WHO SHOULD OWN THE FORESTS? SOME DIALOGUES IN UDAIPUR
“We will protect our forests, whatever may come” – Village Madla, Jhadol
Read more!
“As long as there are people, there will be encroachments” – Village Piplimala, Jhadol
“These forests are not our responsibility, why should we protect them?“– Village Adivada, Kotra
“We do not have enough land, but we do not want to cut trees or sell them” – Village Hansleta, Kotra
These are samples of what we heard when we asked people in the adivasi villages of Udaipur district about their forests. The four quotes in many ways, sum up the praxis of the complex relationship between human beings and their natural surroundings. One may shout from the roofs about how symbiotic the relationship between adivasis and nature, particularly forests, is. One may also take the side of tigers and put them on a pedestal above human beings, and demand that all human intervention in forests be banned. One could also find peace, and logic in the interstices between these two roofs.
What the bill proposes
There are sufficient numbers of activists and organisations that adhere to one of the two extreme positions. This sharp divide is quite visible when one follows the debate around the proposed Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill, drafted by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, which the Government of India proposes to enact. As the statement of objects and reasons to the bill says, “Forest dwelling tribal people and forests are inseparable. One cannot survive without the other. The conservation of ecological resources by forest dwelling tribal communities have been referred to in ancient manuscripts and scriptures. The colonial rule somehow ignored this reality for greater economic gains and probably for good reasons prevalent at the time. After independence, in our enthusiasm to protect natural resources, we continued with colonial legislation and adopted more internationally accepted norms of conservation rather than learning from the country’s rich traditions where conservation is embedded in the ethos of tribal life. ………….. This historical injustice now needs correction before it is too late to save our forests from becoming abode of undesirable elements”.
The bill sets out, in order to correct the injustice, ‘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 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’.
The bill needs to be seen also in light of some measures initiated by the Government of India, fifteen years ago, in the form of circulars issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest. These circulars, had they been implemented, would have addressed the ‘historical injustices’ in several ways. The six circulars issued with No.13-1/90-FP dated September 18 1990 are:
FP (1) – Review of encroachments on forest land
FP (2) – Review of disputed claims over forest land, arising out of forest settlement
FP (3) – Disputes regarding pattas/leases/grants involving forest lands
FP (4) – Elimination of intermediaries and payment of fair wages to the labourers on forestry works
FP (5) – Conversion of forest villages into revenue villages and settlement of old habitations
FP (6) – Payment of compensation for loss of life and property due to predation/depredation by wild animals
Of the different issues dealt with in these circulars, the current Bill covers inter alia, the issues in circulars 1, 2, 3 and 5. As a result of faulty forest settlement processes, disputes between the revenue and forest departments and those between the forest department and people, many villages in different parts of the country have been deprived of some basic rights and facilities. These include access to social security schemes, access to basic education, health services, infrastructure like roads or electricity – almost everything an average villager in India can take for granted as rights (irrespective of whether it is actually available). All the while, forest dwellers continue to use forest resources for everyday survival, shelling out bribes and fines to forest officials in almost routine regularity.
Other views
Several activists and organisations have taken a less excited view of the Bill, in contrast to the two extreme positions taken by those opposing the Bill in the name of ‘tigers’ or supporting it in the name of ‘tribals’. While accepting that rights of forest dwelling and forest dependent communities are important, they fear that the Bill may not help in achieving this.
Among the serious defects of the Bill highlighted, is the fact that it deals with the different situations across the country as one homogeneous whole. In several parts of states like Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh forest-dwelling communities have been deprived of fundamental rights as described above. However, this is not the reality everywhere. In many areas, encroachment of forest land by people – both out of need and greed – is a burning issue. Faulty settlement of forest villages and later day encroachments are two very different issues and would have required different regularisation processes and not the blanket approach suggested in the Bill.
It is worthwhile to note that the Government of India issued a circular in early-2004, ordering regularisation of encroachments up to December 31, 1993. This circular, it is alleged, led to a new spate of encroachments, particularly by people with good political or bureaucratic connections.
The Bill now proposes regularisation of encroachments made before 1980, thus virtually privatising part of the forest land. At the same time, it wants to promote collective efforts to conserve forest resources, this through the instrument of Gram Sabha. How these are put into action is a matter of conjecture, in the absence of reliable records for assessment of encroachments, and with inadequate definition of what the nature of powers vested with the Gram Sabha are. Furthermore, the concept of Gram Sabha as the grassroots governance mechanism remains a paper-dream with very little effort from the part of the States to actualise what is envisaged in the 73rd amendment and PESA. Empowering this institution to manage ecological resources as envisaged in the current Bill is at best a statement of noble intentions.
Understanding people’s perspectives
Our visit to the villages in Udaipur district was an attempt to understand the ground reality with regard to people and their relationship with forests. Forest dependence of communities in Udaipur is different in nature from what we have experienced in other parts of India, like in Jharkhand and Orissa. Many tribal communities there depend on the forest land and forest produce to meet bulk of their food and income requirements. What we understand of the situation in many parts of western India – Jhabua in MP, Dahod in Gujarat and Udaipur – is that, forests contribute to meeting supplementary livelihoods needs – NTFPs that provide cash income, fuel and fodder. Tribal communities in these areas practice more settled forms of agriculture, compared to their eastern counterparts. Seasonal migration as labourers to urban centres is a more critical part of the livelihoods of tribals in the west.
We visited six villages in Jhadol and Kotra tehsils of the district and interacted with the villagers to understand their feelings and perceptions on the whole issue of forest rights, use, encroachment and their need to be maintained as common resources. Seva Mandir, a non-government development organisation has been working in these areas for the past several decades. An important aspect of Seva Mandir’ work has been mobilising communities to protect forests, pasturelands and other commons with a view to nurturing them as ‘social capital’. Seva Mandir’ policy is that commons should be maintained in such a way that all villagers would have access to its benefits.
Seva Mandir has facilitated a federation of village forest protection committees in Jhadol tehsil. The federation called Van Utthan Sangh, in its infancy, plays a critical role in continued motivation of villages towards forest protection. Seva Mandir has been successful in motivating several villages to collectively work on removing encroachments on common lands and protecting them for common benefit. The Van Utthan Sangh member villages in Jhadol have several instances of successful removal of encroachments on forests.
We also had discussions with staff at SPWD’s regional office in Udaipur. This office has been organising meetings with different organisations in the region with a view to developing a common understanding on the Bill and its issues and also exploring possibilities of common action.
The Jangal Jameen Jan Andolan is a platform of activist organisations in Southern Rajasthan that has been in the forefront of the struggle to obtain rights to forest land for tribals in the region. Representatives of the Andolan have also played a role in the drafting of the Bill. As part of its preparation for implementation of the Bill when it is passed, the Andolan has identified about 17000 claims for regularisation. We had discussions with activists of the Andolan that helped us understand their point of view.
The villages we visited were in the operational area of Seva Mandir. They have been associated with Seva Mandir for varying periods of time. The nature of association also varied across villages. Of the six villages we visited, three had joint forest management mechanisms in place. The Forest Protection Committees were functional here and already had done work in earmarking their forest boundaries and building boundary walls. In a fourth village, the proposal for JFM was in advanced stage of processing. Neither of the two villages in Kotra tehsil had JFM mechanisms. One of them, Adivada, falls under the Phulwari ka Nal sanctuary, while the other, Hansleta, apparently is being proposed to be added to this sanctuary.
Both Pargiapada and Madla claim to have convinced its people to give up the encroachments they had made in the forest portions, and brought them under JFM. While this in itself is an achievement, at least in case of Madla the fact remains that the distance from the settlement to their forest (close to 3 kms) made it almost impractical for them to do anything useful on the encroached plots.
In both these cases what also came to the fore in our discussions are the serious boundary disputes with the neighbouring villages. It sounded to us as serious conflicts with little scope for settlement in the immediate future. In case of Madla, the neighbouring village of Sigri is in fact located very close to their protected forest. The people of Sigri have been regularly breaking down the boundary wall to let their cattle in for grazing. Sigri, from what we understand, also have a JFM promoted with support from FES.
Piplimala is much more at peace with itself. Their forest consists of two distinct parts, the slopes and a plateau. The plateau has been encroached upon in the previous generation and 22 families are now permanent residents on this encroached portion. Other families too have farmlands in this area. The people are very clear that there is no chance of them abandoning this encroachment. They however have taken steps to form a forest protection committee (not yet recognised by the forest department) and protect another patch along the slopes. The village has the experience of motivating people to give up encroachment on their common pasture land and developing it with the help of Seva Mandir. But Khemchand the young and energetic Sarpanch of Magwas GP, also the leader of Piplimala has no illusions about forests or people. He very clearly said “jab tak insaan rahega, atikraman hoga hi”.
Som is a more difficult case. The villagers are very clear that the forest portions they have encroached upon are not suitable for growing crops. However, all of them claimed that the encroachments were necessary for them to raise their cattle as the village did not have adequate pasture lands. Many of them mentioned landlessness as being the primary reason behind encroachments but on further enquiry this was linked again to land for grazing and not crop production. Some villagers also referred to the basic human need (greed) for more land.
Adivada is a village right outside the Phulwari ka Nal sanctuary. In fact many houses that we saw were precariously placed on the sanctuary boundary. This is the village where we experienced the omnipresence of the forest bureaucracy. Villagers had to pay the forest guards regularly. In most cases they would be told of being given a receipt for the payment, but later as the guard would not have the receipt book with him. Villagers said that they do not normally cut any tree but only collect dry and fallen wood for fuel. They also collect honey, gum etc. but would have to pay a fine (bribe) to get it out. However, they said that people from outside were regularly cutting wood from the forests near them and taking it away. On being asked as to why these people were not being caught by the guards, their answer was that this happened at night and the guards would be fast asleep. One person did however mention that such cutting of wood happened with the guards knowing about it.
They also narrated incidents when they tried to prevent others from cutting wood or bamboo from the forest. In once case, Lalaji an old man from the village tried to prevent a girl from another village from cutting bamboo from the forest behind his house. He was eventually arrested by the police and had to spend more than Rs.3000 to get out. Men and women whom we met repeatedly told us that it is no use for them trying to prevent outsiders from cutting wood in the forests, as it would only land them in trouble like Lalaji. As he asked, “hamara to jimma nahi hai, hum kyon iski raksha karen”.
Hansleta was a revelation. On first sight the forest cover looked unreal. It became more incredible with the dark clouds looming above. As the people told us, not just Hansleta, but every village in Medi panchayat protected their forests. And they repeated the fact that there has been no reduction in forest cover during the current generation, an exception to what we heard in every other village. Everywhere else, elderly people kept saying how they have witnessed the receding of forests over the past years.
In Som landlessness was being used as an excuse for encroachment. However, according to the people of Hansleta, they are not encroaching on the forests despite inadequate land for food production. It helps that they earn well from migrating to Gujarat, not very far away. They say that the best they produce from their own land is two or three bags of grain. From Gujarat many earn six to ten bags and this helps them live.
People of Hansleta also claim that they do not allow tree-felling in their forests. They narrated an incident of stopping a truck that was carrying away bamboo from their forest and realising Rs.3000 or so as fine from the poacher. It helps them that the only way to transport wood or bamboo from the forest to outside is through the village. However, they do not prevent villagers from neighbouring Gujarat in grazing their cattle or collecting fuel wood from their forest. They themselves let their cattle graze freely inside the forest.
Moving forward – Forests as Commons
Several issues/questions arise at the end of these visits and discussions. The first set of questions pertain to what we think are important issues for effective motivation and mobilisation of these communities towards collective action in the area of forests and similar commons.
