THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FOREST RIGHTS ACT

IN MADHYA PRADESH AND CHHATTISGARH: TWO

CASE STUDIES

BY MARIE BOHNER AND MARK LEWIN

2010
 Preface
In the summer of 2010, the authors of the two reports included within, Marie
Bohner and Mark Lewin, each spent several months in rural Indian villages to explore the
implementation of the Forest Rights Act. The authors pursued their studies separately,
Lewin in Madhya Pradesh and Bohner in neighbouring Chhattisgarh. The results they
discovered, however, were very similar and reinforced the belief that the Act was only
being partially and incompletely implemented at the grassroots level.
Both of these studies were carried out with the support of Ekta Parishad, the
grassroots organization whose work for land rights of tribals is a longstanding one. The
authors surveyed many villages (12 in MP and 17 in Chhattisgarrh) with the assistance of
Ekta Parishad staff. The goals were the same: “to review the implementation of the FRA,
and to also look into the impact of the actions of Ekta Parishad in attempting to have the
FRA properly implemented upon the livelihoods of forest dependent people” (Bohner, p.
4)
The FRA is officially called “the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest
Dwellers (Recognition of ForestRights) Act”. It was “published in 2006, followed by a
published set of Rules in 2008.” (Bohner, p. 4). Despite initial reports about the
implementation of the Act, these studies found that “only one in four claims are being
accepted”. More importantly, as Levin notes:
This study found that of the 984 households that made individual claims for patta,
only 242 claims have been accepted, representing 24.6% of the total claims made,
with the remaining 75.4% of claims still pending, with the households concerned
having received no information whatsoever concerning their applications. This is
despite a report by the MOTA stating that 100% of applications in Chhattisgarh
have been disposed of by 28th February 2010. The Bohner report makes the point
that it would seem that there is no official record of whether these pending claims
have been rejected, making it impossible for the concerned people to exercise
their rights of appeal, being a denial of their rights. Levin p. 30.
There has been, then, a “lack of information in the villages and disinformation” as well
(Bohner, p. 7) with the result that the FRA remains to be fully implemented. Deprivation
of land and livelihood resources continue to be the central driver of rural poverty. The
implications of this deprivation of land are also very clear:
Mistreated forest dwellers and landless peasants continue to fill the slums around
the cities, creating an enormous belt of misery and desperation around each
Indian metropolis. With less and less dignity and more and more struggle to
survive, the poorest of the poor in India are still, more than ever and contrary to
all of Gandhi's wishes, a growing silent majority. (Bohner, p. 38).
Both studies reinforce the importance of implementing the pro-poor legislation and they
illuminate Ekta Parishad’s long campaign for land and livelihood rights.
Paul Schwartzentruber, Bhopal, Dec. 2010
Towards the recognition of citizenship
for the forest dwellers of India?
A study of the implementation of Forest Rights Act
in 17 villages in Chhattisgarh

Marie BOHNER

May-August 2010

Prayog Centre, Ekta Parishad, Tilda, Chhattisgarh (India)

1
 This report would not exist without the kind guidance
of Ramesh Sharma and Arun Kumar, Ekta Parishad.
Thanks to Gillian Cante for her tremendous and generous help.
Thanks to Annie-Claude Demers for some of her beautiful pictures
and her helpful support.
Thanks to Mark Lewin for our nice exchanges and collaboration.

2
 SUMMARY

Prologue : Context of the report enquiry Page 4

Introduction Page 7

I. Short introduction to the scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 Page 9

1.The broad picture: history and context of Forest Rights Act in India Page 9

2.The elaboration of Forest Rights Act, between the devil and the deep blue sea Page 14

II. Analysis and results of the survey done in May and June 2010 in 17 villages
in Chhattisgarh : the implementation of the Forest Rights Act on the ground Page 19

1.The promise of land entitlement: myth or reality? Page 20

2.Self-governance and empowerment: the road is long (and full of potholes)

to citizenship Page 25

3.The complete crash of Community Rights Page 29

4.The Forest Rights Act, an opportunity to create and/or strengthen

gender-based equality? Page 31

5.State of Chhattisgarh versus Naxalites:what about the collateral damages

on the implementation of the Forest Rights Act? Page 34

Conclusion Page 37

Bibliography Page 40

Appendix 1 : Short descriptions of the villages of the panel Page 44

Appendix 2 : Short press release Page 53

Appendix 3 : Essential figures for the State of Chhattisgarh Page 58

3
 PROLOGUE: Context of the report enquiry

After centuries of mistreatment of the Adivasi populations of India, by their own countrymen and
also by the British1; after decades of forest land exploitation by the Indian government and
countless private industries; and after years of conflict between civil society organisations, social
movements, policy makers, industry and conservationist lobbies, the government of India finally
published the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest
Rights) Act2 in 2006, followed by a published set of Rules in 2008. This was considered a great
victory for all the forest dwellers, as it was both the official recognition of past injustices and the
promise of a better future, as well as allowing forest dwellers to be recognised as full and entire
Indian citizens with rights and duties.

But while this can be considered as a major victory, for it makes both the Central and the State
governments accountable for upholding this law, the struggle is only now just beginning. Due to
repetitive abuse of policies and practices in India, the implementation of the Forest Rights Act has
to be watched by the civil society and social movements, now more than ever. Two years after the
publishing of the Rules, what can be said about the implementation of this act? What improvements
does it give to the forest dwellers’ daily livelihood? How does this law come into a concrete practise
at a grassroots level? Naturally, it is the mission of movements like Ekta Parishad to participate in
these inquiries to make governments accountable, especially concerning the issue of land rights. As
a bridge between policy makers and local villagers, Ekta Parishad has a duty to keep an eye out for
the process of implementation in order to ensure that the rights of the villagers are protected and
heard. It is thus important for Ekta Parishad to support missions, such as the one elaborated in this
report, that follow the process of implementation of the Forest Rights Act, focusing in 17 villages
in Chhattisgarh. Ekta Parishad also supports other missions in different States for example the
report of Mark Lewin on Madhya Pradesh3.

In order to fully understand the analysis discussed in this report, it is essential to understand the
context in which this report has been carried out. Of course the writer is aware that this report is not
an exhaustive account of the implementation of the Forest Rights Act in overall India, not even of
the State of Chhattisgarh, the latter task would have needed a much bigger staff and a longer work
period. It is thus to be considered a snapshot of the current situation in the field as witnessed by a
non-biased writer. As the Indian context as well as the legal one are quite new to the writer, the
reader is asked to be forgiving concerning the unwilling but inevitable lacunae or loopholes
that could be found while reading this report. Nevertheless, the writer hopes that this work will be
useful to shed light on the struggle of the forest dwellers and raise their voices so that their rights
may be respected.

The villages used in the survey were chosen by the Ekta Parishad team: the person in charge of
the Prayog Centre in Tilda, Arun Kumar, who was also the writer’s guide and translator in this task,
chose the villages with the advice of Ramesh Sharma and the proposals of local level activists for
each district. 17 villages of 7 districts of Northern and Central Chhattisgarh were thus chosen,
giving a representative panel of villages, all situated below the poverty line. No district was chosen
in South Chhattisgarh, as most part of this area are considered as being a “naxalite-affected” area,
thus seen as being too dangerous, even though the situation of the implementation of Forest Rights
1 To understand the mistreatments faced by the Adivasi population, please refer to the report of Eleanor CURTAIN,
written in 2008 on the behalf of Ekta Parishad (see bibliography)
2 For more convenience, the writer will refer to this Act in this report as Forest Rights Act or FRA
3 Implementation of the Forest Rights Act in Madhya Pradesh, Evidence from Case-Studies, by Mark LEWIN on the
behalf of Ekta Parishad, Summer 2010, Bhopal, see Bibliography

4
Act is particularly critical in those areas. It has also to be taken into consideration that all the chosen
villages are effected by the activities of Ekta Parishad, thus they are obviously much more aware
of their rights and the way to obtain them compared to villages where no advocacy organisation is
active. This last point is quite crucial to understand this survey: information being a key-word in the
implementation process of the Forest Rights Act.

Another matter that seems relevant when reading this report, and its context, is the problem of
translation during the interviews in the villages. Indeed, the quality and exactitude of all information
may be slightly obscured through the difficult task of translation. Arun Kumar being erstwhile a
well respected and senior activist of Ekta Parishad, and playing the role of translator as a necessity,
it seems clear that, in total good faith, some of the questions might have been slightly biased by his
own convictions and subjectivity. Following the same idea, it is possible that villagers might have
adapted their answers, knowing they were addressing members of Ekta Parishad, and going in the
direction “expected” from them (particularly on women empowerment issues). This fact is quite
clear for the writer, still as there was no way to avoid this, it has to be considered as part of the
process.

The meetings in the villages were organised for the interviews on Forest Rights Act, nevertheless it
is obvious that they also were a pretext for Ekta Parishad mobilisation and information meetings:
without being completely sure, the writer believes that some of the questions on the questionnaire,
which needed longer explanations to the villagers, were a support to discuss and present some of
Ekta Parishad's guidelines. As the report itself is done on the behalf of Ekta Parishad, this is
unsurprisingly part of the process. However it still has to be taken into account in the analysis of
this report, considering that some of the answers might have been slightly “influenced” by the
previous exchanges. Last but not least, the shifting from the “legal language” to the common
(mostly chhattisgarhi) language of the villagers, exact translation might have suffered some losses,
as it is said in some reports that even the translation from the English-written law to its official
Hindi version was not done properly4. This fact combined with the complexity of the law might
have led to some misunderstandings during the questionnaire; still the writer hopes that most of
these misinterpretations have been avoided by long and previous discussions with the translator.

All the interviews took place in the villages, as group interviews. In most cases the villagers
gathered in groups of 10 to 40 people, representing sometimes almost the totality of the village,
sometimes only a small part of it. Except for two villages where the proportion of backward caste
villagers was superior to the tribal population, all 15 other villages were constituted of a large
majority of tribal population. The groups of villagers were constituted mostly by men, the women
arriving late (and sometimes, but rarely, not at all), principally because of the gathering of tendu
leaves in the nearby forests. In most cases the answers were given by one or two “leaders” amongst
the group, most of them being men. This again tackles the validity of the answers: can they be
accepted as valid and truthful, being given by individuals on the behalf of a group? At least, one can
admit that the answers were not completely out of scope, the public audience in these interviews
acting as a guarantee of their overall approval. It would have been interesting, especially on sensitive
topics like community rights and/or women land rights, to have individual interviews, but the work
time allotted to this report sadly did not permit it. Moreover, it is interesting to have group
interviews, as they reveal much about the implementation of self-governance in the villages, active
participation (or not) of all villagers in the public debates, as well as self-confidence to speak and
express ideas. All in all group interviews tell a great deal, unconsciously, about the Gram Sabha
meetings recommended in the Forest Rights Act5.

4 Concerning this issue, please consult the report of Mr Saxena (see bibliography)
5 The Gram Sabha is a level of self-governance gathering all the inhabitants of a village to take important decisions

5
As the interviews were done during the Indian summer (May and June), this mission was limited to
a panel to 17 villages due to the extreme heat (as we were staying in the villages) and the
approaching monsoon, this period being particularly active for land work and collection of forest
minor produces (such as the tendu leaves mentioned previously). Villagers had all in all less time to
participate in collective meetings, especially the women. Furthermore this period is also a moment
of tension and crisis concerning land control, leading to sometimes violent fights between the
farmers and various other land encroachers (forest officers, revenue officers, other farmers, other
villagers, etc.).

Rushed by the approaching monsoon and limited by a very short time to discover the Forest Rights
Acts and its ins and outs, the writer has to admit that if the same report had to be done again today
the questionnaire would probably be more precise on certain issues, for example on the different
levels of acceptance / rejection of the applications concerning land entitlements. But as this report
was made in the above stated conditions, one has to make the best out of it, hoping that the scope of
the report does not suffer from external restrictions met during its realisation. Consequently, more
than a technical and legal feed-back on the process of implementation of the act itself, this report
has rather to be seen as an anthology of a panel of compared voices of forest dwellers, relating and
analysing their feelings, concerns and experiences regarding the implementation of the Forest
Rights Act at grassroots level.

6
 INTRODUCTION

“One wonders whether Gandhi's stressing of the importance of living in the villages to understand
the conditions and problems of villages had had any effect on the elite.” 6 Indian society, with a
silent but enormous rural population, seems as divided today as when this was written in 1979. The
gap between the elite ruling the country and the poorest of the poor has widened continuously since
Independence, and the creation of a middle-class has done nothing to improve the general standard
of living. The world’s largest democracy seems to be anything but democratic when one considers
that only a small elite Indian population is writing the laws for the vast majority. Part of this majority
are the forest dwellers who lack access to education, water, food and every basic necessity. These
two populations live in separate worlds having barely anything in common, except for their nationality
and their land. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest
Rights) Act, 2006, was created to rule over the two following issues: recovery of full citizenship
and recognition of land rights for the forest dwellers. With this act one might ask whether
India finally owning up to and ready to repair its deeply rooted problems?

The past years of Indian governance brought to light the sad experience of recurrent discrepancies
between policy and practice, and though India has a pocket full of progressive and human rights-
oriented acts, it seems that the progress of implementation at a grassroots level is irregular and
sometimes non existent. Corruption of the administration at a local level, undoubtedly inherited
from the British Raj practices, is one of the obstacles to proper implementation of laws. The vested
interests knotted around the control and possession of lands, especially in the case of forest lands
which have a high economical and ecological value also has created intricate conflicts.

These realities, as well as the fact that the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 20067 has been obtained after years of struggle from the forest
dwellers, social movements and civil society, gives purpose to movements like Ekta Parishad to be
watchdog for matters of implementation and human rights. The government (Central and State)
made themselves accountable by creating this law, offering the forest dwellers a tool to protect their
interests and claim their ancestral rights. Two years after the Rules related to the Forest Rights Act
came into effect, it is now time for all the actors involved to make a first assessment. The Ministry
of Tribal Affairs published a Status report on the implementation of the Act in the different Indian
States for the period ending 28th February 2010. Mr N.C. Saxena8 has worked with other committee
members on a report on the same subject, which has to be transmitted as an independent report to
the Central Government. As a counter-power force, movements like Ekta Parishad are in an
position of expertise to balance the results of these reports by introducing their own experience and
input to the debate. It is because of this expertise and work done by Ekta Parishad with villagers
struggling over forest land issues that Mr Saxena came to Tilda, Chhattisgarh District, for a meeting
on 27th of May 2010 to hear the claims of the villagers and get a broader idea of the situation. It is
therefore appropriate that Ekta Parishad itself has its own survey done on the implementation on the law,
in the States concerned by its influence.

Two years of implementation might seem too short a period to judge the results of the law, but in
fact it is essential to assess the situation now in order to avoid major catastrophes. The lack of
information in the villages, the disinformation concerning false deadlines related to application

6 In The Fieldworker and the Field : A Village in Karnataka, in Sociological Investigation, eds. MN Srivinas,
AM Shah and EA Ramaswamy, OUP, 1979
7 For more convenience, the writer will refer to this Act in this report as « Forest Rights Act », or « FRA »
8 The report of Mr Saxena concerns the State of Chhattisgarh, while other members are working in other states.

7
processes for land entitlement, the fact that the allegations of the State of Chhattisgarh are
contradictory with the voices from the ground, that some States have not distributed any land
entitlement to this day, as well as the current situation of violent fighting in the villages over the
control of land, especially during the monsoon season constitute major reasons to conduct surveys
on the ground. Work at this level is the only way to ensure that the forest dwellers, as well the
Adivasi as the others, receive the rights to which they are entitled.

The context of Chhattisgarh, known as the “rice bowl” of India, takes a particular resonance in this
process, the State being constituted 82% by a rural, farming population, 32% of the global state
population being Adivasi9, and 16% Dalits10.11 43% of the State population lives below the poverty
line. Carved out of Madhya Pradesh in 2000, the new State of Chhattisgarh, which built its specific
identity as a “tribal” State, has placed a bet for its future on wild industrialisation. From 2004 to
2009, 40.000 acres of fertile land were shifted to private and public industries. This process
involved so many displacements and evictions “that the existence of whole villages simply gets
diluted”12, leaving their population landless and deprived of their natural resources. With 92% of the
tribal population dependent on forest land resources for its livelihood, this industrialisation has done
far more damage than the supposed good it was supposed to bring. Following on the same path, at
State level, that the Central Government seems to be working for global India, Chhattisgarh wants
to enter the championship of industrialisation, pushing to the side of the road the majority of its
population. It is even worse when one reads “The Chhattisgarh 2010 Vision Document, prepared by
the global consultancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers: in its SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities, Threats) analysis of the region,[which] considers the extensive dependence of the
local population on natural resources as a 'threat' to the state's development.”13 Extremely rich in
natural resources such as coal, tin and bauxite, Chhattisgarh is covered by a very dense forested
area, hosting national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. All of these resources are problematic
regarding the fact that forest lands are actually inhabited by Tribal populations and other forest
dwellers. Given this information, the Forest Rights Act's implementation constitutes a real challenge
for the State of Chhattisgarh. Especially today, as the “naxalite” issue14 fuels fighting in some areas
of the State, adding to the debate a taste of drama and violence making thus the land rights an even
more problematic struggle.

To understand the background, as well as the positive and negative aspects of the subject of this
report, the writer will begin with a short introduction of the history and contents of the Scheduled
Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. This
introduction will be followed with the results of the survey in 17 villages of Chhattisgarh from May
and June 2010. This work plans to draw a thematic and vertical analysis by comparing interviews
made in the villages around the following topics tackled in the Forest Rights act: land entitlement,
self-governance, common property rights, withdrawal of forest offences, land rights and women,
public services and support of the government for village facilities. Finally the writer will conclude,
highlighting the various issues of the implementation, and proposing some recommendations,
particularly in the scope of action of Ekta Parishad. The reader will find in the appendix short
descriptions of the different villages involved in the survey and a short press release done in the
period of the work.

9 Adivasi : Tribal population

10 Most of them being part of the « satnamis » : movement of believers of the truth and non-violence
11 All the figures quoted in this paragraph are taken from From Rice Bowl to Industrial Grazing Lands... voices from
the villages after industrialisation, prepared by Ramesh CHANDRA SHARMA and Sheeba CHOUDHRY, for Ekta
Parishad, New Delhi, 2006
12 Ibid., page 27
13 Ibid., page 39
14 The Naxalites are maoist fighters, using violent methods to campaign for land rights and various other social issues

8
I. Short introduction to the scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 200615

There was a time when forests used to cover ¼ of the earth. This area is today reduced to 1/7 th of the
total earth. While one can only watch helplessly the quick disappearance of more and more
forest lands, the question that raises in India is following: how does this phenomenon affect the
tribal people who have always based their livelihood on their natural forest resources? “According
to the perspective plan paper for the north-eastern states, the forest area, which constituted 55.02 %
of the total geographical area in 1970-73, had shrunk drastically to 42.28 % within a decade. The
study also indicated a massive increase of 67.95 % in the area under open or degraded forest,
implying growing commercial exploitation of these vital nature resources.” 16 The Adivasi
population, or tribal population, has been dependent on forest resources for centuries. Their
livelihood, their culture and beliefs are linked to the very existence of forests, in matters of living
areas, but also collection of minor forest produce, fire and construction wood, and even some types
of agriculture. Because of this very close link to the forest land , the Adivasi population has always
been deeply moved by every new law concerning forests in India.
To understand the importance of the implementation of the recent Forest Rights Act, the writer will
begin this report by drawing a broad picture of evolution of forests laws since their creation in
India, outlining the global forest context in India regarding the matter of both forests and forest
dwellers.

1. The broad picture: history and context of Forest Rights Act in India

India is the 5th largest source of coal in the world and the second fastest growing source behind
China17. India's forests are incredibly rich, not only in matters of resources like mineral goods,
timber wood and wildlife diversity18, but also on a human and cultural level. As matter of fact,
India's forests have been inhabited for centuries by human dwellers, mostly by tribal populations.
But as forests are seen as an area that has to be managed by the Government, both for economic and
environmental reasons, human forest dwellers, as a very poor, voiceless and deprived minority,
were often badly neglected in this “management” process. Finally, in 2007, after much struggle and
outcry, after years of mistreatment and denial of their rights, the forest inhabitants are today
recognized by the Indian law as an essential part in the environmental balance and the preservation
of forest lands. Thanks to the Forest Rights Act, tribal people now have the right to live legally on
their own land. However, voices are rising today to claim that there is an enormous discrepancy
between the intention of the law and its implementation.The principal object of this report is to
reveal how the reality of this recent law comes is implemented at local level.

India is, like the rest of the world or even maybe more so, a country victim of mass deforestation.
This country, counting more than a billion inhabitants19, is covered by dense forests, including very
important rainforests20, in 12% of its territory. This percentage might seem significant, but not so

15 It has to be noticed that, for an easing matter, this Act will be known as “Forest Rights Act” or “the Act” in this
report.
16 In Law of Forests in India, Reprint 2002, R.N. CHOUDHRY, Ed. Orient, 2002, page 46
17 IIbid, page 3
18 Almost extinguished in certain cases
19 the Indian census, happening this very year, will tell us in a short time what is the real population of India today
20 Rainforests, as lungs of the planet, are, as the reader already knows, a hot topic concerning the global debate on
environment and climate change.

9
long ago, before the British Raj began in 1854, 41% of India used to be covered by forests.
“Britishers laid the foundations of scientific forest management in our country.[...] It is interesting
to note that our forests were initially reserved from areas which were classified as 'waste lands'.
During such reservations considerable amount of forests areas were left out for the use of people
placed under the Revenue Department. Reservation was a very slow process and it took nearly 35
years (1865 to 1900) to constitute the reserved forests throughout the country. The administration of
our forests was codified for the first time in 1865, when the Indian Forest Act VII of 1865 was
placed on the status book.[...] During the initial stages, protection and consolidation was the
primary task since the forests were considered as 'no man's area'” 21. From the beginning of India’s
management of forest land forest dwellers' existence was simply and purely denied, or ignored..

As a matter of fact, if less than 8% of the total country's population lives in the forest, 60% are
situated in tribal areas. It leads us to understand why precisely the tribal populations of India, as
well as the other forests dwellers, who are mostly dalits, were not considered for a long time in the
forest management process. The issue of caste consideration, or better, the non-consideration of
so-called “scheduled castes” (SC) and “scheduled tribes” (ST), before, and equally after
independence, explain the global injustice faced by all forest dwellers in the successive Forest Acts
until 2007. If forest management has indeed been a major issue in India for the last 145 years, the
issue concerning the situation of tribal population has only been taken into serious consideration
for the past two years22... and this only after a long struggle of forests dwellers, social movements
and civil society organisations altogether. But is this newly acquired consideration of forest dwellers
really followed by concrete actions?

To reach the constitution of the Forest Rights Act in 2007, several acts concerning forest
management have succeeded each other. As mentioned previously, the Indian Forest Act VII of
1865 was the first to rule the forest lands of India, leading the tribal people to be surveyed and
censuses to become manageable. This first law was overwhelmed shortly after by many of other
successive laws and amendments. “Subsequently, this was replaced by the Indian Forest Act VII of
1878 which was further amended in the years 1890, 1901, 1918, 1919 and 1927. […] Legislations
ensuring protection and restrictions on burning, cutting and grazing were imposed. In a reserved
forest, everything was 'prohibited' unless 'permitted', whereas, in a protected forest everything was
'permitted' unless 'prohibited'. Apart from these, village forests and undemarcated forests were also
recognised.”23 In 1947, after independence was declared, the Indian Constitution made clear
references to the protection of natural environment and the safeguard of forests and wildlife, in
articles 48-A and 51-A, giving both State and individuals the responsibility to fulfil this wish.

The first recognition of forest villages was made in the Forest Act 1864. These villages were
primarily created in the forests to use and manage forest resources. As seen before, in 1927 the
concepts of “reserved” and “protected” forests were created anew. The forest villages were no
longer included and the lands under cultivation around these villages were also declared as reserved
forests. Still the villages did exist and appear on official forest maps.

The Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 was then created to ensure the protection of wildlife diversity,
and brought in the notion of “habitat”, which had to be preserved 24. This law implemented the
creation of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries and took another step ahead in the official
21 In Law of Forests in India, Reprint 2002, R.N. CHOUDHRY, Ed. Orient, 2002, page 108 – The word “Britishers” is
used as quoted, and defines the British colons in India during the British Raj.
22 Rules relating to Forest Rights Acts were published in 2008
23 In Law of Forests in India, Reprint 2002, R.N. CHOUDHRY, Ed. Orient, 2002, page 108
24 Ibid., page 72 : “The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, considers human settlements and around PAS as a major threat
to wildlife and the eco-system.”

10
mistreatment of forest dwellers, which went immediately from an almost non-existent status to a
status of potential (and accused) destroyer of wildlife on protected territories. “While people living
in and around 421 sanctuaries are allowed [since the amendment of the Act in 1991] retention of
some rights over the PA[Protected Areas], those dependent on livelihood on the 75 national parks
are not allowed any forest produce.”25

It is only in 1974 that the Indian Government gave some directives concerning forest villages: every
forest village had to be converted to revenue village, as their existence without any change would
be against the tenets of the Constitution. The process began at State level, although it was so slow
that very few villages were converted before 1980.

The Forest Conservation Act, 1980, followed the direction given by the Wildlife Protection Act, in
the global alarm of the threat of endangered fauna and flora species, and radicalised the process by
“restrictions on the de-reservation of forests on use of forest land for non-forest purpose” 26, taking
back all authority from the State Government. The same act ensured that no “forest land or any
portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any
authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by
Government.”27 The act in itself was taking into consideration the converted forest villages,
although neglecting broadly the fact that livelihood of forest dwellers is linked to the use of forest
produces. And it led every village that wasn't converted to revenue village before 1980 to see its
inhabitants seen as encroachers on their own land, and therefore under the permanent threat of
eviction.

A survey, done by Forest Officers, followed the declaration of the Act of 1980, to count forest
dwellers and their villages, and to displace them in case of “proven incompatibility” with wildlife
protection. The Forest Officers were meant to listen to the disputes and claims of the villagers,
particularly related to “nistar” rights28. The possible displacement was supposed to involve an
officially written act, and a possibility of a financial compensation. This survey generated huge
discontentment in the ranks of forest dwellers, NGO's and civil society, for it was said to have been,
at least partly, corrupted in its results because of bribes, threats, misinformation, and general
unreliability of the Forest Officers. Therefore problems concerning the Act for forest dwellers lay in
its implementation, and to the extreme power left to Forest officers to decide, without any control,
on people's fate. “When the Government of India passed the Forest Conservation Act on the
midnight of 25 October 1980, hundreds of thousands of indigenous/tribal people became illegal
residents on land over which they had been living for generations. Yet, thousands of others also had
legal rights under the Forest Conservation Act. For two and half decades, the state government
failed to record and recognise and even limit those ancestral rights of tribal communities permitted
by the Forest Conservation Act […].”29

During decades following this act, discontentment grew amongst forest dwellers and civil society
organisations. Seemingly more and more “forest offence cases” were mushrooming, pending
sometimes for years, and leading tribal people, already illegal on their own land, to fines and

25 In Law of Forests in India, Reprint 2002, R.N. CHOUDHRY, Ed. Orient, 2002, page 72
26 The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Art. 2
27 Ibid., (iii)
28 The “nistar” rights concern all the common livelihood-related rights of the local population, and take in
consideration the traditional, ritual and cultural norms of the village.
29 Document given by Prayog / Ekta Parishad, quotes taken on internet and emails about Forest Rights Act

11
sometimes to jail. Neither the National Forest Policy in 1988 30, nor the Guidelines proposed in
199031, were able to overcome this unfair situation and calm down the growing movement of
protest. The deforestation continued as well as the mistreatment of the forest dwellers, the fates of
both forests and villagers were intrinsically linked to neglect and despise.

Even the Panchayat Extension Schedule Areas Act (PESA), created in 1996 and meant to “restore
primary control over natural resources including land, water, forest and minerals and bestowed
ownership rights over minor forest produces to the Gram Sabha” 32, could not fulfil the ostentatious
wish to restore the rights of the tribal communities. An enquiry made in 2006 makes a disappointing
analysis of the implementation of this act: “In ten years since this act came into existence, its
implementation on the ground has been full of problems and confusions. Instances of violations of
its provisions have been on the increase especially in the states where natural resources are
abundant and primarily located in the tribal areas. These natural resources are viewed as central to
the economic growth of the state and as such acquired at the cost of the tribal communities living in
the areas. The question now is whether the Gram Sabhas have any power to intervene in subjects
where there is a conflict of interest between the state and local community?” 33 As we will see later
in this report, the question has yet not been answered and one could wonder if it is not completely
out of date.

“On 12 December 1996, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of the term "forest". In T.N.
Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs Union of India and Environmental Awareness Forum, Jammu and
Kashmir vs State of Jammu and Kashmir, the SC [Supreme Court] reinterpreted the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980. It [now] included within its scope not only forests as mentioned in
government record but all areas that are forests in the dictionary meaning of the term irrespective of
the nature of ownership and classification thereof. The case came to be popularly known as the
Godavarman case.”34 This case meant an enormous change for all tribal people whose rights had
been recognised under Forest Conservation Act 1980: from this date, all forest dwellers became
illegal inhabitants, cultivators and users of forest resources in their own lands and homes. Indeed,
all villages previously converted to revenue villages were put in question again by the forest
department, claiming to get back the lands recorded before by the revenue department.

The sharing of land between forest and revenue department has been a recurring issue, with the
result of a long time pending insecurity for its dwellers. Even when some lands were converted
back to the forest department (most of the time “nistar” land), “ironically the revenue department
made no changes in its records or procedures even after these nistar lands were notified by the
forest department and these lands continued to be registered as dakhalrahit bhoomi (land free from
all encumbrances) in the revenue records.”35 In some circulars published by the Indian Government
in 1990, it is already clear that the permanent confusion created by the power land issue between
forest and revenue land is known and judged at the highest level : “[The bona fide claims] are
persistently overlooked causing wide spread discontentment among the aggrieved persons. Such
30 Which actually revised the old policy of 1952, and were made to ensure “environmental stability and ecological
balance including atmospheric equilibrium.”
31 On 18 September 1990, Directives were issued from the Government of India to all States, that stated that boundary
disputes and claims made during the process of demarcation survey of undemarcated protected forest land were not
heard, and that necessary actions should be taken to tackle this problem. But State forest departments didn't take any
action and refused these directives.
32 Enquiry into the Violations of various Provisions of Panchayat Extension into Schedule Areas Act, 1996 in Raigarh
District of Chhattisgarh, 26/28 July 2006, Report of the Planning Commission Land Resources Department of
Minsitry of Rural Development, Ministry of Panchayati Raj, page 4
33 Ibid., page 4
34 Quote from the website http://www.forestcaseindia.org
35 In Writ Petition (Civil) NO.202 OF 1995, on orange area, submitted by Ekta Parishad, 11)

12
instances ultimately erode the credibility of the forest administration and sanctity of the forest laws
especially in the tracts inhabited by tribals.”36

Despite this official acknowledgement of the reality in the field, nothing had changed in the 5 years
that followed. In 1995, as claimed by Ekta Parishad : “[...] Pattas 37 were issued to the individuals
but transfer of the land from forest to the revenue department which should have preceded allotment
of pattas was not effected. All such cases of pattas, leases, grants, etc., involving forest land whether
by intent, omission, oversight or accident should be reviewed by the State Government, especially
those cases [where pattas, etc...] were given by the State Government to scheduled tribes or rural
poor either individually or collectively, [they] should be honoured and inter departmental disputes
should not affect right of the lessees [...]. The lessees should not be dispossessed of the land.”38 But
again and again, the right to land of the poorest was neglected and led to more and more livelihood
and survival problems among the people. With the help of social movements, civil society and
NGO's, and because of the critical situation of more and more landless forest dwellers, the voice of
discontentment grew stronger and stronger. The right to land, seen as a fundamental right to life,
was brought to light by the different struggles: “The ongoing drive for evicting inhabitants of such
lands clearly violates the fundamental right to reside on validly acquired patta lands under Article
19 of the Constitution. […] It is humbly submitted that unless these statutes of the land is formally
settled keeping in mind the bona fide claims of people in these areas the right to life of people
would remain unrealised.”39

Considering the right to food as a right to life linked implicitly to the right to land, it seems
important to the writer to make a short break in this prologue to give some points to the reader
about the right to food, especially in Adivasi communities. India had ratified the International
Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in 1979, and was therefore supposed
to protect its people by respecting the human right to food, especially in its poor rural communities.
India is the third economic power in Asia, two thirds of its people are living on land resources, and
still 50%40 of the Indian population is living below the poverty line (BPL)! 41 “Tracking the
incidence of hunger in India over three reference periods during the course of the decade - 1990-92,
1995-97 and 1999-2001 - a recent FAO report recorded an initial decline from 214.5 million to
194.7 million, before a near total reversal of all gains pushed up the number of the undernourished
to 213.7 million.”42 As usual the Adivasi population, as the poorest of the poor in India, was
neglected by the government on food issues: “If this seems unbelievable, the shocking findings of a
recent survey on hunger in the Adivasi areas of Rajasthan and Jharkhand may bring home the
unpalatable truth. Ninety nine per cent of the 1000 Adivasi households from 40 villages in the two
states, who comprised the total sample, experienced chronic hunger (unable to get two square
meals, or at least one square meal and one poor/partial meal, on even one day in the week prior to
the survey), according to the Delhi-based Centre for Environment and Food Security (CEFS), which
released its report on the Political Economy of Hunger in Adivasi Areas in October 2005.”43
Following the same references it is said that none of the surveyed families was able to secure two
square meals in the previous year. Still in the same article 86% of the Adivasi communities suffer
36 Ibid., 36)
37 Land entitlements
38 In Writ Petition (Civil) NO.202 OF 1995, on orange area, submitted by Ekta Parishad, 38)
39 Ibid., Grounds, 8)
40 Figure obtained in recommendation made by the rural development ministry's committee on BPL surveys, chaired
by Supreme Court-appointed food commissioner N C Saxena, but rejected by the State. For more information see
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/50-Indians-living-below-poverty-line-Govt-panel/articleshow/4722478.cm
41 Figures quoted from article Forest row shows India's growth dilemma, by Krittivas Mukherjee and Ruchira Singh, in
www.saudigazette.com.sa
42 In article Covering the Republic of Hunger, by Ammu Joseph, 30 january 2006, in www.indiatogether.org
43 Ibid.

13
from protein deficiency, which leads to development issues and high infant mortality. It appears that
Adivasi communities are rarely benefiting from food government schemes, and that they
themselves have seen their daily food income diminishing over the past 25 years. Could this again
be explained by the highly unfair treatment endured by the Adivasi in India since the British Raj?
The fact of being deprived of access to forest land and resources, to be displaced without any form
of compensation, can obviously be linked to the fact that Adivasi communities suffer from
malnutrition. The fact that India's global population does not show any concer for this problem is
even more revealing of the general marginalization that Adivasi face in Indian society.

The Constitution after Independence in 1947 assured “ […] justice and equality to all of India's
inhabitants, regardless of caste, religion, language or ethnicity. […] Yet the unjust and inequitable
treatment endured by the Adivasi community in India is still extensive, and ultimately denies them
the full rights of citizenship to which they are entitled.”44 This global and everlasting injustice
finally has led poorer communities to unite and struggle for their rights. Through Ekta Parishad,
through the Campaign for Survival and Dignity45, as well as through the National Forum of Forest
People and Forest Workers46, the struggle began on legal level for the recognition of Adivasi
communities’ rights. Around the year 2000, seeing that the guidelines of 1990 were not followed
with any positive outcome, and that the situation regarding evictions and displacements was
becoming more violent each year for the Adivasi communities, land and people movements began
to organise themselves to protest, advocate and file complaints on legal abuses committed mainly
by low level administration, with the silent benediction of high level administration. By organising
foot marches, by advocating on the Adivasi issue at government level by organising task forces,
andby raising the voices of the poor to state and national level, the struggle of Ekta Parishad for
landrights began. From 2000 to 2005, many actions were taken by various NGOs and social
movements to make the Adivasi and forest land right become a public issue in India, until the
pressure pushed the government itself to tackle it. “Based on a mis-interpretation of court orders on
3 rd May 2002 the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) issued a directive to Forest Departments
to evict all so-called ‘encroachers’ in a time-based manner. The latter estimated the forest
area under encroachment to be 1,250,000ha across eight states, and asked the states to
remove all encroachments ineligible for regularisation by 30th September 2002. Many millions
of forest dwellers and forest adjacent populations, who have not had their rights recognised, became
seen under this order as illegal ‘encroachers’ to be evicted. Evictions were attempted in many states
leading to public outrage and intense conflict.”47

2. The elaboration of Forest Rights Act, between the devil and the deep blue sea

With the question of Forest land rights now pushed into public debate, contradictory arguments
were raised on how to deal with the issue. It became clear that it was not so much the question of
Adivasi community that was the problem, but the hot and controversial topic of forest land rights in
India. 30 years of close work with the Adivasi communities and other forest dwellers had made
movements like Ekta Parishad well aware of the issues relating to forest land. So called
“conservationists” protested by correlating the threat of total extinction of tigers and forests, to the
44 In Injustice and Inequality, The experience of Adivasi Communities in Northern Chhattisgarh, PES Analysis, by
Eleanor CURTAIN, for Ekta Parishad, september 2008, i
45 Assembly of State tribal federations and forest dwellers.
46 Assembly of State tribal federations and forest dwellers.
47 In The Indian Forest Rights Act 2006: Commoning Enclosures?, by Springate-Baginski, O., Sarin, M., Ghosh, S.,
Dasgupta, P., Bose, I., Banerjee, A., Sarap, K., Misra, P., Behera, S., Reddy, M.G., and Rao, P.T, 2008, page 10

14
presence of men, the Adivasi in particular,. Industries as well lobbied against the property of land
owned by individuals, and against the idea of self-governance for villages. Industries blatantly
benefited from state owned land where politics tended to favour a future of industrialisation as in
the case later discussed in Chhattisgarh. Even the Government itself evaded for many years the
subject, for it had always considered forest land as State property, and therefore was reluctant to
see property of land change hands. However with protests on the rise, the government was forced to
listen to the Adivasi.

The Government of India proposed a Draft Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill in
2005. The agitated debate on forest lands kept the social movements and civil society well aware
that they had to keep on struggling until the final deposition of the law. They had to be watchdog for
text proposals to be sure that the fate of Adivasi communities and other forest dwellers would be
taken into account by the Indian Government . The “conservationists”, on their part, made stiff
opposition to this law proposal, objecting that the presence of tribal people in forest land was
contrary to the Rio Declaration, decisions of the Conference of Parties of the Convention on
Biological Diversity and recommendation of the United Nations on Forest. The Minister of
Environment himself opposed the Bill, on the ground that implementation would reduce the forest
land by 16%, while the same Ministry of Environment and Forest had diverted 73% of the total
encroached areas for non-forest activities such as industries and development projects 48. Even the
social movements and civil society objected to this law proposal, on the ground that it was taking in
to account only the Adivasi communities and not the other forest dwellers, and that the amount of
land property per household was too little for complete livelihood (2.5 hectares). The cut-off date was
fixed to December 1980 for property claims, which constituted an enormous amount of time to
prove ownership. Following this general outcry, the Bill was referred to the Joint Parliamentary
Committee (JPC) headed by V. Kishore Chandra S. Deo of the Congress Party for revision.

The acrimonious debate continued for months, until in May 2006 the JPC submitted its
recommendations on the issue of a cut-off date, inclusion of all forest dwellers, increase of the
ceiling of land occupation and the empowerment of self-governance at village level (Gram Sabhas).
It seemed that finally the voice of the landless had been heard. The Lok Sabha passed by voice vote
the re-christened Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest
Rights) Bill, 2005 on the 13th December 2006. Still the Act in itself came into force only in 2007.
Draft rules to the Act were published in July 2007, but it was only after massive mobilisation of
tribal people movements and political parties’ agitation that the actual set of Rules to the Act was
finalised and published in January 2008. Three years of permanent struggle were necessary to
finally begin to recognise concretely the rights of forest dwellers:

“[...]Whereas the forest rights on ancestral lands and their habitat were not adequately
recognised in the consolidation of State forests during the colonial period as well as in independent
India resulting in historical injustice to the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional
forest dwellers who are integral to the very survival and sustainability of the forest ecosystem;
And Whereas it has become necessary to address the long standing insecurity of tenurial and
access rights of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers including
those who were forced to relocate their dwelling due to State development interventions;
Be it enacted by Parliament in the Fifty-seventh Year of the Republic of India as
follows[...]”49

48 Figures from document given by Prayog / Ekta Parishad, quotes taken on internet and emails about Forest Rights
Act
49 In The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, in The

15
These two statements which begin the text of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) are fundamental
concerning the rights of Adivasi communities and other forest dwellers. As a matter of fact, the
recognition of “historical injustice” land-marked the victory for the struggles of not only forest
dwellers, but social movements and civil society. This, at least on paper, restores the real citizenship
of forest dwellers, making them part of the Indian society by recognising their status as victims of
the Indian governance system for the past centuries, thus making the government itself accountable
towards forest dwellers.

Another victory, was won in regards to the “conservationists”, sometimes defined as “ill-informed,
though perhaps well-meaning, environmentalists”50, as forest dwellers were recognised as a part of
the forest's ecosystem and equilibrium. This Act officially sweeps away the prejudice that forest
dwellers are a threat to the sustainability of forest land, and furthermore asserts the idea that their
presence is essential to preserve and protect the forest land, and its wildlife. As we will see later in
this report, this Act even brings up the concept of rights and duties for the forest dwellers to protect
their environment (as it is already mentioned in the Indian Constitution).

Last but not least, the government, under pressure (“ it has become necessary to address”),
recognises the forced displacements and evictions, and once again puts itself in an accountable
position towards the forest dwellers. Still, as much as this Act appears as a noble wish to correct the
mistakes of the past, does it really give the keys to solve all the problems of the forest dwellers? It
seems, with the introduction of this Act, that the Government of India considers the FRA to be a
magical wand that will absolve all past injustices and inequalities faced by forest dwellers in India,
or at least to put an end to them. One could ask if this Act is a real commitment for the government
to face its responsibilities or a padded cushion to comfort agitated protesters. As this Act recognises
past injustices and poses itself as a way to make amends to them, it is clear too that, despite the fact
that some rights are truly given and asserted, a certain amount of ambiguities remain, which, as we
will see later, leave room to evasive interpretation as to the implementation of the law.

13 rights as such are given in the Forest Rights Act concerning Scheduled Tribes and other forest
dwellers. Each one of them appears as a way to repair some ancestral injustice and to rehabilitate
the forest dwellers in their original condition. The one which appears to be the most important one
of them in the actual implementation, is also the first in the Act :
“3.(1)(a) right to hold and live in the forest land under the individual or common occupation
for habitation or self-cultivation for livelihood by a member or members of a forest dwelling
Scheduled Tribe or other traditional forest dwellers”51

Thanks to this statement forest dwellers finally are no longer illegal on their own land. This Act
gives them the legitimacy that had been denied them for centuries. This legitimacy concerns them
as individuals but also as communities (i.e., regarding “nistar” rights), as land inhabitants but also as
forest land users for livelihood (rights of access and use of minor forest produces, rights to water
bodies and grazing lands, etc.). If the land entitlement (“patta”) given in the frame of Forest Rights
Act is “heritable but not alienable or transferable”52, meaning that it is not a complete property right
because the owner of the land can not sell it, still it seems to be compensated by the “rights of
settlement and conversion of all forest villages and other villages in forests, whether recorded,
Gazette of India, New Delhi, 2nd January 2007
50 In Ambiguities, Incongruities, Inadequacies in Scheduled Tribes and Other Technical Forest Dwellers (Recognition
of Forest Rights) Act 2006, A Case For Constructive Engagement, by B K Roy BURMAN, 29 March 2008
51 In The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, in The
Gazette of India, New Delhi, 2nd January 2007
52 Ibid., Chapter III, 4.(4)

16
notified or not into revenue villages”53. Still it is not clear to which extent one can compensate the
other.

With the idea that forest dwellers are a crucial part of the forests’ equilibrium being rehabilitated,
the Adivasi and other forest dwellers are recognised as a cultural entity including the idea they hold
the keys to “intellectual property and traditional knowledge”54. This can be considered as a laudable
victory against prejudice, giving these disliked communities the value of cultural heritage, as a
precious knowledge of the forest biodiversity. Still it is mentioned several times in the Act that this
knowledge also gives these communities rights and duties to protect their environment. The
question then lies in how to make sure that they are empowered to fulfil these obligations?
Empowerment poses a tremendous challenge in this Act. Through Gram Sabhas and Forest
Committees, villagers are supposed to be able to take decisions concerning their land and village,
and to ensure the protection of them. This new empowerment radically changes the position of
forest dwellers who were once voiceless and now find themselves decision-makers. A minimum of
training and information is needed before they can be held totally accountable for their decisions.
Means should be provided as well to make sure that this decision can be implemented... “The
committees are not like wizards that simply by expressing their wishes through resolutions can
make things happen. One may draw attention to sub Rule (3) of Rule 4 and claim that Gram Sabha
shall be provided with the necessary assistance by the authorities in the state. But this is too general
and unspecific a provision to be of much help, particularly when the antagonistic forces are too
powerful and too deeply entrenched.”55

As far as common property rights are concerned (“nistar” rights), this Act is notable in the fact that
it allows villages to claim for themselves and to obtain “pattas” for common land. This can be
considered as another step to empower the villages, to encourage self-sufficiency and community
level governance. Another issue is to be noted concerning common land. In many states, forest land
devoted to common agriculture (especially in the case of traditional shifting cultivation) is under the
administrative control of Land Revenue Department. Due to this, land used as common land is
recorded as State Land, and therefore not surveyed under Forest Land. And here the problem
between Forest and Revenue Department is again playing in disfavour of its very users. To illustrate
the enormous proportions of this problem, here is an example: “In Orissa, where only 45% of the
forest is under control of the Forest Department, the remaining 55% is under control of the Land
Revenue Department. During the last revision land survey and settlement operation in the State,
[…] the Committee found that hardly 1% of land under occupation of the tribal communities over
centuries was recorded in their favour.”56 Being recognised for such a small amount of land, how
could the argument of tribal presence destroying wildlife even been considered? How could this
argument ever have some power compared to the devastating industrialisation accorded by the State
on Revenue and Forest land by the State itself, for example in Chhattisgarh? One could link this
again with the general prejudice endured by Tribal populations and other forest dwellers in the past
centuries.

As we saw previously, the Act had been modified between 2005 and 2007 to include all forest
dwellers, not only the tribal communities which was a big victory for the social struggle. But still
unfair treatment remains in the Act between the scheduled tribes and the other forest dwellers:

“'other traditional forest dweller' means any member or community who has at least three
53 Ibid., Chapter II, 3.(1)(h)
54 Ibid., Chapter II, 3.(1)(k)
55 In Ambiguities, Incongruities, Inadequacies in Scheduled Tribes and Other Technical Forest Dwellers (Recognition
of Forest Rights) Act 2006, A Case For Constructive Engagement, by B K Roy BURMAN, 29 March 2008
56 Ibid.

17
generations prior to the 13th day of December, 2005 primarily resided in and who depend on the
forest or forests land for bona fide livelihood needs.
(Explanation – For the purpose of this clause, 'generation' means a period comprising of
twenty-five years.”57 )

While a member of a Scheduled Tribe has to prove his appurtenance to his tribe, an “other” forest
dweller has to find proof for 75 years of forest inhabitation. For one who has already been in one of
those villages, it is easy to realise how incredibly precarious this task can sometimes be!
Furthermore, why should the other forest dwellers, who are often outcastes and who suffered the
same miserable treatment as the Adivasi, be disadvantaged in this process? Could this be another
way to limit the positive impact of the Forest Rights Act? A way to reduce the number of “pattas”
given by an almost impossible task of proof, to guarantee that the Indian Government is not going
to loose too much of its forest lands?

Despite the doubts one can have concerning the true motives of the government in releasing this
Act, one must admit that, on a legal basis, there is a real rehabilitation for forest dwellers and forest
“users” for livelihood purposes. In fact, the Act amends two topics that led forest dwellers to legal
issues of the past: the case review of displacements and evictions without compensation priori 13 th
of December 200558, and the availability of “nistar” rights and use of minor forest produces, which
are supposed to clear most of the “forest offences” cases still pending in court. It is very clear by this
Act that what has been done wrong in the past has to be repaired in order to make forest dwellers
free to enjoy their land and livelihood.
To end this brief presentation of the rights (and some ambiguities of those) contained in the Forest
Rights Act, the writer must underline the fact that the Central Government is planning, in the Act
itself, the possible diversion of forest land for the “facilities managed by the Government”59, and
this expression contains all the public services that a village today should be able to enjoy: access to
education, drinking water, proper roads, health care, etc. We will see in this report that if the
possibility of diverting land exists (though permission should be obtained from Gram Sabha
before), it is rarely used to fulfil basic needs of the villages.

57 In The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, in The
Gazette of India, New Delhi, 2nd January 2007, Chapter I, 1.(o)
58 Ibid., Chapter I, 1.(m)
59 Ibid., Chapter II, 3.(2)

18
II. Analysis and results of the survey done in May and June 2010 in 17 villages in
Chhattisgarh : the implementation of the Forest Rights Act on the ground

The current survey was conducted at two different periods, from 10 th to 16th of May and from 20th to
22nd of June 2010 in 16 villages60, each one below poverty line. Each time the villagers gathered at
the call of the local Ekta Parishad activists to participate in the questionnaire process. To facilitate
the process of comparison, the questionnaire used during the interviews was kept the same from the
beginning to the end of the process, even though a few adaptations were made that correspond to
the realities of the field while the interviews were going on. One village was added to this survey,
even though the interview took place in a rather informal way, with no official gathering of people,
the village being not considered as “officially existing” : Petli Banjari is a village in Kawardha
district, existing only since 2005, and founded “illegally” by a pastoral tribal community. As the
writer had the time to ask most of the questions of the questionnaire to the present people and as
this particular case of itinerant, tribal communities is mentioned in the Forest Rights Act, it seemed
interesting to add this case study to the panel.

Thus the total panel of villages is of 17, situated in 7 different districts 61, giving a broad picture of
various cases through Chhattisgarh. A brief analysis of the official websites and the figures of the
2001 Indian Census reveals that these 7 districts have a lot in common, and very few differences.
All of them are situated in the central and/or northern parts of the State and are divided between
plain fertile lands and hilly dryer lands. Forest lands are covering a large part of the districts (for
example, 58% of the total area is covered by forests lands in Surguja District), except in Raipur
District where a big area is covered with farming plain lands and industrial plants, particularly steel.
All districts possess highly valuable mineral resources, which are extensively exploited by private
and state industries:coal, bauxite, lime stone, gold, granite,diamond, aluminium...Timber, steel and
power plants are also very common in Chhattisgarh. Korba district presents itself as the “Powerhub
of Chhattisgarh, land of Black Diamond, Kosa Silk and Thermal Power”. In each district there is a
large majority of rural population, more than 80% of the total population depending on land
cultivation. The level of illiteracy (much higher for the women than for the men) tops sometimes
above 60% (68,9% in Surguja District). Except for the very dense populated district of Raipur,
which has a total population of more than 3 millions individuals, the other districts contain an
average population of 1.5 million. Kawardha is the least populated with around 5 lakhs 62 only. For
the districts that post these figures on their official website (which is not the case of Mahasamund
district), the proportion of Scheduled Tribes in the total population varies between 20% and 55%,
while the proportion of Scheduled Castes in the total population varies between 5% and 13%. It is
interesting to note that the official website of Korba District mentions the percentage of Scheduled
Tribes, but not one for Schedules Castes.

The following analysis is divided into 5 different topics, all related to the implementation of the
Forest Rights Act and its related (expected) results. This presentation allows the writer to vertically
compare the answers of the various village groups to the questionnaire, grouping them into common
hot topics related to the Forest Rights Act implementation, furthermore focusing on their impact on
the daily livelihood of the villagers. As the same topics can be found in the Ministry of Tribal
Affairs report and in the report of Mr Saxena, it allows a circular comparison between the three
60 Korba District : Dal Dari Para, Pandari Pani / Mahamsamund District : Khatti, Chhuhidabari / Raigarh District :
Dorro Ama, Tejpur Bhandar-Para / Kawardha District : Bokra Bahra, Bhothi / Jashpur District : Khunta Pani,
Pithaama / Raipur District : Gondlabahra, Madwepathra / Surguja District : Poyadugu, Shivpur, Tarkeshwarpur
61 Mahasamund, Raigarh, Korba, Kawardha, Jashpur, Raipur, Surguja
62 One lakh (Indian counting measure) : 100 000

19
surveys and their respective results. As mentioned previously, the intention of this report is to raise
awareness of the interviewed villagers and their concerns related to the implementation of the act.
In consequence, this analysis focuses as much on factual results as on the collection of expressed
feelings and personal stories of the villagers. Indeed, the oral culture seems to be much more
developed than the written one in most of the visited villages, thus the personal, oral testimonies of
the villagers have to be taken in account as seriously as some purely “facts and figures”
informations.

The following analysis will deal with land rights and empowerment: beginning with the most
known topic of the Forest Rights Act, which is individual land entitlement, then addressing other
topics directly related to the implementation of Forest Rights Act, which are at least as important,
but less famous, like Self-governance, Community Rights, Women and forest land rights,
implementation in Naxalite “affected” areas, and finally concluding with general recommendations
to facilitate the implementation of the Forest Rights Act throughout the State of Chhattisgarh.

1. The promise of land entitlement: myth or reality?

The principal improvement of the Forest Rights Act lays in the possibility to claim land entitlement
for all forest dwellers, tribal and non-tribal people. After centuries of displacement, forced evictions
and living under an illegal status, the Forest Rights Act appears as the promise of rehabilitation of
livelihood rights for the forest dwellers, and the recognition of the fact that the link between forest
lands and forest dwellers is a survival issue, on both sides. Although this land entitlement is not
purely a “property act”, because it involves some restrictions concerning the use of the forest land,
for example; it cannot be sold or given out to anyone other than their heirs, nor can it be used for
profit- making agriculture. Property can only be used only to sustain livelihood needs of the
household. At a first glance it would appear that the Forest Rights Act gives the forest dwellers
back their legal status to their own land ensuring their safety and tranquillity as fully recognised
citizens.

In the context of Chhattisgarh, where forest dwellers are a huge population that has been mistreated
for decades, this act comes as a relieving recognition of long lasting struggles. The State of
Chhattisgarh has extremely rich natural resources, both on and under the ground: this has led to
mushrooming industrialisation and many conflicts concerning land with local inhabitants,
principally forest dwellers. The variety of wildlife has involved the creation of national parks and
sanctuaries : this also has provoked displacements and fights amongst local inhabitants. It is almost
impossible to get an exact figure of the number of people affected by displacements and evictions in
Chhattisgarh, but local feedbacks and enquiries would suppose this number to be alarmingly high,
having all the imaginable terrible consequences on displaced people's lives.

Has the new law improved the situation on land entitlement for the forest dwellers of Chhattisgarh?
Various opinions coexist around this question. In order to obtain a land entitlement, according to the
Rules of the Forest Rights Act, one must file an application mentioning the two spouses names, the
concerned piece of land on a map as well as its dimensions, to produce written proofs of one’s
appurtenance to a tribe in the case the claimer is part of Scheduled Tribes (ST), or 75 years of
occupation of the land in the case the claimer is part of Scheduled Castes (SC).This application then
must be acknowledged and duly verified by the Gram Sabha, with the help of government officers
to make the enquiries, and then transmitted to several levels of authority, finally being accepted or
rejected at the State level. Of course this is a simplified and broad picture of the very complex and

20
long procedure that a villager must go through in order to file a claim.

As the question was raised during the interviews in the villages concerning the availability of land
entitlements for the villagers, the first doubts concerning the serious implementation of the Forest
Rights Act appeared. Indeed, of 2667 households interviewed, only 984 applied for land
entitlement. The major reason given for others not applying is that they occupy revenue land, not
forest land, or that they did not encroach forest land. Still, only 36,9% of the households applied,
which leaves numerous questions concerning the majority of others. Could one of the explanations
be a lack of information? Of
100
984 applications, only 242
90 households finally obtained
80 land entitlement, which gives a
rate of 24,6% approval rate.
This seems to make quite a
70

60 difference with the figure

Ekta Parishad
50 Report alleged by the Ministry of
40 Ministry of Tribal Tribal Affair's report, which
Af f airs Report presents a very optimistic
30 result (compared to other
20 States) of 44,15% of land
10
entitlements distributed in
Chhattisgarh. This is even
0
more surprising when it is
Percentage of pattas given
clear to this writer that the
interviewed villages had the
support of Ekta Parishad workers, thus a better access to information and application filing than
other villages.

The same report of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs presents the State of Chhattisgarh as a leader in
matter of implementation of the law, asserting the fact that 100% of the applications received up to
May 2009 have been disposed of by 28th February 2010. This would be an excellent result if only it
were realistic, fore only a small percentage (24,6%) of villagers who were informed about the result
of their application actually received land entitlement. The majority claim to have received no
information whatsoever concerning their application. Thus 75,4% of the villagers are still waiting
for information and an official 100
notification. 90
Even more disturbing is the fact that 80
there is no written official answer if the 70
application is rejected. Therefore it
60
would seem that there is no official Ekta Parishad
50
record of the rejections, making it Report
40
impossible for the concerned people to Ministry of
30
exercise their right of appeal. This lack Tribal Af f airs
report
of information on behalf of the
20

government, deliberate or not, is a 10

denial of the villager's basic rights. Mr 0
Number of Numbers of
Saxena, in his report observes: applications applications
“Decisions of rejection has not been treated still pending
communicated in writing, with the result
that the people have not been able to exercise their right to appeal. A proper format needs to be

21
designed for the sake of uniformity, allowing them to appeal to the next higher authority.”63

It is even more interesting to note that this discrepancy between this survey and the figures of the
state seems to be repeated in Madhya Pradesh, as it is made clear though the report of Mark Lewin :
“This therefore means of the 655 individual claims for patta made by the 429 households that are
members of the Ekta Parishad organisation in the ten villages surveyed, only 111 claims have been
accepted, which represents only 17% of the total claims made. This clearly contradicts the official
figures being released by the state of Madhya Pradesh in the quarterly status reports on the
implementation of the Forest Rights Act, with the reliability of this data being clearly suspect. It
states that for the figures up to 31st May 2010, with respect to the 343,148 individual and
community claims received up to May 2009, being the month of an announcement of a special
drive, 89,035 titles were distributed; 243,510 claims rejected; and 332,545 claims disposed of,
representing 96.91% (GoI, 2010).[...] As it is being reported that only one in four claims are being
accepted and three in four claims are being rejected, it seems reasonable to ask as to how many of
the pending survey sample claims have been rejected with the claimants having not been
informed?”64

Another discrepancy between myth and reality becomes apparent when one looks at how
information is disseminated regarding application deadlines. The State of Chhattisgarh claims to
dispose all given applications, which confirms that an official deadline to file the applications
actually existed. This raises fear among many of the villagers who, for very various reasons, the
most important being the lack of previous information, did not file the applications in time. Forest
officers would appear to fuel these doubts among villagers by spreading rumours as to missed
deadlines and “too late” scenarios. However, the Forest Rights Act states that in fact the Gram
Sabha has the power to delay the deadline for applications as long as necessary. This is completely
overlooked for whatever reason by most of the villagers. As previously, Mr Saxena observes in his
report: “Many deserving claimants could not file their claims in time, but the village officials and
the Forest Rights Committee are not entertaining new claims, under the belief that the last date
prescribed by the state government, which was 31st December 2009, is over. Although the law has
given powers to the Gram Sabhas to extend the time for filing applications, it appeared that even the
district officials would feel comfortable if the State government issues a clarification on this point,
and permits them to invite fresh applications.”65 Moreover a representative of the State of
Chhattisgarh gave to Mr Saxena the explanation of the extraordinary rush of the disposal of the
applications, ensuring that the results would be reconsidered : “The Chief Secretary admitted that
the entire campaign was launched with a view to complete the work by August 2008, because of
elections that were due a year later. Hence the focus was on speed rather than on quality. He agreed
to take steps as suggested by me to improve people's satisfaction, and to ensure that genuine
occupations that have been left out or rejected are recognised and given titles as per law.”66

It has to be highlighted, that if 75,4% of the villagers still waiting for information in this survey
have actually been rejected in their applications, the number of rejections is extremely high. As no
information has been given, no explanation for the rejections has been made. Considering the lack
of proper enquiries in the field and the often bad relationship between villagers and local
government officers, this is no wonder. In 15 cases out of 1767, villagers declare that they do not

63 In Implementation of Forest Rights Act in Chhattisgarh, N.C. SAXENA, unpublished, page 11

64 In Implementation of the Forest Rights Act in Madhya Pradesh, Evidence from Case-Studies, by Mark LEWIN on
the behalf of Ekta Parishad, Summer 2010, Bhopal, page 29
65 Ibid., page 1-2
66 Ibid., page 12
67 Declarations made in the following villages : Shivpur, Tarkeshwarpur, Khunta Pani, Pithaama, Tejpur Bhandar-Para,
Dal Dali Para, Pandari Pani, Chhuhidabari, Khatti, Gondlabahra, Madwepathra, Bokra Bahra, Petli Banjari, Bhothi

22
trust local government officers and/or local authorities. The villagers expressed their grievances
concerning officers refusing to take their applications into account, pretending the deadline was
already over. Government officers, especially forest department officers appear to be a true
obstruction to the realisation of Forest Rights Act at local level. Villagers claim that in some cases
government officers informed them that they have obtained land entitlements, but that these
entitlements will distributed “later”. This notion of “later” is at best an ambiguous date but in most
cases completely non existent! To compound matters, some of the officers ask for bribes in
exchange for land entitlements. This kind of behaviour seems to be quite common, as shown in Mr
Saxena’s report and in this survey.

A regular complaint concerning land entitlement via Forest Rights Act in the villages is recorded
concerning differences in treatment between tribal and non-tribal people 68. As a matter of fact,
proving inhabitance of land during the last 75 years seems an almost impossible task for the “Other
Traditional Forest Dwellers”, which are most of the time SC populations. As mentioned previously,
the transmission of culture and archives in most of the villages is not based on writing, and the
precarious houses make the conservation of paper documents very difficult. The culture of
archiving and filing reports, still very basic ones, after meetings, seems to be only quite recent. No
written documents appear dating 75 years back. The lack of written evidence leads to the fact that
very few SC members succeeded in obtaining land entitlement. In the current study, none of the
land entitlements given were for SC people. As it is visible on the report of Mr Saxena, zero land
entitlements were given to SC members in the whole district of Bastar! If it can be considered as a
victory that the SC at last had a right to claim forest land, (this being not included in the first draft
of the law) there is still a huge inequality between ST and SC on this issue. What then justifies this
difference of treatment? Is it a matter of prejudice or does it have a historical explanation?

Another extremely frequent problem mentioned in the implementation of Forest Rights Act
concerns the size of the allotted land. In fact, almost all of the land entitlements given mention a
much smaller size of land than the one requested. In most cases the household gets only half of the
land claimed. Generally the pieces of land claimed are around 5 or 6 acres ( far from the maximum
4 hectares mentioned in the Forest Rights Act), and the effective land entitlement mentions less than
2 acres. This amount of land is barely sufficient for the survival of a household as according to the
workers of Ekta Parishad. Among all the villages present in the survey, only in one people asserted
that the allotted piece of land matched with the claimed ones. As usually, for the others, there is no
explanation, at least no official, written one, explaining this recurrent gap between claimed and
allotted land. It seems obvious that officials deliberately allocate less land by choice. However
what is the reason behind these systematic discrepancies? Mr Saxena explains that the translation of
the act is inaccurate and misleading: “Area mentioned in the title in many cases was less than the
area occupied. In fact, most applications do not mention the area under occupation, because of a bad
translation from English to Hindi of the Form-A, prescribed under rule 6(1). For instance, the
phrase 'extent of forest land occupied' was translated as 'Adhibog ki gai bhumi kaa vistaar', which
was not correctly understood in the villages, and hence this column in many applications was left
blank. Besides, the occupied area was not scientifically measured. The map given on the title deed
is very rough and sketchy in many cases, though I did see some good maps at the back of the title
deed.”69 If the translation is really the explanation of that gap--although this seems difficult to
believe because the situation is identical each time: less land than claimed--then it should be
possible to review all these land entitlements in favour of the claimants. Nevertheless, if this is a
deliberate decision to allocate less land than what is requested then it is necessary to ask for an

68 Declarations made in the following villages, obviously where SC are concerned : Khatti, Shivpur, Tarkeshwarpur,
Khunta Pani
69 In Implementation of Forest Rights Act in Chhattisgarh, N.C. SAXENA, unpublished, page 2

23
explanation, and eventually to re-examine all applications. The stakes are high for survival of a
household that depends solely on the amount of cultivable land. Again it has to be noticed that the
results of the study of Mark Lewin in Madhya Pradesh are quite similar on this issue : “Of the 111
claims that have been accepted, only two acres of land is being granted on average, despite the fact
that five acres of land is being claimed for on average.”70

Although the survey used in this report did not discuss the issue of industries and land allocation to
villagers, this subject was reported during the meeting with Mr Saxena, on 27 th of May in Tilda and
therefore it seems important to the writer to include this topic in the report. The State of
Chhattisgarh would appear negligent in the implementation of the Forest Rights Act: when
regulating an industry versus village conflict: “Raghuveer who was chairman of the Forest Rights
Committee in village Jurda, district Raigarh, said that despite applications pending under the Act,
government transferred forest land to industry, although the area is under PESA, and Gram Sabha
had opposed the proposal.”71 In the development framework of Chhattisgarh, the priority is
systematically given to industries, regardless of the Forest Rights Act. Nevertheless it seems that
since the 24th of August 2010, the Government of India has given back hope to its forest dwellers
with the rejection of the Vedanta application to mine bauxite in Niyamgiri, Orissa, for the reason
that this mining was done against the decision of the Dongria Kondhs, the local Adivasi tribe, who
consider this mountain as a sacred land and depend on it for their livelihood. Thus this application
was rejected because it was violating the law of the Forest Rights Act, which is a first legal
precedent of highest value being set. After 8 years of struggle, this decision comes with the
implementation of the Forest Rights Act and is considered as a “victory” for all the defenders of
indigenous human rights, from the Campaign for Survival and Dignity to Amnesty International. 72
This decision, pushed by the central government, makes the local states even more accountable, and
it can be expected that it leads the way to a true recognition of the Adivasi rights.

As it was the case before the publishing of the Forest Rights Act, the confusion between revenue
and forest land is still a major issue, jeopardizing the progress of the implementation of the law. The
question must be asked: is ambiguous implementation of the Act intentional or not? As some pieces
of land seem to be claimed or rejected by both the Revenue and the Forest Department, the mystery
remains as to whom one must apply for land entitlement. The sad case study of the village Bokhra
Bohra, district Kawardha, illustrates this situation perfectly. The villagers, all tribal, were displaced
twice from forest villages in the last decades. Their cultural heritage, such as the Bewar agriculture,
was considered as illegal and lost with displacements over the years. Originally a forest tribal
population, they are now located in a revenue village, which they say has a better social scheme
than forest villages, but the link to the forest seems totally lost and they struggle hard to find a new
efficient agriculture process. Their problem today is that the pieces of land they are claiming for are
not identified clearly by the Forest nor the Revenue Department, therefore it appears that they have
been claiming for land under Forest Department as reported by Mr Saxena. However, when this
survey took place they said they had applied to the Revenue Department. In any case neither of the
two departments would give them a clear answer and the population continues to be misled in this
hide-and-seek game. As this village has a PTG73 population, it seems that “all the 15 forms of PTGs
are kept pending, and in some cases forms have been returned to them.”74

The issue of nomadic and pastoral communities leads to a general problem when the entire village
70 In Implementation of the Forest Rights Act in Madhya Pradesh, Evidence from Case-Studies, by Mark LEWIN
on the behalf of Ekta Parishad, Summer 2010, Bhopal, page 29
71 Ibid., page 9
72 For more information, please consult the article of the Guardian in the appendix of this report
73 PTG : Primitive Tribal Group
74 In Implementation of Forest Rights Act in Chhattisgarh, N.C. SAXENA, unpublished, page 8

24
population is concerned. As a matter of facts, the nomadic and pastoral tribes were supposed to
receive special attention in the implementation of Forest Rights Act. Instead they seem to fall into a
complete loophole! “Administration has been callous in villages where PTGs like Baiga live. PTGs
are neither members of the Forest Rights Committee, nor have been allotted titles of the entire land
under their possession. PTGs also fear that administration is in league with the dominant tribes who
will usurp the PTG lands sooner or later.” 75 What to say then about the case of village Petli Banjari,
district Kawardha, founded by a PTG in 2005? As a nomadic tribe they move from land to land and
therefore they do not have any legitimacy over a precise piece of land, and thus they are unable
to claim ancestral rights to marked areas. They are considered illegal dwellers in their village
and are regularly threatened with eviction or destruction of their houses and crops by the local
forest officers. As an illegal settlement they do not have access to any facilities or government
schemes. Nor do they have access to basic amenities such as a well or hand-pump.

