The theme of the Vth World Parks Congress “Benefits Beyond
Boundaries” suggests that the Congress will focus on addressing people’s needs
and providing a stream of economic, political and environmental benefits to
societies worldwide.
We, the adivasis, the original inhabitants of most of the
areas that now come under the Parks and the Protected Areas, appreciate the
concern shown by the Congress towards the ‘needs of the people’. At the same
time, however, we have our doubts and apprehensions.
First of all, who are the people whose needs are to be addressed?
Does it include us, the adivasis, the indigenous people? Or, in the name of
extending benefits to the ‘people’, will the big multinational or national
corporates and donor agencies such as the World Bank be allowed more footholds
in the forests? The doubt is valid because hitherto in the management of Protected
Areas and Parks and for that matter any forest in my country, Governments
had only sought to wipe us out completely or push us out of our habitats.
Despite several international conventions and even the Indian
Forest Policy of 1988 recognizing the role of the indigenous people in conservation
and sustenance of forests, the governments have been practising a policy of
“Nature without People.” Eviction and displacement had been the reality faced
by the forest people of India all through the colonial history. Even after
the country gaining Independence, the threat of eviction loomed large following
the promulgation of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and Forest Conservation
Act, 1980. It has become all-pervasive and palpable now following an order
of the Ministry of Environment and Forests in May 2002. As many as 10 million
indigenous people in India now face the threat of eviction. In the state of
Assam, more than 100,000 people have already been evicted in just three months
between April 2002 and July 2002. This has been the case in the Nagarhole
National Park in the State of Karnataka and again, more recently, in the Muthanga
Wild Life Sanctuary in my own state of Kerala. My presentation here will dwell
mostly on my experience of the indigenous peoples’ struggles in the Protected
Areas of Nagarhole and Muthanga in South India.
Throughout history, the indigenous people had fought for
their rights. This is to say that we are demanding much more than ‘benefits.’
We are demanding RIGHTS over forests.
And we are also demanding that there is an urgent need to
redraw the ‘boundaries’, if at all drawing boundaries protect nature.
The talk about extending ‘benefits’ is in fact a cover-up
for several DENIALS, several costs borne by the people. Firstly the indigenous
people have been robbed of their traditional/customary rights to land and
territories. Secondly, they have been robbed of their historical role in conservation
of nature. These two fundamental denials have by now turned the indigenous
peoples in most part of India into victims rather than beneficiaries of the
Protected Area management system and, the forest management system, in general.
The Struggle in the Nagar Hole (Rajiv Gandhi)
National Park
In the case of the Nagarhole National Park in the State of
Karnataka, there was indeed much talk about the ‘benefits’. And the promises
were made out by none other than the World Bank.
The Nagar Hole national park is now a part of the Nilgiris
Biosphere Reserve -- one of the 440 biosphere reserves in 97 countries where
the UNESCO is implementing the Man and Biosphere program. Nilgiris was the
first internationally designated biosphere reserve in India. Several ethnic
groups had inhabited the area from time immemorial. They included the Cholanaikans,
the only surviving hunter-gatherers of the Indian subcontinent, concentrated
in the Nilambur area. In 2000 there were 11,60,200 permanent inhabitants within
the biosphere reserve subsisting on the use of natural resources such as medicinal
plants, agriculture and agri-horticulture.
An area of 57,155 ha in Nagar Hole had been constituted as
a sanctuary in 1955. The Government of Karnataka declared Nagar Hole (which
meant, Snake River, in the local language) as a game sanctuary in 1972. Subsequently
the area under the sanctuary was further increased to 64,339 ha. The Nagar
Hole National Park was constituted in 1983.
Over 9,000 indigenous people were residing in 58 hamlets
inside what the government called the National Park. There were Jenu Kurubas,
the honey-gatherers; the Hakki Pikki (bird-trappers), the Betta Kurubas who
specialised in making bamboo baskets and utensils; the Yeravas who survived
on fishing and the Soligas who had diversified into agriculture and herding
goats. Apart from those who lived within the forests, there were more than
23,000 adivasis residing within 5 km distance, all depending on the Nagar
Hole forests for their survival.
