Individual forest rights: How residents of this Sundargarh tribal village fight to protect their natural resources

The residents of Landabaga, a forest hamlet in Tithenagar village in Odisha’s Sundargarh district largely depend on forest produce for six months a year. The timely arrival of the southwest monsoon decides the fate of crops in the region. So for the villagers, who are predominantly from the Oran and Khadia tribes with some from the Ganda (a Scheduled Caste) community, agriculture is a risky proposition. 

The forest acts as a safety net. They consume oil extracted from Mahua seeds for a long period of time, during which they do not even purchase oil from outside, they shared, and feel fortunate to have three meals daily, consisting of fermented rice, foraged mushrooms, leafy vegetables, roots, fruits like tendu, mahua and char. 

The village has been home to these people from the time it was established 75 years ago. The emotional and physical connection they share with the forest is immense, and they are extremely dedicated towards protecting it. 

Before 2000, people from the adjacent villages were excessively exploiting the forest, harming the minor forest produce available to the villagers. Initially, when they took steps to protect their forest, it led to social tension between them and people of the surrounding areas. But regardless, they made arrangements to safeguard the natural resources in the forest.

Forest protection strategy

A visit to this village revealed that the villagers were following various customary practices to protect their forest. These included (i) Thenga Pali and (ii) Pathar Gada. 

Thenga means stick and Pali means rotation. A group of members (mostly men) protect the forest by patrolling. They place the Thengas in the evening (at the end of the shift) in front of the houses of members who are responsible for taking the turn the next day. 

The second practice of Pathar Gada (stone inscription) is about the dissemination of information about certain rules for the protection of the forest. The villagers inscribe the rules on a big stone that is displayed at the main entrance to the village. 

The information includes the crucial role played by the Gram Sabha in the development activities within the forest (according to the Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act, 1996) and the procedure followed for collection of minor forest produce (according to the Forest Rights Act, 2006).

We learnt that the villagers came to know about Pathar Gada from their neighbouring village and found it to be an innovative way to protect their forest. Deforestation reduced significantly from the time they adopted this method, they reported.

Upon enquiring about the monitoring and maintenance procedure followed to protect the forest, one of the villagers shared:

We maintain a high degree of transparency and visibility among ourselves. We extract the timber when we need it for agricultural and building purposes. One can collect dry and fallen wood for the purpose of fuel wood. Poor households can sell it too. 

“Commercial extraction of timber is prohibited in our village. Often, we help our neighbouring villages and share the resources depending upon the urgency – death, puja, marriages,” the resident added. “Through our Gram Sabha, we are the sole decision makers about the type and the volume of trees to be cut.” 

Continuing injustice, status of forest rights

Out of the 118 Individual Forest Rights (IFR) applications filed for title, the Gram Sabha rejected eight claims since these claimants could not identify their respective land. Out of the 110 claims submitted, 86 claimants received their titles. 

“I don’t know why my application was rejected. Like others, I have been cultivating my land since long. Many people received their claims but I did not,” a villager said. 

The people of Landabaga were quite apprehensive about the verification process that uses a GPS machine to identify the land. “We know that the GPS machine works in the plains but our village is in a hilly area. We are doubtful about its accuracy,” said another resident. 

“Moreover, we had to pool in money to bribe the officers during the process of IFR mapping and demarcation of customary boundaries,” they added.

Surprisingly, in June 2019, the villagers received information that 30 of the already sanctioned IFR claims were also rejected due to lack of proof and based on the deliberations at the Gram Sabha, according to the sub-divisional level committee (SDLC). One of the villagers pointed out:

We are confused about the carelessness of the SDLC regarding this because questions were raised about the already sanctioned claims. They sanctioned the claims after receiving a green signal from the Gram Sabha. How is the Gram Sabha instrumental in rejecting our already sanctioned claims?

In many of the cases, it was found that the authority has not cited the reasons for the rejection, the resident added.

These are some of the dilemmas the forest dwellers are struggling with. The villagers whose already sanctioned claims were rejected by the forest authority complained that they received information from them just three days before the day they had to be present at the Tehsil office. 

They saw 338 claimants turn up at the office in just two days. They discussed this situation with the Athkosia Adivasi Ekta Manch (AAEM), a Sundargarh-based community welfare institution. 

AAEM approached the officials at SDLC and demanded that the latter produce proof of proceedings at the Gram Sabha that substantiate the rejection of claims. The failure of SDLC officials to produce any such evidence led to the Manch filing an opposing petition, and finally the hearing was cancelled. 

“We filed an RTI to know from the SDLC the status of claims of our block and they clearly indicated about the unavailability of data related to this in their reply,” said a villager. This showed the gap between the intention and practice of the policy. 

Thus, the vulnerability and weak bargaining power, along with the limited information about their own rights cause forest dwellers continue to be the victims of injustice, which was summed up poignantly by one of the villagers: “Despite paying utmost respect to our gaon (village) and mati (land), it feels as if we are strangers on our own soil.”

Sujit Kumar Mishra is a professor with the Council for Social Development, an institute of ICSSR, Government of Telangana and RBI. 

Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth.