Belying the hopes of a number of groups and forest dwelling communities across the country, the monsoon session of Parliament did not see the tabling of the Scheduled Tribes and other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill 2006. In the weeks leading to the session, debates on the merits and the disadvantages of the bill were heated and acrimonious.
Much opposition has been expressed on the pages of the Indian Express too. Jay Mazoomdar (‘It’s a jungle out there,’ IE, June 19) had ripped apart Brinda Karat’s arguments in favour of the bill. G. Ananthkrishnan had reported on the three-month-old report of the National Forest Commission (‘Forest Commission rips apart tribal bill,’ IE, June 18), while an editorial comment (‘Who benefits?’ IE, June 20) advocated the setting aside of 10,000 sq kms as tribal reserves to preserve their traditional lifestyles and the promotion of US$ 1000 a night ecotourism to pay for the costs incurred in the relocation of tribal populations from areas protected for wildlife.
The sum of the arguments has been that the tribal bill should be jettisoned, as it is not in the interest of the protection of forests and wildlife in the country. Those opposing the tribal bill seem to be equating conservation with the workings of the Wild Life Protection Act (WLPA). But WLPA can at best be considered one important constituent of conservation. That WLPA does not ensure conservation was painfully demonstrated when the tiger disappeared from Sariska. In other places its implementation has actually impeded conservation initiatives, pushing the Edible Nest Swiftlet in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands to the brink of extinction by preventing innovative conservation initiatives, by preventing buffalo grazing in the Bharatpur marshes and allowing undesirable changes in the ecosystem and in innumerable cases alienating local populations, denying them basic livelihood rights and creating strong localised anti-conservation sentiments.
... contd.
Epaper
Newsletter
Stocks
Weather
Horoscope
