Our forest their forest: To mitigate a historical injustice

FOREST RIGHTS

Adorned in tender palm leaves, with an elaborate headgear, face smeared in a bright yellow paste, and holding a fiery torch, the man possessed by Buta, runs into the daunting womb of the forest. He swirls, yells and disappears into thin air. The scattered embers of his torch instead of ushering in light brings in an unimaginable darkness. This scene at the very beginning of the movie Kantara, represents the age-old symbiotic relation between forest and forest dwellers.

Rishab Shetty's visual extravagance is entrenched in the rustic core of human existence, elucidating the force of an original tale rooted in the land and its culture. At the heart of Kantara is the age-old story of man vs nature, of villagers vs zamindars, of God vs the Devil. The power struggle between the native dwellers and the governments that forms the basic premises of the movie makes it a potent commentary on forest rights.

A man walks out of the forest carrying its products. The forest officer asks "Do you think this forest is your ancestral property?" He fails to comprehend his question" Who the hell is he to tell us those things?" he asked.

The so-called dichotomy between forest dwellers and forest has a long contentious history. In 1853, the first railway was introduced between Bombay to Thane. The difficulty to obtain timber supplies to build railway tracks prompted Lord Dalhousie, the then Governor General, to emphasis the importance of a definite forest policy.

It culminated in the Forest Act of 1878 which curtailed the centuries-old rights of communities over forests. The provision of this Act established a virtual State monopoly over the forests and stated that the customary use of the forests by the villagers was not a 'right', but a 'privilege' that could be withdrawn at will. The subsequent Acts continued with this antagonistic tone, further alienating the forest dwellers and making the forest a state property meant for exploitation.

Post-Independence, national interests were given primacy over that of the forest dwellers and forests came to be viewed as a national asset. It was made clear that local priorities, interests and claims of the communities should be subservient to larger national interests. The National Commission on Agriculture (1976) recommended that the 'production of industrial wood would have to be the raison d'etre for the existence of forests." In that same year the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, transferred forests from the State List to the Concurrent List, thus re-emphasising the role of the Central Government in the management of forests.

Till the advent of the British, the civilizational discourse of this country was intricately woven with nature and nature worship. Rituals and traditions, that draw their inspiration from the expanse of forest and the wild animals abound the country. The shift to urbanisation had to a great extent severed this relationship making us strangers to the ways of our ancestors. If we trace the genesis of our beliefs and traditions, it would be revealed that a bulk of them had emerged out of this deep connect and interaction between nature and man. But modernity has altered this relation, making us isolationist beings. But the communities that still remain rooted to the ancient ways need to be given a fair deal.

This fact was first recognised in the National Forest policy of 1988. Although conservation of forests remained the primary policy objective, the emphasis now shifted to the bona fide requirements of the marginalised individuals and communities who were dependent on the forests. This was a drastic shift in the approach towards the management of forests. The Scheduled Tribes and the Other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006, carried this argument further by agreeing that historic injustice had been done to scheduled tribes and traditional forest dwellers. The Act says:

"Forest rights on the ancestral lands and their habitat were not adequately recognised in the consolidation of state forests during the colonial periods as well as in Independent India resulting in Historical injustice with the scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers, who are integral to the very survival of the forest ecosystem"

Under the FRA, forest dwelling communities are entitled to two types of rights. Individual rights of settlement and cultivation on forest land and wider sets of rights referred to as community forest rights under which the community can manage, collect and sell minor forest products. Once CFR(Community Forest Rights) is recognised for a community, the ownership of the forests passes on to the Gram Sabha. Since 2012 there has been a significant rise in communities demanding CFR. The state governments also have been forthcoming in granting the rights under Section 3(1)(i) of the Act. Of the 28 Indian states nine states have granting CFR, with Chattisgarh leading the way.

As with any public policy the Act too has been criticised by a section of the citizens. The wildlife conservationists and the Ministry of Forest and Environment had termed it as an ideal recipe for the wholesale destruction of forest and wildlife by legalising encroachment. The corporates too have been opposing it as it makes acquisition land for industrial projects difficult. Some see it as a land distribution scheme that will lead to the handing over of forests to tribals and forest dwellers.

Notwithstanding the negative arguments, the supporters argue historical injustice and the need to check large scale development projects such as dams, power plants and mining activities for environmental conservation. Experience has shown that forceful eviction hasalways turned counterproductive. Besides, the Act gives legal sanction to the traditional role of forest dwellers as the protector of the environment, nature and wildlife.

Admits the din of argument and counter argument, it is imperative that we don't miss the larger picture. Forest dwellers and forests don't exist on the opposite end of the spectrum. For thousands of years they have existed in absolute harmony. Their complementary role should be given due recognition with the civil society and the government acting as the facilitator. At the very end of the movie Kantra, the Daiva dancer collects everyone around him, from forest officials, to zamindars, to ordinary folk. He then binds them in a symbolic pledge to protect the deep connect between humans and the wild.

By Emon NC

Also Read: Martyr Girinda Kumar Das did not even see his only daughter

Also Watch: