Relevance: GS Paper II – Governance & Social Justice; GS Paper III – Environment & Internal Security; Source: The Hindu, Ministry of Tribal Affairs reports, National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA)
Context and Issue
India’s tiger reserves — protected under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (WLPA) — were created to conserve the Bengal tiger and its ecosystem. However, many of these core or critical tiger habitats are home to indigenous forest-dwelling tribes who have lived there for centuries.
- In June 2024, the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) directed states to speed up the relocation of such forest communities from core zones.
- This move triggered protests and debate — as relocation directly affects the livelihoods, culture, and rights of communities protected under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006.
- The question, therefore, is: How can India reconcile tiger conservation with the constitutional rights and welfare of its forest people?
What are Tiger Reserves?
Tiger reserves are legally protected areas under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, created to ensure the long-term survival of tigers and their ecosystems under Project Tiger (1973).
As of 2025, India has 58 Tiger Reserves covering ~2.3% of land area, holding ~75% of the world’s wild tigers, making India a global leader in tiger conservation.
Key Features & Functions of Tiger Reserves
Aspect | Description |
| Legal Framework | Governed by the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) under MoEFCC. |
| Structure | Core Zone: Strictly protected habitat (no human activity). Buffer Zone: Regulated use—eco-tourism, research, local livelihoods. |
| Conservation Role | Tigers are umbrella species — protecting them conserves entire ecosystems. |
| Ecosystem Services | Water regulation, carbon storage, soil conservation, climate moderation. |
| Management Tools | Tiger Conservation Plans (TCPs), camera traps, GPS tracking, and ecological monitoring. |
| Community Role | Buffer areas support eco-tourism and sustainable livelihoods, reducing conflict. |
Who are Traditional Forest Dwellers?
Under the Forest Rights Act (2006), two broad groups are recognised:
Category | Definition | Rights Recognised |
| Scheduled Tribes (STs) | Communities listed under Article 342 of the Constitution, traditionally residing in forest areas. | Individual rights over forest land for habitation, cultivation, and livelihood. |
| Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFDs) | Non-ST communities who have lived in forest areas for at least 75 years prior to 2005. | Community rights over forest produce, water bodies, grazing grounds, and cultural spaces. |
Constitutional backing:
- Article 21: Right to life with dignity (includes right to livelihood).
- Article 46: Directive Principle directing the State to protect the interests of STs.
- Fifth Schedule & PESA Act, 1996: Mandate self-governance and community participation in Scheduled Areas.
Thus, these communities have both legal and moral protection against forced displacement.
The Larger Problem of Tribal and Rural Displacement
Parameter | Details |
| Villages inside tiger reserves (core zones) | Around 590–600 villages |
| Families living within these areas | Over 64,000 households across 19 states |
| Reason for relocation | To create inviolate core zones for tigers and other wildlife. |
| Current policy | Two options: (1) ₹15 lakh compensation per family, or (2) rehabilitation package — land, house, and livelihood support. |
For example, in Sariska Tiger Reserve (Rajasthan) and Kanha (Madhya Pradesh), relocation efforts freed up large forest areas, but many families later reported inadequate compensation, poor amenities, and loss of traditional livelihoods.
Laws, Rights and the NTCA–FRA Conflict
Legal Framework | Objective | Key Conflict Point |
| Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 | Establishes tiger reserves and critical habitats to protect wildlife. | Emphasises inviolate zones, leading to pressure for relocation. |
| Forest Rights Act, 2006 | Recognises individual and community rights of forest dwellers and mandates Gram Sabha consent before relocation. | FRA says rights must be recognised first, relocation only if coexistence is impossible. |
| PESA, 1996 | Empowers Gram Sabhas for decision-making in Scheduled Areas. | Often ignored or bypassed during relocation. |
Hence, while the WLPA focuses on wildlife protection, the FRA upholds human rights and justice — creating friction between conservation and livelihood security.
The New Policy Framework by Ministry of Tribal Affairs
In response to the criticism, MoTA has drafted a new framework titled: “Reconciling Conservation and Community Rights: Framework for Relocation and Coexistence.”
Key Features:
- Relocation as a last resort — only after scientific evidence proves that coexistence between humans and wildlife is unfeasible.
- Voluntary relocation — no coercion; written Gram Sabha consent required.
- Rehabilitation with dignity — secure housing, education, healthcare, livelihood, and infrastructure.
- Monitoring & transparency — a national relocation database to track families, funds, and outcomes.
- Joint implementation — coordination between MoTA and Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to harmonise rights and conservation goals.
Persisting Issues and Challenges
Challenge | Explanation |
| Involuntary relocation | Reports indicate that some families face pressure to move without proper consent. |
| Livelihood loss | Compensation often fails to provide sustainable income sources outside forests. |
| Cultural displacement | Communities lose ancestral lands, sacred groves, and traditional knowledge systems. |
| Weak institutional coordination | Forest, tribal, and revenue departments often act independently. |
| Data gaps | Poor tracking of how relocated families are faring post-settlement. |
| Land and infrastructure scarcity | Finding suitable land and building amenities before relocation remains difficult. |
A Balanced and Sustainable Way Forward
Strategy | Description |
| Rights-first approach | Recognise and record forest rights under FRA before any relocation plan. |
| Scientific evidence for relocation | Relocate only after proof that co-existence poses a serious threat to wildlife or human safety. |
| Participatory planning | Gram Sabhas should lead decision-making, ensuring free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). |
| Livelihood-focused rehabilitation | Move beyond cash grants — provide land titles, job training, access to MFP markets, and eco-tourism opportunities. |
| Transparent monitoring | Create public dashboards, social audits, and grievance redress mechanisms. |
| Community-based conservation | Involve forest dwellers in eco-restoration, patrolling, and habitat management for shared responsibility. |
Key Takeaways
- India’s tiger conservation goals and forest dwellers’ rights are not mutually exclusive — both are part of sustainable environmental governance.
- FRA (2006) and WLPA (1972) can complement each other if applied sequentially: Recognise rights → Assess coexistence → Relocate voluntarily if essential.
- The new policy framework rightly focuses on consent, evidence, and dignity.
- The future of conservation lies in partnerships between people and the forest, not in forced exclusion.
One-line wrap: Protecting tigers and empowering tribal communities must go hand in hand — conservation succeeds best when rooted in justice, consent, and coexistence.
UPSC Mains Question:
“Relocation of forest-dwelling communities from tiger reserves is lawful only if coexistence is unfeasible and rights are settled. Discuss how India can balance wildlife conservation with constitutional and livelihood rights under the Forest Rights Act.”
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!
Start Yours at Ajmal IAS – with Mentorship StrategyDisciplineClarityResults that Drives Success
Your dream deserves this moment — begin it here.