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.

... contd.