Forests being protected by communities as commons are a symbol of village unity. A matter of great pride for the villager, particularly village leaders! We have seen this expression of unity taking form as response to challenges from both within and outside the village. Such conflicts tend to become less important with passage of time. Would the motivation to retain and protect the commons continue to be there even after that?
The case of two villages in another part of Udaipur is worth citing here. Barawa and Nayakheda are not forest villages, but have large chunks of common pasture lands. These were under encroachment by individual villagers but collective effort supported by Seva Mandir succeeded in vacating these encroachments. Now these pasture lands are under community management, provide in large quantities what they are supposed to, fodder for cattle. This may seem contradicting the statement made above, but it is in fact reinforcing the point made. Barawa and Nayakheda have families for whom animal husbandry is a very important source of livelihoods. And they obviously have a vested interest in obtaining more fodder for their cattle. A resource that, as the villagers clearly articulate, diminishes when divided.
We encountered claims of landlessness in its varied forms during these discussions. Som on one side and Hansleta on the other. Is either of these two, the reality for all times to come? Will the ‘individual greed’ as experienced in Som continue to be so? And will the ‘collective spirit’ of Hansleta remain so for all days to come even withstanding the pressure for immediate survival?
Except in the case of Piplimala, where the plateau in the forest had productive land, no village had any great regard for the quality of land in the forests to support increased crop production. Most of these were steep slopes, rocky with very little top soil or organic material and would require very high investment in bunding or terracing to put them to any productive use. What is the economic benefit to the adivasis if such lands under encroachment are made regular? Other than that of satisfying egos?
Greed is a basic human instinct, as the villagers themselves said. Everyone wants more of what they have. What efforts would be required to motivate people to overcome greed and look at common good in all the villages and not just in a few?
In the villages where pasturelands and forests are being seen as commons, Seva Mandir has evidently invested in more than a decade of concerted motivation and supported affirmative action – both in removing encroachments and in developing the commons. In villages where such engagement is limited, people’s articulation and feeling towards the commons is limited. The correlation is stark. Seva Mandir workers and villagers seemed to feel that organic spread of such initiatives is limited. What does this bode for bringing about widespread adoption of such practices?
JFM could be an enabling mechanism for the spread of common interest in forests. Bureaucratic processes in JFM have however played a serious deterrent in this. In several villages, we were unable to get a sense of whether JFM is preferred from a long term perspective or for short term gains of wage employment. What needs to be done to get more communities interested in JFM and the forest department more responsive to community demands?
Wherever the forest department had a strong presence, like in Kotra area, people were sure that the forests were not theirs. It belonged to the department. In such areas, there were fewer encroachments. Where the department had nominal presence, the feeling of ownership among people was stronger; and incidences of encroachment larger. What do we learn from these – strengthen the department or remove it from the scene?
Laws for the poor?
There are serious concerns on the efficacy of the proposed bill or similar enactments in achieving the twin goals of ecological security in general and livelihoods security for the poor.
What looks clear to us is that a mere administrative measure of regularising encroachments on forest lands by application of either the Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill, if and when it is passed or Circular FP (1) of the Ministry of Environment and Forests may not make life significantly better for forest-dependant communities, like those we met in Jhadol and Kotra.
One could even ask if regularising of such encroachments is required at all in such areas. Would not strengthening of measures like JFM and other collective management measures aid both – better conservation of the forests while providing better access for the people to its produce?
Our discussions with villagers, organisations and activists make it clear to us that the right way to proceed is to distinguish between three different issues and making policies to address each of these in their specific contexts. The three issues are:
Need for conservation of forest resources
Recognising rights of forest dwellers to a dignified life
Identifying and regularising encroachments that are legitimate and distinguishing them from opportunistic, illegitimate encroachments
The Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill is yet another legislative step in the lines of PESA and other enactments, laden with noble intentions. We have seen how PESA has remained a ‘paper dream’. Would not the new Bill, when made into a law, follow the same path? None of those raising their voices for or against the Bill seem to be concerned about this aspect.
