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.

... contd.