International Journal of
Rural Management
http://irm.sagepub.com/
Issues of Conservation and Livelihood in a Forest Village of Assam
Chandan Kumar Sharma and Indrani Sarma
International Journal of Rural Management 2014 10: 47
DOI: 10.1177/0973005214526502
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://irm.sagepub.com/content/10/1/47
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Institute of Rural Management
Additional services and information for International Journal of Rural Management can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://irm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://irm.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://irm.sagepub.com/content/10/1/47.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Jun 1, 2014
What is This?
Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on June 4, 2014
Article
Issues of Conservation
and Livelihood in a
Forest Village of Assam
International Journal of
Rural Management
10(1) 47–68
2014 Institute of Rural Management
SAGE Publications
Los Angeles, London,
New Delhi, Singapore,
Washington DC
DOI: 10.1177/0973005214526502
http://irm.sagepub.com
Chandan Kumar Sharma
Department of Sociology
Tezpur University, Assam, India
E-mail: kumarsharma.chandan@gmail.com
Indrani Sarma
Omeo Kumar Das Institute of Social Change and Development
Guwahati, Assam, India
E-mail: indrani15s@gmail.com
Abstract
The creation of the forest villages in the northeast Indian state of Assam, like the
rest of India, was a part of the colonial forest management policy. These villages
were established within the limits of the reserved forests for assured supply
of labour for the colonial forest department. Later on, many recognized forest
villages came up with landless peasants migrating to the forest areas in search
of land and livelihood. However, their growing population and demand for land
coupled with the highhandedness of the forest department gave rise to intense
conflict between the two. This conflict has assumed a much more complex character in the recent times giving rise to serious contestations and challenges with
regard to people’s rights and conservation approach of the state.
Keywords
Forest villages, Assam, land rights, Forest Right Act (FRA) 2006, conservation,
Nameri
Introduction
The human–wildlife debate, torn between the human-centric and the park-centric
approaches, has long animated the conservation discourse in India as in the other
parts of the world. The moot question of the debate is: should the humans be separated from the conservation regime or should they be allowed to be a part of it for
a sustainable conservation? (Saberwal and Rangarajan 2003: 3). The park-centric
Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on June 4, 2014
48
Chandan Kumar Sharma and Indrani Sarma
approach considers the presence of local communities to be contrary to the interest of conservation. It advocates the creation of ‘people-free zones’ in and around
the parks, treating humans as outsiders to the natural ecosystem. This is perceived
to be the best way to ensure protection to forests and wildlife. The wildlife enthusiasts support this stand. Thapar and Manfredi, for example, contend
One of the primary reasons for establishing non-use forest areas, or National Parks, is
because virtually any form of sustained human activity results in serious modifications
of the natural environment whether in watershed regulation, soil erosion, agriculture
productivity or climatic change. Such modification can seriously upset a balance and
cause severe stress for man (1995: 28).
Tiger Conservationist K. Ullhas Karanth, another advocate of the ‘park-centric’
approach to conservation criticises the human-centric approach to conservation
ruing that it is more concerned with the ‘“rights” of a single species, Homo sapiens’
(2008: 273). He identifies human settlements in the vicinities of wildlife habitats as
the most crucial element in the degradation of the latter (Karanth 2008: 278).
He asserts,
The threat of habitat degradation arises when contiguous habitats are fragmented by
intrusion of human settlements, roads, railways, or pipelines . . . human impacts on
habitat quality are obvious: an area overgrazed by livestock may support lower densities of wild ungulates than an area without cattle; a forest that is heavily logged for
timber may be an inferior habitat for rainforest primates. In other cases, such effects are
less obvious. The long-term consequences of the exploitation of non-timber forest products like fruits, leaves, bark, root, gum, resin, rattan, and bamboo can be particularly
insidious . . . The impact of human disturbances on wildlife habitats is often cumulative
. . . Yet such non-timber forest product collection is often blindly touted as a ‘conservation solution’ by many conservationists (2008: 276–79).
The formation of protected areas (PAs) aiming to preserve wildlife and biodiversity by the colonial and post-colonial Indian state, by and large, reflects
this view. It upholds a conservation regime that believes in protecting forests
and wildlife by excluding the local forest-dwellers through ‘fences and fines’ or
‘guns-and-guards’ approach (Kothari 2003: 2).
Contrarily, the other group of conservationists argues that people must be considered integral to the conservation process. They plead for a more democratic
system of park management in which the voices of local communities can be
heard loud and clear (Guha 2006: 140). The creation of national parks and sanctuaries has, however, excluded the forest dwelling communities from the source of
sustenance without recognizing their traditional rights over forests. Saberwal et al.
(2001) suggest that the crisis with the Indian conservation scene today is located
within it exclusionary policy. The forests across India have remained the habitats
for a large number of indigenous communities for ages. These forest dwellers
evolved certain practices with regard to the use of land and other resources within
International Journal of Rural Management, 10, 1 (2014): 47–68
Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on June 4, 2014
Issues of Conservation and Livelihood in a Forest Village of Assam
49
forests for their survival. Their alienation from the state conservation policies has
only undermined the latter. Smuggling and poaching in the PAs have increased.
The lack of access to forest resources for livelihood has resulted in local hostilities
to conservation strategies and regular clash with the forest officials.
Indeed, it all began with the British colonial regime’s ever-increasing interventions with the forest dwellers livelihood practices which considerably curtailed
their customary rights over the forest resources. Huge tracts of forest lands were
reserved for commercial exploitations. Forests of Assam, Bengal, Bihar and
Orissa were indiscriminately destroyed to meet the requirements for the ever
expanding railway networks (Shiva et al. 1991: 16). In brief, the establishment of
state monopoly over forest and other community properties for maximizing state
revenue was intrinsic to the colonial policy. The post-colonial Indian state too
continued with the same policy making the forests an increasingly more intense
site of conflict between the forest dwellers and the state. While the growing need
for timber as crucial raw material guided the interests of the colonial forest policy,
in the post-colonial times, it has been the commercial interests that have dictated
the forest policy (Munshi 2012: 13).
Informed by such opposing theoretical standpoints, this essay examines the
human–wildlife interaction in a forest village named Sopaloga located in the
fringe area of Nameri National Park (hereafter NNP) in the northeast Indian
state of Assam. It historicizes the formation of the forest villages (bon gaon) in
the area and then throws light into the local forest dwellers’ sources of livelihood,
dependence on forests and their day-to-day negotiations with and responses to
various conservation initiatives to explicate the specific nature of this interaction
in Assam. The essay also makes an assessment of the implementation of the newly
enacted Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of
Forest Rights) Act 2006, popularly known as Forest Right Act (FRA) 2006 in
Nameri in particular and Assam in general. It further explains how certain definitional problems in the Act have raised questions and concerns about its prospects
in the state and indeed in many other parts of India.