For the moment, the debate on ‘tigers vs. tribals’ is likely to continue. Whether or not the bill is passed, organisations like Seva Mandir will find that their work on strengthening people’s participation and ownership over forests and other commons is relevant, and will continue to be so.
“These forests are not our responsibility, why should we protect them?“– Village Adivada, Kotra
“We do not have enough land, but we do not want to cut trees or sell them” – Village Hansleta, Kotra
These are samples of what we heard when we asked people in the adivasi villages of Udaipur district about their forests. The four quotes in many ways, sum up the praxis of the complex relationship between human beings and their natural surroundings. One may shout from the roofs about how symbiotic the relationship between adivasis and nature, particularly forests, is. One may also take the side of tigers and put them on a pedestal above human beings, and demand that all human intervention in forests be banned. One could also find peace, and logic in the interstices between these two roofs.
What the bill proposes
There are sufficient numbers of activists and organisations that adhere to one of the two extreme positions. This sharp divide is quite visible when one follows the debate around the proposed Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill, drafted by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, which the Government of India proposes to enact. As the statement of objects and reasons to the bill says, “Forest dwelling tribal people and forests are inseparable. One cannot survive without the other. The conservation of ecological resources by forest dwelling tribal communities have been referred to in ancient manuscripts and scriptures. The colonial rule somehow ignored this reality for greater economic gains and probably for good reasons prevalent at the time. After independence, in our enthusiasm to protect natural resources, we continued with colonial legislation and adopted more internationally accepted norms of conservation rather than learning from the country’s rich traditions where conservation is embedded in the ethos of tribal life. ………….. This historical injustice now needs correction before it is too late to save our forests from becoming abode of undesirable elements”.
The bill sets out, in order to correct the injustice, ‘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 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’.
The bill needs to be seen also in light of some measures initiated by the Government of India, fifteen years ago, in the form of circulars issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest. These circulars, had they been implemented, would have addressed the ‘historical injustices’ in several ways. The six circulars issued with No.13-1/90-FP dated September 18 1990 are:
FP (1) – Review of encroachments on forest land
FP (2) – Review of disputed claims over forest land, arising out of forest settlement
FP (3) – Disputes regarding pattas/leases/grants involving forest lands
FP (4) – Elimination of intermediaries and payment of fair wages to the labourers on forestry works
FP (5) – Conversion of forest villages into revenue villages and settlement of old habitations
FP (6) – Payment of compensation for loss of life and property due to predation/depredation by wild animals
Of the different issues dealt with in these circulars, the current Bill covers inter alia, the issues in circulars 1, 2, 3 and 5. As a result of faulty forest settlement processes, disputes between the revenue and forest departments and those between the forest department and people, many villages in different parts of the country have been deprived of some basic rights and facilities. These include access to social security schemes, access to basic education, health services, infrastructure like roads or electricity – almost everything an average villager in India can take for granted as rights (irrespective of whether it is actually available). All the while, forest dwellers continue to use forest resources for everyday survival, shelling out bribes and fines to forest officials in almost routine regularity.
Other views
Several activists and organisations have taken a less excited view of the Bill, in contrast to the two extreme positions taken by those opposing the Bill in the name of ‘tigers’ or supporting it in the name of ‘tribals’. While accepting that rights of forest dwelling and forest dependent communities are important, they fear that the Bill may not help in achieving this.
Among the serious defects of the Bill highlighted, is the fact that it deals with the different situations across the country as one homogeneous whole. In several parts of states like Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh forest-dwelling communities have been deprived of fundamental rights as described above. However, this is not the reality everywhere. In many areas, encroachment of forest land by people – both out of need and greed – is a burning issue. Faulty settlement of forest villages and later day encroachments are two very different issues and would have required different regularisation processes and not the blanket approach suggested in the Bill.
It is worthwhile to note that the Government of India issued a circular in early-2004, ordering regularisation of encroachments up to December 31, 1993. This circular, it is alleged, led to a new spate of encroachments, particularly by people with good political or bureaucratic connections.
