SHOT IN THEIR ARMS
SHOULD FOREST GUARDS BE ARMED WITH LETHAL WEAPONS? SPORADIC ATTACKS ON FORESTERS PROMPT A REASSESSMENT OF INCONSISTENT REGIONAL REGULATIONS
Should forest guards be armed with lethal weapons? Sporadic attacks prompt a rethink of regulations
On February 4, Madanlal Verma, 58, a forest guard posted in Madhya Pradesh’s Dewas district, did not return home after work. A search operation that night located his body in the forests of the Punjapura range. The cause of death was a gunshot injury—he had been murdered during the course of his patrol. Footage recovered from his cellphone filled in the details. It appears that Verma had come upon some miscreants earlier that day, later identified as poachers. In the video found on his phone, Verma can be heard challenging an assailant to shoot him. A gunshot then rings out.
This incident is a chilling reminder of the perils that foresters face every day. Even police officers are not immune to such dangers—the day after Verma’s murder, a police inspector was fired upon by members of a mining mafia in Gwalior district. The day before that, a police constable was shot at and injured in Datia district in similar circumstances.
This is a long-standing problem. Over a month ago, on January 8, while hearing an interlocutory application (IA) filed by the Nature Conservation Society on the increasing number of attacks on forest department field staff in some states, the Supreme Court asked the Union and state governments to come up with a policy to issue firearms and protective equipment like helmets and bulletproof vests to foresters. The bench, led by Chief Justice of India S.A. Bobde, also suggested that a special wildlife cell be set up in the Enforcement Directorate as the illegal trade of
wildlife and forest resources often involves proceeds in foreign currency. The apex court’s observations brought into focus how vulnerable forest department staff are to attacks by encroachers, timber mafias and poachers.
The Nature Conservation Society, an Amravati-based NGO, had filed an IA in the Supreme Court citing an increase in the frequency of attacks on forest department field staff in many states, particularly in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra. The IA sought directions to the Union and state governments to provide administrative and police support to forest department officials, also raising the issue of land encroachment and the danger that foresters face when policing such crimes.
India’s forest rangers already face considerable perils. TheInternational Ranger Federation identifies India as the most dangerous country for rangers—the country accounted for 162 of the 526 worldwide ranger deaths in the line of duty between 2012 and 2017—almost 31 per cent. In 2017 alone, there were 29 such deaths in India. (However, seven were found to be murders by poachers and members of timber and mining mafias; the remaining 22 were the result of road accidents, fires and attacks by wild animals.)
In India, foresters have a number of responsibilities that relate to securing forest land. Aside from timber, wildlife and minerals, forest resources include the land itself, which is often encroached upon. Of late, it is the mineral resources— especially sand—that has begun to dominate the illegal trade, bringing forest department staff into increasing conflict with those mining it. Interestingly, while foresters trying to control environment-related crimes have faced increasingly violent attacks in recent years, the total number of such crimes appears to be on the decline. According to data from the NCRB (National Crime Records Bureau), environmentrelated crimes have dropped from 42,041 cases in 2017 to 35,113 in 2018 and 34,566 in 2019. State-wise, in 2019, Tamil Nadu reported the highest number of cases—13,316— with Rajasthan at 10,782 and Kerala at 5,054.
In India, some state forest departments already issue firearms to field staff. Assam is one such—foresters in the state have been given weapons primarily to deal with poachers in Kaziranga. Madhya Pradesh is another, with the forest department having procured weapons for foresters as far back as the 1980s. In Bihar, an earlier proposal to issue rifles
In January, the Supreme Court directed the Union and state governments to develop a policy to issue firearms and protective equipment like helmets and bulletproof vests to forest rangers
to forest staff was shelved, though the state is now actively reconsidering it. State principal chief conservator of forests, A.K. Pandey, says, “The Supreme Court has ordered [states] to equip foresters with guns. A proposal is being prepared.”
However, there are complications that need to be resolved, such as the consequences foresters face should they use their weapons. In a nutshell, foresters do not have the same legal protections as police officers for using their weapons in the line of duty. For instance, in February last year, Madan Valmiki, a resident of Fatehpur village in Madhya Pradesh’s Shivpuri district, was shot dead by forest department staff. The department says that its staff fired in self defence after a team was attacked during an anti-encroachment operation; Valmiki’s family claims that he was shot in a dispute over drawing water. In the aftermath, ranger Suresh Sharma was booked by the police for murder and under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
A similar instance in Rajasthan in 1996 proves how complicated this issue is—on November 23 that year, a mob attacked a forest check-post in
Ranthambore, seeking the release of an accused detained by the forest department. Badan Singh, an ex-serviceman deployed as a forest guard, opened fire in self-defence, killing one attacker and saving the lives of two department officials. Nonetheless, he was booked for murder, and fought the case until his death a decade ago. “How can we use firearms, for which have neither the training nor the legal authority?” asks one IFS (Indian Forest Service) officer. However, others say that guns have saved their lives—another officer recounts how he once fired his weapon in the air to disperse a mob in Sawai Madhopur, though the incident was not reported to avoid an investigation.
