Tigers versus tribals

November 14, 2007

*Tigers and tribals (By Sunita Narain)

=============================

Tigers or tribals? Tribals versus tigers. This is how the discussion on the

tribal forest rights act is being framed. The law, which was enacted by

parliament a while ago, is aimed at conferring land rights on people who

already live in forested regions. The government says it wants to correct a

historical wrong against people on whom rights were never settled when

forest areas were earmarked for conservation. Quite right. But these homes

of the poorest also house the country's magnificent wild animals, like

tigers. It is critical that their habitat should be protected and future

safeguarded. This is also quite right.

Is it possible to reconcile the interests of what seems to be two competing

groups?

Two years ago the debate was stormy. The draft forest rights bill was being

worked upon by a government just sworn into power. Around this time, it was

discovered—to everyone's horror—that all tigers from what was supposed to be

a protected area, the Sariska National Park, had been poached. Opposition to

the draft bill mounted; conservationists argued that this " populist " measure

would be the last nail in the tiger's coffin.

I was asked to head a task force to suggest how tigers could be safeguarded.

Over three months the specialists we met believed that it was important to

reserve areas for wildlife. These would need to be inviolate

areas—exclusively earmarked for animals where human interference would have

to be kept at its minimum. Otherwise, they said, the tiger would not

survive. They believed that if the forest rights bill gave people ownership

over these lands it would be disastrous.

I approached the issue from different perspectives. I had for long

understood that the future of people and forests is entwined. I also knew

from experience that regeneration of forests is not possible unless local

people benefit. But I was willing to listen to the experience of those who

believed in the tiger. If co-existence was not possible, we needed to find

strategies to relocate people who lived in the tiger's territory.

The issue seemed simple, but the replies shocked me. After 30 years of

wildlife conservation efforts, fronted by the country's most powerful, we

had forgotten people. In these 30 years we had managed to relocate 80-odd

villages from protected reserves. We estimated that another 1,500 villages

existed in just 28 tiger reserves. Worse, relocation was done in the most

ham-handed and inhuman manner. We met families who had decided to return to

the harassment and poverty of their homes within the sanctuary as their

resettled parcel of land was full of stones. The authorities had done just

about everything to make people trespassers in their own land; everything to

turn them against the tiger we want to protect. This would not work we

concluded.

Our answer was two-pronged. One, we agreed that inviolate space was

important for wild animals. But the people who were making space for the

tiger needed to be given a good deal—not marginal forestland which would

make them more destitute. Two, we said that we needed to be realistic. We

suggested the need to identify and prioritize relocation of those villages

that were in the most critical of wildlife habitats. This had to be done

within a time-bound schedule. In the remaining villages, which would have to

live in the reserves, we suggested a new bargain—sharing benefits of

conservation with local communities—from preferential shares in tourism to

collaborative management of our reserves.

This led to some developments. The government agreed to enhance the package

for relocated families from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 10 lakh; it agreed to conduct a

census of tigers in the country, which would pinpoint their presence in

different habitats. The tiger census is the first step to identify the

critical habitats that need to be protected and to list the human

settlements that need to be relocated. With this done, the agenda of

co-existence will need to kick in.

But unfortunately, the tribal versus tiger paradigm will keep the fires

burning. It would seem that the two lobbies are bent on scoring points, not

building consensus. First, the tiger lobby blocked the bill. Then, an uneasy

truce was brokered to provide for relocation of people and maintain their

rights. In late 2005, the bill presented to parliament included a provision

that temporary pattas (land deeds) would be given to people who were to be

relocated from sanctuaries and national parks. This would ensure that their

rights were protected, but also it would ensure that government would

undertake their relocation within a time-bound schedule.

Then the tribal lobby, which has the upper hand in parliament upped the

ante. In late 2006, the act, finalized by a joint parliamentary committee,

dropped this clause. Inside, it inserted an altogether new term, critical

wildlife habitats, which would need to be established as areas to be kept

inviolate for wildlife. In the rules for the act to go into force, they have

rubbed in this point. They want ministries to issue guidelines regarding the

nature, process, validation and interpretation of data to be collected and

roles of expert committees who will now designate critical wildlife

habitats, virtually questioning the legality of all protected areas.

This has led conservationists to react. They want all wildlife areas (some

600-odd) to be re-designated as critical wildlife habitats and removed from

the ambit of the act. Now they have the upper hand. For now, the act is

stalled. The next round belongs to the tribal lobby. It is after all a

wrestling match.

In all this, let us be clear, the losers are tribals and tigers. It is not

tigers versus

tribals. It is everyone against them.*

November 16, 2007

*<In all this, let us be clear, the losers are tribals and tigers. It is not

tigers versus

tribals. It is everyone against them>*

Wrong, the losers are tigers and only tigers.

The tribals are most welcome to fight for their rights, there is so much of

scope. They have their elected representatives of MLAs and MPs and they can

sort it out in time. Among all the Member of Parliaments present in the

house ever wondered how many hands rise when there is an SOS for wildlife or

the 'TIGER' ? The crisis is with the Tiger and other wildlife, tribals you

have still got time to sit and have debates and discussions for ages, but

wildlife- It is disappearing.

As the tiger debate heats up every passing day hogging the headlines on

newspapers, internet and television channels, Tigers are literally being

fast pushed into extinction along with other forms of wildlife in India.

The Indian tiger despite having the blessings and support of the most

powerful person in India, the Hon`ble Prime Minister, the mighty voices for

wildlife, the media and the press surprisingly fails to find an end to

debates and discussions so as to practically implement the protection it

deserves.

By engaging ourselves in these never ending discussions we are only making

the crisis more severe. Not just for the Indian tiger but all other precious

forms of wildlife in the country.

If the tiger crisis management can take such an ugly shape then one could

well imagine what hope stands for the rest of the threatened species.

The Tiger Vs tribals debate where a lobby is stressing on a possible

coexistence of the tribals with the tiger every passing day is allowing the

miscreants to buy more time to plunder the forests .

Emotional it may sound, but do the cries of the dying wildlife actually

matter in India ?

Do tigers have a voice? Certainly they do, but that is limited to just a

minority which neither has the power nor the venom to outsmart the vested

interests which are desperately trying their best to engage in all sort of

nonsensical debates and discussions and shift the focus from the main issue

- " The Tiger Crisis "

Going by the past record of the central Government, enforcement agencies and

the various state governments it is only visible that yes, they want the

tiger and other species to be protected (at least they give statements

saying so) but not at the cost of causing ANY difficulty to 'HUMANS'. No

matter how deadly that human may be for the wildlife habitat.

Wildlife protection has always been on the lowest priority in India and

shall continue to be so.

Ms. Belinda Wright, Executive Director of the Wildlife Protection Society of

India who has been spearheading the wildlife conservation movement in India

and fighting the tiger crisis exposing the crime and criminals, once

speaking specifically on the Northeast region in an interview long back had

categorically said that there seems to be just no political will to fight

wildlife crime. Many years now since that statement I doubt if anybody can

challenge and prove her wrong in present day India as it only gets worse

every day.

Valmik Thapar a natural historian and tiger expert can be heard crying out

loud in interviews that if this is the state of affairs, the tiger will go

extinct from India in less than a year!

Speaking of coexistence of humans (the poorest of the poor) with tigers as

stressed upon by some experts, have those people ever tried to understand

what the tiger has to say on coexistence with human beings in the wild.

Why are those speaking for tribal rights not challenging the order from the

Forest department of Maharashtra which ordered 'shoot at sight for tigers',

that too in a tiger reserve after tigers had killed 21 people there.

Any idea what made the tigers do so?

This will certainly happen in future too once you allow human civilization

to flourish near a tiger reserve or a protected wildlife area.

What is there in the jungle left for the tiger to prey on? You kill all

forms of species for your greed, you wipe out the prey animals of the tiger

and then you expect him to turn a vegetarian so that he spares you for the

sake of coexistence?

You have adhoc forest guards going on a strike at Orang national Park and

within hours two tigers are killed by local villagers last month.

The day is not far when perhaps every single forest dweller in India *becomes

an agent of the wildlife mafia.*

*It is lucrative after all. And who does not need easy money?*

And those who still feel that there is hope left in creating an awareness

drive amongst the villagers, tibals/ non tribals, encroachers, land

grabbers, ex poachers, present day poachers etc are LOSERS.

Awareness is for children keep it limited to them, for adults you have

punishment and penalties. Why single out Salman Khan or a Saif Ali Khan and

keep the whole nation under the cloud that all is well inside the forests.