Under the UN scheme for the Biosphere Reserve, the forests,
the animals, the birds, the agriculture and the human being ought to have
been protected for their uniqueness. But the government agencies continued
to violate this norm for lucrative business interests. The natural forests
were extensively logged and substituted with plantations of teak, eucalyptus
and rosewood. Nearly 15 per cent of the area within the National Park is now
under plantations.
Evictions: Governments have been systematically pushing out
the adivasis to the forest fringes. In 1970s, a total of 1220 families consisting
of more than 6000 people were pushed out to locations 1-12 km from their original
habitats. In more than 40 hamlets within the Park, adivasi lands were taken
over for teak and eucalyptus plantations. People in 20 hamlets were ousted
to make way for the Kabini River valley project and the Taraka dam. Those
who were evicted and ‘rehabilitated’ did not get anything other than makeshift
tents or huts to live in. They became ‘coolies’, menial servants, or virtual
bonded labourers in estates.
Severe restrictions were placed on indigenous people who
continued to live within the forests. They were seen and labelled as encroachers.
Trenches were dug in their fields and paths. No cultivation of any kind was
allowed. This was so, despite the fact that the adivasi method of cultivation
did not clear any trees, now ploughing or sowing was done, no chemical fertilisers
or pesticides used. Hunting, even ritual hunting, was banned No livestock
or dogs were allowed. No wells could be dug. The houses could not be renovated.
A total ban on collection of minor forest produce such as tubers, mushrooms
and wild vegetables was imposed. Adivasis were not allowed entry to the sacred
sites and burial grounds within the forests. The government even sought to
put a ban on traditional music and dance forms. The adivasis were constantly
harassed. Several adivasi women were molested. Many were put behind bars on
fake charges of forest offences.
The indigenous people had to suffer all this while several
non-adivasi encroachers were allowed to remain within the forests and cultivate
nearly 660 ha of forestlands on payment of yearly taxes. Many among them managed
to get title deeds for nearly 100 ha of forestland.
Eco-tourism and the World Bank’s Eco-development
project
The worst of such preference shown to the non-adivasis and
the rich pleasure-seeking people at the cost of the indigenous people came
about when the Government in 1994 entered into a lease agreement with Taj
Group of hotels and a little later when the World Bank supported eco-development
project was proposed to be started in Nagarhole. The lease agreement with
the Taj group, one of the riches business groups in India, was to lease 10
ha of forestland at Murkal in Nagarhole to build and operate a three-star
tourist resort. The agreement was in total violation of the Forest Conservation
Act and the Wild Life Protection Act. The agreement was also a contradiction
of all tall claims of protecting the ecological balance and the biodiversity
in the National Park.
Similarly, the eco-development project negated the World
Bank’s own norms of “not carrying out any involuntary resettlement of people,”
not eroding the “customary tenure rights over land and other assets of tribals
living in the Protected Areas” ensuring “prior informed consent and participation”
and “compensating the people relocated”. Nevertheless, with the Rs. 295-crore
(1 crore is 10 million) eco-development project promising a huge bounty, the
Government intensified the pressure to evict the remaining Indigenous People
from the Nagarhole forests. The project intended to wean away the adivasis
from the forests by nominally “training” them in subsistence occupations such
as pig rearing. This enterprise will be shown to be viable by pumping in massive
subsidies. With this the indigenous people could be resettled outside the
forests. The World Bank would have its hands clean. The plan of the Taj group
was also interesting. Once the IPs are thrown out, the forests would be opened
up to visitors interested in biodiversity research a euphemism for bio-prospecting.
