































Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 2 (1): 43–76, January 2019 

 
SPECIAL SECTION: Ecological Distribution Conflicts in India 
 

Relocation from protected areas as a violent process in 
the recent history of biodiversity conservation in India 
 

Eleonora Fanari  
 
Abstract: In the last two decades conflicts due to biodiversity conservation 
projects have been rising all over the world. This is due to the interest at the global 
level towards environmental protection, which is often implemented at the expense 
of communities living within and around important biodiversity spots. The study 
analyses the violent process of relocation and displacement from the protected 
areas of India with the purpose of documenting the illegal relocation of indigenous 
communities and forest dwellers from the protected forest areas. It examines the 
specific laws and regulations that legalize their relocation from their ancestral land 
in contravention of legal recognition of the community’s forest rights under the 
Forest Rights Act (FRA). The article concludes how these conflicts are the results 
of no recognition of tenure rights, and mirrors the contradictions embedded in the 
environmental protection policies not only in India but at the global level as well. 
 
Keywords: biodiversity conservation conflicts, ecological distribution conflicts, 
environmental justice movements, Forest Rights Act. 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Conservation of biodiversity is going through a significant challenge as the 
cost and benefit for the creation of protected areas are not equally shared, 
bringing the issues of displacement and dispossession at the pick of the 
problem. Although displacement and relocation from protected areas have 
been undertaken throughout the world1 since the pre-colonial era, in the 

 
 EJAtlas, Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologia Ambiental (ICTA), Universidad Autonoma de 

Barcelona (UAB), Calle Lleida 25, 4-1, 08004, Barcelona, Spain; e.fanari86@gmail.com 

Copyright © Fanari 2019. Released under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 
4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) by the author.  

Published by Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), c/o Institute of Economic 
Growth, University Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007.  

ISSN: 2581-6152 (print); 2581-6101 (web). 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v2i1.55  

1 As of October 2017, there are about 200.000 protected areas around the world as per The 
World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA). The 11 Aichi Targets of the Convention on 

https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v2i1.55


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [44] 

last two decades the increasing number of protected areas around the world 
and the continuous restrictions put on the local communities have created a 
situation for which “conservation has become the number one threat to 
indigenous territories”, as declared by one indigenous delegate at the United 
Nation Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP), 2004 
(Dowie 2009). The creation of protected areas for the conservation of 
biodiversity and ecosystem has been valuable for the public who benefits 
from the common sharing, while the higher cost for its notification is 
almost entirely paid by the local communities living within those spaces 
who risk to lose their access to land, forest resources and other 
development opportunities (Krueger 2009, 21).  

The notion of biodiversity and forest as pristine and wilderness comes from 
a classical western idea of conservation which sees the tribal people as 
‘encroachers’, ‘poachers’ and responsible for the decline of biodiversity 
conservation and considers relocation and displacement the mainstream 
solution and the only strategy to save the environment (Dowie 2009, xvii). 
However, as observed by many thinkers and scholars, displacement of 
people from protected areas become risky both for the people who live out 
of natural resources and for the biodiversity itself (Cernea and Schmidt-
Soltau 2003, 42). In general, the complex literature of displacement due to 
conservation shows a picture of the loss of livelihood, income, and 
impoverishment of the affected communities and loss and degradation of 
the wildlife (Brockinton and Igoe 2006, 425). Besides, the conservation 
based on exclusion influences the behaviour of conservationist NGOs, 
forest officials and administrative authorities who continue to deny the 
access to the local communities to their land and forest resources, looking 
at them as the enemy rather than possible co-operators in the conservation 
management process. This despite the fact that community conservation 
management approach and indigenous land rights have been recognized at 
the policy level, both nationally (vis. Forest Rights Act 2006, India) and 
internationally (Convention of Biological Diversity, COP7, IUCN), 
ensuring to the indigenous the rights of habitat and use of the forest 
resources. According to the estimates, worldwide, from the Masai and 
Ogiek in Kenya, the Batswa in Uganda, the Ashaninka in Peru and the 
Adivasis in India, conservation has displaced about 10 to 20 million people 
(Agrawal and Redford 2009, 4), who formerly lived, farmed, fished and 
hunted in the protected areas. 

 

 
Biological Diversity (CBD) have the objective to cover by 2020 at least 17 per cent of 
terrestrial and inland water areas and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas. 



[45] Eleonora Fanari 

2. METHODOLOGY 

This article provides an overview of conservation conflicts in India using 
legal framework to explore the relocation policy as a mean of 
environmental protection, and a source of violence. The article is the result 
of one-year research conducted in India, while working with Kalpavriksh,2 a 
non profit organization working on environmental and social issues. The 
data on this particular category of ecological distribution conflicts (EDCs)3 
do mainly come from five sources: (i) English language newspaper report, 
(ii) reports available in the Forest Rights Act website, (iii) secondary 
information shared by the Community Forest Rights – Learning and 
Advocacy (CFR-LA) group, (iv) primary data directly observed and 
reported from the field, and (v) data shared by activists, reporters, 
journalists, etc. The primary data have been gathered through interviews, 
group discussion and documents collected in eight protected areas visited 
from March to September 2017. The secondary data have been gathered for 
30 protected areas through journal articles, reports, and documents 
collected by civil society organizations working on the ground with local 
and forest communities, as well as from testimonies of socio-environmental 
activists and sanghatanas working on advocacy for the just recognition of the 
Forest Rights Act. The study areas were chosen based on 4 criteria: a) 
political sensitivity, b) geographical area, c) accessibility and contacts, and d) 
presence of forest dwellers and indigenous communities.  

Some of the biodiversity conservation conflicts in India are recorded and 
explained in the EJAtlas, a project at the ICTA UAB on which the author is 
working in 2019. The EJAtlas has registered nearly 300 ecological 
distribution conflicts in India as of December 2018. Of these, only about 15 
are classified as “biodiversity conservation conflicts”, including some such 
as Save Silent Valley Movement in Kerala against building of a dam 
(EJAtlas 2018a) and the Bhitarkarnika wildlife sanctuary (EJAtlas 2018b) in 
Odisha (preserving a mangrove forest) showing a degree of confluence 
between outside conservationists and local people.  

However, many others biodiversity conservation conflicts pitch the 
conservationists, the Forest Department and the State of India against the 
local people. These include conflicts in Jaldapara National Park in North 
Bengal (EJAtlas 2018c) and Kaziranga (EJAtlas 2017a) and Manas National 

 
2 The study was carried out with the support of Kalpavriksh in India as a National Report on 
the implementation of Forest Rights Act within protected areas in India, funded by Rights 
and Resources Initiatives (RRI).  
3 EDCs are defined as conflicts over the distribution of environmental benefits and impacts 
associated with economic growth (Martinez-Alier, 2002).  



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [46] 

Parks (EJAtlas 2018d) in Assam. This article focuses on this second type of 
conflicts. 

 

3. THE INDIAN SCENARIO  

In India, the first relocation drive started in pre-independence time, when 
two small villages were removed from the Kaziranga reserve in Assam in 
1908. This was followed by relocations in Kashmir from Shikar reserve, and 
then the Baigas were relocated from the Kanha National park in Madhya 
Pradesh. Soon after gaining independence in 1947, there were some 
displacement cases in the Sariska Wildlife Sanctuary in Rajasthan, in the Gir 
Forest in Gujarat and others (Lasgerscoix and Kothari 2009). But the 
relocation from Protected Areas (PA) became common during the 1970s, 
after the enactment of the Wildlife Protection Act (WLPA) in 1972, and the 
launching of Project Tiger in 1973; the Act prescribed the procedures for 
setting up and managing the protected areas and regularizing the 
biodiversity activities (Kothari, 2009). The numerous regulations of 
biodiversity activities under the WLPA had a direct impact on thousands of 
Adivasi and forest dwellers whose traditional practice and lifestyle got 
directly affected, all this while urban tourism activities and hunting practices 
of elite sportsmen were indeed sanctioned (Dowie, 2009, 123). At that time 
there were about 67 national parks and 336 sanctuaries, which made up 
about 2.59 per cent of the entire India land mass, which has today doubled 
for a total of 4.88 per cent (Wildlife Institute of India, 2016). 

As of 2018, the protected areas in India have increased to 771, including 
544 sanctuaries, 104 national parks and 200 conservation areas, including 50 
Tiger Reserves, making up to 4.88 per cent of India’s landmass.4 The 
number of people relocated from Protected Areas in the entire Indian 
subcontinent—according to a study conducted in the mid-1980s—was 
estimated to be around 100,000 (Langerscoix and Kothari 2009). According 
to the current study, the estimated number of people relocated from 
protected areas in the last 10/15 years is about 60,000. Many of these 
relocations remain unaccounted for, with millions more slated to have been 
displaced either forcefully or voluntarily.   

3.1. A Legal Protection only on Paper, the Forest Rights Act 

The important Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers 
(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA), was enacted to counteract 

 
4 More details can be accessed here 
http://www.wiienvis.nic.in/Database/Protected_Area_854.aspx.  



[47] Eleonora Fanari 

the historical injustices propagated under forest and conservation laws, 
policies and practices against the forest communities. This legal instrument 
recognizes the scheduled tribes and other forest dwelling communities’ 
rights to inhabit, use and manage their traditional forest. As per FRA, these 
rights have been recognized also within the limits of a sanctuary or a 
national park. In this regard, the provision establishes the declaration of 
‘critical wildlife habitats’ as important wildlife areas that are kept inviolate, 
i.e. no human activity that is scientifically and objectively may damage 
wildlife is permissible in these areas (Broome and Fanari 2017). This means 
that the FRA recognizes the possibility of resettlement of forest 
communities only from this area, if scientifically recognized that their 
activity causes damage to wildlife, and based on the free informed consent 
of the community.  

The FRA was born as a result of the peasant struggle for the recognition of 
forest land rights, and the attention at the international level to more 
protection for the indigenous communities. One of such international 
recognitions in relation to protected areas, is the World Parks Congress in 
Durban in 2003, which highlighted its commitment to involve local 
communities, indigenous and nomadic peoples in the creation, 
proclamation and management of protected areas.5 Moreover, the ‘Free 
Informed Consent’ as a prior requirement for the notification and 
management plan of the PAs has been extensively addressed in treaties such 
as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), whose Article 8(j) and 
related provisions note that “the establishment, management and 
monitoring of protected areas should take place with the full and effective 
participation of, and full respect for the rights of indigenous and local 
communities consistent with national law and applicable international 
obligations”. As regards the international treaties, the Indian Government 
recognizes through the FRA the rights to the forest dwellers living within 
the PAs, stipulating that relocation can only take place if scientifically 
determined that co-existence is not possible, and only after the free 
informed consent of the Gram Sabhas.6 However, the milestone Act is 
continuously challenged and contested not only by mining companies and 
builders of infrastructures all across India (as shown in the EJAtlas), but 
also by classical conservationists and forest officials who do not 

 
5 The Vth IUCN World Parks Congress was held in Durban, South Africa in 2003. The 
Congress represented the largest and most diverse gathering of protected area experts in 
history.  
6 The term Gram Sabha is defined in the Constitution of India under Article 243(b). It is the 
primary body of the Panchayati Raj system. It discusses local governance and development, 
and make need-based plans for the village.  



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [48] 

acknowledge the law within the limit of the protected spaces. Indeed, while 
these policies gave hope to the local communities and strengthened their 
identity and unity, new conservation ‘necessities’—based on the need for 
ensuring protection of the wildlife—have developed new paradigms which 
are often in contrast with the necessities of the communities. These are 
reflected in strengthening the measures to enhance environmental security 
through creation of new borders, measures of control such as militarization 
and biodiversity offsets programs. 

3.2. In the name of Tiger Conservation 

The global attention to Tiger Conservation has further added to the 
number of conservation conflict refugees in India. In this regard, the 
government of India has strengthened its measure to protect the tigers, and 
since 2008 the number of such reserves has shot up from 28 to 50 in 2018. 
New funds have been promised for the relocation of people from the 
critical tiger habitat, under the section 38V of the Wild Life (Protection) 
Amendment Act, 2006 (WLPA), also called Tiger Amendment, which 
specifies the possibility of resettlement of communities to make protected 
areas inviolate. Although the WLPA Amendment acknowledges the 
existence of the FRA and the recognition of the informed consent of the 
Gram Sabhas, the new guidelines for relocation from the CTH strengthen 
the measures adopted for the protection of tigers. One of the issues is that 
many of these reserves have been notified with little public outreach, with 
no consultation with the communities living in the area, and no 
consideration of their livelihood and cultural rights (Kothari 2011). 
Consequently, in the last years the situation on the ground has aggravated, 
and numerous communities living in and around the protected areas 
continue to remain excluded, and their rights and dignity violated (Broome 
and Fanari 2018). Moreover, as criticized by many authors, this fortress 
conservation model based on ‘exclusion’, has failed in positively 
contributing to the protection of tigers. This has been called by Bijoy (2011) 
as the ‘same old stale wine in a new bottle’. This keeps the forest and its 
inhabitants in a state of insecurity, which recall the colonial attitude of 
control and domination upon resources. More than 37 years after the 
launch of Project Tiger in 1973 with 1,827 tigers (as per the first tiger 
census of 1972), the tigers are today down to 1,411 in 28 tiger reserves 
(Bijoy 2011, 37). This shows that the Tiger Project has only benefitted the 
tourist industry letting down both the community forest dwellers as well as 
the wild life. According to current research, the eviction drive from the 
PAs, and especially from the core or Critical Tiger Habitat (CTH) of the 
Tiger Reserves, is significantly increasing, undermining the law and denying 
the recognized land rights to the community forest dwellers.  



[49] Eleonora Fanari 

3.3. Relocation as a violation of FRA  

According to the FRA and WLPA, relocation can take place only from the 
CTH or CWH, and can happen only when co-existence is absolutely not 
possible; that too after obtaining the free and informed consent of the gram 
sabhas in writing and after ensuring that the resettlement package has been 
prepared and is to the satisfaction of people being relocated. However, in 
my own research for Kalpavriksh, which consisted of fieldwork in 8 
protected areas, interviewing various stakeholder in each site, and review of 
secondary data for a number of other protected areas (for a total of 22 
Tiger Reserves and 8 Wildlife Sanctuaries), it was observed that many 
irregularities have marred the process. The UN 2016 Report of the UN 
Special Rapporteur (Rights of Indigenous People) on Conservation and 
Indigenous people’s rights said, “Displacement from protected areas 
continues across India through a combination of misinterpretation, 
coercion, and inducement”.7 As per the UN, the Forest Rights Act 
continues to be almost inexistent within the protected areas, and 
testimonies of relocation have been observed both from tiger reserve and 
wildlife sanctuaries, repeatedly violating the national and international 
provisions.  

