous peoples in favour of land acquisition for development. The FCA now enables diversion of forest land for national security and infrastructure development, particularly in border areas, and weakened the requirement for Gram Sabha consent, designed to make community consultation a formality after the diversion has occurred.

It is crucial at this junction to recall the eviction order, passed by the Supreme Court in February 2019 that became the ground for nationwide and lasting protests by forest dwellers and Adivasis. The intent and impact of the order would have been to displace as many as one crore forest community members. Hence, its passage became yet another pivotal moment in the struggle for land and forest rights in India. The order triggered mobilisation among Adivasi and forest community members and immediate civil society response at the nation level, notably the All India Union of Forest Working Peoples (AIUFWP) and Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP). Within two weeks, national civil society intervention (close to a dozen and a half interim applications were finally filed) led to the Court staying its eviction order. This move was also necessitated after an affidavit, filed by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs that requested a full reconsideration of the case. The matter still awaits hearing before the Supreme Court, and demonstrates the ongoing struggle over the rights of statutory recognition against conservation. On October 24, 2025, again, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MOTA) has –once more–sharply rebutted a plea which has challenged before the Supreme Court (SC) the legal validity of the 2012 Rules, made under the law, The Indian Express has learnt. In a counter affidavit filed before the SC in the same matter, the Centre has not only defended the legal validity of the Act but also stressed that the law goes beyond mere land ownership regularisation and aims to restore dignity, livelihoods, and cultural identity of forest-dependent communities.

AIUFWP is a national, women-led membership union representing forest-dwelling communities, agricultural workers, and Adivasis. It creates leadership for grassroots communities, especially among Adivasi women, advocates for distributive justice, and works with stakeholders across India to secure legalisation and recognition of community based customary forest rights. CJP operates as a legal rights and advocacy organisation, in close alliance with the AIUWFP by supporting ground-level training and legal interventions. CJP is both drafter and co-petitioner in the detailed interlocutory application (IA) filed before the Supreme Court in 2019. This IA detailed the historic disenfranchisement of India’s indigenous peoples that led to the enactment of the 2006 law, the systemic grievances with claims being denied, due process failings and the deliberate bypassing of Gram Sabhas, and violations of the statute scheme for the Forest Rights Act, 2006 by the forest administration. It also emphasised that mass evictions (not mandated in the law itself) were without constitutional justification and violated natural justice and legal protections.

In the follow-up hearings, the Supreme Court, going well beyond its original order, required states to file affidavits investigating state processes concerning the assessment of forest rights claims and about claims that were denied altogether. Determining whether community land rights are properly granted is now a question of what the Court would deem sufficient transparency in state action.

Apart from this crucial matter (Wildlife First, in which Adivasi unions and others have intervened), at the same time, the apex court of India –another bench–is considering challenges to amendments made to the Forest (Conservation) Act enacted hurriedly in 2023, which would broaden the chasm between statutory protection (under the FRA 2006) and state sovereignty (under the FCA). As publicly noted in one of the recent bench observations, the principle basis for halting mass evictions focused on the unresolved policy and law contradiction between the tenurial and welfare entitlements granted by the Forest Rights Act and the hard restrictions allegedly imposed for sake of conservation by the Forest (Conservation) Act. Thus, this continuing litigation is sitting at the crossroads of India’s obligations—to forest-dwelling peoples and conservation—creating a tension and dispute between rights-based justice and regulatory control the recurrent subject for adjudication in the future.

Criticism of the FCA amendments is directed specifically to their consequences in the North-East, where a multitude of forests are not recognised officially by the state yet serve as crucial in-state clearings for indigenous communities or communities in general. The amendments have bypassed (pushed aside) Gram Sabhas, authorised less participatory governance, and fostered concerns regarding green credits and monoculture afforestation. The Godavarman judgment (1996) expanded the definition of “forest” to include unclassified and community forests; however, the newly repealed law does not recognise large areas subject to exploitation.

The approach of the Supreme Court has fluctuated over the years: see for example the direction of the Wildlife First case, and then the Niyamgiri judgment acknowledged consent from Gram Sabhas prior to forest diversion. Nevertheless, the legal condition for indigenous rights is presently ambiguous and somewhat unpredictable on fore use, where the discretion of execution has taken priority over community rights and constitutional guarantees.

The exclusion of indigenous communities from forest governance has a historical precedent, as far back as colonial rule where laws regarded them as encroachers instead of custodians of land and resources. The FRA can be understood as an acknowledgement and a corrective action towards this injustice, recognising the rights of Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers to land, resources, and self-governance. The FRA was a multifaceted, energising outcome for these communities after decades of mobilising their rights and advocating for their access to and enjoyment of forests as an acknowledgment of their livelihoods and to democratise forest governance and restore dignity to marginalised communities.

In many ways, the expansion of centralised governance through The Forest (Conservation) Act has been legitimized via the Supreme Court’s Godavarman judgement of 1996, an important case that greatly expanded the administrative definition – and control over the meaning of “forest.” Centralization directly contradicts the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA), which creates firm ground for a decentralised, community-based rights agenda of forest management. The tension is not simply administrative or logistical but is an observed and constitutionally established tension in the power relationship between the executive and authoritative and empowered Gram Sabhas, flooring the foundational conflict of purpose between development, conservation, and indigenous rights.

The Godavarman judgment explicitly stated, “…the word ‘forest’ must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognized forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest (Conservation) Act. The term ‘forest land’, occurring in Section 2, will not only include ‘forest’ as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the government record irrespective of the ownership.” (Godavarman v UOI, 1996). By contrast, the FRA 2006 frames the legal mandate as, “…to recognize and vest the forest rights and occupation in forest land in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who have been residing in such forests for generations but whose rights could not be recorded; in order to correct the historical injustice done to the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who are integral to the very survival and sustainability of the forest ecosystem.”

The 2023 FCA amendments, with a narrower definition of what qualifies as “forest,” and less opportunity for Gram Sabha participation, are yet another movement towards executive power, effectively disenfranchising the FRA’s commitment to decentralisation and democracy. This constitutional tension is yet to be resolved and is at the forefront of ongoing litigation and policy discussions concerning forest governance, development priorities, and the protection of indigenous and community rights.

