The Hindu : Evicting 10 million tribals

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Sep 20, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Evicting 10 million tribals

By Rajeev Dhavan

The Government is now poised to misuse the Supreme Court's order to terrorise the tribals.

TRIBALS HAVE lived and cared for forest areas for centuries. Of late, their presence in forests has been challenged, their lifestyle misunderstood and their existence criminalised so as to label them trespassers guilty of encroachment. They have no political edge; and are defenceless when an administration decides to move against them. This is what is happening today. Tribals are being thrown out of forests. They are being harassed and beaten. All this claims to be taking place under the aegis of an order of the Supreme Court of November 23, 2001, in the Forest case which restrained the regularisation of tribals in forest areas. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) seized this opportunity to draw out a plan to throw out the tribals. But, where? There is no answer. Why? Because the Supreme Court has said so. In what manner? As quickly and brutally as possible.

Ineffective against the real marauders of the forest, the timber lobby and forest related businesses, the MoEF seems only too glad to turn on the tribals — albeit to show to the Court that it will increase forest cover even if millions of tribals are evicted. On May 3, 2002, the Ministry wrote to the Chief and Forest Secretaries and Principal Forest Conservators of all States to "draw attention to the problem of encroachments of forest land — which is assuming a serious proportion in the country". Committees were to be set up; and each State was threatened that all proposals under the Forest Conservation Act of 1980 would be frozen if the States did not act. Thus, the eviction of 10 million tribals allegedly on 12.5 lakh hectares has become a top priority.

In the past, the Supreme Court has not hesitated to defend the interests of the tribals in a responsive and responsible manner. In the Banwasi Sewa Ashram cases (1985-1994), the Court made available special courts and legal aid to ensure that adivasis were restored the lands to which they were entitled and which were under threat of acquisition for afforestation. This was one of the massive and impressive actions undertaken by the Supreme Court which reconciled ecological needs with tribal needs. Such an exercise is necessary now.

In Pradip Prabhu's case (1995), the Supreme Court remanded matters back to Maharashtra to determine the rights of landless adivasis who had land entitlements under the Government's own plans. Similar orders were passed for Madhya Pradesh. In the Samata case (1997), a majority decision took a comprehensive view of the entitlement of tribals to the land and its rich resources to direct that benefits from those areas must secure the uplift and socio-economic empowerment of the adivasis. Even after the Balco case (2001), the Samata judgment is unscathed as a fitting testimony to how an equitable justice can reach the most disadvantaged. Now comes the Forest case. I am certain that the Supreme Court did not intend a volte face on previous commitments to social justice for tribals. But the Government is now poised to misuse the Supreme Court's order to terrorise the tribals. Sadly the process has begun.

Enthused by the huge influx of arbitrary power, the MoEF — in furtherance of the Court's orders — created the Jaykrishnan Committee with no tribal representation and with lay members more concerned with animals than the ecology as a whole. Past policies and commitments appear to have been forgotten and swept under the carpet. Before the passing of the Forest Conservation Act of 1980, detailed commitments were made to the tribals. The Forest Policy of 1988 laid special emphasis on the symbiotic relationship between tribals and the conservation of forests. In 1990, the famous 29th Report of the SC and ST Commission recommended a scheme which was duly implemented in a series of circulars in 1990.

Now, the Jaykrishnan Committee seems to pretend that none of this has really happened. Playing with warped statistics, the Report projects a loss to the nation of Rs. 4,59,978 crores over 50 years due to tribals in forests. Such projections are as inaccurate as they are foolish. Can questions of social ecology and economic benefit ever be resolved in this way? Where will the 10 million tribals go? Should they go at all? Will they be rehabilitated? How will that work out? What about alternative afforestation — which flows from the Act of 1980 itself? Who will protect the forests?

What is being sought to be done is a complete reversal of the circulars of September 18, 1990, which sought to evolve a comprehensive plan to deal with the regularisation of tribals in respect of leases before October 25, 1980. There were six circulars — all of the same date. FP 1 dealt with and worked out issues of regularisation of tribal ensettlement. FP 2 dealt with forests and deemed forests. FP 3 dealt with issues of pattas and leases. FP 5 dealt with forest villages — a concept that celebrated the symbiotic relationship of trust between tribals and forests. FP 4 dealt with issues of wages for work done in the forest area. FP 6 dealt compensation and wild animals. There were also proposals on June 1, 1990, to involve village communities to restore tribal lands, which were revised on December 20, 1990.

It has never been anyone's case that indiscriminate encroachment could take place on tribal land. The plan was to regularise land entitlement from 1980 in a sensitive way to enrich both the life of the tribals and forests and their surrounding areas. There have been so many unworthy proposals which have been approved by the Union under the Forest Conservation Act of 1980. This was a well worked out proposal. But, in the last 12 years little was done to implement it in respect of the rights to which the tribals were entitled for decades. Now, all of a sudden, following the Supreme Court's order, the Government seeks to mindlessly reverse a policy which should have been implemented years ago.

India's Constitution contains special provisions to protect tribal areas and tribals precisely because they need protection. Unlike, big business, they are not predators of the forest. In fact, the demand acceded to by the Union Government in 1990 was to concretise the entitlements of tribals as from a date in 1980. The comprehensive programme of 1990 should be enlarged not diluted. The latest Circular of May 3, 2002, highlights only one of the six circulars of 1990. Somewhere we have missed the wood for the trees. Forests are not to be protected by remote sensing pictures and hastily adapted policies in response to Supreme Court notices.

On September 9, 2002, the Court's amicus lawyer rightly and wisely put off the day of judgment to get responses of the State Governments. We cannot pretend the tribals are not there. Or, that 10 million tribals will disappear because the Ministry or the Court wills it so. The Tribal Ministries — even those with Constitutional status in Article 164 — have not been consulted. Nor the SC and ST Commission or the latest special Bhuria Commission under Articles 338 and 339 of the Constitution. Nor can the State Governments be silent. What we are faced with is one of the biggest policy crises in recent years. Such mass evictions cannot be permitted. When the matter returns to the Supreme Court, a policy that blesses people and forests is be preferred to summary eviction of voiceless millions.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Critical issues unaddressed

Enforce the rule of law

Evicting 10 million tribals

Nation building and cricket