Methods of Data Collection
The essay makes a study of its subject, that is human–wildlife interaction in a
forest village in Assam, that is Sopaloga, in both historical and contemporary
perspectives. The methodological orientation of the study is that of qualitative
research based on both primary as well as secondary data. Primary data have
been generated through a field-based ethnographic study in several phases in the
village under study from late 2009 to late 2011. This long-term engagement with
the village helped the study appreciate the social dynamics of the village and
many facets of the lives of people living therein that are hardly noticed by occasional visitors. However, the study is not only confined to Sopaloga, though it
remained the central focus. The study transcends the boundary of the village in
International Journal of Rural Management, 10, 1 (2014): 47–68
Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on June 4, 2014
50
Chandan Kumar Sharma and Indrani Sarma
order to have a comprehensive understanding of the larger milieu in which the
village is located, constituted by the NNP and its buffer areas interspersed with a
host of forest and revenue villages belonging to different communities.
The study uses various sets of data collection techniques under the ethnographic
method which includes: (i) in-depth interviewing and focus group discussions
with the local villagers, forest officials and other stakeholders in the process of
conservation, (ii) personal observation, and last but not the least, (iii) oral history
in the form of villagers’ narratives. In fact, the last constituted a critical source of
information for this study in the absence of written history or official documents
regarding the early history of human settlement and aspects of forest management
in the area. It is to be noted that this study had to deal with many sensitive issues
and information. The villagers were initially reticent about giving out information and many a times they gave incorrect information too. However, the initial
problems were gradually overcome with the elapse of time and with increasing
informal interactions with villagers. Building good rapport with the local villagers
was necessary before discussing the sensitive issues including that of the illegal
timber trading in the area which involves a number of local youth.
For collecting secondary data, the study uses available books, official records,
policy documents, etc. with regard to forest conservation and management of forest villages in Assam in general and in the Nameri area in particular.
A Brief Account of NNP
Characterized by a hilly terrain, tropical evergreen, semi evergreen and moist
deciduous forests, NNP is located in about 35 km northeast of Tezpur, the district
headquarters of the Sonitpur District of Assam. Nameri, the third National Park of
the state, was declared as a Reserved Forest in 1878 and as a Wildlife Sanctuary in
1985 with an area of 137.07 km2. It was elevated to the status of a National Park in
13 August 1998 with an area of 200 km2. The Government of Assam constituted and
notified the Nameri Tiger Reserve (NTR) with an area of 344 km2 in 1 March 2000
with the NNP as its core and the two reserve forests, Naduar and Balipara, as its east
and west buffers, respectively. The NTR shares continuous forests with the Pakhui
(or Pakke) Tiger Reserve of Arunachal Pradesh on the north and both together constitute an area of over 1000 km2 which is one of the largest and most ideal habitats
of many wild animals. The Balipara and the Naduar reserve forests are now shorn
of any worthwhile forest cover and are interspersed with villages and agricultural
fields. Sopaloga forest village where the present study was carried out comes simultaneously under the West buffer of NTR and the Balipara RF. Although buffer areas
of the NTR come under two separate reserve forests, the entire area is referred to as
‘Nameri’ in popular parlance. This essay also subscribes to this usage of the term.
There is no known history of any internal settlement in the Nameri forest reserve
when it was declared as such. Even today, there is no human settlement inside the
core area of the park. The river Jia Bhoroli flows along the park’s western and
southern boundaries while the river Bor Dikarai forms the eastern boundary of
International Journal of Rural Management, 10, 1 (2014): 47–68
Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on June 4, 2014
Issues of Conservation and Livelihood in a Forest Village of Assam
51
the park. The area mostly encompasses plains except along the northern boundary
which the park shares with the hilly terrain of Arunachal Pradesh.
NNP harbours a rich diversity of flora and fauna and is an ideal habitat for the
Asiatic Elephants, Tiger, White Winged Wood Duck, various species of Hornbill,
Assam Roofed Turtle, etc. The river Jia Bhoroli is a breeding place of varieties
of fish like the Golden Mahsheer, Silgharia (Labeo pangusia), etc. Nameri can
potentially support a population of around 30 adult tigers. However, at present the
estimated tiger population of the park is less than half of this number.
The recent years have witnessed heavy biotic pressure in and around the Park
which the forest department and the conservationists attribute to the increasing
population and the illegal encroachments in the forest areas. Its forest dwellers,
like other forest dwellers in Assam, being traditionally dependent on settled agriculture for their livelihood, the ‘land’ question in Nameri has become a much
challenging and contested issue in recent times.
Land, Peasant and Forest
Although in the medieval times land was abundant in the Assam valley, it was
rather limited for the surplus-yielding wet rice cultivation. It necessitated a major
drive by the semi-feudal Ahom state to reclaim agricultural land from the existing
International Journal of Rural Management, 10, 1 (2014): 47–68
Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on June 4, 2014
52
Chandan Kumar Sharma and Indrani Sarma
wastelands and forests. Under the corvee labour (called paiks) system of the Ahom
state, each able-bodied peasant subject was given some agricultural land for his
service towards the state (Guha 1991). Further, the peasants could supplement
their subsistence with various products from forests and wastelands which served
as village commons.
The prevailing landscape of Assam valley underwent a drastic change with
the advent of the British colonial rule in the early part of the nineteenth century. With the introduction of the tea plantations in the upper and central Assam
in mid-nineteenth century, a different kind of situation unfolded. The process of
transformation of the ‘jungles’ and ‘forests’ to (tea) ‘gardens’ usurped into a large
quantity of village commons or community forest lands from 1850s to 1880s. The
common property resources such as forests, forest products, rivulets and grazing
lands were brought under the control of the colonial administration posing a serious challenge to the future expansion of the Assamese peasant economy. Under
the Bengal Forest Act, 1865, forests of Assam were classified into two major
categories: the Reserved Forests and Open Forests or Protected Forests. In the
former, the forest department enjoyed the exclusive administrative control over
the forests and its products. While in the later, control and rights of the forest
department were confined to specific reserved trees. The main interest behind the
reservation of forests was to secure monopoly control over the commercial value
of the forests (Saikia 2011: 69–70).
The Assam Forest Regulation (AFR) of 1891 made more space for commercial
exploitation of forest. Initially lands lying fallow or without any commercially
productive timber were deforested or disposed off to meet the requirement of
the tea planters and the railway companies. A new category of forests known as
the Unclassed State Forests (USFs) was created under the AFR of 1891 which
came to incorporate the Open Forests. Constituted mainly of the grassland forests, the areas under USFs had historically been targets for land reclamation for
agriculture. But the colonial regime kept on arbitrarily bringing vast amount of
land under this category without any consideration for the history of land use in
the region so that at the time of independence the volumes of such forests far
exceeded the reserved forests.
