IN an article published by the Indian Express on October 29, noted political scientist Suhas Palshikar observed, “In Maharashtra, a big fight for nothing”, where he argues that both the ruling Mahayuti and opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) have been fighting elections on rhetorical rather than existing economic and political issues.The ruling coalition has been trying to mobilise voters on communal issues whereas the opposition alliance wants to appeal by raking up party legacies. In this article, however, it is suggested that there is an undercurrent of economic and livelihood issues that has been brought up time and again by the citizens of the state, specifically the farmers, Adivasis and pastoral communities.There are issues related to the minimum support price (MSP) along with the persistent demand to fulfil the promise of the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006. The FRA, which completes 18 years since its enactment, aims to rectify historical injustices faced by Adivasis and other forest-dwelling communities, stemming from pre- and post-Independence policies. More than a legal framework, the law represents a democratic, grassroots-driven approach to forest governance.Farmers have made their demands and issues clear, whether it is about MSP, crop insurance, power supply and other welfare assistance through the ‘Kisan Manifesto’. The parties in question may choose to overlook these concerns but the fact remains that such issues, along with the FRA, 2006, form the crux of this election..As the tourism juggernaut moves from the Maldives to Lakshadweep, who pays the price?.There are three aspects to the concerns around the FRA, firstly, the implementation of community forest rights (CFR); secondly, the concerns about post-implementation of both, individual forest rights (IFR) and CFR, which is affected by the extra-legal hurdles created by the forest department. And thirdly, tribal land alienation due to mining and unwarranted conservation measures like evictions.As per the latest data provided by the Union ministry of tribal affairs, the September 2024 progress report shows that Maharashtra has received a total of 401,800 forest rights claims.Of these, IFR claims are 390,477, of which 198,504 have been recognised. This is only 50 percent of the claims that have been recognised. For the CFR claims, 11,323 have been filed, of which 8,407 have been recognised.However, of the recognised CFR claims, management rights under Section 3(1)(i) have been conditional, which is viewed as patronising and unsatisfactory by the rights holders.Of the total IFR and CFR claims, 206,911 have been recognised, which is barely 52 percent of the total claims filed. About 70.8 percent of claims have been disposed of and 77,580 or 19 percent of claims have been rejected.In the post-implementation scenario, it has been reported that communities and gram sabhas are unable to exercise their IFR and CFR rights due to administrative discrepancies, particularly the forest department’s attitude.For example, IFR rights holders are restricted from doing activities to develop the land through land development, farm ponds, etc. The forest department continues to deny transit permits to the gram sabhas which impacts the exercise of minor forest produce (MFP) rights, particularly bamboo and tendu leaves, despite concerns being raised regarding it.This problem is compounded due to the leasing of CFR areas to Maharashtra Forest Development Corporation, furthering conflict after CFR implementation. Meanwhile, Maharashtra has not been successful in recognising habitat rights for the particularly vulnerable tribal groups (PVTG), who are affected due to mining..Soaring ambitions, fragile wings: Judicial balancing of climate rights and biodiversity conservation.Adivasi land alienation has been reported in various districts. Forest eviction has been a constant issue for a long time, while forest dwellers live in precarious situations. On October 21, 2024, the Union ministry of tribal affairs directed a letter to the secretary, tribal welfare, Maharashtra on FRA violation Tadoba Andhari tiger reserve.Released in March 2024, the FRA progress report by the non-governmental organisation (NGO) Call for Justice, led by Justice (Retd.) S.N. Dhingra wrote this about Maharashtra’s CFR implementation: “One probable reason for the reluctance to grant CFR is attributed to the plan to undertake large-scale mining in forest areas and this is a cause of concern (and) in violation of the FRA. Further, the diversion of CFR areas to non-forest use also undermines the effort of local communities to protect and regenerate the forest areas.”Finally, the lack of CFR implementation and denial of resource rights combined with agrarian distress and man–wildlife conflict has proven to be detrimental for Adivasis and other forest dwellers. The lack of rights recognition has also affected Adivasis residing in the Aarey forests, the forests viewed as the lungs of Mumbai. Their struggle for rights under the FRA still continues.In another report, an analysis by independent researchers, Assembly Constituencies, which have significance from the FRA voters’ point of view, has been pointed out.The introduction highlights, “In Maharashtra, the FRA holds immense significance due to the state’s large population of Adivasi and other forest-dwelling communities.