According to the analyses, evidences of relocation being planned were 
found for 23 PAs, either in Tiger Reserve management plan or in local 
newspaper reports. Of these, in 22 there was evidence of relocation already 
being carried out for last 10 years. These included 17 TRs and 5 WLSs 
(details in the table below). Data analysis clearly shows forced, coerced and 
dissatisfactory relocation in violation of various required steps specified in 
sec. 4(2) of the FRA, and sec. 38(V) of the Wildlife Protection Amendment 
Act (WLPA) 2006, and reveals a large-scale violation of various provisions 
of the FRA in the considered PAs. Among the numerous violations of the 
law in each studied site, majorly 4 types of violations were recognized, these 
were: (i) no prior informed consent of the local community; (ii) misuse of 
the FRA by the forest department; (iii) no scientific studies available for the 
creation of ‘inviolate area’; (iv) relocation from the buffer area.  

3.3.1. Prior informed consent  

One of the major points discussed concerns the bypassing of the ‘prior 
informed consent’ of the Gram Sabhas mandated in section 4.1(e) of the 
FRA that represents a precondition for every relocation. This was reported 

 
7 The full report can be accessed here 
http://unsr.vtaulicorpuz.org/site/index.php/documents/annual-reports/149-report-ga-
2016  



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [50] 

from Tadoba TR in Maharastra, from where 608 families were moved out 
from their area since 2012; in Kanha TR in Madhya Pradesh, more than 
20.000 families were forcefully displaced (refer to table).  In many official 
documents, the relocation is often described as ‘voluntary’. However, the 
field research revealed that when consent was taken, it was mostly under 
pressure or threat, or induced in other ways. This included taking signatures 
of the individuals on blank papers as it happened in Simlipal TR (as per 
fieldwork data). Human rights violation, physical threats and the use of 
force were typically used to effect displacement; denial of access to basic 
health and education facilities, schemes like MNREGA, children 
immunization programmes like angawadi were some of the ways in which 
consent for relocation was induced. 

3.3.2. Misuse of FRA 

The fraudulent use of FRA was a significant point in the analyses, which 
identified not only the forest department’s rejection of the community 
rights under the Act, but also its misuse for the purpose of relocation. For 
instance, in Simlipal TR, where the CFRs were distributed in 2015 to all the 
43 villages living within the PA limits, the community leaders said that the 
distribution of land titles were used to further ‘legalize’ the relocation, 
which, according to the forest officers, took place in a voluntary manner 
after the forest rights were settled.  

Indeed, the villages of Jamungarh and Kabathgai were relocated in 2015 just 
after receiving the CFRs. The families, which in the core area continue to 
face coercion, harassment and obstruction of activities (Deo 2016). This 
clearly shows the lack of commitment in implementing the FRA in its true 
spirit, and confirms the priority for relocation in the agenda of the Forest 
Department.  

3.3.3. No scientific documents available 

While the communities continue to be discriminated from the conservation 
management activities, no studies and no expert-committee reports were 
available with the forest officials. This means that at the time of our field 
research there were no scientific documents to prove that co-existence 
cannot be an option or that communities were leading to degradation of the 
environment.  In addition, in November 2007, the National Tiger 
Conservation Authority (NTCA) notified the states with critical tiger 
habitats to set up the expert committees to ‘finalise and delineate core or 
critical tiger habitats of tiger reserves, within 10 days of the receipt of the 
notification’(Broome et al, 2014). This showed that the time given for 
scientific or consultative process prior to CTH notification was not 
sufficient. In general, the lack of scientific research was reported from all 



[51] Eleonora Fanari 

the studied areas.  

3.3.4. Relocation from tiger reserve buffer areas and wildlife sanctuaries 

According to the study, relocation is taking place not only from the CTH, 
as it should be per law, after the free and informed consent is obtained by 
the gram sabha, but also from buffer areas, where co-existence is expected 
to be prioritised over relocation. Relocation from buffer zone was reported 
from many TR such as Simlipal and Kaziranga, etc.(refer to table). This 
showed that no co-existence in buffer areas was practiced in violation of the 
FRA and WLPA. Moreover, relocation was also carried out from the 
Wildlife Sanctuaries, even in absence of any guidelines.  

3.4. The threat of the NTCA  

NTCA was created by the MoEF in 2005 and notified under the 2006 
amendment to the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 to oversee the tiger 
reserves. Since then, NTCA has supervised the entire management of the 
protected areas, including expansion of the tiger reserves. As described 
above, the displacement has mostly affected people residing within the TRs, 
which continue to be notified at a high speed by the NTCA. Indeed, the 
25,551 sq km of tiger forests in 2007 (Bijoy 2011, 37) were expanded and 
almost doubled to 40,340 in 2018, and as stated above the notified tiger 
reserves have jumped from 28 to 50 in past 10 years (as of July 2018, 
ENVIS). To add to this, in October 2016, at an international conference 
held in Johannesburg, the Indian government representative Bisha Singh 
Bonal announced the decision to further expand the protected areas in the 
country to create another 10 Tiger Reserves in the coming years (“India 
plans to add 10 more tiger reserves: Official”, Indian Express, Oct. 5, 2016). 
On the ground, this has led to more people being pushed away from their 
ancestral land and more conflicts between the local people and the 
authorities.  

In many places, the CTH was illegally notified and implemented against the 
wishes of the community, such as in Bilgiri Rangaswami Temple Wildlife 
Sanctuary in Karnataka that was converted into a Tiger Reserve in 2010 
against the wishes of the Soliga indigenous community inhabiting the area 
(Madegowda 2017). This process was carried out in violation of the Sec. 4.1 
of the FRA, which since January 2008 override the Tiger Amendment. 

These high-speed illegal evictions were made possible through NTCA 
funding availability since 2008. The capital has scaled up from Rs 30 crore 
and Rs 41 crore during 2007-08 and 2008- 09 to Rs 114 crore in 2009-10 
(Tiger Link 2009, 11). As per the information available on the NTCA 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [52] 

website,8 from 2007/8 to 2011/12 an amount equal to 435.46 crores (USD 
66 million) was released. Moreover, between 2013/14 another tranche of 
4,964 lakh was spent by the NTCA for the rehabilitation of other families 
from Tadoba TR in Maharashtra, Dampa TR in Mizoram and Ranthambore 
and Sariska TR in Rajasthan.   

The disposal of money instead of supporting people has created a situation 
in which plans of ‘voluntary relocation’ were prioritized and cautiously 
planned in every state instead of implementing Forest Rights Act for the 
benefit of the forest communities. The funding is used to evict forest 
communities without the consent of Gram Sabha and without proper 
scientific studies as discussed above. One Jenu Kuruba tribal from Nagarhole 
National Park said, “the availability of this funding has only increased the 
violence and the coercion for relocation by the authority, which using the 
money card has induced numerous families to relocate from their ancestral 
space”. Moreover, the distribution of money without a rehabilitation plan is 
detrimental for the development of the communities as they get into the 
consumption of alcohol, leisure activities and other harmful practices and 
squander away their compensation package in just a few months. This 
mostly happens because of poor monitoring, lack of effective relocation 
program, or simply because of their poor understanding of the value of 
money.  

