 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. Today we're talking about the Forest Rights Act, a very crucial judgment is to come out by the Supreme Court. The first time that the Supreme Court had given out its judgment, it had almost decided this fate of about one million tribals who could face evictions because of the rejection of their claims. At this point of time, the Supreme Court, after many protests by the opposition parties, as well as activists, had put a stay on this decision and had asked the states to file affidavits in the court of law. And the decision will come out very soon and it can have serious repercussions and we're going to be talking about what kind of implications that this decision will have on the forest dwellers and the Forest Rights Act as well. And for that, we have Vidas Vrindakarath, the Politburo member of the CPIM. Thank you so much for joining us, ma'am. My first question to you is that it's coming at a very crucial point of time. There is a lot of violence which is happening against the community and this could mean a complete subversion of the Forest Rights Act. So what kind of a precedent will it set and what kind of expectations should we have? The first question is why did the Supreme Court accept such a petition? Yeah. Really, the Supreme Court had no business to accept such a petition. What does the petition say? The petition says that parliament has no right to legislate on tribal rights. Number two, parliament has no right to legislate on forests. Number three, parliament has no right at all to decide the fate of all these people. So first of all, that petition should not have been accepted. Secondly, after the petition was accepted, wrongly, what was the role of the central government? After the Modi government, the first Modi government took power in 2014, it came to the Supreme Court around 2015-16. First year, the government did send a council to the courts to defend the FRA. But since 2017, when the hearing was reaching its crucial points, when the main question was arguing and constitutional provisions, and the second issue on the Forest Rights Act itself, the Supreme Court found that there was no council on behalf of the central government. So how did they disappear? They were missing in action. So when they were missing in action, these people had a field day. As far as the state governments are concerned, except for one or two state governments, they are very weak petitions. So it is not a defense of it. So the first point is the petition itself and role of the central government. And the other issue that you've raised as to what are the implications of it, the implications are that you are going to do what the British did not dare do. The British took over the forest and they declared all tribals and crotches, but the British did not dare evict tribals. But here in India, you are going to coerce a large community, mainly of tribals, Adivasis, all over India, numbering over 23 lakhs, it's not 1 million. Right now the figure shows it's over 23 lakhs of which the majority are tribals. You're going to throw them out of the forest, under which law? FRA doesn't give you the right to evict. FRA is a law which gives rights. It doesn't give you the right to evict. Where are you getting the right to evict from? You have no right to evict. And more importantly, they were missing in the last very crucial hearings, as you said. The ministry was not responding and the lawyers did not turn up. Apart from that, now after many protests, even the CPIM had written to the court and there were protests by multiple political parties and organizations. Finally, there were fresh affidavits which were to be filed by the state governments and that process was completely riddled with contradictions in terms of its examination of the tribal claims. First of all, whatever the state governments say, the fact of the matter is show me a single provision in the Forest Rights Act, which is a provision for eviction. Where does it say eviction? You cannot evict under this act. If you want to evict, bring another act and that's what the government is doing. Now they are the 1927 Forest Act, brought by the British. Now the government wants to militarize the forests in the name of conservation. On the one hand, you had in the name of development and ease of business throughout the tribals. And now in the name of conservation, you want to militarize the forests. You want to criminalize every aspect of tribal life and you want to evict them. So Forest Rights Act does not give the right to evict. But if these 91 amendments to the Forest Act 1927 are brought, they can not only evict you, they can shoot you down in cold blood because the law gives them the right. If it's passed, it won't be, that's a different story. So basically the point is that this case before the Supreme Court is very, very critical. It's critical for parliament because it takes away the rights of parliament to legislate. It is critical to livelihoods because it removes and it's critical to the constitution because it wants to challenge the constitutional affirmative action under Schedule 5 of the constitution and related laws. So obviously... And there is this dichotomy, like you mentioned, being created about conservation that you will get rid of the tribals to be able to conserve wildlife there. So whose interests is the government actually trying to benefit from this kind of dichotomy? It wants to take away the right to community resources. Then the forests are open to whatever the government wants to do with it. Under the British, we saw how forests and timber was used for commercial interests in the name of development. And in this law, they have a specific section called production forests. So they're quite transparent about it in that sense. They say get rid of the tribals, don't give them community resources, and we will have the right to declare any part of India's forests even in protected areas, even in protected and reserved areas. We, means the central government will have the right to declare any part of production forest where we will allow commercial exploitation of the forest. So they want to bring that law in. So clearly it is very strong interests of certain sections of industry who would like the forest to be part of their development, profit-making agenda. And there is a very strong resistance movement which is growing on the ground. So we were supposed to get the judgment on the 24th of July, but on the 23rd and the 22nd. And across India, there is a very strong movement which is being led, which is being led by your party as well. So if you could tell us about that and the kind of protests that are being witnessed. This is really led by Adivasis themselves. It's led by the tribals and their organizations. Among them is the Adivasi Adhikar, Rashtra Manj. Among them is the Kisan Sabha and the Agricultural Workers Union. So we are all working together to ensure that the rights of people and justice for people who are mandated by law to be protectors of the forest. That role, which is their role historically, is not slashed away from them in the name of conservation, to conserve the profits of big companies, including mining companies. So there are very big struggles. I was very recently in Maharashtra in the Dindori area. And Karwan, particularly that, there were thousands and thousands of Adivasis organized by the Kisan Sabha and the Red Flag. And the Adivasi Manj. And in fact, they get out that office for several hours until certain of their immediate demands were met. And they have given a warning, I think, which is echoing across India that obviously if you are going to take away our lives, our livelihood, our cultures, our ways of life by removing us and throwing us out of the forest, we obviously cannot sit silent. And we won't sit silent. So I think this is the voice which is coming out of these large areas where Adivasis are getting ready to fight the battle for their lives and their livelihood. So on this note with this battle cry which is coming out of the tribal areas and Adivasis awaiting the Supreme Court decision, we end this. Thank you so much for joining us and speaking to us about this. Thank you.