Interestingly, it is the colonial administration itself which started the process
of settling marginal peasants in the forest areas and they were allowed to practice agriculture therein in exchange of their labour for collecting forest resources,
mainly timbers and other activities to the colonial forest department. Since the
early twentieth century, the colonial regime saw the possibility of opening up
the wastelands of Assam for jute cultivation. With this purpose, it opened the
wastelands which included the swampy but mainly fertile grasslands of central
and lower Assam for the poor peasants from the erstwhile East Bengal as the local
peasantry did not practice commercial cultivation of jute. The colonial regime
also adopted the policy of opening up more wastelands for agricultural production
aiming at generating more revenue. For this too, it encouraged the immigration of
peasants, mostly Muslims, from East Bengal. Under the Muslim League ministry
International Journal of Rural Management, 10, 1 (2014): 47–68
Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on June 4, 2014
Issues of Conservation and Livelihood in a Forest Village of Assam
53
in the late 1930s which had the tacit support of the colonial administration, this
policy was carried out in an overzealous manner. Under such political patronage,
immigration to Assam multiplied and vast areas of forest and wasteland of Assam
became immigrant habitats (Sharma 2001: 4793).
All these seriously restricted the access of the local peasantry, tribal and nontribal, to the land resources. Besides, the two great earthquakes of 1897 and 1950
had cataclysmic effects on the topography of Assam. The 1950 earthquake caused
an alarming rise in the Brahmaputra river bed which in turn resulted in more flood
and erosion and land alienation among the indigenous peasantry, especially in
upper Assam. Post-1950 period witnessed large-scale migration of upper Assam
peasantry in search of agricultural land. The available wastelands including forest
reserves, grazing land, etc. became their main target. This flow of peasants continued as the problem of landlessness only accentuated over time with the advent
of other private commercial interests which were looking for vast land resources
for different enterprises not to talk of the various developmental (e.g., oil fields) as
well as the military projects of the government. On the other hand, in lower and
central Assam, the size of immigrant peasants has grown exponentially creating a
serious crisis of land among the local peasantry. In response to such a situation, the
Assamese peasantry rebelled several times since 1947–48 demanding agricultural
land. A number of these risings have been witnessed among the forest dwellers and
the new encroachers demanding more land and tenurial rights on such land.
The Forest Villages of Assam
The creation of forest villages was a part of the colonial forest management strategy. The colonial forest department had to meet the demand of large-scale timber
extractions from the forests for railway expansion. For this, a stable supply of
labour was required. In the early phase of forest exploitation, supply of labour was
met through the introduction of the taungya1 system. The latter was introduced
mainly in the areas where the local people refused to lend their labour for government sylvicultural programmes. Initially, the taungya labourers, drawn from temporary settlements in the forest area, were forced to render free service to the
forest department for a fixed number of days in a year. Later, the taungya labourers were provided homesteads and agricultural land in lieu of their services. These
settlements came to be known as forest villages (Sonowal 2007: 48).
However, it is to be noted that there were also human settlements in various
forest areas of Assam which pre-existed the British rule. After most of the forested
tracts of the state were brought under the control of the colonial forest department,
many such settlements were also converted into forest villages. For instance, in
areas like the Doyang forest reserve (declared as such in 1878) situated in the
Assam-Nagaland foothills border, there were a number of villages established during the Ahom reign. These villagers were settled there as part of the Ahom state’s
policy of continuously expanding its agrarian frontiers (Saikia 2008: 79–80).
International Journal of Rural Management, 10, 1 (2014): 47–68
Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on June 4, 2014
54
Chandan Kumar Sharma and Indrani Sarma
The AFR of 1891 stipulated for each adult member of a forest village yearly
20 days of physical labour to the forest department at the prevailing local wages.
This system was locally known as begar. In exchange, the forest dwellers were
allowed to collect thatch, firewood, cane, etc. from the forest. They were also
allowed to collect timber to build and maintain their houses. Further, each family
was entitled to 10 cartloads of fuel wood every year in return for additional 10
days of labour (Saikia 2011: 102). However, these forest dwellers were totally
under the control of the forest department. They had no tenurial rights on land
which contributed to much of the insecurities and hardships that the forest dwellers suffered both in colonial and post-colonial periods and thus has become the
central issue in the relationship between the forest dwellers and the forest.
Formation of Human Settlement in Nameri
Like other RFs of the state, in Nameri too, the British administration allowed the
poor and landless peasants to settle in the vicinities of the forests since the early
twentieth century to ensure the regular supply of manpower for various activities
of the forest department. The elderly villagers2 of the area state that the early settlers of Nameri migrated from the nearby areas of Balipara and Chariduar who
had lost their small landholdings on account of either river erosion or shortage of
land owing to population increase. The coming up of a number of tea plantations
in the area also critically affected the local peasants’ access to new land. Later on,
these temporary settlements were converted into forest villages. The villagers
were given cleared up patches of forest lands for agricultural activities in return of
their physical service to the colonial forest department and a small amount of
revenue (khajana3). Accordingly, each adult forest villager was required to render
20 days of manual labour annually to the forest department at the prevailing rate
of wage. Locally, this system was known as begari (begar services or unpaid
labour). However, the villagers were allowed to collect firewood, bamboo, cane
and thatch from the forests free of cost. They were also allowed to remove sufficient building materials to maintain their dwelling units.
The land that the forest villagers received from the forest department, however,
had no tenurial security. Each family was allotted 10 bighas4 of cultivable land
(rupit mati) and five bighas of homestead land (bari mati). The forest department
maintained strict control over the forest dwellers. No outsider was allowed into a
forest village without the permission of the Assistant Political Officer (APO)5 at
Chariduar. Gradually, the situation in the forest villages changed with the villagers
learning to negotiate their interest with the forest officials resulting in the reduction
of the fixed 20 days of annual begar service to 10 days and then to 5 days. Finally,
a new consciousness gained ground among the villagers that since they were
already paying ‘revenue’ to the forest department, the continuation of begar service was an exploitative practice. Thus, the villagers gradually stopped the begar
service. The forest department also made no attempt to enforce the system.
International Journal of Rural Management, 10, 1 (2014): 47–68
Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on June 4, 2014
Issues of Conservation and Livelihood in a Forest Village of Assam
55
The Sopaloga Forest Village
Although the early settlers appeared to have migrated into the Nameri area during
1920s to 1930s, in official records Sopaloga and other forest villages are mentioned
as ‘forest villages’ only since 1962. Sopaloga is a non-tribal forest village consisting
of 98 households with a population just above 500. All the villagers of Sopaloga
belong to the Assamese Koch community recognized as the Other Backward Classes
by the Indian Constitution. Almost all the families of Sopaloga are entirely dependent on agriculture though a few families in the village also have other sources of
income. There are also variations in the size of landholdings among the villagers.
The villagers do not exactly remember when their forefathers had migrated
to this area. Their settlement in the area had taken place over a period of time.
Conversations with the villagers show that even today they are not very particular
with dates and numbers. They do give account of the past history of the area but
are vague about the exact dates when their forefathers had migrated to the area in
search of agricultural land.
This vagueness stems from the illiteracy of their forefathers and lack of relevant documents in their possessions. However, they could well relate the times
International Journal of Rural Management, 10, 1 (2014): 47–68
Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on June 4, 2014
56
Chandan Kumar Sharma and Indrani Sarma
in the past to some watershed events, like two World Wars, India’s independence
movement and Indo-China war, etc. In the absence of any historical records about
human settlement here, one has to depend mainly on these narratives of the villagers and a few other related official documents. We have managed to find khajana
(land revenue) receipts of the years 1941, 1942, 1951–52 in Sopaloga and those
of 1937–38 and 1946 in the contiguous Gamani forest village in the possession
of some families. Naturally, they did not start paying khajana right from the initial years of their settlement. The settlement must have grown bigger when the
colonial forest department imposed khajana on them. Further, Rajani Bhuyan,
a 95-year-old villager, states that when he came to Sopaloga in 1947, villagers
already settled here, though in small numbers. He started a primary school in 1947
in Eraliloga, a nearby forest village. We met many of his students in the village, a
few of whom are now in their seventies. They recount interesting past narratives
on the relations between the hills tribes of Arunachal Pradesh with the villagers.
The hills tribes used to come down during winter to the villages of Nameri with
their hill products and exchanged that for procuring their wherewithal from the
villagers.
Today, Sopaloga and other forest villages have various institutions such as
primary schools, Primary Health Centres, Anganwadis and Village Panchayat.
The villagers also receive the benefits of various government schemes such as
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS),
Rajiv Gandhi Rural Electrification Scheme, Indira Awaas Yojana, Below Poverty
Line cards and Public Distribution System through the agency of the Panchayat.
The administration of the village, however, is in the hands of the forest department. In the village, the gaonburha (village headman) plays an important role in
representing the villagers’ requirements to the forest authorities. He is generally
selected by the villagers from among themselves. In case of any dispute in the
village or with another forest village, the villagers resolve it through the instrumentality of the mel (assembly) of the villagers which is a traditional Assamese practice.
However, in case of disputes between a revenue village and a forest village, the
forest Ranger has to be immediately informed as police cannot directly intervene in
matters pertaining to the forest villages.
All the forest villages, whether tribal or non-tribal, in Nameri share amicable
relationships among them. It is worth mentioning that the socio-economic systems
of these tribal and the non-tribal forest villages hardly demonstrate any significant
difference. Agriculture is their main source of sustenance and dependence on forest resources is only supplementary. Being dwellers of forest villages, they enjoy
certain benefits including access to fuel wood from the forests, minimum annual
khajana on land, provision of community wells, roads, schools, free vaccination
for livestock, search lights to chase away wild elephants, etc. Nevertheless, lack
of tenurial security of land has been responsible for many difficulties for them.
According to them, their greatest difficulty is to obtain government or banking
loans since they do not possess any official land documents (pattas). As such,
they cannot mortgage or sell their land even in times of emergencies. However,
International Journal of Rural Management, 10, 1 (2014): 47–68
Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on June 4, 2014
Issues of Conservation and Livelihood in a Forest Village of Assam
57
we have found that needy villagers do mortgage their land to the fellow villagers
informally for cash without the knowledge of the forest department. This also
speaks of the internal economic differentiation within the village.
Agriculture is the pre-dominant economic activity in Sopaloga. A few villagers also have petty government jobs while some others have small businesses
(such as grocery shops, tea stalls, hair cutting salon, etc.) within the village.
Some villagers with lesser acreage practice sharecropping while others, especially
the landless villagers, earn their livelihood as wage labourers within the village
and under various government schemes such as MGNREGS and the Joint Forest
Management (JFM) Schemes under the forest department.
Landlessness in the village can be attributed to a number of factors. Initially,
the colonial forest department allotted a total of 15 bighas of land to each family.
However, the expansion of families led to fragmentation and eventually the shortage of land. The villagers tried to solve this problem by encroaching on to forest
lands and turning them into cultivable land. But such encroachment by the forest
villagers has now become difficult as the forest department has come to demarcate the forest land for specific conservation schemes. Any act of infringement by
them would only invite reprimand from the forest department which would result
in their loss of other privileges. However, encroachment by outside settlers, often
backed by political forces, continues unabated.
The crucial economic activity of the village, that is, the rice production, is
accompanied by considerable anxiety. Crop raids by wild elephants are regular in
Sopaloga and other forest villages which have compelled the villagers to abandon the sugarcane plantation and the late-maturing sali rice cultivation for early
maturing varieties of rice. The women villagers do virtually everything in the
field except using the plough. However, they never go out to the forest in search
of firewood, which is always a man’s work. This is in contrast to most PAs in
other parts of India where a majority of the forest produce collectors are women
who often face the ire of the forest officials and harassment by the forest guards
(Prasad 2008: 228).
People’s Participation in Conservation
According to the local forest dwellers, the forest resources in Nameri saw quick
depletion since early 1980s. They unequivocally attribute this mainly to the slipshod attitude of the forest officials. It is true that human habitations in and around
Nameri have been growing at a formidable rate. NNP today faces serious challenges from factors such as large-scale deforestation for securing cultivable lands,
illegal timber trade, illicit boulder mining from the river Jia Bhoroli and poaching.
These factors have led to rapid depletion of forest cover, erosion of rich biodiversity, fragmentation and shrinkage of animal habitats and the near extinction of a
variety of rare species of animals. Nearly all deforested tracts in the area have
been converted to cultivable land. Herds of elephants ravaging crops and houses
International Journal of Rural Management, 10, 1 (2014): 47–68
Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on June 4, 2014
58
Chandan Kumar Sharma and Indrani Sarma
are a regular occurrence in the villages in and around NNP. Indeed, the area is
witnessing increasing number of cases of man–forest conflict not only in terms
of land encroachment but also killing of wild animals by villagers and outside
poachers. Wild animals straying into the village has become more frequent.
Although, in recent times, a number of conservation measures have been undertaken by the forest department, Ecological Task Force (ETF) and other wildlife
conservation agencies, these measures still seem far short of the efforts necessary
for a sustainable conservation policy in Nameri.
Launched by the Union Ministry of Defence in 1982, the ETF scheme aims
to secure involvement of ex-servicemen in afforestation and eco-development in
remote and difficult areas. The scheme also serves as a mechanism to rehabilitate
the ex-servicemen for productive work and to create employment for retired army
personnel. One ETF unit was raised at NNP in 2007 to check the massive degradation of the ecosystem in the area and to transform the deforested tracts with green
cover while ensuring people’s livelihood needs.
The ETF has undertaken the plantation of a variety of medicinal plants as
well as fruits-yielding trees which are regarded as the non-timber forest products
(NTFPs) and which can be sustainably harvested. The Commanding Officer of
the Nameri ETF maintains that by gathering and selling the NTFPs (fruits such as
mango, guava, orange and jackfruit), the local villagers can earn a good income.