It seems that despite the publishing of the Forest Rights Act, the forest dwellers continue to
struggle, maybe even harder than before, for their own land. Most of the applications are not
followed by any kind of information, and one can even have serious doubt concerning the fact that
the villagers knew in the first place that they even had to apply. No process of campaigning has ever
been launched, either at State level or by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. In some cases the
application forms never reached the villages. Disinformation, conscious or not, continues to be
communicated at a local administrative level. One could wonder if the local government officers
have themselves the correct information and the necessary training on how to implement the Forest
Rights Act on the ground. Moreover, this survey calls for further thinking about whether this Forest
Rights Act is really taking into account the past injustices faced by the forest dwellers. Some forest
tribes were displaced several times, what is their legitimacy today under Forest Rights Act,
especially if there is no longer any forest land? How does one repair their fate and bring them back
on track? As for the right to land for nomadic communities, how can one claim precise land
occupancy when one’s culture involves constant moving? How does one claim rights to land,
without denying one’s entire cultural background?

2. Self-governance and empowerment: the road to citizenship is long (and full of potholes)

The Forest Rights Act totally asserts the idea of self-governance and empowerment for the forest
dwellers at village level, notably by leaving the control of the first level of decision-making
concerning common or individual forest rights to the Gram Sabha, a decision-making body
constituted by all the adults of the village. “The Gram Sabha shall be the authority to initiate the
process for determining the nature and extent of individual or community forest rights or both that
may be given to forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers within the
local limits of its jurisdiction under this Act by receiving claims, consolidating and verifying
them[...].”76 Once deprived and mistreated, the villager's assembly suddenly becomes a decision-
making democratic body, where every adult of the community has a word to say and decides for
their own fate. The will of the Indian government appears to make amends on India's past
behaviour towards forest dwellers by giving them, through this Act, the control of the land and
allowing them to be involved in the decision-making process to control the land. Even if the final
decision is taken at State level concerning land entitlements, this still is a laudable effort to bring the
villagers into the process.

75 Ibid., page 8
76 In The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, in The
Gazette of India, New Delhi, 2nd January 2007, Chapter IV, 6 (1)

25
However “empowerment” not only gives the people rights it also gives them duties : “The holders
of any forest right, Gram Sabha and village level institutions in areas where there are holders of any
forest rights under this Act are empowered to-
(a) protect the wild life, forest and biodiversity;
(b) ensure that adjoining catchments area, water sources and other ecological sensitive areas
are adequately protected;
(c)ensure that the habitat of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest
dwellers is preserved from any form of destructive practices affecting their cultural and natural
heritage;
(d) ensure that the decisions taken in the Gram Sabha to regulate access to community forest
resources and stop any activity which adversely affects the wild animals, forest and the biodiversity
are complied with.”77
The concept of duty involves responsibility and accountability, and it is very much asserted in this
section, using as strong notions as “protect”, “ensure”, “regulate” and “stop”. These notions present
the forest rights holder as a ruling authority over the forest land, conferring him almost an
“institutional” power over the protection of forest lands and natural resources.

Moreover, the decision making power at the village level is divided between two bodies, both
functioning in collaboration with the Panchayat : the Gram Sabha and the Forest Rights
Committee : 15 villagers elected by the Gram Sabha, as a representative group of villagers,
involving at least 5 women and one third of Scheduled Tribes members, entitled to receive the
application for land entitlements, draw the maps, proceed to enquiries and deliver a verdict
concerning the applications to the Gram Sabha. The Secretary of Panchayat, who is also present at
Gram Sabha meetings, has to participate in the Forest Rights Committee as an administrative link
and support for the members.

As mentioned previously, it would be unrealistic to believe that a democratic decision-making

process could instantly pop-up after centuries of oppression. Thus there is supposed to be a
monitoring process organised at State level, especially designed by the Tribal department. It is
obvious that both villagers and local administration representatives have to be trained and informed
about the ins and outs of the Forest Rights Act in order for implementation to work properly. “As
per Rule 10, the State Level Monitoring Committee has to devise criteria and indicators for
monitoring the process of recognition and vesting of forest rights[...]. It was for the Tribal
Department in the State to develop qualitative indicators, call large meetings with people's
participation, hold public consultations, put pressure on the Revenue and Forest Departments at the
district level to do justice to the forest dwellers, and improve communication between officials and
people.”78 The use of the NGOs’ local expertise and that of social movements could be a solution
to assure a smoother and more just implementation of the Act.

Today’s process of facilitating and monitoring the link between villagers and local level
administration seems to have completely failed. This survey, as well as Mr Saxena’s report, reveals
that neither local administrative representatives nor people have been informed in any way about
the Forest Rights Act; neither concerning their rights nor concerning the process to claim them. At
least in Chhattisgarh, there have been huge loopholes in communicating, operating and
implementing the whole Forest Rights Act. In many villages, as mentioned in Mr Saxena's report,
the forest dwellers did not receive the application forms to apply for their rights. “Tribal
Development Department in the state, despite being the nodal department, has not been able to

77 Ibid., Chapter III, 5

78 In Implementation of Forest Rights Act in Chhattisgarh, N.C. SAXENA, unpublished, page 3

26
provide leadership to the programme, resulting in very low profile to the campaign. […] The level
of awareness about FRA was extremely weak in villages, making the elected non-officials of the
Forest Rights Committee and the Gram Sabha entirely dependent on the lowest rung of
bureaucracy.”79

During this survey, the writer realised that in 3 villages out of 17, interviewed people were
supposedly members of Forest Rights Committee but did not participate in any meetings due to a
lack of information concerning the dates and locations of the meetings! 80 They claimed that all the
decisions had been taken by the local authorities (mostly Sarpanch 81 and Sarpanch secretary).
However their advice was not taken into account and their signatures were forged. As two villages
in the survey are not concerned by the constitution of Forest Rights Committee, one being a revenue
village and the other not officially existing82, it happens that 11 villages out of 15 in the survey are
not satisfied with the constitution of the Forest Rights Committee in their village 83. In all cases it
seems that the decision-making power, contrary to the aim of the Act, stays in the hands of the local
authorities, Sarpanch and government officers mainly. Mr Saxena notes that the “Forest Rights
Committee had been formed with Lachhuram as chairman, but even the members did not know that
they were members.”84 In Khatti, district Mahasamund, the Sarpanch organised the election of
the Forest Rights committee while the villagers were out at work, he created a fraud committee.
While in Gondlabahra, district Raipur, the President of the Forest Rights Committee asked 500
Rupees in exchange of land entitlements, and the villagers were never informed of meetings and
therefore in no way participated in the decision making process! It has again to be taken in account
that these villages have the support and the informational background of Ekta Parishad workers :
as such they have to be considered as probably more “empowered” than in other villages, and
still a lot of disinformation and struggle is happening concerning power issues at local level...

On the other hand it is very interesting to notice that among the few cases of satisfied villages
concerning Forest Rights Committee and Gram Sabha meetings85, a large majority of the people are
tribal, if not all of them. They have no power issues with an upper class tribe, and, in all cases
except Madwepathra village, women are much more empowered than in other villages. Almost all
are participating to Gram Sabha meetings. In Dorro Ama village the minimum number of women in
the Forest Committee is even slightly overwhelming (7 women instead of the usual 5).
Unsurprisingly it is also in the same villages that most land entitlements have been allocated. It
would appear that empowerment is truly the key to obtain a better livelihood, as the Gandhian
philosophy asserts: more independence and more self-sufficiency in the villages of India...

This remains a noble wish, as in most cases the process of empowerment is not functioning at all.
As a matter of fact, the decentralisation of power at a local level seemingly benefits only people
already benefiting from a powerful position in the village and who act as the right of passage
between village and state. Thus instead of empowering villagers, this process sometimes seems to
unwillingly encourage corruption and oppression. Mr Saxena comments on the Bastar district:
“Although claims for forest rights are to be prepared by the Forest Rights Committees, the
government order dated 8th Feb 2008 asks the Panchayat secretary to seek the assistance of forest
and revenue officials, effectively making it a process controlled and managed by officials instead of

79 Ibid., page 3
80 The concerned villages are following : Khunta Pani, Pithaama, Pandari Pani
81 The Sarpanch is the elected leader of the Panchayat, the village community elected administrative body
82 Bokhra Bora and Petli Banjari
83 The concerned villages are following : Shivpur, Tarkeshwarpur, Khunta Pani, Pithaama, Telpur Bhandar-Para, Dal
Dali Para, Pandari Pani, Chhuhidabari, Khatti, Gondlabahra, Madwepathra
84 In Implementation of Forest Rights Act in Chhattisgarh, N.C. SAXENA, unpublished, page 8
85 The satisfied villages are following : Mridagand, Poyadugu, Dorro Ama, Madwepathra

27
the Gram Sabha, as provided for in the law. People are too simple, or scared (because of fear that
they could be thrown out of their lands at any time) and could not pressure the administration to
report the facts correctly.”86 There is obviously a conflict of vested interests when the forest and
revenue officers are involved in the enquiry process on land entitlement. The conflict that has
opposed forest dwellers and forest officers on land issues for centuries is not going to disappear all
at once, despite the good wills of some. Therefore, it seems unrealistic or maybe even absurd, to put
the fate of the forest dwellers in the hands of their historical opponents once again! Especially
considering that the forest officers apparently were not trained to implement Forest Rights Act: the
purpose of the Forest department until now was too “protect” the forest land from “encroachers”,
and now the same officers have to ensure the settlement of these “encroachers” on forest land. A
minimum of training, monitoring and control would be required to fulfil this extraordinary mission!
Again, it is not clear if the mistakes are done willingly or not, -although corruption at the local level
is an undeniable reality--but in the end the results of the process are dramatic : “While at Jagdalpur, I
saw the record of one village Kosmi, where almost all the applications were rejected on the ground
that their possession was after the due date. I requested the Collector to do a joint verification with
some representatives from the people and check, because just now the rejection was based only on
the report of lowest level officials. He informed me on the 29th of May that in about 100 cases
rejection was inappropriate, based on the false notion of the cut-off date being 2003, and not
2005.”87 If this is the case in only one village, one can imagine the number of false rejections at the
level of Chhattisgarh State... And this is without mentioning the bribes and other mistreatments that
are definitely power issues and highly jeopardizing the empowerment process at village level.

As it is true that information is power, it is even truer that disinformation or lack of information is
total disempowerment! This appears as one of the main problems of the implementation of the
Forest Rights Act at village level, for the lack of awareness and legal information amongst the
concerned villagers leaves them in their current status of silent victims. Moreover, in some cases
they have received such false information that they were completely unaware of having been
taken advantage of!

This is also made clear in the report of Mr Saxena, even in a survey, where the villagers
are supposed to be more empowered than elsewhere because of the Ekta Parishad presence.
Answers to his survey were vague in relating to self-governance: the village groups did not
seem to understand the importance of their participation in Gram Sabha meetings, and in 10
villages of 15 they had no information about them88, or they do not attend for unclear reasons. In
all, the interviewed villages the groups attested their will to be trained, but their priorities on training
topics seemed unclear, most of the time circling around agriculture and irrigation issues. In only 2
villages89, groups demanded training for management, empowerment and legal information. In 2
other villages90, it appeared that their only way to get access to valuable information was through
Ekta Parishad trainings. As mentioned previously, there is an obvious link in successful cases
between empowerment of villagers (including women) enjoying the self-governance process and
gathering of land entitlements. Logically, the opposite is true, and lack of information, training and
education keeps the villager's head under the water, leading them to an even more critical livelihood
situation.

Another point worth noting is that villages considered illegitimate do not have any access
whatsoever to a self-governing process, seeing as official recognition is a first necessary step to
the empowerment of villagers. In the whole of Chhattisgarh one can see the absurd situation of a
86 In Implementation of Forest Rights Act in Chhattisgarh, N.C. SAXENA, unpublished, page 6-7
87 Ibid., page 5
88 Villages with no information about Gram Sabha meetings : Shivpur, Tarkeswarpur, Khunta Pani, Pithaama, Tejpur
Bhandar-Para, Dal Dali Para, Pandari Pani, Gondlabhara, Bokhra Bara, Petli Banjari
89 Villages demanding training on empowerment issues : Khunta Pani and Bhothi
90 Villages which concern Ekta Parishad as their only source of training and information : Pithaama, Dal Dali Para

28
number of censused “unhabited” villages (emptied because of sometimes accepted and most of the
time unwilling displacements), while other villages, like Petli Banjari in district Kawardha, which
is densely populated, is left out of the census. Non-recognition leads to maintaining villagers in a
very unstable and uncomfortable situation, which prevents them from claiming any rights. This has
actually been the general situation of forest dwellers for at least the last 150 years: was the Forest
Rights Act not designed to change this situation? Again, the question rises about pastoral communities:
what shall be proposed to adapt the law to these particular cases? The discrepancy between promises
outlined in legal text compared to the reality of what is actually practised seems to widen more and
more over the years: “No priority in practise has been given to PTGs and nomadic tribes, as
prescribed in Rule 8(b). The Chief Minister, in a meeting on 17 th March 2008, had desired that special
attention be given to this group, but it has not been translated in actual practise.”91

The actual improvement of self-governance at the villagers’ level, defended so nobly by Gandhi and
translated into words by the Forest Rights Act, remains at ground zero, with only a few rare success
stories existing. Lack of interest by the State in the monitoring process leads to lack of training and
information at ground level, and therefore denies empowerment instead of encouraging it. Far away
from being dissolved, corruption continues to creep forward amongst some local government
officers who, in some cases, are even encouraged by careless higher level authorities. What is the
even more perverse effect of this Act, is that villagers can now be held accountable for the
protection and the preservation of the forest land and its natural resources, without being given any
of the means to actually fulfil this. One can hope that this is not going to be the next “forest
offence” pretext to mistreat the forest dwellers. As it is said previously in this report, Mr Saxena
reported one case of a village where State government actually diverted land to a private industry,
during the FRA land entitlement enquiry and despite the opposition of Gram Sabha. This tells as
much about the State's will to effectively empower the villagers as about the fact that villagers
obviously do not have the power to oppose a State decision, even if this decision is
jeopardizing the conservation of forest land.

3. The complete crash of Community Rights

In every document explaining the principal guidelines and achievements gained through the Forest
Rights Act, Community Rights are often cited, recognised as an essential part in the livelihood
improvements promised to the forest dwellers. Community Rights places the importance of land
rights at a common level, going one step ahead of the individual land entitlements, allowing forest
dwellers the common use of forest lands and the right to forest produces for livelihood means, as
well as the possibility for the community to claim habitat, individual and/or common claims of used
territories. By recognising the Gram Sabha as a self-governance body, Forest Rights Act recognises
the assembly of the villagers as empowered and able to make decisions for their own territory. The
Community Rights are a logical step to follow in the empowerment process, legalising a practise
that has been existing since ancestral times and offering a chance to control and rationalise the use
of these common lands, for grazing, common cultivation, etc... Moreover, by becoming the property
of the village, the common property lands are protected from abusive and/or authoritarian use by the
Forest Department, and are considered officially as land only to be used in the vested interests of all
the villagers. This constitutes a major gain for forest dwellers while a huge loss of power for the
Forest Department. Therefore it was necessary to launch a wide-spread information campaign about
this matter, in order for villagers as well as forest officers to understand fully their rights and thus
avoid disputes during the implementation process.

91 In Implementation of Forest Rights Act in Chhattisgarh, N.C. SAXENA, unpublished, page 2

29
The State of Chhattisgarh appears once again as an example of good practice in the Ministry of
Tribal Affairs Report, as it asserts that the “Creation of Awareness about the provision of the Act
and the Rules” is “going on in a large scale”.92 Although this sentence is vague, it states that
information is widely disseminated throughout the State. One can only regret that no specific
information is required in this report concerning the implementation of the Act regarding Community
Rights.

In the present survey it appears that only 2 villages 93 out of 17 applied for Community Rights. This
may not be so surprising when one takes into account the fact that, in most of the villages, people
are unaware of the very existence of Community Rights. In all the villages visited, none of villagers
received any official forms to apply for Community Rights, or any other related information. When
the question was raised during the interviews, the writer noticed that the translator had to explain the
question for some time before the villagers understood what Community rights were. Again, as the
interviewed villages benefit from advice given by Ekta Parishad workers, one can suppose that the
situation is even worse in other less informed villages. This is a very damaging situation, for
villagers all agree that they would like to apply for Community Rights, except that in 2 villages 94
where apparently there are no common lands, which doesn't prevent them from applying for
other Community rights.

Moreover the implementation of Community Rights fails totally when the interviews reveal that
amongst the 2 villages which applied for Community Rights, neither received land entitlement, nor
any kind of information concerning the status of their applications. This seems to be a recurrent
situation through the State of Chhattisgarh, as Mr Saxena’s report also highlights the “lack of action
on community rights” as a priority.95 Mr Saxena even goes one step further when he asserts the
following: “The state government admitted that almost no action has been taken under sections 3(1)
(b to m).”96 One can deeply regret that the State government divulges no information about this lack
of action. Perhaps this is due to the fact that this specific point of the Act does not seem to be
important enough to be mentioned in the Ministry of Tribal Affairs Report: is this due to
forgetfulness or intention?

In 6 villages out of 15 (two of the interviewed villages are not concerned by Community Rights 97),
forest dwellers mention disputes over the control and use of the common property land within the
village boundaries. In 398 cases, the problem is that land is taken over by powerful persons inside
the village. In the Tarkeshwarpur village this person is the Sarpanch himself. These persons are
described as “powerful” by the villagers, and as denying them access to the land. Most of the
villagers are fearful of these powerful people and do not speak out. As this common land is not
officially entitled to the village, the situation seems to be helpless, despite the claims made by the
villagers. The two other cases concern use of the Common land by the local administration, without
the consent of the Gram Sabha. In the village Dal Dali Para, District Korba, 7 to 8 acres of common
land have been taken over by the Forest Department for its own purposes. In the village of Khatti,
District Mahasamund, the Forest Department planted getropha on the common land in 2000. Even
though the plants on this land are now dead, the Forest Department still keeps a fence around the

92 In Status report on implementation of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of
Forest Rights) Act, 2006 [for the period ending 28th February, 2010], Government of India, Ministry of Tribal
Affairs, page 7
93 Villages which applied for Community Rights : Chhuhidabari, Poyadugu
94 Villages with no common land available for Community Rights : Bhothi, Gondlabahra
95 In Implementation of Forest Rights Act in Chhattisgarh, N.C. SAXENA, unpublished, page 1
96 Ibid., page 1
97 Villages not concerned at the current time by Community Rights : Bokhra Bora and Petli Banjari
98 Khunta Pani, Tejpur Bhandar-Para and Tarkeshwarpur

30
field and denies the villagers access to it. The villagers have submitted many complaints to the local
administration and even to the Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh, but nothing has changed. It has to be
noticed that this same piece of land is also in dispute between the Forest and the Revenue
Department. This of course does not help the villagers who remain victims of this confusion. In
another case the inhabitants of Pithaama, a village in the District Jashpur, were chased away from
what they believe to be their common land by neighbouring villagers who argued that the land
belonged to them.

As a conclusion, it can be stated that in almost half of the cases, the uncertainty of entitlement
concerning Common land leads to great misunderstandings, conflicts and abuses from local
authorities or other parts. The establishment of a clear land entitlement for this Common land could
be a real solution to stop these belligerent behaviours, as it was suggested in the village of Dorro
Ama, District Raighar: “The relationship with nearby villages and local administration are much
better since pattas99 were given.” Unfortunately the people of the village Dorro Ama refer only to
individual pattas, as community rights have not been achieved in any of the visited villages. Their
example shows how the Act could be achieved if only it were properly implemented. One positive
impact is that nistar rights and access to forest produces are recognised. It would appear that in at
least in 16 of the interviewed villages100, that all the pending forest offences cases have been
recently withdrawn. This is a small, but undeniable success for the forest dwellers.

4. The Forest Rights Act, an opportunity to create and/or strengthen gender-based equality?

The situation of rural women and their access to land entitlements remains today a problematic
issue. In many traditional rural areas of India and South Asia men head the household and control
property land titles. Women are entirely dependent on the men of the family for their survival and
livelihood despite the fact that it is the women who do most of the agricultural work. Part of this
explanation is due to the fact that women are traditionally not allowed to plough, and therefore are
not officially recognised as “farmers” and thus are unable to have effective control and property of
arable land. “Men-folk generally do the ploughing, and even though women generally do twelve out
of the fourteen farming operations in the cultivation of the paddy, they are not considered 'the
farmers'.”101 This creates a real obstacle for women's empowerment as it leads them to greater risk
of physical and moral insecurity and individual poverty. Moreover, the fact that rural women are
often loaded with daily work, and are discouraged from any contacts with their male counterparts
(if not severely restricted) due to traditional societal codes, they lack the information needed in
order for them to participate in decision-taking processes in their villages. A lack of information
and a lack of education prevents them from getting a job outside of agriculture, and pushes them to
remain as “non-recognised farmers”. This lack of recognition is even more damaging when “the
percentage of de facto female-headed households is already large and growing. Estimates for India
range from 20 to 35 percent.”102 Besides the fact that land entitlement confers security against
poverty, because of the permanence of the asset, it can also be resource-generating if properly used.

99 Patta : land entitlement under the Forest Rights Act

100With the notable exception of village Poyadugu, where 12 cases were still pending on the day of the interview. But
they were supposed to be disposed of in court one month after. It should be important to verify the actual withdrawal
of these cases.
101In Women and Land Issues, Notes Prepared for Kanti Singh, Minister of Women and Child Development, For
Presentation at the Women and Land Meeting, Patna, Bihar, October 7th and 8th, 2004, Page 3
102In Are we not Peasants too? Land Rights and Women's claims in India, by Bina AGARWAL, published by Seeds,
2002, page 3

31
Many studies103 actually assert that women have a greater knowledge and managing capacity
concerning agro-biodiversity. This is probably linked to the fact that they traditionally do most of
the agricultural work. However they are not allowed to participate in the actual control of the land
which in turn limits their average income and productivity for the total household.

The situation of women's empowerment seems to be slightly better in the tribal systems than in the
caste-based societies in India. Tribal women are considered a more crucial part of the household,
thus having a more significant role when making household decisions, although their access to land
entitlement remains very poor. As it is already very difficult to get access to land entitlement for the
tribal men, and even more so for the women. Ironically the Forest Rights Act is built to facilitate the
accession to land entitlement as mandatory “joint entitlement”, mentioning both the names of the
husband and the wife as equal claimants. The concept of “joint entitlement” exists in Indian law
since 1980, but Indian women had to wait until 2001 to see it actually implemented for revenue
land entitlements. The Forest Rights Act includes entitlement of forest land, and thus asserts the
concept of gender-equality within the household. In the villages surveyed and where Ekta Parishad
has been active on women's empowerment issues, the concept of “joint entitlement” seems to be a
success. All the land entitlements effectively received are, “joint entitlements”, except for in one
village, where no “joint entitlement” has been given (the 4 land entitlements given in the village of
Pandari Pani, district Korba, are all male-headed, which is a complete violation regarding the Rules
of the Forest Rights Act). If the village of Pandari Pani is an exception in the scope of this survey,
Mr Saxena’s report asserts that this is a rather common practise in the villages of Chhattisgarh :
“Wive's names has been left out in many cases, although section 4(4) of the Act prescribes that the
title should be in joint name.”104 This difference of results asserts the impact of the work of social
movements and NGOs in villages regarding women’s empowerment.

Moreover it appears clearly in the scope of this study that in villages where women are empowered,
the villagers have better results in obtaining land entitlements. These villages are 100% tribal.
There seems to be a correlation between women participating actively in Gram Sabha meetings, and
Forest Rights Committees, and the effective gain of land entitlements; as illustrated in the villages
Mrigadand, District Sarguja, Dorro Ama, District Raigarh or Chhuhidabari, District Mahasamund.
“Here empowerment is defined as a process that enhances the ability of disadvantaged ('powerless')
individuals or groups to challenge and change (in their favor) existing power relationships that place
them in subordinate economic, social and political positions.” 105 It would appear that the above
mentioned villages have understood and practised the Ekta Parishad concepts of “strength by unity”
and “strong and united family household”. In these villages empowering women within the
household frame is a way to strengthen and develop their livelihood, and empowering women at
village level is a way to gain legitimacy and counter-act power in issues opposing villages with
local administration or local authorities. The same villages also have had good results in gaining
land entitlements for single women, mostly widows and non-married women, because they are
conscious that land entitlement is a necessity for a single woman's livelihood.

The opposite is true: despite the actual will of empowering women by making it mandatory that a
minimum of one third of the members in the elected Forest Rights Committees at village level be
women, it appears that in most of the villages that this mandate is not followed and that these Forest
Rights Committees are a fraud; women are not actually participating, even if their name is on the list
of members.106 The regular discrepancies between policy and practise in Indian laws are obviously
103Elson 1995, Agarwal 2002
104In Implementation of Forest Rights Act in Chhattisgarh, N.C. SAXENA, unpublished, page 2
105In Are we not Peasants too? Land Rights and Women's claims in India, by Bina AGARWAL, published by Seeds,
2002, page 7
106Villages where Forest Rights Committees are not properly implemented : Shivpur, Tarkeshwarpur, Khunta Pani,

32
not helping the process of women's empowerment. Even when women obtain land entitlement or
official right to participate in decision processes, their rights are not guaranteed if implementation is
not closely followed. It is therefore essential to make sure that the law does not remain a noble wish
when it clashes with societal habits and traditions. For example, despite the fact that the village of
Khatti, District Mahasamund, is influenced by the work of Ekta Parishad, the men of the village
apparently “forgot” to summon the women of the village for the questionnaire meeting, and they
mentioned that only 25% of the women participate to the Gram Sabha meetings, moreover only
when “women issues” have to be discussed! The writer asked them if all of the villages’ issues were
not common issues, because the women were not a minority in the village. The answer was rather
vague and the men appeared embarrassed. If this village is to be considered as an exception, it
remains true that in most of the villages, most of the women are not participating in the Gram Sabha
meetings, both because men are not summoning them and, most probably, because women do not
feel empowered enough to consider that their advice is of any importance. In the cases where there
are Gram Sabha meetings, 12 out of 17 villages, 8 villages do not count more than 50% of the
women who participate in them107. The explanations given are various, either the meeting place is
too far away, or that women are too “shy”, or that one adult woman per household is enough to
participate in the discussions (this last argument was related by a woman of the village
Gondlabahra, District Raipur). It also should be noted that in almost all of the interviewed villages,
women participated much later in the questioning than the men because they were working in the
forests to collect tendu leaves, thus missing most of the questions. It is thus extremely important to
watch and control the implementation of laws when womens' empowerment and land rights are
concerned, as recommended by Bina Agarwal: “First, there is a difference between the legal
recognition of a claim and its social recognition, and between recognition and enforcement.
[...]Second, there is a distinction between ownership and effective control.[...] Third, we need to
distinguish between rights vested in individuals and those vested in groups.”108

Regarding the issue of group entitlements, the possibilities offered by the Community Rights in the
Forest Rights Act could constitute a real advancement for women's empowerment, as it encourages
the constitution of women's groups. As women already take care and are responsible for almost all
the common issues of the village, it would appear logical and theoretically beneficial for women
and the entire community to hand over the responsibility of Community Rights to the women of the
village. Most of the interviewed villages seem to agree, even though after sometimes quite long
debates amongst themselves and with the translator, , that at least theoretically, the Community
Rights could become a way to own and control land and/or natural resources for women groups.
This way, “[...] women are not just adjunct workers on family farms; they have direct control over
production and distribution.[...] The arrangements enable women to gain access to land through
market or through the community – access that women rarely have as individuals. Where linked
with land pooling, joint investment, and collective management, these arrangements can also help
overcome any problems of small size and fragmentation.[...] It would also circumvent the problem
of outside-village marriages, since women's rights would be based on residence. In 1995, when the
author [Bina Agarwal] asked a number of women elected to village panchayats in Madhya Pradesh
which arrangement they felt might be most advantage to women – individual titles, joint titles with
husbands, or group rights with other women – most strongly supported the idea of group rights

Pithaama, Tejpur Bhandar-Para, Dal Dali Para, Pandari Pani, Khatti, Gondlabahra
107Villages where not more than 50% of the women are participating to Gram Sabha meetings : Poyadugu (10% of
women participate), Shivpur (only 6 or 7 women participate, and they are “shy”), Pithaama (only 50% of women
participate), Tejpur Bhandar-Para (15 to 20 women participate), Dal Dali Para (3 or 4 women only particpate),
Khatti (example given in the text), Gondlabahra (10 to 15 women go, 1 woman per household only), Madwepathra
(20 to 25 women only participate)
108In Are we not Peasants too? Land Rights and Women's claims in India, by Bina AGARWAL, published by Seeds,
2002, page 3

33
(Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister's consultation meeting in 1995 on the state's proposed Policy for
Women).”109 Of course, this seems to be the ideal solution, and is wanted by both women and
community, but as no Community Right has been implemented for now, it sadly remains as an
unfulfilled dream.

The Forest Rights Act is clearly a gender-equality oriented law, and it appears to reveal as much as
to the actual women's empowerment in the villages, as to what future empowerment for women
could look like. The Act generates many debates and thus awareness on women's rights. The study
on Forest Rights Act's implementation in the villages draws a direct connection between successful
development of a village and empowerment of its women. These examples should be considered by
those who still believe that a society can evolve properly without including women in the decision
making process. When properly implemented the Forest Rights Act has successful results in
assuring gender equality. However, seeing as it is still and sadly only rarely properly implemented,
the Act itself reveals dysfunctions in society concerning gender equality in the loopholes of its
implementation.

5. State of Chhattisgarh versus Naxalites: what about the collateral damages on

the implementation of the Forest Rights Act?

Two years ago, in 2008, Eleanor Curtain made the following description of the State of
Chhattisgarh in the introduction of her report concerning the life of Adivasis: “[...]Green and
peaceful Chhattisgarh is densely forested in its undulating northern and southern regions and
famous for its fertile 'rice bowl' centre.”110 Nowadays the use of the word “peaceful” connected to
“Chhattisgarh” seems everything but adequate, for the fights going on between the Naxalites and
the State have destroyed any notion of tranquillity and the State sinks every day a little more into
an unending cycle of massive violence. In Ekta Parishad’s last newsletter dated from July 2010, the
following definition of Naxalism can be found: “The movement is composed of young and landless
marginalised farmers, Dalits and Adivasis. The goal of Naxalites is to 'organise the peasants to
create land reform by using radical means'. Indeed, the militants often use violence, including
killings, bombs, train and bus attacks, blackmail, riots and extortion to obtain what they want.” 111 In
Chhattisgarh, the State’s answer to counter these acts of violence is above all military. Naxalism is
considered a major threat to the State's stability, and conflicts result in intense displays of force,
including operations like “Green Hunt” and “Salwa Judum”, that often end up in bloodbaths.

More than anything else, this “war” between the Naxalites and the State is affecting the poor,
namely the Adivasis and Dalits peasants living in the so-called “affected” areas. Caught in the
middle between a rock and a hard place, the forest dwellers are the first collateral victims of this
conflict, and remain as a silent, deprived majority. Constantly suspected by both parties of possible
treason and under constant fire of brainwashing and forced commitment, the forest dwellers try to
survive on the battle field and protect the few things they have left. The “affected” districts (9 on 18
in Chhattisgarh112) are non-right zones, and have no access to government welfare schemes, despite
the fact that these places are probably the areas where these schemes would be most useful. Defined
as areas of “structural violence”113, the “affected” areas are densely forested, extremely rich in
109Ibid., page 23
110In Injustice and Inequality, The experience of Adivasi Communities in Northern Chhattisgarh, PES Analysis, by
Eleanor CURTAIN, for Ekta Parishad, september 2008, section l
111In Understanding better what Naxalism is, by Morgane DAGET, Ekta Parishad Newsletter, July 2010
112Figures given by the team of Chhattisgarh Ekta Parishad activists
113In Green reasons for red rage, by Richard MAHAPATRA

34
natural resources and inhabited by the poorest of the poor in India, Adivasis and Dalits landless
peasants, struggling for survival for decades, if not centuries.

