The land deed distribution in paper and demand of central sponsorship or economic activities over the land seemed to be the most lucrative agenda to win over the tribal vote bank in the 2013 assembly poll of Tripura where CPI-M was able to retain the red-bastion in 20 tribal reserved segments in the 60–member house.

It is believed that the enactment of RFR is the culmination of a protracted struggle by communities for forest rights and conservation.This

Complacency of the Tripura Government is compelling beneficiaries of the Recognition of Forest Rights Act to question whether the Act is just an election gimmick.

struggle emerged from issues like insecurity of land tenure and access rights,lack of recognition of community conservation initiatives in forest management,lack of recognition of traditional governance and resource ownership in tribal areas,and threats to community lands and forests from development projects.The Act enlivened the conservation debate around two contesting arguments:one is represented by the conservation orthodoxy that holds forth that rights cannot co-exist with conservation;the other echoes the otherwise marginalized voice of the forest communities,that recognition of forest rights and forest tenure reform are an essential part of a just and effective conservation process.

A Nail in the Coffin of Forest Conservation?

While looking at Tripura,the basic premise of giving forest rights to the tribal people comes from the argument that tribal people are dependent on forest and hence,can take better care of the forests.Apart from recognizing the rights of habitation on forest land nothing else actually is being extended to the right holders,which is nothing but a gimmick if one reads the provision of the Act very carefully.Here the title holder has no right to use the land for collateral security,nor can he sell any part or whole of the land in case of distress and more importantly,the right holder instead of allowing decent and modest living is being pushed to the interior of the forest areas thereby on one hand damaging the forest eco-system and the future of the title holders on the other.

Here the title holder has no right to use the land for collateral security,nor can he sell any part or whole of the land in case of distress

In the 17th CSE Media Fellowship study on Fragile Forest Ecology of Tripura appears more than 14000 land-deed holders whose plot of forest land have not yet been identified in spite of them holding a patta paper.Rabindra Reang,Hemabati Reang,Atul Debbarma of Kanchanpur,Rajendra Kalai,Kumaresh Uchai,Rabi Kurmar Chakma of Gandacherra and Arun Tripura,Sunirmal Tripura and Punnyabati Halam of Shantirbazar and many more across the state got their patta two years ago but the administration did not demarcate the plot of patta land.Block Development Officers(BDOs)were asked to do the needful and necessary funds are also placed with them but they do not know how to identify the plot of land.Yes,on paper and propaganda it sounds good that forest dwelling communities had got their right to use the land but the question arises as to how many of them actually got the land in the forest areas? Besides this,the families who got their plot demarcated are awaiting specification of the activity to be conducted on the land.Apart from this folly the so called development projects undertaken by the government for construction of roads and increasing accessibility in remote and green areas appeared to be detrimental to forest conservation.Moreover,the character of forest has been changed rapidly because of the large scale rubber plantations over the past decade.According to Rubber Board of India,Tripura has the potential of rubber cultivation in over 76637 ha of land but so far 61082 ha of land is already under cultivation.Tripura is producing 37000 MT latex per annum but it has the capacity to consume only 2548 MT of rubber.The changing of the ecosystem has resulted in a serious change in crop pattern and pattern of rainfall.Seasonal cycles have changed a lot which is threatening the state and its people.

“We do not foresee any bright future for the second generation of the title holders because of the insensitive manner in which the Act has been drafted and is being enforced at least in Tripura,”said a senior forester of the state.In fact,the history of forestland in the state is a long tale of unsettled land rights.The tribals of Tripura practiced Jhum(slash-and-burn cultivation),which the government doesn’t approve of.While Jhum is not acceptable to the government,monoculture plantations of rubber fit into its idea of forestry with the inception of Tripura Forest Development Corporation(TFDPC)in 1976.The major objective was the rehabilitation of Jhum practitioners to rubber plantations.The primary aim of this policy (adopted on the recommendations of National Commission on Agriculture)was to increase the productivity from the forests in order to give a fillip to the production of forestry in the country to meet the growing needs of the people for goods and services from forest resources.In 1991 Tripura has started a participatory forestry activity in the name of Joint Forest Management(JFM)in the degraded forest land under the occupation of the forest department and so far about 1055 Sqkm areas have come under about 400 JFM for livelihood management of about 33000 people. Joint Forest Management(JFM)approach is considered to contribute substantially the habitation loss of wildlife in Tripura.Human activities in forest areas in general and in particular as well as economic activities in the forest land have led to a loss of habitats in Tripura.Along with population growth and deforestation,the government sponsored forestry generation activities in degraded forest areas are believe to be responsible of habitat loss of animals.

Notwithstanding the claim of the government that a very large population of the state has been brought under the ambit of the Act,the fact remains that it is very difficult on the part of the Committee to identify the occupants of forestland except in a few cases like forest villages and recorded cases of disputed claims and encroachments,for which the information is already available with the state and central governments.The constitution of such committees was done 25 years ago but the problem could not be solved. The real issue in large tracts of tribal belts particularly in the state is the issue of shifting cultivators and other nomadic tribes elsewhere. These people have been shifting from place to place and due to reduced Jhum cycle and legal restrictions are facing difficulties in maintaining their livelihood.It would be difficult to prove their occupation of the land.The committees may take years to do that without solving their immediate needs. The forest department will always have the records of settlement proceedings and disputed claims may be difficult to prove. Moreover, practicing shifting cultivation will be banned as the right holder cannot fell any naturally growing trees. He will simply have a truncated right over the land.Most of the tribal people apart from the land rights want to be assimilated into the mainstream societies to avail of the fruits of development without compromising on their cultural heritage. The capacity building of tribal people and flow of benefits of development like land rights, nutrition,health,education,skill development etc should be the priority in tribal areas. There is no framework in the Act to really address these issues.

It is a fact that tribal life veers around the forest and forests in the country exist mainly in the tribal belts.It is however,also true that most of these forests are gradually being degraded due to heavy pressure for livelihood and from ever increasing human and livestock population.It is to the credit of the Joint Forest Management(JFM)programme that some of these areas have been regenerating now.This has given a great fillip to the livelihood of the poor living in and around forests.Finally,in the interest of forest and wild life conservation and in the interest of tribal people the government may consider having a provision for regrouping in clusters,the willing tribal people honey-combing the forests,along the road sides in the fringes of forests.

Biswendu Bhattacharjee