LEADLawEnvironment and

DevelopmentJournal

VOLUME

16/1

CONSERVATION—A CONTESTED STORY: THE STATE AND THEKADAR ADIVASIS, INDIA

Divya Kalathingal

ARTICLE

LEAD Journal (Law, Environment and Development Journal)is a peer-reviewed academic publication based in New Delhi and London and jointly managed by the

Law, Environment and Development Centre of SOAS University of Londonand the International Environmental Law Research Centre (IELRC).

LEAD is published at www.lead-journal.orginfo@lead-journal.org

ISSN 1746-5893

This advance version of the article can be cited asDivya Kalathingal, ‘Conservation—a contested story: the State and the Kadar Adivasis, India’,

16/1 Law, Environment and Development Journal (2020), p. x, available at http://www.lead-journal.org/content/a1602.pdf

ARTICLE

CONSERVATION—A CONTESTED STORY: THE STATEAND THE KADAR ADIVASIS,* INDIA

Divya Kalathingal**

Divya Kalathingal, School of Social Work Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Deonar, Mumbai-400088, E-mail:divyakmankada@gmail.com

Published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

* In this paper, both the terms ‘Adivasi’ and ‘tribe’ are used interchangeably. This is mainly because tribes of Kerala in general and Kadar in particular refer themselves as Adivasis. Tribe is the formal and administrative usage according to the State records.

As the State is also an important part of this study, the term tribe is also used. The term Adivasi is used to refer to the originalinhabitants, whereas the term tribe is considered as an administrative term. Adivasi is the synonym used for ‘IndigenousPeople’.

** I am exceedingly grateful to the Kadar for their immense cooperation, concern and hospitality that they have shown to me during the period of data collection. I extend my thanks to Dr Geetanjoy Sahu, Assistant Professor, School of Habitat Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences fo r the encouragement to write this paper. I am grateful to Rajesh KP, Vineetha, Ranjith Kallyani and Prabhakar for their critical comments on the paper. I am also thankful to Dr Amita Bachan and Western Ghats Hornbill Foundation for the support and resources, including the maps.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction 3

2. Theoretical Framework and Methodology 5

3. 7 8 8 10

11 12 14

The acts/policy at central level and the lives of Kadar3.1 The Forest Tramway3.2 When ‘Scientific Forestry’ turns a villain3.3 When Protection turns into curbing of Rights3.4 Detrimental Initiatives of Sedentarisation3.5 Bringing Participation in Forest Conservation3.6 Ecotourism as a Form of ‘Monoculturing’3.7 Gram Sabha and the Right of Forest Governance 15

4. Inclusivity of the Acts/Policy at the state Level and the Lives of Kadar 174.1 Kerala Forest Act, 1961 174.2 Kerala Hillmen Settlement Rules, 1964 18

5. Conclusion 19

Law, Environment and Development Journal

3

1 Madhav Gadgil and Ramachandra Guha, The Use andAbuse of Nature (Oxford University Press 2000) 159.

2 Mahesh Rangarajan, ‘The Politics of Ecology: The Debateson Wildlife and People in India, 1970-1975’ in Vasant KSaberwal and Mahesh Rangarajan (eds), Battles over Nature:Science and the Politics of Conservation (OrientBlackswan 2003) 194.

3 ibid.4 Ramachandran Guha, ‘Radical American Environ-

mentalism and Wilderness Preservation: A Third WorldCritique’ [1989] Environmental Ethics 71.

5 Ramachandran Guha, ‘The Authoritarian Biologist andthe Arrogance of Anti-Humanism: Wildlife Conservationin the Third World’ in Saberwal and Rangarajan (eds) (n3)152.

6 Roderick Nash, ‘The American Invention of NationalParks’ [1970] 22 American Quarterly 726.

1INTRODUCTIONIndia is considered as one of the ten richest forestcountries in the world with forestry claiming a longhistory within the country. In this paper, the historyof Indian forestry has been divided into three phases.The first phase is described under the larger frame offorest Management. Management of forests and itsresources has always been an important concern forthe colonial and post-colonial States because of itsenormous economic value. It is due to this economicconcern that the idea of ‘scientific forestry’ becamepopular and the State started implementing itsmonotonous programmes and policies for forestprotection. The notion of scientific forestry indicatesthe replacement of natural forest with high valuetimber trees, and results in habitat loss of wildlife andcurtailed the resource ownership rights of indigenouspeople. In this context, the centralised State planningand scientific forestry are connected to each other andare mutually supplementing. The meaning of foresthas been reduced into a commodity and has beenlargely influenced by the evolution of forestry sciencein Germany. The ramifications of this change onmeaning had impacted various ecologically significantlocations in India and Western Ghat in Southern Indiacan be identified as one such location. As a result ofthe monocropping experience, a portion of the highrainfall areas of Western Ghats has turned into a man-made desert.1

In the Post-Independent era, the Indian State, whichpursued the same British forest management system,established scientific management and hence, thealienation of local communities from resourcescontinued. Since the 1970s, an array of remarkablemovements by the tribal and local people haveemerged across the country against the devastation offorest resources. Indira Gandhi, the prime minister of

India in the second half of the 1960s and in the 1970s,played a crucial role in shaping India’s environmentalpolitics.2 Her personal interest in conservation alongwith the lobbying of both national and internationalconservation groups resulted in the creation of single-headed government departments which later turneddictatorial in nature.3 The project tiger which wasinitiated in India in 1973 consisted of the largenetworks of tiger reserves. This project was largelypraised by the international conservation circle, howeverthe reserves were established against the interests ofthe poor peasants.4 During the same period, theWildlife Protection Act, 1972 (WLPA) was enacted andprotected areas such as tiger reserves and wildlifesanctuaries began to be declared. Maintenance ofpristine wilderness and absence of humaninterventions are the basic principles behind theprotected area approach and this resulted in the totalban of humans from the core areas.5

These forest conservation efforts were based on theframework of deep ecology and could be consideredas the second phase of the Indian forestry. Deepecology conceived the significance of

forest by emphasising its inherent value and thusmaking a clear separation between nature and culture.It is noteworthy that the concept of national parks isAmerican by origin. The Yellowstone National Parkof America, established in 1872, was first of its kindin the world to protect wilderness and this idea wasexported across the globe.6 Through this paradigm,

Conservation—A Contested Story: The State and the Kadar Adivasis, India

4

7 Guha (n 5).8 Guha (n 6) 154.9 Ashish Kothari, ‘Is Joint Management of Protected Areas

Desirable and Possible’ in Ashish Kothari, Neena Singhand Saloni Suri (eds), People and Protected Areas:Towards Participatory Conservation in India (SagePublications 1996) 18.

10 Vasant K Saberwal, ‘Conservation by State Fiat’ in Saberwaland Rangarajan (eds) (n 3)255.

11 Neema Pathak Broome and others., ‘Changing Paradigmsin Wildlife Conservation in India’ in Sharachchandra Leleand Ajit Menon (eds), Democratizing Forest Governancein India (Oxford University Press 2014) 181.

12 Under the 73rd Amendment of the Constitution ofIndia, ‘Gram Sabha’ means a body consisting of personsregistered in the electoral rolls relating to a villagecomprised within the area of Panchayat at the village.This is the ideal forum for people to participate directlyin governance and development.

they tried to reestablish a situation which was believedto be present before the advent of civilisation and wasbasically free from human interventions. Given this,the idea of deep ecology must be scrutinised from athird world perspective.7 Guha raises somefundamental questions regarding the creation of anartificial dichotomy between anthropocentrism andbiocentrism, issues of universalizing and spreadingthis idea to other countries (with different culturesand histories), the preservation of wilderness and thetendency to undermine other environmental issuesetc. He further calls deep ecology as conservationimperialism.8 Management of protected areas alienatedlocal communities from accessing the resources andhence, violated their fundamental rights.9 Thesestrategies were, in fact, shortsighted and resulted inthe cultural breakdown and integration of tribalcommunity members into an industrial economy.