Therefore it is no wonder that a political movement that fights for land reforms is met with much
popular support in these areas. People who are already struggling for their survival every day join
this kind of battle with not much to lose and everything to win, at least so it seems. The State’s lack
of action in the areas of rights and social welfare to aide their poorest population leaves behind a
giant gap into which Naxalites have jumped. It would appear that Naxalites indeed helped the local
populations recover some of their rights. “ […] In the forest areas of Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh,
the Vidarbha region of Maharastra, Orissa and Jharkhand, the Naxalites have led the adivasis to
occupy forest lands that they should have enjoyed in the normal course of things under their
traditionally recognised rights, but which were denied by government officials through forest
settlement proceedings […]. While the government remained indifferent to the need for paying
minimum wages to the adivasi tendu leaf gatherers in Andhra Pradesh the Naxalites by launching a
movement have secured increases in the rate of the payment and picking.”114 Due to the states’
neglect, as pointed out in the Report of the Planning Commission dealing with the subject in 2006,
it would appear that the states have unwillingly created, if not encouraged, the spreading of
Naxalism within their boundaries: “[...] the culpability of the state in denying the poor their basic
rights, the treachery of a corrupt bureaucracy to implement the laws and its complicity with a
trigger-happy police to suppress popular protest”115. Despite these accusations, the Planning
Commission's judgement is far from partial, as it is severely critical towards the Naxalites: “[they]
'are engaged in a violent fight against the state for overpowering and overthrowing it', and who, they
[The Planning Commission] feel, 'exploit the situation for their own political gain by giving the
affected persons some semblance of relief or response. Thereby they tend to legitimise in the eyes
of the masses their own legal or even illegal activities.”116

The Forest Rights Act, which should come as a promise of relief to all the forest dwellers of
Chhattisgarh, went unheeded in the “affected” areas. As it is mentioned in the Ministry of Tribal
Affairs’ Report concerning Chhattisgarh : “Problems/Remarks: Out of 85 blocks, at least 40 blocks
are affected by naxalism and this has slowed down the pace of implementation of Forest Rights
Act”117. “Slowed down” is an artless euphemism for “not happening at all”, as it appears unveiled in
the report of Mr Saxena : “In 917 villages of Bastar division alone there has been no action because
of 'Maoist occupation'. The total number for the entire state is not known. These cases should be
taken up as and when the security situation improves.” 118 It would appear that in this case that the
vested interests of the Naxalites and the villagers are not the same; the presence of the Naxalites'
activities is actually preventing the forest dwellers from getting their rights recognised. If this
situation persists the forest dwellers’ fate will be dragged into a bottomless abyss. The Campaign
for Survival and Dignity pushes the emergency alert button in its joint call for the restoration of a
democratic space: “We believe in and stand for the mass democratic struggle of the working people
for social transformation. From this perspective, the damage is not limited to this offensive and the
devastation it is wreaking. More insidious but much long lasting is the destructive impact this
militarisation is having on the democratic space for people's struggles. This militarisation is not
limited to Operation Green Hunt. Even outside this offensive, the government has consistently used
its force against all democratic formations and those who speak the language of people's rights; it

114In On the Naxalite Movement : A Report with a Difference, by Sumanta BANERJEE, an EPW article
115Ibid.
116Ibid.
117In Status report on implementation of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of
Forest Rights) Act, 2006 [for the period ending 28th February, 2010], Government of India, Ministry of Tribal
Affairs, page 7
118In Implementation of Forest Rights Act in Chhattisgarh, N.C. SAXENA, unpublished, page 3

35
has thrown the Constitution to the winds. The CPI(Maoist) has also engaged in indiscriminate
physical attacks against those who are of a different political allegiance, and has often shown little
tolerance for those who are engaged in other movements or who are critical of them. The turning of
vast areas of the country into war zones, where all else is subordinated to the perceived military
needs of the government or the CPI(Maoist), is unacceptable. It constitutes a betrayal of the values
that both the CPI(Maoist) and the government claim to believe in. For this reason above all, there is
an urgent need at this moment to restore basic democratic norms in the conflict zones.”119

To finally ensure the implementation of Forest Rights Act and all the other welfare schemes for the
forest dwellers in conflict areas, it is indeed necessary to restore a democratic debate and a peaceful
atmosphere. But it is difficult to create a landscape of tranquillity when this area is mined with
struggles to survive and structural poverty. Therefore a third way has to be found, as proposed by
Ekta Parishad in an article featured in its latest newsletter concerning a conference over non-violence
as a response to violence. This article makes several proposals and declarations that were sent to the
Leader of the Congress Party, Mrs Sonia Gandhi:“The participants also commented that there
should be a middle path of non-violence between state and rebel violence. Suggestions such as
long-term poverty reduction strategies; working with youth in diverting them from joining violent
movements; mass mobilisation campaigns like the Janadesh 2007; as well as creating favourable
public opinion for non-violence among middle-classes were some of the solutions provided.”120

As a matter of fact, it is only by creating favourable conditions for proper implementation of land
reforms, as targeted in the Forest Rights Act, and effective social policies, that the roots of the
Naxalites’ movement can be tackled as it was proved decades ago in the State of West Bengal: “But
what was crucial to the Naxals being doomed for decades to a future consisting mostly of sipping
tea and smoking bidis in College Street while plotting revolution, was the fact that in its early years
the Leftist Front succeeded in putting together the first credible land reforms programme the country
has seen. It will come as no surprise that the IAS officer who was instrumental in implementing the

119In Halt the Offensive Against People and Take Steps for Restoration of Democratic Space, Joint Statement of Forest
People's Movements, by Campaign for Survival and Dignity:
(consisting of the following State federations)
Madhya Pradesh Jangal Adhikar Bachao Andolan
Jangal Adhikar Sangharsh Samiti (Maharashtra)
Bharat Jan Andolan (Jharkhand)
Campaign for Survival and Dignity - Orissa
Jan Shakti Sanghatan (Chhattisgarh)
Adivasi Mahasabha (Gujarat)
Jangal Jameen Jan Andolan (Rajasthan)
Orissa Jan Adhikar Morcha
Campaign for Survival and Dignity - Tamil Nadu
Adivasi Jangal Janjeevan Andolan (Dadra and Nagar Haveli)
National Forum of Forest Peoples and Forest Workers:
Adivasi Banihar Shakti Sangathana (Chhattisgarh)
Nadi Ghati Morcha (Chattisgarh)
Jharkhand Jangal Bachao Andolan (Jharkhand)
Chattisgarh Jan-ban Adhikar Manch
Birsa Munda Vu-adhikar Manch (Madhya Pradesh)
Patta Dalit Adhikar Manch (Uttar Pradesh)
Kaimnoor KShettra Majdoor Sangharsh Samittee,Sonebhadra,UP
Ghad Kshettra Majdoor Sangharsh Samittee,Uttarakhand
National Forum of Forest People and Forest Workers (North Bengal Regional
Committee)
120In Response to Violence : Strengthening Non-Violent Action Gandhi Bawan, Bhopal, July 13th-14th, 2010, by Jill
CARR-HARRIS, in Newsletter Ekta Parishad, July 2010

36
reforms – Mr Debabrata Bandyopadhyay – was the man who headed the committee instituted by
Planning Commission”121.

Despite the fact that the State of Chhattisgarh has all it needs to restore a peaceful atmosphere
within its boundaries, such as effective pro-poor reforms of the Forest Rights Act and as proposals
of non-violent dialogue and expertise by movements like Ekta Parishad, it fails to implement it properly
for the time being. As there are currently proposals to help in restoring dialogue with the Naxalites, one
can only hope that the government will not turn a blind eye to the good will of these movements. As
every passing day brings with it more battles and blood, it is hopeful that reasonable and efficient
measures will be taken as soon as possible.

121In Talk to Naxals; Focus on Development, Land Reform , by Suhit SEN, Senior Editor, The Statesman

37
 CONCLUSION

As the writing of this report comes to an end, the 63 rd birthday of India’s Independence is celebrated
with joy and pride in the State of Chhattisgarh. The biggest democracy in the world has achieved
much in the last 63 years, but some major issues are still pending and lead with every passing
day to a more crucial point. Mistreated forest dwellers and landless peasants continue to fill the
slums around the cities, creating an enormous belt of misery and desperation around each Indian
metropolis. With less and less dignity and more and more struggle to survive, the poorest of the
poor in India are still, more than ever and contrary to all of Gandhi's wishes, a growing silent
majority. In rural India, where more than 70% of the population is still living, the situation is just as
desperate, peasants depending on land for their livelihood are struggling to survive, victims of
vicious circles of injustice, inequality and corruption that deprive them from every right from their
birth to their death. In forested areas the situation is even worse, the forest dwellers who have been
threatened for centuries because of their appurtenance to Scheduled Tribes or Scheduled Castes, live
on territory which is prey to both the State and private industries, as it is extremely rich in natural
resources. In the State of Chhattisgarh, where this last statement is particularly true, conflict with
the Naxalites only compounds their difficulties, leading forest dwellers to live in unbearable
conditions, adding war to daily misery, effective violence to structural violence. There is an
emergency today to propose and implement land reforms in India, as this is a first and compulsory
answer to tackle the structural poverty and misery that affect all landless peasants and forest
dwellers. The Forest Rights Act is an extremely good example of a pro-poor land rights reform, and
it has been thought in that purpose. But a law is impotent if it is not implemented properly; it seems
that the Forest Rights Act only rarely fulfils its promises, at least in the State of Chhattisgarh.

Still the first quality of the Forest Rights Act is to make the State government officially accountable
for its implementation. This is a sure way to assert the rights of the forest dwellers, and particularly
to restore their status as real citizens of the State and, furthermore, of the country. The Forest Rights
Act is a tool that has to be used, by both the State and its citizens, to act out all of its virtues.
Although for the past two years the Rules of The Forest Rights Act has been recklessly
implemented it is not too late now to make the best out of the Forest Rights Act, as it can be
seen in the Vedanta decision in Orissa. It is the role and purpose of social movements like Ekta
Parishad and other NGOs to make sure that the process will be controlled and monitored in the best
interests of the forest dwellers. Thus this report will conclude with several proposals and
recommendations, the writer being fully conscious that it is easier to assert these recommendations
behind a computer desk than to implement them effectively. Still the writer does firmly believe that
much can be done today to raise the bar and return the land to its rightful occupants and caretakers.
The focus has to be put on information and awareness, as well as on reopening all the cases that
have been treated wrongly until now. Corruption must be seriously tackled at a local level by taking
drastic measures and a true open dialogue needs to occur from both sides in the Naxalites Vs State
conflict in order to ensure the welfare and protection of forest dwellers in the “affected” areas.

The lack of awareness appears as a major obstacle to the implementation of Forest Rights Act
throughout the State of Chhattisgarh. The lack of information and training both on the side of local
administration and on the side of the concerned beneficiaries, resulting from the poor commitment
from the State, can still be encountered. As Mr Saxena highlights in his report, much should have
been done to make the Forest Rights Act understandable and usable: “In districts like Bastar, where
people are unaware of the details of government instructions, and cannot even speak Hindi, there
should have been concerted efforts towards IEC through involvement of civil society and
professional organisations. Instructions in simple Hindi and Adivasi dialects should have been

38
drafted, with FAQs. Pamphlets should have been distributed in the local dialect for creating
awareness. Radio programmes should have been organised. Initiative for a strong IEC should have
been taken by the state Tribal Directorate, as district administration on its own may not be able to
find funds for hiring suitable organisations.”122 It is not too late today to launch a proper information
campaign to raise awareness about Forest Rights Act, especially if this campaign incites villagers to
still apply, making this an official step to stop the ongoing rumours. As this kind of awareness
campaign has already been accomplished at local level in some places by social movements and
NGOs like Ekta Parishad, it is obvious that the State of Chhattisgarh could and should make the
best of these networks and expertise to build its own information campaign, which could perhaps be
decentralised.

As it seems that it has been officially promised to Mr Saxena, the State has to: one, re-open all the
cases of land rights application that have been wrongly rejected; two, implement proper enquiries
on the ground and seriously monitor the process of those; and three, make sure that vested interests
at local level do not taint or obscure the process. If the rejections are effectively proven, there needs
to be a written answer to the claimant explaining the rejection motive. Without a written answer, the
claimant is unable to appeal and thus unable to have his rights fulfilled. Civil society and social
movements can help the State with problematic cases in their zones of influence.

If land entitlements are effectively given to the claimants, explanations have to be given to them
concerning the size of the allotted land. As it appears in the various enquiries, most of the given
land entitlements are largely undersized compared to the claims, which were almost all far under the
limit imposed by the Forest Rights Act. There is a much work to be done in order to re-open all
these cases and/or submit to the claimant a reasonable explanation concerning the diminution of the
size of the land, again, this must been done in written form. As it appears that the land allotments
given for now are far from sufficient for the livelihood of a household, this work has to be done as
soon as possible. The lack of adequate land seriously jeopardizes the self-sufficiency of the
concerned households, this being completely opposite from what the Forest Rights Act intended to
provide for forest dwellers.

An information campaign would need to include a large part for Community Rights, which have
been totally ignored in the implementation process up to now. The Community Rights are an
essential part of the Forest Rights Act, if not the most important, regarding altogether the livelihood,
the cultural identity and the self-governance of the forest dwellers: it is the key to forest dweller's
empowerment as a community, which is particularly important in the tribal system. Though the
writer is still not sure why these rights have been so completely ignored up to now, the important
point is today to spread awareness widely about these rights.

Speaking of empowerment, a special focus has to be done on women's empowerment, as it is

obvious that this subject is often forgotten in land right issues, and leads women to terrible struggles
for survival. This subject is also important to discuss because it appears that a community with
empowered women has better results in the general implementation of the Forest Rights Act, as
probably in other welfare schemes. Gender-equality focused trainings and support to Self-Help
groups could do a great deal to contribute to women's empowerment, thus to the villages'
development. As unity has to be considered as the strength of the household, it is thus capital to
verify that the concept of “joint entitlement” is implemented properly all over the State.

The self-governance process proposed by the Forest Rights Act seems far from ideal for the
moment, but this is to be of no surprise, given both the lack of information and the corruption at

122 In Implementation of Forest Rights Act in Chhattisgarh, N.C. SAXENA, unpublished, page 7

39
local level. Thus these processes need to be secured by outsiders such as NGOs or social
movements, in order to ensure that self governance actually exists and is democratically
constructed. Corruption necessitates a larger scale action, which would be to clarify and redefine the
vocations of the Forest and the Revenue Departments, to implement a change in the mentalities of
the workers by organising trainings and sensitisation programmes, and finally to take decisive and
drastic measures against the officers who are proven corrupt. Without these kinds of strong actions,
all processes of local implementation of the Act will be spoiled before they even begin.

Regarding the implementation of Forest Rights Act, particular care has to be given to the fate of
pastoral tribal communities, and communities that are rootless due to being so often displaced:
neither proper solutions nor actions have ever been taken for these communities, even though it is
promised to be a State priority. Again, a consultation of activists working at the grassroots level
could be very useful to understand the ins and outs linked to these kinds of situations, and thus
propose adequate solutions.

The Naxalite “affected” areas appear as a loophole in the implementation of Forest Rights Act in
Chhattisgarh. A re-established dialogue with these non-law zones is a priority to ensure the security
of the concerned forest dwellers. As it seems that implementing land rights and social welfare
programmes in these areas has proven to be successful in the past, it would be interesting for the
State of Chhattisgarh to invest at least a part of its military budget in social improvement
programmes. Such actions would in all probability restore peacefulness in the State and prevent the
Naxalites from imposing themselves as the only ones acting for the villagers' rights and welfare.

Rajagopal P.V., President and Founder of Ekta Parishad, said in a meeting in Tilda, District Raipur,
last 7th June 2010: “There is a third way in between silence and violence: active non-violence.”
There is a way for the State of Chhattisgarh to get out of the dead-end it has driven itself into
concerning the poor implementation of the Forest Rights Act within its boundaries. Social
movements and NGOs are willing to share their network and expertise to help succeed in this
process. It is in the interest of all parties, and particularly the one of forest dwellers, to make the
best out of the Forest Rights Act and restore their citizenship and security to the poor of India.

40
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Official publishings

The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, published
in The Gazette of India, New Delhi, Tuesday 2, 2007

Rules for recognising the forest rights and occupation in forest land in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other
traditional forest dwellers residing in such forests, published by Government of India, Ministry of Tribal Affairs,
the Gazette of India, New Delhi, 1st January 2008

Status report on implementation of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of
Forest Rights) Act, 2006 [for the period ending 28th February, 2010], published by Government of India, Ministry
of Tribal Affairs

The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

The Indian Forest Act, 1927

Documentation

Ambiguities, Incongruities, Inadequacies in Scheduled Tribes and Other Technical Forest Dwellers (Recognition of
Forest Rights) Act 2006, A Case For Constructive Engagement, by B K Roy BURMAN, 29 March 2008

Are we not Peasants too? Land Rights and Women's claims in India, by Bina AGARWAL, published by Seeds, 2002

Community Charter on Climate Crisis, Outcome of an Indiawide participatory initiative, published by People's
Coalition on Climate Change, Hyderabad, 2009

Covering the Republic of Hunger, by Ammu Joseph, 30 january 2006, in www.indiatogether.org

Enquiry into the Violations of various Provisions of Panchayat Extension into Schedule Areas Act, 1996 in
Raigarh District of Chhattisgarh, 26/28 July 2006, Report of the Planning Commission Land Resources
Department of Ministry of Rural Development, Ministry of Panchayati Raj

From Rice Bowl to Industrial Grazing Lands... voices from the villages after industrialisation, prepared by
Ramesh CHANDRA SHARMA and Sheeba CHOUDHRY, for Ekta Parishad, New Delhi, 2006

Gandhiji's Autobiography – Abridged, Abridged by Bharatan KUMARAPPA, published by Navajivan Publishing

House, Ahmedabad, 1952, 2007 (second edition)

Green reasons for red rage, by Richard MAHAPATRA

Halt the Offensive Against People and Take Steps for Restoration of Democratic Space, Joint Statement of Forest
People's Movements, by Campaign for Survival and Dignity

Implementation of the Forest Rights Act in Madhya Pradesh, Evidence from Case-Studies, by Mark LEWIN on
the behalf of Ekta Parishad, Summer 2010, Bhopal

India's Forest Rights Act – The anatomy of a necessary but not sufficient institutional reform, by Madhu SARIN
with Oliver SPRINGATE-BAGINSKI, Discussion Paper Series, Number 45, July 2010, Research Programme
Consortium for Improving Institutions for Pro-Poor Growth

Injustice and Inequality, The Experience of Adivasi Communities in Chhattisgarh, PES Analysis, by Eleanor
CURTAIN, work document for Ekta Parishad, 2008

Key notes on forest dispute, Compiled by Ekta Parishad, Prayog Centre, unpublished

41
Law of Forests in India, Reprint 2002, R.N. CHOUDHRY, Ed. Orient, 2002

On the Naxalite Movement : A Report with a Difference, by Sumanta BANERJEE, an EPW article

Response to Violence : Strengthening Non-Violent Action Gandhi Bawan, Bhopal, July 13th-14th, 2010, by Jill
CARR-HARRIS, in Newsletter Ekta Parishad, July 2010

Struggle-dialogue : tools for land movements in India, Jill CARR-HARRIS, work document realised for Ekta
Parishad, New Delhi, 2005
Talk to Naxals; Focus on Development, Land Reform , by Suhit SEN, Senior Editor, The Statesman

The Fieldworker and the Field : A Village in Karnataka, in Sociological Investigation, eds. MN Srivinas, AM
Shah and EA Ramaswamy, OUP, 1979

The Indian Forest Rights Act 2006: Commoning Enclosures?, by Springate-Baginski, O., Sarin, M., Ghosh, S.,
Dasgupta, P., Bose, I., Banerjee, A., Sarap, K., Misra, P., Behera, S., Reddy, M.G., and Rao, P.T, 2008

Understanding better what Naxalism is, by Morgane DAGET, Ekta Parishad Newsletter, July 2010

Women and Land Issues, Notes Prepared for Kanti Singh, Minister of Women and Child Development, For
Presentation at the Women and Land Meeting, Patna, Bihar, October 7th and 8th, 2004

Writ Petition (Civil) NO.202 OF 1995, on orange area, submitted by Ekta Parishad

Webliography

www.forestcaseindia.org

www.forestrightsact.com

www.empowerpoor.org

www.ektaparishad.com

www.forestrights.gov.in

www.wrm.org.uy

www.fian.org

www.saudigazette.com.sa

www.rightsandresources.org

http://cg.gov.in / http://cg.nic.in

http://surguja.gov.in

http://raipur.gov.in

www.jashpur.gov.in

http://raigarh.gov.in

http://mahasamund.gov.in

42
http://korba.gov.in

http://kawardha.gov.in

www.amnesty.org

www.indigenouspeopleissues.com

www.guardian.co.uk

43
 Appendix 1 : Short descriptions of the villages in the panel :

District Sarguja :

Mrigadand is a village constituted of 62 households, that is approximately 425 people, which are
all part of Pando Scheduled Tribe. They receive no support
from the State to develop their land, but they heard in
January 2010 through the Panchayat that there was a help
scheme in preparation for them. It would be most welcomed
since their land is dry and has no irrigation facilities.
Irrigation and access to drinkable water is a total priority in
this village. The villagers are not satisfied with the
road access, which should be made of concrete material.
They have a primary school since 20 years, but they
demand an elementary school. As there is no dispensary
or hospital in the village, the villagers have to make 2 or
3 km to find a doctor. They have access to electricity since 5 years and are satisfied about
it, and as communication means they have a couple of mobile phones. There is no common system
of storage in the village, except since a village committee was founded by Ekta Parishad : they since
store rice collectively. The Prayog project (Ekta Parishad) also helped them to construct a community
hall, which protected them from 9 furious elephants which devastated the village in November 2009. But
the village has no support from government officers, which don't show any interest in the
development of the village.

Poyadugu is a village constituted of 35 households, that is

approximately 185 people. 29 households are tribal. The
road to the village is very bad, and keeps the village away
from all important communications. The land is
productive but they don't get any support for the
development of the land by the State, although they have
urgent help to get access to water, irrigation, leveling and
bunding, road and electricity. They claim some help from the
local government officers each year but these claims are
ignored. They have had a primary school for 5 years and
are satisfied with the education level. But they have to
cover 5 km on a very bad road to get access to healthcare.
As for the communications possibilites, two people have
had mobile phones since 2 months (May 2010).
They have no common storage system. Before Ekta
Parishad came to the village, 15 years ago, forest
government officers came to burn down lands
and farms : today it doesn't happen any more. Still there is
an emergency on almost every basic facility in the village.

44
Tarkeshwarpur is a village constituted of 350 households, that is approximately 2000 people, 45%
of them being tribal. There seems to be a big power issue with the local Panchayat, denying all
democratic process in the village. The Sarpanch is using
common land for his own interest, the villages complained
about it but nothing is improving. The Sarpanch is said to
abuse women concerning employment. Ekta Parishad is
present in the village only for 4 years, through the young
and dynamic activist lady, Kussum, and it seems that for 4
years people feel a little more united and empowered, but not
enough to overcome the problem with the local Sarpanch.
The villagers get no support for land development, nor any
other kind of development. The priority on development is
needed on irrigation and land leveling and bunding. There is
a road leading to the village, but the quality of it is very bad.
A primary school exists since more than 10 years, and a middle-school since last 5 years : still the
villagers are not satisfied because there are only two teachers, who are not reliable. There is a
primary health centre in the village, but there is no doctor nor any kind of medicine in it : villagers
assert that there is only an old woman cooking there! Therefore they have to make 2 km to the next
hospital, on a road that is barely ok. Electricity is available only for the houses that are next to the
road : this is an unsatisfying situation for most of the villagers. There are some mobile phones but
no land line.

Shivpur is a village constituted of 50 households, that is

approximately 500 people : only 10% to 20% of them are
tribals, the rest are Dalits. It is notable that all the women are
gathered since the beginning of the meeting, which is
generally not the case, and again the local activist of Ekta
Parishad is a young woman, Sumita. Their land is
productive, although they don't get any support for its
development and lack irrigation facilities and land leveling
and bunding. They also would need access to more
handpumps and drinkable water. The roads are covered with
big stones that make circulation both uneasy and dangerous,
especially considering that they have to cover 20 km to the next medical centre! Electricity is
available only in 1/15 of the village, and suffers many power cuts. They have had a primary school for
3 years and are satisfied with the education process. There are no land lines, and only 1 mobile phone
for the whole village. There is no system of common storage.

45
 District Jashpur :

Khunta Pani is a village constituted of 490 households, distributed in several wards. 300 of them
are tribal. Both men and women were participating in the
meeting. There is a dispute concerning land between Forest
and Revenue department going on for the last 15/20 years,
and is still pending today, jeopardising the applications of
the villagers. The land is good for cultivation, and the village
is getting support to develop it from Prayog, but nothing
from the State. Prayog has done a lot of land levelling and
bunding, although they need more and they long for
irrigation facilities. Only two farmers in the village have
private arrangements for irrigation, the rest have no access to
irrigation at all. The villagers applied many times to get a
proper road, the actual one being very bad, but they didn't get any reply. There are primary school,
and for a 3 years middle-school, but it seems that a local powerful person wants to encroach on the
land on which the schools are built. The first healthcare centre is 8km away on a very bad road.
Electricity has been available only for 1,5 months, and suffers very regular power cuts. There is neither
a land line nor a mobile phone available in the village, as well as no common storage system.

Pithaama is a village part of a 13 wards Panchayat of 900 households, a majority of them being
tribals. Only 50 families are non-tribals, including 20 Dalit families. Their land is productive, but
they get absolutely no support to develop it, except the
support of Prayog for land levelling and bunding, but as they
are totally dependent on monsoon, they urgently need
irrigation facilities. They are not satisfied with the road
leading to their village, but it is under construction now, so
wait and see. A primary school is available 1km away, and
the education level is satisfying, but the school building is
very old. They have to cover 15km on a very bad road to
find a healthcare centre. As they only have one handpump
in the village, they need urgently more access to drinkable
water, as well as to electricity and communications (there are
only 2 mobile phones for the whole village). Of course there is no common storage system. There is
a problem with a neighbouring village, Raja Ama, about a common land, which both villages claim
as their own. The villagers of Raja Ama pushed away the villagers of Pithaama which came to
cultivate the land. Prayog is offering the village of Pithaama good support with the opening of a
goatery, but the villagers would like to grow this goatery so that more families can depend on it.
Women of the village claim for support to grow and work bamboo.

46
 District Raigarh :

Dorro Ama is a village of 36 households, that is

approximately 250 people, which are all tribal. As only half
of the land is productive, the villagers really need support for
the development of the land, but they don't get any support
from the State. They need land levelling and bunding, and
they long for more access to drinkable water, since there is
only 1 handpump for the whole village. The road leading to
the village is not satisfying at all. There is no school,
although the villagers claimed many times for it, both to
Gram Sabha meetings and to local administration. The next
healthcare centre is 15km away on a very bad road, but a
lady comes once a month for primary healthcare, and she's good. There is no access to electricity
and only 1 mobile phone, and no system for common storage. Dorro Ama is one of the few villages
which effectively got land entitlement, and the villagers pretend that their relationships with other
villages and local administration are much better since. Since Prayog helped the village to construct
a small dam, the local government officer came by and promised he will give some support to
construct a pond.

Tejpur Bhandar-Para is a village of 95 households, that is approximately 350 people. 75

households are tribal. It has to be noticed that no woman, except the Ekta Parishad worker Gloria,
was present at the meeting. One of the villagers makes a long introduction to the meeting saying
that they are against the policy of cheap rice, because they want to be self-sufficient, they don't want
to depend on the State schemes. Their land is productive, despite the fact that they don't receive any
kind of support from the State for land development. They
would need to improve the land leveling and bunding, as
well as to construct canals for irrigation. For the moment,
only 7 to 8 farmers have access to irrigation by the mean of a
small dam. They have a small pond but only 7 handpumps,
and 4 of them are not working, so the access to drinkable
water remains as a daily struggle. The road leading to the
village is not comfortable at all, and they applied about that
to the local administration and Sarpanch many times. They
applied for a school also, and didn't get any answer. There is
a satisfying healthcare centre in the village. Electricity exists,
but power cuts off all the time. There is absolutely no phone in the village, as well as no common
storage system. It seems that there are some particular problems with the local government officers,
who are said to be asking bribes to the villagers for every service. They are also pretending that it is
now too late to apply for the Forest Rights Act, which jeopardises the application of at least one
villager. It is also said that Jinder Industry Power Plant is illegally taking land, and that the
government is not reacting to that : the villagers are waiting and hoping for a change.

47
 District Korba :

Dal Dali Para is a village constituted of 16 households, that is approximately 65 people, which are
all tribal. The access to the village is not practicable with the jeep, we had to enter it by foot. The
land appears to be productive, but totally depending on monsoon for irrigation. There is a big need
on land leveling and bunding, and access to drinkable
water : for the moment there is only one handpump, and one
other is under construction. Recently government officers
came to take application concerning the road, after many
claims. But 7 to 8 acres of common land has been diverted
by Forest Department for their own purposes, with no
explanation. A primary school was installed in the village 3
years ago, and it is satisfying. The next doctor is at 0,5km on
a very bad road, and sometimes he's not available. They have
applied for electricity but didn't get anything for now. They
do not have landlines, as well as no common storage system.
They have generally no support from the government officers, because the Panchayat itself does not
feel concerned about their claims. Panchayat did not gave them the copy of their applications, so
they have no proof concerning their applications, and some late claimants face the refusal of the
local administration, pretending it is too late to apply now. Villagers are asking for an official
announcement from the State to assert that the process is still on.

Pandari Pani is a village constituted of 35 households, that is approximately 120 people. Only 5
households are non-tribal. It has to be noticed in this village
that the villagers got only 4 land entitlements, but that all of
them are not joint entitlements, which is a violation of the
Forest Rights Act. Land is productive, although they don't
get support for its development, but they would need
irrigation means, land leveling and bunding, and digging
services for a well. The villagers faced a serious disease
(due to polluted water in the handpumps) that was attacking
their bones. They felt very weak and couldn't work
anymore, which jeopardised their survival even
more. The government finally changed the waterpumps and access to
water, but access to drinkable water remains a problem for both human beings and animals. The
road access to village is satisfying, although it is of bad quality. A satisfying primary school was
built in the village 10 years ago. There is no healthcare centre in the village, they have to cover
15km to join the next one, and even there, things are difficult : most of the time, there is no
medicine supply, no doctor available... They applied about that to Panchayat, but didn't get any
answer for now. Only 50% of the village area is provided with electricity, but it cuts off all the time.
There is no land line, but some mobile phones are available. There is no system of common storage.
Again in this village people face the refusal of the local administration to dispose of new
applications, pretending it is too late to apply. Apart from that, only 4 land entitlements were given,
with no joint titles and an improper amount of land : the villagers are complaining and asking for
both more and more reliable information.

48
 District Mahasamund :

Chhuhidabari is a village constituted of 150 households, but the village is divided in several parts.
The part we are visiting is constituted of 19 households, that is approximately 100 people, all tribal.
Although the land is productive, and the villagers get no help from the state for its development,
they would need land levelling and bunding. Also they would need more access to drinkable water :
for the moment there is only 1 handpump available for 19 households. The priority of the villagers
would be the construction of a school : they have to walk 4 km for now to get to the next school.
They would also need a road from village to village.
There is no healthcare centre in the village, but they
benefit from the government program going on in
Chhattisgarh : the “metianin” is a kind of nurse going
from village to village and visiting regularly. They have
it since 3 years, but they are not satisfied because she's
not a doctor and doesn't know how to deal with serious
issues, and doesn't provide enough medicine. Since the
next hospital is 20km away, healthcare remains as a real
problem. Electricity is available since last year, but
when we arrive in the village they suffer a power cut
lasting for the last 8 days! There is no land line and only 1 mobile phone, as well as no system of
common storage. Although they have no support for the moment from government officers, they
expect a lot from them in the future : school, road and pond have to be done, as well as access to
seeds and fertilisers.

Khatti is a village constituted of 250 households, that is approximately 1350 people : 70 households
are tribal, the rest of them are Dalits. It has to be noticed that no woman participates to the meeting
in this village : women generally seem to strongly lack
empowerment here. Although their land is productive,
they have no support from the state to develop it, and
they would need some help to develop irrigation and
land levelling and bunding. Only 4 or 5 farmers have
private access to irrigation, all the rest are dependent on
monsoon. Drinkable water seems to be all right, they
have 10 handpumps and pretend it is enough. The main
road is good but the village to village road is very bad.
They have a primary school since 1977, but they are not
satisfied because the level of education is very poor and
the building is old and precarious. The next healthcare centre is 16km away, but the road to it is
good. Electricity is available in the village since 77/78, but there are power cuts all the time. There
are no land lines, but some mobile phones are available. There is no common storage system. The
government officers are not only not giving any support, but they are also said to demand bribes for
everything. There is a dispute between forest department, revenue department and community about
a common land of the village : in 2000, forest department planted getropha on this land. Now the
crops are destroyed but the forest department left a fence around it and is denying access to it.

49
 District Raipur :

Gondlabahra is a village constituted of 46 households, that is approximately 250 people, all tribal
except 1 Dalit family. Most of the villages are from the Kamar and Gond primitive tribes. The land
is productive, and if they didn't receive direct help from the state to develop it, still there was a
government scheme 5 years ago that sent tractors to help the land levelling and bunding in the
villages. They would still need to develop the land levelling and bunding much more. They are
totally dependent on monsoon for irrigation, but they
have enough access to drinking water : 3 handpumps
and one well. The road access to the village is very bad.
There is a primary school since 10 years in the village.
As the teacher is present at the meeting, it is difficult to
know if the people are really satisfied with the
education level, but at least they pretend to be. They
still do mention that some children do not attend school
because their parents are engaging them for other work.
The next healthcare centre is 18km away on a very bad
road. There are no electricity and no land lines. Some
people have mobile but there is no signal and no possibility to charge the mobile phone. There is no
system of common storage. There is no support from government officers, except the school
teacher, and local administration (the Secretary of Panchayat asked for bribes to give land
applications, this problem was solved by Ekta Parishad activist) is even asking for bribes! The
villagers assert that in some areas, some people are coming from urban areas and they are
purchasing land : this means that villagers will get landless in the future. Villagers are selling their
land for high prices, but they are giving away their means of livelihood. This is happening more and
more all over Chhattisgarh.

Madwepathra is a village constituted of 80 households, that is approximately 400 people, and only
4 households are not tribal : 3 are Dalits, 1 is Muslim. The land is productive, but there is a great
need of land levelling and bunding and irrigation, the land being very hilly. Until now no support
was given from the state for the development of the land, but Ekta Parishad gave some financial
support for land development and fishing. They only
have 4 handpumps in the village, and would need 3
more to get a satisfying access to drinkable water. The
road access to the village is fine, except for 2kms that is
in very bad shape. There is a primary school in the
village since 30 years, and it is satisfying. The next
healthcare centre available is 8km away. Electricity is
available in the entire village since 15 years, and they
are satisfied about it. There are no land lines but some
mobile phones. There is no common storage system.
They have the support of the local government officers :
the dialogue is good and financial support is available too. The Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha
are very active in this village, self-governance seems to be very efficient. Villagers are satisfied
since January 2010, when the new Panchayat was elected. One big well of the village had been in
very bad shape for some time, the villagers decided to repair it collectively without money.
Nowadays this well is very useful for drinking water and bathing. So the new Panchayat decided to
pay money to the villagers for this successful work.

50
 District Kawardha :

Bokra Bahra is a village constituted of 13 households, that is approximately 100 people. All of
them are tribal, half of them from the Baiga Scheduled Tribe, the other half from the Gond
Scheduled Tribe. These people have already been displaced twice, and originally lived in forest
land. Now they live in a revenue village, but the land
around the village is the object of a constant dispute
between revenue and forest land. Thus the villagers
applied for land both to forest and revenue department,
and didn't get any kind of answer for the moment : this
situation is very insecure for them. Land entitlement is
therefore a complete priority for them, to be finally able
to settle down in total legality. They also need some
training about land, pretending that they are looking for
new agricultural ways, because they can not practise
Bewar agriculture any more. Also, like in the other
villages, they need some help to develop land with levelling and bunding. They are completely
dependent on monsoon for irrigation and have only one handpump for the total population : they
would need at least a second handpump to have proper access to drinkable water. Villagers assert
that the water level is going down regularly. The school is 1km away from the village on a very
difficult road, especially in rainy season, thus it is risky for the children. The next healthcare centre
is 7/8km away on a good road. There is no electricity, no land line and no mobile phone. 40 to 50
years ago, when they practised Bewar agriculture, there was a common storage system, but now it is
not the case any more. They applied many times to the government officers for support but never
got any answer, and the actual Panchayat doesn't seem concerned neither. They never received any
form of compensation for their two displacements.

Petli Banjari is a village constituted of 9 households, that is approximately 50 people. They are all
pastoral tribe. The village was created very recently, in 2005, and since then there is a problem of
legitimacy, the village being not officially existing, and no land entitlement being given. Thus the
livelihood conditions are very insecure in this very poor village, where there is no access at all to
drinkable water, neither to any other kind of facility. Villagers assert that forest officers come
regularly to threaten them to leave this land, and to prevent them from cultivation. The village not
being official, there is no Gram Sabha and no Forest Rights Committee. As pastoral tribes are
known to be nomadic, and thus to move regularly from one land to another, this village is a sad
illustration of the complexity of the Forest Rights Act implementation in the specific case of
nomadic tribes. A special effort is supposed to be done in that direction, but for the moment it
remains at ground zero.