Though forest departments can ask for police escorts when there are fears of violence, support is not always available, especially when foresters encounter criminals while on patrol. Many department officials have demanded that officers above a certain rank be given magisterial powers, as during elections. “We do not want to be subjected to police investigations after every firing incident, when the onus to justify the use of weapons is on us,” says an officer, arguing that magisterial inquiries should be conducted before FIRs (First Information Reports) are filed against forest staff. Pointing out that forest department officials in Assam have legal protection, he suggests that forest department offices be
An added complication is that forest department officials do not have the same legal protections as police officers for using their weapons in the line of duty
given the same legal standing as police stations. On the flip side, there is potential for abuse of such powers. For example, despite its success in wildlife conservation via firearms, the Assam forest department has often been accused of human rights violations and extra-judicial killings; between 2013 and 2016, 55 alleged poachers were killed in the state.
Attempts have been made by state governments to circumvent such problems. In MP, a circular issued by the state home department in 1996 said that no criminal cases should be filed against forest department officials for using their weapons unless a magisterial inquiry found ‘unnecessary and unwarranted’ use of force. However, this has not protected foresters—there are at least a dozen officials in the state facing murder and attempt-to-murder cases for incidents in which they say they were forced to fire in selfdefence or in the line of duty. In the incident at Shivpuri last year, a case was registered on the grounds that there was no forest in the area where the shooting occurred.
“A circular has no legal standing,” says former principal chief conservator of forests R.N. Saxena. “A gazette notification according protection to forest staff under section 197 of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) should be issued.” He also points out another loophole, saying, “The 1996 circular grants protection [only] to deputy rangers, foresters and forest guards—but search and seizure operations are conducted by rangers and above. This makes them vulnerable in court.” He says that the government’s reluctance to provide a proper legal footing for foresters seems inexplicable. “The forest department has been dealing with crimes since 1865, when the first forest act was made. Yet, the forest department still doesn’t have a system of having lock-ups.”
On the other hand, some argue that arming foresters would leave forest-dwellers at their mercy. “Unlike the police, foresters operate in deep jungles, away from the media spotlight, with little administrative oversight,” says a tribal MLA in Madhya Pradesh, whose constituency sees regular conflicts between foresters and local residents. “Arming them with guns would make the population living there more vulnerable.”
The Maharashtra government, for one, does not appear inclined to develop policies that allow foresters to have firearms. A highly-placed official says the govern
ment might explore other ways to protect forest guards, such as more severe punishments for attackers. The official says that the stringent forest act already efficiently provides protections for the safety of forest guards, though state principal secretary (forests) Milind Mhaiskar says that the government is considering new policies after the Supreme Court order. Similarly, Sreya Guha, Rajasthan’s principal secretary for forests and the environment, says she would prefer improved coordination between forest officers and the police rather than equipping foresters with firearms.
Aside from legal issues, other problems relate to training. “There is no shooting range in the Gorakhpur division for staff to be trained,” says S.N. Maurya, divisional forest officer for Gorakhpur. “As a result, while the department has guns, most staff [do their jobs] armed with sticks.” The lack of training also reflects in forest officials having their weapons stolen—at Panna tiger reserve, for instance, some foresters have had their shotguns snatched by local villagers, with the weapons still remaining missing. This problem would be more severe in Maoist-affected areas such as Chhattisgarh— having guns would make forest department staff targets for attacks, as many Maoist arsenals are made up of stolen weapons. In Chhattisgarh, Maoists have looted an estimated 750 weapons from security forces in the past 20 years, and only about 20 per cent have been recovered.
“Forces like the police, paramilitary and army are issued weapons that have prohibited calibres,” says Vijay Shukul, a retired IPS officer and former member of the MP Human Rights Commission. “The ammunition for these weapons is not available in civilian markets. In MP, the state government procured 12 bore guns [for the forest department]—these are non-prohibited and ammunition is available to civilians. This enhances the risk of the weapons being misused.”
Kishore Rithe of the Nature Conservation Society says that the bigger picture must be considered. “Unless [legal] protections are given to foresters, there is no point in giving them firearms. One must also understand why this conflict is happening—people are assaulting the authorities and are willing to go to jail for capturing land. Why have things come to this?” he asks. Conservationists are also keen on a system that empowers foresters to protect themselves and to fearlessly do their jobs. In January, a minister in Madhya Pradesh was accused by a deputy ranger of committing dacoity in taking away impounded earth-moving equipment from a range office in Mhow. The deputy ranger was transferred the day after he filed the complaint.
“Those who protect our forests, often at great risk, must be given the same recognition and respect we accord those who protect our borders,” says Prerna Bindra, a former member of the national board for wildlife. “Foresters protect our national heritage and the ecosystems that ensure our food and water security. The challenges they face are very complex, and increasing. While guns and legal protection may be useful in self-defence, what foresters need is to be empowered to do their job. They should not face unnecessary interference and intimidation when enforcing the law.”
In Maoistaffected areas, having guns would make foresters targets for attack since stolen weapons make up a large part of Maoist arsenals