According to RT, Shuchita Jha reports that India's National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) has ordered the displacement of 64,000 tribal families in 19 states to create protected tiger zones, igniting a fierce debate between conservation efforts and indigenous rights. According to activists, this move violates laws meant to secure the rights of India’s tribal communities, such as the Wildlife Protection Act (WLPA) and the Forest Rights Act (FRA). Advocates argue that indigenous communities play an essential role in conservation, often aiding efforts by actively managing and protecting these habitats.
Critics argue that excluding these communities is not only an injustice but is counterproductive for conservation itself. Ecologist Pia Sethi highlights success stories, like the Biligirirangana Hills tiger reserve, where the Soliga tribe manages local forests effectively. Other examples from Chhattisgarh also show tribal communities coexisting with protected wildlife populations, reinforcing the idea that conservation need not be achieved at the cost of displacement. Activists have appealed to India’s Ministry of Environment, urging a reconsideration of NTCA's approach and calling for a cooperative conservation model that incorporates local communities, granting them rights to remain in the regions they’ve inhabited for generations.
The controversy intensified as critics observed an inconsistency in NTCA’s approach. While tribal communities are being asked to leave, eco-sensitive land in some reserves is being leased for tourism and infrastructure, as in Madhya Pradesh’s Panna Tiger Reserve. This allocation for development, activists argue, contradicts NTCA’s stated goals by undermining the preservation of tiger habitats and introducing new human encroachments.
NTCA insists the relocations are voluntary and comply with legal guidelines, claiming that each reserve's tiger conservation plan includes a framework for community relocation with informed consent. NTCA official Gobind Sagar Bhardwaj defends the initiative, asserting that previous relocation plans have improved tiger conservation and that the current outcry stems from misinterpretations of NTCA’s policies.
In response, activists are urging NTCA to withdraw the mandate and adopt conservation strategies that respect indigenous involvement. They emphasize that a sustainable approach must balance wildlife protection with the cultural and economic rights of indigenous people, ensuring conservation does not inadvertently fuel conflict or displacement.
