Introduction
India’s forest conservation model has historically leaned toward exclusionary approaches—evicting tribal communities from protected areas in the name of biodiversity protection. Yet, legislation like the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 and the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA), 1996 aim to correct this imbalance. Balancing tribal rights—such as land tenure, resource access, and self-governance—with wildlife conservation remains a governance challenge marked by conflicts over protected areas, displaced communities, and evolving jurisprudence.
Legal Toolkit: FRA & PESA
-
Forest Rights Act (2006) recognizes individual and community forest rights, including Community Forest Resource (CFR) rights managed by Gram Sabhas. It mandates that relocation from any forest area requires Gram Sabha consent and scientific proof (via Critical Wildlife Habitat rules, yet to be formalised).The Hindu+2Down To Earth+2Scroll.in+2Wikipedia
-
PESA (1996) mandates ST representation in Gram Sabhas across Scheduled Areas, empowering tribal communities with autonomous decision-making and rights over forest governance.Insights IAS+1Drishti IAS+1
Research shows areas under PESA witnessed 3% annual growth in forest canopy and reduced deforestation, especially near mining zones. The FRA offered minimal additional conservation benefits beyond PESA.The Hindu+2Insights IAS+2Drishti IAS+2
Tribal Stewardship vs Conservation Displacement
Traditional Guardians of Forests
Communities such as the Gonds, Bishnois, Toda, Khasi-Jaintia, and Soligas follow sustainable practices—rotational farming, sacred-grove traditions, and controlled grazing—that embody forest stewardship. These customs foster biodiversity, soil health, and perennial resource use.ilearncana.com+2LSE Blogs+2Insights IAS+2
In Pachgaon village, Maharashtra, recognition of community forest rights over 1,006 hectares under the FRA and PESA enabled a thriving bamboo-based forest economy—preventing migration and funding local infrastructure.Down To Earth+6The Guardian+6Insights IAS+6
Eviction & Exclusion in Tiger Reserves
Despite legal protections, many tribal residents within tiger reserves remain without recognition or territory. Instances like the Baiga forced relocation from Kanha and the prohibitions in ~50 tiger reserves reflect systemic disregard for FRA norms.Scroll.in
Grievances over non-consensual relocations, lack of rehabilitation, and forest department obstruction limit tribal participation in conservation governance.TIME+15IUCN+15The Times of India+15
A 2019 Supreme Court order mandating eviction of FRA claimants was stayed—but state-level follow-through has lagged, leaving nearly 1.8 million vulnerable. For example, in Odisha most rejected claims (approx. 23%) were not reviewed.Down To Earth
Recent Flashpoints: Policy vs Practice
Telangana’s Tiger Corridor Suspension
In July 2025, the Telangana government put Government Order 49—designating the 1,492 km² Kumuram Bheem Conservation Reserve/tiger corridor linking Kawal and Tadoba reserves—in abeyance after protests by tribal communities fearing displacement from 339 villages.The Times of India+1The Times of India+1
Tribal rights groups argued that corridors imposed unchecked restrictions—reflecting a failure of participatory planning. Conservationists lamented the pause but called for co-created frameworks that consider local livelihoods.The Times of IndiaThe Times of India
Himachal & Assam: FRA Misuse & Evictions
In Himachal Pradesh, FRA-based rights verification is being criticized as facilitating commercial encroachments by apple growers—often at the expense of genuine tribal claims—with over half the forest area undemarcated.The Times of India
In Assam, mass tribal evictions—framed as forest protection—have ignored legal limits. Allegations of state bias favoring corporate land acquisitions and disregarding federally recognized rights highlight institutional failure.The Times of India
Conservation vs Rights: Evidence & Ethical Imperatives
-
Studies estimate that recognizing tenure rights costs far less than relocating forest dwellers—while safeguarding both rights and biodiversity.The Guardian+15Indiaspend+15The Times of India+15
-
Conventional protected-area models, lacking tribal participation, often stifle grassroots stewardship and lead to adversarial relations between forests and people.Down To Earth
-
Democratic decentralisation matters: evidence shows PESA-enabled ST representation leads to measurable improvements in canopy cover and resistance to mining-driven deforestation. FRA alone—without political agency—did not yield similar results.Insights IAS+2Drishti IAS+2The Hindu+2
Recommendations: Rights-Based Conservation Pathways
-
Fully Implement FRA & Gram Sabha Authority
Expedite claim reviews, settle CFR rights in protected areas, and ensure relocation only upon Gram Sabha consent along with defined compensation and resettlement. -
Strengthen PESA-Based Governance
Ensure reserved ST representation in Gram Sabhas is meaningful, backed by decentralised budgets and authority to regulate forest resource use and planned conservation. -
Build Collaborative Conservation Frameworks
Involve communities in co-management of reserves, employing a co-created model (not fortress conservation), integrating traditional knowledge, and regulated buffer zones. -
Reform Policy Rules that Dilute Tribal Consent
Revisit new Forest Conservation Rules (2022) removing local consent mandates. Ensure alignment with FRA and NCST advice.Insights IAS+2Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2Business Standard+2Scroll.in+2Down To Earth+2The Times of India+10The Hindu+10Down To Earth+10LSE Blogs -
Institutional Safeguards & Oversight
Empower bodies like NCST and FRA monitoring committees to intervene in violations. Conduct third-party audits of evictions and claim settlement. -
Support Tribal Livelihood-led Conservation
Promote sustainable non-timber forest product ventures (e.g. bamboo in Pachgaon), agroforestry and value chains aligned with community-centric conservation models. -
Legal Awareness & Capacity Building
Expand Gram Sabha leadership training, FRA procedural support, and documentation support—especially in Scheduled areas.
Conclusion
The conflict between tribal rights and forest conservation is not a zero-sum trade-off—but a misalignment of governance frameworks. While traditional conservation models still dominate, India's FRA and PESA offer legal paths to reconcile ecological stewardship with tribal justice.
Evidence increasingly affirms: when tribal communities are empowered as political actors, forest conservation flourishes. Conversely, exclusionary policies—often rooted in fortress conservation—undermine both livelihoods and biodiversity.
Resolving this tension requires legal coherence, institutional reforms, and a shift toward rights-based, participatory conservation. With proper implementation of FRA and PESA, inclusion of Gram Sabhas in decision‑making, and recognition of indigenous stewardship, India can model a democratic approach to forest governance—where preserving forests and empowering communities are in harmony, not conflict.