Forest Resources and Ownership Rights in Chhattisgarh – An Issue of Conflict between the State and the Tribes

 

Chhattisgarh, a state that is at the vanguard of Indian industries and also a repository of minerals has a diverse cultural legacy. Chhattisgarh and tribal culture are two tautological terms since a third of the state's populace is dominated by tribals. It is estimated that the tribals constitute around 32.5 % of the population of Chhattisgarh.  These primitive forest dwellers / aboriginals / tribals depend upon forest resources for their livelihood and survival. Forest provides them with their basic necessity of life that is food, cloth and shelter. At the same time land being a scare resource the effect of globalisation, liberalization and urbanisation possess a big threat to the harmonious and peaceful life of the tribals in the forest. In this background the struggle for forest rights continues, now with the added strength of an Act in the hands of these Forest Dwellers. In August 2010 when the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs, the nodal ministry for implementing Forest Rights Act (FRA), released a status report that of the 2.9 million claims settled under FRA, only 1.6 per cent (46,156) gave community rights and most of these did not include rights over Minor Forest Produce (MFP). All other titles were for agricultural land and dwellings in forestland. This was a bad news for the 100 million forest dwellers in India who have been battling for community forest rights since colonial times. In Chhattigarh, the ground reality is no different. The present paper tries to study the conflict between the tribes and the state keeping the Forest Right Act in its backdrop. It also explores the issue of violation of right over CPRs like water in the rivers. The paper illustrates the scenario of conflicts by taking up cases related to water, land and forest produces. Today development has become a phenomenon which adds riches to the life of few and miseries to the life of millions.

1. Introduction - After Africa, India is the second country to host a large number of diverse tribal communities. Each community has its own cultural and economic differentiation besides specific ethnic identities. Since more than five decades numerous academicians, administrators and policy-makers have been recommending, evaluating and altering the development policies for the scheduled tribes and scheduled castes. Yet nothing new happened nor was the exercise abandoned. But, the problem is much more complex than mere formulation of programmes. Unless ownership of land rights, tenancy rights and minimum wages are assured, the inequalities will continue in the form of indebtedness, bonded labour, poverty, hunger, etc. Till date the land question in tribal areas remains to be unresolved (Pathy 2003:2832). India’s approach to nation building and nationalities has been unique. In the post independence period there was a conscious effort to fulfil the aspirations of ethnic and linguistic groups, without compromising the national priority of “economic growth” (Dyakov, 1966, p. 11).

 

Tribal communities in India were viewed as ethnic entities, whose distinct linguistic and cultural identities were recognized. For tribal communities in northeast India that led an isolated existence, a “hands-off” approach to governance was adopted. The fifth and sixth schedules of the Constitution of India aimed to protect certain tribal inhabited areas in north-east and north India from unrestricted “outside” entry. Tribal zones, which came under the two schedules, were directly administered by the federal (central) government (Menon, 2004, pp. 34–35). Adivasi literally means aboriginal, Original settler or first settler of the land. In the Indian Constitution, they are classified as the Scheduled Tribes (ST) and guaranteed certain rights and privileges. According to the census 2001, the Adivasis are 8.6 per cent of the total population in India. About 85 Percent of them live in Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Jharkhand and West Bengal. About 12 Per cent live in Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura (Sopan. Down to Earth; July 31, 2003). The Adivasis live in or around the forests and their life cycle moves around nature. They do not only depend on natural resources for their livelihood, but their culture, identity and autonomy are also based on it. Ninety per cent of them still live in or in close proximity to the forests (Pradeep.2004) and only 10 per cent of them have shifted to the cities (Dungdung 2010). There are around 50 districts with dense forest cover in the country that are tribal dominated, but there is little agreement on the actual area of forest land present in the country. There have been cases of the forest department taking over nonforest land even when such areas have little tree cover. On the other hand, instances similar to that in Madhya Pradesh have occurred; where more than 11,200 square metres of jungle spread over 200 hectares “vanished” in the first six months of 2006 alone. The Supreme Court appointed Special Environment Committee has established that forest cover with 70 per cent density stretches across only 51,285 sq km (1.56 per cent of India’s geographic area); 26,245 sq km of forests with 40 per cent density has been lost in the last two years. There are also discrepancies between data supplied by the Forest Survey of India and the National Remote Sensing Agency on the proportion of forest loss from degradation. (EPW 2007:5)

