Abstract

In the Context of the Forest Rights Act, this paper attempts to understand (i) the impact of categorization of Koya and Konda Reddi peoples and their exclusion from forests by the Nizam state, Colonial rule and post colonial State in the Khammam District of Andhra Pradesh (ii) the disparity in access to forest rights over individual land under cultivation under the implementation of Forest Rights Act, 2006 across three tribes in Khammam – the Lambadas (which has not been notified as a Scheduled Tribe), the Koyas who are categorized as Scheduled Tribes and the Kondareddis who are categorized as Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group(PVTG), (ii) how indigenous forest dwellers are negotiating the campaign by political parties which are misinterpreting the Forest Rights Act as a land redistribution scheme and asserting tribal rights , (iii) the emphasis on individual rights for cultivable forest land over community rights which introduces the commodification of land over collective ownership bringing into focus the often debated point of environmental conservation versus indigenous people’s rights (iv) the current institutional structure of Forest Department and agenda of the State which engages in commercial exploitation of forests by converting natural forests into plantations allowing it to retain control over forests even while involving forest dependent communities in forest conservation through programmes like social forestry and joint forest management programmes which leads to exclusion of self determination of the tribal people in the process of management of forests thereby preventing the assertion of the forest dweller/ indigenous community rights.

The paper was presented in an International Seminar “Indian State and Indigenous/Tribal Peoples: Revisiting Philosophical Foundations of Constitutional Guarantees”, organized by Bodoland University & Centre for Social Justice and Governance, Tata Institute of Social Sciences at Kokrajhar on 28-29th March 2014. The seminar was supported by the Tribal Intellectual Collective India.

Introduction

The Scheduled Areas (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 referred to as the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 is considered a landmark legislation which is meant to undo the historical injustice meted out to forest dwelling indigenous communities in the form of alienation from accessing the very forests which they have conserved for centuries. It provides legal recognition for and records the rights enjoyed by communities and individuals who have been historically depended on forests for cultivation, collection of non-timber forest produce, cattle grazing, fishing etc. More importantly, the Act recognizes and requires the implementation of the right of forest dependent communities to participate in management and conservation of forests which they have inhabited and inherited. Management and Conservation of forests which had become the domain of the Forest department during the British rule and in post independence India is again within the domain of the tribals.

Impact of Nizam and British Forest Policies

Khamman District currently is divided into four Divisions, Bhadrachalam, Palvancha, Kothagudem and Khammam. The District has a Scheduled Tribe population of 6,82,617 within a total population of 25,78,927. Twenty nine Mandals of the District majorly in the Palvancha, Kothagudem and Bhadrachalam Mandals are Schedule V areas. Prior to independence, Bhadrachalam Division was part of neighboring East Godavari District, one of the Northern Circars ceded in the year 1823 by the Nizams to the erstwhile Madras Presidency rule by the British and the remaining Divisions were under the Nizam rule. Hence it is important to understand the impact of both the Nizam and British forest policies on the Koya and Konda Reddi tribals who predominantly inhabited the area which is now called Khammam District.

The economy of Koyas and Konda Reddis prior to the Nizam and British rule was a subsistence economy depending mainly on forests for cultivation of coarse millets by shifting cultivation under a communal tenure system with no private property rights, collection of minor forest produce like bamboo, fruits and roots, extraction of toddy, grazing cattle, collecting firewood for household needs and hunting with bow and arrow with little interference from the kings ruling the land. Traditional management and conservation system followed by tribals involved shifting cultivation which is practiced by clearing a piece of land on a hill side, cultivating it for three years and then leaving it to grow back into natural forest while clearing another piece of land for cultivation. No individual ownership of land existed, individuals gained the right to use the land as part of the village community. Forests were not only the source of subsistence and survival for the Koyas and Konda Reddis but their cultural life was also deeply associated with their local forests with all major life cycle events celebrated within the forests – the birth of a child is celebrated in a sacred grove dedicated to the “muthyalamma” goddess, the dead are buried in specific sites within the forests.

In the Madras Presidency, prior to 1860 the intervention of the British in the Forests was only for timber extraction to meet their infrastructure needs. The village forest lands were under the control of the Revenue department. The first Forest Act of 1865 was enacted to enable the British to gain ownership of the forests for large scale extraction of timber for infrastructure development and for generation of revenue. Ramachandra Guha opined that the increasing demand of timber to meet the growing infrastructure needs of the British, especially for the construction of the railways in the 1850’s in India led to the British formulating policies to create State ownership of the forests and forest produce in India(Guha,1983).

