Perilous retreat: On gram sabhas, tribal land issues
Gram sabhas must have a veto on issues relating to tribal land
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
The Committee on Public Undertakings has suggested that project approvals on forest land require the consent of only a majority (70%-75%) of affected Gram Sabhas, rather than unanimous consent as intended by the . This editorial argues that this dilution, coupled with the refusing jurisdiction over the matter, threatens the political autonomy, land rights, and survival of tribal communities by reducing Gram Sabhas to mere corporate stakeholders and enabling the state to bypass the most severely affected villages.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
The proposed dilution strikes at the heart of democratic decentralisation and the empowerment of local self-government, a core tenet of the . Under the and the , the is empowered as the statutory authority to protect the cultural identity and community resources of forest dwellers. Reducing the consent requirement from unanimous to a mere majority fundamentally alters the jurisprudence of tribal rights. It transforms the from a democratic, constitutional body safeguarding specific inhabitants' rights into a 'corporate stakeholder' where a majority vote can override the fundamental rights of a severely impacted minority (e.g., a village facing direct submergence by a dam). This allows the state to engineer consent by leveraging less-affected villages against those facing displacement, undermining the core principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).
Governance
This issue highlights a concerning regulatory vacuum and a lack of inter-ministerial coordination. The , the nodal agency for implementing the , has refused to claim jurisdiction over this dilution, citing technicalities regarding the rules for forest diversion. This bureaucratic maneuvering allows the Centre and States unchecked power to rewrite rules governing the diversion of forest land for non-forest use, prioritizing macroeconomic goals (like the Teesta-IV energy project) over the statutorily protected rights of marginalized communities. The editorial argues that any changes to environmental rules or legislation must be done openly and democratically, rather than through executive fiat or bureaucratic obfuscation. The state's stance that the consent requirement was never part of the contradicts the spirit of the legislation, which was enacted to undo historical injustices against forest-dwelling communities.
Social
For Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFDs), land is not merely an economic asset but the foundation of their livelihoods, culture, identity, and political autonomy. The recognizes and vests forest rights and occupation in these communities, aiming to secure their customary collective ownership and protect them from displacement and dispossession. The proposed dilution of the consent clause exacerbates the vulnerability of these communities. Furthermore, the political manipulation of tribal classifications—altering who qualifies as a community member—can be used to split village assemblies and manufacture consent for development projects. The editorial emphasizes that recognizing the social and environmental services provided by ST communities, including their role in meeting India's climate commitments, requires strengthening, not weakening, the powers conferred to them by laws like the and .