You want to generate awareness show them the law, show the poorest of the

poor the law since the law is equal to all. Look at the wildlife crimes

happening, and what is the conviction rate? .02% (correct me of I am wrong).

get the system working, hold discussions and debates for such issues where

you have no cohesion between the enforcement agencies, you have forest

guards patrolling barefooted, you have wireless sets going dead because of

no electricity. You have one Chief minister of a state capturing wild

elephants and force sending them to another state only to be returned.

What a mockery does anybody understand wildlife here??

Let me throw some light on the state of affairs of the forests and wildlife

in Northeast India and Assam in particular as everyone cries 'Tiger-Tiger' I

feel that these too deserve equal attention.

*Sonai-Rupai Wildlife Sanctuary, Nameri National Park and the adjoining

reserve forests:*

*The north bank forest areas of the Brahmaputra (most of them integral part

of Wildlife Parks* *and sanctuaries) have completely vanished, and are being

plundered day and night and encroached upon. *

*Fresh people are entering every day and setting up habitats inside. *

*Now these again are not poorest of the poor but sophisticated gun wielding

people who clear the forest, allow habitats to come up and have raped the

wildlife left and right. *

*In the past seven years of my regular visit to these areas every time I go

I find large hectares of forests cleared Age old huge and tall valuable teak

and gamari trees from the once pristine tropical rain forests are felled

mercilessly and sawed at source and the planks ferried on bicycles, dragged

or carted to the nearest town. From there it finds way to almost every town

and city in India. *

Nestling birds most of them rare and threatened species are captured and

killed in the process. Primates are captured, habitats destroyed.

Some logs are floated down the river to a transit point.

The people are locals, tribals and poorest of the poor and they are being

very smartly used by the agents at the behest of such nonsensical bills that

are drafted to paralyze our wildlife laws.

Elephant herds are being shot at, killed, poisoned, run over, electrocuted

(this also included some tea estates).

The very recent incident being on 11th November when a wild elephant was

found by the soldiers of Assam rifles, a central paramilitary force with

severe bullet injuries. The animal later succumbed to its injuries despite

receiving medical attention.

*Laokhowa wildlife sanctuary:*

Badly encroached and in a pathetic condition. Fresh reported encounters of

human leopard/ tiger conflicts here have resulted in only bits and pieces of

flesh and blood stains of the animal recovered from site. The rest is stolen

by the smart tribal or should I say encroacher who understands the value of

every single claw or the tooth in the market.

Reports of cats including tigers deliberately being killed as and when

sighted and tagged later as a 'tiger-animal conflict' is common here.

