The Colonial Legacy of Forest Policies in India

Social Scientist

The Colonial Legacy of Forest Policies in IndiaAuthor(s): Arun BandopadhyaySource: Social Scientist, Vol. 38, No. 1/2 (Jan. - Feb., 2010), pp. 53-76Published by: Social ScientistStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25621956 .Accessed: 30/03/2014 08:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Social Scientist is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Scientist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.119.168.112 on Sun, 30 Mar 2014 08:09:00 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Colonial Legacy of Forest Policies in India

The necessity of a vigorous forest policy was.. .strongly indicated from

the earliest days of British occupation of India, but it was not

understood; and questions which were considered of more immediate

importance pressed its claim into the background. - B. Ribbentrop, Forestry in British India

(Calcutta, 1900; reprint, New Delhi. 1989), p.65.

Without their knowledge, advocates of joint forest management (JFM) are, in effect, reviving and reaffirming Dietrich Brandis's vision for

Indian forestry. Striking parallels can be seen between the ideas of Brandis and the ideas underlying the successful application of JFM in

West Bengal. - Ramachandra Guha,"Dietrich Brandis and Indian Forestry:

A Vision Revisited and Reaffirmed

Forest policies in India have recendy been a subject matter of prolonged discussion among social scientists including historians, economists,

sociologists and anthropologists. While much of this discussion centres on the post-colonial era, a considerable part of it is also devoted to the colonial period. The two views quoted at the beginning of this essay indicate the range of the debate and its implications. However, since

most of the studies view the formation and evolution of forest policies in colonial India in isolation, they fail to relate it both with the broader historical issues of the day and their legacy in the post-colonial era. Part of the failure is rooted in the absence of a detailed study of the evolution of forest policies in the regional context from the multiple ideas and legal discourses involved in the process.

In the context of these pre-occupations of environmental history at

large, I propose to make a study in this paper on the evolution of forest

policies in Madras and Bengal in a comparative historical framework. In this study, the entry point is the colonial era, but it is then extended well into the post-colonial era. In the first part, I have touched very briefly on the questions related to the colonial legacy, chronology and general issues of the forest policies in India, taking nineteenth and twentieth centuries as a whole. In the second part, I have more elaborately dwelt on a few issues of the debate on the making of colonial forest policies in

> c ZD UJ p> ZD CL O

XI PJ CL ZT

PJ ^<

53


Social Scientist

Madras and Bengal, especially issues bearing on the nature of colonial forestry and people's participation in it. In the third part, I have traced the brief history of

'village forestry' in post-colonial South Asia, with special reference to Tamilnadu and West Bengal. In the fourth part, I have very briefly taken up the ecological, technological and participatory issues of post-colonial forest policies to evaluate the apparent signs of continuity and discontinuity. The colonial legacy is

critically judged in this context. The paper ends with a concluding note, urging for a larger historical framework for the analysis of forest policies in India,

highlighting the possibility of a comparative study in environmental history.

I This part begins with a disclaimer. We are not making here a detailed study of the forest policies of any part of India either in the colonial or post-colonial period.

We are more concerned here about identifying and analysing the colonial legacy of forest policies, especially for the later stages of their development. It is assumed here that colonial watershed is an important marker in the evolution of forest policies in India, when compared with the pre-colonial era. Perceptions of the state towards the forests began to change radically from the arrival of British colonial interests in India in the late eighteenth century, "when forests were

increasingly viewed as an asset of the state with great commercial potential"2. However, establishing control of the state over the forests was not easy: there were administrative difficulties and various types of usage rights of the communities over the forests. Seen from a post-colonial framework, the search for a balance between the rights of the state and communities over forests has been stated to be the right focus of forest policies and legislation in India. One

argument as propounded by Ramachandra Guha even finds its replica in the views of Dietrich Brandis, the first Inspector General of Forests in India, on "a collaborative relationship between the state and local communities" in forest

management3. The colonial forest policies in India were, therefore, chequered as they

developed over a century and half. Before the general issues and problems tackled by them are considered, it would be worthwhile to look at the chronology of their evolution. The growth of the forest policies in India was extraordinarily slow. According to Stebbing, the writer of the three volumes of The Forests of India (London, 1922-27), the slow progress was due td the confinement of

"scientific knowledge amongst European officials... almost entirely to the

members of the medical profession". Ribbentrop thinks a mental bloc amongst the early administrators was responsible for the delay, as "forests were

considered as an obstruction to agriculture rather than otherwise, and

consequently a bar to the prosperity of the Empire"4. There were at least three

distinct phases of colonial forest policies in India, one covering the period from

o o rN C> rt 2 _Q CD U_ i rt Z5 C rt rN i

to O

Z 00 PO

~o >

54



1796-1850, the second from the 1850s to the 1880s, and the third from 1894 to

1947. For the post-colonial era, there are at least two distinct phases, one

covering the period from the1950s to the 1970s and the other from the 1980s

onwards.

The chronology of the first colonial phase (1796-1850):

Date Event Personality/Feaures 1796 British Occupation of Malabar Teak still regarded as private

Property 1806 First Conservator of Forest for Captain Watson

for Malabar-Travancore 1820s Plantation against Nathaniel Wallich, Director,

deforestation in Bengal Calcutta Botanical Gardens &

Member, The Asiatic Society of Bengal

1823 Conservatorship in Opposition of Teak merchants Malabar abolished

1831-47 Steps were initiated for change Dr Gibson appointed by Bombay Government as Conservator of Forests in 1847

1847-50 Information regarding the effect Required by the Court of of trees on climate and Directors and the Governor-General

productiveness of India

(Source: Ribbentrop, op. cit)

Chronology of the Forest Policies in the second Colonial phase (1850s-1880s)

Date Event Personality/Feaures 1852 Annexation of Pegu (Burma) Dr McClelland appointed

Superintendent 1855 Memorandum of the GOI on Lord Dalhousie

Forest Conservancy 1856 Superintendent of Forests in Pegu Dietriech Brandis 1856 Conservator of Forests in Madras Dr Cleghorn 1864 Inspector-General of Forests in India Dietriech Brandis

1865 Forest Act VII of 1865 First Forest legislation in India 1878 Forest Act VII of 1878 Reserved & Protected Forests

in all areas except Madras 1882 Madras Forest Act of 1882 Reserved Forests, Reserved Lands

and Open Forests (Source: Ribbentrop & V.PAgarwala, Forests in India)

Chronology of the Forest Policies in the third Colonial Phase (1894-1947):

Date Event Personality/Feaures 1894 Forest Policy of 1894, with a definite Dr Voelcker

for serving the agricultural interests

directly 1906 Imperial Forest Research Institute, Beginning of Forest Working

Dehra Dun Plan under I.G of Forests 1909 Royal Commission on decentralisation Beginning of separate Working

Plan under a Conservator

> c =5 UD PJ Z5 CL o ~~u pj CL ZT ^< PJ

55


Social Scientist

1921-22 Forests became a "transferred" subject Indianisation of IFS begins 1935 Forests became entirely the concern IGF was to concern only with

of the Provinces general issues of Forestry 1939-47 War-time and Post-War Policies Excessive Felling of Private

Forests and their control

(Source: Same)

Chronology of the first Post-colonial phase (1950s-1970s):

