PREVIOUS PAGE

MCM-KLS/1N/2-00

The House met at two of the clock,

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN in the Chair.

---

00 ׻ֵ : , ֤ ֵԾ Ͽֻ ã֟ և , ָ ï ô , ו ߱ ו ָ ֤ ֵԾ ָ ã֟ և - ָ ֜ ָ ֕ ױ ֕ , ֳ ֜ ֵ , ƻ օ ָ, ֛, ׻֋ , ֻ, ֌׸ ׻֋ ֛ ָ֟ .....(־֮֬)

ֳ֯ן : ӾÙ

00 ׻ֵ : ָ ߕ ָ ֮ פ ֵ ָ߿ָ֮ ִ֬ ָ ֮ և ß-ß ֤, ָ ׯֻ ֲֻ և ӛ ӡ , ֯ ֌ , ֳ և , ãִי ו֮ ׯָ ֕ ߱

ׯֻ ֲֻ : ֲ ׸Ù ٻִֵ ֋ ֲ ָָ......(־֮֬)

00 ׻ֵ : ָ, ָ .......(־֮֬)

ׯֻ ֲֻ : ׻֋ .....(־֮֬)

00 ׻ֵ : ָ, He is comparing this thing. ׸Ù ֟

, ֯ ֟ ֯ ָ וֿ֮ ָ וֿ֮ ֯ ָ ָ......(־֮֬) * .....(־֮֬) ָ ֕ .....(־֮֬)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Expunged as ordered by the Chair.

ֳ֯ן : ׾ֵ ֻ ֋, ߕ ӾÙ ֯ ֤.....(־֮֬)

00 ׻ֵ : ֤ ӡ ו ָ ָ ָ ֟ , ֮ ֮ þã ؓ֟ ׸ ֤ þã ߅

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: We will now take up the Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Bill, 2005. (1O ָ )

-KLS-SSS/1O/2.05

WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) AMENDMENT BILL, 2005 -- (CONTD.)

SHRI S. P. M. SYED KHAN (TAMIL NADU): Mr. Deputy Chairman, Sir,


as a firm believer in brevity, I am inclined to make a brief presentation on this Bill. While doing so, I am fully conscious that my presentation should not be a hindrance to the precious time of this august House on the one side and at the same time, it should not repeat and reiterate the points divulged and dilated by the earlier speakers who spoke on the Bill. However, I deem it as a matter of duty to place my views, observations and suggestions before this forum for consideration and appropriate action before passing the Bill. Coming to the issue, Sir, we are all aware that the project tiger to conserve and save tigers in forests was in existence for more than 30 years. But the problem of tiger conservation still persists even today warranting improvement and modification in our outlook and system particularly in terms of statutory, as well as, administrative back up. It is again a matter of fact that in the conservation of tigers and wild life, rights and activities of tribal people and local people living in and around tiger reserves are also concerned and needs to be addressed. Keeping these two aspects in mind, I appreciate that an attempt has been made to propose amendment to Wild Life (Protection) Act (9) 2, rightly envisaging to constitute National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) to plan, prepare and perform tiger protection without affecting the needs and concerns of the local people. Without going into the list of powers and functions of the proposed National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) as found in the Bill, I am inclined to concede that it has been proposed with laudable purpose. But my apprehension is whether the real purpose will be served in full. I have got my own doubt. I would like to ask the hon. Minister whether the powers and functions envisaged for the NTCA are exhaustive and comprehensive or only illustrative. If illustrative, will they take care of the whole ambit and purpose of the Bill? My next point is, whether the system in existence or the system conceived will be adequate to implement and serve the purpose. In case of inadequacy, I would like to ask whether the Government would be careful enough to supplement such deficiencies while framing rules and procedures in this context. In this connection, I could not resist from pointing out the dearth of coordination and coordination mechanism between the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) and the inter departments at the National level on the one side and between the Authority (NTCA) and the states concerned on the other.

 

It will be much more difficult between the Authority and States which are not the allies of ruling Central Government. I will be grateful if the Minister clarifies this position and his strategies in such situations during his reply. The Bill proposes twin purpose, namely, wild life conservation on the one side and the welfare of the local people on the other. According to me, both seem to run counter with each other. In such cases, how is the Government going to harmonise or compromise both? How conservation and development could be matched? I need clarification. In this connection, I am told that there is already a proposal at the level of the Select Committee to be concerned about the welfare of the tribal people. If so, this Bill should not run counter or detrimental to tribal welfare. Another biggest problem for conservation of Tigers is that half of country's tiger population falls under protected area network. The tiger population living outside the protected areas network has suffered the maximum brunt of poaching in the last three decades. I would like to hear from the Minister as to what are the measures to salvage these tigers living in degraded habitats. I am further told that even in the case of healthy tiger population, the programmes are very few and far between and they do not reach at all. I am inclined to know what could be done further. Added to it, it is in everybody's knowledge about the working and living conditions of those responsible for supervision of tiger reserves, forest funds, on duty for 24 hours on all days in a week. Not only that, there are no medical, educational and other social facilities in the forests. It is an anomaly that the people who manage tigers are outside the jurisdiction of NTCA. Above all, the threat from poachers and timber smugglers are also there. There may not be "Madam Jayalalitha" in every State to liquidate a menace like Veerappan. According to me, serious thought and sincere efforts are necessary to look into the problems of this sector while addressing the conservation of Tiger. Finally, Sir, it is my honest observation that any cosmetic reform is not going to help much. On the other hand, the need of the hour is to create on a war footing, a federal wild life and forest service with statutory jurisdiction over all tiger habitats in the country and the staff that manages them. (ENDS) (Followed by NBR/1P)

MP/1P/2.10

. ִ ӛָ (ײָ) : ֮֮ߵ ֳ֯ן , ֮֕߾ Ӹ ׾֬, 2005 ִ֣Ԯ ׻֋ ֛ ׾֬ ܵ ӲӬ ֻ ֕, ֑ ָ National Animal , , Ӹ ֣ ֣, ֻ ֻ ֻ ֯ ֻ פ , ֕׾, ӲӬ, ׾ ӲӬ ׾ ӲӬ ׮׿֟֠

, 1973 ևָ ꌙ օ ִֵ 9 ֑ ׸֮֋ ֕ 28 ׸֮֋ , 17 ֕ ߮ ׬ ִֵ ׸֮֋ ֻ , ױ ֑ ãן ֮ؓ֟֕ ߸-߸ 9 ϕןֵ ϕןֵ 㯟 ֻ ׸ , ָ ׸ ֑ ָ ևָ ֵָ޵ , ߸-߸

, - ֕-ָ֕ , ֛-֛ ִӟ , ֑ ׿ָ ꅠ ֑ ׿ָ ֮ ֯ ֛ ָ ִ֟ , ָ ߸-߸ ֲ ׿ָ Ӥ , ֮ ָ ָ ֑ ָ ֮ օ ׯ֔ ָ ִָ֓-֡ ֵ , ָӤ ָ , ӳ־֟: ֕ Ӥ , ֣ Ӥ ֑ ֑ ֻ ָ֯ , ߮ ֟ ֟ ߮ ֑ , ӟ ֋ ֮֟ ָ ָ ֵ ֟ ָ -ה ָ ևָ ꌙ , ִ ׿ָ ָ ֑ ָ ֟ ֕ ֻ ױ ؙ ֻ - ֮ , ֮ ֵԙ ֜־ ִ ָ ֲ ֮ ֟ ֵԙ ֜־ , ָ ֻ ָ ֮־ָ , ֿ- , ָ ߸-߸ ֿ

, ֙ ֤ , "" "Gangatic Dolphin" ִ ָ ֟ ָ ֤ ֮ ֯ ָ ̸, ֯ ָ ׮ ָ ָ ֟ ֟ ֮օ ֟ ܵ 2000 - և , ָ֮ ָ և ꅠ ß ָ ֮֟ ֮֟ , ֤ ִ ߸-߸ ֟ ֻ ןֲ֟ , ֮ ָ ֿ , , Ӹ

, ָ ߸ Ù ֮ ״ֻ օ ٻִֵ և ߅ ߯ ֋ ָ-ӓ ֑, ֤ ָ , -֓ ָ ꅠ ߯ -֓ ָ ֑ (1 / ָ ֿ:)

NBR-USY/ASC/1Q/2.15

. ִ ӛָ (֟) : ֑ ֯ ֛ ֮ օ ֬ ָ pride , ָ , ֕ ױ Ù ָ ֛ ֵ ֜ ֵ ױ Ùָ ֕ ֕-ָ֕ ׿ָ , , , ֛ ֻ֟ ֻ ؙ פֵ әÙ , פ ֻ , ֻ part and parcel , ׻֋ פֵ ָָ Ծ ָ ֑ פ ֑ ֻ ׮ ֻ ֟ man-eaters ֮ ֟ ֲ֕ ָ ֟ , man-eaters ֮ ֟ ׻֋ פֵ , ֣ ֕׾, ֣ ã֮ ֣-֣ ֻ ֕ ֑ , ָ ֻ֮ ׮ִֻ , ..(ִֵ ә).. ָָ Ծ ֲ ֣, ֮ ֟ ִ֯ - ֮־֤ (ִ֯)

ߴ֟ Ӥ ָ ( ׿ִ ֻ) : ֳ֯ן , ӛָ ֟ ï™ ֵ ϓָ ֯ߕ ֮־ָ ׻֋ ה ׻֋ ؓן֟ , , ֮ ל פ , ï™ ֻ֟ ϓָ ײֻ ָ , I have some important points to make because I believe this Bill is not a stand-alone Bill, related only to the Wild Life Protection Act, but the Bill and the amendments which have been moved by the Ministry have a very direct relationship and implications on the Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill because this Bill concerns areas which are also within the jurisdiction of discussions of the JPC on the Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill. Therefore, while implementing the very important recommendations of the Tiger Task Force, which actually do give a comprehensive approach to both, the importance of conservation of our biodiversity as well as looking after the rights of tribals and local communities, the Ministry must also ensure that the amendments to this Bill are in alignment with the recommendations made by the JPC; otherwise if that aspect is not kept in mind, the JPC recommendations, as far as tiger reserves, parks and sanctuaries are concerned, this will become a fait accompli and those recommendations will, then, have no meaning at all. It is for this reason when the original draft was moved in the last session many of us, who were the Members of the JPC and who have raised the issues concerned, had requested the Government to postpone the discussion, consideration and passage of this Bill until such time the Government brought forward the Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forests Rights) Bill. Because the way the Bill had been originally proposed, it was directly in conflict with many of the important recommendations made by the JPC in certain areas. So, we were happy and welcomed that the Government had postponed consideration of this Bill. In the meanwhile, with certain Members of the JPC and those who have interest, we have been in discussion with the Ministry to try and ensure that the Tiger Conservation Authority Amendment -- which we all support; we all know its importance -- that there should be statutory recognition of the Tiger Conservation Authority, as recommended by the tiger taskforce. But, still in the course of those discussions, I would like to inform the House and would also like to welcome the stand taken by Mr. Raja and Mr. Meena, in, to a certain extent, accepting our suggestions and moving an important step forward in trying to align these recommendations with the recommendations of the JPC. (Contd. by 1r -- VP)

VP/2.20/1R

SHRIMATI BRINDA KARAT (CONTD.): The context of this is very clear. Today, our country is signatory to the various international conventions which include the International Bio-diversity Convention. It has been very specifically recognised in article 8(j) that conservation is greatly dependent on the recognition and rights accorded to local communities. Only very recently, the U.N. has adopted a new convention, which we are also a party, which also speaks about the rights and recognition of those rights of indigenous people. We may not use such a phrase, but that really concerns the rights of our tribal people. Therefore, it is very difficult to understand why, even today, there is a trend in official thinking, and I do not include the hon. Ministers in that, but, certainly, large sections of your Ministry, if I may say so, which are still committed to a completely retrograde approach which always views tribals in an adversarial relationship with forests, animals, plants, natural resources and wealth of our forests. So, constantly, it is the tribals who are seen as the target of these policies, and the understanding has been that it is the tribals who are responsible for any denudation of this wealth, including the forests. And, therefore, if you want conservation to succeed in this country, including conservation and protection of tiger, first eliminate the rights of tribals, and if not eliminate, gravely restrict the rights of tribals which is putting world experience actually on its head. Therefore, when we look at this Bill, we have to look at it as well as these amendments, in the context of how far it is going to protect the rights of local communities, specifically, the tribal communities. On that, Sir, I would like to say this. First of all, I would like to just mention some of the good amendments that have come. For example, there is the issue of 'land use'. In the original draft what was there? The Tiger Conservation Authority had full rights to decide on 'land use' in all forests, which could bear tigers. Now, this is a very overriding clause. And, therefore, in our discussions, we said that 'land use' could also include the use of land by tribal communities who have rights on those areas. Therefore, the issue came, what do you mean by 'land use'? Sir, I am very happy and I welcome this initiative by Mr. Raja, that under his leadership it is specifically said that 'land use' means mining, industries, and other such projects. I think, all of us in this House, are deeply concerned about the displacement of tribals because of giving licences indiscriminately to big companies in forest areas. Now, I can share with this House the latest figure, which has come in the Supreme Court through the Expert Committee that in five years from 2001-06, 5.7 lakh hectares of forestland has been diverted to non-forestry purposes by the various Governments. ..(Interruptions).. Therefore, Mr. Raja, I welcome this initiative that you have taken, and I hope this will also inform the people Government's other policies.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Please conclude now.

SHRIMATI BRINDA KARAT: Please allow me, Sir. I have just four very important points to put forward.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The time allotted to your party is over. You are taking extra time.

SHRIMATI BRINDA KARAT: I know Sir. But, please allow me. The JPC's recommendations are in conflict. I am just going to go one by one. So, I will not go for the praises now. I will go in for problems. Since we are lacking time, they can take the support for granted. But, Sir, there are some very important points. The first one is this. There is a clause in this which still retains a sort of an overriding character. That is on page 4, clause 38-O(2). "The Tiger Conservation Authority may, in the exercise of its powers in performance of its functions under this Chapter, issue directions in writing to any person, officer or authority for the protection of tiger in tiger reserves and tiger bearing forests, and such person, officer or authority shall be bound to comply with the directions." Now, because of an intervention, they have added, "provided that no such protection shall affect the rights of local people, particularly, scheduled tribes." That is good. But since this Bill itself sets up a steering committee in the State, therefore, it is very important for the Government to ensure that these powers, which are to be exercised by the TCA, should be in consultation with the State's steering committee, which is also formed by this Bill. (Continued by PK/1S)

PK/1S/2.25

SHRIMATI BRINDA KARAT (CONTD.): So, this is very important; otherwise, it can ride roughshod over the rights of the States. Apart from that, it is good that the composition of the Committee has been changed to include tribals. My colleague, the hon. Member, Shri Kanjibhai Patel, has made a very, very important amendment to include tribals. Among the MPs, tribal MPs should be there, specifically, those in whose constituencies sanctuaries and parks are there. I think that is an important amendment which should, definitely, be considered by the Government.

The third point and it is very important is that we have tried to ensure some alignment with the recommendations of the JPC as far as the rights in buffer and core zones are concerned. Now, What is a core? What is a buffer? Who has to decide what is a core, buffer sanctuary or a park? Today, it is entirely the 'fatwah regime' or certain officials in the Ministry. They can decide one fine day, this is a tiger reserve; they can decide one fine day, this is a core area; they can decide one fine day, this is a buffer area; and all people living in the other sector. Then, what are the figures? They have said if 1.7 lakh population is there, they call it core. In the buffer, approximately, 3.7 lakh population should be there. But who has decided it? Therefore, what we have been insisting on, Sir, is that there should be an expert committee which will decide, alongwith consulation with gram sabhas,on what constitutes critical wildlife habitat to harmonise human habitation with protection and conservation. But that is only in very specific cases. For that, blanket permission cannot be given. Therefore, in this amendment, in which you have accepted a part of what we had suggested, it is important to ensure that this process (i) is transparent and (ii) gram sabhas are taken into account. In one thing, there is a slight difference. You have said that one individual, that is, a social scientist can decide. How can you allow the entire identification of a buffer, or, core to be decided by one social scientist? Who is that social scientist? There has to be an Expert Committee. Therefore, I think, in this point there is a gap in the language which has been used. I think, instead of plural, it should be singular. So, that has to be corrected; and the rights of gram sabhas have to be protected.

Now, Sir, it is very unfortunate that after the hon. Minister has gone so far, he can take, at least, one step, a paradigm shift in recognition of tribal rights in reserves, national parks and sanctuaries; and MPs who have them in their constituencies know what is happening to the tribals in those areas. But, imagine, Sir, after accepting certain conditions, one sentence is added which completely negates all the rights. What is that sentence? This is in the notice of amendments, list no. 35. That sentence is this and this was added by the Minister later. "Save as for voluntary relocation on mututally agreed terms and conditions, no Scheduled Tribes shall be moved." What does this mean? Why did you put this? Today, what is happening with our Scheduled Tribes? Sir, this House, I am sure, already knows that today the pockets in which the Scheduled Tribes are relocated in the name of voluntary relocation, a 'princely sum' of Rs.1,000 is given as an incentive for relocation. And, then, you say, "we are giving two hectares". Where have you done this? You produce before the House. You have relocated 80 villages from the tiger reserves. Where have you given two hectares? In many cases, cash has been given. How much cash has been given? They say one lakh rupees is the amount given to each unit of a family which is relocated. I ask for the break up. Please give the break up of one lakh. Out of that, more than 50 per cent -- Mr. Raja knows it -- is only for community facilities, not for the family. That more than 50 per cent is for notional expenses on community facility. Therefore, this sentence, Sir, actually negates the important step that the Minister has taken in ensuring the recognition of rights of tribals in these areas. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister, in the name of voluntary relocation, terrible injustice has been done to tribals. Don't do that. In the Bill, you are taking a step to change it, please don't bring this sentence into it. (Contd. by PB/1T)

PB-HMS/1T/2.30

SHRIMATI BRINDA KARAT (CONTD.): This is going to be very, very disastrous.

MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Please conclude.

SHRIMATI BRINDA KARAT: Because everything is going to be done in the name of voluntary relocation.

Lastly, Sir, we have raised many issues. The Minister has said that he would include in the rules all those issues which are concerned with guaranteeing the rights of tribals and local communities in that area. So, I hope, the Minister, in his reply, will very specifically state, what is being accepted on the issues, which we have raised. As far as extension of crime is concerned, -- I know that there is an important need to ensure that mafias, not the tribals, mafias, poachers, smugglers who have very close contacts with many officials sitting in positions are being protected by them -- we want the Minister to be further empowered to take the strongest action against those networks of smugglers. But, Sir, we have to be careful, because, in the name of making the punishment more stringent, when you make abetment, under crime of abetment, equal to the crime itself, then, there is a grey area in which there must be protection, so that tribals are not affected by this.

So, with these words, I support the Bill. I hope the initiatives taken by the Minister will be extended to bring in the Tribal Bill and will take the movement forward, as far as his support for the Tribal Bill is concerned. (Ends)

ֵ ֺ (ָӛ) : ֮־֤, ֳ֯ן օ ֮ ߾ (Ӹ) ӿ֮ ׾֬, 2005 ָ ֮ ׾ָ֓ ׻֋ ֛

, ׾֬ ܵ ָ ֑ Ӹ ׻֋ ֵ ֵ ׾֬ ־֮ֆ ָ ֟ , ָ ֲ ָ ֟ ָ ӕ߳և ֙ , ָ֟ ֮ ӡ ֤ 0 ײֻ ׾ֿ֟ֆ ֮ פֵօ ֵ֟ 1973 ֲ ꌙ ևָ ָ ֵ , ִֵ þ Ϭ֮ ӡ ߴ֟ פ Ӭ ֣ ֲ ָ ֱ ִ օ ֤ ꌙ ևָ ֵ ֱ ׿ףֻ֟ ևԅ ׸ִ ֕ ָ : ׾ָ֓ ־ֿ

, ׮ Ӥ ֕ ֑ Ӹ ™ߵ ִõ ֵ ָ ָ ӳ߸ ֟ ִ֮ ֟ ׯ֔ ܵ ָ ָ־֙ և 2002 ֲ ָ ֮ , ִֵ ױָ ֵ , ֲ ָ ו֮֟ 28 ևָ ꌙ , ֑ ܵ 3642 ֵ֟ ֵ , ֤ ׬ ֮ ԅ ָָ ׿ֿ , ֮ ֵ ׯ֔ 4-5 ܵ ֙ ֬ ֵ ֮ ֲ ֮ 1300 1700 ֑ ߓ օ

, ֵ ׯ֔ ֑ ܵ ֮ ֵ ֲ ׸ ִֻ ִ֮ ֵ ֲ ߵ ָָ ָ ӳ߸ ִֻ 00և0 פ ֵ ? , ִֻ ӳ߸ ֟ Ϭ֮ ӡ ֮֮ߵ 0 ִ֮ ׸ ֮ ֛օ ֮ ֤ , 2005 ֮-֮ ֵԾָ׾֤ ߟ ֵָ֮ ֟ ևָ ֚ ֵօ ֮֮-֮֮ ֮ ׸ ߅ , ֻ֮ ؛ ִֻ ׾ֿ , ֮ ߾ ׾ֿ ֑ ָ ׸ , ׸ ֱ ֻ֮ (1 ָ ֿ:)

1U/2.35/SKC-PSV

ֵ ֺ (֟) : ָ ֟ ևָ ׌ ֟, ֤ ֵ㌟ օ , ִֻ ֟ 00 , ꌙ ևָ ֵָ , "The Task Force members only looked at the best parks in the country and never even went to the worst ones." ֲֻ֟, - ֻ , ֋ ָ ֮ ׸ ֲ״֙ ߅ ֲ ׸ ִֻ ִ֮ ֵ, ִ ֕ã֮ ָָ ֱ ִ߸ ׻ֵօ ׻֋ ֳ ֤, ׾֕ꮦ ֻ ֟ ך ߅ ו֮֟ , ִ ֕ã֮ ã֮ߵ ׾ֵ֬ ׻ֵ ֵ, Valmik Thapar, National Board of Wildlife ָ , Mrs. Belinda Wright, Wildlife Protection Society of India ׮֤ ֮ ׸, ו ؛ և "Securing the future of tigers", ֕ã֮ ָָ ß ߅ ׾ֳ 000 ֕ã֮ ֟ ׸ ֵ֮ ֵ, ֟օ Ù և և ꌙ ָ ֮ ד֮ և , ֵ֮ , ӡ ֮֮ ?

֕ ָ ߲ 28 ևָ ׸־ 1973 ֲ ã֮֯ և , ֻ 9 ևָ ׸־ ִ ևָ ׸־ Ϥ ָӛ , ִֻ ֟ ִ ֮ և , ָ ֑ ܵ 32 , ִ֮ ֲֻ Ӆ ױ ָ֮ , ִֵ 32 և , ֕ ֡ 7 ֋ ׸ 2002 ֮ , ִֵ ָ 22 և , ֕ ָ ևָ

, ֑ ֮ ߾ ܵ ֛ ָ ֮ ֮ , Ӥ ָ ߴ ׮֤ ־֕ ևخ ֛-֛ 000 և ֮֮ ֵ ֮ ִ߮, ֻ ״ , ϴ ָ ָ ־ և ײ֮֔ , ֛ ֮֮ , ֮ ָ ־ֻ - ֮ Ӹ օ ן ֮֟ פ ֙ ֟ , ֮ , ָ ָָ ֕ וִ

, ֮ ߾ ׿ָ , ֯ ָ ׿ָ ָ ָ, ָ ֕-ָ֕ ִ֮ , ֲ ׾֤ ֟ , ֑ ָ ֮ ߸ ϤԮ ֕ ָ ֋-֋ ֕-ָ֕ , ױ Ù , ו , ָ ֋ ֕-ָ֕ֆ ֵ ָ ׿ָ , ֮ ׻֋ ֋ פ ֮ ֑ ׿ָ ִ֛ ָ߸ , ֟ , ֑ ߴ֟ , ӟָ™ߵ ָ֕ ߴ֟ ߲ ֋ ֟և ֟ , ִ֮ ֵ ֿ߻ ֤֣ ָ ׾ ֲ ֛ ֟ ֤ ָ ߕ , ֮ ߾ ִ֛ ָ߸ ֮ ן־ 10 20 ײ׻ֵ֮ ׸ ָ ָ֯ (1/000 ָ ֿ:)

