Skip to main content

Forest Rights Act is failing tribals: Will Govt of India act before it’s too late?

By Bharat Dogra 
When the Forest Rights Act (FRA) was enacted in 2006, it was hailed as a landmark law meant to correct historical wrongs inflicted on India’s tribal communities. It promised recognition of their right to cultivate forest land and protection from routine harassment caused by lack of land papers. But nearly two decades later, the gulf between promise and reality remains wide. While the government cites achievements, communities across the country point to neglect, rejection, and even eviction.
In Parliament this year, the government disclosed that as of May 31, 2025, a total of 5.1 million claims had been filed under FRA. Out of these, 2.3 million individual rights claims and 121,705 community titles were granted. But the darker side of this data is that 1.8 million claims were rejected outright and 0.7 million remained pending. Numbers alone conceal the frustration on the ground.
Take the recent protest at Jantar Mantar in Delhi, where Adivasi groups from the Kota area of Bilaspur in Chhattisgarh alleged that despite repeated submissions, their claims were rejected while their huts were demolished and families harassed. When the very law meant to secure dignity ends up intensifying suffering, it signals not implementation failure but betrayal.
The danger is not only administrative apathy. In many regions, constitutional protections for tribal land are being undermined by commercial interests. In Assam, for instance, the state government recently allotted nearly 3,000 bighas (about 990 acres) in Dima Hasao district to a private company for a cement factory. The Gauhati High Court expressed serious concern, noting that this Sixth Schedule area should have prioritized the rights of local tribal communities. Such decisions expose how development models can override both legal and moral safeguards, leaving vulnerable populations even more insecure.
Equally troubling is the narrative advanced by some conservation lobbies opposing FRA on the grounds that it harms forests. This argument ignores reality. Far from being destroyers, tribal communities have historically been custodians of forests. There is vast potential to combine their livelihoods with regeneration of degraded forests—if only policymakers approached the issue with imagination and sincerity.
The Forest Rights Act was never just a legal reform; it was a promise of justice and survival. If large-scale rejections and forced evictions become its legacy, then India will have transformed a historic opportunity into a source of renewed injustice. Monitoring must therefore go beyond statistics. It must ask whether tribal livelihoods and dignity have improved or declined.
A law born to heal historical wounds should not end up creating fresh ones. For the tribal communities of India, this is not about paperwork—it is about life itself. Ensuring that the FRA delivers on its promises is not only a legal responsibility but a moral imperative.
---
The writer is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include Protecting Earth for Children, Planet in Peril, Man over Machine, and A Day in 2071.

Comments

TRENDING

Why Venezuela govt granting amnesty to political prisoners isn't a sign of weakness

By Guillermo Barreto   On 20 May 2017, during a violent protest planned by sectors of the Venezuelan opposition, 21-year-old Orlando Figuera was attacked by a mob that accused him of being a Chavista. After being stabbed, he was doused with gasoline and set on fire in front of everyone present. Young Orlando was admitted to a hospital with multiple wounds and burns covering 80 percent of his body and died 15 days later, on 4 June.

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

Walk for peace: Buddhist monks and America’s search for healing

By Vidya Bhushan Rawat*  The #BuddhistMonks in the United States have completed their #WalkForPeace after covering nearly 3,700 kilometers in an arduous journey. They reached Washington, DC yesterday. The journey began at the Huong Đạo Vipassana Bhavana Center in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 26, 2025, and concluded in Washington, DC after a 108-day walk. The monks, mainly from Vietnam and Thailand, undertook this journey for peace and mindfulness. Their number ranged between 19 and 24. Led by Venerable Bhikkhu Pannakara (also known as Sư Tuệ Nhân), a Vietnamese-born monk based in the United States, this “Walk for Peace” reflected deeply on the crisis within American society and the search for inner strength among its people.

Four women lead the way among Tamil Nadu’s Muslim change-makers

By Syed Ali Mujtaba*  A report published by Awaz–The Voice (ATV), a news platform, highlights 10 Muslim change-makers in Tamil Nadu, among whom four are women. These individuals are driving social change through education, the arts, conservation, and activism. Representing diverse fields ranging from environmental protection and literature to political engagement and education, they are working to improve society across the state.

Trade pacts with EU, US raise alarms over farmers, MSMEs and policy space

By A Representative   A broad coalition of farmers’ organisations, trade unions, traders, public health advocates and environmental groups has raised serious concerns over India’s recently concluded trade agreements with the European Union and the United States, warning that the deals could have far-reaching implications for livelihoods, policy autonomy and the country’s long-term development trajectory. In a public statement issued, the Forum for Trade Justice described the two agreements as marking a “tectonic shift” in India’s trade policy and cautioned that the projected gains in exports may come at a significant social and economic cost.

When free trade meets unequal fields: The India–US agriculture question

By Vikas Meshram   The proposed trade agreement between India and the United States has triggered intense debate across the country. This agreement is not merely an attempt to expand bilateral trade; it is directly linked to Indian agriculture, the rural economy, democratic processes, and global geopolitics. Free trade agreements (FTAs) may appear attractive on the surface, but the political economy and social consequences behind them are often unequal and controversial. Once again, a fundamental question has surfaced: who will benefit from this agreement, and who will pay its price?

Bangladesh goes to polls as press freedom concerns surface

By Nava Thakuria*  As Bangladesh heads for its 13th Parliamentary election and a referendum on the July National Charter simultaneously on Thursday (12 February 2026), interim government chief Professor Muhammad Yunus has urged all participating candidates to rise above personal and party interests and prioritize the greater interests of the Muslim-majority nation, regardless of the poll outcomes. 

Why Russian oil has emerged as the flashpoint in India–US trade talks

By N.S. Venkataraman*  In recent years, India has entered into trade agreements with several countries, the latest being agreements with the European Union and the United States. While the India–EU trade agreement has been widely viewed in India as mutually beneficial and balanced, the trade agreement with the United States has generated comparatively greater debate and scrutiny.

Samyukt Kisan Morcha raises concerns over ‘corporate bias’ in seed Bill

By A Representative   The Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) has released a statement raising ten questions to Union Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan regarding the proposed Seed Bill 2025, alleging that the legislation is biased in favour of large multinational and domestic seed corporations and does not adequately safeguard farmers’ interests.