Date Event Personality/Feaures 1952 National Forest Policy Enlarging the Forest Policy of 1894

on the basis of "paramount national need" (complementary land use)

1953-55 Abolition of zamindari Control, organisation and

management of erstwhile private forests

1950s "Vana Mahotsava" & Two types of wastelands "Grow More Food" appropriation

1960s "Farm Forestry" & Partial involvement of farmers, "Social Forestry" keeping them away from

management initiative 1970 National Commission Production of industrial wood as a

on Agriculture raison d'etre for the existence of forests

1972 The first Forest Protection Committee A.K.Banerjee, an IFS Officer,

(FPC) formed in Arabari in initiated the outlines of JFM West Bengal

(Source: Buddhadev Chaudhuri, Forest and Forest Development in India)

Chronology of the second post-colonial phase (1980s-1990s):

Date Event Personality/Feaures 1980 Forest Conservation Forest includes any lands containing

Act, 1980 trees or shrubs or pasture lands

1988 National Forest Policy, A new strategy for forest 1988 conservation, sustainability and

rudimentary people's participation was envisaged

1992 National Conservation Afforestation of common lands by

Strategy 8c Policy Statement Local Communities and their involvement for the protection of

existing forests

(Source: Same & Hiremath et al (eds), All about Draft Forest BUI & Forest Lands)

The saga of forest legislation in colonial and post-colonial India, when studied in

a long time framework, may highlight a few general issues, some of which are

repetitive and some historically unique. Four such broad issues can be identified.

1. The material interests of the state, especially the wood requirements for

ship-building, railways, government departments and industries, were the

main driving force for the forest policies of the colonial state, and for a

o o rsi

E -O

I

rd D C _rd^ CM i

to O

Z 00

m

~o >

56



considerable degree even for the national state. The conflict and collaboration of private bodies came largely in the context of sharing of

profits. 2. There is a long history of the desiccationist discourse both in the colonial

and post-colonial periods. While in the colonial period, conservation of forests was often linked with the change of rainfall and climate4, it has been

increasingly connected in post-colonial era with the wider issue of environment and sustainability.

3. In the forest policy formulation process, the colonial bureaucracy was

often in conflict with their respective departments. The conflict between the forest and revenue departments in colonial India is well known6.

Agriculture and Industry's priorities are also often emphasised in the post colonial period. Much of the legal debates and discourses in the framing of forest policies should be read in this context.

4. Different kinds of access of people, both residing in the forests and in the

neighbouring villages, are age-old. Imposition of regulation for the reserved and protected forests of various kinds and limitation of the rights and privileges of people in other forests naturally led to sporadic conflicts between the state and the communities. However, the involvement of communities in the protection and management of forests

- the so-called communal forests in the past and social forests and JFM in the present

- is sometimes felt necessary from the point of view of state, dominant groups at society and people at large. The impact of policies, communities and

participation requires careful investigation in this context.

II Since the substantial part of this paper is concerned with the colonial legacy of the forest policies in India, it is better to concentrate on a few concrete issues on the nature of colonial forestry and people's participation as they developed in Madras and Bengal. The Madras debate refers to the peculiar circumstances of the passing of Madras Forest Act of 1882, thereby giving scope for a re evaluation of Dietrich Brandis as a precursor of JFM, as advocated by Ramachandra Guha. The Bengal case provides materials for critical

investigation of scientific forestry and the circumstances leading to the Forest

Department reaching out to the people in the district of Jalpaiguri. The Forest Act of 1865 provided the legal sanction to the forest

administration in various provinces of India and empowered the colonial state to acquire monopolistic control over India7. It categorised the Indian forest

landscape into 'reserved forests' and 'unreserved forests', and urged the

provinces to follow it. Most of the provinces accepted the Act but the Madras Government opposed the implementation of the Act "on the ground that it

> c D 00 p> D CL o pj CL ZT

57


Social Scientist

would negatively affect the communal rights and privileges of the people"8. Most of the collectors of the Presidency also opposed it.

These policy debates in Madras have been identified by Guha elsewhere9 as

annexationist (represented by Baden Powell), populist (represented by Madras

Government) and pragmatic (represented by Brandis). However, he developed this idea later in this way:

Brandis's faith in the role and capacity of local institutions in forest

management was perhaps most clearly evident in his larger vision of Indian forestry. Even as he was consolidating control of the state over

valuable forest areas, he was also proposing the creation of an extensive,

parallel system of communal forests for village use. A series of reports and memoranda illustrate how the IGF tried for more than a decade to

persuade the colonial government that a strong system of village forests was indispensable to the long-term success of state forestry10.

However, the exact role of Brandis in the framing of the forest policies in

Madras can be evaluated from the following narrative. In accordance with Government of India's instructions to formulate a more effective legal mechanism in Madras, Brandis prepared a Forest Draft Bill in 1869 and

circulated it among the collectors. Majority of the collectors opposed the Draft

Bill and argued that it would deprive the livelihoods of the people in the forests

by restricting the customary access to the resources. The main reason for the revenue officials, opposition was that it did not recognise the powers of the Revenue Department in forest management. Commenting on the nature of

forest tenure in the Madras Presidency, the Board of revenue commented in

1871: Here forests are and always have been common property, no restrictions

except that of taxes, like the Moturpha and Pulaari, was ever imposed on

the people prior to creation of the Forest department and such taxes no

more indicate that the forests belong to the state.11

In spite of the rejection of the Forest Act of 1865 and the Draft Bill of 1869, the Government of India continued to press upon for the forest legislation in the

Madras Presidency. Two forest conferences were held, one at Allahabad and the

other at Simla. Baden Powell argued in Allahabad Conference that a very large

proportion of forests were admitted to be the absolute property of the state.

"The State had not, it is true, exercised that full right; the forest was left open to

any one who chose to use it, but the right was there''12 Another forest conference

was held in Simla under the chairmanship of Dr Brandis. Here many forest

officials held the view that forests were public property and that they should be

managed by the state for public welfare. Some of them advocated that the village communities had not the capacity to manage forests in India. It is important to

note what Brandis himself wrote:

o o rN

rt ZJ L_ JZ) CD

LL. i

rt ZJ c rt

rN

to O

z oo ro

"o >

58



If communal forests are created, their administration would have to be in the hands of the (forest) department, for village communities in India cannot at present be expected to be sufficiendy alive to their own interests.13

The main theme of the legal debate was on the nature of people's rights in forests. Here Brandis's view did not differ much from Baden Powell's. For

Brandis, the forest rights were inherendy limited in nature and could only be exercised as long as the waste lands and forests provided the sources. He pointed out that forest usage in India existed in the form of user rights but not as

property rights. He argued, Villagers who from time immemorial were accustomed to cut and graze in the nearest jungle lands did not acquire a right by prescription,.. .that the state had not exercised its full rights over the forests, which were left open to anyone who chose to use them; but the right of the state was

unimpaired...14 It is important to note that the Governor of Madras Presidency objected to

the Bill not on the ground of communal rights but that of private rights: I believe that this Bill, if passed, will in this Presidency, give rise to grave

^dissatisfaction and will create serious disaffection. I believe that it will do so not because of the native people are averse to the maintenance and

protection of forests, but because the basis and principle of the Bill is the ultimate extinction of all private rights in or over forests or waste lands and their absorption by the Government15.

