NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

ODISHA

PROJECT WORK

ON

FOREST POLICY AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLE IN COLONIAL AND POST COLONIAL

SUBMITTED TO

MS. KUNTIRANI PADHAN

RAJU RAM (2016/B.A.LL.B./084)

CONTENTS
OBJECTIVE....................................................................................................................................3

RESEARCH QUESTION...............................................................................................................3

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................4

FORESTS VS A VIS INDIGENOUS PEOPLE.............................................................................5

STATE CONTROL OVER FOREST RESOURCES.....................................................................6

FOREST DURING PRE-COLONIAL PERIOD........................................................................6

FORESTS DURING EAST INDIA COMPANY’S RULE........................................................6

FOREST POLICIES DURING COLONIAL PERIOD..................................................................7

FOREST ACT, 1865...................................................................................................................7

FOREST ACT 1878....................................................................................................................7

FOREST ACT-1927....................................................................................................................8

POST- COLONIAL FOREST POLICIES....................................................................................10

FOREST POLICY OF 1952......................................................................................................10

FOREST ACT, 1988.................................................................................................................10

CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................12
 OBJECTIVE
To know historical background of forests and their conservation in india, criticize the
government policies, and government’s attitude while dealing with forests and Tribals
communities.

RESEARCH QUESTION
1. What was the relation between forests and indigenous people?
2. How is relationship between forests and indigenous people changed over time?
3. How the shift in terms of conservation of forest from Tribals to government took place?
 INTRODUCTION
Forest policy and management has been a subject of considerable debate and conflict ever since
the British established a Forest Department and enacted legislations related to forestry in the 19 th
century. The imperial needs dictated the British interests in the Indian forest resources, which
resulted in the establishment of control over forest resources. In the process, at least two crucial
aspects of forest management were ignored. First, the well-established traditional systems of
conservation and sustainable use, and second, the critical ecological and social role that forests
played.
The colonial system of forest management was continued even after 1947 with little
modifications, emphasizing revenue generation and commercial exploitation, while its policing
orientation excluded villagers who had the most longstanding claim on forest resources. The
Tribals were in constant in confrontation with forest management department stating the they
controlled over the natural resources and deprived them of an important means of subsistence.
In this short article an attempt is made to review colonial and post-colonial forest policies. The
first part, deals with the relation between Tribals and forests, the second part explains the
evolution of State control over forest resources. The third section is on colonial forest policy and
on the process of establishing colonial control over natural resources, the fourth section focuses
on the forest policies of independent India and on the changes in forest management and the last
section contains conclusions.
 FORESTS VS A VIS INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
Forests play a vital role in sustaining the life supporting systems of a country's environment and
the quality of its people. The livelihood of Tribals depend on forest produce. The Tribals get
food from the forests by shifting cultivation, apart from picking varieties of edible and herbal
roots, tubers, creepers, fruits, leaves. Besides this, Tribals collect varieties of minor forest
produce, which includes fodder and grasses, raw materials like bamboo, canes and leaves, gums,
waxes, dyes and resins and several forms of food including nuts, wild fruits, and honey.

However, the involvement of particular members of the family in the collection depended upon
the nature of the product. For instance, in the collection of gum, honey, bark, bamboo etc., which
required more time, the male members were involved. While in the collection of leaves, seeds,
flowers etc., women, folk were engaged. Traditionally, traders and contractors used to purchase
the produce from the Tribals at low rate or by barter. Later the procurement of minor forest
produce has been nationalized to protect the Tribals from this exploitation.

Regarding the relationship of Tribals with the forest, the Committee on Forests and Tribal in
India (1982) stated that "they are not only forest dwellers but also for centuries they have
evolved a way of life which, on the one hand, is woven around forest ecology and forest
resources, on the other hand, ensures that the forest is protected against the degradation by man
and nature by evolving their own conservative systems.”

