A recent communication from the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) to all states to relocate tribals living in core zones of the Project Tiger areas has once again ignited a tiger vs tribals debate. About 65,000 families in 19 Project Tiger areas have to be relocated so as to free up the core inviolate areas (a rather fanciful and impractical concept) from any disturbance to tigers. It is another matter that no one knows which are these inviolate – at least on the ground - as none has so far been identified.
The NTCA has since clarified that it was a routine reminder to the state governments. However, displacement of tribals is considered critical for tiger conservation by the government. This stand is supported vociferously by those who believe in a similar sanitised approach to tiger conservation would free around 1 lakh square km of forests from any human (read tribal) interference.
It begs the question, forests are for whom - tribals or tigers? Or both? Howsoever logical and laudable it may seem for the conservation of tigers, one must remember that tribals and tigers have been sharing the same space since the beginning of civilisation and have learnt to coexist. Ask any tribal and he is most likely to wonder why is he being uprooted, in the name of voluntary relocation, from his ancestral landscape. The truth is that their mutual need, coupled with fear and respect, have let both survive together notwithstanding occasional conflicts.
The NTCA directive created a stir in the minds of tribals living in tiger areas across the country. For example, tribals in Nagarhole National Park (Karnataka) staged a protest in front of the local forest office expressing their deep concern and unhappiness with the order and demanded its withdrawal.
The reasons for this opposition is their fear of loss of identity, livelihood and lack of confidence in the whole relocation process.
The fact is that there are very few cases of successful relocation. The process of relocating is not only long drawn and arduous but also frustrating on most occasions, often bogged down by bureaucratic apathy and lack of funds. Because of the tedious and long process, tribals do not generally opt for voluntary relocation.
Examples abound on promises of land or other basic infrastructure like electricity, water, schools, health centre, roads and the like remaining only on paper or of very poor quality. The trauma of relocating to a completely new environment and lifestyle through badly planned and ill executed projects, followed by lack of follow up hand holding (not to speak of uncertainty about the ownership of the land etc) leaves a deep scar on their psyche. This is responsible for the loss of confidence in the whole process.
There is another angle to it. The umbilical cord of the tribals with the forests supports a unique symbiotic, social and psychological relationship between the two. While the tribals do want to have a better life, including their children being well educated apart from getting other developmental benefits, they are generally wary of being uprooted. Any displacement and relocation comes with deep psychological scars. Governments must handle this process with care, sensitivity and due diligence. For example, there is a lot of anger among tribals at not being contacted/compensated while notifying national parks and sanctuaries that limit/ curtail their traditional rights and privileges /livelihood, besides being forced to go out of protected areas.
Besides, multiple documents with conditions are to be signed, including not going back to the forests even for meeting relatives or offering prayers to their traditional deities etc.
There are also pending issues regarding due recognition and rights on their traditionally claimed land, like the Jama (hereditary) lands in Karnataka. It also does not help that the Forest Rights Act itself is in conflict with the Wild Life Protection Act, although attempts have been made to bring in the concept of critical wild life areas. On the one hand, the relocation is supposed to be voluntary while on the other, forest rights and pattas are issued to them.
So, why would they leave the forests? This dichotomy in policy is not helping matters, be it on tiger conservation or tribal relocation. The determination of biodiversity rich areas is to be done by an expert committee, which designates inviolate areas. The Forest Rights Act says relocation can be done only after the concerned gram sabha declares the areas fit for such an action.
It is time to take a pause and have a fresh look at the whole issue. Tribals must be made part of any such discussion about relocation vis-à-vis their rights recognised under the Forest Rights Act and the 74th Amendment to the Constitution giving rights to panchayats on forest management.
Let's remember that tiger numbers have gone up despite the tribals being still there and Project Tiger areas have shown a healthy population. So, the debate should not be about tigers vs tribals. Rather it should be more about inclusion of both so that the perpetual sword dangling on the heads of the tribals could be removed.
NTCA is well aware of the challenges and their internal discussions are often about ways to find resolution to the above-mentioned conflicts. One hopes for a quick path breaking way forward from the apex tiger conservation body.
By A K Varma, IFS(R), Former Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force (PCCF), Karnataka.