It is possible to argue that the Governor of Madras as well as some of the collectors, especially of the southern districts, were partly guided by the

opposition of the Mirasidars who were still fighting their last batties. The Government of India was during this time taking a strong view against

the Madras Government. The Secretary to Gol, Revenue and Agriculture was adamant to demarcate the forest lands of Madras as State forests on the one hand and forests to "be protected and improved by the State and under the control of the State" on the other. The Secretary to Gol, Home Department who

happens to no less a person than Mr A.O.Hume, was furious about the financial

implications of the Madras dilemma: But we are helpless and hopeless; and the only apparent remedy is a heroic one, neither more nor less than to take advantage of the existing great financial difficulties to abolish the Governorship of Madras and Bombay and subordinate those provinces to the Government of India in the same

way that Bengal is subordinated. Give us right to interfere and issue orders, and in three years we can engage to alter altogether the prospect for forest revenue in Madras.16

In 1881, the Gol deputed Dr Brandis to prepare forest legislation for the Madras Presidency. He visited Madras districts, and was instrumental in

> c Z3 uo p> Z3 CL O TD PJ CL ZT

^< PJ

59


Social Scientist

framing the Madras Act of 1882. He proposed three types of forests for Madras

Presidency, namely, reserved forests, reserved lands and private forests, and

argued that the forest conservation should not only focus on the silvicultural

operations, but also concentrate on providing for fuel and fodder to the

population. There was no place of village forests in his revised scheme:

Forestry is as yet still a new business in India, and in order to secure success

at the beginning, it is necessary to deal with the problems of forest protection in its easiest form. We must at the outset only undertake the protection of

compact areas of suitable size with convenient boundaries; it will be possible to embark upon a bolder policy and to settle village forests in those tracts

which are better suited for cultivation of them for the growth of timber.17 The Select Committee endorsed, the recommendation of Dr Brandis on

Forest legislation. The Committee was not only for the creation of reserved forests as state property but endorsed the provision for reserved lands:

.. .in all districts there is a considerable extent of land which is not wanted

for cultivation and which contain forest growth or is suitable for

conversion into woodlands. We think that such lands should set apart for

forest purposes...18

The opposition of the Board of Revenue and revenue officials was no longer there, thanks to Brandis's interference. Both revenue imperatives and

agricultural adjustment were behind the promulgation of the Madras Forest Act

of 1882. The multiple voices pronounced during the debate were actually the voices of conflicting departments. The Revenue Department used the demand of

communal rights only as rhetoric to oppose the expansion of the Forest

Department in the Madras Presidency. The Act empowered the Madras

Government to undertake demarcation, reservation and settlement of forests as

state property. It safeguarded the interests of the dominant sections of

zamindars and inamdars by exempting their lands from reservation, and even

created the forest courts for allowing people to appeal against the Forest

Settlement officers. Thus the ideas of Brandis and Baden-Powell had much in

common: both advocated for the monopolistic control of waste and forest lands

by the state, barring the chosen exceptions. In contrast with Madras, Bengal

- for that matter, Jalpaiguri - witnessed the

introduction of forest conservancy fairly early. Concerted efforts were made by the Forest Department to demarcate forest lands, reserving the tracts with

greatest commercial potential during the period 1864-1878. As early as 1877, seven forests of Jalpaiguri Division were declared as reserved19. Brandis visited

northern forests of Bengal both in the plains and the hills several times in 1879.

He gave special attention to scientific forestry with reference to three aspects: fire

protection and roads, cultural operations and timber operations. For him, sheer

ignorance of protective fires was the root cause of the failure of fire protection20.

o o rs

rt

_o 0) LL. i

rt ZD c rt

rN i

CO O

z oo

m

"o >

60



He was one of the early advocates of teak plantation and regeneration of the

taungya system practised by the indigenous people by sowing and tending of forest tree species in conjunction with agricultural crop. However, his pleadings for the taungya cultivation were ignored at that time, to be taken up by the forest authorities much later after 1900 as its significance for the induction of village labour in fire protection and felling operations was increasingly felt. But even

then the measure was half-hearted, and the taungya cultivators had to face many

problems: the plantations were insufficient, the crops and saplings were always at the risk of depredations of wild animals, and the lands were low-lying. For the Rabha tribals in the forest, however, there was no guarantee of "the land, the

house, and other constructions... (as they) belong to the Forest Department of the state government. The forest authority only permits them to enjoy these

temporarily in exchange of their labour rendered to this department on year to

year contract"21. Thus, generally speaking, community forest rights in Jalpaiguri were perceived to be privileges at the discretion of the local bureaucrats including and excluding Brandis, and such grants when made were often partial, half hearted and guided by the urgency of the situation from the forest administration's point of view.

Ill It has been widely acknowledged that the chequered history of forest policies in

post-colonial India - its shifting emphasis, changed directions and continuing

experimentation - is interesting and important as it centres on certain cardinal

issues of cotemporary social change22. These issues are generally grouped in the

ecological, technological and participatory concerns of the localities and communities but they also contain within their respective folds subtie issues of

poverty and equity, institutional and technological interventions and grass roots democracy and bureaucratic perceptions. In order to have clearer, more focussed view of the process of change in this area, this section concentrates on the brief history of 'village forestry' in post-colonial South Asia, with special reference to Tamilnadu and West Bengal. The argument is not only that there was a complex interplay of these issues but that they also overlapped and at the same time were interdependent. A historical understanding of the subject with reference to development in the last fifty years is therefore in order.

From the middle of the nineteenth century, 'scientific forestry' developed in India under the colonial auspices, which could lead to the artificial demarcation of'reserved', 'protected' and 'village' or 'community' forests as they were named in various parts of India23. However, these discourses on scientific forestry could neither stop the progressive commercialisation of forestry of various forms nor the marginalization of its resident communities. Indeed, the administrative infrastructure that was developed during the colonial rule proved grossly

> c ZD uo Ui ZD CL o Ui CL ZT ^< Ui

61


Social Scientist

inadequate in the post-independence era, both from institutional and ideological perspective24. There was a renewed emphasis on social and economic

development in an altogether different plane in the context of a rapidly growing

population. There was a concern for deforestation and development, as

exemplified from the official emphasis on 'Vana Mahotsva' and 'Grow More

Food' in wastelands in the early 1950s. As early as 1948, the Government of India

(hereafter GOI) urged for tree planting as a national festival or Vana Mahotsava in different states in the month of July and the Assistant Secretary, Ministry of

Agriculture, GOI wrote to the Secretary, Development Department, Madras on

23 July 1948: I am directed to forward herewith the copy of appeal issued by the

Honourable Minister for Food and Agriculture... for plantation of quick

growing trees in villages on the 15 August 1948, the first anniversary of

Independence Day. As the plantation of quick-growing trees will result in

making available to the cultivators a suitable fuel in place of cow-dung now

burnt for fuel and thus help to release the latter for its utilisation as manure

for increasing agricultural production, it is requested that the provincial and state governments may give wide publicity to the above appeal and

render all such assistance as may be necessary to the villagers in these areas

for observing tree planting programme on the 15 August 1948.25

Two years later, the Madras Government argued that if the wanton

destructions of the vegetable cover of the soil was to be avoided, "it (wa)s

necessary to arouse consciousness among the masses regarding the value of trees

and instil in them a zeal for planting more trees and protecting them and an

adoration for these gifts of Nature which enrich the earth".26

However, the Vana Mahotsava was not successful, but continued as a ritual

for about 10 years. The important fact was that it failed not only 'ecologically or

