Forest Rights Bill faces demand for amendment

New Delhi, Dec 22: The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 passed by Parliament on the penultimate day of its winter session is being seen as 'betrayal' by forest dwellers and tribals who demanded amendment in the law on the very next day of its passage.

These people, who had gathered here under the banner of Campaign for Survival and Dignity, an NGO fighting for rights, said it was an irony that after years of struggle, the bill has been passed but in a form that turns the victory into a defeat.

The feel the United Progressive Alliance Government has betrayed them on the following counts: The government has now defined "forest dwelling" in such a way as to ensure that 90 per cent of tribals and forest dwellers are excluded from eligibility for rights under this law.

Entire categories of the most vulnerable non-ST forest dwellers have been excluded.

The definition of "forest dwelling Scheduled Tribe" or "other traditional forest dweller" refers to those who "primarily reside in the forest", a term that could easily be understood as referring only to those who in fact reside entirely on forest land (as opposed to those who reside on the forest fringe but cultivate forest land or use forest resources). This is a very small minority of both tribal and non-tribal forest dwellers.

The Bill requires seventy five years of continuous residence in the case of non-ST forest dwellers, while dropping all the other categories recommended by the Joint Parliamentary Committee (such as forest villages, displaced people, etc.).

Inhabitants of forest villages in particular constitute a huge category, a large number of whom are non-ST, and are some of the most vulnerable forest dwelling communities in the country. Excluding them is a tremendous injustice, campaign leaders said.

The democratic process of verification of rights (based on the gram sabha, with a right of repeal) has been rejected, with the only significant improvement being that panchayati raj representatives are also to be included in deciding on rights (instead of only government officials). The process will now basically be in the control of government officials again.

The clauses on community forest control and management have been badly diluted and the provision for community consent before diversion or acquisition of forest land has been deleted. This deprives communities of most of the power to protect their forests against mafias and industry.

The Act has ambiguous clauses - specifically retained by the government - that would allow for arbitrary interference by the judiciary and the authorities, such as the dangerous section 15, which states that this Act "shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law in force,'' the leaders said.

''We have been told by Supreme Court lawyers that the courts could hold this to mean that, while rights would be recorded, they cannot be exercised except with the permission / under existing provisions of the Indian Forest Act and other legislations, thereby defeating the entire purpose of this legislation,'' they added.

The JPC recommendation for the reformulation of this clause was rejected.

''When we fought for this law, we were not fighting for title to our land alone. We were fighting for a new democratic system of forest management, where our homelands would not be reduced to commodities to be bought and sold,'' said the campaigners.

They decided to for mass mobilisation in January and February to press for amendment in the law.

UNI