*Kaziranga/ Orang National Parks and Pabitora Wildlife Sanctuary:*

*Here you have forest guards arresting poachers red handed with weapons only

to find that the weapons used to poach the Rhino belonged to the Chief

Conservator of Forests of Nagaland state neighboring Assam. *

*Fourteen plus rhinos poached so far in 2007. *

*Two tigers poisoned by locals in absence of striking forest guards.*

*You arrest a gang of poachers allegedly shooting wildlife only to find that

one among them is a member of parliament from Nagaland and the rest his

bodyguards. *

*Cement factories and stone quarries are being given no objection

certificates to come up on elephant corridors.*

*You have hundreds and thousand cattle and livestock herds grazing along

with the wild animals in Kaziranga NP and Pabitora wildlife sanctuary. *

*Hamlets turn to villages and villagers then steal power from high tension

electricity towers and erect fences to keep elephants at bay. *

*Camps of Insurgents and Militants:*

**

*You have insurgents groups holding illegal militant camps inside the

jungles. You have fierce gun battles between security forces and insurgents

inside National parks.*

*It has been alleged the militants who camp miles away from civilization in

the wilderness thrive on elephant, deer meat and other forms of exotic and

protected birds and animals. *

*There are some legal camps as well of groups who are in ceasefire with the

Government of India. *

*Has anyone caring for the tiger or other forms of wildlife ever dared to

visit these camps, to find out what the situation is and tried to highlight/

expose the irregularities?*

*Rampant wildlife crime is taking place in the stretch of the porous

international borders of India with Myanmar, Bangladesh, China, Nepal and

Bhutan. Security forces say that no forest camp or any monitoring agency for

wildlife is bothered. Take an aerial trip over Assam or northeast India and

you will see the damage to the wildlife, or best take a look at the loss of

forest cover from the fresh satellite images, there are only patches of

forest left.*

*It is totally frustrating, this is just one state or region of India that I

have highlighted, would appreciate if I can get more views on the current

affairs of other states, National Parks, and wildlife areas too where

peaceful coexistence of human and wildlife is stressed upon. *

*If anybody is still adamant and feels that there is hope in wildlife-

tribal or to be more precise Tiger-Tribal coexistence, he is most welcome to

Assam and north east India, I promise him/ her a free fully funded trip to

the interiors of the last remaining forest patches so that he can see the

destruction himself. *

*Nobody in today's world wants to remain a 'poor tribal'. A nation can sell

that idea for tourism to draw in revenue but to those who are starving,

conservation hardly matters. The indigenous people are being used as a tool

as agents of illegal wildlife trade by the merchants or the mafia and

poachers who show them how to make easy money. Why should the tigers suffer

for a defunct system which has failed to rehabilitate the tribals? How do

you explain that to the tiger? *

*Shekhar Dattari, Wildlife researcher and filmmaker who in a television

interview sometime back had said, " wildlife protection in India is like an

open bank vault with a lot of valuables inside left unguarded with only a

small signboard that says - PLEASE DO NOT STEAL " *

I only wish that people who matter learn their mistakes at least now and

stop politicizing the crisis further. Certainly in the number game Rhinos,

elephants and others do seem quite strong a population to go extinct

immediately but why should they wait? How long should they wait before their

voices too are heard??

Azam Siddiqui

On Nov 14, 2007 11:57 AM,

wrote:

> *Tigers and tribals (By Sunita Narain)

> =============================

>

> Tigers or tribals? Tribals versus tigers. This is how the discussion on

> the

> tribal forest rights act is being framed. The law, which was enacted by

> parliament a while ago, is aimed at conferring land rights on people who

> already live in forested regions. The government says it wants to correct

> a

> historical wrong against people on whom rights were never settled when

> forest areas were earmarked for conservation. Quite right. But these homes

> of the poorest also house the country's magnificent wild animals, like

> tigers. It is critical that their habitat should be protected and future

> safeguarded. This is also quite right.

>

> Is it possible to reconcile the interests of what seems to be two

> competing

> groups?

>

> Two years ago the debate was stormy. The draft forest rights bill was

> being

> worked upon by a government just sworn into power. Around this time, it

> was

> discovered—to everyone's horror—that all tigers from what was supposed to

> be

> a protected area, the Sariska National Park, had been poached. Opposition

> to

> the draft bill mounted; conservationists argued that this " populist "

> measure

> would be the last nail in the tiger's coffin.

>

> I was asked to head a task force to suggest how tigers could be

> safeguarded.

> Over three months the specialists we met believed that it was important to

> reserve areas for wildlife. These would need to be inviolate

> areas—exclusively earmarked for animals where human interference would

> have

> to be kept at its minimum. Otherwise, they said, the tiger would not

> survive. They believed that if the forest rights bill gave people

> ownership

> over these lands it would be disastrous.

>

> I approached the issue from different perspectives. I had for long

> understood that the future of people and forests is entwined. I also knew

> from experience that regeneration of forests is not possible unless local

> people benefit. But I was willing to listen to the experience of those who

> believed in the tiger. If co-existence was not possible, we needed to find

> strategies to relocate people who lived in the tiger's territory.

>

> The issue seemed simple, but the replies shocked me. After 30 years of

> wildlife conservation efforts, fronted by the country's most powerful, we

> had forgotten people. In these 30 years we had managed to relocate 80-odd

> villages from protected reserves. We estimated that another 1,500 villages

> existed in just 28 tiger reserves. Worse, relocation was done in the most

> ham-handed and inhuman manner. We met families who had decided to return

> to

> the harassment and poverty of their homes within the sanctuary as their

> resettled parcel of land was full of stones. The authorities had done just

> about everything to make people trespassers in their own land; everything

> to

> turn them against the tiger we want to protect. This would not work we

> concluded.

>

> Our answer was two-pronged. One, we agreed that inviolate space was

> important for wild animals. But the people who were making space for the

> tiger needed to be given a good deal—not marginal forestland which would

> make them more destitute. Two, we said that we needed to be realistic. We

> suggested the need to identify and prioritize relocation of those villages

> that were in the most critical of wildlife habitats. This had to be done

> within a time-bound schedule. In the remaining villages, which would have

> to

> live in the reserves, we suggested a new bargain—sharing benefits of

> conservation with local communities—from preferential shares in tourism to

> collaborative management of our reserves.