'technologically' but people's participation was 'indifferent'. In the 1960s and

1970s, Farm forestry of various types was introduced in different states of India

for the partial greening of the countryside. Here the farmers mainly carried out

block planting of their wastelands but over-dependence on eucalyptus was

ecologically degrading and the lack of dissemination of market intelligence in

terms of prices and products was economically discouraging. The group farm

forestry and the joint industrial forestry also met the similar fate. In the latter

case, many private companies went into liquidation, as the joint project, based

on again eucalyptus and bamboo, was not commercially successful. During the

1970s and 1980s, forest departments of various states were pre-occupied with

large, plantation-oriented social forestry projects, backed by Central

Government, foreign donor agencies and various NGOs. For example, Bihar

State Government, backed by the funding of Swedish International Development

Authority (SIDA), encouraged the programme for the establishment of

o o rN

rt rZ _Q

LL. i C> rt =5 C _rt^ rs i

oo O

z oo

m

"o >

62



nurseries and fast-growing tree plantation in the 1980s, keeping however the

indigenous community separate and isolated from forest management initiative27. These limitations of social forestry project became apparent over

time, encouraging some planners to devise alternative methods of management. Joint Forest Management (JFM), devised as Forest Protection Committees

(FPCs) as early as in the 1970s in certain parts of West Bengal, only became

widely known in the 1980s28. "In 1988 and 1989, Orissa and West Bengal passed state resolutions recognizing the validity of community forest protection. In June 1990, the Government of India passed guidelines notifying the exclusive rights to

forest products be extended to those villages effectively protecting public forest lands. By 1994, sixteen states passed similar orders."29

Thus the history of village forestry in India, from Vana Mahotsava through farm forestry and social forestry down to the joint forest management, makes an interesting reading of social changes in well over 50 years. It is interesting not

only because of the ecological and technological aspects of change, but also because of participatory and by that matter 'good governance> aspects of it. Since our case studies are taken from Tamilnadu and West Bengal, it is important to

begin with a general description of forest management after independence in these two states respectively.

There were various working plans to stop forest felling even during the colonial period. After the Second World Wai:, development schemes were initiated in most of the states in India in addition to regular working plan prescriptions. In the post-independence period, these arrangements were

thought to be on a meagre scale compared to the needs of the situation. There were large-scale fellings in zamindari and other private forests and even landowners began felling their trees under the inducement of high prices obtainable for wood. Thus considerable areas of forests of former princely states, of former zamindaris and even of private ownership came to stand in

urgent need of special measure of large-scale rehabilitation. The extension of cultivation encouraged by Government-sponsored Grow More Food

campaigns also resulted in much clearing of forest areas. Inevitably, the pressure of a rapidly increasing population, the improvement demand of the forest for wood and the growing imbalance of the land under permanent vegetation (forests) and land under cultivation highlighted the crucial issue of forest

management in ecologic and economic terms in both the states of Tamilnadu and West Bengal.

In Tamilnadu, development work other than normally prescribed in the

Department's working plans began with the First Five Year Plan. The panchayat forests and some zamindari forests were taken over. Certain soil conservation

experiments were made in the Nilgiris. Casuarinas, dry fuel spices, soft woods, watde and blue gums were planted. Measures of forest conservancy and related

> c ZD UD CD ZD CL O "O PJ CL ZT ^< PJ

63


Social Scientist

prescriptions prohibiting goats in forests, limiting grazing incidence to the

capacity of fodder resources, regulating supplies of small timber, fuel and other

produce to the villagers etc., were introduced. Documents suggest that the Government was anxious to remove in some cases serious grievances caused by forest conservancy, as a sort of liaison between forest and people but its limitation was obvious. Moreover, expenditure on forestry and forest administration was confined to a small part of the revenue derived from the forests29. Indeed, the success of the Department was mainly measured in terms of its annual surplus only. The result was that forests especially in dry and naturally poor localities in Tamilnadu suffered progressively for want of special works of

'improvement' meaningful to the people. A way out was sought by the schemes under the Second Five Year Plan.

Forestry schemes such as commercial and industrial plantation, rehabilitation of degraded forests, extension of forestry by way of tree planting along roads, canal banks, rail roads, river margins, preservation of wild life and better

housing and other amenities of staff, labour and forest tribes were made in

certain measure. However, forest departments were mainly concerned with

afforestation of eroded and denuded hills and forest working plans were mainly

providing for the formation of timber population and even that on a limited

scale necessary for ensuring regeneration. During the Third Five Year Plan, work was expanded systematically to areas

outside the regular forests, by way of extension forestry, involving extensive

planting of trees, in grove as well as in wastelands. An important objective was

the establishment of farm and community forestry that began to be explored

during the 1960s and early 1970s. The most significant among the early initiatives

in this venture was found in Tamilnadu31. Farm forestry scheme were extended to tree planting and forestry activities to areas outside departmental forests. The

foremost plan of the project was to create local fuel resources and thus free the

agricultural population from dependence on village forests for small

requirements.

Farm forestry subsequently developed into social forestry that meant the

management and protection of forests and afforestation of barren lands with

the avowed objective of environmental, social and rural development. Its aim

was to create goods and services for the consumption, primarily of rural poor. Here the forest department was expected to play the role of educationist and

catalyst by providing the needful technical and other services. In Tamilnadu, farm land below a tank and/or watered by a system of canals are known as

ayacuty whereas the village common land for grazing is known as poratnboke lands. The main components of social forestry in Tamilnadu were plantations on tank foreshores and poratnboke lands. Here the central concept that evolved

over time was to create forest-based resources in rural areas through the full

o o

rt E -O

rt D C rt rs i

oo O

z co

m

~o >

64



improvement of local people in their capacity as individuals as well as members of the village community.

The experiences of West Bengal in forest management in the early years after

independence were similar to those of Tamilnadu. One outstanding feature was the taking over possession of the most of private forests of the state by the Forest

Department consequent on the implementation of the West Bengal Estate

Requisition Act, 1953 (Act I of 1954) and also the transfer of forest areas of Manbhum and Purnea from Bihar to West Bengal, with effect from 1 November 1956. Here also a great drive was made to Vana Mahotsava and wild life

preservation activities during 1955-196032. The gross area under forest was 13.3

percent of the total geographical area of the state. In 1960, the total area of forest of all classes in West Bengal stood at 4,535 sq. miles of which the reserved forests,

protected forests and other forests comprised 2691 sq. miles, 1573 sq. miles and 271 sq. miles respectively. The tempo of development work in forest was reflected in the increased supply of timber to the Indian Railways and to various

government departments and private wood-based industries like plywood, match wood, packing case etc.

