Love for land.

Let me make one thing clear at the onset I am a huge admirer of JRD Tata. He was one great man and inspired millions of people. TATAs do have a great tradition and to a large extend played instrumental role in industrial development of the country. My contention is with the policy issues vis-à-vis land use. The problems in Singur start with the use of Agriculture land (discussed in www.sdepalan.blogspot.com) but that is not the discussion point in here. I am taking here the larger issue of land use, development and marginalization in context to forest land.

The forest cover of India is 63.73 M ha contributing 19.30 per cent of the total geographical area reducing at very fast rate, infact this figure may not be reliable due to encroachments,more than 25 million hectares of this forest land is degraded resulting in barely 10% of the land under forests. Per capita forest cover is only 0.06ha.Most forest covered region is inhabited by adivasis (or tribals)who are in most cases totally dependent on forests. The regions of Western Ghats as also north east have been classified as biodiversity hot spots. Thousands of acres of land in these areas were cleared a century back by the colonizers to grow tea and other cash crops. It also was converted into settlements, since the climate suited them. When they left during 1940s they gave the land to their faithful. If you travel around nilgiris (or Darjeeling) you will find vast land of tea and rubber plantations. In recent times they are converting these to holiday resorts which is a lucrative business-there is huge loot going on here. It is shocking that the land which is essentially part of biodiversity be so blatantly misused. Tea or rubber (spices and coffee plantations though do provide a certain diversity) are important cash crop but the question here is why the profit going to select few wherein the biological and ecological loss is substantial. Infact there is a law which was passed few years back it is referred to as: The Biological Diversity Act 2002, which provides for conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its components and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the use of biological resources, knowledge and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. I reckon plantations located in these zones come under Biodiversity act.

The recent enthusiasm in certain circles on Forest Rights Act giving more rights to tribal community at the expense of wildlife is misplaced. This Act not only patronizes the tribal people by assuming that they have no desire for modern way of living but it also is shortsighted in its intent on wildlife protection and conservation. The interesting issue here is that although the interests of wildlife habitations are compromised the interest of plantation owners are very much protected. The lands on which these people are making huge profit are part of biodiversity disaster zone. These lands belong to wildlife and endangered species. These lands also belonged to indigenous community. Instead of compromising wildlife land the indigenous people should be given share of profits from plantation. This is a very desirable alternative. Tigers may not have vote but they are significant part of our ecosystem and common heritage. I dare the politicians and intellectual who were very vocal in their support of Forest Act to initiate laws for distributing shares of profits to tribal communities from Plantations. If you can take the share of tigers and wildlife why not plantation owners??. Tribal communities need to compensated for "historic injustice" not by encroaching into wildlife but encroaching into comfortable world of 'people like us'. Dare anyone???.