Bhothi is a village constituted of 50 households, that is approximately 250 people. 35 households

are tribal, the others are Dalits. This village is situated in
a hilly, densely forested area. The land is productive, but
they need support to develop the land for land levelling
and bunding and irrigation, for they are totally
dependent on monsoon for the time being. Ekta
Parishad / Prayog gave some support for land levelling
and bunding. They only have 3 handpumps in the
village, which is not enough for proper access to
drinkable water. There is also a well but it is empty. The
road is good until the end of the village, but then to join

51
the next village it is very bad. Although there is a school since 20 years in the village, people are not
satisfied by the teachers which are said to be unreliable. There is a private clinic and a primary
hospital nearby, accessible on good road, but people are only partly satisfied, because the medicine
supply is very low and the doctors are said to be unreliable also. Electricity is available since 1995
in the entire village, and is satisfying. There are no land lines, but some mobile phones, still they are
not useful because there is no signal in the village area. There is no system of common storage.
They get no support from the local government officers.

52
 Appendix 2 : Short press release done during summer 2010

All the articles, except the last one, are quoted from The Hitavada, Raipur Edition, and seemed
relevant as a complementary information to this report.

53
54
55
India blocks Vedanta mine on Dongria-Kondh
tribe's sacred hill
• Vedanta accused of flouting environmental regulations
• Vedanta's buyout of Cairn oil interests also faces hurdles

• Maseeh Rahman in New Delhi

• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 24 August 2010 20.03 BST

Future of Dongria Kondh tribe has been secured after Indian government blocked Vedanta's plans to
mine bauxite from the sacred Niyamgiri hills.
After years of controversy and confusion, Vedanta's project to mine bauxite on a forested hill
considered sacred by an ancient tribe has been stopped by the Indian government.
"There's no emotion, no politics, no prejudice," environment minister Jairam Ramesh said as he
announced that Vedanta would not be allowed to mine in the Niyamgiri Hills of the eastern Orissa
state. "I have taken this decision purely on a legal approach – laws are being violated."
Trouble seems to be brewing for the UK-listed Vedanta Resources on another front too – its plan to
buy oil and gas explorer Cairn India for $9.6bn (£6bn) could face regulatory hurdles and a takeover
battle.
Bloomberg and the Press Trust of India reported that not only would the government insist on its
approval for the Cairn buyout, but it may also get state energy companies Oil & Natural Gas Corp
and Gail, India's largest gas transmission and marketing company, to team up for a counter bid.
The immediate crisis facing Vedanta however, is the setback to its plans for expansion in the
aluminium sector.
A government report released last week had accused the group of violations of forest conservation,
tribal rights and environmental protection laws in Orissa.
A panel of forestry experts subsequently confirmed the violations and recommended action against
Vedanta, so the government's decision was expected, despite last-minute intervention by state chief
minister Naveen Patnaik.
Patnaik met prime minister Manmohan Singh to lobby for Vedanta and a steel project by South
Korea's Posco.
Vedanta, which wanted to extract bauxite from the tribal forest, for an alumina refinery it has built
nearby, required clearance from Delhi under the country's forest and environmental laws. It had
provisional environmental clearance , but it failed to clear the final hurdle under laws protecting the
forests and granting rights to local tribal groups.
Vedanta was accused of rushing ahead with the mining project without obtaining the consent of the
tribal groups, a charge denied by the company.
"Our effort is to bring the poor tribal people into the mainstream," Vedanta Aluminium's chief
operating officer, Mukesh Kumar, said.
Vedanta's alumina refinery is sourcing bauxite from other locations in the state, but even here it has
been accused of wrongdoing. Eleven of these mines are said to be "illegal", as they lack
environmental clearance.

56
N C Saxena, who headed the government's inquiry committee, was emphatic in his condemnation
of Vedanta's mining project.
"Bauxite is mined in other countries too but not like this," he said. "It has to be done in a sustainable
manner and no flouting of environment laws should be allowed. And it should not be at the cost of
local powerless people. Why should the poorest lose out?"
The main loser in Orissa would have been the Dongria-Kondh tribe which inhabits the upper
reaches of the hilly forest. The campaign against the mining project had received widespread
national and international support.
"The government has listened to the most powerless people on earth, it very clearly shows that
democracy still works in India," said environmental activist Sunita Narain of the Delhi-based
Centre for Science and Environment.
"The poor are saying that modern development is not giving them a livelihood," she added. "It's an
issue on which the country will have to take very tough decisions. India's biggest constraint to
growth is the availability of land and water."
But the long-drawn-out controversy over Vedanta's mining project also reflects Delhi's failure to
devise an effective development policy for millions of forest-dwelling tribes in central and eastern
India.
"The problem is that in mining projects the rightful stakeholders don't get their share," said Mohan
Guruswamy of the independent thinktank Centre for Policy Alternatives.
"The habitat of the tribal peoples is degraded, their livelihoods destroyed and the women exploited.
What we need is a constitutional arrangement that ensures the tribal groups have a voice and derive
some benefit from development."
The government's refusal to let Vedanta mine bauxite in a forest inhabited by poor tribes is seen as
an unprecedented action in India. In the past, big corporations have usually had their way. Ramesh
is hailed as the first environment minister who takes his job seriously. But the move is raising
hackles not just in industry but among state governments that are keen to back prized projects.
India's financial centre, Mumbai, for instance, needs a new airport, but the proposed site doesn't
have environmental clearance as the project will destroy 400 acres of mangroves protecting the
coast. The Economic Times reports that more than a dozen power projects, including a nuclear
power plant and 55 iron ore mines are stalled in a coastal region south of Mumbai due to
environmental concerns.

57
 Appendix 3 : Essential figures for the State of Chhattisgarh

Figures Chhattisgarh
Total Population 20,833,803 people
Adivasi Population 32,50%
Scheduled Caste Population 12,20%
Total land 1,36,034 sq km
Total forest land 59772,389 sq km
Protected forest land 24036,100 sq km
Reserved forest land 25782,167 sq km
Undemarcated forest land 9954,122 sq km
Number of national parks 3
Number of wildlife sanctuaries 11
Number of forest villages 427
Number of inhabited forest villages 90

All the figures are quoted from the following official websites :
http://cg.gov.in
forest.cg.gov.in

58



,PSOHPHQWDWLRQRIWKH

)RUHVW5LJKWV$FWLQ
0DGK\D3UDGHVK

(YLGHQFHIURP&DVH6WXGLHV

Mark Lewin
for
Ekta Parishad

July 2010
$FNQRZOHGJHPHQWV

7KLVSDSHULVWKHUHSRUWRIDFDVHVWXG\ORRNLQJLQWRWKHLPSOHPHQWDWLRQDQGLPSDFWRIWKH
,QGLDQ µ7KH 6FKHGXOHG 7ULEHV DQG 2WKHU 7UDGLWLRQDO )RUHVW 'ZHOOHUV 5HFRJQLWLRQ RI )RUHVW
5LJKWV$FW¶)5$XQGHUWDNHQE\P\VHOI0DUN/HZLQRQEHKDOIRIWKHRUJDQLVDWLRQ(NWD
3DULVKDG:HDUHWKDQNIXOWRDOOWKHSHRSOHZKRKDYHKHOSHGLQWKHFRPSOHWLRQRIWKHVWXG\
:HDUHSDUWLFXODUO\WKDQNIXOWRDOOWKHORFDOYLOODJHUVZKRNLQGO\JDYHWKHLUWLPHDQGLQVLJKWV
ZLWKRXWZKLFKWKHFDVHVWXG\ZRXOGQRWKDYHEHHQFRPSOHWHG

:H ZRXOG OLNH WR WKDQN 'U 2OLYHU 6SULQJDWH%DJLQVNL DW WKH 6FKRRO RI ,QWHUQDWLRQDO
'HYHORSPHQW 8QLYHUVLW\ RI (DVW $QJOLD 8($ 1RUZLFK 8. IRU NLQGO\ SURYLGLQJ WKH LQLWLDO
GUDIW DQG PHWKRG SDSHUV IRU D SURMHFW LQ WKH ,QGLDQ VWDWH RI $QGKUD 3UDGHVK HQWLWOHG
8QGHUVWDQGLQJWKH,QGLDQ)RUHVW5LJKWV$FWIRUZKLFKKHFRRUGLQDWHGRQEHKDOIRIWKH
IXQGHUV '),' 'HSDUWPHQW IRU ,QWHUQDWLRQDO 'HYHORSPHQW *RYHUQPHQW RI %ULWDLQ XQGHU
WKHLU ,PSURYLQJ ,QVWLWXWLRQV IRU 3UR3RRU *URZWK 5HVHDUFK 3URJUDPPH &RQVRUWLXP 7KHVH
SURYHG SDUWLFXODUO\ LQYDOXDEOH LQ IUDPLQJ WKH TXHVWLRQV IRU WKH FDVHVWXG\ TXHVWLRQQDLUHV
DQGDVDJXLGHIRUWKHSODQQLQJRIWKHVWUXFWXUHRIWKLVSDSHU

:H ZRXOG DOVR OLNH WR WKDQN 'U -RQDWKDQ 3DWWHQGHQ DQG WKH VDLG 'U 2OLYHU 6SULQJDWH
%DJLQVNLERWKDWWKH VDLG6FKRRO RI,QWHUQDWLRQDO'HYHORSPHQW8($IRUWKHLUYHU\KHOSIXO
DGYLFH DQG IHHGEDFN RQ WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUHV DQG WKURXJKRXW WKH SODQQLQJ DQG UHSRUWLQJ RI
WKHFDVHVWXG\

)LQDOO\ZHZRXOGOLNHWRWKDQN,YDQ1XWEURZQ&RRUGLQDWRUDW$FWLRQ9LOODJH,QGLD/RQGRQ
EHLQJ D YDOXDEOH SDUWQHU IXQGHU DQG VXSSRUWHU RI (NWD 3DULVKDG ZKR KHOSHG WR DUUDQJH
0DUN /HZLQ¶V SODFHPHQW ZLWK (NWD 3DULVKDG DQG LQ WKH SURFHVV RIIHULQJ KLP D KLJKO\
YDOXDEOHRSSRUWXQLW\DQGOHDUQLQJH[SHULHQFH

7KH DXWKRU ZRXOG SHUVRQDOO\ OLNH WR WKDQN 1LUEKD\ 6LQJK IRXQGHU RI (NWD 3DULVKDG 0-96
7UDLQLQJ&HQWUHLQ.DWQLDQGKLVDFFRXQWDQW$EKD\.XPDUWKHODWWHURIZKRPDOVRDFWHGDV
D WUDQVODWRU IRU DOO WKHLU YDOXDEOH VXSSRUW DQG DVVLVWDQFH WKH\ JDYH WR WKH ZULWHU ZKLOVW
FDUU\LQJRXWWKHILHOGUHVHDUFKDQGGHDOLQJZLWKDQGKHOSLQJWRVRUWRXWDQ\SUREOHPVDQG
LVVXHVWKDWWKHZULWHUH[SHULHQFHGIURPWLPHWRWLPH

7KH DXWKRU ZRXOG DOVR OLNH WR SHUVRQDOO\ WKDQN 6DQWRVK 6LQJK (NWD 3DULVKDG DFWLYLVW DQG
VWDWHFRRUGLQDWRUIRU0DGK\D3UDGHVKDQGKLVORYHO\IDPLO\LQFOXGLQJKLVVLVWHUDQGIHOORZ
(NWD3DULVKDGDFWLYLVW.DVWXULDIRUWKHLUNLQGKRVSLWDOLW\ZKHQDFFRPPRGDWLQJWKHDXWKRUDW
WKHLUIDPLO\KRPHZKLOVW6DQWRVKZDVDFWLQJDVDWUDQVODWRUIRUWKHDXWKRULQWKH 'LVWULFWRI
6DWQD

$OVR WKDQNV WR 0DULH %RKQHU IHOORZ YROXQWHHU ZLWK (NWD 3DULVKDG IRU RXU QLFH H[FKDQJHV
DQGKHUKHOSIXOFROODERUDWLRQ
2
Contents
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................... 2
Contents............................................................................................................................................ 3
Abbreviations.........................................................................................................................................4
Summary and key findings ................................................................................................................. 5
1 THE PROBLEM............................................................................................................................ 8
1.1 Research approach .......................................................................................................... 11
1.2 Madhya pradesh’s forested landscapes ............................................................................ 12
1.3 Madhya pradesh’s forest peoples..................................................................................... 14
2 VILLAGE CONTEXT.................................................................................................................... 16
2.1 Jamunia Village, Katni District........................................................................................... 16
2.2 Vilayatkala Village, Katni District ...................................................................................... 17
2.3 Chilghaat Village, Damoh District...................................................................................... 17
2.4 Fular and Kutpura Villages, Damoh District ....................................................................... 18
2.5 Maraikala Village, Umaria District..................................................................................... 18
2.6 Padria and Tamuria Villages, Katni District........................................................................ 18
2.7 Dadry (Prakeshnagr) Village, Satna District ....................................................................... 19
2.8 Jhirraha Village, Satna District .......................................................................................... 19
2.9 Sannai Village, Satna District ............................................................................................ 19
2.10 Ludhauti Village, Satna District ......................................................................................... 20
3 THE FRA IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS IN MADHYA PRADESH ................................................... 21
3.1 Awareness and Knowledge of FRA and FRC ...................................................................... 21
3.2 Participation in Gram Sabha and Appointment of FRC Members ...................................... 22

3.3 Invitation for individual claims and verification process .................................................... 23

3.4 Acceptance and rejection of claims process...................................................................... 28
3.5 Orange area dispute ......................................................................................................... 31
3.6 Community Claims/Rights ................................................................................................ 33
4 LIVELIHOODS ........................................................................................................................... 39
4.1 Land as an asset ............................................................................................................... 40
4.2 Rights of access to, use of, and withdrawal of forest products .......................................... 42
4.3 Villagers’ perception of Ekta Parishad’s impact on their livelihoods .................................. 43
5 CRITIQUE OF FIELD RESEARCH METHOD..................................................................................... 48
6 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 51
References ...................................................................................................................................... 54
Local Terms.......................................................................................................................................... 57

3
Abbreviations

CFR Community Forest Resource

CPR Common Property Resources
DLC District Level Committee
FRA Forest Rights Act: in full, the ‘Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest
Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006
FRC Forest Rights Committee
GPS Global Positioning System
MFP Minor Forest Products
MoEF Ministry of Environment and Forest
MoTA Ministry of Tribal Affairs
NREG National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme
NTFP Non-timber Forest Products
PESA Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act 1996 – National legislation devolving
government power in tribal areas
SDLC Sub-divisional Level Committee
SLMC State Level Monitoring Committee
SC Scheduled Caste
ST Scheduled Tribe

4
Summary and Key Findings
The purpose of this study was to review the implementation of the FRA, and to also look
into the impact of the actions of Ekta Parishad in attempting to have the FRA properly
implemented upon the livelihoods of forest dependent people in four different districts in
forested areas of Madhya Pradesh.

“The passing of the FRA in 2006 appeared to presage an historical reversal of the
colonial processes of state marginalisation and oppression of the many millions who
inhabit India’s forested landscapes, and usher in a more democratic era, albeit 60
years overdue” (Reddy et al, 2005b, p.5).

But can one law so easily change the livelihood fortunes of the forest dependent poor?
Considering the minimal political power of the marginalised, and the political might of the
Forest Department institution, that has the most to lose from the proper implementation of
the FRA, what are the realistic chances of really achieving real improvements in the rights
and livelihoods of the forest dependent poor? (ibid).

This paper takes the perspective of forest dependent villages and people to answer this
question, by looking into the actual FRA implementation processes and livelihood impacts,
based on primary research conducted in twelve villages across four districts in July 2010.
This paper presents the findings for the issue of implementation of the FRA, and the impact
of it and Ekta Parishad upon the livelihoods of the villagers.

Madhya Pradesh includes over 12 million scheduled tribes (ST) which are overwhelmingly
rural, with 93.6% residing in rural areas, and over 9 million scheduled castes (SC), with
75.5% residing in rural areas (Indian Census of India, 2001), with a large number of these
living in and around forests. These tend to be the poorest citizens of the state, and the most
heavily dependent on forest resources for their subsistence and survival, with a rapidly
dwindling forest resource base further marginalising these forest dependent populations
(Gadgil and Guha, 1995).

“The FRA does, despite some limitations, contain extensive provisions to

substantially redress most of the forest rights deprivations. However securing
redress depends critically on its implementation, and much of the provisions depend
on the discretionary interpretation of the implementing individuals “(ibid, p.5).

The implementation of the FRA has apparently proceeded quite rapidly in Madhya Pradesh.
According to the official figures being released by the state of Madhya Pradesh in the
quarterly status reports up to 31st May 2010 in the implementation of the FRA (the
reliability of this data is very unclear however there is no alternative source), with respect to
the 343,148 individual and community claims received up to May 2009, being the month of
an announcement of a special drive, 89,035 titles were distributed; 243,510 claims rejected;
and 332,545 claims disposed of, representing 96.91%. It was ranked sixth out of 27 states in
terms of percentage of titles distributed over number of claims received in each state under
the FRA. It also had a status of fifth out of nine states in the implementation of the FRA in
the Left Wing Extremism affected states (GoI, 2010).

5
However this clearly contradicts the research findings of this case-study, which generally
found the processes of implementation of the FRA in Madhya Pradesh to be appearing to be
going a lot slower than the official figures seem to be suggesting, with several distinct
limitations of the process having compounded each other.

Participation in Gram Sabha and appointment of Forest Rights Committee (FRC) members.
In nine of the twelve study villages it was the Gram Sabha (village council) that met to
appoint the members of the FRCs in accordance with the national rules. In these villages it
seemed that it was the villagers at the Gram Sabha that were electing the FRC members,
and not government officials, which is being reported to be happening in some states. This
therefore seems to represent a good democratic process in the formation of the FRCs in
accordance with the national rules. However in the other three villages the colonies that
were members of the Ekta Parishad organisation, all of whom were marginalised from the
political process, reported that they were not invited to attend the Gram Sabha meeting to
appoint the FRC members in clear violation of the national rules relating to the initial FRC
formation.

This is a problem for the FRA implementation as it results in some villagers not being
informed about the FRA process; continuing to be completely unaware of their rights as to
how to apply for patta under the FRA; and marginalised from the democratic process and
denied their democratic rights.

Invitation for Individual Claims. In four of the ten sample villages that were included in the
analysis for this section, none of the households that are part of the Ekta Parishad
organisation received invitations from the FRC to claim for patta (individual plots of land /
deed of ownership) in clear violation of the rules relating to the proper implementation of
the FRA. This is a problem for the FRA implementation as it results in some villagers being
denied the right to apply for patta under the FRA process. Despite these problems, the
overall picture of individual private claims being effectively submitted by eligible claimants is
still quite impressive, with the 429 households of the Ekta Parishad organisation making a
total of 655 claims.

Verification of claims process. Even when the villagers have been able to apply for patta,
their applications do always proceed properly, due to the verification of claims by GPS
(global positioning system) survey in the field not been carried out. Only 252 claims of the
655 claims made amongst the villagers that were part of the Ekta Parishad organisation
have been through the verification process.

Forest Department Obstruction. Other studies have reported that there have been
systematic obstruction and efforts at diversion of the full and proper implementation of the
FRA, particularly by the Forest Department. It has been at the verification in the field by land
survey stage of the process more than any other that has been leading to fundamental
problems for local people to secure their rights, with one reason being that the Forest
Department field staff have significantly interfered with the field survey (Reddy et al,
2010b). After all,

“the Forest Department has been a major perpetrator and beneficiary of the
‘historical injustice’ as it acquired forests unjustly, and is an interested party in the

6
 reforms as it stands to lose control, has been a serious obstruction of the proper
process and as such illustrates its autonomy from the democratic process” (ibid, p.6).

However, in our village survey samples this only seemed to happen in two villages, although
in three of the villages verification has not yet even be carried out, which could well be a
case of the Forest Department subvertly obstructing the legal process. In one village survey
the participants reported that the survey was not properly completed as Forest Department
officials carried it out for a smaller piece of land than was actually occupied and claimed.
Otherwise the remaining village surveys generally reported that not only did the Forest
Department staff not interfere in the process, but were actually quite helpful.

Acceptance and rejection of claims. Of the 655 individual claims for patta made by
members of the Ekta Parishad organisation in the ten of the twelve villages surveyed that
were included in this report for the purpose of analysing the FRA process of
implementation, only 111 claims have been accepted, which represents only 17% of the
total claims made, with 543 claims still pending. This clearly contradicts the above GoI figure
that 96.91% of the claims received up to May 2009 had been disposed of (GoI, 2010).

This shows a serious problem for the FRA implementation, as it seems to be resulting in
some villagers being denied their claims for patta under the FRA process. Furthermore, a
research finding of this study found that even when they are having their claims accepted it
is sometimes for less than what they actually claimed for.

This is happening in villages even where Ekta Parishad are active, so it probably can be safely
assumed that this type of violation of the national rules relating to the implementation of
the FRC is happening on a much grander scale in many villages across both the state and the
country where such organisations like Ekta Parishad are not active and bringing awareness
regarding FRA provisions.

Community Rights. The state government seemed to be focusing mainly on individual

claims for patta, rather than on community claims for the right to gain control, management
and use over the forests that the communities have traditionally occupied. This is a most
serious problem with the FRA implementation as it denies the community of their right to
protect conserve and manage community forest resources for their sustainable use to
ensure their livelihood and food security, as well as having the power to prevent its
destruction.

Livelihoods. The interviews seem to show that even despite a very problematic
implementation process people are getting their rights to individual patta and community
land recognised, and also better access rights to the forest, albeit very slowly. It certainly
seems in our study villagers to be having significant positive impacts upon the livelihoods of
the most vulnerable of the forest dwellers, being the small and marginal farmers for whom
increasing land security is a significant positive impact. However, the proviso has to be
added that the village surveys were carried out in villages that were in the operational area
of Ekta Parishad, so it would be expected to find some improvement in livelihoods in these
villages. If it was not for Ekta Parishad being active in the villages, working with and helping
the most marginalised of the villagers to make individual claims for patta, the overall picture
would in all likelihood have been far less impressive.

7
1 THE PROBLEM

Indigenous people represent one-third of the 900 million poor of the poorest in the world,
one-half of whom live in Asia (Perera, 2009). Social indicators such as life expectancy,
education and health show them to be the poorest. They have insufficient land to grow food
or raise livestock, and few opportunities to learn new skills and improve their livelihoods.
Most indigenous people are socially, politically and economically marginalised, having little
influence on national policies, laws, and institutions that could improve their livelihoods
(ibid). In India, the Indian government prefers to use the word tribal rather than indigenous,
because indigenous can mean original settler, which carries a claim to ancestral territory
(Mitra and Gupta, 2009). Tribal communities have traditionally received little attention in
Indian politics. This voicelessness is one reason why large development projects can so
easily displace them without compensation worth the name and interest from those in
power (Dreze and Sen, 1996).

“An estimated 40 million people have been displaced since 1950 on account of
development projects (power projects, dams, mines and industries). Of these, nearly
40% are adivasis and 25% are dalits. And 75% are still awaiting rehabilitation” (NCAS,
2005, p.27).

“Some 90 million Indians are tribal, less than 9 per cent of India’s population. Yet,
they comprise 56 per cent of India’s displaced people, says N.C. Saxena, member of
the powerful National Advisory Council (NAC), in a note prepared for internal NAC
discussion. Since 1990, says Saxena, roughly 8.5 million tribals have lost their homes.
In roughly the same time, consumption of food grain has fallen up to 15 per cent in
tribal populations under 15. More than half of India’s tribals are illiterate and
malnourished, higher than the national average” (Halarnkar, 2010, p.6).

The situation is slowly changing as tribal communities gradually learn to defend their rights
(Dreze and Sen, 1996).

“Based on a mis-interpretation of court orders on 3rd May 2002 the Ministry of

Environment and Forest (MoEF) issued a directive to Forest Departments to evict all
so-called ‘encroachers’ in a time-based manner. The letter estimated the forest area
under encroachment to be 1,250,000ha across eight states, and asked the states to
remove all encroachments ineligible for regularisation by 30 th September 2002.
Many millions of forest dwellers and forest adjacent populations, who have not had
their rights recognised, became seen under this order as illegal ‘encroachers’ to be
evicted. Evictions were attempted in many states leading to public outrage and
intense conflict” (Springate-Baginski et al, 2008, p.10).

300,000 families across India were evicted (NCAS, 2005).

“According to the MoEF between 2002 and 2004, “encroachments” on 152,000

hectares of forest area were removed” (ibid, p.14).
“After the attempted evictions in 2002 the ensuing uproar radicalised and mobilised
popular movements and a new common cause was recognised between forest
dependent groups across the country. This coalesced into the Campaign for Survival

8
 and Dignity, a loose federation of grassroots organisations and peoples movements
spread across 10 states. Representatives met periodically to review merging issues
and develop strategies of action including organising demonstrations, marches, jail
bharo campaigns, lobbying with local state and central political leaders” (ibid, p.12).

A jail bharo is

“protesters courting arrest and facing detention in order to demand that the basic
livelihood rights of forest dwelling communities be recognised” (CSD, 2005, p.2),

with the idea to fill up the jails and to have the right to food. This outrage and mobilisation
led to the Indian Government enacting the FRA to almost certainly ameliorate the civil
unrest in tribal areas (Springate-Baginski et al, 2008).

The FRA was enacted by Parliament to undo the historical injustice perpetrated by the state
of the insecurity of tenure suffered by tribal communities and other forest dwelling
communities (Bhullar, 2008).

“There has never been a proper survey of the country and its forest land, and rights,
particularly tribal rights, have never been settled across most of it. Although the
tribal cultivation of forest areas has been recognised as an historical practice,
because their rights have never been settled they are treated as illegal encroachers”
(Springate-Baginski and Blaikie, 2007, p.265).

82% of Madhya Pradesh forest blocks that were declared to be government forests under
the Indian Forest Act 1927 were never surveyed to record who lived in the areas, what land
they were using, what uses they made of the forest, and so on (CSD, 1).

Supporters of the act

“regard it as the long overdue recognition of the rights of scheduled tribes to the
lands they have occupied for centuries. It will save them from being treated as
encroachers and evicted for development purposes without compensation as has
often happened in the past” (Mathur, 2009, p.174).

“Without any legal documents to the lands they occupy, cultivate, graze their cattle
on, use for their ‘nistar’ they are extremely vulnerable“(Ramnath, 2008).

The FRA was passed on 18 December 2006 and notified on 31 December 2007, and the
national rules which supplement the procedural aspects of the act were notified on 1
January 2008 (ibid).

The FRA provides for the restoration of deprived forest rights, including individual rights to
cultivated forest land and the collective rights to the control, management and use of the
forests as common property. If implementation can succeed it could improve the livelihoods
of maybe 100 million of the poor of the poorest (Springate-Baginski et al, 2008).

“The main beneficiaries of the FRA will be scheduled tribes and other traditional
forest dwellers, the latter meaning those who have lived in and depended on forests
for their livelihood for three generations – 75 years prior to 13 December 2005.
Essentially, the act aims to provide a framework to record the rights of forest

9
 dwellers, allowing them to cultivate forest land that they occupy, up to a limit of four
hectares per nuclear family, guaranteeing them the right to collect, use, and dispose
of minor forest produce, and ensuring rights inside forest that are traditional and
customary, like grazing and maintaining homesteads“(Mitra and Gupta, 2009, p.204).

The national rules provide livelihood needs as

“fulfilment of sustenance needs of self and family through consumption and/or sale
of produce from forest land or forest-based uses, and stones and fuel wood for
house or household purposes” (Ramnath, 2008, p.38).

“Section 11 provides that the nodal central ministry responsible for implementing
the Act shall be the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA). Initially proposed by the
campaign, this found support from many non-forest bureaucrats at the highest level
who accepted that impoverished forest dwellers were unlikely to receive justice
from the forest bureaucracy as it was an interested party in the reform, having a
range of lands, powers and revenue streams to lose. Contested fiercely by the forest
bureaucracy and hardcore conservationists through MoEF till the end, this is a major
institutional reform embodied in the Act. Through enacting a change in the Central
Business Rules defining the functions of ministries, all powers related to tribal rights
in forest areas have been transferred from MoEF to MoTA, thereby disempowering
MoEF from interfering with the recognition and exercise of forest dwellers rights”
(Sarin and Springate-Baginski, 2010, p.17).

The redressing of forest rights in Madhya Pradesh has significant potential on improving
forest people’s livelihoods,

“and also the legal provisions necessary to defend them in the future” (Reddy et al,
2010a, p.5).

In addition to getting forest land title, tribal communities would subsequently be eligible to
apply for formal loans to get credit for working capital requirements and investment.
Productivity of land cultivated by forest dwellers is low due to factors like the lack of
irrigation facilities. Credit could lead to micro irrigation facilities potentially resulting in both
increased crop productivity and stabilised crop yields. In addition, if land title is given on
forest land for which scheduled tribal households are cultivating, they will become entitled
to land improvements under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Acts schemes
(NREG) (Springate-Baginski et al, 2008).

To raise the quality of forests and the livelihoods and incomes of forest communities there
is a need for measures to assure tenurial rights to the forest (Sarap, 2007). Changed
entitlements to forest through improved tenure security for local communities can
legitimate existing practices of forest use, leading to more productive and remunerative
livelihood activities. However, marginalised and politically weak groups may be excluded
from access to forests in new tenure arrangements, having a detrimental effect on their
livelihood practices, such as being outlawed from shifting cultivation (Springate-Baginski and
Blaikie, 2007).

The Indian government also shows little intention to maintain a serious dialogue with tribal
people (Perera, 2009). The FRA raises questions over the pragmatism of undoing centuries

10
of injustice with just one law, and with the government’s failure to put the law’s directives
into practice with the required procedures and safeguards. Despite coming into force on 1
January 2008 the act

“remains largely unimplemented across India. Tribals continue to be arrested for

accessing minor forest produce, evicted from their land, their huts gutted and even
killed by the forest officials” (PUCL, 2010, p.5).

The act hardly empowers tribal communities, therefore raising the question as to whether
they can enforce and manage their legal rights to land whilst remaining both politically and
economically marginalised. The law is unlikely to make a significant difference without a
constructive engagement between the state and tribal people (Mitra and Gupta, 2009). It
seems only with the support of civil society organisations can the politically marginalised
tribal communities be mobilised to demand for land rights on land which they have
cultivated for decades, and to stop the exploitation of them in forest-related activities
(Sarap, 2007).

1.1 Research Approach

The case-study used a small-scale field survey approach to investigate both of the above
mentioned issues, namely to review the implementation of the FRA, and to also look into
the impact of the actions of Ekta Parishad in attempting to have the FRA properly
implemented upon the livelihoods of forest dependent people in 12 villages in four different
districts, being Katni, Umaria, Satna, and Damoh, in the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh in
July 2010. Ekta Parishad has also simultaneously commissioned another report by Marie
Bohner on the implementation of the FRA, focusing on 17 villages in the state of
Chhattisgarh.

This case-study was undertaken by the author, being a University student from England
whilst doing overseas development work experience with Ekta Parishad in a research role as
part of a degree (totally inexperienced in carrying out such a field research role it must be
said). It was carried out with the assistance of three different interpreters, namely Ekta
Parishad worker Abhay Kumor, Ekta Parishad advocate Nandalal Singh, and Ekta Parishad
activist and Madhya Pradesh state co-ordinator Santosh Singh. It consisted of two
questionnaires, one for village group interviews, and one for village individual/household
interviews. Both questionnaires contained two main components.

The first component looked into the implementation of the FRA; looking into the villagers’
awareness and knowledge of the FRA and the FRC; the villager’s participation in Gram Sabha
and FRC; whether the national rules relating to the processes of invitation, verification and
acceptance of peoples claims for patta were being properly implemented; whether there is
any dispute between the Forest and Revenue Departments on the claimed land (referred to
as the ‘orange area dispute’) which was leading to non-recognition of tenure rights; and
whether the villages were aware of their rights to claim for community land.

“The acts success will stand or fall on whether it is successfully implemented. The
issue is how the institutional reform will be translated into practice and whether it
will actually result in promoting improved livelihoods for the households involved
and overall economic growth for them. Can implementation of the Forest Act
actually deliver tangible rights to productive land and forest assets to the poor, or is

11
 it inevitable that either no significant benefits will ultimately emerge, or elites will
annex the major share of any significant benefits? “(Reddy et al, 2010c, p.4).

The second component looked into the impact of the FRA and the actions of Ekta Parishad
upon the livelihoods of the villager looking at land as an asset; rights of access to and use of
the forest, and withdrawal of forest products for livelihood needs; and the perceptions of
the villagers of the reasons for any improvements or deteriorations in their livelihoods. The
assumption being that the proper implementation of the FRA will lead to improved
livelihood security and income through more secure tenure and access entitlements for the
forest dependent poor.

The four districts and the twelve villages were selected on the basis of it being an
operational area of Ekta Parishad. In each village a group interview was carried with the
village leader and what was usually a handful of other villagers, and afterwards, three to five
individual/household interviews were carried out, with the selection of these based upon
households who were members of the Ekta Parishad organisation; who had an entitlement
to apply for patta on Forest Department land; and had actually made a claim. It was
intended that the village group interviews would provide most of the information for the
first component looking into the implementation of the FRA, as seen from a community
perspective. The village individual group interviews were intended to provide most of the
information for the second component looking into the impact of FRA and Ekta Parishad on
the livelihoods of the villagers. This was made more difficult to assess because before/after
site visits were not able to be made. So instead the participants were asked questions
comparing the situation now with that of five years ago, so as to provide a perception of
change and access over the preceding five years. Five years was chosen for the ease of
recall. The village individual interviews were also for the purpose of obtaining more specific
information on changes in the two dimensions of livelihoods, being assets and access
leading to changes in the quality of life.

1.2 Madhya Pradesh’s Forested Landscapes

Madhya Pradesh is India’s seventh most populace state comprising home to 60,385,118
(19.94% tribals) people, with 73.54% of them living in rural areas (Garg, 2005). It is India’s
second largest state consisting of an area of 308,245 sq km, or 9.38% of India’s geographical
area, and a recorded forest area (i.e. land recorded as ‘forest’ in government records) of
94,689 sq km, or 31% of the state (FSI, 2009). Reserved Forests constitute 65.36%, Protected
Forests 32.84% and Unclassified Forests 1.8% of the total forest area (ibid).

Reserved forests were

“carefully chosen, in large and compact areas of ‘valuable’ forest that could lend
themselves for sustainable exploitation” (Guha, 1983).

This policy of serving British commercial interests led to the colonisation of adivasi forest
habitats. The process of land acquisition continued after independence,

“bringing an area of 26 million hectares under the forest department’s regime... No

surveys were carried out and the rights of existing occupants and users was not
recognised or even settled” (NCAS, 2005, p.14).

