The ministry has proposed a
definition of forests that promises to further complicate the issue of forest management. According
to the ministry, a forest is any area under
government control recorded as being a forest, and used for the purpose of conservation and management of resources. In its earlier
definition of ‘forest’ as per the dictionary meaning of the word, the Supreme Court had included all forest areas under tree cover. Irrespective of the ownership, whether under the forest department or not.
Critics say that the aim is to find a way to blur local people’s rights over their forest resources. Under existing laws, planting trees on “forest land” by industry is not permitted. But the ministry proposes to grant large areas of forestland to industry for afforestation, and a ‘suitable’ re-definition would help the proposal move ahead.
Under the suggested definition, forests would only be forests if they were under government control.
This is further qualified by stating that a ‘forest’would be a ‘forest’ only if it served conservation objectives. In this definition, there is no space for the livelihood and ecological needs of local communities, who live on these lands, but whose rights are often not recorded. Most affected are tribal communities, whose lands were appropriated by the colonial rulers, but their rights were not determined. They continue to live as trespassers on their own land. By changing the definition, the government only wants to cover up its mistakes instead of rectifying them.
The issue is one of community forests versus commercial interests. If the revised definition comes into force, forest land falling outside the ministry’s control could easily be diverted for non-forest uses. Forest lands needs to be cleared for irrigation, mining and defence projects, but also for power transmission and roads.
Critics say that the hidden agenda of the state (the biggest “landlord” in the country) has been to generate revenue by converting forest land to agriculture, and the supply of timber (and other forest produce) for industry. This has resulted in a huge loss of wildlife. This was done in the name of serving “national” interests. The ownership and use of forest land has become a major source of conflict between the State and the people, which it claims to represent. Ironically, the State is now blaming the tribals for over-exploiting and destroying the forests, something which it itself is guilty of! The original issue of maintaining and regenerating the forests seems to have been lost sight of.
The situation today is one of administrative and judicial confusion, overlapping pulls between the center and state, and pressure for unchecked industrial growth. On paper there is no shortage of legislation, but conflicts have intensified on the ground. The government needs to understand that a symbiotic relatioship exists between the tribals and forests, as the tribals depend on the forests for their livelihood. In 1996, the Supreme Court banned the felling of trees in the forests, but this does not seem to have deterred the entrenched government-timber lobby. The author asks whether a new definition of ‘forest’ will help this state of affairs?