One result of this policy of use of forest was the progressive degradation of it. In 1981, West Bengal had the highest population density of any state in India and lowest per capita forest area (0.02 hectare per person). Rural need for fuel wood and non-wood forest products resulted in uncontrolled exploitation that threatened the very existence of the remaining forests of the state33. Conflicts and

mistrust between foresters and rural communities increased. However, a novel solution developed as a result of the unique activities of a silviculturist (an Indian Forest Service Officer) in 1972 in eleven villages surrounding Arabari, thirty km. To the north of Midnapore, followed by the development of the first Forest Protection Committee (FPC).34 Here the villagers agreed to protect the natural sal forest from fuel woodcutting in return of 25 per cent of all revenue generated from the sale of firewood and timber. The idea was reshaped in mid-eighties to cover the degraded forest areas of Bengal in participatory management, which is known as Joint Forest Management (JFM)35. In JFM, political support has been enlisted in an institutionalised form by often tying it up with the Panchayats. It has been estimated in 1997 that there were 3112 FPCs under JFM in West Bengal, holding over an area of 521,118 hectares with 374,322 beneficiary families.36 Thus in West Bengal, foresters were made accountable to community groups, micro

plans were introduced, and a new analytic and administrative framework for

supporting those plans were also created increasingly since the middle of the 1980s.

In West Bengal, a number of field research findings highlight certain crucial

aspects of JFM. Indian Institute of Bio-social Research and Development (IBRAD) and the Department of Forest, Government of West Bengal in their

> c =5 GO CD Z3 CL O ~o CD CL ZT CD

65


Social Scientist

study of sal regeneration in east Midnapore show that there has been remarkable

regeneration in the forestlands in the area after the formation of FPCs under

JFM programme.37 It is important to note that increase of vegetation cover has enhanced Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFP) production, which is

important for the sustenance for the people as well as the village economy. P.

Bhattacharya, S.B.Roy and R.K.Bhadra suggest that very few families within the FPCs have started inter-cropping on the protected forestlands in Baikanthapur Division in North Bengal. "The community as well as the Forest Department is not very clear about the related factors like suitable soil conditions, supply of seed in proper time, manure, insecticide, proper spacing method, suitability of the crops for the area and season, aftercare and protection from wild animals etc. Few families have got better returns and some of them have even faced losses."38 K.C.Malhotra and others made a study on the role of NTFP in the

village economy of southwest Bengal. A total of 216 households belonging to

tribal and caste population from 12 FPCs in Jamboni range of Midnapore district were studied. The local communities used the forest products for various

purposes. This use of NTFP from the forest was mainly concentrated on 73

plants including trees, shrubs, climbers, fungi, grass and two animal species. The

"maximum utilisation of NTFP was found to be used as food, followed by fuel, medicine etc. Although most of the species were commonly used by tribals and

the caste population, some of the species like mahua flower, bakhar root and the

karkut (ants) were consumed exclusively by the tribals."39 As regards the food

items, kendu fruits were mostly raised, followed by mushroom, tubers and leafy

vegetables. However, there was a genuine problem of marketing infrastructure

for the disposal of the product, as exemplified by a case study of mushroom40.

The role of women in utilisation of natural resources has been highlighted

by a study of Mitali Chatterjee.41 It is argued that the Government Order in 1989 on FPCs in West Bengal did not recognise the role of women in forest protection, a mistake that was rectified by a G.O. dated November 1991. As primary and

more frequent users of forest resources, women played an important role in the

management and decision-making and were formally recognised as voting members of local management groups. But there was a paradox in women's

involvement in forest resources, which could not be resolved without their

further engagement. As traditional users, they could readily identify offenders, but by an extension of the argument sometimes they could become the offenders

themselves. Chatterjee writes, This is significant in light of the fact sometimes critical situations develop wherein male members of the forest protection committee are unable to

take any action against the female offender for fear of consequences. Here

an example deserves to be added. Dukhu Tudu, an old tribal man of Dahi

village under the Khajra forest beat of Midnapore district of West Bengal,

o o rN

rt 2 _o CD

LL.

rt

C rt

rN

CO o

z CO

m

~o >

66



once came upon a few women who were involved in indiscriminate cutting of trees in nearby forest. Dukhu tried to prevent them from damaging the forest but women refused to listen to him. He tried to stop them by snatching away all their axes, but in turn, it was he who was blamed for

misconduct. Those women complained to their husbands against Dukhu

Tudu, accusing him physical attack and molestation. The men from the

village of these women offenders then came in a group seeking revenge with the result that Dukhu Tudu suffered serious head injuries. This is no isolated case; there have been many such incidents and consequendy men have not dared to catch women offenders. Even some of the staff members of the forest department are scared of preventing women from such unlawful acts. But if women themselves are involved and given the

responsibility of forest management, they can work very effectively, and the problem of forest protection and economic status of women can be tackled simultaneously.42

The combination of male and female participation in certain types of work is also noticeable. Madhumati Dutta and Manasi Adhikari's study of sal leaf

plate making in Sabalmara, West Midnapore shows that it is a household

industry, largely done by women folk, although male members of the family also

participate. However, the main problem faced by the producers is that they receive a very low price for the product and the return to labour is the lowest in the industry.43

Local institutions also do count in effective management of forest resources. But what was their exact role and what did the people expect from them in West

Bengal in the 1990s? S.K.Maity and K.Bhattacharya have enquired the institutional role of the panchayat in JFM programme into some villages of

Khargpur and Jhargram Social Forestry Ranges in Midnapore44. It has been found that about 58.8 percent of the respondents observed that the panchayats played no role in farm forestry programme, while 24 per cent admitted that they encouraged farmers through meetings and group discussion to adopt the

programme and another 22 percent perceived that panchayat distributed

seedlings, fertilizers and insecticide supplied by the forest department. However, a more- active involvement of the panchayats in JFM was expected by a

predominant number of respondents (81.6 percent). The study of Mridul Manna and a team of researchers from Regional Research and Study Centre (RRSC), Midnapore shows that JFM was encouraging in a number of villages in the vicinity of forests in the district of Bankura, Midnapore West and Purulia not

only because of the 'greening experience' but also of their 'participatory experience' in this programme45.

> c D CP PJ Z3 CL O "O PJ CL ZT ^< PJ

67


Social Scientist

IV This paper is not concerned with the detailed study of post-colonial forest

policies of India, along with the concomitant issues. It is concerned more with the colonial legacy in forest policies, their apparent signs of continuity and

discontinuity in cotemporary India. Indeed, the chronology of the first phase (1950-1980) of forest policies in post-colonial India indicated significant elements of continuity, barring the solitary instance of Arabari experiment in

West Bengal. Except declaring that Indian forests would be henceforward guided by "paramount national need", the National Forest Policy of 1952 was largely a

continuation of the Forest Policy of 189446. The control and organisation of

private forests by government had already stated in the 1940s and the First Five Year Plan documents "about 40 million acres of zamindari forests have recently vested in state governments and many of these, having been over-felled in recent

years require re-afforestation".47 The Second Five Year Plan document indicates the actual extent (over 20 million acres) of forest land under private ownership and management that "was brought under state control and the administrative set up was strengthened to deal with additional responsibility".48 The

government policies towards forest industries and minor forest products

changed to the extent of long term leases of bamboo forests were given to the

Paper Mills during the First Plan period to avoid direct capital outlay of the

state49 and long term programme was undertaken during the Third Five Year

Plan period (1961-66) for planting quick-growing species, including eucalyptus.50

Scientific Forestry and people's participation in forests continue to remain as two important aspects of post-colonial forest policies in India. K.

