By : Jubilate Kazingmei 11/24/2007 1:57:08 AM
Law is defined as “a body of principles recongnized and applied by the state in the administration of justice”. But India being a melting pot of different people and culture; law making is often influenced by the interest of the dominate groups of people at the cost of the smaller ones. Democratic principles allows protest against such laws that violates the rights of people however, small they may be. Tribals in the country particularly in the North East until recent years had no accessibility whatever and were left on their own by successive rulers of he country. Literacy came late and nothing is one record not even their ownership of land an their access and control over the forest. This has made the tribals in India most vulnerable because in legal terms such ownership is on mere assumption.
The paradigm shift in forest policy from conservation, production and commercial oriented to the global concern now for environmental stability, maintenance of ecological balance and atmospheric equilibrium has warranted enactment of new laws concerning forest which threatens the relationship of tribals with their land. For every road constructed in the hill districts of Manipur by the BRTF compensation is claimed by the respective DFOs on ground that by dictionary meaning of forest irrespective of ownership forest of India is affected by the road construction works and that compensation should be paid to the department. This is legitimized by Supreme Court order of 1996. This interpretation of the court has threatened our ownership over all unclassified and protected forest as in legal terms if ownership is not on record as normally done in mainland India, it is only a wishful thinking that they belong to us. The Govt. is now trying to back up this interpretation of the Supreme Court by enacting laws that will permanently alienate the tribals from their own land.
It is definitely on record that the Manipur land revenue and land reforms Act 1960 does not extend to the hill areas, based on which the learned judicial commissioner of Manipur in the case of Luitang Khullakpa held that there is no Govt. Khas land in the hills of Manipur. This view was later confirmed by the Guwahati High Court in 1993 in the case of Hundung victims.
However, on appeal by the state Govt. the Supreme Court on India with its view of the situation in the mainland had set aside the findings of the Guwahati High Court on 6.12.1994. Inline with it the Manipur Legislative Assembly dominated by the majority Meiteis during the RK. Jai Chandra Singh in 1988 had introduced amendment bill of the Act of 1960 seeking to extend the provisions of the Act to the entire state of Manipur including the hill areas to enable the Revenue department to make survey and prepare records of rights in respect of the permanently settled areas, wet land rice cultivated areas. The proposed records of rights in respect of the permanently settled areas, wet land rice cultivated areas. The proposed amendment further sought to have only one law for collection of land revenue as well as hill house tax by repealing the Manipur Hill areas Act : 1966, on the pretext of bringing about unity communal harmony and over all economic growth in Manipur by allowing the Meiteis and Meitei Pangals to settle in the hill areas. However, the bill was forced to be withdrawn during the Ranbir Singh Govt. in 1990. The extension of the MLR Act 1960 to the hill areas of Manipur is thus considered absolutely necessary by the Meiteis in the valley against the interest of the tribals.
Joint Forest management (JFM) is one such policy the tribal communities should reject but unfortunately when money speaks truth remains silent and people take the wrong side detrimental to our own interest. The Tangkhul Naga Long convincing the village chiefs not to claim compensation and allowing the forest department to claim the same from the BRTF for road construction and the NSCN (I-M) accepting payment (as claimed by forest officials in their workshop with village chiefs) from the forest department and allowing JFM to be implemented without understanding the implication of the notification and the agreement signed thereof is a serious blunder.
Srl. No. 3 of the agreement says “For violation of any of the clauses of the notification JFM No. 55/4/95/For (Pt) dt. 8.6.2000k the provision of Indian Forest Act 1927 and Manipur Forest rules 1971 and other laws of the land shall be applied”. The Forest Act of 1927 authorizes the Govt. to declare any land a Reserved Forest by issuing a notification. Therefore JFM is to bring Reserve Forest from the back door.
The notification of JFM by Govt. of Manipur is in-violation of the MLR and LR Act 1960 as sub section (1) of section 29 of the Indian Forest Act 1927 itself says that such notifications is applicable only to land owned by the Govt. or over which Govt. has proprietary right. Further sub section (3) of section 29 says “No such notification shall be made unless the nature and extend of the rights of Govt. and of private persons in or over the forest land or waste land comprised therein have been inquired into and recorded ............ “
The 18 points agreement the people are asked to sign for implementing JFM is in total violation of tribal rights over the land and forest. What is most unfortunate is tribal officials are being used to violate our own rights and NGOs alerting the community on the issue are accused of being motivated.
The tribals neet to be educated as to how faulty management of their forest contribute to the adverse impact on climate globally rather than displace them from their land and deprive their means of livelihood.
http://ifp.co.in/ArticleFull.asp?ArticleID=188
Law is defined as “a body of principles recongnized and applied by the state in the administration of justice”. But India being a melting pot of different people and culture; law making is often influenced by the interest of the dominate groups of people at the cost of the smaller ones. Democratic principles allows protest against such laws that violates the rights of people however, small they may be. Tribals in the country particularly in the North East until recent years had no accessibility whatever and were left on their own by successive rulers of he country. Literacy came late and nothing is one record not even their ownership of land an their access and control over the forest. This has made the tribals in India most vulnerable because in legal terms such ownership is on mere assumption.
The paradigm shift in forest policy from conservation, production and commercial oriented to the global concern now for environmental stability, maintenance of ecological balance and atmospheric equilibrium has warranted enactment of new laws concerning forest which threatens the relationship of tribals with their land. For every road constructed in the hill districts of Manipur by the BRTF compensation is claimed by the respective DFOs on ground that by dictionary meaning of forest irrespective of ownership forest of India is affected by the road construction works and that compensation should be paid to the department. This is legitimized by Supreme Court order of 1996. This interpretation of the court has threatened our ownership over all unclassified and protected forest as in legal terms if ownership is not on record as normally done in mainland India, it is only a wishful thinking that they belong to us. The Govt. is now trying to back up this interpretation of the Supreme Court by enacting laws that will permanently alienate the tribals from their own land.
It is definitely on record that the Manipur land revenue and land reforms Act 1960 does not extend to the hill areas, based on which the learned judicial commissioner of Manipur in the case of Luitang Khullakpa held that there is no Govt. Khas land in the hills of Manipur. This view was later confirmed by the Guwahati High Court in 1993 in the case of Hundung victims.
However, on appeal by the state Govt. the Supreme Court on India with its view of the situation in the mainland had set aside the findings of the Guwahati High Court on 6.12.1994. Inline with it the Manipur Legislative Assembly dominated by the majority Meiteis during the RK. Jai Chandra Singh in 1988 had introduced amendment bill of the Act of 1960 seeking to extend the provisions of the Act to the entire state of Manipur including the hill areas to enable the Revenue department to make survey and prepare records of rights in respect of the permanently settled areas, wet land rice cultivated areas. The proposed records of rights in respect of the permanently settled areas, wet land rice cultivated areas. The proposed amendment further sought to have only one law for collection of land revenue as well as hill house tax by repealing the Manipur Hill areas Act : 1966, on the pretext of bringing about unity communal harmony and over all economic growth in Manipur by allowing the Meiteis and Meitei Pangals to settle in the hill areas. However, the bill was forced to be withdrawn during the Ranbir Singh Govt. in 1990. The extension of the MLR Act 1960 to the hill areas of Manipur is thus considered absolutely necessary by the Meiteis in the valley against the interest of the tribals.
Joint Forest management (JFM) is one such policy the tribal communities should reject but unfortunately when money speaks truth remains silent and people take the wrong side detrimental to our own interest. The Tangkhul Naga Long convincing the village chiefs not to claim compensation and allowing the forest department to claim the same from the BRTF for road construction and the NSCN (I-M) accepting payment (as claimed by forest officials in their workshop with village chiefs) from the forest department and allowing JFM to be implemented without understanding the implication of the notification and the agreement signed thereof is a serious blunder.
Srl. No. 3 of the agreement says “For violation of any of the clauses of the notification JFM No. 55/4/95/For (Pt) dt. 8.6.2000k the provision of Indian Forest Act 1927 and Manipur Forest rules 1971 and other laws of the land shall be applied”. The Forest Act of 1927 authorizes the Govt. to declare any land a Reserved Forest by issuing a notification. Therefore JFM is to bring Reserve Forest from the back door.
The notification of JFM by Govt. of Manipur is in-violation of the MLR and LR Act 1960 as sub section (1) of section 29 of the Indian Forest Act 1927 itself says that such notifications is applicable only to land owned by the Govt. or over which Govt. has proprietary right. Further sub section (3) of section 29 says “No such notification shall be made unless the nature and extend of the rights of Govt. and of private persons in or over the forest land or waste land comprised therein have been inquired into and recorded ............ “
The 18 points agreement the people are asked to sign for implementing JFM is in total violation of tribal rights over the land and forest. What is most unfortunate is tribal officials are being used to violate our own rights and NGOs alerting the community on the issue are accused of being motivated.
The tribals neet to be educated as to how faulty management of their forest contribute to the adverse impact on climate globally rather than displace them from their land and deprive their means of livelihood.
http://ifp.co.in/ArticleFull.asp?ArticleID=188
No comments:
Post a Comment