“Approximately one crore people belong to Scheduled Tribes (ST) (Census 2011). Many of these communities are concentrated in forested areas, particularly in districts like Gadchiroli, Thane, Palghar, Nandurbar and Amravati. In Gadchiroli district alone, over 38 percent of the population belongs to Scheduled Tribes, making the FRA critical for ensuring their land and forest rights.”The data shows that of the total 288 Vidhan Sabha seats, 211 may have a certain level of significance. This includes all the 25 ST reserved seats, 23 Scheduled Caste (SC) reserved seats and 163 unreserved seats. Of these, 30 seats hold critical value from the FRA point of view, implying 10 percent or more in reserved constituencies and 60 percent or more in unreserved voters in these constituencies may be affected by the implementation or lack thereof of the FRA..Sixth Schedule, statehood and tourism: A volcano lurks beneath the cold desert of Ladakh.Similarly, there are 12 high-value, 50 good-value, 34 medium-value and 85 marginal-value constituencies. The percentage of voters decreases with the above by a value of 10 percent respectively.The report adds, “There are a total of 126 core FRA assembly constituencies out of 211 seats with forest land. It is also worth noting that 41.63 percent of the state’s total number of villages have forest, that is 18,905 villages.”To get an idea of where these assembly constituencies are, let us briefly look at district-wise data for IFR and CFR claims. The stronghold of the Dhangar community, Buldhana district, received 233 CFR claims, Bhandara received 316 CFR and 1,568 IFR claims.Most CFR claims were received in Gadchiroli (1,791), Nashik (1,001), Nagpur (912) and Chandrapur (602). They also received the most IFR claims. Dhule and Palghar received 379 and 627 CFR claims respectively.Raigad, Thane and Yavatmal also received CFR and IFR claims in large numbers. The report further highlights that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won six reserved ST seats in the 2019 elections whereas the Congress won five, while the united Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) won seven seats, the rest going to the united Shiv Sena and other regional parties.It is worth noting that Maharashtra has been among the leading states in India regarding the implementation of the FRA and was pioneering in its successful CFR implementation.However, there is still a long way to go for Maharashtra to fulfil its forest rights potential. As the election date arrives, it will be interesting to see if political parties pick up on these issues or go on with business-as-usual rhetoric.It is now more important than before, in light of threats of eviction for forest dwellers, exacerbating climate change and the need for transformative community-managed forest governance that politicians reflect on marginalised voices and fulfil the recognition process.
IN an article published by the Indian Express on October 29, noted political scientist Suhas Palshikar observed, “In Maharashtra, a big fight for nothing”, where he argues that both the ruling Mahayuti and opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) have been fighting elections on rhetorical rather than existing economic and political issues.The ruling coalition has been trying to mobilise voters on communal issues whereas the opposition alliance wants to appeal by raking up party legacies. In this article, however, it is suggested that there is an undercurrent of economic and livelihood issues that has been brought up time and again by the citizens of the state, specifically the farmers, Adivasis and pastoral communities.There are issues related to the minimum support price (MSP) along with the persistent demand to fulfil the promise of the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006. The FRA, which completes 18 years since its enactment, aims to rectify historical injustices faced by Adivasis and other forest-dwelling communities, stemming from pre- and post-Independence policies. More than a legal framework, the law represents a democratic, grassroots-driven approach to forest governance.Farmers have made their demands and issues clear, whether it is about MSP, crop insurance, power supply and other welfare assistance through the ‘Kisan Manifesto’. The parties in question may choose to overlook these concerns but the fact remains that such issues, along with the FRA, 2006, form the crux of this election..As the tourism juggernaut moves from the Maldives to Lakshadweep, who pays the price?.There are three aspects to the concerns around the FRA, firstly, the implementation of community forest rights (CFR); secondly, the concerns about post-implementation of both, individual forest rights (IFR) and CFR, which is affected by the extra-legal hurdles created by the forest department. And thirdly, tribal land alienation due to mining and unwarranted conservation measures like evictions.As per the latest data provided by the Union ministry of tribal affairs, the September 2024 progress report shows that Maharashtra has received a total of 401,800 forest rights claims.Of these, IFR claims are 390,477, of which 198,504 have been recognised. This is only 50 percent of the claims that have been recognised. For the CFR claims, 11,323 have been filed, of which 8,407 have been recognised.However, of the recognised CFR claims, management rights under Section 3(1)(i) have been conditional, which is viewed as patronising and unsatisfactory by the rights holders.Of the total IFR and CFR claims, 206,911 have been recognised, which is barely 52 percent of the total claims filed. About 70.8 percent of claims have been disposed