Besides not facilitating the implementation of the law, NTCA has shown an 
antagonist attitude against its enactment; this was manifested in the illegal 
administrative order issued on 28 March 2017, stating that ‘no recognition 
of rights’ should be granted within the limits of the core of Tiger Reserves 
(Order No 1-7/93.PT). The order had a negative impact on the ground, 
such as the rejection of claims of 61 families belonging to the Nakesia 
Adivasi – an indigenous community inhabiting the core area in the Palamau 
Tiger Reserve, Jharkhand. The order had captured the attention of many 
civil societies, which had asked for its immediate withdrawal. However, on 
29 May, 2017 the Ministry of Tribal affair merely issued a letter to the 
Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change (MoEF) stating that 
it considers the NTCA order as a ‘temporary measure’ and requests the 
Minister to initiate the due process of issuing the guidelines for notifying 
CWH at the earliest (Broome and Fanari, 2018). This shows a lack of 
concern for protecting the forest rights of the forest-dwelling communities, 
and the perpetration of a fortress model of conservation, which continues 
to be based on the notion of exclusion in opposition to co-existence.   

 
8 More information can be accessed here 
http://projecttiger.nic.in/content/144_6_VillageRelocation11thPlan.aspx 



[53] Eleonora Fanari 

3.4.1. Relocation from Wildlife Sanctuaries  

As explained above, the relocation guidelines are regulated by the NTCA, 
which has the task to manage the voluntary relocation from the tiger 
reserves. While in respect to the Wildlife Sanctuaries, the guidelines for the 
relocation were not yet approved till March of last year.  However, repeated 
threat of relocation and eviction from wildlife sanctuaries were recounted 
during the year of research (2017). For instance, eviction was reported from 
the wildlife sanctuaries of Wayanad in Kerala, Barnawapara and Bhoramdeo 
in Chhattisgarh, and Chandaka-Dompara and Debrigarh in Odisha, among 
others. Considering that the guidelines for Critical Wildlife Habitat (CWH), 
has been issued only on February 19, 2018, it is unclear how and why these 
relocations were being carried out.  

As per MoEF website, between 2011/2014 a total of INR 2,838 lakh was 
released under the ‘Integrated Development of Wildlife Habitats’ scheme 
for the relocation from Wayanad and Malabar WLS in Kerala, Barnawapara 
WLS in Chattisgarh and Thoranghtlang WLS in Mizoram9.  

It was reported that the forest authorities were using the same NTCA 
package for the relocation of people from these non-Tiger reserves. This 
brings leads to evictions which are coerced and denigrating for the affected 
people, often evicted without any rights of compensation and rehabilitation. 
Considering the arbitrary decision of every local forest department in the 
distribution and allocation of money to the affected communities, the local 
people got less informed about the relocation procedures and excluded 
from any decision-making. For example, it was observed in the study that in 
Wayanad WLS the affected communities were relocated without following 
the due process. Indeed, as per NTCA guidelines, the compensation was 
based on a) monetary 10 lakh rupees per family or b) complete relocation 
with all basic facilities and land. However, in Wayanad the compensation of 
rupees10 lakh was used to purchase the homestead land for the families 
evicted, leaving the people without agricultural lands and no money; this 
option was decided without any consultative process with the communities, 
who now seek to move back to their ancestral land.   

On one hand, the funding availability with NTCA is pushing up relocation 
of the forest-dwelling communities, on the other hand, the lack of funding 
for the relocation from WLS and mostly the absence of the guidelines from 
MoEF has led to a series of denial of rights to these communities. The use 
of force and violence has become justified and less criticized as was seen in 

 
9 More details can be found here http://www.moef.nic.in/division/introduction-19  



Amchang WLS in Assam, where in November 2016, more than 1000 
families living within and outside the WLS were evicted without considering 
their forest rights, and with no plan of either relocation or compensation 
(refer to table in Appendix). 

 

4. WHY RELOCATION IS NOT DESIRABLE?   

But what happens to the life of people once they get relocated? Do they get 
better facilities, development and education, or better opportunities for 
their future? That these promises, often used to justify relocation, fail on 
the ground show a very different picture than the one described in the 
papers. Indeed, the camps (yes, camp is the exact word!) where the affected 
people live have poor housing and lack of toilets and electricity. This was 
observed among others in Achanakmar TR in Chattisgarh where 6 villages 
relocated in 2009 are still living in pathetic condition with no alternatives in 
sight (Bera 2015). The international and national policies on relocation, 
which should guarantee an alternative livelihood for the affected people, 
continue to be inappropriate or unobserved at the local level; the lack of 
monitoring and the unfair distribution of compensation packages has fated 
people with enormous risk of impoverishments both economically and 
socially forcing them in a state of desperation and hopelessness (Cernea 
2009). Although there has been some improvement in their recent 
relocation assistance, this was still not appropriate to compensate for the 
loss;also, a series of discrepancies and anomalies are reported in the 
distribution of compensation packages. Rampant corruption and 
ambiguities were reported in Panna TR where a fake package of 1 lakh 
rupee as per previous agreement was distributed to many, while a few ‘lucky 
ones’ received crores of rupees (notes from field study). In addition to this, 
false promises of land were also made to induce people to leave their place, 
such as in Simlipal TR (EJAtlas 2018e) in Odisha where the promised land 
was never given; or, in Achanakmar TR (EJAtlas 2017b) where the 
distributed land was barren, unfenced, full of stones and unfit for farming. 
This is not rehabilitation, this is pushing the displaced people into a state of 
poverty. This was the result of the lack of a monitoring system and a culture 
of denigrating the socially marginalised. Indeed, many studies have found 
that relocation not only leads to joblessness and poverty, it also increases 
morbidity and mortality, social disintegration and further marginalization 
(Cernea, 2003; Mathur 2013). Not just this, relocation also risks the loss of 
biodiversity.  It was found that the main negative conservation impact of 
the forced removals from the protected areas was  the resource degradation 
from unsustainable consumption from increased demand. (Cernea 2003). 
This means, as argued by Cernea, that ‘displacements result in 



[55] Eleonora Fanari 

environmental degradation through increase in permanent settlements and 
that soil erosion tends to be higher in permanently used agricultural plots 
than under shifting cultivation regimes’. This brings us to the dual loss of 
the community and the environment. Cernea argues that alienation of forest 
communities from the forest areas brings them afar from their conservation 
objectives, causing a set of degrading effect on forest ecosystem, calling 
them ‘second generation’ degrading effects.  This, he argues, is because the 
presence of residents in parks has, under certain circumstances, some ‘first 
generation’ effects. 

 

5. CONCLUSION 

The general conflict in the idea of ‘relocation’ is born from the contested 
nature of the problems and solutions. Indeed, as Nandini Sundar argues, 
‘while the forest department defines the problem in terms of the villagers’ 
use of forests as the cause of forest degradation, villagers define the forest 
problem in terms of a lack of their rights’ (Sundar 2012). The study reveals 
the violence of relocation in India as a consequence of a lack of 
communities’ forest rights and a lack of support from the Forest 
Department in recognizing the co-existence between people and wildlife as 
a positive measure for the protection of the environment. If we analyse this 
from a policy perspective, this ground scenario contradicts Forest Rights 
Act (FRA) discussed above that acknowledges communities forest rights 
and cohabitation; this scenario is also in contradiction with several of 
international measures adopted by UN and ILO, which recognize tenure 
rights and the rights of the indigenous people as essential in the 
conservation management discourse.  