He appears optimistic about regeneration of biodiversity in the area through the
implementation of their greening programme. He also reveals that their unit faces
many problems, the foremost being the local villagers’ lack of support and participation in this project. The local villagers acknowledged the good works of the
ETF but are indignant that ETF has snatched away the land in which they once
grew mustard. They are not ready to wait for the ‘long-term benefit’ that the ETF
promises them. A villager from the Tarajan forest village of Nameri says:
The ETF is doing a good work. But it started plantations in the areas where we were
growing mustard seeds. For us cultivation of mustard used to be an important additional
source of income. Now, due to unavailability of such fertile land we are forced to completely scrap off mustard cultivation.6
In 2005, JFM scheme was launched in NNP though this concept was introduced
in the Indian forest management in 1988. The JFM envisages the protection and
management of forests, in exchange for usufruct rights of the forest dwellers over
forest produce for subsistence. Most of the poor villagers, including women, work
as wage labourers under various JFM schemes. These schemes undertake plantations in the deforested tracts and other developmental activities such as renovation of schools and construction of village roads.
In Nameri, what appears on the surface to be a simple matter of engaging the
forest dwellers in the protection and management of forests quickly transforms,
on closer inspection, into a complex tangle of conflicting issues. The working
of JFM in Sopaloga clearly shows poor coordination between the villagers and
International Journal of Rural Management, 10, 1 (2014): 47–68
Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on June 4, 2014
Issues of Conservation and Livelihood in a Forest Village of Assam
59
the forest officials. Although the JFM envisions a people-oriented programme of
sustainable development, it faces sharp criticism from the villagers. The villagers
in Sopaloga resent that the JFM follows a ‘top-down approach’ in terms of decision
making. They allege that the forest officials always take advantage of their illiteracy
and ignorance and that most of the official papers are in English and are never translated. The villagers complain that they are mostly unfamiliar with the provisions of
JFM and cannot locate themselves in the schemes under JFM. The only thing they
know is that a JFM Committee7 has been constituted in the village in collaboration
with the forest department to undertake afforestration activities and they can earn
wages by participating in it. A villager comments:
We are illiterate and the foresters always take advantage of our ignorance. Most of the
official papers on JFM are in English … the foresters do not read out and translate for
us whatever is written in these papers in the JFM Committee meetings … We do not see
ourselves anywhere in the plans and strategies of the JFM Committee. We know that the
FD has huge funds for JFM but we do not know how the money is used. The forest
officials are the main actors who take all the decisions without our involvement.8
It is clear that JFM has not been quite successful in the forest villages of
Nameri, when compared with some other parts of the country. It may be noted that
the examples of participatory conservation through JFM from various PAs in India
show regional variations in terms of its success. In some states, the move towards
democratization of forest management has been negligible, whereas in some others,
it has moved on to the politics of negotiation. In West Bengal and parts of Andhra
Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh it has gone further, embracing the
politics of collaboration through the creation of JFM regimes (Guha 2006: 120–1).
Indeed, the key concern of the villagers appears to be getting access to cultivable
land. They also appear to be indifferent to take up the responsibilities of stopping
illegal felling of trees and illegal collection of firewood by outsiders. Rather, the
villagers often empathize with the small illegal fellers. In a JFM meeting of the
villagers with the forest department, a villager openly stated that the collection of
firewood ‘is a source of survival for many poor villagers from the nearby areas.
Most of them are known to us. It is therefore difficult for us to stop them. Besides,
such actions on our part would only create bad blood between them and us.’9
Rights Over Land and FRA 2006
However, in so far as the right of the forest dwelling communities on their land
and forest is concerned, the promulgation of the FRA 2006 created new possibilities
of entitlements. The Act broadly aims to recognize and vest the forest rights and
occupation in forest land in forest dwelling scheduled tribes and other traditional
forest dwellers (OTFDs) who have been residing in such forests for generations
but whose rights could not be recorded. The Act generally was seen as a saviour
International Journal of Rural Management, 10, 1 (2014): 47–68
Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on June 4, 2014
60
Chandan Kumar Sharma and Indrani Sarma
of forest-dwelling communities and as a historic endeavour to ‘undo’ the wrongs
committed against them.
One of the most significant provisions of the FRA recognizes the ‘rights
of settlement and conversion of all forest villages, old habitation unsurveyed
villages and other villages in forest, whether recorded, notified or not, into revenue
villages.’10 The Act brought new rays of hope to the villagers of Sopaloga and
other forest villages in Nameri when initiatives for its implementation in the
area were undertaken in December 2008. The villagers were happy that the
Act would provide them permanent pattas on their land and that they would no
longer have to live under the control of the forest department. Locally, the FRA
came to be known as Maati Patta Aain (Land Rights Act). As per the Act, along
with other forest villages of Nameri, a Forest Rights Committee (FRC—Bon
Adhikar Samiti) was constituted in Sopaloga which laid down the procedure
for the recognition and settlement of rights of the villagers. It consisted of 15
members selected from among the local villagers. The process of submission
of claims was carried out with much enthusiasm. The FRC meetings were held
in the village in early January 2009. Owing to the villagers’ unfamiliarity with
the claims process, a lot of confusion occurred during the verification process.
Finally, the FRC could accumulate claim forms from all the villagers in the first
week of April 2009.
However, at the time of submission, the forest officials declared that Sopaloga
forest village had not yet completed 75 years and thus was ineligible to get the
benefit under the FRA. Although the FRA makes provision for the recognition of
the existing forest villages as revenue villages, this was either entirely suppressed
or ignored by the local forest department. It is noteworthy that according to the
latter, Sopaloga and several other neighbouring villages were recognized as ‘forest
villages’ only in 1962 though this date is contested by the local villagers. What is
significant here is that the local forest officials are focused only on that provision
in the FRA, which is applicable to the forest dwellers outside the forest villages.
The Section 4 (3) of FRA pledges to recognize the rights of the forest dwelling
scheduled tribes and OTFDs inhabiting a forest land prior to 13 December 2005.
However, as per Section 2 (o) of the Act, the OTFDs are required to have, for at least
three generations (i.e., 75 years) prior to 13 December 2005, primarily resided in
and depended on the forest or forests land for bona fide livelihood needs.
Such a twist in the implementation of the Act by the forest officials dealt a
body blow to the optimism of the local communities to get rights on their occupied
forest land. While the prevailing oral history suggests that the history of human
penetration in this area is more than 75 years or three generation old, the lack of
proper supporting written evidence now becomes the root of all problems. The
villagers contend that records regarding the transformation of the early human
settlements in the area during the colonial period were kept in the APO office
at Chariduar which was also in charge of the forest administration in the area.
However, with the change in the administration in 1962, many important historical records and documents either lost or perished. The office of the APO was also
International Journal of Rural Management, 10, 1 (2014): 47–68
Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on June 4, 2014
Issues of Conservation and Livelihood in a Forest Village of Assam
61
eventually abolished in 1978. These documents, the villagers maintain, would
have proved critical in ascertaining their legal rights on the forest land under the
FRA. The forest officials also deny having any records in their possession prior
to 1962, the year in which they were declared as ‘forest villages’.11 They maintain
that it has the khajana records of the forest villages of Nameri only since 1962.
Amazingly, neither the villagers nor the forest officials could give a satisfactory
answer to as to why the villages of the area were declared as forest villages again
in 1962 if they were already recognized as such. Indeed, the villagers assert that
their villages were referred to as forest villages in official records since much
before and that they have been paying khajana to the forest department since then.
