Tiger Reserve in Kawal Wildlife Sanctuary: Issues and Concerns
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
International Journal of Innovative Research & Practice (IJIRP) January 2013 Tiger Reserve in Kawal Wildlife Sanctuary: Issues and Concerns Ram Babu Mallavarpu1 and Bikku Rathod2 1. UGC Post Doctoral Fellow at the Centre for Regional Studies, School of Social Sciences, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India. 2. Ph. D Research Scholar at the Department of Anthropology, School of Social Sciences, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India. Abstract: The tribal societies, which have been Introduction still in the hunting, gathering and slash-and-burn There are more than 600 protected areas covering stages, have a much closer relationship with nature nearly 5% of total land of the country that has been and its management. Development projects declared as wildlife sanctuaries and National parks initiated so far have been displaced the indigenous in India (Sekhsaria 2007). Most of these protected people. Consequently, there has been a near total areas are in the fifth schedule where tribal disintegration of the tribal ecosystem. This has led population is high. The Wildlife Protection Act to the breakdown of the tribal community and their (WPA), 1972 (as amended in 2006) is a strong culture with overwhelming majority of individuals regulatory statute that restricts almost all activities within the tribal society unable to cope with a inside protected areas. These include restrictions on society which has nearly become de-linked from entry to sanctuary (as per section 27), collection of nature. The tribals understood and interacted with Minor Forest Products (MFPs) including Non- the nature in a manner, which according to many Timber Forest Produces (NTFPs), except for bona- anthropologists and environmentalists is unique fide self consumption and grazing / movement of and a key to the future management and livestock, etc. This effectively exiles people living relationship with nature. At this context, it is also inside the protected area are over generations. important to analyse the reasons and processes involved in integrating the tribal communities into More than 1,500 villages are still inside the existing the so called mainstream society and the sanctuaries. Apart from these, a large number of accompanying changes likely to be occured in the non-surveyed villages and settlements exist inside man-community-environment relationship which these sanctuaries (Sekhsaria 2007). In this process, bring miseries to their basic life and mere survival. most of the tribal communities are treated as The paper is an attempt to analyse the issues and encroachers, even though; these villages have been concerns involved in the proposed Tiger Reserve existed inside the sanctuaries since centuries. Project (TRP) in the Kawal Wildlife Sanctury Satellite pictures of these areas reveal the state of (KWS) of Adilabad district in Andhra Pradesh, extensive cultivation of both the settled and shifting India based on anthropogcal percepectives. types. Many of the tribal villages have not even been surveyed and are treated as encroachments, Keywords: Natural Environment, Wildlife, even today. Indigenous People and Harmonious Co-Existence. www.forum4researchers.com 19 International Journal of Innovative Research & Practice (IJIRP) January 2013 As per the WPA, 1972 many of the villages are km in the surrounding notified forest area (located supposed to be evicted from the sanctuary areas. in the radios of 10 km constitutes the buffer area to Even where they are not being evicted, the the proposed TRP. It is estimated that as many as collection of NTFPs and other forest products are 1,000 households covering more than 42 tribal totally restricted and this makes their livelihoods villages are likely to be displaced / relocated due to extremely difficult. This has been the cause of the TRP (GoAP 2012; Sayanna 2012). regular conflict and has led to impoverishment of The officials of the forest department argue that all people living inside these areas. The powers the villages existed in the project area are not granted to the forest department under the WPA, included under TRP and hence, there will be no 1972 also helps them in harassing and displacement / relocation of local tribal exploiting the tribals and other marginalised communities. On the other, they also announced sections. the compensation at the rate of rupees 10 lakh to Location of the KWS in Adilabad District the each household in the core area for those who wish to vacate voluntarily. At this point, the project Adilabad district is situated between 77º46′ and affected tribal communities have been voicing 80º0′ of the eastern longitudes and 18º40′ and against the threats of forceful displacement and loss 19º56′ of