>

> This led to some developments. The government agreed to enhance the

> package

> for relocated families from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 10 lakh; it agreed to conduct

> a

> census of tigers in the country, which would pinpoint their presence in

> different habitats. The tiger census is the first step to identify the

> critical habitats that need to be protected and to list the human

> settlements that need to be relocated. With this done, the agenda of

> co-existence will need to kick in.

>

> But unfortunately, the tribal versus tiger paradigm will keep the fires

> burning. It would seem that the two lobbies are bent on scoring points,

> not

> building consensus. First, the tiger lobby blocked the bill. Then, an

> uneasy

> truce was brokered to provide for relocation of people and maintain their

> rights. In late 2005, the bill presented to parliament included a

> provision

> that temporary pattas (land deeds) would be given to people who were to be

> relocated from sanctuaries and national parks. This would ensure that

> their

> rights were protected, but also it would ensure that government would

> undertake their relocation within a time-bound schedule.

>

> Then the tribal lobby, which has the upper hand in parliament upped the

> ante. In late 2006, the act, finalized by a joint parliamentary committee,

> dropped this clause. Inside, it inserted an altogether new term, critical

> wildlife habitats, which would need to be established as areas to be kept

> inviolate for wildlife. In the rules for the act to go into force, they

> have

> rubbed in this point. They want ministries to issue guidelines regarding

> the

> nature, process, validation and interpretation of data to be collected and

> roles of expert committees who will now designate critical wildlife

> habitats, virtually questioning the legality of all protected areas.

>

> This has led conservationists to react. They want all wildlife areas (some

> 600-odd) to be re-designated as critical wildlife habitats and removed

> from

> the ambit of the act. Now they have the upper hand. For now, the act is

> stalled. The next round belongs to the tribal lobby. It is after all a

> wrestling match.

>

> In all this, let us be clear, the losers are tribals and tigers. It is not

> tigers versus

> tribals. It is everyone against them.*

>

November 16, 2007

Shubhroto,

Having involved myself with the jungles (many tiger reserves) for the past

15 years, having seen the changing dynamics of these tribal settlements

there are a few points I wish to add.

Slowly the term TRIBAL has reached a stage where the definition needs to be

revisited. Earlier it was a group of people having no/ minimal contact with

urban civilization, who lived and co-existed with the animals therein,

killed them for food or to save themselves when attacked. But with the

international wildlife mafia gaining ground, unfortunately ahead of the

cops/ other authorities, there was either an influx of commercial hunters/

poachers into the tribal community or the tribals got influenced by ways of

the urban man.

Being a witness to this change, the community I met around 10 years back,

who lived in huts made only of straw, wore nothing more than pieces of

animal skin around their waists, now can be seen wearing jeans and living in

cemented huts. Political parties are another bunch of bloody leeches who

decided not to spare the tribals either to gain a few additional votes.

Luring them with country made liquor and dresses, they formed unions and

parties amongst them. I have photographic evidence of a party in Kerala

distributing some items amongst the tribals and coaxing them to vote for the

party.

So getting to the point,

1) The term TRIBAL needs to be clarified, else shrewd businessman/ poachers

would take advantage of this not only to get access to the core areas but

also gain rights such as funds from the government which is basically out of

the taxes paid by the common working man.

2) Urban-Tribes should come under the same scanner as that of you or me.

Every law applicable to us (hunting, accessing core areas, etc) should apply

to them.

3) Government seem to be helping these so called (urban)tribes with farm

land? I wish to know which tribe till date was into commercial farming! This

is just another pretext by the blooddy political parties to someday utilize

this land for other purposes.

These are just some basic points! I have a comprehensive self made

documentation on the tribe-animal conflict which I will send out to you very

soon!

Thanks, Pablo.

On 11/14/07, wrote:

>

> *Tigers and tribals (By Sunita Narain)

> =============================

>

> Tigers or tribals? Tribals versus tigers. This is how the discussion on

> the

> tribal forest rights act is being framed. The law, which was enacted by

> parliament a while ago, is aimed at conferring land rights on people who

> already live in forested regions. The government says it wants to correct

> a

> historical wrong against people on whom rights were never settled when

> forest areas were earmarked for conservation. Quite right. But these homes

> of the poorest also house the country's magnificent wild animals, like

> tigers. It is critical that their habitat should be protected and future

> safeguarded. This is also quite right.

>

> Is it possible to reconcile the interests of what seems to be two

> competing

> groups?