Thus, Tribals ensure the ecological balance. Outside flows of material were largely restricted.
For instance, honey and ivory were exchanged for metal. Most tribal communities forbade the
cutting or hunting during certain periods in the year and allowed it then only on the annual day of
renewal. Restrictions were put also during certain stages of life of different species. And also
forbade the killing of pregnant animals. So it is claimed that Tribals have acquired a deep
knowledge and understanding of ecological processes and evolved as ideal natural resource
managers. They always interact for their sustenance and try to recreate the forests with their
traditional conservation systems. The reservation of tracts, which denied the Tribals access to
forest produce on which they had depended for many of their necessities for centuries, cut them
off from their life-support system. When an area was declared a reserve forest, all the rights of
Tribals were extinguished, except those explicitly mentioned.
 STATE CONTROL OVER FOREST RESOURCES
Forest During Pre-colonial Period

It is generally believed that in the pre-colonial period the rural communities seem to have
enjoyed an untrammeled use of forests and wastes in their vicinity. "The waste and forest lands
never attracted the attention of former (pre-British) Governments. 1 Similarly it was reported from
Madras that the villages had traditionally owned all forests within their boundaries2

It was during the colonial period that for the first time proprietary claims were made over forest
resources by extraneous forces. Atchi Reddy (1991) identified three main parties who claimed
rights of ownership of the forests and its produce in the Madras presidency. First were the village
communities. The second category was that of Zamindars and other feudal landlords. And, third
the Government. In precolonial era the forests are and always have been common property.

Forests During East India Company’s Rule

In the name of making cultivable lands, there was a policy of encouraging destruction of forests.
British used to teak to meet the demands for shipbuilding and military purposes. Company
looked to India as a potential source of their supplies. Exploitation of certain species of trees
were considered as the prerogative of the ruler.

In 1856, a significant year in the history of forests in India, Lord Dalhousie laid down a definite
forest policy regarding protection of forests. Thus, British colonial intervention is an important
watershed in the ecological history of India. Great chunks of forest were destroyed to meet the
demand for railway sleepers and also railway companies also indulged use of local timber as fuel
for the locomotives. The Governor - General Dalhousie called in 1862 for the establishment of a
department that could ensure the sustained availability of the enormous requirements of different
railway companies for sleepers. Later the imperial Forest Department was formed in 1864.

1
(Sodhganga, 2020) <https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/1876/7/08_chapter2.pdf>
accessed 10 April 2020.
2
Ibid.
 FOREST POLICIES DURING COLONIAL PERIOD
Forest Act, 1865

The first attempt at asserting State monopoly was through the Indian Forest Act of 1865. The Act
empowered the State to declare any land as state forest and to make rules regarding the
management of the same by notification, provided that such notification should not abridge or
affect any existing rights of individuals or communities. 3 The government was empowered to
prescribe punishments for the breach of provisions or for infringing rules and for the arrest of
offenders. For the first time, an attempt was made to regulate the collection of forest produce by
the forest dwellers. The Act was applicable only to state forest and no provisions were made to
cover private forests. The Madras Presidency refused to have the Act of 1865 on the plea that the
rights of the villagers over waste lands and jungles were considered important. This prevented
the Government from making forests the exclusive property of the State.

The major lacunae of the Act are

1. The Act provided for the protection of forests only after it had been selected and declared
as Government forest.
2. The definition of the forest, in section 2 of the 1865 Act, as "land covered with trees,
brushwood and jungle".
3. The Act provided for a series of prohibitions but nothing about the principles of
managing the forest, there were no rules regarding fire protection, fencing etc.
4. The regulations covering the transit of forest produce were not comprehensive enough,
both with respect to the means of transit and the agents of transit.
5. It was provided that the customary use of the forest by the Indian was based on 'privilege'
and not on 'right'.

Forest Act 1878

This Act was more comprehensive than earlier one and divided forests into reserved forests,
protected forests and village forests. Certain activities like trespassing or pasturing of cattle were
prohibited. A provision was made to impose a duty on timber. Some provisions were also made
for private forests. And certain activities were declared as forest offences and imprisonment and
3
Forest Act of 1865, S 2.
fines were also prescribed. The Act empowered the government to acquire land over which
rights were claimed by persons. The forest settlement officer was to record such rights and there
were special provisions to ensure the exercise of such right.

It also sought to ensure claimants rights in certain portions of the proposed reserved forest 4. And
the Local governments were given the right to notify any forest or land as protected forest and
empowered to make rules to regulate and prohibit certain acts in protected forests. And also
given the power to assign to any village community the right to or over any land that was
constituted as a reserved forest and all forests so assigned were to apply to village forests 5. The
authority to arrest was limited to offences like violating the prohibition or the quarrying of stone
or the burning of lime or charcoal or the collection or subjection to any manufacturing process,
or removal of any forest produce, in any such (i.e. protected) forest and the breaking up or
clearing for cultivation, for building, for herding cattle or for any other purpose, any land in any
such forest.