In the Madras Presidency, from 1860’s onwards, the Forest Department tried to exercise more control over forests for generating higher revenues through sale of timber and tried to take over the ownership of trading in minor forest produce collected by the local tribals from the Revenue Department. Prior to the enactment of the Madras Forest Act 1882, the Revenue department opposed the State occupation of the forests arguing that the forests were communal property of the village communities living near or within the forests and their rights had to be recognized. In spite of the opposition of the Revenue department in the Madras Presidency area, the Forest Department demarcated forest lands as reserve forests without taking into consideration the communal rights of the tribals. Forest settlement officers were designated to settle any disputes related to use of the forest land. This led to restriction on shifting cultivation to small areas around the villages. Due to decrease in area, the cultivation cycle was affected and the land became fallow and low yielding. Other needs of the forest communities in the forest like grazing of cattle, toddy collection, collection of non timber forest produce like bamboo, roots, wild fruits etc had to be met through payment of money to the Forest Department. The right to access forest land was turned into a privilege. Non-tribal private contractors were encouraged by the British to take up timber and Bamboo extraction contracts in the tribal areas. They forced tribals to stop cultivating their land, exploited them as cheap labor, occupied the lands of those who could not pay the tax for the land usage which destroyed the tribal society and economy. The dispossession and displacement from forests land and subsequent exploitations and oppression by Forest department and non tribals led to the tribal rebellions of Koyas. The Rampa rebellion of 1879-80, rose in response to new restrictions concerning liquor and the forest (Gadgil, 2009).

Similarly in the region under the Nizam rule covered in the Palvancha, Kothagudem and Khammam Divisions, forests were under the administration of the Revenue Department until 1890. Under the influence of the British, the first Forest Act for state appropriation of forest land was enacted in Nizam territory in 1900. The extent of dispossession and exploitation caused by the reservation of forests in the Palvancha areas of the Hyderabad State forced the State to request the ethnologist Haimendorf in 1940 to study the socio economic status of the Koyas and Konda Reddis and recommend measures to improve the same. According to the tribal reports of Haimendorf, Koyas and Konda Reddis were exploited by local Forest and Revenue staff and non tribal timber contractors. The life of tribals in Nizam rule was worse than that in the Madras presidency area. They were oppressed to such an extent by the Hyderabad State that they migrated to the forests in the Bhadrachalam area of the Madras Presidency. Severe restrictions were imposed on shifting cultivation, they were charged tax for shifting cultivation under watandari system in Nizam territory, they had to pay money for drawing toddy which they had previously been doing since time immemorial without any restriction, they became cheap labor for timber contractors and the Forest Department, the traditional tribal village leaders were replaced by state employed revenue tax collectors leading to erosion of tribal community leadership. Merchants, timber contractors and money lenders migrated to the Konda Reddi and Koya villages and controlled the tribal people in these villages. Exploitation of labor and appropriation of large tracts of tribal cultivable lands by tax collectors, timber contractors and money lenders occurred during this time leading to further marginalization of the tribals. Tribals either lived in fear of their lives under timber contractors or migrated deeper into the forests. Tribal land was appropriated for Singareni collieries (which was operating under the Hyderabad Deccan Company Limited from 1886 to 1920) for the exploitation of coal in the Yellandu area of Kothagudem Division. Further appropriation of tribal land in villages near the collieries was done by non tribal employees who had migrated to the area to work in the collieries. Hence, the tribal socio-economic-cultural system was completely destroyed by the Forest policies of the Nizam and British government. Land alienation of tribals occurred on a massive scale in the colonial and Nizam rule by state and non-state actors. Koya land was appropriated more than Konda Reddis since they predominantly lived in plain areas whereas Konda Reddis live in hill top villages.

In both Nizam ruled and British rules areas of Khammam District, the tribals were prevented from entering reserved forests under the guise of conservation. Tribals become encroachers and offenders in their own land. But the forest department itself changed the nature of forests by planting fast growing timber generating trees with no concern for ecology and biodiversity. Essentially the mixed tropical forests of the area were converted into mono-species plantations leading to the degradation of forests and adversely impacting the ecology of the forests. Tribals were considered as encroachers on State property and their traditional methods of conservation were considered as destructive. The large scale commercial exploitation of forests, reservation of forests for scientific management by the British destroyed both the forests and the tribal communities living within the forests. Creation of enclosures in the forests for felling of trees and for conservation led to the enclosed forests being treated as a commodity including the forest dwellers whose labor was commodified.