>

> Two years ago the debate was stormy. The draft forest rights bill was

> being

> worked upon by a government just sworn into power. Around this time, it

> was

> discovered—to everyone's horror—that all tigers from what was supposed to

> be

> a protected area, the Sariska National Park, had been poached. Opposition

> to

> the draft bill mounted; conservationists argued that this " populist "

> measure

> would be the last nail in the tiger's coffin.

>

> I was asked to head a task force to suggest how tigers could be

> safeguarded.

> Over three months the specialists we met believed that it was important to

> reserve areas for wildlife. These would need to be inviolate

> areas—exclusively earmarked for animals where human interference would

> have

> to be kept at its minimum. Otherwise, they said, the tiger would not

> survive. They believed that if the forest rights bill gave people

> ownership

> over these lands it would be disastrous.

>

> I approached the issue from different perspectives. I had for long

> understood that the future of people and forests is entwined. I also knew

> from experience that regeneration of forests is not possible unless local

> people benefit. But I was willing to listen to the experience of those who

> believed in the tiger. If co-existence was not possible, we needed to find

> strategies to relocate people who lived in the tiger's territory.

>

> The issue seemed simple, but the replies shocked me. After 30 years of

> wildlife conservation efforts, fronted by the country's most powerful, we

> had forgotten people. In these 30 years we had managed to relocate 80-odd

> villages from protected reserves. We estimated that another 1,500 villages

> existed in just 28 tiger reserves. Worse, relocation was done in the most

> ham-handed and inhuman manner. We met families who had decided to return

> to

> the harassment and poverty of their homes within the sanctuary as their

> resettled parcel of land was full of stones. The authorities had done just

> about everything to make people trespassers in their own land; everything

> to

> turn them against the tiger we want to protect. This would not work we

> concluded.

>

> Our answer was two-pronged. One, we agreed that inviolate space was

> important for wild animals. But the people who were making space for the

> tiger needed to be given a good deal—not marginal forestland which would

> make them more destitute. Two, we said that we needed to be realistic. We

> suggested the need to identify and prioritize relocation of those villages

> that were in the most critical of wildlife habitats. This had to be done

> within a time-bound schedule. In the remaining villages, which would have

> to

> live in the reserves, we suggested a new bargain—sharing benefits of

> conservation with local communities—from preferential shares in tourism to

> collaborative management of our reserves.

>

> This led to some developments. The government agreed to enhance the

> package

> for relocated families from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 10 lakh; it agreed to conduct

> a

> census of tigers in the country, which would pinpoint their presence in

> different habitats. The tiger census is the first step to identify the

> critical habitats that need to be protected and to list the human

> settlements that need to be relocated. With this done, the agenda of

> co-existence will need to kick in.

>

> But unfortunately, the tribal versus tiger paradigm will keep the fires

> burning. It would seem that the two lobbies are bent on scoring points,

> not

> building consensus. First, the tiger lobby blocked the bill. Then, an

> uneasy

> truce was brokered to provide for relocation of people and maintain their

> rights. In late 2005, the bill presented to parliament included a

> provision

> that temporary pattas (land deeds) would be given to people who were to be

> relocated from sanctuaries and national parks. This would ensure that

> their

> rights were protected, but also it would ensure that government would

> undertake their relocation within a time-bound schedule.

>

> Then the tribal lobby, which has the upper hand in parliament upped the

> ante. In late 2006, the act, finalized by a joint parliamentary committee,

> dropped this clause. Inside, it inserted an altogether new term, critical

> wildlife habitats, which would need to be established as areas to be kept

> inviolate for wildlife. In the rules for the act to go into force, they

> have

> rubbed in this point. They want ministries to issue guidelines regarding

> the

> nature, process, validation and interpretation of data to be collected and

> roles of expert committees who will now designate critical wildlife

> habitats, virtually questioning the legality of all protected areas.

>

> This has led conservationists to react. They want all wildlife areas (some

> 600-odd) to be re-designated as critical wildlife habitats and removed

> from

> the ambit of the act. Now they have the upper hand. For now, the act is

> stalled. The next round belongs to the tribal lobby. It is after all a

> wrestling match.

>

> In all this, let us be clear, the losers are tribals and tigers. It is not

> tigers versus

> tribals. It is everyone against them.*

>

November 16, 2007

Dear Azam and Pablo,

There are valid points raised by both of

you. Incidentally, I am reading a very interesting book at the moment that

delves into the issue of sustainable use of wildlife. It is named 'Who Cares

for Planet Earth?' and is edited by Bill Jordan of Care for the Wild

International. A portion of this book is available online at :

http://books.google.com/books?id=1FVY0ECO8PMC & dq=who+cares+for+planet+earth+by+b\

ill+jordan & printsec=frontcover & source=web & ots=Pz9qqWG1z- & sig=lMsRHrOUbHeFi9m2JN7\

n_r9oX2U#PPP1,M1<http://books.google.com/booksid=1FVY0ECO8PMC & dq=who+cares+for+p\

lanet+earth+by+bill+jordan & printsec=frontcover & source=web & ots=Pz9qqWG1z- & sig=lMs\

RHrOUbHeFi9m2JN7n_r9oX2U#PPP1,M1>

Hope you find it interesting and I look forward to reading the tribal

documentation. Warm regards,

On 11/16/07, Pablo <pablo.tachil wrote:

>

> Shubhroto,

>

> Having involved myself with the jungles (many tiger reserves) for the past

> 15 years, having seen the changing dynamics of these tribal settlements

> there are a few points I wish to add.

>

> Slowly the term TRIBAL has reached a stage where the definition needs to

> be revisited. Earlier it was a group of people having no/ minimal contact

> with urban civilization, who lived and co-existed with the animals therein,

> killed them for food or to save themselves when attacked. But with the

> international wildlife mafia gaining ground, unfortunately ahead of the

> cops/ other authorities, there was either an influx of commercial hunters/

> poachers into the tribal community or the tribals got influenced by ways of

> the urban man.

>

> Being a witness to this change, the community I met around 10 years back,

> who lived in huts made only of straw, wore nothing more than pieces of

> animal skin around their waists, now can be seen wearing jeans and living in

> cemented huts. Political parties are another bunch of bloody leeches who

> decided not to spare the tribals either to gain a few additional votes.

> Luring them with country made liquor and dresses, they formed unions and

> parties amongst them. I have photographic evidence of a party in Kerala

> distributing some items amongst the tribals and coaxing them to vote for the

> party.

>

> So getting to the point,

> 1) The term TRIBAL needs to be clarified, else shrewd businessman/

> poachers would take advantage of this not only to get access to the core

> areas but also gain rights such as funds from the government which is

> basically out of the taxes paid by the common working man.

> 2) Urban-Tribes should come under the same scanner as that of you or me.

> Every law applicable to us (hunting, accessing core areas, etc) should apply

> to them.

> 3) Government seem to be helping these so called (urban)tribes with farm

> land? I wish to know which tribe till date was into commercial farming! This

> is just another pretext by the blooddy political parties to someday utilize

> this land for other purposes.

>

> These are just some basic points! I have a comprehensive self made

> documentation on the tribe-animal conflict which I will send out to you very

> soon!

>

> Thanks, Pablo.

>

> On 11/14/07, wrote:

> >

> > *Tigers and tribals (By Sunita Narain)

> > =============================

> >

> > Tigers or tribals? Tribals versus tigers. This is how the discussion on

> > the

> > tribal forest rights act is being framed. The law, which was enacted by

> > parliament a while ago, is aimed at conferring land rights on people who

> > already live in forested regions. The government says it wants to

> > correct a

> > historical wrong against people on whom rights were never settled when

> > forest areas were earmarked for conservation. Quite right. But these

> > homes

> > of the poorest also house the country's magnificent wild animals, like

> > tigers. It is critical that their habitat should be protected and future

> > safeguarded. This is also quite right.

> >

> > Is it possible to reconcile the interests of what seems to be two

> > competing

> > groups?

> >

> > Two years ago the debate was stormy. The draft forest rights bill was

> > being

> > worked upon by a government just sworn into power. Around this time, it

> > was

> > discovered—to everyone's horror—that all tigers from what was supposed

> > to be

> > a protected area, the Sariska National Park, had been poached.

> > Opposition to

> > the draft bill mounted; conservationists argued that this " populist "

> > measure

> > would be the last nail in the tiger's coffin.

> >

> > I was asked to head a task force to suggest how tigers could be

> > safeguarded.

> > Over three months the specialists we met believed that it was important

> > to

> > reserve areas for wildlife. These would need to be inviolate

> > areas—exclusively earmarked for animals where human interference would

> > have

> > to be kept at its minimum. Otherwise, they said, the tiger would not

> > survive. They believed that if the forest rights bill gave people

> > ownership

> > over these lands it would be disastrous.

