One of the major objections to the amendments is that they deny the Tiger Conservation Authority (TCA) the power to issue any direction that will “interfere with or affect the rights of local people particularly the Scheduled Tribes”. Given past experience, there is reason enough why many are apprehensive that the clause may defeat the purpose of the bill. But today, 20 months and dozens of reports after Sariska, when Parliament has finally taken a tentative step forward despite an uninformed and unnecessary tiger versus tribal controversy, it is not useful to be negative too soon.

We know that the tribal bill, as and when it becomes law, will redefine the rights of “local people, particularly the Scheduled Tribes” in question. But if the government and policy-makers are clear in their mind that the core or critical forest areas will have to be made inviolate by relocation through compensation, commensurate with the rights of the forest-dwellers as defined by present and future laws, proper conservation can be ensured, at least in the best of our forests, irrespective of what rights the tribal bill eventually gives to how many categories of forest-dwellers.

Simply put, conservation requires that the core areas be made inviolate and it does not depend on how much compensation the forest-dwellers get so long as they are relocated. Beyond the tiger-tribal debate, I believe every sincere conservationist and tribal activist would agree on two basic principles: we cannot budge from the stand that relocation from critical forest areas is a must in the national interest and we cannot cut costs and cheat on the poor forest-dwellers by giving them shoddy relocation.

So the government must mobilise funds, if need be lavish funds, to compensate the poor forest people for whatever rights the legislature gives them through the tribal bill. They must get compensated in terms of the actual/perceived value of their share of forest land and other rights. After all, we the overwhelming majority of the non-forest-dwellers, have already destroyed our share of forests for plain cash. Just because we have now begun to realise how important the remaining green patches are, let us not deprive those few who have not yet destroyed their forests the benefits that development has brought to the national exchequer.

The Supreme Court had ordered the settlement of the forest dwellers’ rights way back in 1996, but no state has yet implemented this. They cite a paucity of funds. But if we are not fair to our forest dwellers, no conservation authority can ensure a viable future for our critical forests areas. This brings us to the question of determining the critical forest areas — another contentious area of the amended bill that engages the gram sabhas and expert committees in redefining the core/buffer limits. This is indeed a grey area because the bill does not explain the exact nature of such committees or the power of the gram sabhas.

Democracy demands equal participation and must ensure a system of checks and balances. Sometimes the example of Bhagidari, the Delhi’s government public-private partnership initiative, is cited since it has worked well in tandem with resident welfare associations (RWAs). But this trivialises the argument. If Delhi’s RWAs don’t decide on the Capital’s master plan, gram sabhas certainly cannot decide on the relative importance of critical forests and wildlife habitats.

This is important to underline because the wildlife bill also gives power to the relevant panels, ecological or social scientists and the gram sabhas to determine the circumstances that require relocation (unless it is voluntary). Now frankly, given a choice, how many RWAs would agree to a compensation scheme and sacrifice their houses for a project of national importance? So how can we expect gram sabhas to selflessly decide which parts of the forest are important enough to be made inviolate, and then voluntarily agree to relocate? Crucial inputs from the gram sabhas must get due consideration, certainly, but ultimately the profile of the expert committees — the potential balancing factor in the equation — will determine how objective and professional will be the process of redrawing the core/buffer boundaries and determining the need for relocation.

Too many activists in the guise of experts are in circulation. It doesn’t matter if they belong to the tribal camp or the conservation camp, their biased agendas must not have any place in these professional panels. If the government and the policy makers ensure this, even this “diluted” bill can save the core forests and critical habitats in our reserves, national parks and sanctuaries.

The future of the rest of India’s surviving forests, however, will still depend on the final shape and mandate of the tribal bill.

Postscript: Under the wildlife bill, the Wildlife Crime Bureau (WCB) will soon be constituted with a bunch of police and forest officials. It is not clear yet if WCB personnel will enjoy the powers of policemen, forest officials or both. It is crucial to clarify this because the two entities enjoy unique powers. For example, under Section 50-51 of the Forest Act, confessions made before a forest officer is cognisable in a court of law but a police officer requires the presence of a magistrate to record legally sustainable confessions. The power of a forest officer is very important in dealing with wildlife criminals operating in remote forest areas. At the same time, a forest officer doesn’t enjoy a number of privileges of a policeman. If the exclusive powers and privileges of the two services can be combined, it will help WCB personnel in their fight against some of the most cunning minds behind India’s multi-crore wildlife trade.