 

Hence, from the above discussion it can be inferred the importance of forest in the life of the Scheduled Tribe community. Chattisgarh, a state that is at the vanguard of Indian industries and also a repository of minerals has a diverse cultural legacy. Chhattisgarh and tribal culture are two tautological terms since a third of the state's populace is dominated by tribals (http://cg.gov.in/profile/corigin.htm#creation). The high concentration of tribal population and minerals has led rapid industrialization of the state. This has also led to sparks in various parts of the state. The fight to conquer the forest land and natural resources for development has also led to displacement of vast tribal population. The present paper undertakes the analysis of FRA 2006 and the challenges ahead. At the same time it provides case studies which illustrate the threat of bigger conflicts in future.

 

2. FRA 2006 - The Forest Rights Act (henceforth FRA) was passed by India’s Parliament in 2006, finally recognising, 60 years after Independence, that across almost one-quarter of India’s land, “historical injustice” has been perpetrated by the state forestry bureaucracy against rural populations. 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. The Act provides the legislative basis for redressing this injus­tice, and so has major implications across states, promising a more secure basis for forest people’s livelihoods. However, is it realistic to expect after more than a century of state oppression of the forest people, that the relationship can be reversed at a stroke of the legislative pen? (Gopinath Reddy, K Anil Kumar, P Trinadha Rao, Oliver Springate-Baginski 2011:73)

 

In the light of past experience it would be plausible to say that forest dwellers will have to look for work outside their forest land. In other words, they are likely to become part of the reserve army of labour and women will continue to be subjected to patriarchal regimes. It is clear that restriction of forest land rights to four hectares is “land ceiling” for the poor sections of a village community, largely landless people. Community rights are with respect to water bodies, grazing lands, habitats, pastoral lands, etc. This is expected to fulfil their needs for minor forest produce, fish, cattle products, among others. However, the FRA 2006 does not say how many hectares would come under community rights. Is community made up of people who have four hectares of forest land or the entire village community? Who will decide the principles of sharing? Are rights to nuclear families likely to contribute to the making of communities or are they going to further fragment village social life? The play of power structures will depend on the population composition, the land distribution and stratification of a village. (Savyasaachi 2011:60)

 

However, the Indian State brought the Forests Rights Act in 2006 to right the historic wrong but its implementation is dubious. On the one hand, the implementation of the Act is extremely poor and Adivasi lands are still being handed over to the corporate houses for the so called development projects, and on the other, the forest department which is the biggest landlord on earth, doesnot allow Adivasis to enjoy their rights and privileges on forests.

 

3. Issues of Conflicts between the state and the tribes in Chhattisgarh

 

a)    Loosing Right over water bodies in the state of Chhattisgarh

 

Water is perceived in a number of ways by common people as well as scholars; as commons, as a commodity, as a basic right and as a sacred resource or divinity. Traditionally water is perceived as a Common Property Resource means, ‘a class of  resource for which exclusion is difficult and joint use involves substractability’. Water is one of the basic necessities, thus a fundamental human right without which life cannot sustain. In ancient Indian context water is considered as a sacred resource, an object that is divine and part of natural environment sustaining it and sustained by it (Iyer, 2003). As part of the global reforms in the water sector privatization has been sought in India as one of the solutions to address this looming crisis. As such the Indian government dutifully mentioned this in the National Water Policy of 2002. Article 13 of the Policy reads, ‘Private sector participation should be encouraged in planning, development and management of water resources for diverse use, wherever possible’. Some of the states decided to reform their traditional style of water management through the policy guidelines are, Tamil Nadu, New Delhi, Chhattisgarh and Kerala (Singh, 2004).