We have also found a khajana receipt of as early as 1937–38 in the contiguous
Gamani village which clearly defines it as a forest village. Human settlements in
both Gamani and Sopaloga had come to exist at the same time. The elderly villagers
state that they used to pay khajana at a Forest Beat Office at Chariduar and the
records were kept at the APO office till early 1960s. After that this Beat Office also
became the custodian of the khajana records. This continued till the time when a
Range Office came into being at Chariduar in 1984.12
Thus, an atmosphere of enthusiasm and hope soon turned into one of despair.
The villagers seem to be totally unsure of their next step. Interestingly, one does
not witness any sustained organized mobilization among the forest dwellers of
Nameri on the issue of land rights although on this same question a popular peasant mobilization led by the Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti sweeps across contemporary Assam. This may be attributed to the fact the forest dwellers of Nameri
live in recognized forest villages and do not want to risk their existing privileges
by challenging the forest authorities. The fact that there has been no peasant or
political organization to take up their cause unlike some other areas in Assam
has also not given them the required confidence to fight for their entitlements as
dwellers of forest villages.
There is no doubt that the proof of 75 years of settlement in forest for nontribal forest dwellers is a very difficult condition enshrined in the FRA. This also
dashed the hope of such villagers of Nameri of getting land rights as promised
by the Assam Forest Policy (AFP) (2004).13 It is indeed a tall order to expect the
villagers (a majority of them were illiterate till a couple of decades back) to keep
their settlement records (the khajana receipts) for such a long time what even the
forest department has failed to do.
This unfolds a very perplexing situation where contesting discourses with
regard to a not-so-ancient historical fact pertaining to the rights on forest land
have emerged within the context of a national park. The situation betrays a
typical cavalier attitude of the forest department which is not only supposed to
be acquainted with all the important developments but also to be the repository
of all important records pertaining to the forest villages. The villagers lament
that they never thought that this kind of a situation would arise one day and that
the khajana receipts would be so crucial in ascertaining their settlement rights.
Indeed, the issue of regularization of patta is not new in Assam. The AFP 2004
International Journal of Rural Management, 10, 1 (2014): 47–68
Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on June 4, 2014
62
Chandan Kumar Sharma and Indrani Sarma
spoke of regularizing the pre-1980 encroachers on forestland. But with the coming of the FRA, the AFP became redundant.
However, the tribal forest villagers around Sopaloga are set to get the tenurial rights over their land under the FRA. This has created some discontentment
among the non-tribal forest dwellers who have assumed that the recent tribal
encroachers would also get land rights while they would not under FRA. It may be
mentioned that most of the new tribal encroachers in Nameri, mainly the Bodos,
became forest dwellers only as an ‘accidental by-product of a political movement’
(Bose 2009). The Bodo homeland movement since 1990s to create a contiguous
Bodo-inhabited territory in the northern Assam brought a huge influx of people
to different forest reserves of the state. The settlers had migrated from different
parts of Assam. Although political motivation was the major driver, settlers were
additionally motivated by the hope of more secured land and livelihoods. Lack
of available revenue land meant that the settlers had to clear and occupy land in
the forest areas. In the process, forests were indiscriminately destroyed to make
way for human settlements. Such strategic usurpation of forest land adds a new
dimension not only to the ecological conservation but also to the socio-political
landscape of the state.
Nevertheless, the local Ranger maintains that the forest department is issuing the land ownership certificates to only the dwellers of the existing tribal
forest villages and not to the illegal encroachers. Although this certificate is
described as ‘patta’ in the local parlance, this entitles these tribal villagers only
to have rights over land which is ‘heritable but not alienable or transferable’
under Section 4 (4) of FRA.
Problems with FRA
It is true that most of the rights and privileges addressed in the FRA are groundbreaking. Yet, it has been found that some of its provisions do not match with the
existing ground realities. For example, the use of the phrase ‘OTFDs’ in the Act is
a vexed one. Section 2 (o) of the Act defines OTFD as any member or community
who has primarily resided in and depended on the forest or forest land for bona
fide livelihood needs (Upadhyay 2009: 31). This definition holds true for a large
number of tribal forest-dwellers in most of the PAs in India for ages. They are not
settled agriculturalists, but ‘gatherers’ who live in close proximity to forests, and
most of them have a long tradition of forest use for sustenance (Lele 2011: 96).
The existing ground realities in Nameri and other forest areas of Assam, however, are at variance with the definition of OTFD as used in FRA. Here, the forest
dwellers, tribal or non-tribal, cannot be termed as the ‘traditional dwellers’ because
they are neither the traditional inhabitants of forests nor intrinsically dependent on forest produces for their livelihood. They are basically peasants and their
dependence on forest is only complementary. Various factors, however, forced
these indigenous poor peasants to move into forests areas in search of land and
International Journal of Rural Management, 10, 1 (2014): 47–68
Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on June 4, 2014
Issues of Conservation and Livelihood in a Forest Village of Assam
63
livelihood. One also does not witness any sacred grove or explicit history of forest
protection among the forest villagers of Assam, including Nameri. In other words,
the history of man–forest relations in the area has its own specificity and varies
from the central and eastern Indian situations that informed the FRA which in its
present form bodes adverse implications, especially in the light of a hostile state
government, for the non-tribal forest dwellers of Assam.
However, as mentioned above, the dwellers of a number of the tribal forest
villages in Nameri such as Dharikati, Eraliloga, Bogijuli and Sotai have recently
got land ownership certificates (patta) under the FRA. Earlier the villagers were
not allowed to collect NTFPs other than firewood, thatch, fodder, etc. Now, they
can collect all NTFPs. But that is almost irrelevant for the forest villagers in
Nameri as its forests now hardly have any worthwhile NTFPs except firewood
which the villagers anyway collect from the fringes of the forest. Further, there
have been several lapses in the process of providing land rights to the tribal
forest dwellers too. One glaring lapse is the non-constitution of Gram Sabhas.
It is found that there has been lack of awareness about the provisions of the
Act even among the officials of both civil and forest administration. Awareness
campaigns pertaining to the local people’s rights and privileges as per the Act
also have not been carried out. Moreover, there has been no flow of information
among various implementing agencies such as FRCs, forest department and
Sub-divisional and District Level Committees. The forest officials also presume
that granting of ‘patta’ will only encourage more encroachment leading to more
deforestation.
Indeed, the implementation of the FRA in different states has shown varied
responses. It has faced challenges even in those states of central and eastern
India which consist of largest number of forest dwellers. In Andhra Pradesh,
for example, the Act came under severe criticisms during the initial phase of
its implementation (Reddy et al. 2011). The forest rights activists from Uttar
Pradesh complain that the government is engaged in subverting the FRA by
pitting the Adivasis and the Dalits against each other. Again, the state’s taungya
community is also finding it hard to get their entitlements under FRA as the
illiterate taungyas do not have the required documents to support 75 years of
residential proof. These documents are with the forest department which is not
keen to part with the land (Tripathi 2011). Besides, the attempts at corporate
acquisition of tribal-inhabited forest land in the states of Chattisgarh and Orissa
have already generated much public outrage.