12
In protected forests rights were recorded but not settled (Guha, 1983).

“Under the provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972, large forest areas were
brought under the Protected Area Network of National Parks and Wildlife
Sanctuaries, which were to be human-free wilderness zones... About 4 million
people reside in these areas and continue to be termed illegal occupants whose land
rights were not recognised during demarcation of these protected areas. Thousands
of communities were displaced” (NCAS, 2005, p.15).

Madhya Pradesh has 9 National Parks and 25 Wildlife Sanctuaries covering an area of 10,814
sq km, constituting 3.51% of the state (FSI, 2009). The forest cover (as defined by the Forest
Survey of India as lands having more than 10% tree canopy) is 77,700 sq km or 25.21% of
the state (ibid). However, the forest cover is not evenly distributed across the state.

The district of Katni consists of an area of 4950 sq km, of which the forest cover in 2007 was
1279 sq km, or 25.84% of the district; the district of Umaria consists of an area of 4076 sq
km, of which forest cover in 2007 was 2033 sq km, or 49.88% of the district; the district of
Satna consists of an area of 7502 sq km, of which the forest cover in 2007 was 1750 sq km,
or 23.33% of the district; and the district of Damoh consists of an area of 7306 sq km, of
which the forest cover in 2007 was 2605 sq km, or 35.66% of the district (FSI, 2009).

These National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries have led to the mistreatment and
marginalisation of the forest dwelling (mainly tribal) population. It is these people who are
branded as encroachers on the very forest land that their livelihoods primarily depend
upon,

“while thousands more continue to live in abject poverty in the so called forest
villages” (Garg, 2005). “Their right to life and livelihood are seriously threatened by
the growing hegemony of the industry and the state on the one hand, and the forest
department on the other” (ibid).

Historically the Indian Government has enacted rules and regulations that have gravely
impacted on their livelihoods

“by the expropriation of productive assets and use rights in forest areas” (Reddy et
al, 2010a, p.4),

and also on their right to reside.

13
Source: Forest Survey of India, 2009.

1.3 Madhya Pradesh’s Forest Peoples

Madhya Pradesh’s forested landscapes are populated by a mix of tribal and other
inhabitants including 47 scheduled castes (SC) and 46 scheduled tribes (ST). The SC
population of the state as per 2001 census is 9,155,177, constituting 15.2% of the total
population, of which a majority (75.5%) reside in rural areas. The ST population of the state
as per 2001 census is 12,233,474, constituting 20.3% of the total population, which is
overwhelmingly rural, with 93.6% residing in rural areas (Indian Census of India, 2001).
There are 923 forest villages in Madhya Pradesh, with STs and SCs predominantly inhabiting
these villages, with Madhya Pradesh having the largest tribal population in India (Garg,
2005).

“The major tribes in the state are the Bhils, Gonds, Baiga, Oraon, Kawar, Kol,
Saharyia and a few other tribes with lesser populations who are mostly primitive
tribes” (Iyer, 2005, p.8).

They “may be called ‘forest peoples’ reflecting their historical residence in forest
areas, their cultural affinities and livelihood adaptations to the forest niche” (Reddy
et al, 2010a, p.9).

“Forest peoples’ livelihoods are closely dependent on access to forest and other
lands for a range of purposes, including cultivation, grazing, hunting and product
collection. Forests are important both for providing food security and safety nets in
periods of hardship” (Reddy et al, 2010a, p.11).

14
Forests are a crucial livelihood resource for poor households, with forest-related activities
accounting for 25% of household income (Sarap, 2007)). A rapidly dwindling forest resource
base has further marginalised those local populations that are the most heavily dependent
on forest resources for subsistence and their survival (Gadgil and Guha, 1995). LOOK FOR
STUDY STATING THAT HOUSEHOLDS RELIANCE ON FOREST INCREASES AS BECOME MORE
MARGINALISED

In Madhya Pradesh 58.6% of STs and 42.8% SCs lived under the poverty line in rural area in
2004-05, compared to only 13.4% for the general population (Ministry of Tribal Affairs,
2010).

“The literacy level of tribals is very low, and according to the 1991 census, it was only
21.5%. They are mainly cultivators, but because of developmental projects like dams
and power houses, they are now being displaced and rendered landless on a large
scale. According to the 1991 census, the percentage of agricultural labourers in
different states of Madhya Pradesh ranged from 17% to 50%. Thus, due to
pauperization and proletarianization, the problem of landlessness has considerably
increased” (Iyer, 2005, p.8).

Ekta Parishad itself was set up by an informal group of people with the common agenda of

“gaining control over livelihood resources such as land, water and forests” (Iyer,
2007, p.3).

A main focus of Ekta Parishad is to advocate for community access and control over these
livelihood resources, which their founding leader Rajgopal P.V. said

“are basic to the survival of the poor in the countryside” (ibid, p5).

It sees land reform as a structural problem that is essential to many of the problems of
livelihood (ibid).

“Madhya Pradesh has accepted responsibility for providing nistar i.e. requirements
of villagers for forest produce – to all agriculturalists, village artisans and agricultural
labourers. The reserved forests were exclusively for the use of the state, except for
certain rights given to forest villagers. The villagers had the rights of nistar and
grazing in protected forests, but their needs were not satisfactorily met. The forest
nistar policy of Madhya Pradesh states that material from nistar forests would be
supplied free of royalty” (ibid, pp.8-9).

“However, the conflict between people and forest department staff still exists. The
supply of timber, bamboo, fuel and fodder is crucial for the livelihood of tribals and
forest dwellers. Next to agriculture, nistar becomes the most important element in
village life” (ibid, p.9).

15
2 VILLAGE CONTEXT

The study villages represented a range of different situations.

Village Number of Tribal / Village Tribal / Number of Forest or

Name Households Non-tribal Population Non-tribal households Revenue
with patta Village
Jamunia 70 All tribal 150 - 175 All tribal 67 Revenue
Vilayatkala 1500 700 / 800 6000 2800 / 3200 1400 - 1450 Revenue
Chilghaat 125 75 / 50 500 320 / 180 17 Forest
Fular 100 All tribal 450 All tribal None Forest
Kutpura 300 OBC & BC 800 OBC & BC None Forest
Maraikala 82 All tribal 350 All tribal 42 Revenue
Padria 85 80% / 20% 350 200 / 150 All small Revenue
patta
Tamuria 247 60% / 40% 700 400 / 300 40% Revenue
OBC
Dadry 30 (Kol All tribal 175 All tribal 24 Forest
colony)
Jhirraha 36 All tribal 225 All tribal None Forest
Sannai 50 All tribal 300 All tribal None Forest
Ludhauti 10 (small All tribal 60 All tribal None Forest
colony of
village)

2.1 Jamunia Village, Katni District

The village of Jamunia in the district of Katni is a Revenue Department village consisting of
70 households with a Gond tribal population of 150-175, with the overwhelming majority of
67 households already having Revenue patta since the 1980s. It was therefore not an ideal
survey sample for the purpose of a study into the implementation of the FRA, as ideally it
should have been a village on Forest Department land. However, the village survey did
throw up the interesting situation of an unresolved ‘orange area’ dispute between the
Forest and Revenue Departments. This is described later in the ‘orange area dispute’ section
of this report. The basis for the selection of the households for the survey was those who
were occupying and cultivating the disputed land, and had made a claim for patta.

The dispute meant it was not possible to be able to properly analyse as to whether the
national rules relating to the processes of invitation, verification, and acceptance of peoples
claims for patta were being properly implemented. Firstly, the claim forms were submitted
to a Revenue Department officer at Village Block Level, rather than to the village FRC.
Verification of the claim was then done by a Revenue Officer thinking it was their land, but
using an ordinary survey rather than a land GPS survey, and not by Forest Department
officials in the presence of FRC members as according to the national rules.

This is not a typical example of where the national rules were not being implemented due to
the villager’s lack of awareness and knowledge of them, or due to the Forest Department
not adhering to the national rules, but simply due to the confusion caused by the ‘orange
area’ dispute arising on the claimed land. This was another reason why it was not an ideal

16
survey sample for the purpose of a study into the proper implementation of the FRA. The
survey results have therefore not been included in the analysis of the FRA as to whether the
national rules relating to the processes of invitation, verification, and acceptance of peoples
claims for patta were being properly implemented. The survey results have also not been
included in the livelihoods section ‘land as an asset’ due to the reason that the situation in
the village has made the data collected too inconsistent to analyse.

2.2 Vilayatkala Village, Katni District

The village of Vilayatkala in the district of Katni is a large Revenue Department village
consisting of 1500 households, with a Kol tribal population of 2800, and a non-tribal
population of 3200, with an overwhelming majority of them already having Revenue patta,
estimated to be between 1400-1500 households, all since the 1980s. It was therefore also
not an ideal survey sample for the purpose of a study into the implementation of the FRA, as
ideally it should have been a village on Forest Department land. Despite being a Revenue
Department village, there were small pockets of undisputed Forest Department land which
the department had captured from the Revenue Department on which some households
were cultivating. The basis for the selection of the households for the survey was from those
105 households who had applied for patta, choosing two from the 47 households that had
their claims accepted, and two from the 58 households that had their claims rejected.

All 105 claims for patta had been previously made to the Revenue Department when it was
their land, and were pending prior to the FRA, after which, the claimants were told to re-
submit their claims under the FRA. As a result of the claims having previously been made,
verification of the claims were not done by land GPS survey, but were done by reference to
the old Revenue Department records from the survey that took place at the time of the
original claim. Final verification only took place for those households who had their claims
accepted, and then only by a visit from both a Forest and Revenue Department official to
simply confirm the old Revenue Department records.

Therefore, this is not example where the national rules are not being implemented due to
the villager’s lack of awareness and knowledge of them, or due to the Forest Department
not adhering to the national rules, but simply due to the unusual circumstance that all the
claims under the FRA had previously been made to the Revenue Department. Therefore this
was another reason why it was not an ideal survey sample for the purpose of a study into
the proper implementation of the FRA. The survey results have therefore also not been
included in the analysis of the FRA as to whether the national rules relating to the processes
of invitation, verification, and acceptance of peoples claims for patta were being properly
implemented. Once again the survey results have also not been included in the livelihoods
section ‘land as an asset’ due to the reason that the situation in the village has made the
data collected too inconsistent to analyse.

2.3 Chilghaat Village, Damoh District

The village of Chilghaat in the district of Damoh is a Forest Department village, which was an
amalgamation of five villages that came together, consisting of 125 households with a Gond
tribal population of 500, and a non-tribal population of 320. All the households had made
application claims for five acres of patta under the FRA, therefore making it a good survey
sample for the purpose of a study into the implementation of the FRA. However only 17
claims had been surveyed and land title issued, with all the remaining claims still pending,

17
with no explanation given to the villagers as to why, despite the fact that all the claims had
been uniformly made in 2008. Therefore, the sample was a good survey sample in showing
how a village can come together and makes individual claims for patta under the FRA as a
community, and how the FRA is not being properly implemented.

2.4 Fular and Kutpura Villages, Damoh District

The village of Fular in the district of Damoh is a Forest Department village, consisting of 100
households, with a Gond tribal population of 450. The village of Kutpura in the district of
Damoh is also a Forest Department village, consisting of 300 households, with a backward
class and other backward class population of 800. In both villages no households had patta.
In both villages only 40 households were part of the Ekta Parishad organisation, all of who
were recently landless. The other households in the villages are not interested in Ekta
Parishad, as they had always had land, and were comparatively rich. Only the households
who are part of the Ekta Parishad organisation have been included as part of this case-
study.

In both villages the households in the Ekta Parishad organisation have no part in either the
Gram Sabha or Gram Panchayat (council for a group of villages), and are therefore
completely marginalised from the local political process. They were not invited to attend the
Gram Sabha meeting to appoint the FRC members; are not members of the FRC; had not
received invitations from the Gram Sabha to make applications for patta; all in clear
violation of the national rules relating to the implementation of the FRA.

The samples were therefore great survey samples for a study into the implementation of
the FRA.

2.5 Maraikala Village, Umaria District

The village of Maraikala in the district of Umaria was originally a Revenue Department
village consisting of 82 households with a Gond tribal population of 350, with 42 households
already having Revenue patta since before 1980. However, some land has now been
claimed by the Forest Department, with this being disputed by the Revenue Department
resulting in an unresolved ‘orange area’ dispute between the two departments. The basis
for the selection of the households for the survey was from those 40 households who had
made 115 claims for patta on the Forest Department land, some which seemed to be
subject of the ‘orange area’ dispute, and some not. This is described in greater detail later in
the ‘orange area dispute’ section of this report. Only these households that are on Forest
Department land that have a right to claim for patta under the FRA have been included as
part of this case-study.

2.6 Padria and Tamuria Villages, Katni District

The villages of Padria and Tamuria in the district of Katni are both Revenue Department
villages. The village of Padria consists of 85 households, with a Kol and Bhumiya tribal
population of 200, and a non-tribal population of 150. All 85 households have a small
amount of revenue patta since ‘old times’. The village of Tamuria consists of 247
households, with a Gond tribal population of 200 and a backward class and non-tribal
population of 150. 40% of the households have revenue patta since ‘old times’, with this
being evenly split between tribal and non-tribal. Ten years ago the two neighbouring villages

18
captured between them a 500 acre piece of Forest Department land, with Padria capturing
150 acres and Tamuria 350 acres.

23 Padria and 35 Tamuria households had each made application claims for five acres of
patta under the FRA, therefore making it a good survey sample for the purpose of a study
into the implementation of the FRA. Only these households have been included as part of
this case-study. All the claims have been verified by land GPS survey by the villages shared
Gram Panchayat. However, all the claims are still pending, with no explanation given to the
villagers as too why, despite the fact that all the claims had been uniformly made in 2008.
The sample was another good survey sample in showing how two villages can come
together and make individual claims for patta under the FRA as a community.

2.7 Dadry (Prakeshnagr) Village, Satna District

The village of Dadry in the district of Satna is a Forest Department village including a colony
of 30 Kol tribal households, with a population of 175. The 30 households in 2008 had made
between them 52 claims for patta of all about five acres each. The village also consisted of a
small non-tribal colony, but because they were not present at the village group interview,
they have not been included as part of this case-study.

All 52 claims for patta had been previously made to the Forest Department in 2006, and
were pending prior to the FRA. Verification of the original claims had been carried out by
Forest Department officials at the time, and were therefore not re-verified in accordance
with the national rules. 24 claims had been accepted, but not for the full amount of acres
claimed. From the survey sample taken, one of these was due to it being non-
occupied/cultivated land, and one was because it was land claimed on a Forest Department
plantation. Most of the remaining claims were still outstanding at the block level committee,
as they had come to verify the claims separately, but were unable to as some farmers were
away doing migratory labour.

Despite the issue relating to the verification of claims by survey as a result of the claims
under the FRA having previously been made, this was a good survey sample for the purpose
of a study into the proper implementation of the FRA.

2.8 Jhirraha Village, Satna District

The village of Jhirraha in the district of Satna is a Forest Department Gond tribal village
consisting of 36 households and a Gond tribal population of 225, with no households having
patta. The village is subject to an ‘orange area’ dispute. All the households had made
application claims in May 2010 for between three and a half to six acres of patta under the
FRA, therefore making it a good survey sample for the purpose of a study into the
implementation of the FRA.

2.9 Sannai Village, Satna District

The village of Sannai in the district of Satna is a Forest Department village, which resettled in
1983 after the traditional village of Kandwari got displaced due to the Ban Sagar Dam more
than 100km away. It consisted of 50 Kol tribal households with a population of 300 with no
households having patta. All the households had made between them 62 application claims
for five acres of patta under the FRA. There is a village level Gram Sabha that appointed the
FRC members without any interference from the Forest Department; the Gram Sabha

19
having invited applications for patta; and verification of all claims having been done in the
field by land GPS survey by Forest Department officials and FRC members, with the Forest
Department officials helping the process rather than obstructing it. So far seven claims had
been given although the land certificates had not yet been issued, with all the remaining
claims still pending but seeming to be proceeding normally as reported by the villagers.
Therefore, the sample was a good survey sample in showing how the FRA can be properly
implemented.

2.10 Ludhauti Village, Satna District

The village of Ludhauti in the district of Satna is a large Forest Department village, consisting
of 700 households. At the time of writing K.G. Iyer in his 2005 book Case Studies on Land
Rights that was published on behalf of Ekta Parishad Foundation reported that it “consisted
of 500 households, where Kurni Patels with 400 households are the prosperous dominating
land owning community, followed by the Brahmins with 20 households, and Yadavs with
seven households. Others comprise lower backward castes and the Kol tribe. The
prosperous landowners of Ludhauti – owning between 20 to 50 acres – use the Sannai
forest land for grazing their cattle” (p.22).

Only a small colony of 10 Kol households was part of the Ekta Parishad organisation, all of
who were recently landless as little as 15 years ago, and all of which have no patta. The
households in the Ekta Parishad organisation were completely politically marginalised from
the rest of the village where they have little or no part in either the Gram Sabha or Gram
Panchayat. They had not therefore been invited to attend the Gram Sabha to appoint FRC
members, which were appointed by the more powerful members of the village, with no one
from the colony being members of the FRC. Also no one had received invitations from the
Gram Sabha to make applications for patta, in clear violation of the national rules relating to
the implementation of the FRA.

All 10 households in the Ekta Parishad organisation applied for patta in 2008, and as this had
not originally been supported by the Gram Sabha, with the help of Ekta Parishad they re-
claimed in 2009 direct to the sub-divisional officer of Maihar Thesil. At the time of the
survey verification of their claims in the field by land GPS survey had not yet even been
carried out, being an unexplainable delay. The villagers had been told that their claims are at
the District Block Level, but had not received any reasonable explanation for the delay, and
had no information as to the latest position.

The sample was therefore a great survey sample for a study into the implementation of the
FRA.

20
3 THE FRA IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS IN MADHYA PRADESH

The first component of the case-study looked into the implementation of the FRA; looking
into the villagers’ awareness and knowledge of the FRA and the FRC; the villager’s
participation in Gram Sabha and FRC; whether the national rules relating to the processes of
invitation, verification and acceptance of peoples claims for patta were being properly
implemented; whether there is any ‘orange area’ dispute between the Forest and Revenue
Departments on the claimed land which was leading to non-recognition of tenure rights;
and whether the villages were aware of their rights to claim for community land.

The implementation process consists of the initial Gram Sabha meeting to appoint FRC;
invitation and submission of claims for patta; verification of claims; and acceptance or
rejection of claims and issuing of land certificates of title.

3.1 Awareness and Knowledge of FRA and FRC

In all 12 study villages there was good self-perceived awareness of the FRA, with them being
aware that it gives them the entitlement to claim for individual patta on captured forest
land that they have cultivated without title since 2005. There also seemed to be a good
understanding of the process of claiming for individual patta, with eleven of the village
group interviews reporting that there was someone in the village who understood the
process of claiming for individual patta, with it either being a local village Ekta Parishad
activist or a village member of the FRC. The only exception was the politically marginalised
colony in the village of Kutpura. There also seemed to be a good individual self-perceived
awareness of the process, with 40 of the 47 individual households interviewed reporting
that they understood the process, invariably either through the Gram Sabha or the FRC,
with some aware that the claim would then go to the ‘block level court’. It was not clear
though as to whether this meant the Sub-divisional Level Committee (SDLC) or the District
Level Committee (DLC). The group and individual interviews from ten of the twelve villages
reported that they knew what the FRC was, and that there was a village FRC.

Therefore self-perceived awareness levels regarding the FRA and FRC in the study villages
seemed to be very good. This level of self-perceived awareness would be expected in
villages where an activist organisation such as Ekta Parishad has been active for a number of
years representing the tribals interests and carrying out awareness raising meetings thereby
creating awareness regarding FRA provisions, and about individual and community rights
among village communities (Reddy et al, 2010b). It is likely that many more remote tribal
villages where such organisations like Ekta Parishad are not active and where the tribals may
be marginalised from the political process may not have the same level of awareness of the
FRA and FRC.

This seems to be supported by the finding that the only two villages in the village survey
where neither the group nor the individuals had any awareness of the FRC was the
politically marginalised members of the Ekta Parishad organisation in the villages of Fular
and Kutpura. As described above in the ‘village context’ section, in both villages the
households in the Ekta Parishad organisation have no part in either the Gram Sabha or Gram
Panchayat; had not been invited to attend the Gram Sabha to appoint FRC members; and
with no one being members of the FRC in clear violation of the national rules relating to the
implementation of the FRA.

21
3.2 Participation In Gram Sabha and Appointment of FRC Members
“The FRA National Rules oblige states to create four tiers of committees to oversee
implementation: State, district, SDLCs and habitation FRCs” (Reddy et al, 2010b, p.18).

Gram Sabha meetings, which should be held at the hamlet or habitation level as prescribed
under the FRA rules, should be commenced to form and elect the lowest, fourth level, FRCs
(ibid).

In nine of the twelve study villages it was the Gram Sabha that met to appoint the members
of the FRCs in accordance with the national rules. In these villages it seemed that it was the
villagers at the Gram Sabha that were electing the FRC members, and not government
officials, which is being reported to be happening in some states. Only the village of Dadry
reported that Forest Department officials had any influence on the appointment. In all these
nine villages between 10-15 villagers, all from different households, were members on the
FRC, with the tribal representation on the FRCs being greater than non-tribals. This
therefore seems to represent a good democratic process in the formation of the FRCs in
accordance with the national rules. This is also unlike what is also being reported in some
states where the non-tribal representation is greater than the tribal (Reddy et al, 2010b).

In the nine villages of Jamunia, Vilayatkala, Chilghaat, Maraikala, Padria, Tamuria, Dadry,
Jhirraha, and Sannai, eight reported that it was an ordinary village member that was the FRC
President, unlike what is also being reported in other states that it is the ruling party and
powerful Sarpanches (heads) have become FRC Presidents (Reddy et al, 2010b). Only in the
village of Padria was this reported to have happened, when the village landlord, who was
from another village, was appointed as FRC President. This also seems to be as a result of
the role of Ekta Parishad making villagers aware of their rights through village awareness
raising meetings.

Interestingly it was only in the villages Tamuria, Dadry, Jhirraha and Sannai, all in the district
of Satna, where all the participants in the village individual/household interviews responded
that they had been able to attend and participate in the Gram Sabha meeting. This seems to
be indicative of the ‘excellent and hard work’ of the local Ekta Parishad activists Kasturia and
Santosh, who the writer observed during the village surveys seemed to have an excellent
participatory and ‘warm’ working relationship with the villagers. It seems that it is the role
of Ekta Parishad that is resulting in making villagers aware of their rights, and thereby
increasing their participation in the political processes that impact upon their livelihoods.

However in the other three villages of Fular, Kutpura, and Ludhauti, the village colonies that
were members of the Ekta Parishad organisation that formed the survey samples, all of
whom were marginalised from the political process, were not invited to attend the Gram
Sabha meeting to appoint the FRC members in clear violation of the national rules relating
to the initial FRC formation, with the participants of the Fular and Kutpura villages not even
being aware that the Gram Sabha had even met. With these latter two villagers, who share
the same Gram Panchayat, of which they have no participation, it seemed that the FRC
formation meetings were held at the Gram Panchayat administrative level, which typically
encompasses many hamlets, rather than in the hamlets themselves. Therefore in these
villages the villagers who were members of the Ekta Parishad organisation had no
involvement in the appointment of the FRC members, with the participants of Ludhauti

22
reporting that the appointment was done by the more powerful members of the village, but
having no more idea other than that. Subsequently none of the survey participants in these
villages were members of the FRC.

This is clearly a serious problem for the FRA implementation as it results in some villagers
not being informed about the FRA process; continuing to be completely unaware of their
rights as to how to apply for patta under the FRA; and marginalised from the democratic
process and denied their democratic rights. Furthermore, this happened in villages where
Ekta Parishad was active, so it probably can be safely assumed that this type of violation of
the national rules relating to the implementation of the FRC is happening on a much grander
scale in many villages across both the state and the country where such organisations like
Ekta Parishad are not active and bringing awareness regarding FRA provisions.

3.3 Invitation for Individual Claims and Verification Process

To strengthen community control to counter the monopoly of the Forest Department the
Gram Sabha has been vested with the sole authority to initiate processes determining the

“individual or community forest rights or both...within the local jurisdiction of this

act by receiving claims, consolidating and verifying them, and preparing a map
delineating the area of each recommended claim...and the Gram Sabha shall, then,
pass a resolution to that effect and thereafter forward a copy of the same to the
SDLC” (Ramnath, 2008, p.39).

By also involving Panchayat Raj officials (including sarpanches etc.) and Forest Department
officials in the process, and leaving the actual determination of rights to be carried out by
the SDLCs the national rules dilute the amount of power vested in the Gram Sabha, to which
the Panchayat regime does not vest direct administrative powers. Involving the Panchayat
may lead to extraneous influences adversely affecting the democratic functioning of the
Gram Sabha, and where ST and other forest dwelling communities form the minority, the
protection of their forest rights may not be achieved. The rules also contradict the section of
the act that the Gram Sabha in scheduled areas should be that of the hamlet (Bhullar, 2008).

“For the people aggrieved by the resolution of the Gram Sabha, there is the SDLC, to
whom they may appeal within 60 days; that failing, there is the DLC, whose decision
“on the ground of forest rights shall be final and binding”. There is also a “State Level
Monitoring Committee (SLMC) to monitor the process of recognition and vesting of
forest rights...” The various committees “consist of officers from the departments of
Revenue, Forest and Tribal Affairs of the State Government and three members of
the Panchayat Institutions, of whom two shall be members of the Scheduled Tribe
members and at least one shall be a woman...” (Ramnath, 2008, p.39).

Having formed FRCs the next stage is the invitation and submission of claims for patta by
local people.

“Verification of claims involves three levels; verification by 1. FRC, 2. Gram Sabha, 3.

SDLC. At each stage claims are checked and decisions passed up. Rejections can be
contested with the higher level body” (Reddy et al, 2010b, p.27). “If the Forest
Department has any grievance it can place its claim before the Gram Sabha before
resolution is passed... Once the FRC has confirmed evidence claims are then verified

23
 in the field by land survey using GPS devices for identifying, geo-referencing and
mapping the claimed plots” (ibid, p.28).

This is done by FRC members alongside Forest Department field staff, with the national rules
implying only a minimal role for them as observers, and to assist rather than to interfere in
the process. In other studies

“it has been this stage of the process more than any other that has been leading to
fundamental problems for local people to secure their rights, due to two issues:
firstly the technical skills of the surveying teams to effectively use the GPS devices
has been lacking, probably due to inadequate training. Secondly the Forest
Department field staff have significantly interfered with the field survey” (ibid, p.28).

However, in our village survey samples this only seemed to happen in two villages, although
in three of the villages verification has not yet even be carried out, which could well be a
case of the Forest Department subvertly obstructing the legal process. In the Maraikala
village survey the participants reported that the survey was not properly completed as
Forest Department officials carried it out for a smaller piece of land than was actually
occupied and claimed. Also in the village of Dadry it was being reported by some of the
participants that the Forest Department was reducing the size of some of their claims due to
parts of the claims being on a Forest Department plantation. Other than these two
examples, the remaining village surveys generally reported that not only did the Forest
Department staff not interfere in the process, but were actually quite helpful. Once again
though it can only be assumed that this is only as a result of the activities of Ekta Parishad in
those villages.

For the reasons discussed in the section ‘village context’ above, the Revenue villages of
Jamunia and Vilayatkala have not been included in the analysis of the FRA as to whether the
national rules relating to the processes of invitation, verification, and acceptance of peoples
claims for patta were being properly implemented.

At six of the remaining ten sample villages, the FRC invited claims for application for patta,
and subsequently received back 520 individual claims from all the 304 households that were
part of the Ekta Parishad organisation in those villages (shown in Table 1 below). In all these
six villages the claimants were helped by either the FRC or Ekta Parishad to complete the
claim forms, before submitting them to the FRC or Gram Sabha. All the households were
applying for about 5 acres on average. In the villages of Padria, Dadry and Sannai 137 of the
138 claims had been verified in the field by land GPS survey by FRC members alongside
Forest Department officers, with the villages reporting that the survey had been properly
completed, and that the Forest Department officials assisted in a helpful way, although the
villagers of Dadry were a little ambiguous about this, saying they also interfered in the
process (shown in Table 1 below). Also in the village of Padria verification was carried out by
the Gram Panchayat rather than FRC members. One claim in Dadry was rejected before
verification due to it being on a Forest Department plantation. The perception of the
villagers of Sannai was the most positive regarding the process of verification being properly
implemented.

It is not too surprising that the village of Sannai is included here, considering Ekta Parishad
have been active in the village since 1996, and as described in the section ‘villagers’

24
perception of Ekta Parishad’s impact on their livelihoods’ below, due to the excellent and
hard work of the Ekta Parishad activists Kasturia and Santosh, of all the study villages
surveyed, this was the village where the actions of Ekta Parishad were reported to have had
the greatest positive impact upon the livelihoods of the villagers as according to them.

In the village of Chilghaat only 17 of the total of 225 claims had been verified in the field by
land GPS survey, with the villagers concerned reporting that the survey was properly
completed, and that the Forest Department officers assisted helpfully in the process. In the
village of Mariakala only 63 of the 115 claims had been verified in the field by land GPS
survey (shown in Table 1 below). As reported above, the participants in the Maraikala village
survey reported that the survey was not properly completed as Forest Department officials
carried it out for a smaller piece of land than was occupied and claimed, normally being for
only ½ acre of the five acres claimed. The remaining 260 claims in these two villages are still
awaiting verification with no explanation as to why.

The ‘orange area’ dispute in Maraikala may be the reason for the remaining 52 claims to still
be awaiting verification, despite the claims having been made two years previously.
However, this could be an example where the Forest Department have set a quota for the
area as to how much land it is willing to grant to claimants and having already fulfilled that
quota according to Ekta Parishad’s advocate Nandalal Singh.

In the village of Jhirraha none of the 42 claims have been verified in the field by land GPS
survey (shown in Table 1 below). This is because of two reasons as reported by the villagers.
Firstly the Gram Panchayat Sarpanch (head) did not support the claim. However, this
problem has now been removed as he was replaced in recent elections. Secondly, it was
because the claim was subsequently late, having only been made in May 2010. This is
despite the law having given Gram Sabhas powers to extend the time for filing applications
beyond the time limit of three months of the initial invitation to claim for rights through
another resolution. However, this can only be done if it records reasons for doing so (CSD,
2008). In this case there was definitely good reasons for the time limit to be extended. It
seemed though that the villagers and the Ekta Parishad activists that accompanied the
author were unaware of this right, as was the author at the time.

25
Table 1: Individual claims

Village Number of Number of Number of Survey Perception of role

Name individual Households claims for properly of Forest
claims which completed Department staff
verification
completed
Chilghaat 225 125 17 Yes Helped
Maraikala 115 40 63 No Carried out for
smaller piece of
land than claimed
Padria 23 23 23 Yes No interference
Dadry 53 30 52 Yes Helped/Interfered
Jhirraha 42 36 0 n/a
Sannai 62 50 62 Yes Good help
TOTAL 520 304 217

In the remaining four sample villages, including the previously mentioned politically
marginalised colonies that are part of the Ekta Parishad organisation in the villages of Fular,
Kutpura, and Ludhauti, and also including the village of Tamuria, none of the 125
households that are part of the Ekta Parishad organisation received invitations from the FRC
to claim for patta in clear violation of the rules relating to the proper implementation of the
FRA. The villagers in the village of Ludhauti actually reported that the president of the FRC
does not support their claim for patta, and had just laughed at them over their initial
application for patta in 2008. 123 of these households made 135 individual claims for patta
through Ekta Parishad (shown in Table 2 below), with Ekta Parishad collecting the claim
forms on their behalf, helping them to complete them, and in the case of Ludhauti, taking
them directly to the SDLC. The remaining two households, both from the village of Kutpura,
did not make applications for patta due to their ‘fear’ of the Forest Department. All the
households were also applying for about 5 acres on average.

Of these four villages, only the village of Tamuria have had their 35 claims verified in the
field by land GPS survey, but this was carried out by the Gram Panchayat rather than by FRC
members, with the survey not being properly carried out as they did not survey the whole of
the land claimed by the villagers. The 88 households in the Ekta Parishad organisation in the
remaining three villages, not surprisingly being the previously mentioned politically
marginalised colonies in the villages of Fular, Kutpura, and Ludhauti, have not even had their
claims verified in the field by land GPS survey, with the villagers of Ludhauti reporting that
the Gram Sabha is not helping. The villagers had not received any reasonable explanation
for the delay, and had no information as to the latest position. The villagers in the villages of
Fular and Kutpura have given application to the District Collector’s Office about no survey
having taken place, but nothing had been answered. The Ekta Parishad district co-ordinator
had been told that the application needs some more documents, and that they were
verifying facts, therefore it was still pending. However, this just seems to be a bureaucratic
excuse to avoid the issue.

26
Table 2: Individual claims

Village Name Number of claims Number of Number of claims for

Households which verification
completed
Fular 40 40 0
Kutpura 38 40 0
Tamuria 35 35 35
Ludhauti 22 10 0
TOTAL 135 125 35

“The Gram Sabha, that has been given such a huge responsibility in initiating the
process of claims, etc, is not as trustworthy an institution as it needs to be”
Ramnath, 2008, p.39).

Studies in Madhya Pradesh have shown that downward accountability in the Panchayat
systems to village assemblies such as Gram Sabhas is by and large poor in all the districts
studied (ODI, 2002).

“Activists also observe that it will be impossible to implement the bill in non-
scheduled areas, or even in scheduled areas where the Gram Sabha has not been
constituted properly or not formed at all” (Mushi, 2005, p.4406).

This seems to be borne out in the village surveys of Fular and Kutpura, where the
participants, being the members of the Ekta Parishad organisation, reported that they had
not been invited to attend the Gram Sabha meeting to appoint the FRC members; the FRC
formation meetings were held at the Gram Panchayat administrative level; had not received
invitations to claim for patta; had submitted their claim forms to their shared Gram
Panchayat in 2008; and that none of their claims have yet been verified.

This seems to be a clear example where the poor of the poorest in villages are marginalised
from the political process, as it is clearly in the interests of the village elites to keep them
landless and poor, as this supplies them with an endless amount of cheap agricultural labour
during peak cultivation and harvest times. It can also be useful at elections for political
parties opportunistically capturing the votes of the poor in relation to land issues but then
never being sincerely followed up by any party (NCAS, 2005).

Once again the suspicion is that the Forest Department does not want to grant them patta.
As mentioned earlier, it is widely thought according to Ekta Parishad’s advocate Nandalal
Singh, who was translating on behalf of the writer, that the Forest Department has set a
quota for the amount of area of land it is willing to grant in any village, and once they have
reached that quota, they will not grant any further patta. It is thought that many rights to
patta will be

“rejected because the Forest Department will claim that the claimants do not reside
in forests, have been in forests for less than 75 years etc.” (CSD, 2008, p.24).

