On its face, the Scheduled Tribes and Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights), Bill, 2005 seems an uncomplicated piece of legislation. But it has been made contentious by people who refuse to see merit in anything that changes status quo.

The bill's emphasis on looking at forestry-related issues from a broader perspective is nothing new. Committees and commissions of the Union government have in the past highlighted the need for recognising tribal rights on forestland. The P S Appu committee, for example, observed in 1972 that land should be allotted to tribals on a long-term basis with certain rights of occupation. In the same year, the Task Force on Development of Tribal Areas suggested recognition of customary rights of tribal over forestlands. However, these recommendations have never been backed by legislative sanction.

Legislations must reflect ground realities and the proposed bill attempts to do precisely that. It's well known that the erroneous process of settling rights over forests is the main reason for tribal unrest in most parts of the country. It's also well known that not every tribal community was strong enough to exact enact tenancy acts, such as the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 or the Santhal Pargana Act, 1949 from the colonial and the post-colonial states. Moreover, numerous rights have today dwindled into mere concessions. It's little wonder then that most land settlement processes are in dispute today. The Supreme Court, which had once stipulated that tribal rights in protected areas be settled in a year, today seems helpless at the machinations of forest bureaucracies.

The proposed bill thus assumes much importance. It's based on the simple premise that forests have the best chance to survive if forest-dwellers are involved in their management and control. Globally, this principle has been accepted as one of the basics of forest management. Our government also has a consistent view on this. All policy statements, circulars, guidelines, government orders and court affidavits since the forest policy of 1988 have espoused the cause of tribal communities. But none of these lofty ideas have been implemented. The forest rights bill is a good chance to correct this anomaly. Granting security of tenure to communities who have been at the forefront of conserving forests would only help the state put a curb on various nefarious activities over forests. At the risk of being speculative, let me surmise that that the timber lobby and the forest department nexus stand to be most affected by this legislation.

Monopoly syndrome
I also see no reason why one agency should hold monopoly over forestland or forest-based resources. The state has to serve common good and the administrative convenience of allocating different businesses to different departments or ministry cannot be an excuse for injustice towards the marginalised. It is here that one is baffled at the stand of the Union ministry of environment and forests. The ministry claims that the bill would result in "de-notification of vast tracts of forestlands', "eliminate all legal protection for forest cover' and cause "irreparable ecological damage'. This can only be termed as overreaction. Equally preposterous is its charge that disproportionate allocation of large areas of natural resource of the country will put a "question mark on the very existence of national Parks and sanctuaries'. I would like to see one provision in the proposed bill, which overrides any provision of earlier wildlife of forest protection acts.

Several irresponsible statements have come in the wake of the bill. The media has to take some blame for writing what is fed to it This trend has to stop before the bill is usurped by those who probably would be most affected if it's enacted. Believe me when I say that I am not talking about the tiger or the conservationists.

Sanjay Upadhyay was member of the technical support group to draft the Scheduled Tribes and Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill, 2005