The Bill now proposes regularisation of encroachments made before 1980, thus virtually privatising part of the forest land. At the same time, it wants to promote collective efforts to conserve forest resources, this through the instrument of Gram Sabha. How these are put into action is a matter of conjecture, in the absence of reliable records for assessment of encroachments, and with inadequate definition of what the nature of powers vested with the Gram Sabha are. Furthermore, the concept of Gram Sabha as the grassroots governance mechanism remains a paper-dream with very little effort from the part of the States to actualise what is envisaged in the 73rd amendment and PESA. Empowering this institution to manage ecological resources as envisaged in the current Bill is at best a statement of noble intentions.
Understanding people’s perspectives
Our visit to the villages in Udaipur district was an attempt to understand the ground reality with regard to people and their relationship with forests. Forest dependence of communities in Udaipur is different in nature from what we have experienced in other parts of India, like in Jharkhand and Orissa. Many tribal communities there depend on the forest land and forest produce to meet bulk of their food and income requirements. What we understand of the situation in many parts of western India – Jhabua in MP, Dahod in Gujarat and Udaipur – is that, forests contribute to meeting supplementary livelihoods needs – NTFPs that provide cash income, fuel and fodder. Tribal communities in these areas practice more settled forms of agriculture, compared to their eastern counterparts. Seasonal migration as labourers to urban centres is a more critical part of the livelihoods of tribals in the west.
We visited six villages in Jhadol and Kotra tehsils of the district and interacted with the villagers to understand their feelings and perceptions on the whole issue of forest rights, use, encroachment and their need to be maintained as common resources. Seva Mandir, a non-government development organisation has been working in these areas for the past several decades. An important aspect of Seva Mandir’ work has been mobilising communities to protect forests, pasturelands and other commons with a view to nurturing them as ‘social capital’. Seva Mandir’ policy is that commons should be maintained in such a way that all villagers would have access to its benefits.
Seva Mandir has facilitated a federation of village forest protection committees in Jhadol tehsil. The federation called Van Utthan Sangh, in its infancy, plays a critical role in continued motivation of villages towards forest protection. Seva Mandir has been successful in motivating several villages to collectively work on removing encroachments on common lands and protecting them for common benefit. The Van Utthan Sangh member villages in Jhadol have several instances of successful removal of encroachments on forests.
We also had discussions with staff at SPWD’s regional office in Udaipur. This office has been organising meetings with different organisations in the region with a view to developing a common understanding on the Bill and its issues and also exploring possibilities of common action.
The Jangal Jameen Jan Andolan is a platform of activist organisations in Southern Rajasthan that has been in the forefront of the struggle to obtain rights to forest land for tribals in the region. Representatives of the Andolan have also played a role in the drafting of the Bill. As part of its preparation for implementation of the Bill when it is passed, the Andolan has identified about 17000 claims for regularisation. We had discussions with activists of the Andolan that helped us understand their point of view.
The villages we visited were in the operational area of Seva Mandir. They have been associated with Seva Mandir for varying periods of time. The nature of association also varied across villages. Of the six villages we visited, three had joint forest management mechanisms in place. The Forest Protection Committees were functional here and already had done work in earmarking their forest boundaries and building boundary walls. In a fourth village, the proposal for JFM was in advanced stage of processing. Neither of the two villages in Kotra tehsil had JFM mechanisms. One of them, Adivada, falls under the Phulwari ka Nal sanctuary, while the other, Hansleta, apparently is being proposed to be added to this sanctuary.
Both Pargiapada and Madla claim to have convinced its people to give up the encroachments they had made in the forest portions, and brought them under JFM. While this in itself is an achievement, at least in case of Madla the fact remains that the distance from the settlement to their forest (close to 3 kms) made it almost impractical for them to do anything useful on the encroached plots.
In both these cases what also came to the fore in our discussions are the serious boundary disputes with the neighbouring villages. It sounded to us as serious conflicts with little scope for settlement in the immediate future. In case of Madla, the neighbouring village of Sigri is in fact located very close to their protected forest. The people of Sigri have been regularly breaking down the boundary wall to let their cattle in for grazing. Sigri, from what we understand, also have a JFM promoted with support from FES.