 

Case 1 - Sheonath River Privatization

The story of Sheonath river privatization goes back when the Rs.9 crore Sheontah river project was formalized on 5th October 1998, between MPAKVN and Radius Water Limited (RWL) on a Build, Own, Operate and Transfer (BOOT) basis. This was to be effective from 4 October, 2000 to 4 October, 2020. The project, India’s first river privatization experiment handed over to RWL by the then Madhya Pradesh government, pleading a lack of sufficient funds for the distribution of water to the newly developed industrial area at Borai. The contract signed for the construction of a barrage on the Sheonath river was to supply water up to 30 Million Liters per Day (MLD) to the Borai Industrial Growth Centre (Sethi, 2006).

 

Impacts of Sheonath River Privatization

The privatization of Sheonath river had negative impacts on Durg people in a multitude of ways. For instance, after the construction the owner of RWL, Kailash Nath Soni, imported a motorboat from Hong Kong and made trips in the anicut through the water declaring that the water is his property where his eye reaches. He allowed the people to take water as a privilege granted by him, only for 6 months, in a year. From January to June the company authorities never allowed the people to take water from the river, on the reason that water supply will reduce during the summer season. The storage area of the dam is 3.6 km. In this length RWL constructed spring fence around this area in order to prevent access to river. He held that the company has full authority over the river water and it is their privilege to give water to others. After the implementation of the agreement, many villages, both upstream and downstream – Durg, Mohlai, Mahmara, Samoud, Siloda, Jhola, Pulgav, Peeperchhadi, Bharni, Rasmara, Malood, Khapri, Tirga, Changeri, Belodi, Chikhlai, Nagpura, Jherni, Jewra Sisra, Patharia, - were affected adversely as their access to river water and its use was completely restricted. All the water was concentrated in the upper reaches because of the dam, causing the lower portion of the Sheonath to dry up. Initially, the locals, including Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were not aware about the contract, as the RWL was not provided any prior information. Later the RWL personnel informed the local fishermen that they were no longer permitted to fish in the 200m zone from the barrage for safety reasons. As such the nets of the fishermen were cut and confiscated by the company workers. The employees of Radius Water did not allow the farmers who owned land near the river to lift water from the river and forcibly took away their pumps. The economy in Durg faced a near total collapse following the company activities. All sectors in the economy were affected detrimentally during the project period. Both the agricultural and daily wage laborers were victims of river privatization. In the case of agricultural laborers the decline in the area under cultivation has taken away much of their jobs. Given that the daily wage laborers were compelled to spend most of their time in collecting water from other sources, they have really little time to spend for daily work. All the fishermen in Durg mentioned about an absolute stoppage of fishing activity in the river. It should be noted that these detrimental impacts paved the way for stagnation in the region’s domestic economy.

 

The privatization of Sheonath river is not the sole causal factor behind the collapse of

Durg economy. Despite having close proximity to the Borai industrial area, industrial

sector did not have any considerable contribution towards the economy of the selected villages in Durg. Lion’s share of the village population directly depend on primary sector such as, agriculture, fishing and petty business. As happened in the case of a large number of developing societies across the world, the primary sector in Durg had adversely affected with the emergent global transformations such as climate change, fluctuating agricultural prices, etc. According to many of the respondents things had gone to such extent that the income from agriculture, fishing and petty trade did not become sufficient for meeting the day-to-day livelihood needs. The privatization of Sheonath river made the things much worse as the existent struggling economy gets deteriorated in a multitude of ways. (George 2010:105-107)

 

This ban had the endorsement of district administration that also banned the installation of tube wells on the ground that it will reduce the inflow to river. Usually during summer season for one and half months CSIDC itself with the help of district administration stopped the intake of river water for irrigation. The most affected region is near to the Borai industrial area. Here the farmers lost their agriculture because of water scarcity and now they are searching for alternatives. The RWL held that taking water from the upstream area would reduce the quantum of water for supply to industrial units in Borai, as such villagers have been completely stopped from taking water from the river. People from downstream villages reported that the groundwater table had plummeted and therefore affected the water level in their wells. This is because the anicut reduced the flow of river to the downstream. Farmers forced to stop their vegetable cultivation on the banks of the river in Rasmara and Mohlai villages. Fisher folk constituting large number of families in these villages has become jobless as fishing has been stopped by RWL. Thus the villagers were forced to abandon their jobs and consequently it affected their livelihoods and productivity.333 Besides RWL banned washing of cloths at the banks of river on the ground that it will increase pollution. Right to collect sand from the river was also banned by RWL as such the Panchayat lost its Rs.90,000 revenue per year. The RWL prevented all sorts of negotiation with the people and said that it needs permission from CSIDC. Sheonath project or known as Rasmada scheme is not the only such projects in Chhattisgarh. There are four other projects where stretches of rivers have been awarded to private and government agencies. They are, Kharun river to Madhya Pradesh Audyogig Kendra Vikas Nigam Limited (MPAKVN), Kelu river to Jindal group, Sagri river to S. R. group. (George 2010:102)

 

b. Loosing right over other CPRs other than water bodies

Case 2 – CPRs Denied

Common Property Resources (CPRs) play a vital role in the life and economy of the rural population especially in poor and developing countries across the globe. People in the rural areas are critically dependent on the CPRs such as common pastures and grazing lands, village ponds and nullahs, streams and small rivers, and forests and mangroves for their livelihood. Fuel wood and dry leaves collected from the CPRs are used for cooking and heating purposes, grass and shrubs are used as fodder, timber and bamboo are used for construction of houses, and a large variety of fruits collected from forests and fish caught from village ponds, tanks, rivers and canals are used for sustenance of livelihood. CPRs also serve as insurance against risk for the rural poor, particularly during the lean seasons of the year when wage employment is not available. In the ongoing process of liberalization, privatization and globalization, new markets are opening up, urbanization is expanding and production and demand patterns are changing very fast even in the rural sector. The process has implications for availability and depletion of CPRs and dependence of the population on these resources. It is possible that CPRs are over exploited and have suffered a quality deterioration affecting rural people in general and the rural poor in particular by causing further worsening of their resource position and economic status. Problems of dependence, depletion, sustainability and management of these resources can be other possible outcomes (Pradhan & Patra)

 

As regards minor forest produces (MFPs), the recommendations of the FRAC are simply to remove state controls on marketing of MFPs – controls that were imposed in the name of protecting the tribals (not the forests!) but have actually ensured that MFP collectors do not get a fair return as the state skims off the surplus. No state has systematically regulated MFP harvests to ensure sustainable extraction, and states have always organised MFP collection on the basis of short-term contracts to private traders. Indeed in many cases like Shoolpaneshwar Sanctuary local community protests forced stoppage of indiscriminate extraction of bamboo leased to industry by the state. So to blame MFP collectors for the depletion of MFPs is to blame the hapless tool used by the state and the traders for royalty/profit maximisation. Deregulation of marketing is not the same as deregulation of harvest. The FRAC report addresses simultaneously the question of sustainable extraction, fair access and enhanced returns from MFPs through a set of recommendations that include clear recognition of rights and responsibilities of the gram sabhas, and a shift in the state’s approach from monopolistic royalty extraction to marketing support, coupled with a proper regulatory role complementing that of gram sabhas. A constructive contribution to the debate on Indian forest policy will require distinguishing between protected areas and all forests, between granting of new lands for cultivation and the recognition of rights to pre-existing cultivation, between deciding what forest-dwellers need and what their rights are, between removing state monopoly on marketing and dismantling all controls on extraction, between coercive joint management and genuine decentralisation, and between unfettered ownership and secure autonomous management rights within a regulatory framework. (Lele et all 2011:108)

 

c. Conflict Over land

Case 3 – Land Wars in North Chhattisgarh

If adivasi society is besieged by violence in the south of Chhattisgarh, in the north, it faces the onslaught of mining and power companies. Contrary to the narrative that seeks to fuse Maoist rebellion with the despair of the mining displaced, both do not neatly overlap in Chhattisgarh: the districts seeing the maximum displacement Korba, Raigarh and Janjgir Champa in the north, far from the Maoist areas of influence in Bastar in the south. Korba and Raigarh are textbook examples of the intersection of forests, minerals and adivasis. Both have massive coal deposits that are being extracted to produce power in factories built either here or in the plains of Janjgir Champa, flush with the waters of the Mahanadi and its tributaries. Despite the large presence of adivasi people, the anti-mining struggle here does not draw on the idea of indigeneity but is more closely allied with the green movement. The leading activists are non-adivasi – Ramesh Agarwal and his associate Ramesh Tripathi of Jan Chetana in Raigarh, Laxmi Chauhan of Sarthak in Korba, among others – who have deftly used environmental laws to challenge mining and power corporations. These activists say it is wiser to stay away from group appeals and create broad-based alliances since mining and industrialisation affect both adivasi and non-adivasi communities. This is even truer of Janjgir Champa, where adivasi peasants are smaller in numbers compared to other communities, including dalits. The idea of broad-based alliance or farmer unity was at display last year in Akaltara, a village in Janjgir Champa, where more than 2,000 acres of farmland is being acquired by KSK Energy to set up a 3,600 MW power plant, one of the largest in the state. Unhappy over the terms of transfer, farmers staged a sustained agitation against the company. Non-adivasi and adivasi farmers faced several rounds of police lathi-charge together. But over time, the differences in their predicament became predictable: the non-adivasi farmers were resisting the sale of their land unless they were given better compensation, while the adivasi farmers had already sold their land, for a pittance, and were now simply asking the company to give them the jobs it had promised. As it turned out, when the company began acquiring land, its officers had first knocked at the doorsteps of the adivasi farmers, who owned smaller parcels of land, were less literate, and were easily swayed by the offer of jobs. And so, adivasi farmers like Sadhram Gond sold their land for just Rs 1.55 lakh per acre, while non-adivasi farmers parted with their land only after negotiating a higher price of Rs 17 lakh. (Sharma 2012:22)

 

Case 4 - Land Wars in Korba

However, in neighbouring Korba was a startlingly different case. Yet another power company, Vandana Vidyut, was staking claim to farmland in five villages. Farmers resisted the sale, but cornered by a state that employed its powers of eminent domain on behalf of the company, most of them finally relented, except those in village Jhora, exclusively home to adivasis. More than a 100 adivasi farmers refused to accept the money deposited in bank accounts by the district administration. Was this a validation of the idea of indigeneity? Of the special adivasi connection to land? When I asked adivasi farmers, they revealed this was not their ancestral land. They had moved to Jhora three decades ago, when they had been displaced by a hydel power project upstream. “One round of displacement is enough”, they said in unison, “we can’t go through another”. It seemed the adivasi stance towards the usurping of land by corporations is born out of more than just the idea of indigeneity; it is rooted in their class predicament and their particular experience, in this case, repeated rounds of displacement. This is perhaps a bewildering moment in the history of Chhattisgarh’s adivasi people, besieged more than any other community by powerful players – the state, Maoists, mining corporations – and yet with little say. If only the bell metal figurines could unfreeze and find a politics that truly speaks for them. (Sharma 2012:22)

 

4. Conclusion – Not only are the Forest Rights Act and the Panchayats Extension to Scheduled Areas Act routinely violated in Chhattisgarh, the adivasis are also short-changed on legislative representation and reservations in government jobs. As the state cedes land to capital while reducing the adivasis to an ornamental presence, there is increasing assertion of adivasi identity, born out of class predicaments and experiences of displacement as much as notions of indigeneity (Sharma 2012:19). But while laws to uphold adivasi rights have been enacted, the state’s concern for development (pushed by other social forces) has been responsible for denying adivasis these very rights Menon 2007:2239). Pristine forests, rich in biodiversity, scared groves are being handed over to mining companies and developers be it in Niyamgiri Hills of Orissa, in Chhattisgarh or in Arunachal Pradesh. Fossil fuels like coal and oil are extracted including iron ore and bauxite as well. This only releases more Green House Gases to our climate, but also results in massive displacement, livelihood loss and destruction of culture and identity of thousands of tribal and indigenous people (Lahiri 2008:157).

                                    

Dehumanisation is very much a part of historical reality ever since the emergence of private property, as more often humanisation is thwarted by injustice, exploitation and oppression. In the meantime, these different forms of violence are encountered through assertions to gain back lost humanity. An unresolved and puzzling question has been as to why people who for centuries have lived in a relative state of sufficiency and managed their own socio-culture systems without external interventions now need protection, aid and advice (Hunter, 1872).

 

Hence based upon the cases illustrated above it can be stated that a strong will is very important to end this conflict. There is immediate requirement to take up sustainable development practices for the welfare of all the stakeholders in the society.

 

References

 

Dyakov, A. M. (1966). The National Problem in India Today (Moscow: Nauka).

Dungdung, G. (2010), Advasi Towards Violence, Social Action, Vo. 60, No. 3, July-September 2010, New Delhi, pp. 250

Forests and Tribals Restoring Rights in Economic and Political Weekly, 2007, January 6, pp 5.

George, R. M. (2010) Strategies and Static Issues in Water Governance: A Case of Water Privatization in India in Journal of Management & Public Policy, Vol. 2, No. 1 December, New Delhi pp 102

Hunter, W. W (1872): Orissa, Vol I, London.

Iyer, R. R. (2003). Water, Perspectives, Issues and Concerns, Sage Publications, New Delhi.

Lahiri, R. (2008), Forests as Tradable Commodities in Social Action, April-June 2008, Volume 58, No. 2, pp 157.

Menon, M. T. (2004) State-designed tribal settlement schemes in Kerala, in: Anonymous (2004) Compendium of Papers of Workshop on State, Governance and Natural Resource Conflicts, Silver Jubilee Symposium on Governance in Development: Issues, Challenges and Strategies (Anand: Institute of Rural Management Anand).

Menon, A (2007): Engaging With Law on Adivasi Rights in Economic and Political Weekly, June 16, pp 2240

Pathy, S (2003): Destitution, Deprivation and Tribal ‘Development’ in Economic and Political Weekly, July 5, New Delhi

Pradhan, A. K. & Patra, R. (2011), Common Property Resources  in Rural India: Dependence, Depletion and Current Status in The IUP Journal of Managerial Economics, Vol. IX, No. 1, 2011, Hyderabad, pp 6-7

Reddy, G., Kumar, A. K., Rao, P. T., Oliver Springate-Baginski (2011) Related to Implementation of the Forest Rights Act in Andhra Pradesh in Economic and Political Weekly,  April 30, 2011 vol XLVI no 18, pp 73.               

Savyasaachi (2011) Forest Rights Act 2006: Undermining the Foundational Position of the Forest in Economic and Political Weekly, April 9, 2011 vol XLVI no 15, pp 60

Sethi, A. (2006). Private Water; Public Misery, in Frontline, Chennai, 21 April 2006

Sharachchandra, L., Kothari, A., Roma., Saikia, A., Rebbapragada, R., Kiro, V., Ete, J. (2011): Misreading the Issues and the Landscape in Economic and Political Weekly, May 28, 2011 vol XLVI no 22, pp 108.

Sharma, S (2012). Adivasi Predicament in Chhattisgarh in Economic and Political Weekly, January 14, 2012 vol XLVII no 2, pp 22.

Sharma, S (2012): Adivasi Predicament in Chhattisgarh in Economic and Political Weekly, January 14, 2012 vol XLVII no 2, pp 22.

Sharma, S (2012): Adivasi Predicament in Chhattisgarh in Economic and Political Weekly, January 14, 2012 vol XLVII no 2, pp 19.

Singh, A. K. (2004). Privatization of Sheonath River, Combat Law, June- July 2004,

Mumbai. Sopan. Down to Earth; July 31, 2003