The urgency of defining bamboo as grass

There are four important reasons why this Bill should not be supported. Number one, what is the urgency for taking out ‘bamboo’ as a tree and defining it as a grass? Heavens are not going to fall if you introduce the Bill and take some time. Why was an Ordinance issued for this Amendment?

It is impossible to think that there was some exigency, there was some emergency unless there was pressure that was coming from some private industry to allow non-forest areas for bamboo cultivation. So, the first reason why this Bill should be opposed is because there is no rational reason why an Ordinance was issued.

Number two, the Minister has just said that this Bill applies to non-forest areas. Sir, I want the honourable Members to know that India produces 170 million tonnes of bamboo from forest areas and 10 million tonnes of bamboo from non-forest areas. These are not my numbers; these are not my figures. These are figures of the Forest Survey of India which comes under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.

94 per cent of bamboo produced in India is from forest areas; six per cent of bamboo is in non-forest areas. You are bringing a Bill basically to deal with the interests of the six per cent and you are forgetting the interests of the 94 per cent and this is the second reason why I want to oppose this Bill. This is not pro-tribal; this is not pro-poor; this is not pro-North East. Sixty-five per cent of bamboo in India is grown in the North-East. This is completely antithetical to the interests of the North East, to the tribals and to the poor community. This will benefit only private industry, private paper mills, private wood factories, private companies which want to use wood as a substitute for plastic material. This is not going to benefit 94 per cent of that area from which we get bamboo today. So, this is the second reason.

Sir, now I come to the third reason why I oppose this Bill. I was also the Minister for Environment. This issue came up in 2009 that the Forest Rights Act defines bamboo as a minor forest produce whereas the Indian Forest Act of 1927 defines bamboo as a tree and the Minister took great pride that after this Government has come, a revolutionary Bill has been brought forward.

Nothing of that sort, Sir, because, as I said, first of all, 94 per cent of bamboo is already classified as minor forest produce, and I would like the honourable Minister to know that if there is dispute on a fact where two laws are in conflict, it is an established practice — and there are distinguished lawyers here — that the law that is passed most recently by Parliament will be the law that will apply.

The Forest Rights Act was passed in 2006. The Indian Forest Act was passed in 1927. So, obviously, it is the Forest Rights Act that is going to take precedence and priority over the Indian Forest Act. That is why I did not bring the Amendment to the Indian Forest Act and I allowed the Forest Rights Act to play and define bamboo as a minor forest produce.

Sir, in April, 2011, the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Mr. Prithviraj Chavan, and I had gone to Gadchiroli District and this is very close to where my friend, Shri Praful Patel, comes from. There is a village called Mendha Lekha in Gadchiroli district; Mendha Lekha became the first village in India where the transit pass book for bamboo was transferred from the Forest Department to the Gram Sabha. The net result of this was that the income of the Gram Sabha of Mendha Lekha went up from fifteen lakhs of rupees to almost a crore. The Maharashtra Government doesn’t like this! The Ministry of Environment doesn’t like this, because they want to preserve the monopoly of the Forest Department and they don’t want the Gram Sabhas to be empowered.

After Menda Lekha, Jamguda in Kalahandi district became the second village in India where the transit pass book control for bamboo use, bamboo transport and bamboo cultivation was taken from the Forest Department and given to the Gram Sabha. Now, this is being reversed. On the one side, you are bringing an amendment to benefit private industry and, on the other side, you are not allowing in the forest areas the bamboo control to go to the Gram Sabha. You are taking away the control of the Gram Sabha and giving it to the Forest Department. This is hypocrisy, and this is the third reason why I don’t want to support this Bill, because what you are doing is, you are encouraging non-forest areas and in forest areas, where the Gram Sabha should be in control, according to the Forest Rights Act, you are going back to the old system and giving control to the Forest Department. Sir, this is double standards, and this is not acceptable as far as I am concerned. Sir, the fourth and final reason why I want to oppose this Bill is this: Last year, in this House and the other House, we passed the Compensatory Afforestation Management Authority Bill, the CAMPA Bill.

Dr. Harsh Vardhan’s predecessor was a very distinguished Member of this House. Unfortunately, he is not with us any more. May his soul rest in peace. He was a good friend of mine. He made a solemn commitment in the House — and you were also present — that before the rules get promulgated, we would have wide consultations and we would ensure that in the process of formulating the rules we will not take away the rights of the Gram Sabha.

So, in this case also what has happened is that you are trampling on the rights of the Gram Sabha, which are enshrined in the Forest Rights Act, and now you are coming down and saying that you are bringing a revolutionary amendment which would suddenly make all farmers take to agro forestry and become very rich! I think this is misleading all of us. Therefore, Sir, I, with great reluctance, have to say that this Bill cannot be supported.