The BJP propaganda machine never ceases to amaze. The stuff it churns out, from tweets to articles, establishes records in their distance from the truth. A recent example is the
piece written on this site by Bhupender Yadav, a Rajya Sabha MP, who in his effusive praise for the Compensation Afforestation Fund Bill recently adopted by the Upper House makes the claim that the Bill takes "due care of the livelihood of the people dependent on forests." He also claims that the Bill promotes "active involvement of the local community," that it will "compensate local communities in wild life human conflict" and also that it will lead to "uplifting societies living in remote areas" and so on.
Which Bill is the Honble Member of Parliament referring to? Certainly not the one which is up on the official website. This piece of legislation does not refer to "local communities" at all. The word "tribal" is used only in connection with the inclusion of the Tribal Affairs Ministry official as a representative in the bureaucrat-dominated committee which takes all the decisions, and then again the word appears in reference to the inclusion of a single "expert on tribal affairs" in the committee.
Contrary to the MP's claim, tribal communities have strongly protested against the legislation precisely because their interests do not figure at all. This is also why the minister concerned was forced to give an assurance on the floor of the House that the Rules to be framed will include their concerns. Whether that happens or not is another matter since Rules only operationalize policies which should be within the main law. Without the actual policy, rights given by Rules are very limited in nature.
It was the UPA which had first brought the bill, also without any guarantees for the protection of the rights of tribal communities. At that time it was the Left which had led the opposition and demanded inclusion of the rights of tribal and other traditional forest communities in the bill. Although the bill was passed by the Lok Sabha in 2008, it could not be passed in the Rajya Sabha and later lapsed. When the bill was brought again this time round, Left MPs moved amendments to the bill and so did the Congress. But a compromise was reached between the Congress party and the government on inclusion in the Rules which made the passage of the bill a fait accompli. State governments who will get 90 per cent of the share of the fund of 41,000 crore rupees also instructed their MPs to remain silent.
What is the message that this gives to tribal communities? Are laws to be implemented selectively? The Forest Rights Act gives community rights over forests. Tribals have been recognized in this law as having a special duty for the regeneration and protection of forests. The PESA (Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act) makes it mandatory to consult tribal communities on the use of resources and the establishment of projects in their areas. The CAF or new bill hands over these rights to bureaucrats. It is an affront to tribal communities, a gross injustice and a destruction of their legal rights.
The CAF is based on the principle of industry paying for the destruction of forests that their projects lead to and also compensatory afforestation on an equivalent amount of land and is the consequence of Supreme Court orders starting from a 2002 case. This appears unexceptionable. A Compensatory Afforestation Management and Planning Authority was also set up in 2006 to collect the funds.
But with the pattern of pushing "development" through the handover of national resources whether forests, land, minerals, rivers, water (the list is endless) to mainly private players, the diversion of forest land has become the norm and CAF the cover to legitimize the resource grab by corporates. The argument put forward is: what's wrong with forest diversion, after all the user is paying for it.
The tribal communities have had no say on the issue. Where will the land for afforestation come from? Will more tribals be displaced to provide land? What is the compensation which will be given to tribal communities for loss of their livelihood? There is no mention in the bill. Who can measure the cost of the loss to tribals not just to livelihood, but to cultures, practices, beliefs linked to forests? Why should the bureaucracy have the right to plan the type of regeneration or afforestation over the say of tribal communities who have been and are the protectors of forests? The Supreme Court in its guidelines had also specifically stated "Plantations must use local and indigenous species since exotics have long-term negative impacts on the environment." Who would be better qualified to implement this then tribals? But the clause itself has been omitted from the bill on the say so no doubt of those who prefer plantation of species trees that suit commercial interests.
The criminal exclusion of tribal communities in decision-making processes is true not only in connection with the CAF Bill. Tribal voices were ignored when the amendments to the Mines and Minerals Act was pushed through, depriving them of their basic right to consent or withhold consent on takeover of their land, even though the Supreme Court had forced the cancellation of the Vedanta project precisely on the issue of lack of consent of tribal
gram sabhas. The same thing happened when the Land Acquisition Act was adopted which included dilutions of the provisions of the Fifth Schedule protection of tribal land and the supremacy of anti-tribal provisions of 16 Acts over the LARR.The Coal Mines Law amendments also ignored tribals although it is substantially under tribal occupied/owned land that coal resources are found.
Even the rights tribals have on forest land as defined by the Forest Rights Act are virtually frozen. As on April 30, 2016, of 44. 23 lakh claims registered, only 17.44 lakhs were accepted and
pattas distributed. In other words, 61 per cent have been rejected. Significantly, the rejection of community claims to forest resources is as high as 63 per cent. Having unjustly rejected claims of tribals and other traditional forest-dwelling communities, governments are gearing up to start eviction proceedings. In April this year, the Maharashtra government, acting on a Supreme Court query made in January, has ordered the Forest Department as well as the police to identify the "encroachers."
Thus while corporate "users" can "legally" occupy and destroy forests under the present regime, tribals whose very life is linked to the forests and their protection are to be evicted because they stand in the way of "development."
While the media has been full of analysis of the benefits of 25 years of liberalization with the "not enough" whine dominating most discourse, the overwhelmingly dark side of it for large parts of India, inhabited by tribals, Dalits and the ever-increasing numbers of the working poor, is just the footnote, if at all. Of course the reaction is also becoming visible.
Dalit rage brought down the Gujarat model and exposed it for what it is - a sickeningly upper caste pro-corporate policy framework. The barbarity of Una affected Dalit communities all over India and Prime Minister Modi's silence was heard in every Dalit home.
Discontent is simmering in tribal villages and habitations in swathes across India. Sometimes it bursts out in sporadic protests. Scattered over India, living in remote areas, the power of their anger may not be as visible as those of comparatively more organised communities of the oppressed. But don't be surprised if the next big upsurge comes from within Adivasi communities. The government is playing with fire.
Brinda Karat is a Politburo member of the CPI(M) and a former Member of the Rajya Sabha.Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of NDTV and NDTV does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.