Going back to Karat’s doubt about the definition of ‘tiger bearing forests’, the self-explanatory term refers to the most pristine of our forests because the tiger, at the top of the food chain, best indicates a forest’s health. Moreover, the Wildlife Act Amendment Bill does not want to exclude tribals, as Karat alleges, but has provisions to address their livelihood concerns. After all, the Bill was based on the recommendations of the tiger task force led by Sunita Narain, one of the most vocal advocates of tribal rights.

Next, Karat argues: “Given the small extent of land involved when taken as a percentage of total forest land, the error of inclusion if the power is shifted to the gram sabha is far less dangerous than that of exclusion...” Anyone familiar with forests with human habitats knows that the ratio of the “small” forest land villagers physically occupy and the forest land they destroy is rarely less than 1:10. While their livestock graze off the green cover, they rob the forest of firewood, and so on. Karat just has to visit Kankwari village in Sariska. The healthy forest cover in the core area starts thinning as one approaches the village. Three kilometers from Kankwari all one finds is barren land, without a blade of grass. Over the years, I have seen this barren area grow as villagers and livestock have multiplied.

Karat’s next prescription encapsulates the absurdity of the tribal bill: “Expansion of certain development projects on up to one hectare of land without permission of the forest department such as health centers, primary schools etc.” How can she demand traditional forest rights for tribals assuming they can’t do without forest life and then seek to bring development into the forest to make their life modern? Karat also writes about “the responsibility of the government to...ensure that the vested interests who are the real criminals in destroying the forests for profit are prevented from doing so.”

... contd.