By the late 1980s and 1990s, the State began to reformits conservation programmes by bringing in moreparticipatory initiatives, but it was not a complete shiftfrom the existing conservation philosophy. The rightsof the local people on the resources and the customaryrights of the tribal people also remained unrecognisedin these programmes. Rather than increasing localinvolvement or generating local support forconservation, eco development visualised by the Stateaims to reduce local dependency on forest resources byproviding various alternative employments.10 Theschemes under the National Forest Policy (1988) werecritiqued that they ‘lacked the necessary legal footholdand democratic vision, and their implementers lackedthe intention to relinquish power, they did not fullyaddress many critical issues such as tenure security,

access and rights to resources, and community rightsto decision making’.11

The most recent step in the history of Indian forestryis the enactment of the Scheduled Tribes and OtherTraditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of ForestRights) Act 2006, popularly known as ‘Forest RightsAct’ (FRA). The enactment of this act can be consideredas the beginning of the third phase called forestgovernance. Unlike the forest management and deepecology based forest conservation practices initiated inthe past, it is based on the concept of democratisingforest governance by giving rights to the people inregards to resources that have been historically denied.It recognises ownership rights of the people to manage,conserve and protect their own forest areas throughGram Sabha.12 This central act gives strong legitimacyto the rights of the Adivasis on the resources anddemocratisation of forest governance. The basicphilosophy of the legislation was based on coexistenceand it attempted to reinstate and recognise the rightsof the Adivasis in protected areas that were restrictedafter the implementation of the WLPA and formationof protected areas. This can also be considered asshredding of some of the powers of the State torecognise people’s rights over forest.

In spite of the fact that the FRA offered variousprovisions for the Adivasis and to a great extentrecognised their community and customary rights, thispaper argues that in a broader sense both the colonialand postcolonial States in India failed to acknowledgethe cultural institutions of the local communities.Cultural institutions of the community and theconservation initiatives of the State meet at certain

Law, Environment and Development Journal

5

13 Communities establish informal institutions in acollective fashion as a response to their collective needsand requirements through the evolution of communitylife. These institutions are not stagnant but makinginternal changes according to the new demands,sustaining with them without making fundamentalcompromises in their core values and principles andstill prevalent and functional among the communities.See section 2 for a detailed discussion.

14 ‘The life of the Kadar is based wholly on the resourcesof the forest. The Kadar are nature-spirit worshippersand their socioeconomic life relates to each and everywoodland grove on the Anamalai slopes. All themountains and hills in this area have been named byKadar. Karimala Gopuram (literally, black mountain),the highest mountain in the Vazhachal Forest Division,is the central place of their worship. The Kadar comparethemselves with the elephant and the guar (Indian bison)in order to describe their nomadic nature. By comparingthemselves with the elephants, the Kadar give us aninsight into their relationship with their landscape andtheir own nomadic nature in the forest. By not settlingin a particular region, they make their livelihood fromtheir entire habitat, and in doing so, their activities putno pressure on the resources of a specific area’. DivyaKalathingal, Ecocultural Ethics: Critical Essays (LexingtonBooks 2017) 152.

15 M S Mahendrakumar ‘Ecocultural Adaptation of theKadars of Kerala’ (2005) 3(2) Studies of Adivasis andTribals 99.

16 Kalathingal (n 15)155 .17 ibid.

historical junctures and in some specific occasions,influence each other, contributing to the larger agendaof conservation.13 Hence, the main aim of this paperis to look at this interface and conceptualise it byreferring to Kadar Adivasi community in Kerala, India.They are the food gathering, seasonally nomadic andforest dwelling community endemic to the Anamalaihills of southern Western Ghats.14 Collecting jungleproducts and hunting were their two primary meansof livelihood for them. Food gathering is an ecologicallyviable subsistence activity as far the activities of theKadar are concerned.15 Though the community canclaim a long history of conserving, managing andgoverning the forest resources, this has never beenrecognised by the State and other mainstream actorsof forest governance. In this context, this paper makesan attempt to critically understand the policy measuresand other initiatives in reference to conservation in thestudy areas and their impact on the Kadar communityhas been analyzed.

2THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ANDMETHODOLOGY

Cultural institutions and social interface are the twoconceptual axes through which the paper has beentheoretically framed. Cultural institutions function asa mechanism to protect natural resources. The studybrings out this theoretical framework to understandthe informal institutions among Kadar. This studyhas been largely inspired from North’s understandingof institutions as ‘humanly devised constraints’ andColding and Folke’s further addition to it as taboos asinformal institutions.16 ‘Taboos have been identifiedas being an important cultural institution among theKadar communities, contributing to the conservationof the forest and its wildlife’.17 Four different kindsof taboos have been identified among Kadar, namely:Habitat Taboo, Segment Taboo, Method Taboo, andSpecific Species Taboo.

The second major concept used in the study is socialinterface. The studies focusing on social interface enableus to gain insights regarding the nature of the relationsbetween State and local actors. These insights help usto understand the level of existing political spaceavailable for local initiatives aimed at changing thepatterns of resource distribution or improving thebenefits received by the local groups. They also facilitatean understanding of the character and significance ofspecific types of policy intervention processes. NormanLong further adds that an interface approach mainlyaims to explore how various State and non-Statepowers are constituted and reconstituted in the settingsand practices of everyday life. This study has been donemainly based on a single actor oriented perspective,but supplemented with the narrations of other directand indirect actors involved in the developmentscenario. Different sort of interfaces that exist between

6

18 K Divya, ‘Development Experience of Adivasis: CaseStudies from Kerala’ (2016) 2 Indian Journal ofSustainable Development 29.

19 A section of the Scheduled Adivasis who are even morebackward than others has been historically classified asPrimitive Tribal Groups (PTGs) since 1973. The criteriaused for identification of PTGs are: pre-agricultural levelof technology, remote isolated enclaves, and the smallnessof number, stagnating or diminishing population andlow levels of literacy. The term ‘Primitive’ has beenchanged and now it is known as Particularly VulnerableTribal Groups (The draft National Tribal Policy 2006).

20 See the survey of Kerala Institute of Local Administration(2008).

21 Biodiversity conservation plan for Vazhachal High Valuebiodiversity area (2010-2020), (KFRI 2010).

22 1st Tiger Conservation Plan for Core and Buffer, 2011-12 to 2020-21 (Kerala Forests and Wildlife Department2011).

the cultural institutions of the Kadar community andForest Department (one of the important state actors)is the core of the analysis of this paper. Through theenactment of various conservation policies and acts,the social taboo as a strong cultural institution amongKadar have either been subjected to change or neglected,where as previously it would have acted as an importanteveryday practice that ensures conservation andlivelihood for them. Hence, this paper specially looksat how the legislation as a modern institution and thecultural institutions of the Kadar work through theconceptual frame of interface. On a whole, this studybrings out the various dimensions of interfacesbetween cultural institutions of Kadar and the Statein the context of conservation.

