Impacts of Government Policies on Sustenance of Tribal ... - Samata

Land alienation and violation <strong>of</strong> the LandTransfer Regulation Act, for purposes <strong>of</strong>private industrial activities is going to havea serious impact on the ecological balanceas it would lead to further deforestation bylocal populations as well as the outsiders. InNALCO area, for instance, it was seen that alarge area <strong>of</strong> land (around 10,000 ha)beyond the requirement <strong>of</strong> mining purposeswas acquired. Today most <strong>of</strong> it remainsunutilised and the communities displacedfrom these lands were forced to migrate oroccupy forest lands. In-migration as a result<strong>of</strong> mining has led to occupation <strong>of</strong> a largearea <strong>of</strong> land by outsiders causing pressureon the land as well as the forest. Theseimpacts have to be given the seriousnessthey deserve and further land alienationshould be stopped for such private andindustrial purposes if the Eastern Ghats haveto be protected.Consultation <strong>of</strong> adivasi communitiesthrough the institution <strong>of</strong> Gram Sabhas isbeing completely ignored. The purpose <strong>of</strong>the PESA Act is being negated by thegovernment either by pretentiousconsultations or by completely bypassingthe consultative process. Local communitieshave a right to protect the resources <strong>of</strong> theirregion and also to take decisions over theseresources. Without their participation, itwould be impossible for the state to protectthe natural resources on its own. It was inrecognition <strong>of</strong> this reality that the CFMprocesses were initiated throughout thecountry. <strong>Government</strong> cannot selectivelychoose to ignore or consult but have a moreconsistent and people-friendly approach todevelopment <strong>of</strong> our ecologically fragileregions.The manner in which the EnvironmentProtection Act <strong>of</strong> 1986 is being made amockery <strong>of</strong> through engineered publichearings has to be stopped immediately.This Act along with the PESA andcompliance with the United NationsDeclaration on the Rights <strong>of</strong> IndigenousPeoples and its recognition <strong>of</strong> the right t<strong>of</strong>ree, prior and informed consent have to berespected fully and in the spirit <strong>of</strong> theConstitution.The Forest Conservation Act 1980 cannotbe used as a weapon against the localcommunities for their usufructory rightswhereas its dilution is justified for purposes<strong>of</strong> industrialisation and commercialisation.It is no longer small patches <strong>of</strong> isolated ordegraded forests that are being denotifiedfor mining and other non-forestry activities,but the cumulative effect <strong>of</strong> diverting forestlands for multiple commercial activitiestoday is enormous. This cumulative impacthas to be duly assessed. There is more threatto the forest cover today by large-scaleprojects in these regions than by individualand local communities.The FRA while it has to be effectedimmediately for settling the long pendingrights <strong>of</strong> the forest dwellers, has to besupported by other ecologically sensitiveways <strong>of</strong> enhancing the land utilisation andlivelihoods <strong>of</strong> these communities. Foodsecurity should be an important component<strong>of</strong> this planning along with increasing theincomes. Today planning for land utilisationis erratic and ad hoc. It is important forplanning to give priority for local capacitiesand locally manageable systems <strong>of</strong> land useand income generation than exotic andglobal market-oriented land utilisationkeeping in mind that adivasi communities’vulnerability to external exploitation stillpersists on a huge scale.These legal safeguards are supported by theSamatha Judgment which was fought inthese very lands <strong>of</strong> Ananthagiri. However,the implementation <strong>of</strong> the Judgment hasrequired continuous people’s vigilance andprotest where the natural resources areconstantly under threat by non-forestry andprivate industrial mining activities. TheSupreme Court, in its lengthy discourse <strong>of</strong>the case and the justification <strong>of</strong> upholdingthe Fifth Schedule <strong>of</strong> the Constitution,68