Sivaramkrishana has shown that in the wake of the Private Forests Act of 1948

that the erstwhile private forests of western Midnapore not only participated in

a nationwide effort to consolidate central control over forest resources but also

served as instruments for altering the species composition of dry deciduous

forests of south-west Bengal with the introduction of eucalyptus and akashmani

plantation for quick production of industrial raw materials that made them so

attractive.51

As regards the second phase (1980s- 1990s) of forest policies in post-colonial India, there is no doubt that very significant changes have taken place associated

with the country-wide introduction of JFM. Most importantly, participatory

perspectives highlight cardinal aspects of social and political changes in

contemporary India. Some of its new features definitely go beyond the colonial

legacy, In an apparent sense, it can even be treated as a remarkable discontinuity in the colonial legacy of forest policies in India. But even here, there are some

discordant notes. Akhileswar Pathak has shown that private forests after its

liquidation in the 1950s came back in a big way in the 1980s and 1990s, in the

o o cN c> rt ZJ L_ _Q

LL. i

rt ZJ C rt

CN

CO o

z CO

m

~o >

68



wake of the recommendation of the National Commission of Agriculture, 197652. In the early 1990s, a whole book was published by Samaj Parivartan

Samudaya, Dharwad in collaboration with Centre for Tribal Conscientization, Pune, containing articles that spoke against the National Forest Policy 1988 and

privatization of forest lands by commercial and industrial interests.53 The three issues of the post-colonial village forestry

- ecological,

technological and participatory - should be separately underscored here. The

ecological imperatives of the village forestry in its various forms stem from the

experience of diversified resource use of land and forest products under highly variable climatic conditions. There was a time-tested requirement of sub

marginal or fragile lands under low intensity uses like natural vegetation as

against annual cropping. Consider the case of Interface Forestry or that of Agro forestry in Dry Land or the Community Development Wasteland Programme in Tamilnadu: in each case marginal lands, wastelands or lands in degraded forests were involved for 'improvement' for the 'good' of the community However, a distinction has to be made between plantations of commercial timber/wood for use of government, contractors or people on the one hand and the more diversified use of forest products for food and non-food purposes. For example, the enthusiasm 'to plant eucalyptus declined after 1986' as they failed to generate profitable returns and proved to be less sustainable.54

The technological focus was addressed to break a vicious circle involving degradation-neglect-further degradation of the broadly defined CPRs. It is to be seen that productivity was not the only question but there were other related issues. Persistent gaps between the perspectives of the technologists and resource users provided an issue to be constandy handled by the resource managers. Other difficulties arose from frequent high priorities to commercial considerations by the technologists ignoring the CPR perspective. The emphasis on NTFP was one such perspective that was duly incorporated in JFM programme in West Bengal.

The participatory question was very important as it highlighted the

grassroots level democratisation of resource management system and

participatory development process. The question, however, had its bearing on the ecological and technological aspects of change in forest management in

contemporary South Asia. For example, much useful ecological knowledge and the idea of appropriate technology came from indigenous communities engaged in forest management55. Participatory perspectives also reduced the cost of

policing and subsidizing the resources necessary for other forms of forest

management. But there must be incentives56. Though local responsibilities very often rest with the poor in the management of local resources, participatory development can only grow with institutional assistance, within a favourable

political space57. However, most importandy, the participatory perspectives

> c ZD UO CD D CL O "O CD CL ZT CD

69


Social Scientist

highlight two cardinal aspects of social changes in contemporary India. First, as an offshoot of grassroots democratisation involved in the process, other issues like gender or equity became more and more prominent. Secondly, it also

envisaged a significant change in the attitude of forester involved in the formation of participatory forest management.

The second point requires further illustration. For instance, only very

recently it has been appreciated that generally "both dependence and influence of forest guards on villagers as well as the reverse situation has a critical influence on the implementation of any forest policy.

"58 Indeed, much of the explanation of the gap between policy and implementation in forest management in

contemporary India may be found in the hitherto unexplored interactions, conflicts and negotiations that occurred between the ground-level implementer and forest society at large.

Naturally, the expectation from a forester phenomenally rose during this

period. It is no wonder, therefore, that the Training Manual of Joint Forest

Management prepared by S.B.Roy and Mitali Chatterjee on behalf of Indian

Institute of Bio-social Research and Development (IBRAD), New Delhi retain a

full chapter each on their 'Social Skills' and on their 'Motivation'59. These changes are unusual and they are meaningful only with the reference to broader process of social change in post-colonial South Asia.

Two pertinent concepts as emanating from people's stake-holding in forest

management in the late twentieth century should be placed under critical

appreciation at the end. They are the concepts of community and participation,

concepts which appear in various forms in the entire history of forest policies in

India. Arun Agarwal in particular has investigated the concept of community in

relation to conservation and has focussed on its two aspects: (a) community-as shared understandings and (b) community-as-social organisation.60

"Community-as-shared-understandings is what accounts for the appeal of the

notion, but policy changes can accomplish little to directly further this aspect of

community. Indeed, most concrete policy proposals to involve communities in

conservation generally address its social organisation."61 On the other hand, Nandini Sundar and Roger Jeffery wish to view the terms 'community' and

'participation' as significant grounds of contestation62. Several questions are

naturally raised. How has the history of Indian forests been conceptualised? What kinds of'community' are presupposed and what gets elided or distorted in

the formulation? Why is 'participation' such a central value and how is it

constructed so that 'participation' can be managed? How useful is the concept of

'sustainability' in forest management? While the possible answer for these

questions are to be sought mainly from the post-colonial history of Indian

forests for understandable reasons, the colonial legacy of forest policies may not

always be an altogether irrelevant theme.

o o rN

rt 2 _Q

70



V It is time for winding up. Two brief conclusions can be drawn from this study of colonial legacy of forest policies in India. First, forest policies, whether for colonial or post-colonial era, are to be studied in the larger context of social

history of environment. It will not only help us to look beyond the looking glass of the Forest Ranger, but also situate the forest dwellers and the related stakeholders in their social settings. Secondly, forest policies are to be studied in a comparative framework, both in terms of time and space. In other words, a

comparative study in environmental history may be a valid framework for

analysis of forest policies as well. It may not be mere wonder that while Madras was the last to "shed" its claim over community forest in colonial era in the

1880s, Bengal was to "stake" its claim for community participation for the first time in the post-colonial era, in the 1970s. Such comparisons may be at once

intellectually productive and suggestive.

Arun Bandopadhyay is the Nurul Hasan Professor of History, University of Calcutta, Kolkata.

y This paper was read at the Indo-Japanese Conference on South Asian Economy and

Environment organised by Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Advanced Study, Jawaharlal Nehru University, University of Tokyo and Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi on 5-6 September 2009.

Notes

1 Marc Poffenberger and Betsy McGean (eds), Village Voices, Forest Choices: Joint Forest Management in India (New Delhi, 1996), pp.96-97.

2 Mark Poffenberger and Chhatrpati Singh, "Communities and State: Re

establishing the Balance in Indian Forest Policy" in Marc Poffenberger and Betsy McGean (eds), Village Voices, Forest Choices: Joint Forest Management in India

(New Delhi, 1996), p.58. This is also largely the view of Gadgil and Guha, This Fissured Land: An Ecological History of India (New Delhi, 1992).

3 Ramachandra Guha, "Dietrich Brandis and Indian Forestry: A Vision Revisited and Reaffirmed" in Poffenberger and McGean (eds), op. cit., p.86.