However, if we look at the international eco-political context this would not 
appear so surprising. But in India, the discourse around biodiversity has 
moved from ‘protection’ to ‘offset’, a compensation measure that portrays 
nature as something measurable in money value that can be exchanged and 
replaced (Spash 2015). In this way, nature, which has become valuable for 
the public and not for the local community, can be exchanged as a 
commodity, leaving the people out of the discourse. This idea of nature as 
equivalence, based on replacing an anthropogenic landscape with another, 
does not leave space for traditional human activities, raising the questions 
of power, territorial rights, violence and inequality. In this perspective, the 
conflicts at the local level portray the contradictions embedded in the 
political discourses around nature and its protection.  

Moreover, in a society like India, which is already ruled by a strong 
hierarchical power, the neoliberal policies have contributed in reaffirming 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [56] 

this power of submission by redefining the power of violence, which 
continues to be based on the government dominance of the natural 
resources. Indeed, the 2006 amendment of the WLPA represents this 
imposition of power by the government in opposition to the democratic 
tool represented by the FRA. This is the reason why the FRA is still 
struggling to be applied under the legal system, as a hope and a weapon in 
the hand of the communities. The numerous conflicts emerging in the 
country need to be read as a transformative process. These conflicts not 
only represent hope but also strength of the movement which is trying 
from below to overthrow the political contradiction of environmental 
protection, asking both for the recognition of their rights (under the FRA) 
and redefinition of nature as a source of livelihood and a living spirit.  

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

This article was written with the support of Kalpavriksh, Pune. The 
author is grateful for the information and analysis shared by a number of 
people from different protected areas mentioned in the article and others 
associated with Community Forest Resource Learning and Advocacy 
Process (CFR-LA) 

 

REFERENCES  

Agrawal, A., and K. Redford 2009.  “Conservation and Displacement: an 
overview.” Conservation and Society 7(1): 1-10. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-
4923.54790 

Bera, S. 2015. “Baigas in exile.” Down to Earth, June 7, 2015. 
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/coverage/baigas-in-exile-38674  

Bijoy, C.R. 2011. “The Great Indian Tiger Show”. Economic and Political Weekly      
46 (4): 36-41. 

Brockinton, I. 2006. “Eviction for Conservation: A Global Overview.” Conservation 
and Society 4 (3):424-70. 

Cernea, M., and K. Schmidt-Soltau. 2003. “The end of forcible displacements? 
Making conservation and impoverishment incompatible.” Poly Matters 12: 42-51.  

Cernea, M. 2009. “Introducing: Resettlement – An enduring issue of 
development.” The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology 10 (4): 263-265. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/14442210903079756 

Dowie, M. 2009. Conservation Refugees, The Hundred Year Conflict Between Global 
Conservation and Native People. Cambridge: MIT Press. 
https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7532.001.0001 

https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.54790
https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.54790
https://doi.org/10.1080/14442210903079756
https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7532.001.0001


[57] Eleonora Fanari 

EJAtlas. 2017a. “Kazinranga conflict: rhinos and poachers, Assam, India.” In Atlas 
of Environmental Justice. https://ejatlas.org/conflict/kaziranga-conflict  

EJAtlas. 2017b. “Displacement for conservation in Achanakmar Tiger Reserve, 
CG, India.” In Atlas of Environmental Justice. 
https://ejatlas.org/conflict/achanakmar-tiger-reserve  

EJAtlas. 2018a. “Silent Valley hydroelectric project, Kerala, India.” In Atlas of 
Environmental Justice. https://ejatlas.org/conflict/silent-valley-kerala-india   

EJAtlas. 2018b. “Land and livelihood conflicts in Bhitarkanika wildlife sanctuary 
and mangrove forest, Odisha, India.” In Atlas of Environmental Justice. 
https://ejatlas.org/conflict/land-and-livelihood-conflicts-in-bhitarkanika-wildlife-
sanctuary-odisha-india  

EJAtlas. 2018c. “Jaldapara National Park, West Bengal, India.” In Atlas of 
Environmental Justice. https://ejatlas.org/conflict/jaldapara-national-park  

EJAtlas. 2018d. “Eviction from Manas National Park, Assam, India.” In Atlas of 
Environmental Justice. https://www.ejatlas.org/conflict/eviction-from-manas-
national-park  

EJAtlas. 2018e. “Simlipal National Park, conflict over conservation project, Odisha, 
India.” In Atlas of Environmental Justice. https://ejatlas.org/conflict/simlipal-
national-park-conflict-over-conservation-project  

Fernandes, W. 2006. “Liberalisation and Development-induced Displacement.” 
Social Change 36 (1): 109-123. https://doi.org/10.1177/004908570603600105 

Fairhead, J., M. Leach, and I. Scoones. 2012. “Green Grabbing: a new 
appropriation of nature?” The Journal of Peasant Studies 39 (2): 237-261. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2012.671770 

Kothari, A. 2011. “Conservation suicide.” Infochange, March. 
http://infochangeindia.org/component/content/article/154-
environment/politics-of-biodiversity/8705-conservation-suicide.  

Krueger, L. 2009. “Protected Areas and Human Displacement: Improving the 
Interface between Policy and Practice.” Wildlife Conservation Society 7 (1): 21-25. 
https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.54793 

Lasgorceix, A., and A. Kothari. 2009. “Displacement and Relocation of Protected 
Areas: A Synthesis and Analysis of Case Studies.” Economic and Political Weekly       
44 (49): 37-47. 

Madegowda, C., and U. Rao. 2017. “Impact of Forest Policies and the economy of 
the Soliga’s tribal in Bilgiri Ransgwami Temple Wildlife Sanctuary, South India.” 
Journal of Historical Archaeology and Anthropological Science 1 (4): 112-123s. 
https://doi.org/10.15406/jhaas.2017.01.00022 

Mathur, M.H. 2013. Displacement and Resettlement in India: The Human Cost of 
Development. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203491799 

https://doi.org/10.1177/004908570603600105
https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2012.671770
https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.54793
https://doi.org/10.15406/jhaas.2017.01.00022
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203491799


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [58] 

New Indian Express. 2016. “India plans to add ten more tiger reserves: Official.” 
New Indian Express, October 5. 
http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2016/oct/05/india-plans-to-add-
ten-more-tiger-reserves-official-1525365.html   

Pathak, N., N. D. Rai , M. Tatpati. 2017. “Biodiversity Conservation and Forest 
Rights Act.” Economic and Political Weekly 52 (25-26): 51-54 

Pathak, N, S. Desor, A. Kothari, and A. Bose. 2014. “Changing Paradigm in 
Wildlife Conservation.” In  Democratizing Forest governance in India, edited by S. Lele, 
and A. Menon. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.  

Pathak, N., and E. Fanari. 2018. “To Respect Human Rights, the Government 
should strategise to coexist first, Not to Evict.”  The Wire. March 12, 2018.  
https://thewire.in/environment/to-respect-human-rights-the-government-should-
strategise-to-coexist-first-not-to-evict   

Spash, L. 2015. Bulldozing biodiversity: the economics of offset and trading-in 
Nature. Biological Conservation 192: 541-551. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.07.037 

Sundar, N. 2012. “Violent social Conflicts in India’s Forests: Society, State and the 
Market” Deeper Roots of Historical Injustice: Trends and Challenges in the Forests of India, 
13-32. Washington: Rights and Resources Initiative. 

 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.07.037


APPENDIX 

Table 1: Relocations in Protected Areas 

No 
Protected 

Area 
State Status of Relocation Planned Relocation Other information Sources 

1. Nagarjunsagar 
Srisailam Tiger 
Reserve  

Andhra 
Pradesh  

Outlook report (2010) states 
that 1000 families were 
already relocated. 200 more 
families were relocated since 
2011 - in Shanti Nagar and 
Gandhi Nagar near 
Yerragondapalem plain in 
Prakasam district (Local 
sources). 

Plan to relocate (a) two 
(Vatrapalli and Telangana) out of 
27 villages located inside the 
CTH (Monitoring Evaluation 
and Economic Report 2014) and 
(b) from the core area about 
1,100 families, respectively from 
the villages of Nekkanti, 
Ishtakameshwari, Paalutla, 
Vattivarlapalli, Chinnarutla 
Penta, Tummalabailu and 
Peddacheruv (NTCA report). 

/ 1; 2; 3; 
4, 5.  

2. Kaziranga 
National Park 
and Tiger 
Reserve 

Assam   22 families evicted from 
Bonse Sapori in 2012/13; in 
2016, 348 families evicted 
from Deuchur Chang and 
Banderdubi, in the elephant 
corridor.  

In 2016, the Guwahati High 
Court, ordered the eviction of 
666 families living within the 
notified limited of the 2nd, 3rd 
and 5th addition.  

2 people were killed in 
the conflict in 2016. In 
the last 10 years about 
62 local people were 
killed by forest guards 
in name of conserving 
the Rhinos; In July 
2016, seven-year-old 
Okash Orang, was 
shot in his leg by the 
FD, now handicapped. 

6; 7; 8, 
9. 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [60] 

3. Manas 
National Park 
and Tiger 
Reserve  

Assam   700 villagers evicted from 
Betburi village, Kokracachar, 
in Manas NP (December 
2016 and February 2017).  

1000 families living in Chirang 
and Kokrachar districts were 
threatened of eviction by the 
Forest Department.  / 

10; 11.  

4. Amchang 
Wildlife 
Sanctuary  

Assam   37 villages, with more than 
1000 families in total, were 
evicted on 25 August 2017.  

 
The families were 
evicted without any 
compensation and in a 
very brutal manner.  

12; 13.  

5. Achanakmarg 
Tiger Reserve 

Chattis-
garh  

6 villages, 245 families, were 
relocated in 2009 from the 
core area.  

Plan to relocate 16 villages from 
the core. On April 2015, the 
NTCA declared that 5 other 
villages of the remaining 19 in 
the core area will be soon 
relocated from the ATR. Until 
now these villages have not been 
relocated but two villages, 
Tilaidabra and Ranjaki have 
already signed the relocation 
papers. However, no “prior free 
informed consent” was taken 
and no information on the forest 
rights was given to the forest 
dwellers. 
 
 
 
  

The relocated villages 
did not receive proper 
rehabilitation as per 
FRA and WLPA, 
2006.  

14; 15; 
16; 17.  

6. Barnawapara Chattis- 3 villages are entirely There is a plan to relocate other Since November 2017, 18; 19; 



[61] Eleonora Fanari 

Wildlife 
Santuary. 

garh relocated from the WLS, 
Rampur, Latadadar and 
Nawapara. In 2010, 135 
families of Rampur were 
rehabilitated 58 km away, in 
Mahasamund forest division, 
and settled in a compartment 
No 500 and 501, Vijaymaalin 
Forest Compartment. 
Latadar and Nawapara (628 
people and 139 houses) were 
resettled in 2014, and shifted 
respectively in Vijaymaal 
Gram panchayat, 
Compartment no. 795 and 
796 of Sinodha Gram 
panchayat and Compartment 
no. 507 and 509 in Mohgaon.  

22 villages.  Six of them in the 
first phase, namely Bafra, 
Gudagarh, Mudpaar, Bhimauri, 
Dheba and Akaltara.  
 

the 22 villages living 
within the limits are 
protesting against the 
relocation plan.  

20; 21. 
 
 

7. Nagarhole 
National Park 
and Tiger 
Reserve.  

Karnata
ka  

As many as 3400 families 
were displaced during the 
’70s and ’80s. 487 tribal 
families were moved out of 
the Park and  relocated in 
Nagapura and Sollepura 
between 2000 and 2007 for a 
compensation of INR 1 lakh 
and 5 acres of land. Other 
250 people have been 

Families are continuously 
induced to relocate.  

The relocation 
programme was 
supported by WCS. 
The people relocated 
as of 2006 have 
received only some 
barren land and no 
money and are living 
in a miserable 
condition.  

22; 23; 
24; 25; 
26.   



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [62] 

relocated since 2006.  

8 Wayanad 
Wildlife 
Sanctuary  

Kerala 4 entire villages, vis. Goloor, 
Ammavayal, Arakunchi, and 
Kottangara were relocated 
with 182 families in 2012.  

As per the study conducted 
under S. Sankar, Scientist, Kerala 
Forest Research Institute, 1,388 
people (880 families) in 14 
settlements (total 800 families) 
inside the sanctuary are to be 
relocated in the first phase at a 
cost of Rs. 88 crore. According 
to the study, a total of 10,604 
people (2,613 families) residing 
in 110 settlements inside the 
Wayanad WLS are to be 
relocated.  

From 2011 to 2014, 
the MoEf allocated an 
amount of 18 crore 
rupees for the 
relocation project. 
Other funds are 
awaited.  

27; 28; 
29; 30; 
31.   

9. Kanha 
National Park 
and Tiger 
Reserve 

Madya 
Pradesh 

In 1973-74, 24 villages 
(around 650 families) were 
displaced outside the 
boundaries of the TR. Threat 
of eviction started again in 
2010 (just after availability of 
NTCA funding for relocation 
from TR). Relocation started 
in 2013, and about 450 
families were evicted in June 
2014. According to Canal 
Plus, a total number of 
22.000 people got evicted.  

According to a MEE report 
there are only 3 villages that still 
need to be relocated, vis. Linga, 
Jholar and Sukudi. In Jholar 
process of relocation has already 
started.  

Number and data 
remain uncertain. All 
the evictions were 
forced, in complete 
violation of the FRA. 
As per the report,  
roughly 7 villages still 
exist in the core of 
Kanha TR. 

4; 32; 
33; 34; 
35; 36; 
37. 

10. Panna Tiger Madhya In 2015, two village vis. According to the MEE 2014, 200 Gonds from 4; 38; 



[63] Eleonora Fanari 

Reserve Pradesh  Umrawan and Jardhoba were 
forcefully evicted.  

there are only 3 villages and 180 
families remaining in the core 
area of the TR, and they are 
planned to be relocated.  

Umrawan have been 
fighting and filed 
petitions against the 
eviction, however they 
got relocated.   
A clearance of 600 
hectares has been 
proposed inside the 
ore area for an 
irrigation project.  

39; 40.  

11.  Pench Tiger 
Reserve  

Madhya 
Pradesh  

Between 1973 and 1990 
more than 10.000 people 
were evacuated and resettled. 
Recently, in May 2017, it 
started the relocation of 
Fulzari village.  

A plan of relocation was 
presented in 2008, and since 
then it is being contested by the 
local people.  

Fishing within the PA 
is considered illegal by 
the MLA, in contrast 
with the FRA.  

41; 42; 
43; 44;    

12. Tadoba 
National Park 
and Tiger 
Reserve 

Maharas
tra 

Eviction started in 2007. In 
first phase about 116 families 
were relocated - 45 landless 
families from Botezari and 49 
from Kolsa are rehabilitated 
in compartment number 524 
in Tolewahi in Mul forest 
range. In 2013, 200 families 
of Navegaon (Ramdegi) were 
moved out, and other 222 
families of Jamni were 
moved out in March 2014. A 

There are remaining in the TR 
only Palasgaon and Rantalodi. 
As per CFR-LA 2017 report, 
other families from Kolsa village 
are given notice to relocate, but 
they are resisting against it.  

