November 2007 Edition

Comment on this story

.

 

Milindo Chakrabarti

RECENTLY, the state took over not just one or two, but 226 hectares of land. This incident did not happen in West Bengal, Punjab or Maharashtra but in Arunachal Pradesh, perhaps the reason why it was overlooked. The takeover did not involve ‘private’ land, but was earlier owned collectively by villagers living around it.

The land in question is in Bomja village located in the Tawang district of Arunachal Pradesh. As per the 2001 census, 31 households reside in this village with a population of 118 and an unbelievably high sex ratio of 1408 females per thousand male. The latest survey in 2003 identified 30 of these households to be below the poverty line. Only about 10 individuals among them studied beyond Class IV.

About a year and a half ago, the Forest Department in Arunachal Pradesh found this land bordered by the porter track from Bomja to Kharung village on the north, and the old porter track between these two villages on the south. The land is surrounded by a jhora on the west and community land on the east. An agreement to introduce compensatory afforestation on this plot of land was signed by the range Forest Officer, Jang Social Forestry Range and two people’s representatives – Sang Dondup and Tashi Lhamu with Thuten Tashi standing in as the witness to the agreement. The agreement was accorded a legal status by Lobsang Tsetan, Judicial Magistrate, IInd Class, located at Thingbu on May 10, 2006.

● The signatories declare “on behalf of the village” to “have no objection for raising compensatory afforestation plantation on the piece of land”.

● The signatories also agreed to forgo any future “claim over the land” and vested the right of utilisation for afforestation and other ancillary activities to the Forest Department.

● The villagers promised total cooperation to the officials of the Forest Department and the labourers hired by it to facilitate compensatory reafforestation on the taken over land.

● The villagers would have no objection for declaring the said piece of land as protected forest such that the rights and claim over the forest produce by the village will be decided as per the laid down norms by the government during that period, ie, when the trees attained maturity.

In short, the agreement paves the way for transfer of property rights on a substantial chunk of land from the community to the state. And, unlike what was witnessed in other parts of the country, the transition was completely peaceful with no bloodshed, no loss of life and property. More interestingly, this episode happens when a background paper prepared in 2006 by Community Forest International, a noted international think tank, observes with concern: “Unlike other regions in India, administrative control of forest in the northeast is predominantly by the community with much of the forests listed as “unclassified”. As in other parts of India, the state forest departments administer Reserved and Protected forests. The reluctance of state forest departments to consider changing the “unclassified” category to reflect community claims to much of these forests remains an ongoing source of tension. As such, their attitudes do not appreciate the special constitutional safeguards accorded to indigenous people of the region, nor their historic claims to that land, rather it reflects an orientation that such forests are waiting to be classified as“reserved” or “protected” forests that would then place them under the management of the state forest departments.” high. The share of community forests in the total area under forests of northeast India is a staggering 56 per cent. In comparison the corresponding figures for India is very low, indicating the special role community forests playin the north eastern states. Obviously, some special policy approaches are necessary to manage the forests. (see table) Why did thevillagers agree to hand over the community land to the forest department? Have they been coerced to sign the agreement? It is ruled out that they have been lured into signing the agreement, as no compensation has been paid to them as per the agreement document. Pending further investigations, circumstantial evidence suggests that perhaps they have been duped into simply carrying out the agenda of converting people’s property into state property. Identification of land for compensatory reafforestation has assumed considerable importance in view of the present legal requirements of the land. Any diversion of forest land is to be statutorily compensated byafforestation in non-forested or degraded forest land. A designated fund called CAMPA has been instituted to pool the funds realised in the name of compensatory afforestation, though a large part of the money realised under this clause is lying unutilised. The questions that emerge out of the agreement are

● Have the villagers been paid any compensation for the land they handed over to the forest department? If not, why?

● If yes, why has the amount failed to find mention in the agreement deed?

● Has the compensation been adequate according to the currently evolving norms of compensation nationally?

The agreement’s tenor suggests that perhaps no such compensation has been paid. The concern gains more relevance as one considers that the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) submitted a proposal to the Supreme Court calling for a considerable increase in the compensation to be paid by user agencies for diversion of forest land to other uses. Under such circumstances, the CEC cannot escape the responsibility of identifying the amount to be paid as compensation to these hapless communities who are willingly (orunwillingly) giving up their lands to facilitate compensatory reafforestation. The Kanchan Chopra Committee suggested some such mechanisms. CEC in its response considered the exercise beyond the scope of the brief given to the committee, and gave the recommendations an untimely death sentence. The experiences from Bomja village can be reason enough to initiate the necessary steps..

Milindo Chakrabarti is Director, Centre for Studies in Rural Economy,
Appropriate Technology and Environment (CREATE)

Want to give feedback on this article

Name Email Subject Feedback (Not more than 250 character)

 

Disclaimer

The views expressed here are strictly personal and civilsocietyonline.com does not necessarily subscribe to them. We shall endeavour to upload/publish as many of the comments that are submitted as possible within a reasonable span of time, but we do not guarantee that all comments that are submitted will be uploaded/published. Messages that harass, abuse or threaten other members; have obscene, unlawful, defamatory, libellous, hateful, or otherwise objectionable content; or have spam, commercial or advertising content or links are liable to be removed by the editors. We also reserve the right to edit the comments that do get published. Please do not post any private information unless you want it to be available publicly.

 

About Us | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | ©2007 Civil Society

.
........................................Webmaster Vishwanathan ( vishu4@rediffmail.com )