Forest Act-1927

The Act of 1878 was replaced by the Indian Forest Act, 1927in this Act the Forests were
classified into reserved, protected and village forests and elaborate provisions were made to
extend State control over forests. The Act deleted the reference to communities' rights over
forests, which were made in the 1878 Act. Persons were to put in their claims over forest lands
and produce before the FSO who was to enquire into their claims. Rights in respect of which no
claims were preferred were to be extinguished, unless the person claiming them satisfied the
FSO that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the claim in the specified time.6

The FSO was to record the claims relating to the practice of shifting cultivation and to inform the
state government together with his opinion as to the permissibility or otherwise of the practice.
The state government was finally to decide on the issue of permission or prohibition. In the Act it
was mentioned that shifting cultivation as a privilege subject to control, restriction and abolition
by the state government.7
4
Forest Act of 1878, S 1 A.
5
Forest Act of 1878, S 27.
6
Forest Act 1927, S 9.

7
Forest Act1927, S 10
The provisions of arrest without warrant was made, same as in the earlier Act and limited to
certain offences. The curtailment of communal ownership of forests by the State severely
undermined the subsistence economy of the forest people. Due to the restrictions on grazing
some of the Tribals groups who were involved in herding the cattle lost their subsistence.
 POST- COLONIAL FOREST POLICIES
Forest Policy of 1952

The need for the realization of maximum annual revenue from forests was considered a vital
national need. The relevance of forests to meet the needs of defense, reconstruction schemes
such as river valley projects, development of industries and communications was asserted by the
first national forest policy of Independent India in 1952 based on national interest.

Under the new policy emphasis was laid on raising village forests. The private forests of Tribals
that were touched in new policy. fee was imposed on grazing in the new policy. A concession is
given relating to shifting cultivation, by the provision that should be curbed not by coercion as
earlier but by persuasion.

Scheduled Area and Scheduled Tribes Commission, 1960, analyses forest policy and its impact
on tribal communities. It noted the changes in the rights of the tribal communities over the
forests. The traditional rights of the Tribals were no longer recognised as rights. In 1894, they
became 'rights' and 'privileges' and in 1952 they became 'rights' and 'concession', which remained
there thereafter (GOI 1960). The Commission recommended that the policy of 1952 should be
reconsidered and that, subject to safeguards, Tribals should be allowed to cultivate forest lands
and that their needs should be met from outlying areas in the reserve forests and that their
requirements for grazing and shifting cultivation should be conceded.

Forest Act, 1988

The Resolution stated the basic objectives of forest policy as follows: "the principal aim of forest
policy must be to ensure environmental stability and maintenance of ecological balance
including atmospheric equilibrium which are vital for sustenance of all life forms, human, animal
and plant. The derivation of direct economic benefit must be subordinated to this principal aim".

The policy statement asserts that existing forests and forestlands should be fully protected and
their productivity improved. Minor forest produce should be protected and improved, so as to
continue to provide sustenance to the tribal population. The national good should be to have a
minimum of one-third of the total area in the country under forest or tree cover. A massive need-
based and time-bound Programme of afforestation and tree planting should be undertaken.
The other important features of the Act were:

i. The government has been encouraging Joint Forest Management, giving usufruct
rights to those who protect forests.
ii. The act was laid down that the state governments empower to permit the practice
of shifting cultivation for a period not exceeding three years.
iii. Special provisions have been made to prevent encroachments on lands in the
reserve forests.
iv. State governments are empowered to constitute village forests over any land,
except reserve forests, over which it has proprietary rights.
v. The act empowered state government also to assign government land to
individuals for the purpose of afforestation, except from reserved and protected
forests.
vi. Provisions are made to regulate trespassing of cattle in reserved, protected and
village forests and penalties for such offences have been made very severe.
 CONCLUSION
The entry of the Colonial State into forests, catering to external markets has been an important
factor in the development of State control over natural resources. Provisions for declaring forests
as reserved by extinguishing the rights of the local people, were contained in the Forest Act of
1865 and modified and re-enacted in 1878 and then in 1927. It was clear that, commercial
interests were the primary consideration in declaring forests reserved. Since forest-based
industries such as pulp, paper and plywood were established by the end 1952, that the demands
of these industries for raw material became an important basis for the 1952 forest policy. This
policy gave priority to defense, communication and vital industries in the name of national
interest. Consequently, the requirements of forest-based industries, motivated by commercial
profits and almost entirely in the private sector, received total priority.

This continuity between colonial and post-colonial forestry regimes is most clearly manifest in
the system of ownership. The State has contrived to uphold its monopoly over forest ownership,
which may have a drastic impact on forest people and their subsistence economy and forest-tribal
relation.