 
45; 46; 
47; 48; 
49; 50; 
51.  



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [64] 

total of 608 families were 
moved out.    

13. Dampa Tiger 
Reserve  

Mizora
m 

287 tribal families evicted 
from Dampa in 1989. In 
2010, 227 families were to be 
evicted from Dampa.In 2010 
12 settlements were 
relocated, possibly forcibly 
and with poor rehabilitation, 
affecting already marginalised 
ethnic minorities Chakma 
and Reang.  

61 villages are still located inside 
the reserve and are threatened 
with eviction.  

The 287 tribal families 
were not provided 
relief and 
rehabilitation.  

4; 52; 
53.  

14. Melghat 
National Park 
and Tiger 
Reserve  

Maharas
tra  

A total of 1360 families got 
displaced after 2008.  This 
incuding 141 families from 
Dhargad and 37 families 
from Barukheda; during 
2013-14 & 2014-15 relocated 
families included 158 families 
from Gullarghat village, 176 
families from Somthana (Bk.) 
and 248 families from 
Somthana (Kh.). In June 
2017, nearly 600 villagers 
from Rohinkhidki village in 
Akot wildlife division were 
relocated.  

As per MEE report 2014, about 
21 villages remain to be 
relocated from the core areas.  

In 2007, many villages 
were coerced to sign 
for their relocation.  

54; 55; 
56; 57.  

15. Sariska Tiger Rajastha The first relocation of There are 29 villages inside the In 2005, a report 58; 59; 



[65] Eleonora Fanari 

Reserve n villages from Sariska dates 
back to 1966-67 when village 
Slopka and Kalighati were 
relocated. Thereafter, 
relocation of village Karna 
Ka Bas and Kiraska took 
place in 1976-77. Relocation 
drive started again in 2005, 
and from 2008 to 2014, three 
villages, Bhagani (2008) Umri 
(2011) and Rotkyala (2012) 
were relocated. According to 
information shared by the 
activists, 9 villages were 
relocated from Sariska.  
 

CTH, and a total of 2,409 
families, which are all planned to 
be relocated. As per first plan 12 
villages will be relocated by 
2021-22.  

showed the extinction 
of the tiger in the area, 
attributing the loss to 
the people. A new 
relocation phase 
started to take place 
just after this.  

60. 

16.  Ranthambore 
Tiger Reserve  

Rajastha
n 

Relocation started in 1973-
79, when 11 villages, 681 
families, were evicted from 
the core of the tiger reserve. 
In 2002, relocation started 
again from the core area, and 
among the 5 villages (Pathra, 
Mordungri, Indala, Khatoli, 
Bhir), Pathra, with 110 
familes was relocated. The 
other 4 villages, comprising 
700 people, were relocated 

The park was extended, 
englobing 65 villages. It plans to 
relocate 53 villages. In 2016, 5 
villages, vis. Talda Khet, Kala 
Khora, Gadhi, Maharo and 
Kiradki, comprising of 260 
families, were identified by 
priority for relocation to secure 
the Ranthambhore-Kaila Devi 
corridor.  

The villages were 
relocated forcing them 
to sign the papers.  

61; 62; 
63; 64; 
65.  



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [66] 

from 2007 to 2014.  

17.  Rajaji Tiger 
Reserve  

Uttarakh
and 

Massive threat of relocation 
of Van Gujjars for past 15 
years. According to a TOI 
report a total number of 
1,393 families have been 
relocated. Of these, 512 
families were relocated to 
Pathari in 2000, 721 families 
to Gaindikhatta in 2002-03, 
181 to Sambalgarh in 2013 
while three families were 
relocated under a high court 
order. In 2015, 800 people 
were relocated. In 2017, 200 
families were relocated from 
Gohri range. 

Villagers face continued threat of 
eviction.  

             66; 67; 
68; 69.  

18. Corbett Tiger 
Reserve  

Uttarakh
and 

Among the villages residing 
inside the Tiger Reserve, 4 
have been displaced since 
1994 namely Laldangh, 
Kothiraw (300 families), 
Jhirna (70 families), and 
Dhara (50 families) - as per 
information collected by P.C. 
Joshi, activist leader, 
Ramnagar, Nainital district.  
In 2014, 157 Van Gujjar 

In December 2016, the 
Uttarakhand High Court ordered 
the eviction of  the Van Gujjars 
settlers in the zone for the 
firings; The National Green 
Tribunal (NGT) ordered the 
eviction of 800 settlers in the 
Kalagarh area, among which 398 
are to be rehabilitated while 566 
are to be evicted.   

On December 19, 
2016, Uttarakhand 
High Court issued an 
order prohibiting the 
constructions of 
buildings in 10 km 
range around the park. 

70; 71; 
72.  



[67] Eleonora Fanari 

families were relocated from 
Sona River Wildlife 
Sanctuary, situated in the 
core area.  

19.  Satkosia Tiger 
Reserve  

Odisha  On Sept 30, 2017, 70 families 
of Raiguda village, with more 
than 200 acres of land within 
the TR, were relocated to a 
new site in Saruali in Angul 
District, Bantala Range about 
12 km from their existing 
village.  

/   73; 74.   

20.  Simlipal Tiger 
Reserve  

Odisha  Since 2013, 4 villages, vis. 
Bahaghar and Uppar 
Barakhamundato (2013) 
Jamunagarh (2015) and 
Kabathgai (2016) have been 
relocated from the core area. 
In December 2016 another 
village from the buffer area 
of Simlipal was relocated 
without consent.  

There is a plan to relocate 2 
more villages from the buffer 
area (Kejuri and Badhakasaira). 
One village remains in the core 
area (Bakua) and 4 (Bohra, 
Jorjori, Jamboni, Asuracol) are in 
the fringe area.    The villages were 

illegally relocated after 
they had received the 
legal titles under FRA.  

75; 76; 
77; 78.   

21.  Debrigarh 
Wildlife 
Sanctuary  
  

Odisha  8 families have been 
relocated in April 2017. 

/  /  79. 

22.  Chandaka-
Dompara 

Odisha  85 families from 3 hamlets 
were relocated in 1995. In 

/ / 79. 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [68] 

WLS 2008,  32 other families were 
relocated from the village 
Bhuasuni of Daruthenga 
G.P.  

1. Information shared by T. Guruvaiah and T. Leeladhar from Nallamala Chenchu Jagruth during a meeting on the Status of 
Forest Rights in the Protected Areas of India, November 15, 2017, New Delhi.  

2. Venkateshwarlu K., Murali S. 2017. “Forced out of the Forest”. The Hindu. May 6, 2017. https://www.thehindu.com/todays-
paper/tp-opinion/forced-out-of-the-forest/article18396401.ece  

3. Bhargav Praveen, Dattatri Shekar, Desai Ajay. 2009. Nagarjunasagar-Srisailam Tiger Reserve. A Rapid Appraisal Report. November 
2009. National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) http://www.wildlifefirst.info/pdfs/pa_ifa/3_NSTR_Final_Report.pdf  

4. National Tiger Conservation Authority. 2014. Monitoring Evaluation and Economic (MEE) Report of Tiger Conservation in India. 
Wildlife Institute of India.  http://wii.gov.in/images//images/documents/mee_tiger_mgmt_eff_2014.pdf   

5. Tata, Madhavi. 2010. “Changing their stripes”. Outlook. June 21, 2010. 
https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/changing-their-stripes/265781.  

