Oustee: Victimisation of the ecological refugee

Among the most disadvantaged communities of India are the forest-dwelling villagers, and yet they are asked to pay the highest price when the state decides to take a stand for the sake of biodiversity and removes resident peoples from protected areas. Displacement should be undertaken only as part of a consultative process involving scientists, social activists and local government, and should be minimised whenever possible. Above all, the relocation process, when it is adopted, must show absolute concern for humanitarian values.

Ghazala is a researcher and consultant affiliated with the Council for Social Development, New Delhi.

Published on

There are more than 580 national parks and sanctuaries in India. They have been set up with the primary aim of conserving biodiversity, and the rules prohibit human habitation as well as the exploitation of natural resources. However, surveys indicate that there are people living within many of these protected areas (referred to as PAs) who are economically dependent on the natural resources available inside these regions.

Over the decades, there has been a widespread trend towards relocating villages from protected areas, with the forest managers blaming the inhabitants for 'biomass extraction' and otherwise posing a threat to biodiversity conservation. Such displacements have been strongly opposed by local communities as being both unnecessary and inequitable. Over the years, there has grown a controversy of considerable proportions, with social activists siding with the communities and pitted against biologists who tend to speak for the forest managers. The conflict has come to a head after the sudden decline of the Royal Bengal Tiger population in India due to poaching, which had the forest departments of many states pushing for 'people-free zones'. In this, the forestry officials have been egged on by influential wildlifers.

Loading content, please wait...
Himal Southasian
www.himalmag.com