> >

> > I approached the issue from different perspectives. I had for long

> > understood that the future of people and forests is entwined. I also

> > knew

> > from experience that regeneration of forests is not possible unless

> > local

> > people benefit. But I was willing to listen to the experience of those

> > who

> > believed in the tiger. If co-existence was not possible, we needed to

> > find

> > strategies to relocate people who lived in the tiger's territory.

> >

> > The issue seemed simple, but the replies shocked me. After 30 years of

> > wildlife conservation efforts, fronted by the country's most powerful,

> > we

> > had forgotten people. In these 30 years we had managed to relocate

> > 80-odd

> > villages from protected reserves. We estimated that another 1,500

> > villages

> > existed in just 28 tiger reserves. Worse, relocation was done in the

> > most

> > ham-handed and inhuman manner. We met families who had decided to return

> > to

> > the harassment and poverty of their homes within the sanctuary as their

> > resettled parcel of land was full of stones. The authorities had done

> > just

> > about everything to make people trespassers in their own land;

> > everything to

> > turn them against the tiger we want to protect. This would not work we

> > concluded.

> >

> > Our answer was two-pronged. One, we agreed that inviolate space was

> > important for wild animals. But the people who were making space for the

> > tiger needed to be given a good deal—not marginal forestland which would

> >

> > make them more destitute. Two, we said that we needed to be realistic.

> > We

> > suggested the need to identify and prioritize relocation of those

> > villages

> > that were in the most critical of wildlife habitats. This had to be done

> >

> > within a time-bound schedule. In the remaining villages, which would

> > have to

> > live in the reserves, we suggested a new bargain—sharing benefits of

> > conservation with local communities—from preferential shares in tourism

> > to

> > collaborative management of our reserves.

> >

> > This led to some developments. The government agreed to enhance the

> > package

> > for relocated families from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 10 lakh; it agreed to

> > conduct a

> > census of tigers in the country, which would pinpoint their presence in

> > different habitats. The tiger census is the first step to identify the

> > critical habitats that need to be protected and to list the human

> > settlements that need to be relocated. With this done, the agenda of

> > co-existence will need to kick in.

> >

> > But unfortunately, the tribal versus tiger paradigm will keep the fires

> > burning. It would seem that the two lobbies are bent on scoring points,

> > not

> > building consensus. First, the tiger lobby blocked the bill. Then, an

> > uneasy

> > truce was brokered to provide for relocation of people and maintain

> > their

> > rights. In late 2005, the bill presented to parliament included a

> > provision

> > that temporary pattas (land deeds) would be given to people who were to

> > be

> > relocated from sanctuaries and national parks. This would ensure that

> > their

> > rights were protected, but also it would ensure that government would

> > undertake their relocation within a time-bound schedule.

> >

> > Then the tribal lobby, which has the upper hand in parliament upped the

> > ante. In late 2006, the act, finalized by a joint parliamentary

> > committee,

> > dropped this clause. Inside, it inserted an altogether new term,

> > critical

> > wildlife habitats, which would need to be established as areas to be

> > kept

> > inviolate for wildlife. In the rules for the act to go into force, they

> > have

> > rubbed in this point. They want ministries to issue guidelines regarding

> > the

> > nature, process, validation and interpretation of data to be collected

> > and

> > roles of expert committees who will now designate critical wildlife

> > habitats, virtually questioning the legality of all protected areas.

> >

> > This has led conservationists to react. They want all wildlife areas

> > (some

> > 600-odd) to be re-designated as critical wildlife habitats and removed

> > from

> > the ambit of the act. Now they have the upper hand. For now, the act is

> > stalled. The next round belongs to the tribal lobby. It is after all a

> > wrestling match.

> >

> > In all this, let us be clear, the losers are tribals and tigers. It is

> > not

> > tigers versus

> > tribals. It is everyone against them.*

> >

November 16, 2007

Under British rule and the first few decades of home rule,

Indian policy toward tigers & tribals was essentially, " Let the

tigers eat the tribals, & then hunt the tigers for wall ornaments. "

In more recent times, this has reversed to " Let the tribals

kill the tigers, & then take their votes, labor, & land. "

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

Telephone: 360-579-2505

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

for free sample, send address.]

November 17, 2007

With the Human invasion wildlife has suffered.The Politicians grant the

Favors(?) for their selfish gains.The tribals which were considered close to

nature are no more friendly to it.The cause is economic gains and

comercialisation.

SKJ

Pablo <pablo.tachil wrote: