Explained | Bharat Bandh on March 5: Why are over 11 lakh tribals across 21 states up in arms?

What is the Supreme Court ruling?

On February 21, a bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee directed states to ensure the eviction of all those persons from forest lands whose claims under the Forest Rights Act (FRA) have been rejected.

The ruling was a result of a batch of petitions filed by an NGO, Wildlife First, and a few retired forest officials, who alleged that the FRA has led to deforestation and encroachment of forest land. The petitioners sought the recovery of forest land from the possession of those persons whose claims under the FRA have been rejected. According to them, approximately 20.5 lakh claims were rejected out of 44 lakh claims across states.

"In case the eviction is not carried out, as aforesaid, the matter would be viewed seriously by this Court", the bench had sternly warned the states.

What is the Forest Rights Act and what does it entail?

In 1988, the National Forest Policy recognised the symbiotic relationship between forests and forest-dwelling communities. The policy pushed for involving tribal people in the protection and regeneration of forests.

In 2006, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, or the Forest Rights Act (FRA) was enacted to protect the individual rights of tribal communities, who are a marginalized socio-economic class, over forest areas if they can prove occupation before December 13, 2005.

Why were the claims of over 11 lakh tribals rejected?

The claims over forest land are processed through a three-tier system:

1. The Gram Sabha is where the claims are first submitted.

The claims include at least two documents as evidence of occupation of land — documents issued by the government; statement by elders; and even physical evidence of possession or use of land, such as wells or farming equipment.

These claims are verified by a field visit conducted by the Gram Sabha’s forest rights committee.

2. Sub-divisional Level Committee (SDLC), which is headed by a government officer.

After claims are approved by the Gram Sabha, they are sent to the SDLC for approval.

3. A District-Level Committee (DLC) headed by the District Collector.

Approved claims are sent to the DLC for final review.

The law grants a personal hearing to the claimants before rejecting their claims, as also it states that reasons for rejection must be given to the claimant in writing.

However, this procedure is not being duly followed by authorities leading to the humongous number of rejections.  As of November 2018, nearly half (46%) of all FRA claims had been rejected nationwide, India Spend quoted a report prepared by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs.

Most of the claims are rejected at the first or second level because of “insufficient evidence” or the tribal communities’ inability to convince forest officers of their occupation of the land. In addition, most of the Adivasis are illiterate and oblivious to the process of filing claims, which often leads to the authorities taking advantage of them and rejecting their claims without even telling them.

In other cases, a lack of understanding of the tribal culture leads to claims not being passed. Consider what forest rights activist Benipuri Goswami told The Indian Express, “There are 62 claims in Chindaula, Chhattisgarh but most have been rejected because when the team came and looked for proof that the Kamars either lived on the land or tilled it, they looked for farm equipment — a bullock cart, or a spade. But the Kamars do shifting cultivation and plant with their hands. The officials didn’t understand that and rejected all the claims.”

As of November 2018, the latest month for which data is available, Chhattisgarh had rejected most individual claims (455,000), followed by Madhya Pradesh (350,000) and Maharashtra (120,000).

What lies ahead?

The Supreme Court ruling stirred the Adivasi community, which was up in arms demanding that an ordinance be passed to protect them.

CNN News18 has reported that the Centre’s lawyer was absent on the day of the February 13 hearing.

On February 28, the Supreme Court accepted the Centre’s plea seeking withholding of its February 13 order. Even though the Bench stayed its order until July 10, it reprimanded the government, saying, "You have been in a slumber all this while, and now after we passed this order, you are seeking a modification?"

Wondering if the persons encroaching on forests were, in fact, traditional forest dwellers, the apex court demanded the states to furnish information on how and why these rejections were made and if due process was followed.

Political duels around the issue

Congress President Rahul Gandhi slammed the BJP for taking a lackadaisical stance towards the situation. He said, "For millions of Adivasis and other forest dwellers, 'Jal, Jangal and Zameen' is integral to their Right to Life guaranteed by our Constitution. It is time for us to work towards deepening the promise of India for everyone."

He wrote to newly appointed Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel to file a review petition against the order and asked other Congress states to join in on the issue.

Slamming the Modi government at a rally in Odisha, Gandhi said, "The Modi government snatched all your rights and destroyed tribal welfare projects and policies launched during UPA rule."