The categorization of the indigenous people as depressed classes in need of protection and welfare measures based on their nature of their supposed “primitive” features, social and economic life occurred in the same timeframe as the introduction of the first Forest Act of 1965. The dominant perception created by the British on the nature of forest property in India was linked to the notion of Oriental despotism, under which all the lands belonged to the kings from whom the colonies were conquered (Dhanaraj, 2012). This extended to the indigenous people who were considered the subjects of the erstwhile kings, who could only access the forests through the concession of the kings. Hence as the subjects of the colonizers, their access to the forests would be regulated by colonial rule. Indegenous people who had lived an independent existence were made imperial subjects through the categorization as depressed classes.

The traditional management practices of the indigenous people were also viewed by the colonizers as being primitive and destructive especially the practice of shifting cultivation. The colonizers argued that enclosing of forests and scientific management had to be introduced to protect forests. This argument has been contested by ethnologist Haimendorf’s tribal report on Konda Reddis in Palvancha area of Khammam District in which he records the traditional forest conservation and management practices of the Konda Reddi tribe as being beneficial for forest and there being no signs of degradation of forests (Furer-Haimendorf, 1945). He further stated that reservation of forests has led to degradation of land since the shifting cultivation cycle of the Konda Reddis reduced due to limiting of the available land by the British and Nizams. Transformation of land rights from common property and customary usage to commodification of land rights through watandari and ryotwari system in the Nizam and British territories respectively led to the appropriation of tribal land by non-tribals. Unable to pay the taxes levied by the Nizam and British governments, tribals lost their land to non-tribal tax collectors, timber contractors and non-tribals who bought the tribal land for cheap rates before land regulations for protection of tribals in Schedule V areas were introduced. Hence this period led to a massive destruction and change in the tribal land and forest relations, social economic and cultural life.

Post colonial forest policy in Andhra Pradesh

Post independence after the formation of the state of Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh government continued the policy of commercial exploitation and conservation of forests ignoring the rights of tribals in forests. The Indian state continued to consider them as socially and culturally backward and economically disadvantaged. Protection measures were introduced in the form of regulation of money lending, transfer of revenue land of tribals which was occupied by non tribals through the land transfer regulation etc but they continued to be excluded from forests. Although the schedule V areas were created to protect the tribes living in the areas, they were only subjects of the post colonial State’s socio-economic development programs targeted for the Scheduled Tribes. Their rights over forests were never recognized. Declaration of the Kinnerasani and Papi Kondalu wildlife sanctuary led to further restrictions on the forest usage of Koyas and Konda Reddis.

The post colonial forest policy continued to treat forest dwelling indigenous people as offenders and encroachers, enclosing the forests in the name of conservation and commercial exploitation for national interest ignoring the interests of the indigenous people. The former Nizam and British forest acts were repealed and a new AP Forest Act, 1967 was enacted after the reorganization of the state in which the Telangana area was joined with the rest of Andhra Pradesh. It gave more powers to the Forest Department. The power to allow or take away the right of water, access to water sources within the forest, to collect forest produce and grazing cattle was in the hands of the Forest Settlement Officer. Tribals could not take any forest produce, their entry into forests was considered as trespass, their ways and water usage could be restricted at the discretion of the Divisional Forest Officer, they could not hunt or fish. If they did not claim their rights, their houses and cultivated lands could be confiscated by the Forest Department. The power to declare forests as reserve forests, protected forests, the power to make transit rules for the transportation of any forest produce including the non-timber forest produce collected by the tribals, power arrest alleged offenders without a warrant went into the hands of the Forest Department. The cattle trespass Act of 1871 was considered as valid by this act and any person grazing cattle in reserve forests or protected forests was deemed as an offender whose cattle will be confined by the forest department and will be fined.

This was followed by a series of acts in Andhra Pradesh from 1970 to 1990 related to collection, storage, disposal and transportation of all kinds of forest produce including non timber forest produce which tribals collect and use for nutrition and income generation. The Girijan Co-operative Corporation limited (GCC), formed in 1970 was given the monopoly rights to trade in non- timber forest produce collected by tribals. The tribals had to sell their produce to the GCC. It was meant to be a welfare measure to ensure that the tribals do not get exploited by non tribal merchants but the GCC itself became a means of exploitation of tribals since the GCC staff cheated the tribals by paying lower rates than the minimum rate to be paid. These stringent rules further curbed the tribals from accessing any means of livelihood. They continued to be viewed as encroachers and as commodities for cheap labor. At the same time , at the national level the Forest Conservation Act, 1970 and Wildlife Protection Act 1972 were enacted which again blamed the tribals for destruction of forests and termed them as encroachers. The contradictory practice of exploitation of forests for national interest and protection of forests for conservation continued to exclude the indigenous people’s interest. The relation of people with the forests contradicts heavily with that of the Forest department. While the department cultivates teak, eucalyptus plantations in Forest land, the local people use the existing forest resources for food and livelihood needs. Under the forest department, the state forests have been converted into plantations whereas natural forests are more beneficial to those dependent on forests.