Kadar Adivasis in the areas of Vazhachal andParambikulam have some stark differences from othertribal populations in Kerala. Kadar are highlydependent on the forest for their livelihood and theyhave access to a larger area of forest. Unlike other tribalregions of Kerala, their area is not as mixed with thatof the non-Adivasi population. Hence, every dayconflict between Adivasis and non-Adivasis, which isvery visible in other tribal areas, is absent here. Theylive in a continuous stretch of forest where theireveryday conflict is more directed towards various statemechanisms. Both the State’s development projectsand conservation initiatives at different points haveimpacted them in various ways. There have beenevictions and subsequent migrations in the Kadarinhabitant areas. Large scale migration of Kadar fromParambilukam to Vazhachal started after thedemolition of the tramway line and during theconstruction of Parambikulam dams as part ofParambikulam –Aliyar Inter Basin River LinkingProject (PAP).18 Out of the four total Kadar populated

areas, both Parambikulam and Vazhachal have thelargest population. Therefore, two forest areas withdifferent forest status have been taken in the study foran easy comparison. Vazhachal is a place where variousparticipatory conservation programmes areundergoing. It is also the site for the proposedAthirappilly Hydro Electric Project, which is just 400metres away from the Vazhachal Kadar hamlet. Kadartribe has been protesting against the proposed damproject during the last 20 years. Kadar community isone of the Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups19 ofKerala with a population of 1,80520 and makes upjust 0.03% of the total tribal population of Kerala.

This study has been conducted in two forest divisionsof Kerala, namely Vazhachal (Thrissur district) andParambikulam (Palakkad district). The tract ofVazhachal selected for the study falls between 10° 14"and 10° 23" North latitudes and 76° 25" and 76° 54"East longitudes. The total extent of the forests comingunder this Division is 41394.398 ha (413.94 km2)which includes natural forests and plantations.Variation of altitude of this region is 200m to 1300metres.21 The total extent of Parambikulam tigerconservation landscape within Kerala is 3225.73Km2.It was declared as tiger reserve during 2009 with totalarea of 643.66 Sq Km, which includes a core area of390.89Km2 and 252.77Km2 a buffer zone. Thelocation of the area is, longitude 760 35’- 760 50’Eand latitude 100 20’-100 26’N.22

Conservation—A Contested Story: The State and the Kadar Adivasis, India

Law, Environment and Development Journal

7

The design drawn for doing the research isethnography. In this study, the researcher tries todescribe and interpret the shared values and beliefs ofKadar pertaining to conservation. This paper givesdetailed description through in-depth understandingof the invisible systems among Kadar. The researchhas incorporated the views of the participants (emic)as well as the views of the researcher (etic). This studydesign gives the researcher the freedom to understandthe subject more closely through different methods.Participant observation, oral history method, focusgroup discussions and in-depth interviews were themajor methods used to collect data from theparticipants. Field study was conducted during theperiod of 1st August 2013 to 30th October 2013.Secondary data was also used in this study. Variouspolicies and acts of both central and State origin onconservation since colonial period to the recent time(1894 to 2011) have been analysed. The timeline setup in the paper concludes with the year 2006 becauseno other major legislations or policies on conservationhave been enacted by the State since then. Besides,various documents available from forest department,

such as forest working plans, management plans, forestadministrative reports, reports of different forestmanagement programmes etc. have been examined aspart of the analysis.

3THE ACTS/POLICY AT CENTRALLEVEL AND THE LIVES OF KADAR

This section mainly analyses four aspects: how the actsand policies perceive a) the rights of the Adivasis overresources; b) loss of natural forest due to plantationsin their area; c) livelihood shifts; and d) developmentprojects in the area. It gives a larger picture on how theresource dependent population were included bothconceptually and practically in the act of protectingforests. The period considered in this analysis is fromthe first National Forest Policy 1892 to the KeralaTourism Policy 2012.

(Map not to scale)

Map prepared by : Western Ghats Hornbill Foundation 2014.

Conservation—A Contested Story: The State and the Kadar Adivasis, India

8

23 Before the formation of the state of Kerala, the regionwas ruled under three Kingdoms, namely Travancore,Cochin and Malabar. Parambikulam area was under theCochin Kingdom.

24 Detailed discussion of scientific forestry will be coveredin the upcoming section.

25 Mammen Chundamannil, History of Forest Managementin Kerala (KFRI Research Report 89 1993) 28.

26 U R Ehrenfels, Kadar of Cochin (University of MadrasPress 1952).

27 Divya (n 19) 29.

3.1 The Forest Tramway

The main intention behind the formation of the firstforest Policy Resolutions 1892 in British India was toserve the agricultural interests of the colonial state.The policy relegates the entire forest into fourcategories. A first class forest must be preserved forthe protection of cultivated lands in the plains andalso for protection from the wild animals. Timberwas mainly extracted from the second class forests forcommercial undertakings such as railways. The thirdclass forest was the minor forest which supplied fuel,fodder and space for grazing for local consumptionand was managed in the interest of the local people. Afourth category was ‘pastures and grazing grounds,’where the local communities got higher priority thanthe conservation practices of forest department. Inthe third and the fourth class forests, rights wererecorded and regulated and the forests were managedin the interest of the local community. This policymade considerable changes in the Kadar inhibitingareas of Parambikulam.

The year 1894 was characterised by two noteworthydevelopments in Cochin.23 One was the opening ofthe rich teak forest in Parambikulam by replacing thenatural forest and the other was the conception offorest tramway by the then conservator Mr. Kolhoff.Hence it is obvious that the Parambikulam forest areawas classified as second class forest under the policywhich mainly meant being a source to increase Staterevenue and the rights of the users were given lessimportance. This has laid foundation to thedevelopment of scientific forestry in this area.24

By 1907, the tramway became operational and it wasextended till Chalakudy, the nearest town.25 The

tramway served as the 40 kilometres long railwaythrough forest to transport timber from theParambikulam forest. In the same year, the CochinForest Steam Tramway Act 1907 was enacted to managethe forest tramway and to regulate the conduct andprocedure of the forest tramway officers. The act didnot have any single mention of the hill men/inhabitants/users of the area and their rights. Theonly context where the act mentions human beings isthe context of punitive fine for the owners of thetrespassed cattle into the forest area. The colonial regimeconsidered forest as an indefinite source of timberextraction and revenue generation. The opening offorest tramway line for the transportation of timberforest was a factor that contributed to significantchanges in the Kadan economy.26 Kadar was a scatteredcommunity residing in different parts of the forestalong the bank of the Chalakudy river till theestablishment of tramway. With the construction ofthe tramway the community became the main labourforce which led to greater changes in their economyand culture.27 Eventually, the tramway, emblematicof modern scientific development, limited KadarAdivasi communities’ habitation area to a specificlocation called Kuriarkutty.

3.2 When ‘Scientific Forestry’Turns a Villain

After independence, the princely states were mergedinto the Indian Union and full autonomy wasconferred on the Indian State and the entire forestresources came under its control. It is difficult toobserve a large level shift in the nature of the policywhen it moved from colonial rule to independent Indiain terms of natural forest protection and protectionof the rights of the local people.

Law, Environment and Development Journal

9

28 FGD in Kuriarkutty Kadar hamlet (Parambikulam TigerReserve 27 September 2013).

29 James C Scott, Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemesto Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (YaleUniversity 1998) 19.

