How to kill a Forest (Indian Express)

Mains Paper 3: Social Justice
Prelims level: Ministry of Tribal Affairs
Mains level: Rights and Interest of ST

Context

•  The recent Supreme Court judgment (in the writ petition (civil) No 109/2008) has been against the suggestion that Adivasis and forest-dwellers be evicted.
•  The petitioners, all conservationists, have qualified the objectives of their petition and highlighted the case for safeguarding the forests against “bogus claims to forest rights”, calling for the state to take action against the loss of forest cover.

Background

•  The context, process, content, and implications of the judgement indicate that forests have, over the past two decades, become the new contested arenas between not only a range of people Adivasi.
•  Other traditional forest dwellers and outsiders but also between them and nature conservationists, the forest department, the extractive mining industry, the eco-tourism industry and a faltering political and administrative apparatus.
•  Jawaharlal Nehru’s commitment was based on Verrier Elwin’s advice that the tribals of India be allowed to have their own habitats and autonomy and the Constitution’s consideration of Scheduled Areas, where tribals were to have special rights, we have seen the adverse integration of tribals into the most exploitative labour regimes and the most indifferent forms of administration.

Aim of the forest rights act

•  The Forest Rights Act was passed to enable them to regain their lost habitats. But there has been a failure of political will to implement this piece of legislation.
•  That a large number of bogus claimants have emerged is indicative of the contest for forestland, which has been abetted by poor administrative measures.
•  Further, the Adivasis’ lack of political constituency was evident from the fact that the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) and the Department of Forests and Environment did not bother to attend some of the hearings.
•  Displaced and hounded out of their original habitats, Adivasis are now largely internally-displaced refugees.
•  Such re-territorialisation of forests into “nature only” spaces has not led to any restoration of these tracts.
•  In most cases, the original inhabitants live in impoverished colonies outside the sanctuaries and parks while the forest department’s writ runs large over these terrains.
•  Even as illegal regimes of forest extraction continue, administrative laxity has permitted the growth of a nature tourism industry.
•  This industry uses the tag of “eco-tourism” to legitimise its presence in these forests.

Significance of the judgment

•  The judgment, despite the delay of nearly a decade, is myopic and undemocratic. It fails to provide a roadmap of how justice could be delivered to genuine forest-dwelling communities and address the issue of conserving and rejuvenating forests.
•  Oblivious to the inadequacies of the administrative apparatus, the judgment stipulates the draconian measure of eviction.
•  The petitioners noted that the fragmentation of forestland is one of the key reasons for the failure to restore and conserve fragile ecological spaces.
•  Studies indicate the strength of tribal knowledge of forests and ecological resources.
•  Such knowledge enabled not only the conservation of flora and biodiversity but also that of fauna.
•  In the context of the negative fallout of decades of intensive chemical and technology-based agriculture and the recent impact of global climate change, which threatens natural resources and food production, it may be important to draw on such knowledge systems.

Conclusion

•  Today, the Adivasi has become a pawn in the games that an indifferent polity, a corrupt administrative apparatus and an aggressively ambitious dominant society are playing.
•  Rendered into being subjects who cannot even represent themselves, the Adivasis must see this judgment as an occasion to assert themselves.
•  Instead of seeking land rights on an individual bases, an Adivasi resurgence can claim collective rights on a format that recognises clan/tribal affiliation and work/production plans that can include restoration of habitats, ecological sustainability and autonomous governance.
•  The strength of India’s democracy is that it recognises the pluralism of Indian society.
•  If we are to safeguard this, the Adivasi must be recognised as key dramatis personae on the national stage.

Online Coaching for UPSC PRE Exam

General Studies Pre. Cum Mains Study Materials

Prelims Questions:

Q.1) The Indian Supreme Court is different from the American Supreme Court in that it has
(a) advisory jurisdiction
(b) power of judicial review
(c) original jurisdiction
(d) None of the above

Answer: A

Mains Questions:
Q.1) “Government and industry take Adivasis’ land for development projects but ignore their interests”, Comment.