4 B.Ribbentrop, Forestry in British India (Calcutta, 1900; reprint, New Delhi, 1989), p.66.

5 The classic discussion of the desiccationist discourse for the colonial period is available in Richard Grove, Green Imperialism, colonial expansion, tropical island Edens and the origins of Environmentalism 1600-1800 (Delhi 1995).

> c ZD UD PJ ZD CL O "O PJ CL ZT

^< PJ

71


Social Scientist

6 See K. Sivaramakrishnan, Modern Forests: Stateaking and Environmental Change in Colonial Eastern India (New Delhi, 1999).

7 "(T)hough the Oriental Governments, from which the British Government inherited its forest property, never recognized a prescriptive right, it had to be admitted that, under the system originally in vogue, and which had remained entirely unchecked for sometime after the British occupation, rights of user had in some instances been acquired by the legal process of prescription, in consequence of the substitution, or at least intermixture, of Western laws and ideas, in cases

where it had been exercised neither by force nor secretly, but fully, openly and unchecked for 62 years." B.Ribbentrop, op.cit., p. 97.

8 V.M.Ravi Kumar, Evolution of Forest policies in Colonial Madras Presidency (Andhra), 1870-1947: A Study in Ideas and Legal Discourses (Unpublished Ph,D thesis, University Hyderabad, 2006), p. 134.

9 Guha and Gadgil, This Fissured Land, op. cit.

10 Guha in Poffenberger and McGean (eds), op. cit.

11 Ravi Kumar, op.cit., p. 153

12 B.H.Baden-Powell and J.S.Gamble (eds) Report of the Proceedings of the Forest

Conference held in Allahabad, 1873-74 (Calcutta, 1874), p.5.

13 Dietrich Brandis and A.Smythies (eds), Proceedings of the Forest Conference held in Simla (Calcutta,1875), p.35

14 D.Brandis, Memorandum of forest legislation proposed for British India other than the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras (Simla, 1875), p. 13.

15 Minute by the Governor of Madras, 9 February 1878, quoted in D .Brandis, Memorandum on the Demarcation of the Public Forests in the Madras Presidency

(Simla, 1878), p.40.

16 Cited in Akhileswar Pathak, Law, Strategies, Ideologies: Legislating forests in Colonial India (New Delhi, 2002)

17 D.Brandis, Suggestions Regarding Forest Administration in the Madras Presidency (Madras, 1883), p. 7.

18 Ibid.?p.281.

19 See Sahara Ahmed, Desecrated Homelands: Village, Forest and Social Protest in the

Jalpaiguri District, 1869-1947 (Unpublished M.Phil thesis, University of Calcutta 1999), p.50.

20 D. Brandis, Suggestions regarding the Management of the Forests in the J jalpaiguri and Darjeeling Districts, Bengall880 (Calcutta, 1880), p.6.

21 M.K.Raha, The Rabhas of West Bengal (Calcutta, 1967), p.30.

22 See Aun Bandopadhyay, "Three Issues from a CPR Management: Village Forestry in Post-colonial South Asia" in B.B.Chaudhuri and Arun Bandopadhyay (eds), Tribes, Forest and Social Formation in Indian History (New Delhi, 2004), pp.209 224. The present section is largely based on the study.

o o

D L jQ


23 See Madhav Gadgil and Ramachandra Guha, This Fissured Land: An Ecological History of India (Delhi, 1992), pp.113-145 and Ecology and Equity: the use and abuse of nature in contemporary India (New Delhi, 1995), pp.148-175.

24 See Subhabrata Palit, "Indian Forest Departments in Transition" in Mark

Poffenberger and Betsey McGean (ed.), Village Voices, Forest Choices: Joint Forest Management in India (Delhi, 1998), pp.210-229.

25 See Development Department, Madras, G.O.4123, dt.6.8.1948, Tamilnadu

Archives (hereafter TNA).

26 See Food and Agriculture Department G.O.Ms No 1108, dt. 7.6.1950. TNA.

27 See Mark Poffenberger, Betsy McGean, Arvind Khare,"Communities Sustaining India's Forests in the Twenty-first Century" in Poffenberger and McGean (ed),

op.cit., p.32.

28 See Mark Poffenberger, "The Resurgence of Community Forest Management in

the Jungle Mahals of West Bengal" in David Arnold and Ramachandra Guha, Nature, Culture, Imperialism: Essays on the Environmental History of South Asia

(Delhi, 1995), pp.350-354.

29 See Poffenberger, McGean, Khare in Poffenberger and McGean, op. cit., pp.26 27. These guidelines were transformed into legislation, which was given wide publicity and possible extension in meaning in the 1990s. As Justice P.N.Bhagwati (former Chief Justice of India) wrote in April 1996, "I find that, unfortunately, laws for the protection of the forests are highly theoretical and unjust.. .These laws are conceived in the offices of the bureaucrats and the chambers of the concerned minister, regardless of the situation prevailing at the ground level and totally ignoring the lifestyle of the forest denizens. The answer lies in including the people residing in the forest regions and eking their daily living from forest produce, taking them into confidence and giving them an effective voice in the policy decisions affecting forest management." See Justice Bhagwati's Foreword to the

study sponsored by Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra, Dehra Dun,

Community Forest Management in Protected Areas - Van Gujjars, Proposal for the

Rajaji Area (New Delhi, 1996), p.i. 30 See D.Janaki, History of Forest Administration in Tamilnadu, 1935-1967

(unpublished Ph.D thesis, Department of Indian History, University of Madras, 1990), p. 144.

31 See G.Foley and G.Barnard, Farm and Forestry (London, 1984), pp. 14-15.

32 See Forest Department, Government of West Bengal, Review of the Forest Administration in West Bengal from April 1, 1955 to March 31, 1960 (Alipore, 1964).

33 See Mark Poffenberger, "Joint Management for Forest Lands: Experiences from South Asia. A Ford Foundation Program Statement" (mimeo, New Delhi, January 1990), p.9.

34 Ibid., p. 10. See also Mark Poffenberger,"The Resurgence..." in Arnold and Guha, op. cit, pp.351-352.

35 "In the early 1980s, recognizing the success of Arabari and a few other villages

> C =3 uo ZD CL O TD ^ CL ZT

73


Social Scientist

where management agreements with forest communities were being made, some

senior forest officers began to encourage field staff to pursue similar negotiations in wider areas throughout the south-western part of the state." See Poffenberger in

Arnold and Guha, op.cit., p.353.

36 See S. Palit, "Joint Forest Management in West Bengal" in Annual Report 1996

97 and Proceedings of Annual Workshop, Regional Centre, National Afforestation and Eco-Development Board (Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government

of India, 1997), p.67. Hereafter, the volume is referred to as Annual Report 1996 97 and Proceedings.

37 See IBRAD and Department of Forest, Government of West Bengal, "Study of the Vegetation Dynamics in Regenerating Sal Forest of Moupal Beat, East Midnapore Forest Division, District Midnapore, West Bengal" in S.B. Roy and Mitali Chatterjee, Joint Forest Management, A Training Manual (New Delhi, 1994), pp.145-146.

38 See P. Bhattacharya, S.B Roy and R.K.Bhadra, "Scope of Intercropping Practices

on Protected Forest Lands of North Bengal -

Ecological and Economic

Perspective" in Ibid., p. 148.

39 See K.C.Malhotra, Debal Deb, M. Dutta, T.S. Vasulu, G. Yadav and M. Adhikari, "Role of Non-Timber Forest Produce in Village Economy" in Ibid., p. 150.

40 ".. .in the marketing arena, there is a need for marketing assistance programmes, which would help in giving information regarding local and domestic markets and new opportunities, export assistance network, and trade fairs/exhibition." See

Vanita Suneja, S.B.Roy, and J.K. Das, "Marketing of Mushroom" in S.B.Roy and

Mitali Chatterjee, op. cit., p. 153.

41 See Mitali Chatterjee, "Women in Joint Forest Management A case study from

West Bengal" in Mitali Chatterjee and S.B.Roy (ed.) Reflections from Training on Gender Issues (New Delhi, 1994), pp.47-68.

42 Ibid.,p.57.

43 See Madhumati Dutta and Manasi Adhikari, "Sal Leaf Plate Making in West

Bengal: A Case Study of the Cottage Industry in Sabalmara, West Midnapore" in

Roy and Chatterjee, Joint Forest Management, op.cit., p. 149.

44 See S.K.Maity and K.Bhattachrya, "Farm Forestry" in Annual Report 1996-97 and

Proceedings, op.cit., pp.71-72.

45 See Mridul Manna, "Some Experiences of Afforestation involving People in Bihar and West Bengal" in Ibid., pp.75-76: "A time has come when RRSC workers need not go to the village to motivate villagers. Rather the villagers come to RRSC workers to motivate them so that they could undertake new ventures according to

villagers' need and spread to areas where there is lack of afforestation."

46 Buddhadev Chaudhuri, Forest and Forest Development in India (New Delhi, 1989), p. 144

47 Planning Commission, Government of India, The First Five Year Plan, 1950-55

(New Delhi, 1953), p.129.

o o

_Q CU U_ i

nj D C

CM I

CO O

z co PO

>

74



48 Planning Commission, Government of India, the Second Five Year Plan 1956-61

(New Delhi, n.d.), p. 301.

49 The First Five Year Plan, op.cit., p. 129-30

50 Planning Commission, Government of India, The Third Five Year Plan 1961-66 (New Delhi, n.d.), p.365.

51 K. Sivaramakrishnan, "Landlords, Regional Development and National Forestry

Projects: Midnapore, 1930s-1960s" in Roger Jeffery and Nandini Sundar (eds), A New Moral Economy for Indian Forests? Discources of Community and Participation (New Delhi, 1999), pp.88-89.

52 Akhileswar Pathak, "Law, Private Forestry and Markets" in N.C.Saxena and Vishwa Ballabh (eds), Farm Forestry in South Asia (New Delhi, n.d.), pp.50-68.

53 S.R.Hirenath, Sadanand Kanwalli and Sharad Kulkarni (eds), All About Draft Forest Bill and Forest Lands: Towards Policies and Practices as if People Mattered, (with a) Forward by Chandi Prasd Bhatt (Dharwad and Pune, 1994).

54 See N.C.Saxena, 'Farm Forestry in different Agro-Ecological Regions of India',

p.4, cited in N.H.Ravindranath, Madhav Gadgil and Jeff Campbell, "Ecological Stabilization and Community Needs: Managing India's Forest by Objective" in Poffenberger and McGean(ed), op. cit., p.294.

55 Consider, for example, the arguments of Dev Nathan and Govind Kelkar for the establishment of forest communities' property rights over forests in "Case for Local Forest Management, Environmental Services, Internalisation of Costs and Markets" in Economic and Political Weekly (hereafter EPW), Vol.XXXVI No 30 (July 28-August 3, 2001). For them, "this local knowledge of the forest communities is indispensable to developing higher productivity-based multiple use forest systems, based on ecosystem rather than single product management. Community management, or local interest management, rather than

management by forest departments, can best harness this knowledge for effective forest management." Ibid., pp.2839-2840.

56 This seems to be a common lesson from the environmental projects elsewhere. See Michael Stahl, "Environmental Rehabilitation in the Northern Ethiopian Highlands: Constraints to People's Participation" in Dharam Ghai and Jessica M.Vivian (ed.) Grassroots Environmental Action, People's Participation in Sustainable Development (London and New York, 1995). Stahl concludes," The incentives must be directed to households and individuals, as well as to common resources such as village woodlots. Villagers do not plant and tend woodlots productively unless there are rules and procedures for how households can benefit from the collective enterprise by securing fuelwood and construction material for their individual needs." Ibid., p.298.

57 See Philippe Egger and Jean Majeres, "Local Resource Management and development: Strategic Dimensions of People's Participation" in Ghai and Vivian(ed), op. cit., pp.304-324.

58 See Sudha Vasan, "Ethnography of the Forest Guard, Contrasting Discourses, Conflicting Roles and Policy Implementation" in EPW, Vol. XXXVII No. 40 (October 5-11, 2002), p.4132.

> c zd uo zd Cl O ~u Ql zt

75


Social Scientist

59 See Roy and Chatterjee, op. cit., Chapters 5 and 6. Consider, for example, the two

observations made in the Manual. "Even if few persons agree to form FPC it is very difficult to unite. Villagers have different group affiliations, political ethos, cultural norm and are influenced by several other groups. This causes conflict and

may be resolved through social skills which have been developed based on several researches on social science. Once the foresters learn to manage man, they can

manage the forest flora and fauna more effectively" (Ibid., Chapter 5, Social Skills', p.59). See also Chapter 6, 'Motivation', p.90: "To be more precise, people do not destroy forest for want of fuel only. That means people will not stop destroying the forest when one provides them with fuel... .One has to examine the

whole experiment in a historical perspective where foresters as a government

agency have certain norms in their mind that by providing some material or economic gain to the community the problem could be solved. The people called have their own perception of government departments and

government dole. We may call it the cultural values in this regard. In order to judge the impact of such an event one has to examine the conditions and attitude of the

people before and after the programme."

60 Arun Agarwal, "Community-in-Conservation: Tracing the Outlines of an

Enchanting Concept" in Jeffery and Sundar (eds), op,cit, pp.92-107.

61 Ibid.,p.l05.

62 "Introduction" in Ibid., pp. 16-54.

o o CNl

2 -Q CD

U_

rtf D C

rs i

CO o

z 00

m

~o >

76


Article Contentsp. 53p. 54p. 55p. 56p. 57p. 58p. 59p. 60p. 61p. 62p. 63p. 64p. 65p. 66p. 67p. 68p. 69p. 70p. 71p. 72p. 73p. 74p. 75p. 76

Issue Table of ContentsSocial Scientist, Vol. 38, No. 1/2 (Jan. - Feb., 2010), pp. 1-92Front MatterEditorial [pp. 1-2]Maidan: The Open Space in History [pp. 3-22]Dominance and Resistance: A Study of Narasimha Reddy's Revolt in Andhra (1846-47) [pp. 23-36]Technical Content and Colonial Context: Situating Technical Knowledge in Nineteenth Century Bengal [pp. 37-52]The Colonial Legacy of Forest Policies in India [pp. 53-76]Centenary of Martyrdom of Four Militant Nationalists of Bengal [pp. 77-87]Book ReviewReview: untitled [pp. 88-91]

Back Matter