Under the National Forest Policy, 1952 (NFP), forestswere classified into four categories— Protection Forests,National Forests, Village Forests, and Tree Lands. Thispolicy emphasised, for larger national interest, that theregulation of the rights and restrictions of localcommunities on forest had to be valued as a primerequisite of scientific forest management. The policytook a strong position against grazing and shiftingcultivation by stating that it was incompatible withscientific forestry. The Second Five Year Plan (1956-1961) had recommended the government to revisepolicy for developing wood based industry. Assuggested by the NFP for forest regeneration, TeakPlantation Division Parambikulam was formed in1960. This was the first Special Plantation Division toartificially regenerate 6070 hectares of forests in theParambikulam area, which had been over exploited inthe past due to the functioning of the tramway.Between 1961 and 1967, 6500 hectares of plantationwas cultivated in Parambikulam. The NFP 1952 madea long lasting impact on the Kadar community throughthe introduction of exotic species, mainly teak, in theirarea. Kadar lost a large area of natural forest on whichthey used to depend for livelihood for generations.‘Other than mono culturing of crops, this alsoresulted in increased atmospheric temperature even inthe interior forests of the tiger reserve. Replacementof natural forests with exotic plants resulted in soilerosion and drying up of river in early summer’.28

Kadar also observed that the conversion of naturalforest resulted in habitat loss for many endangeredbird species like Hornbills. As Baviskar observed, thepolicy has served the interest of State, industry andrich peasantry instead of serving the national interests(1995). In this process, the rights of the local peopleand Adivasis were side-lined.

As part of the State’s project of implementing ‘scientificforestry’, which was inspired by the NFP, a large areaof natural forest was converted into plantation in theParambikulam and Vazhachal forest divisions. Once

the clear felling was completed, these areas were givento the people from plains for tapioca cultivation. Thenthe taungya cultivators planted tapioca in between theteak saplings to protect the teak saplings from anyharm. This system of taungya cultivation was prevalentglobally in the initial phase of plantation forestry. Clearfelling and selection felling were the two importantinitiatives of the State that led to the loss of most ofthe important forest areas of Kadar from where theyused to collect Non Timber Forest Produces (NTFPs).Since the evergreen forests are very fragile in nature,loss of individual trees also destroyed other smallplants that grow around them. In brief, the Stateproject of scientific forestry became very hegemonic innature.29

Social forestry made impacts on the lives of the Kadarat multiple levels which are outlined below. Theplantation work in the protected area opened the doorfor the outsiders to settle down in the Kadarinhabitation areas. As a result, the ParambikulamKadar hamlet is currently a mixed hamlet of Adivasisand other settlers. The participants of the study alsocomplained that many settlers got job as watchers inthe forest department by claiming that they belong tothe Kadar community. It is also important to noticethe disparity in the usage of timber by the State andthe Kadar. Kadar do not usually use the high valuetimber for their domestic use. Instead they prefer touse bamboo and reed for house construction. On thecontrary, the State is extensively extracting timber fromthese areas.

Poaching in the area has a strong historical connectionwith taungya cultivation in 1960s. Creation of theplantation was one of the important managementprogrammes of forest department. The quick and easyway adopted for the creation of the plantation wastaungya cultivation where the cultivators used to stayback and protect the teak. In this case, they used tocultivate tapioca till the teak saplings grow. Participants

Conservation—A Contested Story: The State and the Kadar Adivasis, India

10

31 Kalathingal (n 15) 156.32 Interview with the head man, Poringalkkuthu Kadar

Hamlet (Vazhachal FD, 18 August 2013).

of the interview stressed the fact that most of thetaungya cultivators returned to the same area andstarted smuggling timber and poaching wild animals.So Kadar as well as the forest resources suffered frommultiple negative impacts of the programme. Otherthan the State functionaries, the State introduced grouphad also started dominating the cultural institutionsof Kadar through wildlife poaching. This went againstthe basic beliefs of Kadar on coexistence and thehabitat protection of other animals.

Taungya cultivation and the related concerns alsohighlight the importance and relevance of the culturalinstitutions of Kadar. These cultivators were comingto a place which had been conserved for hundreds ofyears by the Kadar with the help of their culturalinstitutions. But the cultivators didn’t possess anysuch cultural or institutional capital. As no taboosprevented them and no headmen controlled them,they did not feel anything wrong in poaching andsmuggling. As the cultivation was a State sponsoredprogramme, one can easily find the visionary inadequacyof that programme as the State failed to anticipate thepossibility of taungya cultivators turning to poachersand smugglers. The State miserably failed to preventthe illegal activities by the plainsmen.

3.3 When Protection Turns intoCurbing of Rights

The Wildlife Protection Act 1972 (WLPA) brought adifferent imagination to the entire forest conservationpractice. The philosophical foundation of theformation of protected areas was wilderness creationand evacuation of humans from the forest for theprotection of forest and wildlife. In 1986, after thereorganisation of the wild life wing, collection of minorforest produce (MFP) from sanctuaries and nationalparks was prohibited by a government order from thechief conservator of forests. The declaration ofprotected areas led to the massive constitution ofsanctuaries and total ban on human beings in the coreareas of national parks.30

The WLPA is the ever-enacted legislation for theprotection of wildlife in Indian forests which mandatesstrict regulations, banning and punishment forpoaching of wildlife. The act did not offer anyrelaxation for the traditional hunting practices of theAdivasis. It was adopted with a presumption that alllocal/ tribal people would destroy the natural resourcesand wildlife and they would not be able to coexistwith each other. It has affected the lives of Kadar infour major ways: 1) traditional hunting rights; 2)mobility/alienation; 3) collection of NTFPs; and 4)dietary needs.

In the reserved forest area, people are banned fromcollection of wild animals, even if it is a left over bythe carnivores. They are not, however, restricted fromthe collection of NTFPs or roam in the forest. In thatsense, their habitat is not controlled by the act. Thehabitat of the Kadar is considered to be very large andextending beyond their immediate living spaces. Theyhave their traditional boundary system and trails to befollowed during the collection of resources.31 Itbecomes an issue only if they are moving to forestareas near to the protected forest. This has resulted ina change in their food habits. They have lost theirfood diversity and their food habits have becomelimited to items such as rationed rice, cereals providedthrough government schemes etc. The habit of sharinghunted meat could be seen as an indication of thestrength of the complex mutuality existed among thepeople. The banning of such traditional practices hadalso affected the feeling of togetherness among them.The following narrative of an informant clearlyindicates the adverse impact of the declaration of tigerreserve in Parambikulam on Kadar community. Hestates: ‘mobility and collection from the Parambikulamarea becomes problematic after the declaration of tigerreserve’.32

While legislations such as the WLPA mostly affectsthe dietary needs of forest dwelling communities inthe reserved forest, in protected areas it produces

30 Guha (n 6) 140.

Law, Environment and Development Journal

11

33 ‘Karimala Gopuram, is the highest mountain in theVazhachal forest division and the central place of their worship and it’s a major resource- gathering areas for gather. They believe that their origins have arisen from Karimala Gopuram. Here the ecosystem works as an important agent of formation of human behaviour and this is ultimately leading to the protection of the same. Culture is not an inseparable one from the nature. In this way all Taboos lost the significance as Taboos work in the environment. They believe that there is existence of spirits in water and forest and which brings a strong sense of code of conduct to be followed in the forest. There has been an invisible boundary system exists within the community for resource collection. These traditional boundaries invisible boundaries are separated by hills, streams or rivers. These traditional boundaries are restricting the communities from extracting resources from other areas. Their ancestors used to introduce the forest routes (traditional trails) to the younger generations. As they are mainly rainforest collectors, even in the dark green forest of Anamalais, they could easily find out their ways. Here, Thurston’s (1909) comments should be genuinely appreciated, ‘Kadar are the Kings of Anamalais’. The Habitat Taboo develops and practices in the entire area, it also leads to the protection of the entire habitat, including Kadar and wildlife. The concept of the boundary system still exists among Kadar and continued to be unaltered’. Kalathingal (n 15) 155.

34 Johan Colding and Carl Folke, ‘Social Taboos: ‘Invisible’Systems of Local Resource Management and BiologicalConservation’ [2001] Ecological Applications 584.

35 It is the term quoted by James Scott to describe theefforts of the state to settle people in order to make theruling easy in the book, Seeing like a State: How CertainSchemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed(Yale University 1998) 2.

multiple impacts. It restricts the movement of a personin the forest and thus restricts the expansion of hisknowledge on resources. When the status of the forestshifts to higher orders, the restrictions are increasedand people are increasingly alienated from the resources.These purposeful attempts to alienate people fromthe resources are conveniently masking the contributionof the community in resource conservation of thatparticular area. The act of a community using theminimum product from the forest for their basic livingis considered a crime. Hence the WLPA does notattempt to understand and respect the culturalinstitutions of Kadar which works as a code ofconduct among the community. The instrumentalrationality of the act totally ignores the taboos of Kadarwhich had substantial roles in the conservation. Forexample, the habitat taboo which valued the ecologicalsignificance of Karimala Gopuram becomes irrelevantas per the WLPA as the act totally prevents the entry ofKadar to forest.33 Once the entry to forest is restrictedto people, they are being externalised and taboos

become meaningless. Habitat taboo is the regulationof access to and use of resources from a particularhabitat in time and space which leads to the protectionof the entire habitat.34

Parambikulam area was upgraded from a wildlifesanctuary to a tiger reserve in 2009. After that, therewas a proposal to relocate Kuriarkutty Kadar hamletfrom the core area. There was a mixed response to thisproposal from the tribal hamlet. Forest Departmentsuggested forest areas in Vazhachal Forest Division,some areas in Palakkad plains and Tamil Nadu forrelocation. Finally, the lack of consensus from thehamlet itself rejected the plan of relocation. Kadarused to roam in the forest areas of Parambikulam andVazhachal and their roaming is now limited to theChalakudy river basin. Within the geographicalboundary, they have some invisible boundary system,beyond which they usually prefer not to explore, sincetheir understanding of this terrain is limited as well.This habitat taboo, one of the significant informalcultural institutions as far as the conservation of thearea is concerned is completely ignored by the ForestDepartment. Here the department even prefers areasin the plains for relocation, which is in direct conflictwith the basic interests of Kadar. Though the Kadarrelocation plan was abandoned, the State and itsmachinery could successfully create an imagination thatthe Kadar are the ones to be evicted and the plan wasabandoned due to some technical difficulties.

3.4 Detrimental Initiatives ofSedentarisation35

The Forest Conservation Act 1980 prescribes strongconservation measures for the forest resources. The

Conservation—A Contested Story: The State and the Kadar Adivasis, India

12

36 Madhav Gadgil and Ramachandra Guha, The Use andAbuse of Nature (Oxford University Press 2000)112.

37 Scott (n 30) 1. 38 Divya (n 19) 29.

act also requires approval from the central governmentfor any sort of clearance of forest/de-reserve/converting for non-forest purposes. According to theForest Conservation Rules 1981, the committee setup under the act will supervise the concerned State’sresponsibility to ensure afforestation. This act demandsthe detailed description of the area to be diverted.According to the act, the displacement details andrehabilitation plan (especially related to SC/STpopulation) due to the forest diversion needs to beproduced. Even after the enactment of the act, theselection felling could not be fully stopped. It has beenbanned in Kerala since 1987 due to the intenselobbying from conservation groups in the state. Theact actively discourages the participation of individualsand communities in forest plantation andprotection.36 In the State’s view, the historically existingintertwined relationship between forest (broadlynature) and people has to be disintegrated in order toexecute their idea of sedentarisation. This isprofoundly clear in the Forest Conservation Rules,discussed above. Furthermore, the State has alwaysappeared to be the enemy of ‘people who movearound’, and therefore, permanently settled down, themobile people become an enduring project of theState.37 Imposition of governmental power is effectiveonly when the population has settled down in specificgeographic locations. This political agenda has beenlaid out by the State in a systematic manner in the FCrules enacted in 1981. The following experience of theKadar community shows how the political agenda ofsendentarisation executed through forest conservationrules made an impact on the nomadic Adivasicommunity in Kerala.

Kadar is a semi nomadic community and used to livein different forest areas of Vazhachal andParambukulam. As mentioned in the methodologysection, all the eight hamlets, which we see now in theVazhachal forest division, are the migrated Kadar from

Parambikulam due to eviction which has taken placesince 1950. These eight hamlets are distributed in the65 kilometres forest area. Three important routes ofmigration in different times have been identified fromParambikulam to Vazahchal.38 Then, they started livingin different parts of the Vazhachal forest and alongthe banks of Chalakudy river and other streams foralmost thirty years. Since 1980s, Kadar of the Vazhachalstarted settling down on both sides of the Anamalairoad. It can be assumed that the forest conservationact has forced the Kadar to settle down in new areas ofthe Vazhachal forests.

3.5 Bringing Participation inForest Conservation

The National Forest Policy 1988 advocated supportfor the rural and tribal requirements of fuel, fodderand minor produces. In principle, it gives the tribalpopulation the rights to collect of MFPs, to createprotocols for resource conservation and livelihoodprotection and to safeguard the customary rights ofpeople. However, their traditional practices like shiftingcultivation came to be regarded as a destructive practice.In 2009, Kerala government formulated the guidelinesfor Participatory Forest Management based on theNational Forest Policy 1988 and the guidelines of 1990.Participatory forest management functions throughunits called Vana Samrakshana Samithis (ForestProtection Councils), which comprises of a generalbody and an executive committee. Preparation of microplans is one of the important steps envisaged by theguidelines for ensuring the participation. Developmentof appropriate participatory approaches to forestmanagement was one of the objectives of PFM. VanaSamrakshana Samithis (hereafter VSSs) are termed asEco Development Committees (EDC) in theprotected areas. There are five Adivasi VSSs in theVazhachal forest division (registered in 2002) and six

39 Pablo Alejandro Leal, ‘Participation: the Ascendancy ofa Buzzword in the Neo-liberal Era’(2007 ) Developmentin Practice 17.

40 ibid.41 KH Amitha Bachan and others, ‘Participatory

Conservation and Monitoring of Great Hornbills andMalabar Pied Hornbills with the Involvement ofEndemic Kadar Tribe in the Anamalai Hills of SouthernWestern Ghats, India’ (2011) 24 The Raffles Bulletin ofZoology 37.

Eco Development Committees (EDCs) in theParambikulam Tiger Reserve. This section attemptsto analyse the gap between theory and practice of PFMwhich was envisaged under the plan and the level ofinterfaces that have been taking place in different phasesof the implementation.

Micro plan is the basic planning element of VSS underwhich the activities are implemented through the PFM.Kadar follows an ‘invisible’ boundary system in thecase of resource usage. Kadar have their own habitatfor forest produce collection. However, VSS has theirown management areas for fire protection and therethey do not consider the traditional resource uses ofthe areas. When the VSS officials make resource mapsof the area with the help of the community, they alsomark resource utilisation area out of the jurisdictionof the respective forest ranges, but no effort has beenmade for the protection of the already existing system.Here it can be seen that the micro plan is preparedfrom pre-set plans which attempt to fit the existingpractices into it for practical convenience. There hadbeen instances where Kadar’s sacred worship areas werenot considered in the micro plans. Kadar have beenprotecting resources inside the areas of their traditionalboundary through their cultural institutions, and theseaspects were completely neglected in the micro plan.Thus, habitat taboo system of the community wascompletely disregarded here. This is a very clear exampleof how modern State institutions come into conflictwith the cultural institutions of Kadar. In other words,contrary to what the objective proposes, policy neglectsthe customary practices of the communities.