But organised resistance from the adivasis with the support
gained from various quarters made these plans difficult. When the adivasis
blocked the construction of the “jungle Lodge”, the authorities arrested them,
men women and children. The adivasis launched an “enter the forest campaign”
on the Independence Day of 1995 and declared Self-Rule as their goal. After
several waves of protests, the number of arrested people rose to 200.The campaign
continued through the years. The adivasis called for a general strike in Nagarhole
on December 29, 1996 and it turned out to be a total success. All the six
roads leading to the Park was blocked. Subsequently, a writ petition was moved
in the High Court of Karnataka by Nagarhole Budhakkattu Hakku Sthapana Samithi
(Nagarhole Adivasi Rights Restoration Forum) and others. On 20 January 1997,
the High Court ruled that the assignment of forestland to the Taj Group was
in gross violation of several national laws for conservation of nature and
wild life.
Subsequently, the World Bank officials were stopped during
their visit to Nagarhole and told in no uncertain terms that with the indigenous
people declaring Self-Rule in the area, the imposed eco-development project
would be doomed. Soon the World Bank withdrew from implementing the Eco-development
Project in Nagarhole.
An important fall-out of the Nagarhole struggle was that
the indigenous people took over the leadership. The adivasis donned the mantle
with confidence and élan. And more importantly, they evolved their own plan
for the regeneration of the forests, based on the deep wealth of indigenous
knowledge of the forests.
The struggle for Self-Rule in Muthanga Wild
Life Sanctuary, Kerala
The indigenous communities pre-existed the State. The rights
to manage their own affairs, to appropriate forest resources and to redress
disputes had all along been the customary rights of the indigenous people
in India. In the past, kings did not dare to interfere with the adivasi communities,
nor could the British colonialists conquer them fully. However, these rights
suffered severe erosion when the colonial rulers went on turning the natural
forests into “reserved forests”. Post-Independence Governments in several
States including Karnataka and Kerala have only aped this practice, despite
the Indian Constitution under Article 244 providing for bringing indigenous
peoples’ villages under Schedule V areas ruled by Self-Governing institutions.
Hence, to this day, Self-Rule has remained the abiding goal and demand of
indigenous people all over the country. As in Nagarhole in the 90s, the struggle
in the Muthanga Wild Life Sanctuary in Wayanad last year was motivated by
the goal of Self-Rule.
Officially, the Muthanga forest forms a part of the Nilgiri
Biosphere Reserve and is a designated Elephant Reserve. Until two decades
ago, Muthanga was a forestland with rich biodiversity. More than 3,000 diverse
species had made this area qualify for protection. However, disregarding the
importance of the biosphere, 77 sq. km of the Muthanga Range was opened up
for commercial plantations for feeding a single pulp factory of the Birlas,
an Indian multinational business group. Soon there would be no natural forests
left in nearly 40 per cent of the forest range. More than 3,500 ha of forestland
became completely barren. The water stream that separated the Bandipur Reserve
of Karnataka and the Mudumalai Reserve of Tamil Nadu from the Muthanga Range
in Kerala locally called Mamana halla -- completely dried up as a result of
the spread of eucalyptus plantations. The river is now nothing but a stretch
of white sand. The marks of elephants trying to dig holes in the sand in search
of water are evident in the dried up riverbed. Elephants frantically searching
for water and crossing the Muthanga Range to reach the Noolpuzha River located
east of Muthanga is what makes the Wild Life Sanctuary qualify as an Elephant
Reserve and an elephant corridor. The plight of the elephants in the Wayanad
Wild Life Sanctuary presents the other side of the saga of the disrupted lives
in indigenous people in Muthanga as well as the whole State.