northern latitudes. It is surrounded by of their livelihoods by ignoring the false claims of Yavotmal and Chandrapur on the north, the officials. According to officials of the forest Karimnagar and Nizamabad on the south and department, the purpose behind establishment of Nanded district on the west. The KWS was TRP is to provide the water, grass, etc., resources established in 1965 and later declared as the to the wildlife. And this will prohibit the wildlife Protected Area (PA) in 1999 under the WPA, 1972. not to enter into the agricultural fields and habitats It is located in the schedule area of Adilabad of Forest Dependent Communities (FDCs) for not district at a distance of 100 km from its district destroying the crops and attacking the human headquarters. It extended from the sahyadri hill (GoAP 2012). ranges to the Tadoba forest in Maharashtra (GoAP 2012; Rajagopal 1976). In this process, the officials of the forest department further argue that they will prohibit Governments’ Move to Establish the TRP hunting; pay compensation to the humans for the injuries caused by the wild animals; evolve Recently, the Government of Andhra Pradesh strategies for the benefits of FDCs villages living in (GoAP) has declared the KWS in Adilabad as the core and buffer areas; recognise the needs of FDCs second TRP, next to the establishment of for forest resources; provide infrastructure needed Nagarjunasagar Tiger Reserve Project (NTRP) in to FDCs; develop tourism in order to provide 1983 in the midist of major controversies. The knowledge over the nature to the visitors; provide proposed TRP falls under the forest divisions of employment to FDCs families in order to protect Adilabad, Bellampalli, Nirmal and Jannaram. The wildlife and the forests; improve the life standards total coverage of the sanctuary is 892.23 sq km that of the FDCs; take up activities under the TRP are forms the core area and an extent of 1,123.212 sq www.forum4researchers.com 20 International Journal of Innovative Research & Practice (IJIRP) January 2013 same as the activities taken up for the sanctuary for household purpose and also for sale or earlier; protect the rights of culture / tradition of exchange at the weekly market fairs (shandis) and FDCs; provide Re-settlement and Rehabilitation as well as at the ration shops, established by the (R&R) for the FDCs who voluntarily vacate the Girijana Cooperative Corporation (GCC) (Babu forest; and provide Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) 2006; Murty 1981, 1988; Rao 1993). cylinders to the FDCs families by prohibiting collection of firewood from their forest in the name The NTFPs / MFPs generally collected by the tribal communities in the region include tene (Honey), of reducing the local communities’ pressure on the usiri (Emblica officinalis), ippa (Bassia latifolia), use forest in core and buffer areas (GoAP 2012). chintha (Tamarindus indica), vepa (Azadirachta Inhabitant Indigenous Communities indica) tapsi (Sterculia urenus), musti (Strychnos nuxvomica), tangedu (Cassia auriculata), rela The inhabitant traditional tribal groups in the (Cassia fistula), veduru (Bambusa arundinacea / project area are the Raj Gonds, the Nayakpods, the Dendrocalamus strictus), ganuga (Pongamia Kolams, the Pardhans, the Thotis, the Lambadas pinnata), beedi (Diospyros melanoxylon), etc. and other marginalised / weaker sections who which are available in different seasons (Babu primarily depend on forest resources as the FDCs 2006). and also other agricultural activities for their survival. Poverty and marginalisation of tribals has Plantations, i.e. teak (Tectona grandis), eucalyptus been a historical process aided by the state (Eucalyptus camaldulensis / Eucalyptus grandis), formation and extension, has led to rubber (Hevea brasiliensis), mulberry (Morus impoverishment of a large section of tribal society. alba), jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus), mango Structural factors constraining access to land and (Mangifera indica), guava (Psidium guajava), forests have played an important and fundamental cashew (Anarcardium occidentalis), etc. have been role in the marginalisation process. Larger political growing by extending to nearby forest land. factors frame these structural constraints which However, this may also gradually affects the need to be addressed through political processes traditional livelihood patterns of tribal (Haimendorf 1949, 1982; Murty 1988; Rajagopal communities, forest flora and wildlife in future 1976; Rao 1952; Rao 1993). (Babu 2006). According to the reports of forest department, there are more than 673 plant species, Socio-Cultural, Ecological and Economic 10 varieties of amphibians, 34 varieties of snakes, Systems of the PAPs and their Livelihoods 270 varieties of birds, and 75 varieties of mammals existed in KWS (Ali 1941; GoAP 2012).