Planting of endangered species in the forest areas wasclaimed to be an important activity under VSS in theVazhachal Forest Division. However, canariumstrictum, one of the endangered species, was neverconsidered for planting though its numbers werereducing in this area. The selection of species was alsocarried out directly by the department. This non-recognition of local knowledge on species selection iseven contrary to the basic vision of PFM. Even thoughthe planting in the forest was considered as animportant step in forest regeneration, Kadar were onlyinvolved at the last phase. From these experiences, itcan be deduced that the forest department considersKadar only as an easily available local labour force tosatisfy their goals. Participants of the study alsohighlighted that perennial streams started drying up

during summer due to the replacement of naturalforests and that these natural streams can only berejuvenated by the planting of some local specific trees.

The concept of participation is impossible when theState prefers a top-bottom approach, unless thecommunity is already empowered and is able to asserttheir right to participation. Thus, this participatoryprogramme which was intended to empower thecommunity functioned as yet another agent ofoppression. True participation is only possible betweenequal actors. For this to happen, participation musttake place outside the institutional development agendaand within the social, political and cultural context ofgrassroots struggle.39 Power has been working as thecentre of the development paradigm. The examplesfrom the above mentioned work shows thatparticipation is simply not possible without sharingthe power. Otherwise empowerment will just remainas the management of power by the powerful actors.Approaches to participation should aim at deep socialtransformation.40 The level of assertion that is shownby the participants of some hamlets in Vazhachal iscompletely non-existent in other areas, especially inthe tiger reserve area. In the protected area, officialshave a strong control on the VSS members becauseKadar do not have an alternate option for livelihoodother than tourism.

Participatory Hornbill Conservation and Monitoringprogrammes with the involvement of Kadar tribe isalso a noteworthy initiative. After identifying that thehabitat loss has resulted in the vulnerability ofhornbills, this programme was initiated by anindividual researcher with the collaboration of theKerala Forest Department by selecting the tribal guardsfor regular monitoring of nests and nesting oldgrowth trees of the rainforests.41 They were also

13

Law, Environment and Development Journal

trained to use the scientific equipment for the survey.Involving the Kadar in the conservation of theendangered flagship bird of the state while ensuringthe livelihood of the people, i.e., supporting theirtraditional practices in forest dwelling, has beenrecognised as a good example of participatoryconservation and monitoring process. Theprogramme indirectly supported the full Kadar familyby involving the women in the process. Thisparticipatory programme was completely visualized onthe basis of traditional trails of Kadar. This endeavordoes not give space for conflict with the kind oftraditional activities they are involved in. This is asuccessful story where the status of Kadar turned toprotectors of hornbills from ‘hunters’.

3.6 Ecotourism as a Form of‘Monoculturing’

Ecotourism is operationalized through the VSSinvolving local people/Adivasis. Both the study areascovered here are well known ecotourism spots. Kadarof the Vazhachal hamlet in the Vazhachal forestdivision and Kadar of Parambikulam tiger reserve areinvolved in ecotourism activities of the forestdepartment. Ecotourism in the forest areas has beenevaluated as a sustainable livelihood option for thetribal people by the Forest Department. But the fact isthat, in the reserved forests, ecotourism basedlivelihood is just optional, while in the protected area,people are forced to take up this mode of livelihood.Ecotourism comes to the protected area where therights of the people on resources are already denied.In the areas where ecotourism initiatives operate, thepower of the officials is really high, especially inprotected areas, where there is no other option for thecommunity to work.

Violation of several rights can be observed in theecotourism spot of the reserved forest, where theForest Department is allowing maximum leniency fortourists and minimum recognition for the rights ofthe Kadar. Kadar hamlet is located on the side ofVazhachal waterfalls, a well-known tourism spot andpeople of this hamlet are involved in the tourismmanagement activities through VSS. This is the onlytribal hamlet of the Vazhachal forest division thatprovides regular employment through VSS. As oneside of the hamlet is a road and the other side of the

hamlet is a trek-path for tourists to enjoy waterfalls,tourists constantly move around the hamlet and nokind of privacy is available for the tribal people.Though the river is in their doorstep, Kadar cannotmake use of any of the facilities the river providesunless the tourists were to leave, as tourists also dailypass over the hamlet to reach the main road. Theauthor also overheard some comments by the touristssuch as ‘where do the Adivasis live here’. This questionis arising from the preconceived notion that Adivasislive in a pre-modern style by wearing leaves andspeaking sign language. In this area, the Kadar andwildlife are equally affected by the tourism. The Kadarand the tourists have conflict of interest in using theresources. The Anamalai road entirely goes throughthe forest areas of Vazahchal and frequent touristvehicles in this road disturb the movement of Kadarwomen in other hamlets that situated upstream toVazhachal. The fear element that was expressed by theparticipants shows the threats to the security of womendue to tourism. As far as Vazhachal VSS is concerned,everyday work related issues are higher due to thetourism management.

Since tourism is strictly managed in the tiger reserve,the immediate or direct conflict with the tourists arecomparatively low. The physical harm from the partof tourists is almost absent; rather, the concept ofecotourism as such has disturbed the already prevailingpractices of the area such as fishing and resourcecollection. Irrespective of the protection status of thearea, what ecotourism does is to transfer resourcesfrom a certain category of people to another category.Even though the people of the protected area are nearto their important resource area and worshipping place,Karimala, their direct livelihood dependency in thisforest area is impossible. Ecotourism is generallypraised as sustainable livelihood for the tribal people,but this sustainable livelihood is established by thetotal/partial banning of the already existing livelihoodpatterns through various coercive legal mechanisms.Ecotourism is an area of development interventionwhere there is no conflict between differentgovernmental departments. It’s also important tonote that the policy has impacted the gender relationsin the community. Gender concerns are unevenlyincorporated into the policies aimed at themanagement of natural resources. In the protectedarea, labour is majorly for men as watchers and tourist

14

Conservation—A Contested Story: The State and the Kadar Adivasis, India

42 Divya (n 19) 29.43 Anita Pleumarom, ‘The Politics of Tourism, Poverty

Reduction and Sustainable Development’ (2012) 17Environment and Development Series 25.

44 ibid 41.

45 Sharachchandra Lele and Ajit Menon, ‘ Introduction’ inSharachchandra Lele and Ajit Menon (eds),Democratizing Forest Governance in India (OxfordUniversity Press 2014) 11.

guides, whereas women’s role in access and controlover resources are hugely curtailed and theircontribution to economy has become nil.42

Ecotourism projects are mostly planned without localconsent and support.43 They often threaten localcultures, economies and natural resource bases. It isalso a tactic of the consumptive tourism industry bygreening it. It is highly consumer centered and orientedtowards the urban middle class. Diverse local, socialand economic activities have been replaced byecotourism as some kind of ‘monoculturing’.44 Thedata from the field also supports these observationsthat various livelihood options of the Kadar havebeen replaced by the ecotourism work. Theseecotourism activities are also unidirectionally decidedby the government without having any kind ofconsultation. Kadar tourist watchers accompany thetourist groups to different destinations of theprotected area. These kinds of trekking are plannedwith an intention to see wildlife. Traditionally, Kadarhave the belief that they are not supposed to see anywildlife when they go to forest, but their current jobroles goes completely against this concept. Besides,ecotourism projects demand the Kadar to use newand easy pathways to the forest and they are supposedto give up the traditional paths they used earlier. If thepre-ecotourism relationship of Kadar with forestrespected the forest, the ecotourism projects prioritisesthe convenience of tourists, not of the forest. On theone hand, the State is alienating Kadar from theirresources and thereby they lose access and control overresources. On the other hand, Kadar is forced to be apart of State initiatives though it is against their ownbelief systems and cultural institutions.