Conclusion

There is an urgent need for a renewed and comprehensive framework that reconciles the inherent community and historic rights of communities over land/the commons and those of “the state” that seeks to unilaterally claim land for corporate development. Such a people’s right driven scheme would be one that upholds constitutional protections, revives community governance, and ensures community participation in environmental assessments. It will take the reversal of community jurisdiction and accountability of the state to limit logging in India’s forests, and the Supreme Court’s intervention could be a new beginning. India will only be able to protect its forests when it also protects the rights of those who have historically cared for them; by reaffirming the primacy of Gram Sabhas, transparency in impact assessments, and a stronger legal basis for rights recognition.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this resource has been worked on by Urvi Kehri)

Image Courtesy: business-standard.com

References:

• India: Legacies and Challenges of the Land & Forest Rights Movement Booklet
• https://cjp.org.in/forest-conservation-amendment-act-2023-a-challenge-to-adivasi-land-rights-and-environmental-protections/
• https://cjp.org.in/what-is-the-forest-rights-act-2006-and-how-are-we-defending-it/
• https://cjp.org.in/sokalo-gond-and-nivada-rana-lead-the-campaign-for-forest-rights-in-sc/
• https://cjp.org.in/forest-rights-case-sc-directs-states-to-file-compliance-affidavits/
• https://cjp.org.in/forest-conservation-amendment-bill-north-east-to-bear-the-brunt/
• https://thewire.in/environment/the-forest-rights-act-and-the-battle-for-indias-forests
• https://www.scobserver.in/cases/constitutionality-of-the-frawildlife-first-v-ministry-of-forest-and-environment-eviction-of-forest-dwellers-background/
• https://www.sanctuarynaturefoundation.org/article/the-forest-%28conservation%29-amendment-act%2C-2023
• https://www.scobserver.in/journal/the-amended-green-law-is-full-of-red-flags-forests-amendment-act-2023/
• https://www.scobserver.in/reports/arguments-on-february-28th-2019/
• https://www.scobserver.in/reports/wildlife-first-v-ministry-of-forest-and-environment-eviction-of-forest0dwellers-arguments-on-september-12th-2019/
• Godavarman v UOI, 1996, Supreme Court of India

The post Supreme Court examines Forest Rights Act 2006 versus Conservation Law, makes national headlines appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In their detailed communication, they raise five crucial points:

1. Statements made by the Minister of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change himself which hold the implementation, such as it is, of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 responsible for degradation and loss of prime forest areas.
2. ⁠Continued submission of legally untenable data on encroachment of forest areas to Parliamentary forums as well to the National Green Tribunal.
3. ⁠Orders issued by the National Tiger Conservation Authority in June 2024 for the eviction of almost 65,000 families from tiger reserves across the country.
4. ⁠The mis-attribution by the Forest Survey of India for the loss of forest cover over the last decade to the implementation of the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
5. ⁠The 2023 amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 that were bulldozed through Parliament and the subsequent Van Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan Rules, 2023 that adversely impact both the quantity and quality of forests.

All these issues are of critical significance especially to tribal and other communities residing and earning their livelihoods in forest areas. They are also of fundamental importance to ecological security. The track record of the present Modi Govt –now in its third term–does not inspire the confidence that these issues will even get discussed and debated with those who have been compelled to bring the PM’s attention to them.

Elaborating these, the letter states that the statement of the Union Environment Minister Bhupendra Yadav dated June 5.2025, “is part of a consistent series of subversions by the MoEFCC. As a result, FRA implementation has been dragging on stiffly resisted and disrupted by the forest bureaucracy as well as the environment ministry, for the last 16 years.”

On June 5.2025, the Union Environment Minister Bhupendra Yadav answering a question on loss of forest and its degradation in a recent media interview reportedly stated, “Although there is a net increase in dense forests in the country, there are areas where the dense prime forests have been affected with degradation. This may be due to encroachment, illicit felling and in northeast region, due to shifting cultivation. And to a lesser degree, due to unregulated grazing, natural causes like storms and landslides, and also titles given under Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006. This may be addressed by taking up stringent protection measures added with effective community involvement, and also by regulating shifting cultivation in case of north-eastern region.”

The Minster’s response attributing the loss of forest to FRA titles given to Adivasi and forest dwellers has no legal basis and evidence, says the joint communication, and is “highly irresponsible and misleading.” Further the writers state that, tThe statement is contrary to the fact that the MoEFCC in 2009 itself, in its own country report to the FAO stated that FRA ‘assigned rights to protect around 40 million hectares of community forest resources to village level democratic institutions. The fine tuning of other forest-related legislations is needed with respect to the said Act.’ While blaming FRA, the Adivasi and other forest rights holders, the Minister conveniently overlooks the fact that the MoEFCC itself allowed the illegal diversion of more than 3 lakh hectares of forest since 2008 for non-forest activities denuding forests, without complying with FRA. This contradicts both the minister’s statement and the MoEFCC’s approach.

The rest of the communication is extracted here:

2.  MOEFCC continues to submit legally untenable data on encroachment in Parliamentary forums and the NGT

On March 28, 2025, the environment ministry submitted on affidavit to National Green Tribunal (NGT) that 1.3 million hectares (13,05,688.387 ha or 13,056 sq. km) of forest land is ‘under encroachment’ as of March 2024. This affidavit was filed in compliance to the NGT order of April 19, 2024, in OA No.129/2024, and covers data from 20 states and 5 Union Territories (UTs); data from remaining states and UTs was awaited. Of this, at least 50,977.99 ha of “encroachments” have been allegedly removed. The aforementioned case registered suo moto by NGT in reference to a Deccan Herald news item of 05.01.2024, titled Forest land five times Delhi’s geographical area under encroachment govt data shows referred to 0.75 million hectares (7,50,633 ha) forest area under ‘encroachment’.

The MoEFCC has been repeatedly reporting such false data on ‘encroachment’ in both the houses of the Parliament too. In May 2002, the figure stood at 1.4 million hectares (14,95,746.732 ha). A decade later in 2021, the figure was 1.3 million (13,29,450.2 ha).

