It seeks to empower forest bureaucracy to use fire arms with AFSPA-like immunity from prosecution and acquire land for undefined "public purpose" using the now defunct Land Acquisition Act of 1894, the purpose of which is a big mystery.
- Prasanna Mohanty
- New Delhi
- August 7, 2019
- UPDATED: August 7, 2019 03:14 IST
The draft Indian Forest (Amendment) Bill of 2019, circulated in March this year, aims at re-establishing state power over forests at the cost of rights granted to the forest dwelling tribals and other forest dwellers under the Forest Rights Act of 2006 (FRA).
It seeks to empower the very forest bureaucracy whose highhandedness provoked the latest round of Left-wing insurgency originating from Chhattisgarh's Bastar region and undermine the FRA brought to soothe tribals' ire and undo "historic injustices" in denying them theirs traditional rights.
Through this the central government seeks to arm itself with far greater power over forest resources than the colonial masters who brought in the Indian Forest Act of 1927 (IFA). This draft Bill seeks to replace the IFA.
Reclaiming role of forest bureaucracy
The draft bill brings in forest bureaucracy to manage "village forests" through joint forest management committee (JFMC). Though the concept of village forest exists in the original IFA, the FRA overrides all existing laws in recognising and vesting rights over forest land and resources with forest dwelling communities, including in conservation and management of forests through their Gram Sabha, thus making JFMC defunct or redundant.
It says that even when a village forest belongs to tribal community, use of timber and other forest produce, pasture rights and protections and management of these forests would be "in consultation with the forest department" (clause 22).
Further, it empowers forest bureaucracy to record forest rights and gives it extraordinary power to take away ("commute") individual and community rights for declaring "reserve forest" by paying compensation. Clause 26 provides that in case of fire in a reserved forest or theft of forest produce or grazing by cattle, all rights of pasture or to forest-produce would be suspended.
Taken together, these provisions give a veto to forest bureaucracy and tantamount to extinction of forest rights.
Arming and indemnifying forest bureaucracy
The draft bill introduces a new provision (clause 66) to allow forest bureaucracy to use fire arms and enter and search any premises on mere suspicion, just by informing Gram Sabha, to check forest offence.
Worse, it introduces immunity from prosecution for their excesses or wrongdoings in line with the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act of 1958 applicable in "disturbed areas" to the armed forces. No prosecution can be started against forest officials without prior sanction of state, which would be conditional to an inquiry by an executive magistrate.
The draft explains the immunity is being given "to prevent the forest offence" and would be in addition to the immunity grated under section 197 of the CrPC to certain kind of public servants such as judges and armed force personnel.
Power to acquire land under defunct 1894 law
Clause 11 (3) empowers Forest Settlement Officer to act as "deemed as Collector proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894" for acquiring forest land. Further, clause 84 explains that such acquisition would be "deemed to be needed for a public purpose". What this public purpose is not defined anywhere.
This is inexplicable since the British era Land Acquisition Act of 1894 law was repealed and replaced with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013, making it mandatory to seek prior consent of tribal community (Gram Sabha) to acquire their land.
Tribals made more vulnerable
Clause 66 treats a forest offender like terrorist, shifting the burden of proving innocence to the accused - existing criminal jurisprudence for the rest puts the onus of proving guilt on prosecution.
It also seeks to criminalise an entire community for mistakes of an individual by defining a "person" to include "a forest dwelling community" or any organisation registered under the prevalent laws in a state but gives no explanation for this change.
It even denies state government the power (forest was shifted to the concurrent list in 1976) to withdraw registered cases. The power would vest with only the central government. The draft explains that states withdraw cases for political mileages, which must be "curbed with a heavy hand because the result are disastrous" and that such "porosity is the cause of destruction of forest area".
The central government would also have power to overrule states and intervene in management of forest. And a wide wide range of offences have become non-bailable. Experts' apprehensions Prof Sridhar Acharyulu, who teaches law and has worked on tribal rights extensively, comments that instead of empowering forest dwellers the draft bill increases powers of forest bureaucracy, thereby taking away whatever benefits the FRA granted. The provision that forest bureaucracy would be the appropriate authority to identify and recognise rights of forest dwellers is totally contradictory to the roles envisaged for Gram Sabha and other (district and sub-district level) committees.
"Forest bureaucracy is the real villain and reason for the age-old forest land problems. Their power has been made draconian. What kind of benefit will tribals get now? " he wonders. Environmentalist Kanchi Kohli of the Centre for Policy Research says the draft Bill exemplifies the historical tussle of how forests should be governed and by whom. "The Forest Rights Act had brought in the legal space for recognising rights that had been historically alienated. The FRA was also an attempt to regain space for community-based conservation. This draft is an attempt for the forest department to regain control. While this may be justified in cases of misuse, its normalisation will undo the gains made by the FRA to democratise forest governance", she observes.
Ironically, the preamble of the draft Bill highlights people's participation in conservation and wellbeing of forest dwellers among the driving forces for the endeavour. It also lists meeting the national developmental aspirations and international commitments and strengthen and support the forest-based traditional knowledge among its broad objectives.
No comments:
Post a Comment