3. 7 Gram Sabha and the Right ofForest Governance

The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional ForestDwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006

(FRA) is regarded as a historical legislation forrecognising the forest rights of the tribal people. Thisact is considered as the first inclusive mechanism forconsidering the rights of the Adivasis. It recognisesthe conservation of traditional resource use areas oftribal people and envisages the coexistence of peopleand wildlife by the recognition of their rights in theprotected areas. The act ensures a bottom-up approachfrom the claiming process onwards. The FRA talksabout the customary rights of the people, rights onminor forest produces, water bodies and, verysignificantly, habitat rights in the case of particularlyvulnerable tribal groups. Indeed, this is a remarkableeffort to deepen the democratic process in forestgovernance and that has been captured in the followingobservation:

Spatial decentralisation, devolution ofactual power to lower tiers, and thefunctioning of all tiers and all arms(political, executive, and judicial) in waysthat are democratic, transparent andaccountable. It means the turning ofinstitutions of governance to the socio-ecological context in ways that enablethe participation of the weakest and thefeasibility of addressing environmentalsustainability and justice goals. 45

The case against Vedanta, a multinational metals andmining company, is an example of how the judiciaryacted as a facilitator of the democratisation of forestgovernance. The supreme court judgment (OrissaMining Corporation Ltd v Ministry of Environment& Forest on 18 April, 2013, writ petition (civil) No.180 OF 2011) in favour of the Dongria Kondh tribalcommunity of Odisha against the Vedanta was ahistorical intervention of the court. In this case, thecourt directed the concerned Grama Sabhas to take adecision by considering all their claims in reference tovarious rights (cultural, community and individual)

15

Law, Environment and Development Journal

46 F.No.1-7/93-PT(Vol.I), dated 28th March, 2017. Conferringrights under FRA, 2006 in Critical Tiger Habitats Reg.

47 CWH is a provision under FRA and CTH is a provisionunder WLPA.

48 Proceedings of the meeting held on 4.7.2017 under thechairmanship of secretary, National commission forscheduled Tribes regarding press clipping under thecaption ‘no forest rights for tribals in critical tiger habitats’< h t t p s : / / n c s t . n i c . i n / s i t e s / d e f a u l t / f i l e s /copy_of_minutes_of_meeting/912.pdf>.

49 No. 23011/32/2010-FRA [Vol.II (Pt.)], dated 12th July,2012, Implementation of the Scheduled Tribes and OtherTraditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of ForestRights) Act, 2006 - Guidelines regarding. <https://forestrights.nic.in/pdf/Guidelines.pdf>.

50 F.No.23011/23/2010-FRA on the subject ‘Complianceof the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional ForestDwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 –reg’.<https://tribal.nic.in/fra/data/ComplianceoftheSTnOOTFDRecognitionForestRightsAct2006regarding05042019.pdf>.

51 Explainer: Millions Face Possible Eviction – What is theSupreme Court Forest Rights Case About? (The ForestRights Act) <https://forestrightsact.com/2019/07/23/explainer-millions-face-possible-eviction-what-is-the-supreme-court-forest-rights-case-about/>.

offered under the provisions of the Forest Rights Act2006.

However, there have been continuous attempts fromvarious State machineries to dilute the sections of theact since its inception. A few more examples are worthmentioning here. For instance, on 23rd March 2017,the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA)under the Ministry of Environment, Forest andClimate Change (MOEFCC) brought a letter46 sayingno rights shall be conferred under Critical Tiger Habitat(CTH) in the absence of proper guidelines fordemarcating Critical Wildlife Habitat (CWH).47 Unlikeany other act, the FRA recognises the rights of theAdivasis in the protected areas which were taken awayafter the implementation of WLPA1972. And in aletter dated 4th July 2017, National Commission forScheduled Tribe (NCST) convinced with the argumentsof NTCA of not settling the rights in CTH andrelocation of Adivasis from CTH.48 In addition tothat, NCST recommended to use the CompensatoryAfforestation Fund Management and PlanningAuthority (CAMP) to increase the relocation fundfrom 10 lakh to 20 lakh. Both these moves, contraryto the guidelines of the MoTA, emphasised that therights of the forest dwellers has to be recognised evenif the critical wildlife habitats have not been declaredin national parks and sanctuaries.49

In an another letter issued by MoEFCC on 2ndFebruary 2019 to all the state departments neglected

the forest rights act provisions including the consentof Grama Sabha in the first stage of the forest clearance.This letter was challenged by the MoTA and sent ordersto the states saying that the MoEFCC letter shouldnot be followed by violating the FRA. In the sameletter of MoTA, they clarified that no agency can violateprovisions of FRA.50 In a recent order by the supremecourt of India declared on 13th February 2019, directedthe state government to evict 10 lakh Adivasis fromthe forests and by which whose individual claims havebeen rejected by the court. The petitioners who wantedto evict the tribal people and traditional forest dwellerswere retired forest officials and NGOs work for wildlifeprotection. Due to the conscious silence of the presentBJP government in the court and absence of puttingproper defense in the court on behalf of Adivasis, itresulted in such a problematic court order. Later, underthe pressure of nationwide protests and voice fromthe Adivasi organisations and opposition parties, thecentral government approached the court and arguedthat rejection were all illegal.51 In light of this, thesupreme court put the order on hold and asked 17states to submit the affidavit.

Amidst all the attempts by the State to dilute theprovisions of the act and bypass it for the developmentprojects, the Kadar are using this piece of legislationto protect the forest through their Grama Sabhas.Individual rights of the Kadar on both the areas aresettled under the FRA. Community Forest Resource(CFR) rights were conferred to the Kadar of theVazhachal forest division, under which section 3(1)(c), (d), (e), (i), and (k) are recognized. It gives rightsover resources such as water bodies, and minor forestproduces and protection of intellectual property rights.

16

Conservation—A Contested Story: The State and the Kadar Adivasis, India

52 See the FRA Document of the ‘Title to communityforest resources’ (n.d.).

53 See the Minutes of the Vazhachal Gram Sabha meeting(03 August 2015).

54 See the Minutes of the Vazhachal Gram Sabha meeting(04 November 2018).

Vazhachal is the first area where the community forestrights have been implemented in the state. Total CFRarea declared under the FRA in Vazhachal area is for40000 hectare.52 Through the formation of the CFRmanagement committee, a large forest area can begoverned through the Gram Sabha. But in protectedarea, CFR claims are still pending with the sub-divisional level committee and the forest departmentdoes not show any interest for the passing of claimsand conferring of traditional rights. Through therecognition of community forest resource rights, theKadar have obtained a legal recognition for theirresource dependency and economy. The Kadar haveused the act as a governance mechanism of their forestarea in many instances. There is a proposed dam projectin the area, which is just 400 metres away from theVazhachal hamlet. The Kadar have consistently stoodagainst the dam project for the last 20 years and theproject was stalled by their legal intervention. In 2015,Vazhachal Grama Sabha passed a resolution againstthe dam and other development projects in their areaand submitted a copy of the resolution to the HighCourt of Kerala.53 There are a total of nine GramaSabhas in the Vazhachal forest division. In supportof the Vazhachal Gram Sabha, all other eight GramSabhas also passed resolutions against the proposeddam.

