A Critique of Forest Governance in Eastern India

Abstract

Abstract This paper is contextualized within postcolonial movements for social justice and ecological restoration in India, enabled through the emergent participation of diverse and subaltern stakeholders. This paper engages shifts in forest management in India. Within this frame, it refers to public forest lands reform initiatives in Orissa, a state in eastern India. In 1997-98, assisted by the Swedish International Development Agency, a review was conducted of forest management systems in Orissa. The intention was to understand microlevel frameworks within the state toward the transfer of authority over public forest lands from the government to local communities. Using information generated by this review, this paper discusses critical concerns in Orissa. ********** Explanations Within movements for social change currently underway in South Asia and India, development reforms imply a multitude of contradictions and complexities to a diverse constituency of stakeholders. Such reforms instigate discussions and debate on sustainable development and raise strategic questions related to the role and responsibility of the State and international agencies to marginalized rural communities, and of community access to livelihood resources. It speaks to possibilities of social and ecological restitution that confront critical concerns of governmental decentralization, and relocation of authority and resources. This paper is informed by research connected to public forest lands reform in Orissa, a state in eastern India. In 1997-98, the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA), the Swedish Government's international development assistance program, aided a review of forest management systems in Orissa. The intention was to understand microlevel frameworks within the state of Orissa toward the decentralization of forest management. A primary objective was to reframe the fabric of donor-community-government collaborations. The aim was to operationalize development mechanisms that embody the ethical commitments of postcolonial advocacy and action in India. I was involved in this process, and responsible for conducting a Statewide participatory assessment of management systems related to public forest lands. (See Chatterji, 1998.) The SIDA review supported participatory and generative methods of inquiry. It produced openings for limited participation of citizens in decision making within consultative governmental forums on public forest lands management. The review submitted its recommendations to SIDA in 1998. These recommendations constituted a proposal for future action linked to the devolution of authority over public forest lands, requesting SIDA financing for an implementation phase in Orissa. This implementation phase would facilitate capacity building for public lands reform through a reorganization and decentralization of the forest department and support to community institutions. In 1998, India conducted nuclear experiments, and in 1999-2000 SIDA retracted its support, citing its differences over India's nuclear politics as a primary reason for its withdrawal. While implicitly committed to anti-nuclear military policies, I would like to acknowledge the problematics of North-South relations where attempts at political/military self-assertion by ex-colonies are policed and met with punitive aid sanctions. (1) Reciprocal penalties are not enforcible on countries of the Global North as they continue to set the standard for nuclear stockpiling or participate in nuclear proliferation. The history of manufactured debt, and the plundering of the resources of former colonies, makes donor aid a critical component of human rights activities in the Global South. This is especially true as the debt of the colonizers to the most underprivileged sections of these societies have never been calculated or repaid. Revoking aid impacts the most margilanized sections of these societies who, ironically, do not have access to decision making that relate to nuclear policy. …