Vikalp, XI/4, 2003

National Forest Commission - Hoax
Debaranjan Sarangi

The recent "public notice" of the National Forest Commission (NFC) has attracted much attention. The public notice was to civil societies for sending "communication to the commission" indicating interest or desire to interact with the commission or for sending views and comments in writing. According to the press release accompanying the public notice everything was to be done by 25th July.

In the calendar, dates were marked. Seminar halls were booked. E-Mail groups became active. The country's public opinion creators jumped into the debate as if some thing is going to happen very soon. Some reacted favourably, some advocated 'using the opportunity'. In the process many people participated in the debate. And the last date of 25^th July passed.

What was the purpose of this commission? Was it because, as the public notice spoke, of forests having "a direct role in poverty eradication and sustainable development" (the very approach initiated by World Bank) OR because the government requires a system for "efficient management of forest on a long term basis"? One could argue that role in poverty eradication and sustainable development, and efficient management of forest could be common objectives. And that the commission's role was to assess how these could be achieved together

But then in what way would one analyse the notice also stating that the "demand of wood for commercial and industrial purposes through agro forestry and plantations has to be met". If I conclude that this is the primary reason why the commission has been set up, and not for any real betterment of the conditions of the poor would I be wrong?

Is this forest for the people of India in general for their house hold use? Is this forest for the tribals and dalits from whose hands the forests have already gone? Is this forest for the landless people of this country who time and again ask for land and voice their demands in the form of extremism or peasants' struggles or tribal struggles? Or is this forest for the MNCs to profit and for growth in 'national income'? The notice also states that the government is interested "to increase the forest cover to 25% by 2007 to 33% by 2012". Who would the increased forest cover benefit?

The questions have one answer.

This commission is set up to give more and more suggestions for opening new sanctuaries and national park and for more plantations in reserved forests to benefit the MNCs.

Why do I conclude this?

Before coming to such conclusion I had three aspects in mind.

First, the background of the commission. Under the chairmanship of the Prince Minister of India, the Indian Board for Wild Life in its meeting on 21^st January, 2002 recommended that a forest commission should be set up. The NFC was accordingly set up. It was the result of a decision taken at the highest level of the government, and not the result of any democratic consultative process.

Second, who heads the commission? The chairperson of the commission is Justice Mr. B.N. Kirpal. He gave judgment favouring renewed construction of the Narmada Dam even though the Bench was well aware about the situation of already displaced persons and probable oustees of Narmada Dam and its subsidiaries. How can one expect proper recommendations from such a person favouring the cause of the poor? It is a matter of concern that even those who were protesting against the Supreme Court's judgment on Narmada at that time are now participating in the NFC debate without raising any question on the credibility of Justice Kirpal to head tile commission.

Third, the language of the public notice. The notice states that the commission knows that "the fringe areas of national park and wild life sanctuaries harbour many people whose participation and involvement in the management of such areas may be indispensable and the participation of communities of people with gender equality is vital for the sustainability and conservation of forest". But it does not state how such sanctuaries and national parks are endangering the local people.

Then why is the commission interested in public participation for sending "views and comments"? Because the commission cannot ignore the fact that there are a large number of people who are directly and indirectly dependent on forests, and to silence their protests, the gaining consent, or at least confusing the opinion of the civil society is vital.

The public opinion of civil society has got totally confused in this debate. Some argued that 'here is space that the commission affords us, and we should use it'. This is a misconception. Actually, what is considered 'space' for debate is a trap to divert the public opinion and buy time.

Has any government ever succumbed to such pressure of 'public opinion' and changed its stand on issues? Specifically after liberalisation and the new economic policy, the government is determined to follow the dictates of the MNCs. Alongside them, the World Bank, IMF and even the UN and its sister organisations are playing a major role in designing forest laws, mining laws, laws relating to natural resources including water to make all these resources freely available for exploitation by MNCs and big industry.

The NFC is a game plan, and part of a larger, coordinated project for freeing natural resources for exploitation. This is the real objective of the ideology of the 'free market'.

Without thinking about the real objective behind the setting up of the NFC, we are taking all without question accepting the processes for 'public debate' set up by the government. This is not the first time the government, particularly in the post liberalisation period, is misusing our naivety. We feel that if village communities would be powerful that would be revolutionary. And we jump into each debate with that good spirit and the end result is allowing the government to carry on its project of 'freeing' the country for exploitation.

The following are some other such 'debates' that have served to confuse public opinion and blunt the resistance to liberalisation.

We may recall the fanfare and debates that followed the Bhuria committee resolutions. Not many now remember the background of setting up of the Bhuria committee. It made its recommendations in 1995, when the government had already become a signatory to the WTO, and the New Economic Policy was in full swing (probably under the direct intervention of the then Prime minister P. V. Narasimha Rao who was the pioneer of liberalisation and privatisation).

The committee was set up to give recommendations for "all round development of tribal communities in the scheduled areas" for the eight states with scheduled areas viz. Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Maharashtra.

In 70s the Government of India by special resolution in the parliament announced certain areas including tehsils, talukas and districts as tribal dominated scheduled areas according to the 1971 census. The special resolution spoke about the need for separate rules in the tribal areas in those states keeping their economic and cultural situation in mind and that rules should be passed by the parliament which could bypass the state laws if they were not congruous with the new laws.

It took nearly 25 years to set up principles for the scheduled area states. By then the country has already signed the WTO and agreed ideologically to a uniform market principle.

When, in 1995, the Bhuria committee recommended certain principles to amend the central act as well as the state laws - accepting village as a unit of power - several NGOs and individuals thought it a revolutionary leap forward in the direction of decentralisation of power. The committee fixed a set of principles for the role of a village unit in checking land alienation and land acquisition processes, including the protection of culture and tradition of indigenous units.

Several tribal forums and groups joined in the campaign demanding before the Central Government the acceptance of the Bhuria Committee recommendations. In Orissa the campaign was lead by the Orissa Adivasi Mancha, floated for this purpose with active support from Oxfam (UK) and later Action-Aid (UK). Funds were channelised by NGOs like PREM (Berhampur), KIRDIT (Keonjhar) and Ankuran (Rayagada). The office bearers of the Mancha were the program officers from PREM and Ankuran.

Why were such funding agencies eager to support this issue, particularly Action Aid, which gets MNC funds apart from government funds and individual funds? (Both these funding agencies OXFAM and Action Aid never disclose their back donors both the agencies can react on it). The Bhuria committee talked of village management of every issue and deregulation of state control. It in effect did away with the strict regime of regulations put into effect by the state for the scheduled areas. This conformed to the World Bank recommendations - for deregulation and decentralization of power - and also allowed the MNCs to bypass rigid rules and influence decisions at the village level with less effort.

Ever since power has come to the state authority under a process of 'federal devolution' to grant leases of mining and mineral resources, the presence of MNCs has increased rather than decreased. It is in this context that the involvement of funding agencies in the campaign could be seen. My hypotheses in this regard might be naive because I do not have more facts to share except I know that Action Aid has taken a policy decisions to provide funds for people's movement. What the Oxfam did in case of Andhra Pradesh and Tamilnadu dalits movement - made them into several groups by providing funds - could be replicated through all of India by Action Aid who provided most of the funds (apart from Ford Foundation) to Asian Social Forum in Hyderbad, 2003, and helped confuse the 'anti-globalisation' struggle under a plethora of debate.

In many states the campaign for implementation of Bhuria Committee resolutions took a turn with active support from "tribal self-rule" - a forum headed by Dr. B.D. Sharma, former chairperson of SC and ST commission with support from Oxfam. The campaign could mobilise many writers, intellectuals, political leaders etc because of its illusionary theory of "gram ganarajya" or "village republic". At the end the Central Government accepted the recommendations. It came up with a set of provisions popularly called as PESA (Provision for Extension to Scheduled Area Act, 1956) on 26th December, 1996. The Parliament passed these provisions without a discussion on the floor.

When the Central Government accepted the Bhuria Committee recommendations and came up with a set of principles many thought it a victory. The provisions said that power would be transferred to "gramsabha or/and panchayat at the appropriate level" on issues like land acquisition, land alienation, granting minerals lease and ownership over forest produces. According to the state Panchayat Act, Gram Sabha means where all the voters of all wards of a gram panchayat comprising 2000 to 5000 population could sit, while panchayat at appropriate level could be a Gram Panchayat or Panchayat Samiti at taluka level or Zilla Parishad at district level. In the central act, for all the sensitive issues like land acquisition, land alienation, granting minerals lease, ownership over forest produces the power to take decision was not restricted only to the gram sabha.

The central act directed the state government to amend all respective laws including the panchayat act within a year, that is by 26th December 1997 under PESA.

The campaign favouring the Bhuria committee recommendations then collapsed due to non-support from the funding agencies and conflict in sharing of earlier funds received, like in the case of the Orissa Adivasi Mancha.

All the seven states except Bihar amended their laws in a year. None of the states undertook the amendments in the true "letter and spirit". Rather they used the "bureaucratic lacunae" in the central act and favoured bureaucrats and politicians while amending the respective state laws as desired by the PESA. While the PESA spoke of a land acquisition process where the gram sabha or panchayat at the appropriate level should be consulted, states like Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan kept this power in their hands, Andhra Pradesh handed such power to Panchayat Samiti and Orissa to Zilla Parishad, thus rendering decentralization of decisions totally ineffectual. Independent India has made 23 lakhs development refugees of which 42% are tribals. We were hoping that the new provisions would give independence to the tribal communities to decide their fate before the big projects. Instead the powers are vested with the state without even the earlier legal safeguards of the special area resolutions.

The PESA was silent about the redressal of grievances for any non-compliance of its provisions.

In the case of transferring mineral licences, while the central act spoke of transferring power to "gramsabha or panchayat at the appropriate level", all the states except Orissa (for zilla parishad), Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh (for gram panchayats) kept these powers in their hands.

Bihar took some time to amend its laws and for conducting panchayat elections.

All the powers relating to land acquisition process, land alienation problem, control over liquor trading, forest produce, management of village market and social institutions and granting leases of mineral resources were vested either in the states' hands or to panchayats at different levels, but not to the communities. Only in certain cases, viz. checking of land alienation, control over liquor trading and ownership over forest produces the power for taking decisions was handed over to gram sabha by the Maharashtra government; and power for management of village market and management of social institutions to gram sabha by the Madhya Pradesh government, was there even a pretence at devolution of power. But the local groups in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh could explain better the functional aspects of this devolution of power - how properly the gram sabhas are taking decisions in these cases.

The transfer of power to gram sabha and transfer of power to gram panchayat are very different. In former case the general members of gram panchayat become powerful, while in latter, only sarpanchas, who are mostly drawn from political parties and their coterie including the ward members become powerful.

The parliament passed the PESA giving rights to the tribal communities to protect their culture and tradition. Now the same parliament is talking about a uniform civil code, and of restriction on cow slaughter, that are against the tribal traditions. But no one is talking about PESA in these cases.

All these show that PESA is a hoax. But we have taken much time to understand this. Even today some speak for the proper implementation of PESA with true spirit because 'the central act was good but state acts are not'. I understand why the NGOs are telling this even today but I can not understand why other groups and individuals still speak in favour of PESA.

There are several instances where the government has pretended to be pro-people through a law or judgement of the courts, and our public opinion got diverted in the process.

Samatha judgement is an example. In the case of Samatha vs. Andhra Pradesh in the Birla company land acquisition attempt, the Supreme Court gave a judgement that the government was anti- tribal in its stand. But nowhere did the judgement say that the land in tribal areas could not be transferred to the government or companies. Instead the judgment made the whole process more bureaucratic - suggesting setting up committees at the ministerial and secretary levels both at the state and the centre to decide on such land transfer to any agencies. In case of Andhra Pradesh the court instructed the government to constitute tribal societies before such transfer of land.

Recently, the Orissa government has refused to accept the Samatha judgement. The mining department report of the Orissa government states that the MNCs including Rio Tinto of UK who are taking interest in 'development projects' including mining leases in the state have set as a pre-condition the "resolution of the Samatha issue".

I understand why Samatha an NGO of Andhra Pradesh still says that the judgment was for "cancellation of all mining leases" (for its own propagation!). But why the intellectual mass without going into detail of the judgment is carried away by such false campaign is quite difficult to understand.

More recently Supreme Court gave judgment against the tribal groups for their eviction, but did not consider the rights of these groups in the forests of the scheduled areas, because the protection of such rights is not important to the courts.

Our attention has been diverted several times through meticulously planned campaigns and programmes of the government with help of a few NGOs and funding agencies in different cases at different times. This is particularly so in post liberalisation era. The setting up of the National Forest Commission, Samatha judgement and Bhuria committee recommendations are examples of it. Each time our enemy succeeded in this hide and seek game. Day by day the MNCs are becoming powerful, and instead of raising voice against them we are getting confused and derailed.

We should think of the several attempts that have been made to divert our attention. Every time at the budget session we observe some issue created to divert our attention - like in 2001 the Kargil war; at the 2002 budget session the Gujurat riot - to preempt a wider discussion on economic issues. This has happened since the 1991 new economic policy.

We should analyse the situation, try to understand the inner objectives of such illusory campaigns, fix up our target and hurt the MNCs and government whenever we get any opportunity- this should be order of the day, as I feel it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@ Copyrights, Vikas Adhyayan Kendra, Mumbai.