Now without safeguards

The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill, passed by the Lok Sabha in a conspicuously amended form from its original version, will provoke more controversy than it has already done. It was opposed vehemently at its introduction by environment and wildlife activists and some members of Parliament, including those belonging to the Congress party, for fear of its adverse impact on forests. They saw it resulting in a loss of a sizable chunk of forest land, with consequential repercussions for the local ecology and wildlife. The government's answer was that elaborate safety precautions and riders were in the Bill in order to prevent its misuse. Since the underlying problem, of tribal forest dwellers' rights, needed resolution, the Bill promised hope.

In the event, most of the safeguards and riders have been knocked out of the Bill, and what Parliament has passed can only raise the level of concern about what will now result. For, the amended Bill provides land rights to all forest dwellers, not just the scheduled tribes in each region, as in the original version. Besides, the land to be allotted to each settler has been increased to 4 hectares from 2.5 hectares; additionally, they have been given the right to graze cattle and collect and sell traditional forest produce as well. This last is understandable; what is not is the fact that protected forests, wildlife sanctuaries and national parks have been brought within the ambit of this statute. To top it all, the gram sabha (village community) has been given sweeping powers, including those of certifying the status of the dweller in the absence of any other proof and of allowing additional forest land to be used for utility infrastructure like schools, anganwadis, roads and the like even if it requires the felling of trees on such lands.

These provisions make the new measure native-friendly, but they simultaneously make it nature-unfriendly. The great merit of the original Bill was that, since it was confined to specific tribal groups in specific areas, the total amount of land in question was quite small. Now that all comers are to be counted, and not as of 1980 (the original cut-off date linked to the passing of the Forest Conservation Act in that year""for which there are records) but December 2005, the amount of land that will be parcelled out multiplies manifold. As such, the protections granted to forested areas through laws like the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, and the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, stand eroded to a great extent""and the damage to India's forests could be enormous.

The proponents of the Bill make the valid point that the livelihood security of forest dwellers has to be recognised; it is also true that in the absence of firm rights, they are at the mercy of forest officials. However, the underlying argument that forest communities are also the best conservationists is not fully tested, and it is doubtful if such a uniform claim can be made. The trouble is that forests don't have votes. Since the Bill is yet to be approved by the Rajya Sabha, there still is an opportunity to re-visit some of its provisions so as to strike a healthy balance between forest dwellers' rights and the need for preserving forest eco-systems. In its present form, the Bill fails to do that.