In Assam too, the scope and nature of the definition of ‘forests’ has been grossly
misinterpreted by the state government officials leading to non-implementation
of the FRA in areas where the definitions of ‘forests’ has strong implication. The
fact that the state underwent through different stages of evolution of modern
legal meaning of ‘forests’ also adds to the problem. Moreover, the Committee
of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and the Ministry of
Tribal Affairs (MoTA) on the implementation of FRA in its report on Assam
prepared after its consultations with the concerned public and the government
International Journal of Rural Management, 10, 1 (2014): 47–68
Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on June 4, 2014
64
Chandan Kumar Sharma and Indrani Sarma
officials notes that like the rest of India, the concerned Assam government officials are also found to be either extremely critical or indifferent to the FRA.
Often they are unaware of the provisions of the Act and indulge in misinterpretation. In Nameri, the forest officials are clearly seen to be engaged in subverting the provisions of the Act. The Committee finds that the state government is
especially critical of Section 3 (h) of the FRA which makes provision for conversion of forest villages to revenue villages. The Gauhati High Court ruling in
2009 stating that there are no traditional forest dwellers in Assam has also been
used as an excuse by the state government for not implementing the Act. The
ruling despite being technically true clearly glossed over the specific historical
processes of land use and alienation among the local communities and their
relationship with forest land and other resources. Interestingly, the Assam chief
secretary stated before the Committee that the state government would give
rights to the tribals but not to the non-tribals as most of them were encroachers.
The Committee also notes that while the government has apparently prioritized
the forest villagers and ST populations to be given land rights among all other
claimants, there has been complete lack of any entertainment of the claims of
OTFDs except in those areas where there are strong and vested political interests (Kiro et al. 2010).
New Challenges and the Need for Alternative
Perspective
It is clear that the lack of alternative avenues of livelihood has forced many Nameri
villagers to indulge in activities which pose threat to the forest. Many local youths
are involved in illegal timber felling under the patronage of the timber traders
from outside the area. The job pays little in comparison to the risk involved.
Creation of alternative sources of livelihood can significantly bring down such
practices. It may be mentioned that ever since the neighbouring Chariduar Cotton
Mill was shut down in 2001, many people from the nearby forest villages became
jobless who found employment, direct or indirect, because of the mill. Local people maintain that the closure of the mill has had a direct bearing on the increasing
illegal activities in the forest.
The new encroachments on forest lands by the outsiders, mainly the Bodo tribal
migrants, are also a cause for concern for the forest dwellers. There is resentment
among them that the forest department is totally indifferent to such encroachment
that has taken place in recent times in the buffer areas of the NNP. This also seems
to have dampened the local forest dwellers’ interest in conservation.
The situation in Nameri also largely applies to other forest reserves of Assam.
The state forest policies have also largely been ineffective in accommodating the
survival needs of communities and forest conservation in a sustainable manner. For
example, the AFP 2004, despite its progressive intent on many issues came under
criticism by forest rights activists for emphasizing a model of forest management
International Journal of Rural Management, 10, 1 (2014): 47–68
Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on June 4, 2014
Issues of Conservation and Livelihood in a Forest Village of Assam
65
which is more applicable to other parts of the country (Gogoi 2008: 59). Indeed,
the AFP 2004 was prepared in the mould of the NFP 1988. The FRA too initially
generated a lot of hope among the forest villagers of Assam only to create new
uncertainties later.
Evidently, the villagers are not likely to support the official conservation programmes, unless they receive some benefits in return. Question thus arises regarding the suitable development and conservation strategies to address the local needs.
The study finds that a sustainable conservation policy in Assam must integrate
the issues of land question, livelihood needs and forest conservation. The state
policies so far have been formulated in the mould of the national policies which
do not necessarily deal with the specificities of the region. The case of the forest
dwellers in Assam reflects a somewhat different reality from their counterparts
in central or eastern India where the NTFPs provide main sources of sustenance
to millions of people living in and around the PAs. These forest dwellers collect
the NTFPs either for self-consumption or for selling them in the local markets
fulfilling their subsistence needs and giving employment opportunities mainly
in their collection, processing and storage (Sachchidananda 2004: 71–7). Unlike
the latter, the forest dwellers in Assam are mainly agriculturalists with minimal
dependence on forest products for their sustenance. Since land is their most vital
source of survival, alternative livelihood opportunities have to be created beyond
agriculture if forest conservation is to be successful. Only that would help divert
pressure from forest lands for agricultural expansion. Such regional specificities
have to be addressed by the forest conservation policies.
In Nameri, the tenurial rights over land being the most critical issue among
its forest dwellers, they would not take up conservation responsibilities if
they are not provided with such right. Further, it is equally important to adopt
hands-on conservation strategies which entail evolving innovative practices of
alternative livelihoods for the villagers. This is expected to motivate the latter
to conserve forests out of their self-interests and to create a positive association between the two (Shahabuddin and Rangarajan 2007: 12). The alternative
livelihood options for the villagers of Nameri may include dairying, weaving,
handicrafts, horticulture, etc. The JFM schemes in Assam have provisions for
‘Entry Point Activities’ which mainly stress on community welfare activities in
the forest villages. Unfortunately, these are only in papers. In Nameri and other
PAs in Assam, the JFM schemes are limited only to the afforestation activities.
Even these are unilaterally decided by the forest department and not properly
monitored after implementation.
However, the time has come, especially after the coming of FRA, to give the
community a greater role in the process of conservation. Besides, a proper assessment of the land-use practices in the forest villages also has to be undertaken.
A ceiling on each family’s landholding in the forest villages must be strictly
imposed as per the FRA. This will put a restriction on the widespread human use
of the forest areas (Saberwal et al. 2001: 46) by allowing only certain land-use
practices and income generating options for sustainable livelihood.
International Journal of Rural Management, 10, 1 (2014): 47–68
Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on June 4, 2014
66
Chandan Kumar Sharma and Indrani Sarma
Conclusion
This study shows that there is an urgent need to incorporate the local historical
and livelihood specificities into the broader-level conservation policy perspective.
No policy on forest conservation can succeed in Assam, for example, unless it
accounts for the unique history of land use and alienation among its indigenous
people. This also necessitates that the FRA is suitably amended and a more practical deadline is formulated for providing land rights to the OTFDs in Assam (and
in other states). Simultaneously, the forest department must enforce the existing
laws, indeed in collaboration with the forest dwellers, to combat illegal encroachments and commercial activities inside the PAs. This role of the forest department is
vital as it is not possible for the forest dwellers alone to thwart the encroachment
and other illegal practices in the forest which are backed by powerful political
forces including armed insurgents.