On 4th November 2018, the Vazhachal Grama Sabhatook some important decisions regarding their workand forest protection.54 In the meeting, they discussedthe need of getting high wage for the Adivasis whenthey work at the forest depot which otherwise goes tothe non-Adivasis. High wage is paid for the work suchas loading and unloading of the first quality wood.Generally, Adivasis only get chance to get involved inthe loading work of low quality wood and hence theyget low wages. Later on, the trade unions have admittedtheir demands to ensure the high wage labour for theAdivasis. Secondly, they had asked the forestdepartment to appoint only Adivasis as forest watchers

in the CFR areas of Vazhachal. Initially, in two of thegeneral panchayat wards, the forest department usedto appoint non Adivasis, hence Adivasis of twohamlets never used to get the chance to work as forestwatchers. The forest department has agreed to theirdecision. Thirdly, there was a proposal to widen theroad in the Charpa area of Vazhachal by cutting thetrees from both sides. Grama Sabha passed aresolution against it and sent it to the officials such asDistrict collector, Divisional Forest Officer and TribalDevelopment Officer. Following this, the roadwidening project to public works department wascancelled by the forest department and limited to justmaintenance.

During the Kerala floods of 2018, Anakkayam Kadarhamlet was washed away due to debris andconsequently, they now live in temporary shelters. Eventhe Vazahchal Gram Sabha discussed this matter intheir own Gram Sabha to find out the possible areasfor relocation. Kadar are successfully using this pieceof legislation for the governance of their CFR area.Geetha, the Vazhachal hamlet head woman says that‘forest rights act is the only way to attain the self-governance in our area’.

4INCLUSIVITY OF THE ACTS/POLICYAT THE STATE LEVEL AND THELIVES OF KADAR

In this section, the state level policies and acts arediscussed.

4.1 Kerala Forest Act, 1961

The Kerala Forest Act 1961 was enacted with theintention of protecting and managing forests in thestate of Kerala. Forest Settlement Rules 1965 cameunder this and discussed issues related to claims andsettlement of the local community and the duty ofthe settlement officer. The act states that the customaryrights or the rights enjoyed by any forests tribe in theforest should be given special attention and broughtup to the forest settlement officer. No clearance was

17

Law, Environment and Development Journal

55 Interview (over phone) with Dr CTS Nair, Director (Ex),KFRI (09 March 2014).

56 Eacheran Ittiathi v State of Kerala [1966] CDJ 1969 KerHC 254 Ind 3373.

57 ibid 1.58 ibid.

allowed for cultivation, forest produce collection etc.The Kerala Forest Produces Transit Rule 1975elaborates more about the technical issues related tothe exploitation and transportation of timber fromforests. When I interviewed a former director of theKerala Forest Research Institute, he said:

Kerala Forest Act is a virtual copy ofthe Indian Forest Act 1927. Adivasiswere allowed to collect the non-tradeditems or the item which was not indemand for the mainstream economy;thereby some of the local needs wereindirectly satisfied. The contribution ofthe Adivasis made insignificant by thecolonial rule by non-recognition oftheir rights.55

No rights of the Adivasis on timber or forest resourcesare discussed in the act. Timber extraction andmanagement are limited as a matter controlled by thestate and contractors only. As far as Kadar are concerned,the Kerala Forest Act did not impact their rights eventhough their rights were not conferred in it.

4.2 Kerala Hillmen SettlementRules, 1964

Kerala Government set up a rule for the protection,advancement, treatment and management of the HillAdivasis under Section 76 of the Kerala Forest Act1961. This rule aims to preserve the forests for theprotection and advancement of the Hillmen. This rulewas not different from the Travancore Hillmen Rules,1911. According to the hill men settlement rule,headman selection was considered as a main step. Onthe one hand, it gives protection against landalienation, indebtedness and encroachment of triballand etc. On the other hand, it restricts the mobility ofHillmen from their own settlements. Even thoughHillmen was granted the licenses for cultivation, they

were granted no power to claim the land. According tothis rule, the forest department had the authority onboth the resources and the Adivasis. This has alsobeen a unique rule which gave power to Hillmen touse timber for domestic and agricultural purposes andusage of bamboo and cane with governmentpermission. Besides this, it allowed the Hillmenhunting rights for about six months in a year exceptsome animals prohibited explicitly. The Hillmen’sfishing rights were also recognized under these rules.It was also allowed to keep guns in the custody of theheadman for protection. Some conditions were alsoset with the traders/middlemen for the protection ofthe Hillmen. Other minor produces were supposedto be delivered to the department, but the KeralaHillmen Rules 1964 was struck down and declaredvoid and illegal by the High Court of Kerala against apetition filed by Eacheran Ittiathi, a Malay ArayaAdivasi, challenging the constitutional competence ofthe state legislature in framing such rules at the statelevel.56 In the writ filed by the petitioner, it is arguedthat, ‘rules are beyond the competence of the statelegislature and the state Government as the rules dealwith a subject which is not included either in the stateList or in the Concurrent List of Schedule VII of theConstitution’.57 He also contends that ‘the subjectfalls within the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution’.58

Referring to article 244, article 338, 339, 342 in thejudgement, the court concluded that legislationregarding the welfare, protection, advancement, etc.of scheduled tribes is specially provided for and poweris vested in the president and in the parliament to dealwith those matters on which state legislature has nopower to legislate.

This has been the only legislation ever enacted in thehistory of the state of Kerala for recognising the tribalagriculture, headmen system and hunting. Even afterconsidering all the limitations of the rule, this wasstill a unique piece of forest legislation which discussesthe rights of the tribal people to hunt and cultivate.

18

Conservation—A Contested Story: The State and the Kadar Adivasis, India

After the striking down of this rule, such initiativeshave not been made either by the state government orby the central government. This would have been aneffective legislation for the Kadar, had it been in effect.

5CONCLUSION

This paper attempted to analyse some of theimportant policies and laws which are meant for forestconservation and how they impacted a particularAdivasi community living in the Southern part of theWestern Ghats in Kerala. The analysis based on theinterfaces between the cultural institutions of the Kadarand the modern legislations of the State unravels thefact that modern institutions have over ruled thecommunity’s forest governance mechanism – termedas cultural institutions – in most of the cases. It isclear that both philosophically and methodologicallythere have been attempts to exclude the localcommunities, especially the Adivasi communitieswithin the purview of the conservation. The mostlypraised shift in forest protection, which was in 1988,also did not hand over the forest governance to theAdivasis and the concept, ‘participation’ has beenhugely critiqued. On the contrary, the participatoryprogramme has further distanced the people from thenatural resources through initiatives such as ecotourism.There has been reluctance and apathy on the part ofthe forest department in recognising the rights of theAdivasis in the protected areas even after a decade ofthe enactment of the FRA. At the same time, thispaper does not intend to create a dichotomy betweenmodern and traditional in a strict fashion; rather ithighlighted the complex coexistence of both andattempted to bring out this through the conceptualvantage point of interface. Therefore, this paper arguesthat the existing policy and institutional arrangementsneed to be restructured and reformed in constructiveways to improve forest governance in a moredemocratic way.

19

Law, Environment and Development Journal

LEAD Journal (Law, Environment and Development Journal) is jointly managed by theLaw, Environment and Development Centre, SOAS University of London

soas.ac.uk/ledcand the International Environmental Law Research Centre (IELRC)

ielrc.org