Following a series of starvation deaths, the adivasis in
Kerala had launched a struggle in August 2001 by setting up ‘Refugee Camps’
in front of the State Chief Minister’s residence. The struggle continued for
48 days forcing the Govt. of Kerala to promise disbursement of land and other
rehabilitation measures for the adivasi people in the state. However, as the
government did not keep its word even after a year, we were again forced to
take to the path of struggle. And, as in Nagarhole, the indigenous people
of Kerala decided to “Enter the Forests,” our homeland, under the banner of
the Adivasi Gothra Maha Sabha (AGMS). The Muthanga forest where we put up
huts was the homeland of different adivasi communities in Wayanad such as
the Paniyas, the Vetta Kurumas, the Kattunaikkas, the Adiyas and the Mullukuruma
etc. Our sacred groves and burial grounds still exist in Muthanga. Several
adivasi families had been forcibly evicted from Muthanga during 1970s and
‘80s, first while declaring the area as a sanctuary and then for establishing
the eucalyptus plantations. Those who were evicted were compelled to live
a wretched life in several tribal ‘colonies’ where starvation deaths were
rampant.
The adivasi families who entered the forestland had only
sought to assert the traditional right over the Muthanga forests. They erected
huts in the barren area and reorganised the Adivasi Oorukootams (hamlet-level
self-government institution). Along with subsistence agriculture, we re-started
our gothra pooja (collective ritual worship). A minimum programme for Self-Rule
in accordance with the spirit of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled
Areas) Act, 1996 was drawn up. The regeneration of the eco-system, primarily
the water sources and the vegetation was an important objective in this. The
Adivasi Oorukootams reorganised in the Muthanga were determined to achieve
this through community management and the application of traditional knowledge.
We were convinced that there was no need for huge donor agency funds for achieving
this objective.
At no point during the struggle in Muthanga, did the Govt.
authorities conduct a discussion with the protestors. The authorities never
issued any notice in accordance with eviction procedures. The police or the
District Collector did not gather any information from us. Throughout the
AGMS occupation of Muthanga, the Forest Department, however, resorted to unlawful
and covert means to evict the adivasis. Twice they sent domesticated elephants
fed with alcohol to attack the adivasi huts. On two occasions, some unknown
persons, obviously hired by the Forest Department, set fire to the forests
and the grassland.
All the authorities, and a few fake conservationists with
vested interests, concealed the truth regarding the actual status of the Muthanga
forest and the indigenous people who had a right over it. Instead, they churned
out false reports claiming that Muthanga was the breeding ground of elephants
and a core area of the sanctuary. Most of the biodiversity of Muthanga had
been sucked dry by a parallel economy that thrived on illegal ivory and sandalwood
trade that went on unabated with the connivance of the Forest Department.
Despite the fact that the adivasis did not do anything that could be construed
as criminal or destructive of the ecosystem, the State Chief Minister Antony
and the Forest Minister Sudhakaran propagated that the occupation in Muthanga
was an “armed struggle waged against the State”.
With the backing of this false, malicious propaganda, the
state authorities first resorted to setting fire to the forests and then,
two days later, opened bullet fire on over a thousand adivasi men, women and
children who had ‘occupied’ the Muthanga forest. The assault on innocent adivasis
was completed by the armed forces, by marching on to the hamlets and booking
hundreds of innocent adivasis and throwing them into jails several weeks.
This has been one of the most criminal incidents in the history of Kerala.
“Moments in the life of a society when something happens to put its moral
fibre on public display,” as writer Arundhati Roy put it. “The Muthanga atrocity
will go down in Kerala’s history as a government’s attempt to decimate an
extraordinary and historical struggle for justice by the poorest, most oppressed
community in Kerala”
Despite the harrowing experiences that followed the brutal
eviction in February last year in the Muthanga forest, the decision of the
indigenous people is to go back to Muthanga and assert our rights. There is
no other way but to return to the locale and the roots of the primordial conflict
with the rulers of the land who had usurped our forests and turned us into
the wretched of the earth, bereft of rights over resources and rights over
even our own life.
In such a context, the challenge for the Vth World Parks
Congress would be to explicitly recognise indigenous peoples’ rights to forestland
and our role in conservation of nature as not just that of equal partners
but as the key players.