27
Either that or it is the more powerful factions in the village whose economic and political
interests are to keep the poor of the poorest landless and poor are unduly using their
influence to block the applications for patta from being able to proceed. Claimants

“have little opportunity for getting their claims considered if the more powerful and
dominant communities within heterogeneous multi caste villages oppose the
recognition of their rights” (Sarin and Springate-Baginski, 2010, p.19).

“With respect to the role of the Gram Sabha, it is not inconceivable that under
pressure from economically and politically dominant factions and individuals, the
Gram Sabha is best suited to initiate action for determining and recording the rights
to be accorded to the tribals. This is to be done in open meetings so as to ensure
transparency and accountability and this doubtlessly, is a far more efficient and
democratic way of functioning than channelling it through the bureaucracy” (Mushi,
2005, p.4407).

“The study goes on to add that “on the basic question dealing with the awareness of
the villagers regarding the existence, functions and the rights of the Gram Sabha, a
very high majority of the people seemed completely ignorant”. If such a body is
vested with powers of settling land claims and diverting lands for development
projects, it is anybody’s guess what the possibilities of misappropriation are”
(Ramnath, 2008, p.39).

Of the ten village survey samples, invitation for claims was only properly carried out in six
villages. And of these six villages only in three villages were verification of claims properly
carried out. This is clearly a serious problem for the FRA implementation as it results in
some villagers being denied the right to apply for patta under the FRA process. Despite
these problems, the overall picture of individual private claims being effectively submitted
by eligible claimants is still quite impressive, with the 429 households of the Ekta Parishad
organisation making a total of 655 claims. This is undoubtedly thanks to Ekta Parishad’s
activity in the villages. If it was not for Ekta Parishad working with and helping the most
marginalised of the villagers to make individual claims for patta, the overall picture would in
all likelihood have been far less impressive.

Even when the villagers have been able to apply for patta, their applications do not then
proceed properly, due to the verification of claims by GPS survey in the field not been
carried out, and that is, if it has been carried out at all. To summarise, of the total amount of
655 claims made amongst the villagers that were part of the Ekta Parishad organisation in
the ten villages, only 252 claims have been through the verification process. Once again this
is happening in villages where Ekta Parishad are active, so it probably can be safely assumed
that this type of violation of the national rules relating to the implementation of the FRC is
happening on a much grander scale in many villages across both the state and the country
where such organisations like Ekta Parishad are not active and bringing awareness regarding
FRA provisions.

3.4 Acceptance and Rejection of Claims Process

Once again for the reasons discussed in the section ‘village context’ above, the Revenue
villages of Jamunia and Vilayatkala have not been included in the analysis of the FRA as to

28
whether the national rules relating to the processes of invitation, verification, and
acceptance of peoples claims for patta were being properly implemented.

In the remaining ten sample villages, 655 individual claims were made from the 429
households that were part of the Ekta Parishad organisation in those villages. Of these only
111 claims have been accepted, for which 96 land certificates have been issued, and one
claim has been rejected. Of the 111 claims that have been accepted, only two acres of land
is being granted on average, despite the fact that five acres of land is being claimed for on
average. According to Ekta Parishad activist Aneeshkumar two acres is not sufficient for a
households livelihood needs, with five to six acres being the minimum requirement. The
households have received no official written explanation for this discrepancy between what
is claimed for and what is given. All the remaining 543 claims are still pending (shown in
Table 3 below).

These findings are supported by similar findings in a corresponding case-study report into
the implementation of the FRA by Marie Bohner on behalf of Ekta Parishad in the state of
Chhattisgarh. This study found that of the 984 households that made application claims,
generally for five to six acres of land, only 242 households have had their claims accepted,
with less than two acres of land being given on average. The report makes the point that if
this is a deliberate decision to allocate less land than what is claimed for, then it is necessary
to ask for an explanation, and to re-examine all applications. After all the stakes are high for
the survival of households whose livelihoods depend on the amount of cultivable land they
own (Bohner, 2010).

Table 3: Acceptance and Rejection of Individual Claims

Village Name Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of

claims land acres claims claims still
accepted certificates households rejected pending
issued receiving
Chilghaat 17 17 3-5 0 208
Fular 0 0 - 0 40
Kutpura 0 0 - 0 38
Maraikala 63 55 1–1½ 0 52
Padria 0 0 - 0 23
Tamuria 0 0 - 0 35
Dadry 24 24 2½ 1 28
Jhirraha 0 0 - 0 42
Sannai 7 0 3 0 55
Ludhauti 0 0 - 0 22
TOTAL 111 96 (average) 2 1 543

This therefore means of the 655 individual claims for patta made by the 429 households
that are members of the Ekta Parishad organisation in the ten villages surveyed, only 111
claims have been accepted, which represents only 17% of the total claims made, with 543
claims still pending, representing 82.9% of the total claims.

29
This clearly contradicts the official figures being released by the state of Madhya Pradesh in
the quarterly status reports in the implementation of the FRA, with the reliability of this
data being clearly suspect. It states that for the figures up to 31st May 2010, with respect to
the 343,148 individual and community claims received up to May 2009, being the month of
an announcement of a special drive, 89,035 titles were distributed; 243,510 claims rejected;
and 332,545 claims disposed of, representing 96.91% (GoI, 2010).

“In Madhya Pradesh, of the 80,000 applications filed by adivasis for land deeds in
2008, a mere 17,000 have got the document. “For the rest, there is no respite,” says
Shraddha Kashyap of the Malwa unit of Ekta Parishad” (Naylor, 2010).

As it is being reported that only one in four claims are being accepted and three in four
claims are being rejected, it seems reasonable to ask as to how many of the pending survey
sample claims have been rejected with the claimants having not been informed?

These findings are also supported by similar findings in the above mentioned case-study
report by Marie Bohner. This study found that of the 984 households that made individual
claims for patta, only 242 claims have been accepted, representing 24.6% of the total claims
made, with the remaining 75.4% of claims still pending, with the households concerned
having received no information whatsoever concerning their applications. This is despite a
report by the M0TA stating that 100% of applications in Chhattisgarh have been disposed of
by 28th February 2010. The Bohner report makes the point that it would seem that there is
no official record of whether these pending claims have been rejected, making it impossible
for the concerned people to exercise their rights of appeal, being a denial of their rights
(Bohner, 2010).

The Honourable Minister of Tribal Affairs wrote to the State Chief Ministers on 19.11.2009
urging them to take all measures necessary for accelerating the process of the
implementation of the FRA, so that the work relating to distribution of title deeds to all
eligible claimants is completed by the end of December 2009 (ibid). As shown by this case-
study at least, this has clearly not been carried out in the villages surveyed, and it can
therefore probably be safely assumed, will also apply across the whole of the state of
Madhya Pradesh.

In the group interview surveys the villages were asked as to whether they have been given
any reasonable answers or explanation for why their claims are still pending, and the replies
are shown in table 4 below.

30
Table 4: Reasons for Claims to still be pending

Village Name Reasons as to why Claim are still pending as according to villagers
Chilghaat Villagers have received no explanation for this. Higher office said still pending.
Fular No information as to latest position. Given application to collector regarding no verification
but no answer. Ekta Parishad district co-ordinator said District Collector Office said
application needs some more documents and they are verifying facts.
Kutpura Don’t know fate of claim
Maraikala No information as to why. Area subject to ‘orange area’ dispute. Was previously Revenue
village but some land transferred to Forest Department so now mixed
Padria No explanation. Problem may be that claiming for 150 acres of 500 acres land with
neighbours Tamuria who are claiming 350 acres.
Tamuria As per Padria above
Dadry One claim rejected before verification due to being on Forest Department plantation.
Outstanding claims with DLC. Came to verify separately but farmers were labouring away
Jhirraha This is because of two reasons as reported by the villagers. Firstly the Gram Panchayat
Sarpanch did not support the claim. However, this problem has now been removed as he
was replaced in recent elections. Secondly, it was because the claim was subsequently late,
having only been made in May 2010.
Sannai Villagers happy that claim process was proceeding along normally
Ludhauti No idea as to why as Gram Sabha is not helping. Block level said claim has been received at
District Level but no other information

To summarise, of the total amount of 655 claims made amongst the villagers that were part
of the Ekta Parishad organisation in the ten villages, only 111 claims have been accepted,
with 543 claims still pending. Once again this is happening in villages where Ekta Parishad
are active, so it probably can be safely assumed that this type of blatant violation of the
national rules relating to the implementation of the FRC is happening on a much grander
scale in many villages across both the state and the country where such organisations like
Ekta Parishad are not active and bringing awareness regarding FRA provisions. As the FRA
rules contain no time limits on when the SDLC and DLC should finish their work by, it is likely
that these committees are just sitting on claims received by them (CSD, 2008).

This is once again seems to be a serious problem for the FRA implementation, as it seems to
be resulting in some villagers being denied their claims for patta under the FRA process, and
without receiving any reasonable explanation for this. Furthermore, even when they are
having their claims accepted, it is sometimes for less than what they actually claimed for.

3.5 Orange Area Dispute

The Orange Area dispute is where there is complete confusion between the Revenue and
Forest Departments about the legal status of 12,274 sq km of land in Madhya Pradesh and
Chhattisgarh that has far and wide reaching impacts upon the lives and livelihoods of people
and specifically the tribal communities. There are over 6 million landless people in the two
states, most of them belonging to ST and SCs. Vast areas of what are referred to as chhote
jhad ke jungle and bhad jhad ke jungle spread across both states are under dispute from the
Revenue and Forest Departments. These areas covering 12,274 sq km are also called Orange
Areas, appearing in both Revenue and Forest Department records.

31
 “The Forest Department has been lazy in updating its records pertaining to the
transfer and re-transfer of the said land” (Garg, 2005). “As a result of its ambiguous
status, thousands of tribals have lost their homes and lands since 1958” (ibid).

A writ petition was filed by Ekta Parishad against the two states in 2003. Ekta Parishad
argued that the Forest Department had a hugh quantity of ‘orange’ land without actual tree
cover that they had not de-notified to alow for redistribution as Revenue Land. The matter,
however, is still pending before the Supreme Court Centrally Empowered Committee (NCAS,
2005).

The FRA granted the right to those who have Revenue Department patta or a government
lease on land that is subject to the ‘orange area’ dispute to claim secure legal titles over
such lands (CSD, 1), to obtain an undisputed legal title (CSD, 2008).

The case-study looked into whether there is any dispute between the Forest and Revenue
Departments on the claimed land in the villages surveyed which was leading to non-
recognition of tenure rights. Four of the twelve villages surveyed reported that there was an
‘orange area’ dispute between the Forest and Revenue Departments, being the villages of
Jamunia, Maraikala, Dadry, and Jhirraha.

In the village of Jamunia the ‘orange area’ dispute related to a piece of land reoccupied by
the villagers for cultivation that they had previously occupied 80-85 years ago. It was
originally Revenue Department land but has since been claimed by the Forest Department,
but this is disputed by the Revenue Department. The dispute has led to all the 25 claims that
were made for patta one year ago to still be pending.

The village of Maraikala in the district of Umaria was originally a Revenue Department.
However, some land has now been claimed by the Forest Department, with this being
disputed by the Revenue Department resulting in an unresolved ‘orange area’ dispute
between the two departments. The basis for the selection of the households for the survey
was from those 40 households who had made 115 claims for patta on the Forest
Department land in 2008, some which seemed to be subject of the ‘orange area’ dispute,
and some not.

The dispute has led to only 63 of the 115 village claims for patta on the Forest Department
land having been verified by land GPS survey, of which 55 have had their claims accepted,
with the remaining 52 claims still pending due to the ‘orange area’ dispute, despite the
claims having been made two years previously.

However, due to time constraints only three individual households’ interviews were able to
be carried out where at least one or two more were required to further enquire into the
situation for extra clarity of the issues surrounding the problem. Two of these households’
claims were still pending due to the ‘orange area’ dispute. Therefore a clear picture of how
the ‘orange area’ dispute was leading to the non-recognition of patta was not able to be
fully achieved.

In the village of Dadry two claims had been rejected from the previous 2006 claims due to
an ‘orange area’ dispute, and these had been reclaimed to the district collector, but had not
yet been resolved. Neither of these households was available for the purpose of the
household/individual questionnaires, so it was not possible to enquire further into the

32
situation on an individual basis. It did though seem that this was an example of why the
‘orange area’ dispute was leading to the non-recognition of patta.

The village of Jhirraha is also subject to an ‘orange area’ dispute. All the households had
made application claims in May 2010 but the claims have not yet been surveyed due to
reasons which are not related to the ‘orange area’ dispute. Therefore all the claims are still
pending, and the ‘orange area’ dispute has not as of yet led to any rejections of claims for
patta.

From the survey samples a clear picture cannot be drawn as whether the dispute between
the Forest and Revenue Departments on the claimed land in the villages surveyed was
leading to non-recognition of tenure rights, with all the cases still pending.

3.6 Community Claims/Rights

“Land use in the country is not confined to cultivation but also extends to collective
use for day to day survival. Fuel, fodder, other non-timber forest produce
requirements are met from land, which could be categorised as ‘common property
resources’ (CPR)” (NCAS, 2005, p.9-10).

According to forest rights academic writer Oliver Springate-Baginski in terms of reform, the
issue of community rights is the most important, as once communiterised, the forest
dependent can assume authority for forest management without reference to the Forest
Department.

The FRA “for the first time recognises the right to hold and live in the forest land
under the individual or common occupation for habitation or for self-cultivation for
livelihood by a member or members of a forest dwelling scheduled tribe or other
traditional forest dwellers” (Sahu, 2008, p.20).

This allows for both individual and community tenure for those who occupy forest land
(Sarin and Springate-Baginski, 2010).

The Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act 1996 (PESA – national legislation devolving
government power in tribal areas)

“vests ownership and control of NTFP (non-timber forest products) with Gram Sabha
rather than any other institution/organisation” (Reddy et al, 2010a, p.24).

“The Forest Departments of most states, however, refused to recognise such

ownership rights... The MoEF also argued that the rights vested by PESA did not
extend to reserved and protected forests outside administrative village boundaries
on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Gram Sabha was limited to the area within
such boundaries” (Sarin and Springate-Baginski, 2010, p.10).

One of the most important rights in the FRA is that a community can claim for the right to
protect traditional forests.

“Under this right, whatever the Forest Department might say the community can
protect, regenerate, or conserve or manage any community forest resource (CFR)

33
 and is also empowered to protect trees, biodiversity, wildlife, water resources etc in
any forest” (CSD, 2008, p.9).

It also gives the community the right to sustainably use these resources. Moreover, the CFRs
may be in

“reserved forest, protected forest and protected areas such as Sanctuaries and
National Parks to which the community had traditional access” (Springate-Baginski et
al, 2008, p.38).

As most forest dwellers live in perpetual fear of being booked for forest offences for
disturbance to the forests, this came as a great relief (ibid).

Holders of forest rights and the Gram Sabha can also protect the habitat and cultural and
natural heritage e.g. sacred groves, religious sites, mountain, water bodies etc of their
community from destruction (Sarin and Springate-Baginski, 2010).

“Finally, the Gram Sabha can make rules for regulating access and protecting wild
life, forests or biodiversity of CFRs, and it (or any forest rights holder) has the power
to ensure that these decisions are followed” (CSD, 2008, p.9).

“By empowering village assemblies to protect, conserve and manage statutorily

recognised community forest for sustainable use, the Act aims to reform the existing
system of state ‘fortress conservation’ combined with centralised resource
extraction towards one centred on community controlled forest, wildlife and
biodiversity conservation which ensures livelihood and food security” (Sarin and
Springate-Baginski, 2010, p.4).

“This is amongst the most powerful and significant rights for re-commoning the
enclosures and restoring community controlled democratic forest governance within
customary village boundaries. In the states of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh
alone, about one million hectares of common lands with well recorded community
forest and other rights, which were declared state forests after independence
without following the due legal process (Garg, 2005) could be reclaimed under this
clause” (Sarin and Springate-Baginski, 2010, p.12).

However, “a major omission in the claim form for community rights is the right to
CFR... which resulted in considerable confusion at the field level with many claimant
communities not claiming, or not knowing how to claim this important right” (ibid,
p.21).

“Initially, most state governments totally ignored the community forest rights
claimable under the Act. With growing protests and pressure from grassroots
movements, these are now beginning to receive more attention. Forest
Departments, however, have shown considerable resistance to permitting
recognition of the CFR right as it challenges their exclusive territorial jurisdiction and
control over forests” (ibid, p.24).

“If a forest is being diverted for mining or other such activities (such as in Niyamgiri
in Lanjigarh, Orissa), the community can claim that – since these forests are a CFR

34
 and are part of their habitat and cultural and natural heritage – they have the right
and power to prevent its destruction” (CSD 2008, p.9).

“Sustained protests by forest rights movements and supportive MPs against the
MoEF continuing to divert forest land for non-forest uses such as mining and dams
without recognising forest rights in those forests have resulted in the first major
complementary reform in the Forest Conservation Act 1980. On July 30, 2009, the
MoEF issued an order to all state governments that no permission for forest
diversion would be granted unless they submitted evidence that the process of
recognition of rights in the concerned forest area had been completed under the
FRA. Particular evidence of the recognition of primitive tribal groups and CFR rights
and Gram Sabha resolutions giving informed community forest consent must be
attached. This order has enabled communities to prevent diversion of forest land for
two large investment projects in Orissa for mining bauxite in Niyamgiri by Vedanta
Aluminia Ltd and for POSCO’s steel project. Both of these have become test cases to
see whether rights of the most marginalised can challenge the patterns of predatory
capitalist resource appropriation and extraction spreading in tribal areas, which are
clearly anti-poor in the immediate effects” (Sarin and Springate-Baginski, 2010,
p.29).

The Dongria Kondh, an 8,000 – 10,000 strong primitive tribe have been dependent on
Niyamgiri Hills for centuries for their livelihood, and consider it to be their god. Two rain-fed
rivers and the hills provide them with food, water, fruit and sustenance. The Vedanta mining
project had threatened to displace them from the hills (Sahu, 2010). Local community
groups such as Niyamgiri Surakshya Parishad opposed Vedanta groups mining lease in
Niyamgiri Hills,

“with thousands of tribal people protesting against the Vedanta Resources aluminia
refinery being set up in the Lanjigarh area” (Sahu, 2008, p.20).

A joint committee of the MoEF and MoTA chaired by former IAS officer N.C. Saxena was
created in March 2010 to report on the implementation of the FRA. A letter written by
Saxena to MoEF Minister Jairam Ramesh said:-

“As per the terms of reference, the committee has been mandated to study in detail
the implementation of the FRA including factors that are aiding and impeding its
implementation and to extend full support to the MoTA in their efforts to enforce
and implement the FRA” (HT Correspondent, 2010a, p1).

With reference to Vedanta’s proposed bauxite mining project in Lanjigarh district the
committee report that was submitted to MoEF minister Ramesh said

“the ministry cannot approve the project in Lanjigarh (Kalahandi district) – home of
Kutia Kondh and Dongaria primitive tribal groups – until the forest dwellers’ rights
under the FRA and the Gram Sabha gives its consent” (Hindustan Times, 17th August,
2010).

“Saxena believes the FRA’s prime objective of granting community rights hasn’t been
fulfilled. Only 20,000 of 1 lakh (1 lakh: 100,000) villages in tribal areas have been
granted such rights. These failures are directly implicated for the spread of Maoist

35
 insurgency... During his tour of Maoist areas last month Saxena observed widespread
violations. Many officials, much less the tribals, did not even understand the
complex Hindi the Act uses... “Therefore many provisions are just not being
implemented,” said a committee member” (Chauhan, 2010a, p.3).

Saxena said that he hopes “that state governments enforce the FRA by notifying community
rights” (Chauhan, 2010b, p.4).

“In a landmark decision to safeguard the environment while implementing industrial

projects, MoEF Minister Jairam Ramesh said the bauxite mining clearance given to
Vedanta Resources and the Orissa Mining Corporation in Orissa had been
withdrawn... Orissa Mining Corp allegedly submitted false certificates claiming
concerned Gram Sabhas had okayed bauxite mining in the Niyamgiri Hills” in
violation of FRA provisions (Chauhan, 2010c, p.1).

“The FRA was the prime reason for tripping up Vedanta’s mines... The FRA gives
communities power over forests around or near their traditional settlements. The
loss of these homesteads and the resulting destitution is now implicated as the chief
reason for the spread of the Maoist insurgency across India... Under the FRA, no land
can be given for non-forest purposes without a clearance from local Gram Sabhas.
Gram Sabhas must also certify that all provisions of the law were followed to their
satisfaction” (Halarnker, 2010, p.4).

This is the first case where the important and significant CFR rights granted by the FRA
requiring the consent of Gram Sabhas before forest can be diverted to non-forest use have
been properly implemented and uphold, with the central government belatedly appearing
to be enforcing its own laws. Although it happened in the state of Orissa, such a ground
breaking decision could have far reaching implications across all states of India including
Madhya Pradesh. Despite this being a report on the FRA implementation in Madhya
Pradesh, this decision potentially holds far too much importance for the implementation of
CFR rights to have been left out of a report on the FRA implementation which was being
written at the time of such a decision. It could set a precedent where the central and state
governments will now be under greater pressure to have to start properly implementing the
CFR rights provisions of the FRA. This in turn will potentially lead to a real positive impact
upon the livelihoods of the forest dependent poor as forest communities start to gain true
control and management over the forests they have traditionally occupied and depend on
for their livelihoods.

From this decision it seems that the Indian government wants to convey that all laws will be
upheld in law and spirit (ibid). However this is just one case and it needs to be uniformly
applied nationwide where development projects cannot go ahead without the consent of
Gram Sabha’s according to forest rights activist Madhu Sarin in a radio NTE interview (Sarin,
2010). However the author believes that final judgement on the true intention of the Indian
government will have to be reserved until it has made a decision regarding the test case of
the Rs54,000 Crore (Crore: 10 million) steel plant proposed by South Korea’s POSCO in
Orissa, being India’s largest single Foreign Direct Investment. Here there had been
complaints that rights of traditional forest dwellers in the FRA have not been taken into
account. A N.C. Saxena MoEF committee report on FRA implementation has still not gone
beyond the initial stages. “It was incorrect on the part of the administration to claim there

36
had been no other Traditional Forest Dwellers in possession of forest land for three
generations,” the panel said (HT Correspondent, 2010b, p4). Sarin in the above same
interview went onto to contrast the decision with the announcement by the MoEF that final
forest clearance has been given for the Polavaram Dam project in Andhya Pradesh. This is
despite it being in a ST area and no consent being given by the Gram Sabhas and the tribal
people in total violation of the FRA. Sarin makes the point that you cannot apply the law in
one place and not elsewhere.

The FRA also granted the

“right of ownership, access to collect, use and dispose of minor forest products that
have been traditionally collected within or outside village boundaries to the STs and
SCs and traditional forest dwellers” (Ramnath, 2008, p.37).

That is, the collective rights to the control, management and use of the forests as common
property (Springate-Baginski et al, 2008). Minor forest produce (MFP) includes things like
tendu leaves, herbs, medicinal plants etc, but does not include timber. It also includes
community rights to grazing grounds and water bodies (CSD, 1). These rights should
normally be claimed by the community as a whole, which should be done by the FRC to the
Gram Sabha in accordance with the national rules.

When collection of MFP was part of traditional nistar rights, the community can also claim
that traditional right and have it recorded. Communities can also claim for shifting
cultivation; customary claims over territory; right to use religious sites/burial sites; and right
to collect timber for housing types of produce (CSD, 2008). The FRA also allows for the
community to be able to claim for title to land that has been under their occupation since
before December 13th, 2005 (ibid).

“It is important to note that in almost all cases, forest lands were taken over by the
tribals to meet subsistence needs, and that they were already degraded before they
occupied them. They have had de facto control over them, the bill will give them de
jure control, so they are spared the harassment and extortions by forest personnel
and carry on their livelihood with dignity” (Mushi, 2005, p.4407).

The case-study looked into whether the villages were aware of their rights to claim for
community land. In all 12 study villages there seemed to be good self-perceived awareness
of the kind of CPRs that are used by everyone in the community for which they can claim
the right to under the FRA. Once again, that would be expected though in villages where an
activist organisation such as Ekta Parishad has been active for a number of years
representing the tribals interests and carrying out awareness raising meetings regarding FRA
provisions, and about individual and community rights among village communities (Reddy et
al, 2010b). However, there was a slight degree of hesitancy and uncertainty when the
question was first asked, with the translators having to explain the question for sometime
before the villagers understood what CPRs were. It seemed to the author that the villages’
awareness of this was nowhere near to the same level as was their awareness of the right to
be able to claim for individual patta. It is also likely that many more remote tribal villages
where such organisations like Ekta Parishad are not active and where the tribals may be
marginalised from the political process may not have the same level of awareness, if any, of
their right to claim for community rights under the FRA.

37
Ten of the twelve villages stated that they had made claims for entitlements to the
community forests which included claims for the grazing of animals (8); collection of timber
(5), fuel wood (2) and NTFPs (3); pathways (1); burial ground (3); water resources such as
rivers, streams and tanks (8); temple (1); school building (1); playground (1); fishing (1); and
community plantations (2). Only the villages of Chilghaat and Kutpura had not made a claim,
with the latter village stating that they intend to apply for community rights for the grazing
of animals, collection of fuel wood and timber, and a burial ground. The village of
Vilayatkala had no direct access to a forest so had to make their claim on land occupied by a
neighbouring village, with the Forest Department having to give notification to that village
before the claim can be accepted.

According to the said Oliver Springate-Baginski very few have grasped the importance of the
issues surrounding community rights, and this is one of the issues why it is all going so badly
for community rights. He further explains that the reason why Forest Department
bureaucrats are violating the national law like this is because if they hand back to the
community the right of control of the forest then they lose the “golden cow” they can milk
for donor and national development money (e.g. through FDA grants and others) and set a
precedent for PESA to be implemented.

Unfortunately this case-study was therefore not able to pay the amount of attention to
what is such an important issue deserved due to the reason that the author himself failed to
understand the importance of the issues involved when preparing the village questionnaires
prior to carrying out the village surveys; due to the complication of the issues involved; to
problems with the translators not always fully understanding the issues concerned to
properly present the necessary questions to the village survey participants; and also due to
the author not being too certain as to how accurately the translators were translating the
participants responses back.

38
4 LIVELIHOODS

The second component of the case-study looked into the impact of the FRA and the actions
of Ekta Parishad upon the livelihoods of the villager looking at land as an asset; rights of
access to and use of the forest, and withdrawal of forest products for livelihood needs; and
the perceptions of the villagers of the reasons for any improvements or deteriorations in
their livelihoods over the past five years.

“A livelihood comprises the assets (natural, physical, human, financial, and social
capital), the activities, and the access to these (mediated by institutions and social
relations) that together determine the living gained by the individual or household”
(Ellis, 2000, p.10).

Most forest dwellers rights to cultivate, and to collect forest products and fuel wood in the
forest are deprived by the Forest Department. These have negative impacts on their food
security and levels of well being. They have to break the law for their food security and
livelihoods exposing them to punitive treatment and bribe-seeking from Forest Department
staff (Reddy et al, 2010b). By securing these entitlements for the forest dwellers for them to
manage their community forest and market forest products this might improve livelihoods
by increasing the amount of forest products that can be collected for sale, and will also
reduce transaction costs to forest use such as paying bribes and fines. This therefore will
potentially lead to increased real income (Reddy et al, 2010c).

Secure land tenure and forest rights may potentially reduce livelihood vulnerability, thereby
preventing a deepening of poverty, and should motivate investments in land and forest
improvements.

“Recognition of cultivation and use rights over forest land should permit the right
holders to gain access to development inputs from other departments which they
are currently deprived of” (Sarin and Springate-Baginski, 2010, p.31).

Participants in both group and individual/household interviews were asked to compare the
situation now with that obtaining five years ago, so as to provide a perception of change
and access over that period, looking at issues such as overall land availability for cultivation;
rights of access to and use of the forest, and withdrawal of forest products; and
improvements in household income.

The interviews seem to show that even despite a very problematic implementation process
people are getting their rights to individual patta and community land recognised, and also
better access rights to the forest, albeit very slowly. As detailed below, it certainly seems in
our study villagers to be having significant positive impacts upon the livelihoods of the most
vulnerable of the forest dwellers, being the small and marginal farmers for whom increasing
land security is a significant positive impact. However, the proviso has to be added that the
village surveys were carried out in villages that were in the operational area of Ekta
Parishad, so it would be expected to find some improvement in the livelihoods in these
villages. It is possible that many more remote tribal villages where organisations such as
Ekta Parishad are not active may not be being covered by the FRA implementation process,
and will not be seeing the same improvements in their livelihoods.

39
4.1 Land as an Asset
Once again for the reasons discussed in the section ‘village context’ above, the Revenue
villages of Jamunia and Vilayatkala have not been included in this section due to the reason
that the situation in the villages made the data collected too inconsistent to analyse.

In all the study villages’ agriculture was the main household livelihood activity for the
purpose of meeting their needs, complemented by the collection of forest produce. In some
but not all the villages’ household income was also complemented by wage labouring. The
village group surveys showed that 635 of the 655 village people who have claimed for patta
have already started to cultivate the land. In the village of Jhirraha only 30 of the 42 people
and in the village of Ludhauti only 14 of the 22 people respectively who had claimed for
patta had started to cultivate. In the village of Dadry 25 people in a Forest Department
plantation who have not had their claims accepted have subsequently stopped. The village
group surveys also showed that only 48 of the 655 village people who claimed for patta had
the right to cultivate their entire land (shown in Table 5 below).

From the data collected from the individual/household interviews, on average, the village
households were cultivating 4.1 acres with about 3.5 acres being ‘forest’ land without title.
Of the 38 households surveyed, only 7 households had title to any of the land they
cultivated, and that only amounted to a total of 21.5 acres, with 2.5 acres being revenue
land (shown in Table 5 below). These figures show the vulnerability of forest dependent
people who do not have security of tenure over their land. This therefore makes the proper
implementation of the FRA essential to provide these people with the security of title to
their lands, so as to have the legal right to cultivate them to secure their livelihoods.

Table 5: Right to Cultivate Claimed Land

Village Name Number of Number of Number of people with right to

(number of people who people with cultivate claimed land (from 38
households/claims) are cultivating right to individual/household interviews)
claimed land cultivate entire
land
Chilghaat (125/225) 125 17 Yes (1: 3 acres) No (3)
Fular (40/40) 40 0 No (3)
Kutpura (38/38) 38 0 No (4)
Maraikala (40/115) 115 0 Yes (1: 2.5 acres revenue land)
No (2)
Padria (23/23) 23 0 No (4)
Tamuria (35/35) 35 0 No (4)
Dadry (30/53) 53 24 Yes (2: ½ acre each) No (2)
Jhirraha (36/42) 30 0 No (4)
Sannai (50/62) 62 7 Yes (3: 5 acres each) No (1)
Ludhauti (10/22) 14 0 No (4)
TOTAL (427/655) 635 48 Yes (7: 21.5 acres total) No (31)

The village group interviews showed that the villages of Chilghaat and Sannai were the only
villages to report that all the households that were members of the Ekta Parishad

40
organisation had sufficient land to meet their food requirements. The Ekta Parishad
participants in the villages Fular, Kutpura, Maraikala, Padria, Dadry, Tamuria, Dadry,
Jhirraha, and Ludhauti all reported that either no household or very few households had
enough land for their needs. The individual/household interviews indicated that generally
the households in these eight villages only produced enough food from their land for 6-7
months and were reliant on off-farm labour to meet their needs. It seems significant that in
three of these eight villages, being Fular, Kutpura, and Ludhauti, the households that were
members of the Ekta Parishad organisation who were found to be the most marginalised
colonies of all the villages surveyed (see ‘village context’ section above). This seems to show
that it is the small and most marginal farmers, who are the most vulnerable to food
insecurity, potentially have the most to gain in livelihood improvements from the proper
implementation of the FRA.

Seven of the ten villages reported that the village had a community grain bank, which of
course also helps towards the long-term food security of the village as a whole. A
community grain bank involving all households lends food grains to the poorest by means of
a small interest rate. This action has the advantage of fighting indebtedness and building a
consensus at the village and local level. They all reported that this was the idea of Ekta
Parishad. Only the villages of Dadry, Jhirraha and Ludhauti reported that they did not have
one, with the latter reporting that is because they do not possess good seeds.

From the individual/household interview all the participants in the villages Chilghaat, Fular,
Kutpura, Padria, Tamuria, Sannai, and Ludhauti reported that their land is productive
enough for cultivation. The participants in the villages of Maraikala, Dadry and Jhirraha all
reported that their land was not productive enough for cultivation. Although the village of
Jhirraha reported that they had a community water tank for the purpose of irrigating a
community plantation. Production output can of course be improved with irrigation. It was
only in the villages of Chilghaat, Fular, Kutpura, and Sannai that the individual/household
interviews reported that all the households in the village had access to irrigation, with the
first three named villages having a community diesel water pump, and the village of Sannai
having both a private stop-dam and a water well, both of which were built with the help of
Ekta Parishad. It is probably significant that each one of these villages all the
individual/households also reported that their land was productive enough for cultivation,
and that the villages of Chilghaat and Sannai were the only villages that reported that their
land was sufficient for their food requirements. From this it seems you can safely conclude
that irrigation is vital to help towards the food security of the most marginal farmer’s by
increasing crop productivity.

Once again, it is not too surprising that the village of Sannai is included here, due to the
work of the Ekta Parishad activists Kasturia and Santosh as previously decribed. This also
seems to be the case with the village of Chilghaat, considering Ekta Parishad have also been
active in the village since 1996, and as also described in the section ‘villagers’ perception of
Ekta Parishad’s impact on their livelihoods’ below, it is one of the villages where the actions
of Ekta Parishad were reported by the villagers to have had a very positive impact upon
their livelihoods as according to their perception.

From this information it therefore seems that the actions of Ekta Parishad are having a
positive impact upon the livelihoods of the villagers when looking at land as an asset.

41
4.2 Rights of Access To, Use Of, and Withdrawal of Forest Products
The case-study looked into the villagers rights of access to and use of the forest, and
withdrawal of forest products for livelihood needs. The villages of Fular, Kutpura, which are
both villages whose forest category is sanctuary, and Maraikala, whose forest category is
protected, have no nistar rights of access to and use of forest, and withdrawal of forest
products for livelihood needs. In addition, the nistar rights for the village of Vilayatkala are
very limited, with them only having the right to collect minor forest products such as fodder
and fuel wood by hand, and only tribals having the right of access to the forest for the
grazing of their animals and for the collection of timber for the building of their houses. The
village of Dadry also only had the right for the collection of a few minor forest products such
as fodder and fuel wood. The village reported that their rights of access had actually
deteriorated over the last five years as the grazing of animals was no longer allowed. The
forest category for these two villages is reserved.

