interview
Forest Rights Act, 2006: The Struggle for Implementation - Part II
2020
Summary
In Part II of this interview on the Forest Rights Act, 2006, ARCH-Vahini activists Ambrish Mehta and Trupti Mehta (Parekh) describe their experience helping tribal gram sabhas in Gujarat implement the FRA on the ground. They detail how they developed model forms (Panchnama and Rojkam) for field verification, trained Forest Rights Committee members to document claims meticulously with all required evidence, and watched gram sabha members put in extraordinary effort to file airtight claims. Despite this preparation, the Forest Department systematically obstructed implementation: although it held only one seat on the sub-divisional and district level committees, those committees deferred almost entirely to forest department verification, approving only about 10% of claims (often with reduced acreage) and rejecting the rest without valid reasons. In Gujarat, of 1.82 lakh claims filed, only 30,000 were initially approved and 1.2 lakh were rejected. ARCH-Vahini took the matter to the Gujarat High Court, which delivered a landmark judgment forcing the government to reopen all rejected claims; after 2013, approvals rose to 90,000, but the speaker concludes that even twelve years on, implementation remains inadequate due to forest department opposition and general administrative apathy.
Key points
- ARCH-Vahini developed model Panchnama and Rojkam (field verification) forms to help gram sabhas formally document evidence of pre-2005 cultivation.
- Forest Rights Committee chairpersons, secretaries, and members put in extensive work, and gram sabha attendance was unusually high because villagers' own land was at stake.
- Although the Forest Department held only one seat on sub-divisional and district committees, those committees routinely deferred to its verification.
- In Gujarat, 1.82 lakh claims were filed; only 30,000 were initially approved and 1.2 lakh rejected, often citing 'lack of evidence' falsely (e.g., 17,000 such rejections in Narmada).
- A Gujarat High Court landmark judgment forced the government to reopen all rejected claims, raising approvals from 30,000 to 90,000 after 2013.
- After twelve years of implementation, outcomes remain inadequate due to Forest Department opposition and general administrative apathy.
- Claim files were deliberately prepared to be procedurally unimpeachable so they could not be rejected — yet they were rejected anyway.
Transcript
Forest Rights Act, 2006: The Struggle for Implementation - Part II
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9k9zmFRn9w Duration: 445.8s
Speaker (00:05): The first and foremost challenge before us when we started the implementation, we started helping them in the implementation. The first and foremost challenge was how these gram sabhas would carry out all these responsibilities. Not only that, they didn’t know all these things. They knew who was cultivating or who was occupying the land, where from when, but the question was to put it down on the paper, formally write it down. And so we had lots of meetings with the people, not only in our organizational villages, but across Gujarat, 12 districts, tribal districts. And we with the help of our payments, our interaction with the people, we formulated some of the model forms. How do means how when they go for field verification, what to know, what to write down. We didn’t know that what would prove that this land was before 2005 or more. But the people knew that what types of signs and signals would show this thing. So all these things were put down in the Panchnama and Rojkam and means in Gujarat, we call it Rojkam when we go for field verification. They have to write down all these things formally. Means this thing. So and the people, we were so means, we still cannot believe that people put in so much efforts to do all these things, and we are witness to that that this FRC persons, presidents, means the chairperson, and the secretaries, and other members, they did a lot of work during this time. Because the first thing that and in the gram sabhas also more unlike the gram sabhas, which the panchayat gram sabhas, which are means being held. Most of the people remain present in this gram sabhas because it was their work. It was their land, which was the agenda. And so these people carried out all these things. Problem was another at that time, we were thinking that this is the only problem. But no. We also had some inkling that and we used to tell the people also that we have to prepare such type of claims, claim files that even if the forest department or the government wanted to reject them, they could not. So they prepared the files, the claim files in such a way that we believe, and people also believe that this would be of course, all the evidences are there, everything, every procedural. I mean, they had followed all the procedures, and evidences were there. And so their their claims are going to be approved. But, no, that was not the case. And after one year, one, two years, we found out that the government the forest departments was so against this. And so because of the forest department’s interference another thing is that even the forest department is the forest department’s representative is only one member of the subdivisional level committee and the district level committee. These are the committees which are which have to examine whatever the resolution the Gram Sabha passes. So after the Gram Sabha submitted their claims with the resolution to the sub regional level committee, what it did in most of the in I should I I could say in Gujarat, that was the norm, and I could also say that that have this happened in all over India. That these files, these claims files were sent to the forest department for verification. And the forest department approved only one 10% or so and with reduced area and sentiment. And the sub divisional level committee and the district level committees, they just passed. They just approved whatever the forest department approved. And so after one or two years, most of the claims in Gujarat were rejected. I should I I I can say the in Gujarat, one lakh 82,000 claims were filed in all the tribal districts. From this one lakh 82,000 claims, only 30,000 claims were approved, and one lakh 20,000 claims were rejected without giving any reasons. Reason approved. Because reason was this that you they gave of course, they gave the reasons, but they were all wrong reasons. Say for example, in Narmada, there were 17,000 claims, and only one reason that was given was because of the lack of the evidences, which was not true. So these were the hurdles which we encountered, and then we had to go to the High Court, Gujarat High Court. Gujarat High Court gave a very good landmark judgment in this, And and that means the government had to re Sorry. Government had to renew reopen all the rejected claims. And so after 2013, all the claims were reviewed in all the districts, 90,000. So from 30,000 to 90,000 claims are is approved till now. But it’s not it is also not not enough and not correct. So we are still trying. So after twelve years of implementation, we are at this stage. And because mainly because one thing, forest department’s total opposition. Another thing is general administration and the government’s apathy and carelessness, just carelessness.
Notable passages
"we formulated some of the model forms. How do means how when they go for field verification, what to know, what to write down."
"So after twelve years of implementation, we are at this stage. And because mainly because one thing, forest department's total opposition."
"They draw lessons from their own experience in fighting for the rights of forest dwelling communities."
Metadata and summary are AI-extracted from the source PDF and reviewed for editorial accuracy. The original work is available via the Read PDF tab above (where present); paragraph-level citation inside the PDF is deferred to a future engagement.