Piplimala is much more at peace with itself. Their forest consists of two distinct parts, the slopes and a plateau. The plateau has been encroached upon in the previous generation and 22 families are now permanent residents on this encroached portion. Other families too have farmlands in this area. The people are very clear that there is no chance of them abandoning this encroachment. They however have taken steps to form a forest protection committee (not yet recognised by the forest department) and protect another patch along the slopes. The village has the experience of motivating people to give up encroachment on their common pasture land and developing it with the help of Seva Mandir. But Khemchand the young and energetic Sarpanch of Magwas GP, also the leader of Piplimala has no illusions about forests or people. He very clearly said “jab tak insaan rahega, atikraman hoga hi”.
Som is a more difficult case. The villagers are very clear that the forest portions they have encroached upon are not suitable for growing crops. However, all of them claimed that the encroachments were necessary for them to raise their cattle as the village did not have adequate pasture lands. Many of them mentioned landlessness as being the primary reason behind encroachments but on further enquiry this was linked again to land for grazing and not crop production. Some villagers also referred to the basic human need (greed) for more land.
Adivada is a village right outside the Phulwari ka Nal sanctuary. In fact many houses that we saw were precariously placed on the sanctuary boundary. This is the village where we experienced the omnipresence of the forest bureaucracy. Villagers had to pay the forest guards regularly. In most cases they would be told of being given a receipt for the payment, but later as the guard would not have the receipt book with him. Villagers said that they do not normally cut any tree but only collect dry and fallen wood for fuel. They also collect honey, gum etc. but would have to pay a fine (bribe) to get it out. However, they said that people from outside were regularly cutting wood from the forests near them and taking it away. On being asked as to why these people were not being caught by the guards, their answer was that this happened at night and the guards would be fast asleep. One person did however mention that such cutting of wood happened with the guards knowing about it.
They also narrated incidents when they tried to prevent others from cutting wood or bamboo from the forest. In once case, Lalaji an old man from the village tried to prevent a girl from another village from cutting bamboo from the forest behind his house. He was eventually arrested by the police and had to spend more than Rs.3000 to get out. Men and women whom we met repeatedly told us that it is no use for them trying to prevent outsiders from cutting wood in the forests, as it would only land them in trouble like Lalaji. As he asked, “hamara to jimma nahi hai, hum kyon iski raksha karen”.
Hansleta was a revelation. On first sight the forest cover looked unreal. It became more incredible with the dark clouds looming above. As the people told us, not just Hansleta, but every village in Medi panchayat protected their forests. And they repeated the fact that there has been no reduction in forest cover during the current generation, an exception to what we heard in every other village. Everywhere else, elderly people kept saying how they have witnessed the receding of forests over the past years.
In Som landlessness was being used as an excuse for encroachment. However, according to the people of Hansleta, they are not encroaching on the forests despite inadequate land for food production. It helps that they earn well from migrating to Gujarat, not very far away. They say that the best they produce from their own land is two or three bags of grain. From Gujarat many earn six to ten bags and this helps them live.
People of Hansleta also claim that they do not allow tree-felling in their forests. They narrated an incident of stopping a truck that was carrying away bamboo from their forest and realising Rs.3000 or so as fine from the poacher. It helps them that the only way to transport wood or bamboo from the forest to outside is through the village. However, they do not prevent villagers from neighbouring Gujarat in grazing their cattle or collecting fuel wood from their forest. They themselves let their cattle graze freely inside the forest.
Moving forward – Forests as Commons
Several issues/questions arise at the end of these visits and discussions. The first set of questions pertain to what we think are important issues for effective motivation and mobilisation of these communities towards collective action in the area of forests and similar commons.
Forests being protected by communities as commons are a symbol of village unity. A matter of great pride for the villager, particularly village leaders! We have seen this expression of unity taking form as response to challenges from both within and outside the village. Such conflicts tend to become less important with passage of time. Would the motivation to retain and protect the commons continue to be there even after that?
