This page contains:
1.. An introduction to the Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill
2005.
2.. Objectives and Approach of the Bill.
3.. Arguments for and against the Bill
4.. An official copy of the draft Bill.
5.. Suggestions submitted to the
Ministry of Tribal Affairs.
THE SCHEDULED TRIBAL (RECOGNITION OF FOREST RIGHTS) BILL 2005
A Bill to
recognise and vest the forest rights and occupation in forest land in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes who have been residing in such forests for generations but whose rights could not be recorded; to provide for a framework for recording the forest rights so vested and the nature of evidence required for such recognition and vesting in respect of forest land.Also known as the Forest Bill, the Tribal Bill, the tribal land rights bill, the Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill, 2005 is a pet project of the United Progressive Alliance headed by Dr. Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister of India.
Objectives of the
Bill (as stated by Dr. Manmohan Singh) are:
- To recognise the land rights of tribal communities living in forest areas.
- Developing strategies to reconcile the objectives of environment conservation,
development and protecting the interests of tribal communities.
- Opening opportunities for effectively engaging tribals in greening of degraded
forest land and forest cover.
- Conferring ownership rights on non-timber forest produce.
- Discontinuing eviction of tribals from forests.
Approach of the Bill
1.. Distribution of 2.5 hectares of forest land to each nuclear family
2.. Giving power of settlements of claims to gram sabhas / sub-divisional
committees/district committees.
3.. Vast tracts of land to be denotified and elimination of legal protection of
forest cover.
Arguments for and
against the Bill.
1.. The Ministry of Environment and Forest has questioned the very necessity of
The Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill 2005. In a
strongly worded reaction to the draft, the ministry says the bill will
destroy India's forest land and the failure on the development front should not
be compensated by gifting away India's forest heritage. The letter says,
"The approach adopted in the proposed bill requiring denotification of
vast tracts of forest lands and elimination of legal protection for the forest
cover, will lead to irreparable ecological damage of immense proportion."....
To read more click here.
2..
The bigger danger to forests, bitter
experience shows, is the official-contractor and official-poacher nexus, not
poor tribals. The issue therefore is not forest or wildlife conservation,
it is tribal rights. Those opposing the Bill should ponder over the spread of
Naxalism in the vast tribal belt of the central and eastern parts of the
country, now the country's leading internal security problem. And it needs to be
asked whether this has anything to do with the shoddy treatment of tribals by
the agencies of the state, including alienation from their land and sources of
livelihood.
To read more click here.
3.. It has to be remembered that
the country's forest cover was once much larger than it is today and that if the
tribals did indulge in acts of despoliation, it wouldn't have mattered as much
as it will now. Any move, therefore, under the new Scheduled Tribes and Forest
Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill to allow incursions into the
protected forests is fraught with danger because the tribals are no longer what
they were ....
To read more click here.
4.. Tigers versus Tribals: this is how the debate on the Scheduled Tribes
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill, 2005, has been framed. If you are for
tigers, you shouldn't recognise forest rights of tribals. And if you are for
tribals, then it ipso facto means that tigers are not important to you.
This is a completely false dichotomy........
To read more click here.
5.. India's forests survive where tribals subsist and India's forests thrive where tribals are empowered to benefit economically from them. If the forests have been destroyed its because its existing landowner, the ministry has been either been completely ineffectual or colluded in selling off timber, other forest produce and forestlands even as tribals have born the brunt of a bureaucracy misusing courts orders to crush their livelihoods.
The bill is not
settling a debate of wildlife versus people, it is a debate about whether we
shall give people what is theirs to hold and manage. We can still build a green
future, this time through the active involvement of people in growing and
harvesting trees or in building livelihoods from the enormously rich minor
forest produce of the land.
To read more click here.
6.. MoEF is creating a false alarm in
the minds of all nature lovers that 16% of the forest cover of the nation will
be lost if the Bill is passed. In fact the objective of the Bill is the exact
opposite. It is unfortunate that MoEF denies today what it told the Supreme
Court nine months ago. On 21st. July 2004, MoEF claimed in its Affidavit that
historical injustice was done to the tribal people due to the failure of the
forest bureaucracy to recognize and record their rights during the consolidation
of forests both during the colonial and post independence period.
To read more click here.
TRUTHS AND FALSEHOODS
For the first time, the government is preparing a bill to
recognise forest communities' rights. The debate about this Bill has been
pitched as if it is a question of balancing people’s rights with forest
conservation.
Myth 1: The Bill will distribute 2.5 hectares of land to every tribal family or
will allow each generation to claim new lands. The Bill will “destroy 60% of
India’s forests.”
Myth 2: The Bill will eliminate “legal protection for the forest cover” in large
parts of India.
Myth 3: The existing law contains enough guarantees for peoples’ rights.
Myth 4: Local communities are enemies of the forest.
Myth 5: The forest authorities cooperate with local communities.
To read more click here.
Royal Bill Kill by Tiger and Wilderness Watch
Rumour has it that opposition to the bill gathered thrust due to the presence of Rahul Gandhi, son of Congress president Sonia Gandhi, in Tiger and Wilderness Watch. TWW was formed in the name of tiger conservation but was soon reported commenting on the bill. Rahul Gandhi was convinced that the bill will give away tiger habitat to tribals. But fearing the political implications of opposing tribal rights, the group never publicly mouthed opposition to the bill. To read more click here.
FOR A FULL COPY OF THE DRAFT BILL CLICK HERE.
FOR RECOMMENDATIONS SUBMITTED BY PEOPLE'S ORGANISATIONS
ON THE TRIBAL FOREST BILL CLICK HERE..
FOR THE STATEMENT ON THE DRAFT TRIBAL BILL BY NORTH-EAST GROUPS CLICK HERE.