of and 77,580 or 19 percent of claims have been rejected.In the post-implementation scenario, it has been reported that communities and gram sabhas are unable to exercise their IFR and CFR rights due to administrative discrepancies, particularly the forest department’s attitude.For example, IFR rights holders are restricted from doing activities to develop the land through land development, farm ponds, etc. The forest department continues to deny transit permits to the gram sabhas which impacts the exercise of minor forest produce (MFP) rights, particularly bamboo and tendu leaves, despite concerns being raised regarding it.This problem is compounded due to the leasing of CFR areas to Maharashtra Forest Development Corporation, furthering conflict after CFR implementation. Meanwhile, Maharashtra has not been successful in recognising habitat rights for the particularly vulnerable tribal groups (PVTG), who are affected due to mining..Soaring ambitions, fragile wings: Judicial balancing of climate rights and biodiversity conservation.Adivasi land alienation has been reported in various districts. Forest eviction has been a constant issue for a long time, while forest dwellers live in precarious situations. On October 21, 2024, the Union ministry of tribal affairs directed a letter to the secretary, tribal welfare, Maharashtra on FRA violation Tadoba Andhari tiger reserve.Released in March 2024, the FRA progress report by the non-governmental organisation (NGO) Call for Justice, led by Justice (Retd.) S.N. Dhingra wrote this about Maharashtra’s CFR implementation: “One probable reason for the reluctance to grant CFR is attributed to the plan to undertake large-scale mining in forest areas and this is a cause of concern (and) in violation of the FRA. Further, the diversion of CFR areas to non-forest use also undermines the effort of local communities to protect and regenerate the forest areas.”Finally, the lack of CFR implementation and denial of resource rights combined with agrarian distress and man–wildlife conflict has proven to be detrimental for Adivasis and other forest dwellers. The lack of rights recognition has also affected Adivasis residing in the Aarey forests, the forests viewed as the lungs of Mumbai. Their struggle for rights under the FRA still continues.In another report, an analysis by independent researchers, Assembly Constituencies, which have significance from the FRA voters’ point of view, has been pointed out.The introduction highlights, “In Maharashtra, the FRA holds immense significance due to the state’s large population of Adivasi and other forest-dwelling communities.“Approximately one crore people belong to Scheduled Tribes (ST) (Census 2011). Many of these communities are concentrated in forested areas, particularly in districts like Gadchiroli, Thane, Palghar, Nandurbar and Amravati. In Gadchiroli district alone, over 38 percent of the population belongs to Scheduled Tribes, making the FRA critical for ensuring their land and forest rights.”The data shows that of the total 288 Vidhan Sabha seats, 211 may have a certain level of significance. This includes all the 25 ST reserved seats, 23 Scheduled Caste (SC) reserved seats and 163 unreserved seats. Of these, 30 seats hold critical value from the FRA point of view, implying 10 percent or more in reserved constituencies and 60 percent or more in unreserved voters in these constituencies may be affected by the implementation or lack thereof of the FRA..Sixth Schedule, statehood and tourism: A volcano lurks beneath the cold desert of Ladakh.Similarly, there are 12 high-value, 50 good-value, 34 medium-value and 85 marginal-value constituencies. The percentage of voters decreases with the above by a value of 10 percent respectively.The report adds, “There are a total of 126 core FRA assembly constituencies out of 211 seats with forest land. It is also worth noting that 41.63 percent of the state’s total number of villages have forest, that is 18,905 villages.”To get an idea of where these assembly constituencies are, let us briefly look at district-wise data for IFR and CFR claims. The stronghold of the Dhangar community, Buldhana district, received 233 CFR claims, Bhandara received 316 CFR and 1,568 IFR claims.Most CFR claims were received in Gadchiroli (1,791), Nashik (1,001), Nagpur (912) and Chandrapur (602). They also received the most IFR claims. Dhule and Palghar received 379 and 627 CFR claims respectively.Raigad, Thane and Yavatmal also received CFR and IFR claims in large numbers. The report further highlights that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won six reserved ST seats in the 2019 elections whereas the Congress won five, while the united Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) won seven seats, the rest going to the united Shiv Sena and other regional parties.It is worth noting that Maharashtra has been among the leading states in India regarding the implementation of the FRA and was pioneering in its successful CFR implementation.However, there is still a long way to go for Maharashtra to fulfil its forest rights potential. As the election date arrives, it will be interesting to see if political parties pick up on these issues or go on with business-as-usual rhetoric.It is now more important than before, in light of threats of eviction for forest dwellers, exacerbating climate change and the need for transformative community-managed forest governance that politicians reflect on marginalised voices and fulfil the recognition process.