For the first time the rights of tribals and the role played by tribals in forest conservation and management was considered in the National Forest Policy of 1988. Shifting cultivation was allowed for three years under the policy after which an alternative livelihood should be provided to the tribals before appropriating land under cultivation. Subsequently, the Andhra Pradesh Government modified its forest policy to suit the National policy and launched the Joint Forest Management Programme in 1993 to involve tribals in forest management as alternative means of livelihood. Called Vana Samraskshana Samitis (VSS), the VSS was merely a continuation of state monopoly over forests. Again people were only engaged in the conservation and management process by the State by virtue of being a subject rather than of being a part of a community which engages in a intrinsic relation with the forests. In the Khammam District, its focus was on growing plantations of Eucalyptus trees in degraded forests to be supplied to industries like the ITC Paper Board in Bhadrachalam in Khammam District. With the attitude of the Forest department staff that tribals are encroachers and destroyers of forests and the lack of trust that tribals have on Forest Department due to decades of exploitation and oppression, the programme was mostly a failure. There was no focus on understanding the tribal forest based economy which thrives on regenerating the forests in their natural form rather than growing mono species plantations. According to the Forest Department of Andhra Pradesh by 1994, over 327,742 hectares of forestland was under illicit cultivation and encroachment. Newspapers reported Forest Department figures of encroached land in the districts of Khammam (75000 ha) (V. Ratna Reddy, 2004). Several Koya villages in Cherla Mandal of Bhadrachalam Division allege that they were not consulted when the VSS land was demarcated by the Forest Department. Their land under cultivation was regarded as degraded land and taken into VSS. They were promised huge returns of lakhs of rupees within a period of three years. The VSS members were again used as cheap labor and the trees were never cut since the Forest Department was worried that the tribals would start cultivating the land again. There was also no clarity regarding the collection and sale of non timber forest produce by tribals which was more important for them. The monopoly of the State owned Girijan Cooperative Corporation over sale of non timber forest produce continued to exist.

Additionally, at the National level, guidelines were issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) in September 1990 to settle certain rights of tribals on forest land based on the recommendation made by the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in his 29th report (1987-89) to the President of India. The guidelines were issued to review the encroachment on forest land, cases of disputed claims between the claimant and the Forest Department, review of pattas/leases/grants in forest land given by revenue department, payment of fair wages to labor engaged by the Forest Department, conversion of forest villages to revenue villages and compensation for loss of life and property due to attacks by wild animals (Sarin, 2010). In spite of poor implementation of the MoEF guidelines, further guidelines were issued by the MoEF for time-bound eviction of those considered as encroachers by September 2002. This led to evictions and harassment of forest depended communities by the Forest department throughout the country on large scale. The nation-wide protests by tribals put an end to the evictions and led to the enactment of FRA, 2006 (Bijoy, 2008).

Migration of Lambadas and Muria Gonds to Khammam

With a population of 2,71,373 in Khammam District as per the 2001 census, Lambadas who are considered in the category of Sugalis which is a Scheduled Tribe, represent 40 % of the tribal population in the District. The Lambadas were a nomadic community which had originally migrated from Afghanisthan to western states of India and migrated to Andhra Pradesh from the neighboring States. The population of Lambadas in Andhra Pradesh from 1961 census to 2001 census increased from 96174 to 2077947 with the maximum increase in population occurring between the 1971 and the 1981 census from 1,32,464 to 11,58,342 as shown in the table below. This massive increase in the population of the Lambadas from 1971 to 1981 has been attributed to the large scale migration of Lambadas from other States when the area restriction on Scheduled tribes was removed in the 1976 amendment of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order. In the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order of 1950 and the further amendments in 1956, 1976, 2002 do not list the “Lambada” community as a Scheduled tribe. In a clarification given by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs on 14th November 2011 to an RTI filed by the ASP, it was stated that the “Lambada” community has not been notified as Scheduled Tribe under Article 342 of the Constitution in the state of Andhra Pradesh. They are more educationally and financially forward than other tribes in the District and the State. Their migration to the District led to the Lambadas occupying land belonging majorly to the Koyas. They have often been criticized by the local Koya tribal organizations like the Adivasi Sankshema Parishath(ASP) for cornering the benefits provided for Scheduled Tribes in Andhra Pradesh.

Muria gonds from Southern Chattisgarh have been migrating to bordering northern Mandals of the Khammam District from as far back as the 1980s in search of better economic oppurtunities. They occupy thick forest lands sometimes by evicting the existing Koya villages by threat and cut hundreds of acres of forest land for cultivation. Traditional heads of some of these Muria Gond villages have cut down upto 18 acres of forest land which was previously managed by Konda Reddi and Koya tribes for community use. The large scale migration of the Muria Gonds during and after the Salwa Judum has increased the pressure on the local forests and tribes. Large scale deforestation of 4287.5 acres occurred in Khammam District in 2010 and 2011 (AP Forest Department, 2013).Both the migration of Lambadas and Muria Gonds has created pressure on the local tribes’ management of forests.

Displacement by development paradigm of the State

As per the official statistics, the Polavaram Dam which was first proposed in 1941 by the erstwhile Madras Presidency will be inundating 134 revenue villages including 205 habitations in seven Mandals of Khammam District. Out of the 33,708 families which will be displaced by the dam, nearly half the families which is 15,627 families belong to Scheduled Tribes mainly Koyas and Konda Reddis and the Mandals fall in the Schedule V area. 62, 719 acres of privately owned revenue land of tribals and non-tribals, 7502 acres of forest land including 255 acres of wildlife sanctuary land in the District would be inundated by the Dam. Four of the seven Mandals namely Chintoor, Kunavaram, V R Puram and Velairpadu are thickly forested core habitat areas of the Konda Reddis. Displacement from their habitat would mean complete destruction of social, economic, cultural roots of the tribe which are entrenched in the local forest area in which they dwell. Compensation is only being provided for those who own revenue land, but not for the loss of livelihoods dependent on forests. Due to strong opposition from tribal people, tribal organizations and activists that the displacement would render tribal people as landless labor in non-tribal areas, promises were made by the Congress State Government that the displaced tribal families would be rehabilitated in Scheduled areas. The actual area which would be inundated would be much higher than officially stated. The project has been stalled due to technical issues and disputes with the Chattisgarh and Orissa governments over inundation of tribal areas in their respective states.

Displacement is not only in the form of large scale dams inundating villages but also through the policies of the State which for its own ease of administration encourages the indigenous people to come down from their habitations in the hills and settle in colonies along the main highway. The people who come down are provided with housing, a small plot of land. Many of them become daily wage labor since they lose the multiple, seasonal sources of income which they got earlier from the forests and since most of the land in the plains near the road point is occupied by non-tribals. There is a lot of resistance from the tribals to the movement down to the road point. In the words of Bhim Reddi, the traditional village head of Karman Konda, a Konda Reddi tribal hilltop village in Kunavaram Mandal “You cannot develop tribals by pulling us down from our hills. We have everything we need here. If you make us live away from our hills, we will not survive, we will end up as daily wage labor to make enough money to buy what we get for free now.”

The implementation of Forest Rights Act, 2006 – Politicised and Bureaucratised

Thus, Koyas and Konda Reddis in Khammam District have suffered systematic and continuous exclusion from forests by the colonial and post colonial administration and land alienation by non tribals who have migrated to their areas over past two centuries. Their role in forest conservation and management has not been recognized until 1988 and even when recognized, the lack of or improper implementation of the policies is leading to the continuation of forests being under the control of State and non tribals whereas tribal people are being subjected to alienation and exploitation. This is the historical injustice which was meted to Koyas and Kondareddis in the form of generations of exploitation and appropriation of land by the State and non state actors like upper caste merchants, exclusion from accessing their forests for economic social and cultural needs. Modernisation and increased interaction with Hindu upper caste non tribals has led to change in the social and cultural customs of Koyas to a larger extent than the Konda Reddis. They have given up their language, drinking local alchohol, they dress like the non tribals, pray to idols in temples instead of praying in the forest etc. Hence it is essential to understand whether the implementation of FRA, 2006 has indeed undone the historical injustice meted out to tribals unlike the previous attempts at addressing this injustice. It is also essential to examine the conditions necessary for the implementation of the Act to truly benefit the tribals.

The process of implementation of the Forest Rights Act is meant to be driven in a rights based approach in the form of filing claims and decision making over approving or rejecting the claims in village Gram sabhas to recognize the rights of those who have been using forest land for their needs of cultivation, community rights like collection of minor forest produce, grazing, fishing etc and the rights of communities participate in conservation and management of their local forests. For filing claims, the claimants approach the Forest Rights Committee (FRC) constituted from among the local tribals and file their application. The FRC records their claim and provides them a receipt of the claim. A physical verification of the claims are performed by the FRC in the presence of Tribal Welfare, Revenue and Forest Department staff. If a claimant(s) are verified as using the land before the cut-off date of 13 th December 2005, and approved by the Gram Sabha, it is recommended to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee (SDLC) further to the Divisional Level Committee (DLC) both of which consists of staff from the above three department and peoples representatives. A rejected claim has to be referred back to the Gram sabha which recommended it for correction or to allow the rejected claimants to petition to the higher committees.

The implementation of the Act started in 2008. It was politicized by the then Congress government in the State which interpreted the Act as a land redistribution scheme by announcing the distribution of 10 lakh acres of forest land to tribals and not as recognition of existing rights as per customary practices. Thus the focus of implementation was solely on giving individual title deeds for “encroachment” on forest land by the tribals. Claims were accepted or rejected using technology without any participation of the people. The process of navigating through three committees which was already too bureaucratic for tribal people to obtain recognition of land usage became more so since the distribution of the title deeds was taken up in a campaign mode without creating awareness in the Gram Sabhas regarding the Act. This resulted in the benefit of the Act majorly being cornered by the more educationally forward Lambadas as shown below.

The Table 1 presents the total forest land categorized as State forest in each Division in hectares, the ST population in the Division, the number of villages with Forest interface, the number of villages chosen for the implementation of the FRA, 2006 and the number of claims by individuals for cultivable land with total extent approved by the District Level Committee for distribution of title deeds to the claimants from each Division. Villages were chosen by the district administration for implementation of the Act instead of encouraging forest dependent communities to file for claims. 41% villages are from Kothagudem division were chosen whereas only 20 to 26 % of the villages in other divisions were chosen. Kothagudem Division is predominantly inhabited by Lambadas whereas Koyas and Kondareddis inhabit the Bhadrachalam Division and some Mandals of the Palvancha Division which were largely ignored.

Table 1: Division wise details of implementation of FRA, 2006

S. No.	Revenue Division	Total Area of Forest Land (Ha.)	Total ST Population	Total Number of villages with Forest Interface	Number of villages chosen for implementation	% of villages chosen	No. of claims approved	Total Extent (Acres)
1	Bhadrachalam	3,64,800	169699	650	140	21.5	5482	19886.63
2	Palvancha	1,48,603.67	189112	643	170	26.43	6044	17863.76
3	Kothagudem	1,51,350.41	272181	727	351	48.28	17312	69027.37
4	Khammam	1,24,171.46	134573	123	25	20.32	3123	7304.47

Sources: Recognition of Forest Rights Cell, Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Bhadrachalam and Census, 2011
Rights over individual land which existed as part of a community rather than outside the community have been transformed into rights obtained as being a subject of the State. This has eroded the community relations within the tribal villages with disputes over extent of land claimed by each villager from the community land which was previously cultivated by the entire village without legal recognition, it has led to the marginalization of women and elderly through denial of their rights as observed in the Gram Sabha of Koya village, K N Puram in Bhadrachalam Mandal. It has turned into an opportunity to gain land by excluding vulnerable tirbes, women and elderly. Also, traditional practices of tribal have not been recognized. Shifting cultivation practiced by Konda Reddis living in hill top villages of Chintoor and Kunavaram Mandals has not been recognised since the Act has been interpreted as awarding a title deed to recognize forest usage for individual for a specific piece of land.

Commodification of land

The ITC paper manufacturing unit in Bhadrachalam requires large amounts of raw material in the form of timber and Bamboo which are majorly bought from the Forest Department whose policies are oriented towards supplying raw materials to the industries. After the FRA implementation, ITC is encouraging tribals who have title deeds to individual land holdings through their community coordinators to cultivate eucalyptus plantations instead of food crops in their fields by supplying saplings to them. An agreement with the farmers is made through the Horticulture Department. Hence the non- market access to food and sustenance has been transformed into commercial exploitation of land to produce goods for market through the implementation of the Act. Forest has become a commodity which is owned and exploited by individuals.

Continuation of State Monopoly over forests

Implementation of Community Forest Rights (CFR) in the District was divided into two categories – VSS and other than VSS. Under the VSS category, the existing Van Samrakshana Samitis (VSS) formed by the Forest Department under the participatory forest management programmed were converted into CFR. Under the other than VSS category, community claims were received for temples, schools, grazing lands, areas for collection of firewood. The Table 2 contains the details of the community forest rights in both the VSS and other than VSS categories.

Table 2: The status of implementation of community claims in FRA 2006

S. No.	Level at which the claim is present	Community Claim (other than VSS)		Community Claim (VSS)
		Number	Extent	Number	Extent
1	No. of Claims Received	540	6279.75	140	96301.37
2	No. of Claims recommended by Gram Sabhas to SDLC	4	2.50	140	96301.37
3	No. of claims recommended by SDLC to DLC for approval	4	2.50	140	96301.37
4	No. of claims approved by DLC for grant of title for Forest Rights	4	2.50	140	96301.37

Sources: Recognition of Forest Rights Cell, Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Bhadrachalam

All the 140 claims applied under Van Samrakshana Samiti (VSS) have been approved. Out of the 540 other than VSS claims, only 4 claims have been accepted so far. The remaining 536 claims have been rejected at the level of the FRC. This clearly indicates that the approval was given to only those claims which allow the Forest department to retain control over forest land and majority of the claims which give tribal communities greater control were rejected. The 4 non-VSS community claims were given for temple, school building and burial grounds. The traditional rights of communities in the forests include areas of minor forest produce collection, grazing areas, water bodies, habitat rights for Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTG), biodiversity rights, traditional knowledge and other traditional rights. Instead, the evidences like temples, burial grounds used to claim community rights or the reasons for which the Government can divert forest land under section 3(2) of the FRA, 2006 like Schools, Anganwadis, roads etc. This shows a lack of clarity regarding what is CFR, what evidence for CFR is, how to apply for it and who can apply for it. The MROs who were coordinating the process of receiving the CFR claims before passing to the SDLC said that they were not aware of the provisions of the Act regarding CFR claims.

The VSS is only being used as a means of arranging for labor for the plantation work taken up by the Forest department. It does not give any decision making power to the villagers regarding management of their forest. Hence the forests and tribal labor are continued to be treated as a commodity for revenue generation instead of tribals exercising the right to manage their traditional forest area which they have been using historically as recognized under the FRA, 2006. It was stated in a letter dated August 17 2013, sent by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs to Andhra’s principal chief conservator of forests, B Somasekhara Reddy pointing out that decisions taken at a meeting convened by the then chief minister, the late Y S Rajasekhara Reddy, on July 21, 2009 on community forest rights were not in accordance with provisions of the Act. In this meeting it had been decided that community forest rights should continue to be given to the area managed by the JFMCs. In its letter, MoTA has underlined the fact that Vana Samrakshana Samithies (VSS) or committees formed under the Joint Forest Management programme, initiated by the Ministry of Environment & Forests and the state government, cannot be a claimant under FRA (Suchitra M, 2013). But the community rights given to VSS have not been cancelled till date. Hence, the lack of focus on understanding and recognizing of rights based on the tribal community relations and their forest based economy is a case for concern.

Under the amended rules of the FRA, the Gram sabha of a village with forest access is given the right to prepare its own management plan for the management of its forest area and should include it in the Forest Department working plan. This is meant to give greater ownership over forest conservation to the Gram sabha rather than the current method of functioning of the VSS. But the extent to which communities which have been practicing customary rights which have been alienated from forests over years would be able to prepare a plan for managing forests and negotiate with the Forest Bureaucracy which treats them as encroachers is questionable.

The perspective of non recognition of tribals in forest management is continued by the Forest Department of Andhra Pradesh which in the AP State of Forests Reports 2013 aspires to imitate the forest conservation and management policy of the Mauryan Empire detailed by Kautilya. It believes in forests being under the control of the king who had property rights over all natural resources in the kingdom for his various needs – taming elephants, plantations for extracting timber, providing shelter to ascetics, for creating plantations filled with fruit trees for the king’s pleasure. It in no way recognizes the need for forests to be in natural state nor the role played by forest dwelling indigenous people in conservation of forests. Hence the AP State of Forests 2013 claims that forests cleared for plantations by the Forest Department should not be viewed as encroachments but only the lands used by the tribals for cultivation should be viewed as encroachments.

The District level Forest Department officials also view FRA as an act through which those who have been genuinely using the forest for cultivation before the mentioned cut-off date of December 13th, 2005 should be given title deeds and the implementation closed to prevent further “encroachments”. They do not want to entertain the idea that forest dependent people have the right, knowledge or intention to participate in forest conservation and management.

When tribals in interior hill top villages in the District were made aware that decisions regarding forest management would be made possible through the FRA, they said with a resigned attitude that it has been the domain of the Forest department for years and they were satisfied with working as labor for the Forest department for cutting Bamboo and Tendu leaves. They have been alienated from the forests for so long that they do not want to reclaim any ownership over their traditional forest area. They said that they were satisfied with obtaining a title deed for their individual cultivation land. The interpretation of the Act as understood by the people was that if they cut down forest land, they would be given a “patta” (land record) for cultivating the land. They had been informed by left parties that there had been an earlier cut-off date of October 1980 set for awarding titles to encroachment on forest lands prior to the enactment of Forest Conservation Act, 1980. A similar cut-off date has been set for eligibility as December 13, 2005 which is prior to the date of enactment of the FRA, 2006. The people expressed the opinion that a new law would be framed in the future setting the cut-off date to a future date. Hence they have cut large tracts of forest land for cultivation so they could get titles for this land in the future. Similar experiences have been reported in Wanayad, Kerala the traditional forest dependent communities received nominal land grants and landless tribals who had encroached on forestland with the support of the tribal wing of the CPI(M) party before 2005 got titles. It is also claimed that the CPI (M) had lobbied at the centre for extension of the cut-off date from October 1980 to December 13 2005 to use the Act to redistribute land to landless tribals and fulfill their agenda of redistributive justice (Suma, 2012).

Conclusion

On one hand, the categorization of indigenous people as tribes based on the primitive, uncivilized nature of their social, economic and cultural life resulted in them being considered as those in need of protection of the State through the creation of affirmative action policies. At the same time their customary practices of forest conservation and management were also considered as primitive and detrimental to forests which according to the colonizers created a need for scientific methods of forest management. They were termed as encroachers and they had only concessional privileges over forests given to them as state subjects. Further, the recognition of their individual rights is only given based on their identity created as part of their being categorized subjects of the State rather than as a part of their being a member of a community which collectively accesses forests for sustenance. Their customary institutions have been replaced by individual rights and by formal institutions for forest management in the form of VSS, village committees etc thereby changing their interface with each other and with the forests to suit the needs of industries and converting their subsistence economy to market based economy. On the other hand, the inclusion and exclusion of certain tribes within the Scheduled Tribes category has resulted in creating a politicization of benefits provided to tribals and their recognition of rights over forests.

The Bureaucratization and politicization of the FRA implementation has led to it being interpreted as a land redistribution opportunity provided by the State to its tribal subjects which was cornered by the more educationally forward Lambadas, created a view of forest land as a property and commodity and produced dominant landed and suppressed landless in tribal villages while ignoring the community based customary relation of tribals with the forests.

Keeping in mind that the forest dependent communities have been alienated from their customary practices of forests management for several generations by the Forest department, State developmental policies and non tribal intervention which have led to changes in the way they access their rights over forests, they cannot just be given a right on paper without considering the ways in which they practice their customary rights and cannot be expected to overcome the continuing state monopoly over forests and oppression of tribal people by the Forest Department.

If the territorial control and process of forest management in use by the Forest Department continues, tribals will continue to be viewed as encroachers of forest, not right holders and natural forests will continue to be converted into plantations by the Forest Department for generation of revenue. For FRA to undo the historic injustice, tribal rights have to be recognized as members of communities which have rights over conservation and management of forests, the role of the Forest Department has to be changed to that of a facilitating body which supports the tribals to conserve the forests, and land reforms have to be implemented to return the land appropriated from tribals by non-tribals.

Reference

C. R. Bijoy, C. f. (2008, August). Forest Rights Struggle The Adivasis Now Await a Settlement. American Behavioral Scientist , Volume 51 (Number 12), p. 19.

Department, A. F. (2013). AP State of Forests Report 2013. Hyderabad: Government of Andhra Pradesh.

Dhanaraju, V. (2012). Nature of Colonial Forest Policies: Situating Tribals In Andhra Pradesh . International Journal of Social Science Tommorrow .

Furer-Haimendorf, C. V. (1945). Tribal Hyderabad Four Reports . Hyderabad : The Government of H.E.H The Nizam .

Gadgil, R. G. (2009). State Forestry and Social Conflict in British India. Oxford Journals , 38.

Guha, R. (1983, 10 29). Forestry in British and Post-British India: A Historical Analysis. Economic and Political Weekly , 16.

Springate-Baginski, M. S. (2010, July). India’s Forest Rights Act -The anatomy of a necessary but not sufficient institutional reform. IPPG Discussion Papers , p. 34.

Suchitra, M. (2013, Oct 7). ‘Grant of community forest rights to JFMCs in Andhra illegal’. Retrieved March 6, 2014, from www.downtoearth.org.in: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/grant-community-forest-rights-jfmcs-andhra-illegal

Ursula Münster, S. V. (2012, May 12). In the Jungle of Law Adivasi Rights and Implementation of Forest Rights Act in Kerala. Economic & Political Weekly , p. 8.

V. Ratna Reddy, M. G.-B. (2004). Participatory Forest Management In Andhra Pradesh: A Review . Hyderabad : Centre For Economic and Social Studies .

The watandari system was a revenue system introduced by the Nizams in the Hyderabad State which functioned by appointing village revenue collectors called ‘patwaris’

Have you like this article?