The case of two villages in another part of Udaipur is worth citing here. Barawa and Nayakheda are not forest villages, but have large chunks of common pasture lands. These were under encroachment by individual villagers but collective effort supported by Seva Mandir succeeded in vacating these encroachments. Now these pasture lands are under community management, provide in large quantities what they are supposed to, fodder for cattle. This may seem contradicting the statement made above, but it is in fact reinforcing the point made. Barawa and Nayakheda have families for whom animal husbandry is a very important source of livelihoods. And they obviously have a vested interest in obtaining more fodder for their cattle. A resource that, as the villagers clearly articulate, diminishes when divided.
We encountered claims of landlessness in its varied forms during these discussions. Som on one side and Hansleta on the other. Is either of these two, the reality for all times to come? Will the ‘individual greed’ as experienced in Som continue to be so? And will the ‘collective spirit’ of Hansleta remain so for all days to come even withstanding the pressure for immediate survival?
Except in the case of Piplimala, where the plateau in the forest had productive land, no village had any great regard for the quality of land in the forests to support increased crop production. Most of these were steep slopes, rocky with very little top soil or organic material and would require very high investment in bunding or terracing to put them to any productive use. What is the economic benefit to the adivasis if such lands under encroachment are made regular? Other than that of satisfying egos?
Greed is a basic human instinct, as the villagers themselves said. Everyone wants more of what they have. What efforts would be required to motivate people to overcome greed and look at common good in all the villages and not just in a few?
In the villages where pasturelands and forests are being seen as commons, Seva Mandir has evidently invested in more than a decade of concerted motivation and supported affirmative action – both in removing encroachments and in developing the commons. In villages where such engagement is limited, people’s articulation and feeling towards the commons is limited. The correlation is stark. Seva Mandir workers and villagers seemed to feel that organic spread of such initiatives is limited. What does this bode for bringing about widespread adoption of such practices?
JFM could be an enabling mechanism for the spread of common interest in forests. Bureaucratic processes in JFM have however played a serious deterrent in this. In several villages, we were unable to get a sense of whether JFM is preferred from a long term perspective or for short term gains of wage employment. What needs to be done to get more communities interested in JFM and the forest department more responsive to community demands?
Wherever the forest department had a strong presence, like in Kotra area, people were sure that the forests were not theirs. It belonged to the department. In such areas, there were fewer encroachments. Where the department had nominal presence, the feeling of ownership among people was stronger; and incidences of encroachment larger. What do we learn from these – strengthen the department or remove it from the scene?
Laws for the poor?
There are serious concerns on the efficacy of the proposed bill or similar enactments in achieving the twin goals of ecological security in general and livelihoods security for the poor.
What looks clear to us is that a mere administrative measure of regularising encroachments on forest lands by application of either the Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill, if and when it is passed or Circular FP (1) of the Ministry of Environment and Forests may not make life significantly better for forest-dependant communities, like those we met in Jhadol and Kotra.
One could even ask if regularising of such encroachments is required at all in such areas. Would not strengthening of measures like JFM and other collective management measures aid both – better conservation of the forests while providing better access for the people to its produce?
Our discussions with villagers, organisations and activists make it clear to us that the right way to proceed is to distinguish between three different issues and making policies to address each of these in their specific contexts. The three issues are:
Need for conservation of forest resources
Recognising rights of forest dwellers to a dignified life
Identifying and regularising encroachments that are legitimate and distinguishing them from opportunistic, illegitimate encroachments
The Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill is yet another legislative step in the lines of PESA and other enactments, laden with noble intentions. We have seen how PESA has remained a ‘paper dream’. Would not the new Bill, when made into a law, follow the same path? None of those raising their voices for or against the Bill seem to be concerned about this aspect.
For the moment, the debate on ‘tigers vs. tribals’ is likely to continue. Whether or not the bill is passed, organisations like Seva Mandir will find that their work on strengthening people’s participation and ownership over forests and other commons is relevant, and will continue to be so.
