Pradeep Kumar Panda
The draft Indian Forest Act (IFA), 2019, proposes the introduction of a repressive policing regime by bestowing more powers on the forest bureaucracy for the governance of about 7,08,273 square kilometres of India’s forests, while also incorporating provisions to commercialise forestry in accordance with the tenets of neo-liberal policy.
Also Read
It introduces coercive measures that would undermine some provisions in the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, and proposes amendments that override the legislative and executive powers of state governments. The 2019 draft has now been circulated to states for their feedback and comments.
It is noteworthy that the draft law has come in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s controversial February 13 order after the central government failed to defend the FRA. It is also ironic that the National Democratic Alliance government, in the run-up to the general elections, has the impudence to circulate a proposed law that would completely deny and severely curtail the rights of socially marginalised groups.
The regressive and contentious draft law has made major amendments to IFA, 1927, by conceding a veto power to forest officials, overriding provisions in the FRA. The most controversial provisions in the draft law relate not only to granting quasi-judicial powers to the forest bureaucracy, but also to the indemnity provided to forest officials for using firearms to prevent forest-related violations.
On suspicion of committing a forest-related crime, as defined by the proposed act, the amendments empower forest officials to shoot, search, seize property, and arrest citizens, while the burden of proving innocence would lie solely on the accused. Forest officials would be accorded legal protection akin to what is provided to soldiers under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958.
Another politically subversive measure that would undermine FRA is that, in consultation with the central government, state governments are conferred with powers to commute the rights provided under it, if such rights hamper conservation.
This would be done by paying money or granting land instead to forest dwellers. This would eventually lead to their eviction from forests, blatantly violating rights of communities dependent on forests and subjected to various forms of historical injustices by colonial and successive elected governments.
The draft law further proposes that if the rules framed by the Centre come into conflict with those of the states, the former would prevail. These go against the principles on which federal relations between the Centre and states are framed in the Constitution.
In addition, by proposing a system of “village forests” that bypasses the role of gram sabhas, these violate the principles of decentralised governance. Therefore, these amendments, if implemented, would undermine the basic rights and principles accorded by the Constitution to states and their citizens.
With regard to commercialisation of forestry, the provisions include measures to privatise forests as well as to introduce “production forests”. These would further infringe upon the FRA and undermine the democratic governance of forests by drastically altering the stakes of actors, unsettle existing cooperative or joint arrangements for use of forest lands and common property resources, and offer opportunities for private accumulation at the cost of impoverished and marginalised groups.
Why would the government at the Centre push for an authoritarian forest regime that would effectively endanger and curtail civil liberties of forest dwellers, who are among the most socially and economically marginalised groups?
Why is the government amending laws against the interests of traditional forest dwellers disregarding the FRA, while also being indifferent to or failing to protect their rights? Moreover, an attempt at amending laws without initiating a rigorous political or public discussion is appalling.
It is unfortunate that in a country where poverty is concentrated in Adivasi pockets in lagging regions and where inequality has been exacerbating over time, matters regarding forest governance and forest rights are perceived as non-issues, with major political parties disregarding pivotal issues concerning forest-dependent populations.
In the interests of forest-dependent communities, it is crucial that the oppressive and unfair amendments to the forest laws are repealed, and a pro-poor and democratic approach to forest governance is adopted; for, if implemented, these amendments would engender new forms of inequality and disenfranchisement in the event of a state-led deterritorialisation of forestlands.
The writer is an economist. e-Mail: pradeep25687@yahoo.co.in.
