Book Review: Sharachchandra Lele and Ajit Menon (eds),Democratizing Forest Governance in India

In the post-liberalization era, Indian forests have simultaneously been the centre of many developmental experiments of the state, a site of investment for corporate capital, a space of livelihood struggle and resistance for tribal groups, a dangerous zone of the state and the Maoists’ violence and counter-violence and an area of concern for conservationists, who work tirelessly for the protection and survival of wildlife. Democratizing Forest Governance in India presents a deep and analytical study of the many multifaceted issues related to the democratization of forest management in India, the attempt of the Indian state to ensure the continuity of its control over forests, the role of judiciary, concerns related to wildlife conservation etc. It seeks to highlight the shift in the discourse by capturing the multiple dimensions of the idea of democratic governance of forests in India and review the developments over last decade or so, which have made the debates related to forest more complex. The democratization of forest governance implies the ‘deepening of democratic process in multiple ways: spatial decentralization, devolution of actual power to lower tiers, and (perhaps most important) the functioning of all tiers and all arms (political, executive and judicial) in ways that are democratic, transparent and accountable’ (p. 11). The different chapters of the book have used diverse methods, some of them are based on extensive ethnographic studies and a case study approach, some on historical–analytical approach and many contributors also based their study on government documents, court cases, etc.

To understand the present conundrums of Indian forests, it is important to understand the historical context of its management. From the colonial period onwards, forest management in India has been highly centralized. The colonial rulers used the idea of ‘eminent domain’ to establish their sovereignty over forest land and its resources and used the Forest Acts of 1865, 1878 and 1927 to arbitrarily exploit forests for their imperial interests. This dispossessed tribals form their rights over forests. The post-colonial Indian state accepted the validity of the idea of ‘eminent domain’ and the Forest Act of 1927 and exploited forest resources for ‘national development’. The post-colonial Indian state enacted some significant laws to ensure the conservation of forest and wildlife. It enacted legislations, such as Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 and Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Both these laws enhanced the centralization of forest administration, which created many problems for the tribal people living in and adjacent areas of forests. The Forest Department (FD) not only controlled their activities in forests but also declared them ‘encroachers’ of forests and they became second-grade citizens facing displacement due to the forced development model of the Indian state. However, from the 1970s, local communities resisted control of the FD and imposed development model through many grass-roots-level resistant movements. In 1973, the ‘Chipko Movement’ raised the issue of the ownership of local communities over forests and in the 1980s, ‘Save Narmada Movement’ questioned the prevailing model of development. These and many other small movements compelled the Indian state to rethink its forest policy and in 1988, a new forest policy was released which focused on the role of local communities in the management of forest and its resources. Further in 1990, the government started the Joint Forest Management (JFM) programme, with the purpose to involve forest-dwelling communities in the management of the forest. In this volume, the editors present a small historical background of these aspects in the introduction of the book and Madhu Sarin too explores complex historical events in her chapter. Both the descriptions, however, are linear in their approach and do not cover some crucial aspects like the debates in the Constituent Assembly about the rights of tribals and its implications on their forest rights etc. The role of grass-roots movements has also been inadequately analyzed.

The post-1990 era has many complex facets related to forest governance. Though the purpose of JFM was to establish a ‘new moral economy’ where local communities and FD could act jointly to protect forests, in most of the cases it became a tool to suppress the resistance of local communities or to divide them to establish the dominance of the FD. Indeed, in his study of the JFM, Sharachchandra Lele declares that ‘JFM…has turned out to be a failure, both conceptually and practically…’ (p. 53). In the following years of this decade, the judiciary increased its intervention in matters related to the forest management through the Godavarman Case. In her paper, Shomona Khanna has aptly emphasized that the ‘Godavarman case…has resulted in numerous innovations being made by the Court itself, both in terms of setting up implementation structures, as well as in the area of legal interpretation’ (p. 225). The most important aspect about post-1990 forest governance is the legislation of two ‘progressive’ laws, that is, Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (or PESA) (1996) and Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006. The FRA is more important for understanding the changes in forest governance in the post-1990 era and the editors of the book also accept that a ‘major shift in the forestry discourse took place with the passing of the FRA…’ (p. 9). It gives private and collective property rights to the forest-dwelling communities on the forest land and its resources; it gives equal rights to the women and also tries to resolve the wildlife conservation and tribal rights conundrum through provision of ‘Critical Wildlife Habitat’ (CWH). The Indian state, however, never used this provision of FRA in Protected Areas (PAs), rather it focused on using other laws to evict people form ecologically sensitive areas.

In their paper, Broome et al. have presented a detailed study of the changing paradigms of wildlife conservation in India and underlined the importance of the CWH provision of the FRA. They, however, also accept that this provision has not been taken seriously by the FD and other concerned authorities. Many other chapters of the book have focused on the analysis of the impact of the FRA on different groups, for example, Sagri R. Ramdas examines the complexities of livestock sector and argues that the FRA offers new possibilities to grazing communities, highlighting how its potential has not been fully utilized. Kundan Kumar and Dhrupad Choudhury discuss the enormous complexities surrounding the phenomenon of shifting cultivation. They basically underline the point that this traditional practice has not been dealt with seriously in forest laws, even in the FRA. On the other hand, Prakash Kashwan and Viren Lobo present a critique of the FRA’s ‘internal’ dimensions of the governance problem, and argue that it does not present a framework to resolve the acute challenge posed by intra- and inter-village inequities of assets and power.

Although the book has covered most of the pertinent aspects of forest governance in India, it lacks an in-depth analysis of at least three aspects: First, one cannot comprehend the complexities of forest governance in India without a profound understanding of the Maoist movement in central India (Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odhisha, Andhra Pradesh and in many districts of Maharashtra). The Maoists used arbitrary and suppressive behaviour of the FD to strengthen their position in forest areas. Second, there is a need to analyze the role of grass-roots movements in the political awakening of tribals in forest areas. In this context, the struggle for the enactment of laws, such as the PESA and the FRA, is significant. The book, however, does not present the role of local organization in forest-related issues—in particular, it completely avoids the different issues related to the PESA and even in the case of FRA it does not present any analysis of the role of grass-roots organizations. Madhu Sarin in her paper has presented a brilliant account of different issues related to the FRA, but the role of grass-roots organizations and the implication of the enactment of the FRA on the Indian democracy and state structure are not properly analyzed in her chapter or any other chapter of the book. Third, there is a need to probe the situation of ‘legal pluralism’ in forest areas. There are many laws and their provisions are contradictory. This situation is also responsible for the non-implementation of many ‘progressive’ provisions of the FRA and PESA. Despite these omissions, the volume as a whole captures many complexities of the churning in the governance of Indian forests.