This is despite the fact that as reported in the section ‘Madhya Pradesh’s Forest Peoples’
above, villages in Madhya Pradesh had the rights of nistar and grazing in protected forests
(Iyer, 2007). Also it is despite the fact that the FRA granted STs and SCs and traditional forest
dwellers the collective rights to the control, management and use of the forests as common
property whether being in

“reserved forest, protected forest, and protected areas such as Sanctuaries and
National Parks to which the community had traditional access” (Springate-Baginski et
al, 2008, p.38).

All the remaining seven villagers, whose forest categories are also reserved, had the right to
collect a few minor forest products, including fodder and fuel wood and the right to graze
their animals in the forest. Five had the right for collection of timber for building of house.
Chilghaat was the only village that had the right for the collection of forest products for sale
in market, and none of the villages had the right for cultivation in the forest.

The village of Jhirraha, although included as one of the above villages as having the first
three nistar rights described in the paragraph above, reported that their nistar rights have
also deteriorated over the last five years due to the interference and corruption of Forest
Department officers. Many of the other study villages and villagers reported interference
and harassment from Forest Department officers when they have accessed the forest for
the purpose of the use of forest, and withdrawal of forest products for livelihood needs.
Although the village of Sannai reported that their rights of access, use and withdrawal have
improved over the last five years as they now get less harassment from the Forest
Department officers since Ekta Parishad have been active in their village. Once again this is
not too surprising for the village of Sannai considering the hard work of the Ekta Parishad
activists Kasturia and Santosh. The villages of Chilghaat, Padria and Ludhauti also reported
slight improvements in their rights of access to, use of, and withdrawal of forest products
over the last five years. They put this down due to having less pressure from the Forest
Department since the Ekta Parishad organisation became active in their villages, but still
reported some Forest Department interference and harassment.

It therefore seems from the evidence of the village surveys that the FRA is not being
properly implemented in practice as the Forest Department is still largely interfering and

42
harassing villagers when they access the forest for the purpose of the use of forest, and
withdrawal of forest products for livelihood needs. It certainly did not come across in the
village surveys that it was the STs and SCs who had the collective control and management
of the forests.

However, there was better news when it came to the withdrawal of offence cases for
disruption to the forest by the Forest Department since the issue of patta and the FRA. The
availability of nistar rights and use of MFP are supposed to clear most of the forest offence
cases still pending in court. In the village of Vilayatkala all offence cases involving the 47
households that had received patta have been cleared after a re-negotiated reduction in the
payment of the fines. In the village of Dadry all the 24 villagers that had received patta have
had their offences cases withdrawn by the Forest Department. The offence cases against the
remaining 30 villagers whose claims are still pending are still outstanding. In the village of
Sannai 18 households reported that they had had their offence cases withdrawn by the
Forest Department after their applications for patta, with there being no outstanding court
cases against any of the village households.

4.3 Villagers’ Perception of Ekta Parishad’s Impact on their

Livelihoods
The case-study finally looked into the perceptions of the villagers of the reasons for any
improvements or deteriorations in their livelihoods over the past five years. This report will
now describe these on a village by village basis.

4.3.1 Jamunia Village, Katni District

The village of Jamunia seems to be a great example of how Ekta Parishad can impact upon
the livelihoods of village people, and was actually included as a case-study in how mass-
based organisations like Ekta Parishad can help people get control over the resources of
their livelihoods in K.G. Iyer’s aforementioned book Case Studies on Land Rights that was
published on behalf of Ekta Parishad Foundation.

The village is situated on Revenue Department land, with a vast majority of households
having Revenue patta. In 2000 Ekta Parishad activists entered the village to explain to
villagers about land and forest rights. This led to a social movement to reoccupy land for
cultivation they had previously occupied 80-85 years ago. This was originally Revenue land
but has since been claimed by the Forest Department, leading to an on-going ‘orange area’
dispute between the two departments.

The Forest Department objected to this re-occupation, and started to harass the villagers
and filed a court case against 30 named villagers on charges of illegal felling of forests. With
sustained legal support from Ekta Parishad the court found no substance in the complaint
of the Forest Department, and the case was rescinded (Iyer, 2007).

25 households have applied for patta, with all the claims still pending due to the ‘orange
area’ dispute, meaning that the continued legal support of Ekta Parishad is essential if the
villagers are to be granted their claim for patta on the re-occupied cultivated land.

The villagers themselves were therefore very positive in their perception of the role of Ekta
Parishad in getting their rights, such as information on claiming for patta. They were also

43
very positive in how Ekta Parishad has improved their livelihoods, with additional help of
land levelling and bunding, building of well, information on government’s schemes such as
grants to help build houses and NREG, and providing money towards the villager’s grain
bank.

This is therefore a good example to show how the role of Ekta Parishad is important in
getting the villagers their rights, and to also in having a positive impact on improving their
livelihoods.

4.3.2 Vilayatkala Village, Katni District

The villagers were quite positive in their perception of the role of Ekta Parishad in getting
their rights, believing that it had been instrumental in bringing to the village awareness and
knowledge through the formation of an Ekta Parishad village level organisation, leading to
claims for patta under the FRA, and the withdrawal of Forest Department fines for forest
offences. However, the villagers were a little bit more ambiguous in how Ekta Parishad may
have improved their livelihoods, with there seeming to be uncertainty here. All the
households interviewed said they had not seen any improvement in their household income
over the previous five years.

4.3.3 Chilghaat Village, Damoh District

The village of Chilghaat seems to be another good example of how Ekta Parishad can impact
upon the livelihoods of village people. The village settled on Forest Department land in
1995, with the Forest Department objecting to this capture of their land, and harassing the
villagers as a consequence to try and remove them. Ekta Parishad became involved with the
village in 1996. The village was an amalgamation of five different villagers coming together
on the advice of Ekta Parishad, so that they could form a stronger community alliance with
which to defend against the harassment of the Forest Department. Ekta Parishad arranged
training camps for the villagers to teach them of their rights to be able to capture land and
cultivate it. After the FRA Ekta Parishad also advised on their rights to apply for patta, with
the 125 households making 225 claims in 2008, but with strangely only 17 claims having
been surveyed and land certificates issued, with the remaining 208 still pending and
awaiting survey with no adequate explanation as to why.

The villagers themselves were therefore also very positive in their perception of the role of
Ekta Parishad in getting their rights, especially with providing training camps to teach them
of their rights to be able to capture land and to cultivate it. They were also very positive in
how Ekta Parishad has improved their livelihoods, with them initially being landless and
reliant on off-farm migratory labour, but with things having improved now they have their
own land, which is productive enough for their needs through collective farming and
irrigation from a community diesel pump from the river. All the households interviewed had
said they had noticed an improvement in their incomes over the previous five years, with
one commenting that they had now become less dependent on migratory labour.

This is therefore a good example to show how the role of Ekta Parishad is important in
getting the villagers their rights, and to also have a positive impact on improving their
livelihoods.

44
4.3.4 Fular And Kutpura Villages, Damoh District
The villagers in both villages who were part of the Ekta Parishad organisation were quite
positive in their perception of the role of Ekta Parishad in getting their rights, and improving
their livelihoods. Considering how marginalised these households are from the local political
process as explained in the ‘village context’ section above, the activities of such
organisations like Ekta Parishad take on even more importance in ensuring their rights and
making improvements in their livelihoods.

The participants reported that Ekta Parishad had given them training to know their rights as
to how to capture land and cultivate it. After becoming organised under the banner of Ekta
Parishad harassment from the Forest Department and upper class people from the
Panchayat has reduced, so they are able to more freely cultivate their land to produce food.
This has also meant that they now have to migrate less looking for work. One male
participant in the village of Kutpura said Ekta Parishad “had given him courage to sit before
us” and had given him “bread with dignity”. All the households interviewed in both villages
reported that they had seen an improvement in their incomes over the last five years.

4.3.5 Maraikala Village, Umaria District

The villagers stated that Ekta Parishad had given them training to know their rights. This has
in turn improved their livelihoods as pressure and interference from the Forest Department
has lessened, with it having become less ‘brutal’. This has in turn led to easier access to
forest produce for livelihood means which the Forest Department have always previously
objected to. Also Ekta Parishad had given them training in better methods of cultivation for
their crops. However, they had not noticed any improvement in their income over the past
five years.

4.3.6 Padria and Tamuria Villages, Katni District

The villagers stated that Ekta Parishad had given them legal support in getting them their
rights, and helped them to know their rights to capture Forest Department land, and to then
claim for patta. Mention was also made of Ekta Parishad’s Janadesh 2007 march in their
struggle for access to land, forest and water. Ekta Parishad had also helped to improve their
livelihoods by helping to increase their agricultural capacity, and for providing a grain bank.
This in turn has improved their personal savings position as it has increased their food
production that also led to further food security. The female participants mentioned that
they have felt empowered by Ekta Parishad which has increased their capacity through
participation in Gram Sabha meetings, giving them a voice at the village level. One female
participant mentioned her livelihood had improved due to the reduction in the problem of
untouchability and caste elitism. The villagers also mentioned that they had noticed a small
increase in incomes, through such things like the Forest Department applying less pressure
when it comes to the collection of forest products.

4.3.7 Dadry (Prakeshnagr) Village, Satna District

The villagers stated that Ekta Parishad had given them information in how to claim for patta
under the FRA. Also Ekta Parishad had given them documentation and had acted in a legally
supporting advocacy role in getting them their rights. Mention was once again made of the
2007 Janadesh march arranged by Ekta Parishad raising much awareness of their rights. The
villagers also said that Ekta Parishad had helped in slowly improving their livelihoods

45
through better land security meaning they can now build towards making secure
households for their families. Although only half the households sampled said that they
have seen only a small improvement in incomes, they stated it was still early days and that
they do now see a much brighter future for themselves.

4.3.8 Jhirraha Village, Satna District

The villagers stated that Ekta Parishad had given them information and training to be able to
claim for patta, and had also given legal support. The villagers also said Ekta Parishad had
improved their livelihoods by giving them security of land and better food security as a
result, and by giving support in developing their agricultural land, for example, with a
community water tank for the irrigation of a community plantation. Also they get no further
harassment from the Forest Department over the cultivation of their land. However, only
one of the four households surveyed said that they had seen an improvement in their
income over the past five years, with the reason being that the household had been able to
increase the acreage of the land cultivated.

4.3.9 Sannai Village, Satna District

The village of Sannia seems to be another great example of how Ekta Parishad can impact
upon the livelihoods of village people, and was also included as a case-study in how mass-
based organisations like Ekta Parishad can help people get control over the resources of
their livelihoods in K.G. Iyer’s aforementioned book Case Studies on Land Rights that was
published on behalf of Ekta Parishad Foundation.

The village settled on Forest Department land in 1983 after the traditional village of
Kandwari got displaced due to the Ban Sagar Dam more than 100km away, with both the
Forest Department and the neighbouring village of Ladhauti objecting to this capture of
their land, and harassing the villagers as a consequence to try and remove them. Ekta
Parishad became involved with the village in 1994-95 when local activists Kasturi and
Santosh came into contact with the adivasis. The village started to actively participate in all
land movements organised by Ekta Parishad, so that they could form a stronger community
alliance with which to defend against the harassment of the Forest Department and the
neighbouring village (Iyer, 2007). Ekta Parishad has offered legal support and information as
to their rights. After the FRA, Ekta Parishad also advised on their rights to apply for patta,
with the 50 households making 62 claims in 2008. Seven claims have been accepted, with
the remaining 55 still pending but seeming to be proceeding normally as reported by the
villagers.

The villagers themselves were therefore very positive in their perception of the role of Ekta
Parishad in getting their rights, especially with providing legal support in past cases that
were filed against them by the Forest Department; information as to their rights; and
support for claiming for patta under the FRA.

The villagers also reported Ekta Parishad has improved their livelihoods, by providing
Natural Resource Management training to learn sustainable and productive agricultural
practices such as bunding, and mixed cropping leading to increased diversity of crops and
food security, reporting that they are now food sufficient for the whole year rather than for
only five to six months only five years previous. This was further helped by the introduction
of water resources with the help of Ekta Parishad such as the building of a stop dam in 2008,

46
and the building of a well in 2009. Mention was also made of Ekta Parishad introducing
ideas such as a community nursery to provide timber and fruit trees for distribution, and
kitchen gardens, where they will have a small allotment garden in the back of the house to
grow vegetables such as potatoes and tomatoes, which are grown around a spot where they
bathe so as to irrigate whilst at the same time bathing. This has therefore greatly improved
their diets as well as further increasing their food security, with one participant saying that
they once only used to eat rice and pulse.

All the households interviewed had said they had noticed an improvement in their incomes
over the previous five years, with them no longer having to do off-farm migratory labour,
and with Ekta Parishad giving them information as to better marketing. Also because they
now get less pressure from the Forest Department their access to the forest to collect forest
products has improved, with one female participant stating that she now earns 4000 rupees
annually from the collection of tendu (bidi) leaves.

This is therefore a great example to show how the role of Ekta Parishad is important in
getting the villagers their rights, and to also have a positive impact on improving their
livelihoods.

4.3.10 Ludhauti Village, Satna District

The villagers were quite positive in their perception of the role of Ekta Parishad in getting
their rights. After their 2008 claim for patta had not been supported by the Gram Sabha,
with the help of Ekta Parishad they re-claimed in 2009 direct to the SDLC officer of Maihar
Thesil, with Ekta Parishad offering advocacy support. As with the villages of Fular and
Kutpura, this once again shows how the activities of such organisations like Ekta Parishad
take on even more significance in ensuring the rights and making improvements in the
livelihoods of the households that are marginalised from the local political process.

The villagers were also quite positive in how Ekta Parishad has helped to improve their
livelihoods. After becoming organised under the banner of Ekta Parishad harassment from
the Forest Department and the prosperous landowners has reduced, so they are now able
to more freely cultivate their land to produce food, and access the forest for forest
products, therefore improving their food security. One household reported that they now
had fewer expenses as they now required fewer trips to the Maihar Thesil court to answer
Forest Department offences for disturbance to the forest. All the households interviewed in
both villages reported that they had seen an improvement in their incomes over the last five
years as they now had less need for outside labour work due to their increase in agricultural
productivity.

47
5 CRITIQUE OF FIELD RESEARCH METHOD

The first problem that the author faced when carrying out the study research was with the
first two villages visited, being the Revenue Department villages of Jamunia and Vilayatkala.
Due to the unusual situations that existed in both villages, they were not ideal survey
samples for the purpose of a study into the implementation of the FRA. For the reasons
discussed in the section ‘village context’ above, the data collected unfortunately could not
therefore be included in the analysis of the FRA as to whether the national rules relating to
the processes of invitation, verification, and acceptance of peoples claims for patta were
being properly implemented. As this was a major part of the first component of the case-
study, it raises questions regarding the basis on which the selection of the villages for the
case-study was chosen on behalf of the author, with the author having not been involved in
the meeting that decided upon the selection. After the author raised this issue with the Ekta
Parishad organisation, the initial selection of the 12 village study sites was duly amended,
with the selection thereafter being more predominantly Forest Department villages.

Another problem that arose in the village of Jamunia, was that at first there seemed to be a
lot of inconsistencies with the answers that were being given in response to the
questionnaires, with matters seeming to be unduly complicated, which was proving to be
unnecessarily very time consuming. It eventually became apparent it was due to an ‘orange
area’ dispute over land that the village had previously occupied, and which some villagers
had recently recaptured for the purpose of cultivation. This highlighted a problem with
communication between the author and the Ekta Parishad organisation due to language
barriers, as the author had not been briefed prior to the field visit with details of the
dispute. The questionnaires would have been so much easier to carry out if the author had
been briefed accordingly.

A further problem that arose in the village of Vilayatkala was with carrying out the group
survey. Firstly, there was a lot of noise interference as the villagers were busy raising
personal issues with the author’s translator and the accompanying Ekta Parishad Katni
District co-ordinator. Secondly due to this problem, the villagers were not really
concentrating on the questionnaire, and it seemed to the author that it was actually the co-
ordinator who was answering the questions on behalf of the villagers, rather than them
answering for themselves. This was of course far from ideal as it was the purpose to
research the villagers’ knowledge and awareness of the FRA, and not the co-ordinators. The
author had to raise this issue so to be able to bring some order to the questionnaire
process. This raised a further problem with communication and language barriers, as the
author found he was often sitting on the sidelines having no idea of what was being
discussed first hand, and being totally reliant on his translator, and therefore struggling to
be able to keep control over proceedings to ensure that the questionnaires were properly
carried out, and the answers being received to be authentically that of the villagers.

This problem with the translator seeming to be answering the questions on behalf of the
participants rather than letting them answer and translating their answers accordingly
continued in the village of Chilghaat, with the authors newly appointed translator, being an
Ekta Parishad advocate. The author found himself having to constantly remind him to do so
in order to be satisfied that it was the answers of the villagers he was receiving, and not
those of his translator. There were also additional problems of communication and language

48
barriers due to some of the villagers only being able to speak in their local dialect, and not
knowing Hindi. This was resulting in questions and answers going through two processes of
translation making it difficult to accurately judge the validity as to whether it was the
villagers themselves who were truly answering the questions, or whether these were just
being explained to them, and then being translated back by the translator according to his
own subjectivity.

The next problem that the author experienced was his translator, being the Ekta Parishad
advocate, started to have to prioritise his work over and above the authors’ study research.
This problem became particularly highlighted in the village of Maraikala, which was
complicated due to an ‘orange area’ dispute. The author wanted to ask another two
individual questionnaires, as only three had so far being carried out, in order to further
enquire as to whether the dispute was leading to the non-recognition of patta, being an
important component of the study. However, due to the time constraints of the translator,
this could not be carried out as he had to leave for another engagement. This was of course
a far from ideal situation when carrying out field research. However, it must be said, such
problems will be inevitable when carrying out field research for a social movement with
limited resources such as Ekta Parishad.

A further problem that the author experienced was being placed with three different
translators. Each time it was like starting all over again, having to explain and go through the
questionnaires so the translator could get an understanding of the questions being asked,
and to know the type of information that was being looked for the purpose of translating
back. It was always the most difficult in the very first village with them, until the author and
the translator became accustomed to each other and the questionnaires. This could of
course affect the consistency of the data collected from the surveys.

One way to solve the problems that the author experienced with his translators would be
for the author to be allotted with a single translator, who would be specifically employed for
that purpose and one who had a previous knowledge and understanding of the main subject
matter of the study, in this case being the FRA. However, once again this may not always be
affordable for a social movement with limited resources.

Another problem that the author experienced was with interviewing female participants as
a white male in such traditional villages, with the inevitable problems of embarrassment and
language barriers. On attempting to individually interview one young female participant in
the village of Maraikala, she became too embarrassed to answer the questions directly. This
resulted in it quickly descending into female group discussion as more female members of
the village joined her in support. The author had to therefore terminate the interview as it
was impossible to tell who was now being interviewed.

Sometimes there was a problem with the arranging of the initial group questionnaire, with
not all the villagers always being present due to working in their fields. The surveys were
being carried out during the monsoon season and therefore being a very busy time for
subsistence farmers who are also dependent on the forest resources for their livelihoods,
being the time they plough their fields and sow their crops. This problem became
particularly apparent in the village of Dadry, as the survey could not include a small non-
tribal colony of the village as none of them were able to arrive in time for the group
interview. This problem could be solved by carrying out the village questionnaires in off-

49
peak framing periods, but then a problem could then occur where many farmers maybe
away doing off-farm migratory labour.

As discussed in the ‘community rights’ section above, also due to language barriers and the
difficulties in explaining complicated issues to translators with whom you cannot
communicate freely with, the translators did not always seem to fully understand the issues
concerned. This resulted in them seeming to not be able to properly present the questions
to the village survey participants, and not always seeming to accurately translate the
participants’ responses back. The author tried to overcome this problem as much as
possible by framing most of the questions to just require simple yes / no answers. However,
this inevitably meant a certain loss of qualitative detail. It also meant that the author
unfortunately was not able to adequately research and to pay the amount of attention into
the FRA implementation of CFR rights that such an important issue warranted.

Another problem was that the group and individual interviews were usually carried out in
the same place, with most of the individual participants normally having been present from
the beginning of the interview process. The author noticed that by the time it came to the
third or fourth individual interview the answers sometimes seemed to be repeating
themselves from the previous questionnaires. Therefore the writer could not be sure as to
whether the individual participants were just repeating the answers from what they heard
before, or whether all the villagers had a sufficient enough knowledge and awareness of all
the issues concerned to result in such homogeneity of answers. It could well be the case in
villages where organisations such as Ekta Parishad are active bringing awareness and
knowledge of peoples’ rights, that there could have been such homogeneity. A way to avoid
this problem in the future would be to of course hold the individual interviews separately.
However due to both time and resource constraints, this was not possible to do with this
study.

A major problem with the field research method was that all 12 villages were selected on
the basis of them being in operational areas of Ekta Parishad. This meant there was no
opportunity for cross-comparison in the report between villages that are in operational
areas of Ekta Parishad with villages that are in non-operational areas. So although the report
often surmised that the violation of the national rules relating to the implementation of the
FRA that it was finding to be happening in the research study sites would be happening on a
much grander scale elsewhere, this of course cannot be said with any certainty. So therefore
it cannot be concluded with any certainty as to the impact that Ekta Parishad is having in
villages in relation to the proper implementation of the FRA.

One final point that needs to be noted is with the villagers’ perceptions of Ekta Parishad,
and the impact the organisation has had upon their livelihoods. It was clear to the author
that all the villagers were very keen to say very positive things about Ekta Parishad, which is
of course not too surprising when they are being asked questions on behalf of the
organisation in the presence of their local activists, obviously adapting their answers so as to
please. Having said this though, it did seem to the author that the villagers were being very
genuine with their comments, and it would be expected that you would find improvements
in the livelihoods of villagers where such an organisation like Ekta Parishad is active.

50
6 CONCLUSIONS

The FRA has great potential to be a pro-poor forest and land rights reform, which many poor
people have already benefited from its implementation. If properly implemented many
more millions of poor people will benefit and see improvements in their livelihood security
(Reddy et al, 2010b). This study has shown the implementation process in Madhya Pradesh
is going very slowly, with several distinct limitations of the process having compounded
each other. This is therefore restricting the potential pro-poor benefits.

The FRA aimed at providing the forest dependent poor with rights to the forest land that
they have already occupied and cultivated, as well as access to legally collect forest produce
to meet their livelihood needs, free from Forest Department harassment. This will mean
they will no longer be treated as encroachers on their own land under constant threat of
being evicted for development purposes, or at the whim of the Forest Department.
However, the law will be useless unless properly implemented, and the rights of forest
dependent poor properly recorded in government land and forest records so they remain
permanent (ibid).

There were operational issues regarding violation of the FRA implementation rules. The
politically and marginalised sections of some villages had not been invited and therefore had
no participation in the Gram Sabha and appointment of FRC members, and also had not
received any invitations from the FRC to claim for individual patta. This is a big issue as it
shows the difficulties in having the FRA properly implemented, with the marginalised being
alienated from the implementation process. So this raises the question of what are the
realistic chances of improving the rights and livelihoods of the poor of the poorest of the
forest dependent people.

Further operational issues regarding the FRA implementation process were with verification
of claims not being carried out by field survey; claims often accepted for far less than what
was already claimed for without any reasonable explanation; a majority of claims pending
with no reasonable explanation, many of which may well have been rejected, but with no
official record. These violations result in some village households being denied their rights
to individual patta.

The state government, as well as Ekta Parishad for that matter, seemed to be focusing
mainly on individual claims for patta, rather than on community claims for the right to gain
control, management and use over the forests that the communities have traditionally
occupied. This denial of rights is probably of the most importance, as this more than
anything will safeguard and improve the livelihood security of whole communities of the
forest dependent poor as they will no longer be able to get displaced from their lands for
development projects without the consent of the Gram Sabha.

The lack of direction and transparency in the implementation of the FRA, with the state
government and the Forest Department obstructing the democratic process at every
opportunity, means that the desirable outcomes will not be achieved as people’s genuine
claims are not sufficiently heard. The proper implementation of the FRA is the key to being
able to achieve these outcomes. It is the role of social movements like Ekta Parishad and
other such civil society organisations to continue to apply pressure on state and central
governments to ensure the proper implementation of the FRA in the best interests of the

51
forest dependent poor in terms of improvements in livelihood and food security (ibid). This
report will conclude on several recommendations.

The focus should be on information and awareness raising for the villagers in relation to
“their rights as well as their duties in forest lands over which they may now get a legal
status” (Ramnath, 2008, p.42). This should be done not just for the villagers, but also for the
Ekta Parishad workers, many of whom did not seem to be aware of all the FRA provisions.
The importance of this can be highlighted from the situation in the Jhirraha village, where
both the villagers and the Ekta Parishad workers were unaware that the Gram Sabha has the
right to extend the initial time period for applications for individual patta. This could be
done by workshops where the Ekta Parishad workers are properly informed and made
aware of all the FRA provisions, and provided with bound paper copies of the main
provisions, for the purpose of their continued reference.

The lack of awareness is a particular problem for the proper implementation of the FRA in
Madhya Pradesh. Pressure needs to be put on the state government to launch a special
campaign for generating widespread awareness about the provisions of the FRA amongst
forest dwellers and for imparting training to the field level functuaries for this purpose. The
Gram Sabhas in the state could be given instructions to make special efforts for inviting
claims. This is of particular importance for the economically and politically marginalised of
villages who seem to be completely alienated from the implementation process.

A proper format is required for people to be informed in writing if their claims have been
rejected or if they have been given less land than what they have claimed for, in order to
allow them their right of appeal. All forest dependant people should be able to expect
access to justice from the state if their rights have been violated. As it appears that the land
being given is on average insufficient for the livelihood needs of those who rely on it for
their subsistence, if any has been given at all, this is of particular importance.

This study showed that there seemed to be an issue regarding the length of time it took
from claims being made to the issue of title deeds. Therefore pressure also needs to be
applied on the state government to process all claims expeditiously for issue of title deeds
to all the eligible claimants as a priority basis.

This process of information and awareness raising, and applying pressure on state and
central governments is particularly important in relation to the extremely important issue of
Community Forest Resource (CFR) rights, in light of the recent decision of the MoEF in the
Vedanta case. It is vital to hold governments to account in order to stop land-grabbing by
industry in the name of promoting development without community consent, and to
restore control and land rights to local communities. The need is to ensure that this does
not just become a one-off case, but sets an important precedent by which all future cases
can be judged by.

If you can ensure communities can get full control and management and use over forests
they have traditionally occupied as common property, where it can no longer be turned
over to non-forest use without the consent of the Gram Sabha, resulting in the
displacement of whole communities, then this in itself will go greatly towards reversing the
historical injustice perpetrated by the state of the insecurity of tenure of tribal communities
and other traditional forest dwellers. This should therefore take on paramount importance,

52
even more so than the almost equally important issue of the granting of individual patta to
cultivated forest land. This will ensure improvements in the livelihoods of the poor of the
poorest, who are predominantly the forest dependant people.

The issue of CFR rights has seemed to have been largely ignored in the implementation
process so far by all parties concerned, with both villagers and as it seemed Ekta Parishad
workers, having very little, if any at all, knowledge and awareness of these. Therefore the
authors’ recommendation for workshops to be arranged for its workers so they are properly
informed and made aware of all FRA provisions takes on even more importance when it
comes to CFR rights.

The proper implementation of the FRA will have a great impact on the forest dependent
poor in terms of livelihood security. It is up to organisations like Ekta Parishad to ensure
proper implementation of the FRA by continuing to apply pressure on state and central
governments so as to be brought into support the process. The author hopes that this
report will help towards achieving this.

53
References

Bhullar, L., 2008. The Indian Forest Rights Act 2006: A Critical Appraisal. Law, Environment
and Development Journal, 4(1), pp. 20-33. Available at
http://www.leadjournal.org/content/08020.pdf (accessed 09:01:10).

Bohner, M., 2010. Towards the recognition of citizenship for the forest dwellers of India?
Ekta Parishad Foundation, Bhopal.

Campaign for Survival and Dignity (CSD), 2005. Forest Rights Update 9: Bill Tabled, Bill
Gutted. Available at www.rightofoodindia.org/data/csd05update9.doc

Chauhan, C.,

2010a. Sonia advisor angers minister. Hindustan Times, 22 August, 2010, New Delhi /
Bhopal, India.

2010b. Faith in law of land restored. Hindustan Times, 25 August, 2010, New Delhi / Bhopal,
India.

2010c. Green Ministry seals Vedanta’s Orissa fate. Hindustan Times, 25 August, 2010, New
Delhi / Bhopal, India.

CSD, 1. What is the Forest Rights Act About? Available at

http://www.forestrightsact.com/what-is-this-act-about?format=pdf

CSD, 2008. A Guide to the Forest Rights Act. http://www.forestrightsact.com/resources-for-

activists

Census of India, 2001. Madhya Pradesh Data Highlights: The Scheduled Tribes and Madhya
Pradesh Data Highlights: The Scheduled Castes. Office of the Registrar General, India.
Available at http://censusindia.gov.in

Dreze, J., and Sen, A., 1996. India: Development and Participation. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Ellis, F., 2000. Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Forest Survey of India (FSI), 2009. India State of Forest Report. FSI, Ministry of Environment
and Forests, Government of India, Dehradun. Available at
http://www.fsi.nic.in/sfr_2009.htm

Gadgil, M., and Guha, R., 1995. Ecology and Equity: the use and abuse of nature in
contemporary India. London: Routledge.

Garg, A., 2005. Orange Areas: examining the origins and status. National Centre for
Advocacy Studies, Pune. Available at
http://www.indiaenvironmentalportal.org.in/content/orange-areas-examining-origin-and-
status

54
Government of India (GoI), 2010. Status report on implementation of the Scheduled Tribes
and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (for the period
ending 31st may, 2010). Ministry of Tribal Affairs. Available at www.forestrights.gov.in

Guha, R., 2005. Forestry in British and Post-British India: A historical Analysis. Economic and
Political Weekly November 5-12, 1983, pp.1940-1946.

Halarnkar, S., 2010. The Polavaram Test. Hindustan Times, 26 August, 2010, New Delhi /
Bhopal, India.

HT Correspondent, 2010a. Bhuria, Ramesh Lock Horns Over Panel on Forest Act. Hindustan
Times, 20 August, 2010, New Delhi / Bhopal, India.

HT Correspondent, 2010b. Posco panel’s net gets wider. Hindustan Times, 31 August, 2010,
New Delhi / Bhopal, India.

Iyer, Dr.K.G., 2007. Case Studies on Land Rights. Ekta Foundation Trust: Bhopal.

Mathur, H.M., 2009. Tribal Land Issues in India: Communal Management, Rights, and
Displacement. In J.Perera, ed. Land and Cultural Survival: The Communal Land Rights of
Indigenous Peoples in Asia. Phillipines: Asian Development Bank. Ch. 6.

Ministry of Tribal Affairs, 2010. Annual Report 2009-10. Government of India. Available at
http://www.tribal.nic.in/writereaddata/mainlinkFile/File1220.pdf

Mitra, K., and Gupta, R., 2009. Indigenous Peoples’ Forest Tenure in India. In J.Perera, ed.
Land and Cultural Survival: The Communal Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Asia.
Phillipines: Asian Development Bank. Ch. 7, pp.193-211

Mushi, I., 2005. Scheduled Tribes Bill, 2005. Economic and Political Weekly 40(41) pp.4406-
4409.

Naylor, L., 2010. Forest Assured? Outlook Magazine, 14 June 2010, New Delhi, India.

NCAS: National Centre for Advocacy Studies, 2005. Advocacy Update on Land Rights. Issue:
18 October-December: 2005, Pune. Available at
http://www.indiaenvironmentalportal.org.in/content/orange-areas-examining-origin-and-
status

Overseas Development Institute (ODI), 2002. Decentralisation in Madhya Pradesh, India:

from Panchayat Raj to Gram Sawaj (1995 to 2001). London. Available at
www.odi.org.uk/Publications/working_papers/wp170_b.pdf

Perera, J., 2009. Introduction. In J.Perera, ed. Land and Cultural Survival: The Communal
Land Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Asia. Phillipines: Asian Development Bank, 1-14.

PUCL: Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, 2009. The State of India’s Indigenous and Tribal
Peoples 2009. Available at http://www.pucl.org/index-subject/dalit-tribal.htm

Ramnath, M., 2008. Surviving the Forest Rights Act: Between Scylla and Charybdis. Economic
and Political Weekly March 1, 2008, pp.37-42.

55
Reddy, M.G., Kumar, K.A., Rao, P.T., and Springate-Baginski, O.,

2010a. Draft Paper: The Making of Andhra’s Forest Underclass: An Historical Institution
Analysis of Forest Rights Deprivations. DFID: Improving Institutions for Pro-Poor Growth
Research Programme Consortium: Manchester University.

2010b. Draft Paper: Access to Forest Justice: The Implementation of Institutional Reform in
Andhra’s Forested Landscapes. DFID: Improving Institutions for Pro-Poor Growth Research
Programme Consortium: Manchester University.

2010c. Draft FRA study Methods and Schedules V5 (11 April). DFID: Improving Institutions
for Pro-Poor Growth Research Programme Consortium: Manchester University.

Sahu, G., 2008. Mining in the Niyamgiri Hills and Tribal Rights. Economic and Political Weekly
April 12, 2008, pp.19-21.

Sahu, P.R., 2010. Rahul woos anti-mine Orissa tribals. Hindustan Times, 27 August, 2010,
New Delhi / Bhopal, India.

Sarap, K., 2007. Forest and Livelihoods in Orissa. In O. Springate-Baginski and P. Blaikie, eds.
Forests, People & Power. London: Earthscan. Ch. 8.

Sarin, M, 2010. NTE radio interview. Available at

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/node/1836

Sarin, M., and Springate-Baginski, O., 2010. The Indian Forest Rights Act – The Anatomy of a
necessary but not sufficient institutional reform. IPPG Discussion Paper Series Number Forty
Five. Available at http://www.ippg.org.uk/papers/dp45.pdf

Springate-Baginski, O., and Blaikie, P., 2007. Forests, People & Power: the political ecology of
reform in South Asia. London: Earthscan.

Springate-Baginski, O., Sarin, M., Ghosh, S., Dasgupta, P., Bose, I., Banerjee, A., Sarap, K.,
Misra, P., Behera, S., Reddy, M.G., and Rao, P.T, 2008. The Indian Forest Rights Act 2006:
Commoning Enclosures? Available at
http://dlcvm.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/00004091/01/Springate-Baginski_233001.pdf

56
Local Terms

Gram Panchayat Council for Group of Villagers

Gram Sabha Village Council

Nistar Usufruct rights of villagers related to the collection, use, and

withdrawal of forest products for livelihood needs

Panchayat Raj A system of governance in which Gram Panchayats are the basic
units of administration. It has three levels: village, block and district

Patta Individual plots of land / Deed of Ownership

Sarpanch Head of a Panchayat or Village Headman

Thesil A sub-division of a district

57