The Ministry makes no reference to the Forest rights Act or its statutory body the Gram Sabhas. On 03.02.2025, responding to a question on the forest encroachment, the Minister of State of MoEFCC said that, “The Protection and management of forests is primarily the responsibility of the concerned State Government/UT Administration and this Ministry issues advisories to State Governments/UT Administrations to remove encroachments on forest lands as per the provisions of the law.” Again, on 1.08.2022, the Environment Minister responding to the Lok Sabha Question No. 218 on forest encroachment stated that “the Ministry has written to State Governments/UT Administrations to remove encroachment as per the existing Acts/Rules and to ensure that no further encroachment takes place. In order to prevent and control encroachments, the States and UTs also take various measures such as demarcation and digitization of forest boundaries, strengthening infrastructure for forest protection, involving fringe area forest communities through Joint Forest Management Committees, Eco Development Committees etc.” Besides placing legally untenable statistics on encroachments, the Ministry also ordered for the removal of these ‘alleged encroachments’ without any reference to the drastic changes in applicable laws.

As per extant law, the rights of forest dwellers that are recognised and vested by FRA are to be determined, demarcated, recognized and recorded, and only after this can the area and extent of area under actual encroachment can even be determined. Only thereafter can the process of eviction be initiated under the State laws. FRA prohibits eviction under Sec.4(5) without the satisfactory completion of FRA process. Further, the Supreme Court order of 28 Feb 2019, in Wildlife First and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors_, WP(C) 109/2008, etc. has kept on hold the eviction and requires a review of all rejected claims. Thus, any eviction of “encroachers” after 28 February 2019 is a violation of the Supreme Court order and amounts to contempt of court. This reveals the duplicity of the ruling government, who in 2019 informs the Supreme Court that the process of recognizing and determining rights in forests is incomplete and plagued by illegalities, and then later states to NGT legally untenable figures for “encroachment” and undertakes eviction of forest dwellers.

The MOEFCC should have apprised the Parliamentary forums and courts on all these legalities. Instead of doing so, it is deliberately misleading the NGT, the Court and deceiving the forest dwellers and Adivasis of the country.

3.  NTCA order dated June 19, 2024 directing eviction of 64,801 families from tiger reserves of India.

National Tiger Conservation Authority, a wing of the Environment Ministry, chaired by the Union Environment Minister, on June 19, 2024, ordered the expeditious relocation of 64,801 families from tiger reserves, in complete violation of the Forest Rights Act 2006 and Wildlife Protection Act 1972 and other existing legal frameworks. Several submissions have been made to the NTCA asking for the withdrawal of this legally untenable order. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs and the National Commission of Scheduled Tribes have both apprised the NTCA about the concerns pertaining to non- recognition of forest rights in the tiger reserves, forced evictions, non-compliance of the statutory framework – yet the NTCA has not withdrawn its June 19 2024 order till date. This has aggravated the risk of displacement, forced evictions, curtailment of rights, criminalization of forest dwellers and forced them into a state of economic and social insecurity in different parts of the country. The details of the same can be referred in the rejoinder submitted to NTCA.

4.   India State of Forest Report 2023 blames FRA for forest loss with no evidence.

The India State of Forest Report (ISFR) published by the Forest Survey of India (FSI), a scientific institute under the MOEFCC is a biennial assessment of the state and status of India’s forests. The ISFR 2023 has already been called out by civil servants, conservationists and scientists for its flawed scientific methodology, inconsistent data, fluctuation in statistical reporting, promotion of ecologically damaging schemes such as the Green Credits Programme, and interventions such as replacing of natural ecosystems with plantations. (Access here) The ISFR 2023 report while citing the reasons for negative changes in forest and tree cover attributes ‘titles given to beneficiaries under the Forest Rights Act 2006’ as one of the reasons (Annexure 3).

FSI, a scientific institution, cannot make such claims without substantiating their allegations with evidence or data. The statements in the FSI report are even more concerning since in 2019 it has been impleaded as a party respondent in the Wildlife First vs. Union of India case (supra) before the Supreme Court, raising apprehensions that it will raise these unscientific and absurd submissions before the court using inapplicable scientific tools as satellite imagery. The MoEFCC, its Ministers and affiliated institutions, are promoting false, malicious, legally untenable and politically sabotaging claims against FRA.

5.      Amendments in Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and subverting the legitimacy of institutional authorities opposing forest diversion.

The environment ministry in 2023 amended the Forest Conservation Act of 1980 (now Van Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan Adhiniyam, 1980) despite vehement opposition and concerns raised by constitutional bodies such as National Commission for Scheduled Tribes and from conservationists and scientists, forest rights groups and forest dwellers’ communities. This amendment aims to facilitate ‘ease of doing business’ that adversely impacts the forest and ecological security of the country. Among other things, the amendments:

a. Nullify the definition and extent of forest that the Supreme Court established in

b. Provide exemptions to different categories of projects even within this restricted definition of

c. Does away with Central government’s role, through the Forest Advisory Committee and MoEFCC, to ensure FRA compliance as a pre-requisite for forest diversion, regarding both prior forest rights recognition and prior Gram Sabha Instead, this responsibility has been shifted to the State governments after Stage-II clearance.

d. The Van Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan Rules, 2023 and a series of Guidelines issued by the MoEFCC in purported furtherance of these amendments have further diluted the integral role of the FRA and of forest dwelling communities in the conservation and preservation of forests in India.

In conclusion, the collective letter states that “it evidently clear that the environment ministry is least concerned with forest conservation but more inclined towards facilitating faster and easier forest diversion with scant regard for the Forest Conservation Act, the Wildlife Protection Act, in addition to the Forest Rights Act, all of which require the recognition of forest rights under FRA. FRA was enacted to undo the historical injustice committed upon the forest dwelling communities due to non-recognition of their tenure over their ancestral lands and their habitat in the consolidation of State forests during the colonial period as well as in independent India.”