1W/klg-ksk/2.40

ֵ ֺ (֟) : , ֯ ֮ ָ ֑ ִ֛ ןֲ֟ ß ָ ߮ ֵ ֟ ֻ ߮ ָָ և ϵ ןֲ׬֟ , ָ֯ ܵ ߮ ֟ ָָ ߮ ӲӬ ֟֓ߟ , ֕ ֲ ןֲ֟ ֟ ߮ ֟ ֟ ָ ִ ֑ ֻ ֮ ָ ִ ָ֯ ָ ߕ ֟ ֺ ֟ ֱ ֮ ֮֋ ֋, ׻ ܟ ֋

, Ӥ ֯ ־ֻ ָ ֟Դ֮ ֑ ܵ ֮ ? ֤ ׯ֔ ֡ , ֮ ֕֙ ֡ Ͽ ֮֮ߵ ӡ ׾ֵ ָ ֮ ָ ֵ֟ ֑ ֮ ִ ָ , ָ , ׻֋ ױֻ ִ ܵ ֮֟ ӳ־ ֮ և, 2006 ֵ ִ ִֵ օ ׾ָ֓ ִ ֻ ֻ ֮ , ֳ ֑ ֻ ܵ ָ , ִ֮ ֋߅ ָ֮ ײ ֑ ֮ ϣִ ָ ֮־ָ, 2006 ֵ , ָ ָ ׸ ևָ ׸־ ֻ 17 Ϥ , ִ ִ ֱ ӳ߸ ׾ֵ , Ϥ ָָ ӳ߸ , ܵ ֮֮ ֺ ֲ֟ ׬׸ ܵ, ֑ ֟և և , ֟և և 40 ָ ߲ , ׯ֔ ֮ 36 ֙ և

, ֲ ֮ ֻ , ֕ã֮ ׸ ׿ִ ֻ Ӥ ֮ , ֲ ׬ ϳ׾֟ ևָ ׸־ ֵ, ׿ָ ִõ ִ֟ ֵֵֻ ׯ֔ և ָָ ֮֮ ؓ , ָ֯ , ִ ָָ ? ִ ָָ ֮ ֮ 1999 2003 ߓ 114 ֑ ׿ָ ֵօ

, ִ ִõ ֑ ߴ׸ ֮ ֕ 韵 ֮օ ֕ 'և כ' פ Zoo , ִ ׯ֔ פ ָ ֮ 韵 և , ָ ֕ ָӛ ֮֕֬ ׯ֔ ߮ ֟ ֑ 韵 և ߅ ִõ ߵ ӡ ֮־֤ ֑ 韵 , ӳ߸ ׻ֵ ֓ ֑ , ׾ִֿ֢֮֯ ׳֕־ פ ֵօ

, ֕ 17 ֕ 28 ևָ ׸־ , ִ ևָ ׸־ ָ Ϥ ִֻ וֻ ӡ ֮ ӡֵֻ ׸, 2005-2006 ן־ š 57 ֟ , וִ ִֻ ևָ ׸־ ײָ פֵ ֵ ײָ ׾ֳ֮֕ ֤ ָӛ ֵ , ׻֋ ִ ָ ׻ֵ ֋ ָ֮ ָ ֑ ָ޵ ϲӬ֮ ֮ ׻֋ և, 2004 þ֟ӡ ֵԾ ߴ ֮և և ߅ ֕ ֲ ֤ ߓ ֵ , , ִֵ '껵㋿֮ ׸ ևָ ׸־ כ', ׸ և , և , ֮ ׸ , ִ ָ 28 ևָ ׸־ , ָ ֵ֟ ֵ ֲ ָָ ָ , ׸ և ֵ֓ ֋, ָ פ , ִ ׻ ֵ 28 ևָ ׸־ , ִ 5 ׸־ ӟ֮֕ , 9 ֵ֟ ֵ 7 ֵ֟ ֵ

1/ ָ

AKA-GSP/1X/2:45

ֵ ֺ (֟) : ֮ ״ֻ ׸̾ ãן , ֤ ָ ֑ ܵ ֙ ָ ׻֋ ؓ֟ ׾ֵ

ֳ֯ן : ֯

ֵ ֺ : , ӿ֮ ׾֬ ϴ ™ߵ ֑ Ӹ ׬ ֚ ™ߵ ׬ ߮ ֤ ־֮֬ , וִ֮ ֳ ֕ ֳ օ , ָ ֌ ֟ ֟ ו֮-ו֮ ևָ ׸̾ , ևֻ ֤ ָ ִ ֋ ֵ㌟ օ ׾֬ ָ 38() ֕ ָָ ָ ӓֻ ״ן ֚ ־֮֬ ֵ , ܵ ӡ ꅠ ־ ו ָ ™ߵ ׬ ֤ ֵ , ָ ֕ ӓֻ֮ ״ןֵ ׾֮֬ ֳ ׾֮֬ ׸֤ ֤õ ֋

׾֬ ֟ ֵ ™ߵ ׬ ֵֻܵ օ ֮֕֬ פ ֜ ־ ֟ ָ פ ׬ ֵֻܵ פ ֋ ־׬ ևָ Ù ֬ Ϥ , ׻֋ פ ֬ Ϥ ֮֕֬ ֻ ֵֻܵ ãׯ֟ ֋ 6 ևָ ׸̾ ֳ 8700 ߙ

, ׬ ָ ׾֬ ֵ '֑ Ӹ ׬ ִֵ ֣ ã֮ ָ ׬־֮ , ִ' ӡ , ׻֋ ־ ׬ ӟָֻ ׮׿֟ ֿ

, ׻֋ ׾֢ ֲә , 28 ևָ ׸̾ ׻֋ ֻ 30 ֋ ־֮֬ ֵ , ֱ ָ ևָ ׸̾ ԓ׸ ֛ ִõ ִֻ ָָ ӳ߸ 34 ֮֋ ֋ ևָ ׸̾ ֵԯ ԓָ ֵ֟ ֵ ׾ֳ ׯ֔ 15 ֋ ԓָ ׮ֵ㌟ ֵ פ ֓ ָָ ֻ֟ ֮ ׻֋ ׬ ׿ ֲֻ ֮

, ãֵ ״ן ָ֬ ָ ׾֬ ָ 51 ӿ֮ ß־ , ו ָ ӲӬ ־֮֬ ֵ֮ ֵ , ִ֣Ԯ ָ ֓ ֑ Ӹ ׻֋ ֑ ֮֯ ϕן ָ֬ ׮ֵӡ ֚ ß־ , ß־ ִ֣Ԯ ֵֻܵ פ ֣ 9 ߵ ֵԻֵ ֮ ֟

ֳ֯ן : ֯ ײֻ ֯ ו֋

ֵ ֺ : , ӓ ָ ײֻ ֡ ִֵ-ִֵ ָ ֵ ֵ, ָ ԅ ׻֋ ߮ ә ֲי , ָ ֻ ә ָ , ׻֋ ִ ִֵ פ ֮ ..(־֮֬)..

ֳ֯ן : ײֻ ָ ׻֋ ִֵ ֓ , 1ә 47 ״֮֙, ִ ֯ ׻֋ 10 ״֮֙ ֓ , ֯ 8 ״֮֙ ֤

ֵ ֺ : , ֮ ֟ ֟

, ֵ ֵֻܵ ֵ֮ , ִ 260 ֋ ֤ ו֟ ֟ և ֟ ִ֣Ԯ , ֣ ֵ ׾ֳ ָ ֓ , ׻֋ ׮֙ظ ֑ Ӹ ֵ֕ Ӹ ֤ ן ־ֲ֤ ֮և ֮ ־ ֵ ׸ֵ֛ ־֮ , خ ״ֻ ֮

, ׾֬ ܵ ֵ ևָ ׸̾ ֯֠ ֻ ֮֕ןֵ ׬ָ ִӕõ ãׯ֟ ֋օ ָ ֵ , ָ ׬ օ ֻ ׾ֵ ָ ָָ ֮ ™ ֑ ׸֮ֆ ֵԙ ãֻ ֤ , ֮ פ ֮

ӟ , ָ ׻֋ ׿ָ ִֻ ִ֮ ֟ , ־և ֻ ֻ ֻ ֵ ֮ ('1y/sch' ָ ָ)

SCH/SK/2.50/1Y

ֵ ֺ (֟): ׯ֔ ָ ֟ ֕ ׾ֵ ֮ ִֻ ִ֮ ֋ , 1999 2003 411 ִֻ ִ֮ ֋ , ֕ ״ֻ߅ ִ ֕ ...(־֮֬)

ֳ֯ן: ֮֯ ןִ , ׻֋ ןִ ֵօ

ֵ ֺ: , ׾ֿ ָ ֑ Ӹ ׻֋ ׬ ֮ ֮ ֮ ָ וִָ ֕ ָָ ֮ , ןֵ֯ ׸֟Ԯ ֣ ׾֬ ִ֣Ԯ ֮־֤ (ִ֯)

DR. RADHAKANT NAYAK (ORISSA): Thank you very much, Sir. I rise to support this Bill, which has been presented today. Sir, I have very few points to make, and I propose to concentrate on the Bill itself. The first point that I would submit to you is that the Conservation Authority has as many as 23 persons and it is expected to be approximating some kind of a quasi-judicial body. Unfortunately, it has not only become top-heavy, without any corresponding pyramidal structure down below, without any proper span of control, but, at the same time, it has got as many 23 persons. Certainly, it seems that this body is not a body as such, but it is an atrophy of a body, atrophy of an authority. I would submit for the consideration of the Minister that for quicker decisions, a slimmer organisation should have been in place, rather than such an unwieldy organisation, which has been created. It can never be an efficient organisation. Its decisions can never be swift, nor can they take radical decisions because there will be endless deliberations in such kind of bodies.

Sir, I will come to the other provisions in this Bill also. Clause 38 (M) (1) speaks of a member to resign. But, the time is not indicated, whether it is before three years. Although the term is for three years, it needs to be spelt out clearly when exactly a member is expected or is supposed to or required to resign, if at all he wants. Then, Sir, I will take you to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill, read with a number of provisions in the body of the Bill itself. Firstly, Sir, I will come to the section 38 (O). The Objects and Reasons says that it is an implementing body of the Tiger Project. Now, in clause 38 (O), it speaks of an approving Authority; it is not an implementing body, but it is an approving Authority. Then, Sir, if you further go to the clause 30 (G), it speaks of the Authority being advisory in nature; it is an advisory body. Then again, Sir, if you go to the sub-clause (2) of the same section, same clause, it is expected to be a directing body. Then, if you go further, in clause 38V, it is said that it is a recommending body vis-a-vis the Government. Now, Sir, how can an Authority, which you are going to create for the protection and conservation of the tigers, get so many multifarious activities? We are not sure whether it is fish or flesh. It may be explained away saying that 'no; with reference to separate organisation, it can advise, it can recommend, it can approve, it can direct, etc. This kind of an Authority is unheard of being created in a statute like this. If the statute is meant to be really effective and is to serve an effective purpose, a laudable purpose, then we need to look into all these aspects. The body has become more or less a chameleon. Therefore, it is for consideration of the Minister whether it is just a sonorous nothing or it is an authoritative structure that we are putting in place. (Contd. by ysr-1z)

-SK/YSR/2.55/1Z

DR. RADHAKANT NAYAK (CONTD.): Sir, there are many other impediments in this Bill. I think Shrimati Brinda has already pointed out definitions of buffer area, core area, and tiger bearing reserves. All these are kept nebulous. They need to be explicitly defined and explicitly pointed out what exactly do they stand for, what is their extent, what is their jurisdiction, whether they overlap each other, and to what extent the interests of the tribal people are safeguarded. That takes me, Sir, again, to the Objects and Reasons and to the different clauses of the Bill itself.

Sir, the Objects and Reasons say that the livelihood concerns of the tribal people are taken care of. This remains merely a semantic, because I did not find any clause in the Bill which actually puts in place what exactly the concerns of the tribals that are put in place or safeguarded. Suppose a particular direction of the authority is not safeguarded, what are the consequences that will follow? It is not mentioned anywhere.

There is still another point, Sir. If you read the Statement of Objects and Reasons, it speaks of the harmonisation of the tiger and the tribal conflict. But there is no proper mechanism in place as to how exactly this harmonisation will take place. This whole issue of the mention of the tribals' concerns remains vague generality and certainly a sugarcoated word. Therefore, Sir, it is definitely incomplete.

Sir, I am aware of certain situations. The penal provisions are excellent. The term of imprisonment is 3-7 years, and a fine of Rs.25,000. That is a very good provision. But, Sir, when a tribal person becomes a casualty by the tiger, normally, only Rs.5000-10,000 are given as compensation to the next of kin. Who is more valuable, Sir? Is it a tribal person or tiger? I think it has to be very clearly spelt out whether a tribal person is important or the tiger. Of course, the tiger never poaches, as has already been pointed out by my colleagues. But my point is that we have belittled the tribal's role, his livelihood concerns, much less his rights on land and forest. All that has been totally ignored. Sir, there are many other issues in this Bill, and I would request the hon. Minister to take care of them.

Sir, we had a survey in Orissa. We asked the tribals a very simple question: "Who are you afraid of more -- whether the tiger in the forest or the Forest Officer who comes to protect you or to supervise your work?" Ninety persons out of hundred replied that they are not afraid of the tiger; they can co-exist without killing each other.

Sir, in such a situation, when poaching is there willy-nilly or clandestinely, we have to be very careful as to how exactly poaching can be controlled. Sir, I would like to quote the words of no less a person than our first Prime Minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, on the importance of the tribal people. He said: "In spite of our culture and civilisation in many ways, man continues to be not only wild, but more dangerous than any of the so-called wild animals." Therefore, Sir, this has to be kept in mind, when we disregard or ignore the tribals' protection, and their livelihood concerns.

Sir, there are so many issues. This Bill is replete with a large number of contradictions and a number of overlapping jurisdictions which have been created by separate institutions. Sir, there are five organisations, besides the Tiger Conservation Authority, who are supposed to protect the tribals. The National Board of Wildlife, the Project Tiger Directorate, the States' Steering Committee, and the State Tiger Conservation Foundations, an Expert Committee, a task force, State and Regional enforcement agencies, State Forest Departments and Crime Control Bureau plus the CBI. (Contd. by VKK/2A)

PREVIOUS PAGE