The FRA indeed offers a broad and flexible framework for addressing forest
conservation and livelihood needs of the forest dwellers. However, much depends
on the pro-active role of the government in this regard. Unfortunately, the Act is
being routinely sidelined and subverted by the union as well as the state governments. The forest department on its part has allowed various technicalities to take
precedence over the spirit of the Act to deprive forest dwellers of their ‘unsettled
cultivation rights and missing forest use rights’ (Lele et al. 2011: 107). The experience in Nameri clearly testifies to this. However, with the pressure on forest
land mounting in Assam owing to the expanding agrarian frontier as well as the
exigencies of homeland politics, it was time that such an exclusivist conservation model gives way to a more inclusive, people-friendly policy to meaningfully
address the intensifying conflict between the community needs and conservation
paradigm of the state.
Notes
1. Taungya, believed to have been developed by the British in Burma during the nineteenth century, is a system of forest management in which land is cleared and planted
initially to produce food crops. Seedlings of desirable tree species are then planted on
the same plot, leading in time to a harvestable stand of timber.
2. Rajani Bhyan (95), Axai Saikia (83), Daimai Das (78) and Gunadhar Das (72) of
Gamani provided important information on the early human settlement in the area.
3. Rent on land.
4. 1 bigha = 1/3 acre (approximately).
5. In 1914, the present-day Arunachal Pradesh was named as the North East Frontier
Tract which was divided into three Frontier Tracts. Each Tract was placed under the
jurisdiction of a Political Officer. Subsequently, to assist the latter the posts of the
Assistant Political Officers (APOs) were created. An APO was posted in Chariduar
who also looked after the forest administration of the area.
6. Muhidhar Das of Tarajan forest village.
International Journal of Rural Management, 10, 1 (2014): 47–68
Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on June 4, 2014
Issues of Conservation and Livelihood in a Forest Village of Assam
67
7. It consists of a Member Secretary from forest department, a President from the village,
a member from the Panchayat or the Gaonburha (village headman), three men and
three women members selected from among the villagers.
8. Discussion with Purno Kanta Das of Sopaloga. Villagers from Sopaloga, Gamani and
other nearby forest villages too shared the same views on the working of the JFMCs.
9. This meeting took place in Sopaloga on 8 November 2010.
10. Section 3 (h) of FRA 2006.
11. Vide sanction numbers FG 18/3 (a) to FG 18/3 (G) dt 23.4.62, B/7533 dt 7.10.55 and
B 3650 dt 22.5.56.
12. As stated by the present Range Officer of Chariduar.
13. Assam Forest Policy (2004), 4.3.1.1.
References
Assam Forest Policy. 2004. Retrieved March 23, 2014, from http://online.assam.gov.in/
web/envforest
Bose, U.A. 2009. Tracking the Forest Rights Act in Nameri National Park and Sonai Rupai
Wildlife Sanctuary: An Investigative Report. Pune: Kalpavriksh Environment Action
Group.
Gogoi, A. 2008. Natun Bon Niti: Pratyasha aro Hatasha. Mukti. Kaki. Assam: Krishak
Mukti Sangram Samity.
Guha, A. 1991. Medieval and Early-colonial Assam: Society, Polity and Economy. Calcutta:
Centre for Study of Social Systems.
Guha, R. 2006. How Much Should A Person Consume? Thinking through the Environment.
Delhi: Permanent Black.
Karanth, Ullhas K. 2008. ‘Sacred Groves for the New Century’, in A. Prasad (ed.),
Environment, Development and Society in Contemporary India: An Introduction, pp.
273–279, New Delhi: Macmillan.
Kiro, V., Roma, J. Ete, A. Saikia and A. Kothari. 2010. ‘MOEF/MOTA Committee on
FRA: Implementation of FRA in Assam: Report of Field Visit’. 11–14 July.
Kothari, A. 2003. Keepers of Forests: Foresters or Forest Dwellers? New Delhi: Centre
for Civil Society.
Lele, S. 2011. Rethinking Forest Governance: Towards a Perspective beyond JFM, the
Godavarman Case and FRA. Chennai: The Hindu Environment Survey.
Lele, S., A. Kothari, Roma, A. Saikia, R. Rebbapragada, V. Kiro and J. Ete. 2011.
‘Misreading the Issues and the Landscape’, Economic and Political Weekly, 46 (22):
107–108.
Munshi, I.I. (ed.). 2012. The Adivasi Question: Issues of Land, Forest and Livelihood. New
Delhi: Orient Blackswan.
________. 2004. Environmentalism and the Left: Contemporary Debates and Future
Agendas in Tribal Areas. New Delhi: Leftword Books.
Prasad, A. (ed.). 2008. ‘Section III: Forests Wildlife and Co-existence’, in A. Prasad (ed.),
Environment, Development and Society in Contemporary India: An Introduction,
pp. 228. New Delhi: Macmillan.
Reddy, M.G., K.A. Kumar, P.T. Rao and O. Springate-Baginski. 2011. ‘Issues Related
to Implementation of Forest Rights Act in Andhra Pradesh’, Economic and Political
Weekly, 46 (18): 73–81.
International Journal of Rural Management, 10, 1 (2014): 47–68
Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on June 4, 2014
68
Chandan Kumar Sharma and Indrani Sarma
Saberwal, V., M. Rangarajan and A. Kothari. 2001. People, Parks and Wildlife: Towards
Coexistence. New Delhi: Orient Longman.
Saberwal, V. and M. Rangarajan. (eds). 2003. Battles Over Nature: Science and the Politics
of Conservation. New Delhi: Permanent Black.
Sachchidananda. 2004. Man, Forest and the State in Middle India. New Delhi: Serial
Publications.
Saikia, A. 2008. ‘State, Peasants and Land Reclamation: The Predicaments of Forest
Conservation in Assam 1850s–1980s’, Indian Economic and Social History Review,
45 (1): 77–114.
_______. 2011. Forest and Ecological History of Assam. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press.
Shahabuddin, G. and M. Rangarajan. (eds). 2007. Making Conservation Work: Securing
Biodiversity in this New Century. India: Permanent Black.
Sharma, C.K. 2001. ‘Tribal Land Alienation in Assam: Government’s Role’, Economic and
Political Weekly, 36 (52): 4791–95.
Shiva, V., J. Bandopadhyay, P. Hegde, B.V. Krishnamurthy, G. Narendranath, V. Ramprasad
and S.T.S. Reddy. 1991. Ecology and the Politics of Survival: Conflicts over Natural
Resources in India. New Delhi: SAGE.
Sonowal, C. 2007. ‘Demographic Transition of Tribal People in Forest Villages of Assam’,
Studies of Tribes and Tribals, 5 (1): 47–58.
Thapar, V. and P. Manfredi. 1995. ‘Saving our Forests’. Seminar, 426: 27–30.
Tripathi, A. 2011. ‘Bonded Labourers Get Freedom, Land Titles After 70 Years’. 17 May,
The Times of India. URL http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Bonded-Britishlabourers-get-freedom-land-title-after-70-years/articleshow/8390568.cms (visited 2014,
March 24).
Upadhyay, R.K. 2009. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Dwellers (Recognition
of Forest Rights) Act 2006. Dehradun: Natraj Publishers.
International Journal of Rural Management, 10, 1 (2014): 47–68
Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com at JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY on June 4, 2014