“The environment ministry is duty bound to uphold the laws enacted by the Parliament, but its continued hostility towards the laws and forest dwellers in their untrammelled quest to serve commercial private interests is widely perceived as open encouragement and support to the explosion in forest degradation by the Government of India itself. The Environment Ministry’s aforementioned actions on behalf of the Government of India are in blatant disregard for all laws (IFA, FCA, WLPA, CAMPA, LARR and FRA) relegating MoTA to not exercising its institutional powers and role with regard to forest rights. This portends increased unrest that threatens forests and all its forest dwellers if not urgently contained.”

The demands articulated in the communication are:

1. Immediate halting of the MoEFCC’s attempts to subvert the Forest Rights
2. Union Environment Minster must issue a public clarification of his media statement, and immediately withdraw his legally untenable claim that Forest Rights Act results in forest degradation.
3. MoEFCC to stop spewing false, malicious, legally untenable claims against Forest Rights Act; to issue clarification on the same and to stop undue interference and overreach in the functions of MoTA and Forest Rights Act.
4. MoEFCC to immediately appraise the Supreme Court of India and NGT about the legalities pertaining to forests, forest “encroachment” and Forest Rights Act, unambiguously clarifying that encroachment and any subsequent action on it cannot be taken up till the process of implementation of FRA is completed. Necessary orders to the state Forest Departments be issued to suspend evictions until after the Gram Sabhas declare the completion of FRA implementation and after obtaining their consent.
5. MoEFCC and FSI to stop misleading government institutions, Parliament, the Judiciary by filing affidavits with legally untenable data and figures on No such data can be deduced till FRA has been implemented completely and lawfully.
6. Immediate withdrawal of the NTCA letter dated June 19, 2024 without any further delay and order complete halt on relocations from tiger reserves till NTCA has provided data on rights recognized under FRA in tiger reserves and to provide all records of due compliance with all the statutory provisions under Section 38 V of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.

Among the signatories are the Mahila Kisan Adivasi Manch (MAKAAM), the Adivasi Adhikar Rashtriya Manch, CPI(M), India, Akhil Bhartiya Adivasi Mahasabha (CPI), India, Gondwana Ganatantra Party, (Tuleswar Markaam- National President), Akhil Bharatiya Mazdoor Kisan Sangharsh Samiti Udaipur, Rajasthan, Buffalo Back Consumers Federation, Bangalore, Bundelkhand Majdoor Kisaan Shakti Sangathan, Tendukheda, MP and Campaign for Survival and Dignity, Food Security Forum, Jammu and Kashmir among many others.

The communication to Prime Minister Modi has also been sent to Principal Secretary and Joint Secretary to the Prime Minister, PMO’s office, Shri Jual Oram, Union Minister of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MOTA), Principal Secretary, Joint Secretary and Director- FRA Division of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA),  Antar Singh Arya, Chairman- National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST), Bhupendra Yadav, Union Minister of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) and Dr. Virendra Kumar, Union Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment.

The entire text may be read here

The post MoEFCC subverting the Forest Rights Act, 2006: 150 Citizens groups appeared first on SabrangIndia.

An example of this is seen from Maharashtra where Janjati Suraksha Manch, a group backed by the BJP’s ideological parents, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) raised alarm after it demanded delisting religious converts from being recognised as scheduled tribes. Even Adivasi leaders from within BJP were alarmed at the demand, according to the report by Hindustan Times, and expressed fear that such demands and assertions would make the BJP lose vote in the upcoming elections. Similarly, tribes across India have been resisting Sanskritisation (read Hinduisation).

Out of the 48 Lok Sabha seats in Maharashtra, four are reserved for tribal communities. These seats include Nandurbar, Dindori, Gadchiroli-Chimur, and Palghar. Maharashtra’s Ramtek, Nagpur, Bhandara-Gondiya, Gadchiroli-Chimur, Chandrapur go to poll this coming week. With the main national players’, BJP and Congress, manifesto yet to be released, both parties have made appeals to Adivasis in Maharashtra. The Indian National Congress (INC) has, however released the Adivasi Sankalp, a programme within the manifesto especially for forest dwellers and Adivasis, on March 13. On March 15, Congress; Rahul Gandhi visited Nandurbar, and accused the BJP-led government of stripping tribals of their rights to the water, forest, and land, ‘jal, jangal, zameen’, as reported widely in the media. He promised that under his government, any district in India with a tribal population exceeding 50% would be included into the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution and also vowed to conduct a caste census and an economic survey of the population.

The Video of his speech may be watched here:

Conversely in November, 2023, the Indian Express had reported that the BJP was ‘reaching out’ to the Vimukta Jati and Nomadic tribes through the festival of Diwali. Unlike the language of land and rights over forest produce (means of production), the Sangh and its parliamentary wings has always chosen the culturally assimilative route. State BJP president Chandrashekhar Bawankule had then stated, “We have an emotional connection with the VJNT communities. We want to associate with them and ensure their participation in the festival of lights. We endeavour to bring joy to their ghettos.”

Similarly, Chhattisgarh’s Bastar also goes to poll in the upcoming weeks. Bastar has seen constant attempts at polarisation in the recent times as attacks against Christians have increased. The region has a significant population of Christians, several of whom belong to Scheduled Tribes, who have been facing attacks by local Hindutva leaders of the past year and more. Bastar has seen the BJP win in 2014, but lost to the Congress in 2019 elections. In the recent state elections, however the region swung back to the BJP.

On the national level, PM Modi recently launched the Janjatiya Gaurav Divas in Jharkhand in November 2023. The scheme had been initially announced in the 2023-24 Budget and is a part of the government’s Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups Development. The programme aims to provide basic facilities like housing, clean water, education, healthcare, roads, and livelihood opportunities. The PM’s visit to Jharkhand in December 2023, saw protestors demanding the institution of the Sarna Dharma Code as a separate religion; many of these protestors were arrested. However, introduction of schemes for Adivasis does not always mean their implementation as another scheme introduced by the government in the 2022-23 budget called the Venture Capital Fund for Scheduled Tribes (VCF-ST) was reportedly not put into action even after two years since its announcement, according to The Print. Much of this puts the BJP’s hold on Adivasi trust in a sticklish position.

Conversely the opposition paints a different narrative. On March 13, senior Congress leader Kharge revealed the party’s Adivasi programme manifesto, called the Adivasi Sankalp which has laid out six guarantees for the community, one of which included doing away with the much criticised amendments made by the BJP government to Forest Conservation Amendment Act (2023). The plan by the party has emphasised on the protection of Adivasi sources of livelihood and access to their land, water, and forest.

Related:

The case for forest rights in the republic of India: why should the BJP be worried?

Chhattisgarh: Why we must save the Hasdeo Aranya Forest

Over 90 former civil servants have strongly opposed “Green Credit Rules” making corporate access to forests easy

Odisha Government removes “deemed forest” provision

Supreme Court refuses to stay amendments to forest law

The post With less than two weeks for polling, how concerned are national parties on land and forest rights for Adivasis? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In 2019 Sabrang India reported on an analysis by Community Forest resource-Learning and Advocacy Network before the last Lok Sabha elections, the analysis showed that forest rights made a case for itself as a factor for influencing polls in several constituencies. It reported that there are over 133 constituencies where a campaign for forest rights would have significant influence during the then-upcoming election periods. It seems in 2024 there is further cause for the BJP to be worried about its electoral fate in these constituencies given the number of issues India’s tribal population has suffered with in the recent past.

Out of these, the analysis studied 86 of the 133 constituencies, by dividing these constituencies based on the importance played by forest rights as an issue in three categories – high value, critical value, and good value. Each of these 86 constituencies had witnessed the BJP win by a margin in the 2014 elections. In the critical value areas, a large number of voters belonged to the tribal population residing in forested regions whose lives were thus affected by the Forest Rights Act. Similarly, the ‘good’ areas had fewer tribal residents and less forested land and so forth. Basing its analysis on data from the Election Commission of India, Citizens for Justice and Peace identified some of the key areas which included Bastar, Sarguja and Raigarh in Chhattisgarh; Dindori, Gadchiroli-Chimur, Nandurbar in Maharashtra, Chapatoli, Lohardega in Jharkhand and several others.

So, for instance, if we look at the case of Maharashtra we can see that while several of Maharashtra Scheduled Tribe reserved seats were won by BJP candidates, several of them won by a margin such as Nandurbar, Dindori, with Gadchiroli-Chimur holding a significantly narrow margin between the BJP and the Congress’ candidate, each of which secured 39 % and 42 % of the total votes polled by each candidate in the constituency. Similarly, BJP lost to the Congress party in Chhattisgarh’s Bastar with Deepak Baij as the winner in 2019. Thus, the fact that margin remained low in several of these constituencies is a sign that the BJP’s hold over these regions is present but holds the potential of being shaken.   

Forest Rights and its dissidents

About 27 % of India’s significant population, equalling about 200 million, depend on the forest for their livelihood, a significant section of this is the Adivasi population in India. The BJP with its crony capitalism and adherence to saffron hyper nationalism has appeared as unsettling to India’s tribal communities.

For instance, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act or what it is more commonly known as, the FOREST RIGHTS ACT has been a historical legislation that is a recognition of rights law that not just grants rights to forest dwellers and Adivasis (tribals) but also grants the Gram Sabha the rights to decision making over any development on Scheduled Lands and Forests. The Right to Forest Produce too –which in effect means the right to production and the market is also a crucial issue. Worldover, and in India, the role of Adivasis and forest dwellers in forest conservation has been recognised.

To try and dilute the rights of Adivasis and Forest Dwellers over their land, an amendment to the Forest Conservation Act was brought in in 2023 by the BJP Government. (FCA-2023). To say that the amendments introduced in a parallel law have invited huge protests is an understatement. It could very well be a factor in contributing to the downfall of the BJP in tribal dominated districts. The amendment witnessed large scale protests across various states.

The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, now known as the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam was passed by both the Lok Sabha in July and the Rajya Sabha in August, seeks to do away with several of its historical provisions. According to the new law, construction projects for purposes such as national security within 100 km of international borders or the Line of Control will not require forest clearance. The Act is also slated to leave out un-notified forests from under its purview which is catastrophic, because in India, most of the forest land remains un-notified, especially in the north-eastern regions of India. The forests remain a crucial issue for India’s tribal communities; their survival depends on it.

Related:

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

Adivasi struggle led by trailblazers working on-ground: Teesta Setalvad

Jharkhand tribal activists agitating for a separate Sarna Code, arrested ahead of PM Modi’s visit

How a battle is being waged within India’s forests, for rights over land and resources

Parliamentary Committee Gives Nod to Proposed Dilution of Forest Rights

The post The case for forest rights in the republic of India: why should the BJP be worried? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 is a proposed amendment that aims to modify the crucial 1980 law which was initially enacted to prevent indiscriminate conversion of forest land for non-forestry purposes. The Act gives the central government crucial power and mandate to ensure proper compensation for any diversion of forest land for non-forestry uses. The provision is available even for land that may not be officially classified as ‘forest’ in government records.

While the Act has undergone several amendments over the past decades, primarily focused on extending protection to larger areas resembling forests, the latest set of proposed amendments set it apart from its earlier trajectory. According to the government, these amendments are necessary to eliminate ambiguities and bring clarity regarding the Act’s applicability to various lands.

Among the proposed amendments, some specify exemptions from the Act, while others actively promote cultivating plantations on non-forest land, potentially contributing to increased tree cover, carbon sequestration, and supporting India’s goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2070. Furthermore, the amendments aim to remove the Act’s restrictions on developing infrastructure that would aid national security and create livelihood opportunities for communities residing on the fringes of forests.

The proposed amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 have faced objections on various grounds, including concerns about diluting the Supreme Court’s 1996 Godavarman case judgement that extended protection to extensive forest areas, even if they were not officially recorded as forests. Additionally, objections were raised about the exemption from forest clearance for construction projects within 100 km of international borders or the Line of Control in geographically sensitive regions.

The joint committee’s report acknowledges the objections raised by various stakeholders who argue that the amendments dilute forest protection measures. The Environment Ministry however has refuted these claims by asserting that the proposed provisions in the Bill guard against such situations.

Resistance was also encountered regarding the proposal to change the name of the 1980 law from the Forest (Conservation) Act to the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, translating to the Forest (Conservation and Augmentation) Act. Critics argued that the new name was exclusionary and neglected large sections of the population in both South India and the North-East due to linguistic and cultural diversity. However the Environment Ministry in turn defended the name change, stating that it emphasised the need to conserve and augment forests, as forest conservation involves more than just granting clearances.

These amendments were introduced in the Lok Sabha in March 2023, and a draft copy has been available for public comment since June 2022. This early disclosure sparked opposition from various quarters, including objections from some northeastern states that raised concerns about unilateral land acquisition for defence purposes. Environmental groups also voiced opposition, claiming that the amendments removed central protection for areas classified as ‘deemed forests’ (forested areas not officially recognized as forests), potentially compromising them by permitting activities such as tourism in these areas.

The Lok Sabha motioned to refer the Bill to a joint committee, which was seconded by the Rajya Sabha. Jairam Ramesh, Congress spokesperson and chair of the Standing Committee on Science, Environment, and Forests, expressed dissent over the decision to refer the Bill to a joint committee instead of the standing committee. The 31-member joint committee consists of 21 members from the Lok Sabha and 10 from the Rajya Sabha, with 18 members belonging to the ruling BJP.

India’s forest cover is defined as land over one hectare in size with a tree canopy density exceeding 10%. While India’s total forest cover has increased to 38,251 sq. km from 2001 to 2021, the rise primarily occurred in open forests with tree canopy density ranging from 10% to 40%. However, dense forest cover has decreased during this period. The proposed amendments encouraging plantation and cultivation may lead to increased tree cover but are unfortunately unlikely to reverse the loss of dense forests.

Related:

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

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

Forest Conservation Rules violate Forest Rights Act: reiterates NCST

Adivasi struggle led by trailblazers working on-ground: Teesta Setalvad

Cottage industries on the verge of extinction due to deforestation and modernisation in Bengal

The post Parliamentary Committee Gives Nod to Proposed Dilution of Forest Rights 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.

Apart from giving far too many exemption powers to the union government ensuring negative control over forest lands, the power of the Gram Sabhas under the proposed amendments has been diluted which undermines local-level actions for biodiversity conservation, contradicts constitutional provisions, and hinders the recognition of forest rights and the decision-making processes of communities.

The proposed amendments in the Forest Conservation Amendment Bill 2023 have raised significant concerns and sparked the need for protest. There are several reasons contributing to the opposition to these amendments:

1. Exclusion of forest areas:The proposed amendments redefine and review forests in a way that could potentially exclude vast forest areas from the protection of the Forest Conservation Act (FCA). This disregard for forest conservation would result in extensive deforestation, environmental degradation, and the loss of livelihoods and biodiversity. Forest-dependent communities would face hunger, starvation, and displacement as a consequence.
2. Violation of marginalised communities’ rights:The proposed amendments overlook provisions in the Forest Rights Act (FRA) of 2006 and the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act (LARR) of 2013, thus violating the rights of marginalized communities. By limiting the application of the FCA and FRA, the amendments risk expediting forest diversions without the consent of local self-governance bodies known as Gram Sabhas. This perpetuates historical injustices and undermines the constitutional rights of marginalized communities.
3. Concentration of power:The amendments grant extensive powers to the central government, enabling them to issue directions and assign forest lands to any party. This concentration of power undermines existing checks and balances, such as the Forest Advisory Committee and the Centrally Empowered Committee. The amendments neglect the importance of consultative processes with state and local governments and forest-dwelling communities, further centralizing decision-making authority.
4. Exemptions and lack of oversight:The amendments introduce exemptions for strategic projects, security-related infrastructure, and public utility projects, as well as provisions for eco-tourism facilities, silvicultural operations, and zoos and safaris. These exemptions create opportunities for private entities to gain control over forests and forest resources without adequate forest clearance requirements. The lack of impact assessments and regulatory oversight poses risks to habitats, species, and forest ecosystems.
5. Disempowerment of Gram Sabhas:Lastly, the proposed amendments weaken the authority of Gram Sabhas and concentrate governance power in the hands of the central/union government. This undermines local-level actions for biodiversity conservation, contradicts constitutional provisions, and hinders the recognition of forest rights and the decision-making processes of communities.

Sabrangindia had done a detailed analysis and pointed out the several exemption powers given to the Union government under the proposed FCA Bill, 2023. This may be read here.

Given these serious concerns, the call for the nationwide protest has been given, the demand being a strong recommendation for the withdrawal of these amendments and the alignment of the Forest Conservation Act with the provisions of the Forest Rights Act. This would ensure the recognition and vesting of forest rights and the decision-making authority of Gram Sabhas. The involvement and consent of local communities, as well as the preservation of ecosystems and biodiversity, should be prioritized in any forest conservation and governance framework.

All members and supporters of the Bhumi Adhikar Andolan have been urged to join in the protest. The protest, says the BAA will serve as a powerful statement of our opposition to the unabated loot of forest lands and the regressive amendments proposed in the Forest Conservation Act. Protests will be organised at the block level and state level. It is through this  collective action that the movement intends to send a strong message to those in power that large sections of the people, the majority, stand united in our demand for justice, environmental protection, and the preservation of the rights of forest-dwelling communities.

During the protest demonstrations, following key messages will be highlighted:

1. Condemnation of forest land exploitation:We strongly condemn the ongoing exploitation of forest resources, which not only harms the environment but also displaces indigenous communities from their ancestral lands.
2. Rejection of the proposed amendments:We vehemently oppose the proposed amendments to the Forest Conservation Act, as they seek to dilute the provisions of the Forest Rights Act and undermine the rights of forest-dwelling communities.
3. Solidarity with forest-dwelling communities:We express our unwavering support for the rights of forest-dwelling communities and pledge to stand by them in their struggle for justice and self-determination.

The organisaions that are a part of the BAA include National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM), Chhattisgarh BachaoAndolan, Adivasi Adhikar Manch, Adivasi Aikya Vedike, Adivasi Ekta Parishad, Adivasi Mukti Sangathan, All India Kisan Sabha (Canning Lane), All India Kisan Sabha (Ajay Bhavan), All India Kisan Khet Mazdoor Sangathan, All India Kisan Mahasabha, All India Agriculture Workers Union, All India Union of Forest Working People (AIUFWP), Bharat Jan Andolan, Bhartiya Kisan Union Arajnitik Asli, Bundelkhand Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, Dalit Adivasi Shakti Adhikar Manch, Delhi Solidarity Group,  Gujarat Khedut Samaj, Himdhara Collective, Jan Ekta Jan AdhikarAndolan, Jan Sangharsh Samanyvay Samiti, Janmukti Vahini, JindabadSangathan, KashtakariSangathan, Kisan Manch, Kisan Sangharsh Samiti, Lok Mukti Sangathan, Lok Sangharsh Morcha, Lok Shakti Abhiyan, Mines Minerals and People, Narmada Bachao Andolan, Sanyukt Kisan Sangharsh Samiti, Sarv Adivasi Sangathan, Sarvahara Jan Andolan, Shoshit Jan Andolan, Adhikar Manch, Kaimoor Mukti Morcha, BJSA, JanmatuSangthan, Jharkhand BachaoAndolan, Lok Sangharsh Morcha, Jan Sangharsh Samanvaya Samiti, INSAF, Kisan Manch, Adivasi Ekata Parishad and others.

Related:

How a battle is being waged within India’s forests, for rights over land and resources

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 ‘Black Day’ Protest against ecological plunder of forests, displacement of indigenous communities: Bhumi Adhikar Andolan 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.

The Campaign for Survival and Dignity (CSD)— a national platform of tribal and forest dwellers’ organisation — and Gram Sabha Collectives from 18 districts of Odisha have demanded a review of rejection of over 1.5 lakh individual forest rights (IFR) applications as well as the ones filed by Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFD) in the state, reported Down to Earth.

The claimants have alleged that these applications have been rejected without providing any reason and that they were not allowed to appeal against this decision. CSD has demanded that the state government must give directions to the concerned district-level committee (DLC) or the sub-divisional level committee (SDLC) to allow them to file appeals and return all the pending, incomplete, or rejected claims with findings reports.

As per Rule 12A of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition

of Forest Rights) Rules, 2007, the reasons for rejection are to be submitted to the Gram Sabhas:

(6) The Sub-Divisional Level Committee or the District Level Committee shall remand the claim to the Gram Sabha for re-consideration instead of modifying or rejecting the same, in case the resolution or the recommendation of the Gram Sabha is found to be incomplete or prima-facie requires additional examination.

(7) In cases where the resolution passed by the Gram Sabha, recommending a claim, with supporting documents and evidence, is upheld by the Sub-Divisional Level Committee with or without modifications, but the same is not approved by the District Level Committee, the District Level Committee shall record detailed reasons for not accepting the recommendations of the Gram Sabha or the Sub-Divisional Level Committee as the case may be, in writing, and a copy of the order of the District Level Committee along with the reasons shall be made available to the claimant or the Gram Sabha or the Community as the case may be.

By August 2022, around 140,347 IFR claims — 70,984 Scheduled Tribe claims and 69,399 OTFD ones — had been rejected at the DLC level in Odisha.

SDLCs and DLCs had rejected OTFDs claims outright because of the lack of clarity and improper understanding about the eligibility, “The implementing authorities have taken a fully biased approach towards OTFDs, even though Parliament itself has vested its complete faith in them when enacting this law and given OTFDs the same rights and powers as forest dwelling STs under FRA,” CSD said, as per Down to Earth report.

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 tribal communities, many of which as included in the list of Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFD). While the STs are those who consider this their ancestral and traditional habitat, and depend on forest resources for livelihood, the OTFDs are those who have primarily resided in and depended on the forest land for livelihood needsfor at least three generations prior to December 13, 2005.

Members of the above recognised communities have to go through a tedious application process to stake claim to land and forest resources. Often, they file claims as a community instead of individually.

The Odisha Story so far

Odisha is home to as many as 62 scheduled tribes who constitute over 22.8 per cent of its population and has the second highest tribal population after Madhya Pradesh. Odisha is often deemed as a high performing state when it comes to implementation of the FRA, yet when one delves into figures at the district level, enforcement appears varied and incongruent.

It is the first State in the country to make budgetary provision for implementation of the Central Act – ₹8 crore for 168 FRA cells in 2021-22. Till last year, forest rights committees were functioning in Tribal Sub Plan areas. Now, they have been extended to the entire State, reported The Hindu.

The state launched Mission 2024 for the FRA and aims to grant all kinds of forest rights including individual, community and habitat rights.

As of March 2022, a total of 6,27,998 claims had been received by Gram Sabhas of which 4,52,164 claims were upheld and titles distributed. As many as 1,31,062 claims were rejected. According to the Bhubaneswar-based Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Research and Training Institute (SCSTRTI), Odisha has an estimated 7.32 lakh potential claimants, which indicates that around 3 lakh eligible families are still left out, states The Hindu report.

Hesitancy towards granting individual rights?

As per Down to Earth, a 2021 study[1] by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Mumbai, which looked at the claim settlement trend in the 15 years since implementation of FRA – “The rate of recognition of forest rights from 2014 to 2021 is only 27% of all individual forest right claims received. Though, for CFR (Community Forest Rights), it is 69%.”

TheScroll, after accessing data from the minutes of the meetings, and monthly progress reports on the implementation of the FRA across the state, from Odisha’s Scheduled Tribe & Scheduled Caste Development, Minorities & Backward Classes Welfare Department, found that between March 2020, when the government imposed the first Covid-19 induced lockdown, to July 2021, when the lockdown in the aftermath of the second wave of the pandemic was lifted, Odisha rejected around 80,000 individual forest rights claims. Most of these rejections were made in the state’s mining districts, like Sundargarh, Keonjhar, Sambalpur, Jajpur, Anugul, Koraput and Nayagarh; the highest rejections were in Gajapati district, a non-mining district. In numerous instances that the Scroll investigated, these rejections were flawed or violated processes laid down by the FRA.

A July 2021 report[2] by TISS Mumbai as of 30th April 2021 stated, of the total 6,41,863 claimed forest rights, the IFR claims account for a staggering 97.65% while the CFR claims hold for only 2.35 % of the total number of claims filed in Odisha. In comparison to the national figures, the ratio of IFR claims, recognition, and rejection in Odisha stands at 97.63%, 98.52%, and 99.44% respectively. The ratio of rejection of IFR claims is slightly higher than the national-level rejection of IFR claims. The average recognised area for IFR claim is only 1.48 acres which is less than the national average recognised area for IFR claims which is 2.17 acres. The rate of rejection of IFR claims is undoubtedly very high in Kendarapada (62.76%), along with Angul (53.21%), Subarnapur (49.88%), Baragarh (49.25%), and Ganjam (48.72%). Nabarangapur district has 100% recognised its IFR claims.

Stories from other states

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 theTharu Adivasi community residing in 20 villages of theDudhwa 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 this year 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.

The only recourse now for those whose applications have been rejected, is to appeal before sub-divisional level committees (SDLC) within 90 days.

Related:

DEFENDING FOREST RIGHTS IN 2021

FOREST RESOURCE RIGHTS VS. LAND RIGHTS UNDER FOREST RIGHTS ACT

NO EVICTION OF FOREST DWELLERS WITHOUT RESOLUTION OF LAND CLAIMS: NHRC CHIEF

ADIVASI WOMEN FILE LAND CLAIMS UNDER FRA, CJP AND AIUFWP MAKE HISTORY

AFTER SONBHADRA, ADDITIONAL FOREST LANDS CLAIMS FILED FOR CHITRAKOOT VILLAGERS

The post Odisha: Over 1.5 lakh Individual Forest Rights claims rejected without reason! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Kolkata: Tapan Kumar Sardar, a school teacher in Bankura in West Bengal, is from the Bhumij community. Growing up, he had little idea of what that meant. But once he entered college, he read about the community’s identity, rich history, and own language and realised how most people in this community do not even use their constitutional rights, such as reservation, mandated for the Scheduled Tribes. 

So, right after college, Sardar decided that he was going to work on this. For over a decade now, he has been working on the Bhumij language and making people of the community aware of their constitutional rights.

But last week, the school teacher was leading an awareness rally that was different from his usual campaigns. The focus was single this time and comparatively new for the Bhumij villages of Bankura – to make people aware of their rights mandated by the 2006 Forest Rights Act (FRA).

This Act recognises the forest rights of the Scheduled Tribes and traditional forest dwellers and aims to protect the culture of the communities in these areas. This became an important intervention in a system where the forest dwellers have been displaced for big government or private projects in huge numbers. 

Like in Bankura, similar awareness campaigns and marches were taking place across the state in more than 12 districts last week led by the newly formed organisation, Banadhikar O Prakriti Bachao Adivasi Mahasabha. 

“Though many people were really interested to know more, the extent of lack of awareness about one of the most empowering Acts for the tribal community was overwhelming,” says Sardar. 

What was also new is a larger collaboration of members of indigenous communities across the state.  “Though multiple organisations of the Adivasi communities have been working in the state for many years, I haven’t ever heard of a collaboration that spread so wide,” says Sundarsing Rava, who belongs to the Rava community of North Bengal and is a convener of Uttarbanga Banjan Shramajibi Mancha, a north Bengal-based rights group. 

While there were many marches of hundreds of people in the bigger centres like Alipurduar city in North Bengal or Bankura in the West, an important achievement was to reach out to several villages in these districts, feels Rava.

The root of this unique large-scale campaign and a state-wide adivasi organisation lies in the long protests in Purulia’s Ayodhya Hills for the last four years. This ongoing protest is against the Turga pumped storage project which is feared to endanger the ecosystem of the hills and according to the agitators violates the FRA. 

“At that time we had more than 11 adivasi organisations coming under a platform, Prakriti Bachao Adibasi Bachao Mancha, which was spearheading the movement. This was an important phase in the realisation of forest rights in the state as people were experiencing for the first time how they could use the law to assert their rights in this case,” says Saurav, an environmental activist, who was a key campaigner in the Ayodhya Hills protests and is also associated with the state-wide campaign. 

Saurav says that apart from the Sundarban Delta, there has been no campaign for the 2006 FRA in South Bengal. This is because it is hard to find people who would understand that law and are willing to come and work in these regions. 

“There have been many attempts at consolidation and campaigns since 2006 to make people aware of their forest rights. But none of them really worked or could spread. This changed during the protests at Ayodhya Hills. What started with only the locals slowly saw people from much further in the Jangalmahal area of West Bengal, that spans across the districts of Bankura, Purulia and Jhargram and other neighbouring districts, take part,” he says.  

During their participation in the agitations and campaigns of Prakriti Bachao Adibasi Bachao Mancha, the people from these districts and other places were witness to the assertion of the forest rights and rights of the tribal community in action. 

“This has led to a new political consciousness and we started discussing a larger organisation. Apart from this, there has also been a rise in discussions in different gram sabhas about rights in the districts of Jhargram and Purulia. A part of this is because of the fact that the FRA empowers the gram sabha as a very important body when it comes to taking administrative decisions about the village,” says Rajen Tudu, an activist and a resident of Purulia.

When the dialogues started, major developments at the national level started having an impact here too. In 2019, there was a proposal to amend the colonial Forest Act which was later turned down, then came the controversial 2022 Forest Conservation Rules, which people fear made it easier for private concerns to take over forests without informing the villages. 

“Now, when the state wanted to start a coal mining project at Deocha Pachami in Birbhum, the collaboration between these movements became stronger. With the experience of the agitation and the constitutional rights that they exercised in Ayodhya Hills, the village leaders there helped villages in Deocha Pachami to form gram sabhas in accordance with the FRA so that they could channelise their protests in the right direction,” says Saurav.  

But they realised that activists from one end of the state travelling to other parts to share information and awareness only when there is a major event, is not a great model.

“So this year, we decided to come together to form an organisation with a single plan. This does not mean that the other issues of the people in different parts will not be taken up, just that, as of now, we will be focussing on empowering the people with forest rights as much as possible,” says Saurav.

The author is a freelance journalist based in Kolkata.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post West Bengal: Awareness of Rights Under FRA Brings Tribal, Forest Communities Closer appeared first on SabrangIndia.