6. Information shared by Pranab Doley, convener Jeepal Krishak Sramik Sangha (JKSS), March 6, 2017.   

7. Rowlatt, Justin. 2017. “Kaziranga: the park that shoots people to protect rhinos.” BBC News. February 10, 2017.  
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-38909512   

8. Ishan Kukreti. 2017. “Eight-year-old shot by Kaziranga forest guard in 2016 shifted to AIIMS Delhi”. Down To Earth. July 14, 
2017.  https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/forests/eight-year-old-shot-by-kaziranga-forest-guard-in-2016-shifted-to-aiims-
delhi-58273.  

9. The Hindu. 2016. “Two killed in police firing during eviction near Kaziranga.” The Hindu. Sept. 19, 2016.  
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/Two-killed-in-police-firing-during-eviction-near-
Kaziranga/article14988468.ece.  

https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/forced-out-of-the-forest/article18396401.ece
https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/forced-out-of-the-forest/article18396401.ece
http://www.wildlifefirst.info/pdfs/pa_ifa/3_NSTR_Final_Report.pdf
http://wii.gov.in/images/images/documents/mee_tiger_mgmt_eff_2014.pdf
https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/changing-their-stripes/265781
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-38909512
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/forests/eight-year-old-shot-by-kaziranga-forest-guard-in-2016-shifted-to-aiims-delhi-58273
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/forests/eight-year-old-shot-by-kaziranga-forest-guard-in-2016-shifted-to-aiims-delhi-58273
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/Two-killed-in-police-firing-during-eviction-near-Kaziranga/article14988468.ece
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/Two-killed-in-police-firing-during-eviction-near-Kaziranga/article14988468.ece


[69] Eleonora Fanari 

10. AT Kokrajhar Bureau. 2017. “Eviction at Manas National Park.” Assam Time. Feb. 12. 
https://www.assamtimes.org/node/18474 

11. Eclectic Northeast. 2016. “After Kaziranga, Residents in Chirang Face Eviction Heat.” Eclectic Northeast. Sept. 29, 2016.  
https://eclecticnortheast.in/kaziranga-residents-chirang-face-eviction-heat/  

12. Web India News. 2017. “1,000 families evicted, 2,300 hectares forest land cleared in 1 year in Assam.” Web India News. Sept. 7, 
2017. https://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20170907/3182323.html.  

13. Pisharoty Sangeeta Barooah. 2017. “Over 700 Families Left Homeless After Assam Government's Eviction Drive at 
Amchang Wildlife Sanctuary.” The Wire. Nov 29, 2017. https://thewire.in/environment/700-families-left-homeless-assam-
governments-eviction-drive-amchang-wildlife-sanctuary.  

14. Deccan Herald. 2013. “Tribals relocated from tiger reserve face livelihood crisis.”  Deccan Herald, Aug. 16, 2013.  
https://www.deccanherald.com/content/351434/tribals-relocated-tiger-reserve-face.html.  

15. Chouhan Arjun. 2015. “Relocation of Villages: tiger population up in ATR.” The Times of India, April 27, 2015. 
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/flora-fauna/Relocation-of-villages-Tiger-population-up-in-
ATR/articleshow/47069389.cms 

16. Menon Meena. 2012. “Relocation Plan to Nowhere Land.” The Hindu. August 01, 2012. 
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/Relocation-plan-to-nowhere-land/article12674787.ece.  

17. Bera Sayantan. 2015. “Baigas in Exile. Once called lords of the jungle, the Chhattisgarh tribals are being evicted without 
adequate relief.” Down to Earth. June 7, 2015. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/coverage/baigas-in-exile-38674.  

18. Information shared by Devendra Bhagel, convener of Dalit Adivasi Manch, during a consultation meeting on the Status of 
Forest Rights in the Protected Areas of India. Nov. 15, 2017. New Delhi.  

19. Nandi Jayashree. 2017. “Chhattisgarh Tribals oppose relocation from Barnawapara forest.” The Times of India. November 2, 
2017. 

https://www.assamtimes.org/node/18474
https://eclecticnortheast.in/kaziranga-residents-chirang-face-eviction-heat/
https://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20170907/3182323.html
https://thewire.in/environment/700-families-left-homeless-assam-governments-eviction-drive-amchang-wildlife-sanctuary
https://thewire.in/environment/700-families-left-homeless-assam-governments-eviction-drive-amchang-wildlife-sanctuary
https://www.deccanherald.com/content/351434/tribals-relocated-tiger-reserve-face.html
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/flora-fauna/Relocation-of-villages-Tiger-population-up-in-ATR/articleshow/47069389.cms
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/flora-fauna/Relocation-of-villages-Tiger-population-up-in-ATR/articleshow/47069389.cms
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/Relocation-plan-to-nowhere-land/article12674787.ece
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/coverage/baigas-in-exile-38674


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [70] 

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/61470213.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_ca
mpaign=cppst 

20. Update from Chhattisgarh State Assembly on issues related to Forest Rights. Budget session from February 18 to March 22, 
2013.  

21. Que 35/330 & 53/331 dated 21st July 2014 raised by Dr Sanam Jangde, and Que 50/517 by Dr Vimal Chopra.  

22. Kumar R. Krishna.  2016. “Tribal forum seeks rehabilitation measures in Karnataka State Budget.” The Hindu, January 23, 
2016. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/Tribal-forum-seeks-rehabilitation-measures-in-Karnataka-State-
Budget/article14015789.ece  

23. Chinnappa, Jeevan K. 2013. “Tribal relocation proves tricky.” The Hindu, January 6, 2013. https://www.thehindu.com/sci-
tech/energy-and-environment/tribal-relocation-proves-tricky/article4277189.ece  

24. Muzaffar Azadi. 2014. “Executive Summary of the Report: On the Tribal Issue of Rajiv Gandhi (Nagarhole) National Park”. 
Report submitted to Honourable Court Committee on the Tribal Issues of Rajiv Gandhi National Park. July 2014.  

25. Vikhar Ahmed Sayeed. 2010. “Eviction Fear”. Frontline, Vol. 27, issue 04, Feb 13-26, 2010.  
https://frontline.thehindu.com/static/html/fl2704/stories/20100226270409100.htm  

26. Desai Ajay, Bhargav Praveen. 2010. “Report on the progress of Village Relocation from Nagarahole and Mudumalai Tiger 
Reserves”. National Tiger Conservation Authority. August 2010.  

27. Information available in the Wayanad Management Conservation Plan, consulted in the fieldwork, May 2017.  

28. Manoj E.M. 2015. “Tribal families to leave wildlife sanctuary.” The Hindu, August 31, 2015. 
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/tribal-familiesto-leave-wildlife-sanctuary/article7598516.ece  

29. Manoj E.M. 2012. “Settlers in Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary to be relocated.” The Hindu. April 09, 2012.  
https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/settlers-in-wayanad-wildlife-sanctuary-to-be-
relocated/article3295442.ece.  

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/61470213.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/61470213.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/Tribal-forum-seeks-rehabilitation-measures-in-Karnataka-State-Budget/article14015789.ece
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/Tribal-forum-seeks-rehabilitation-measures-in-Karnataka-State-Budget/article14015789.ece
https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/tribal-relocation-proves-tricky/article4277189.ece
https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/tribal-relocation-proves-tricky/article4277189.ece
https://frontline.thehindu.com/static/html/fl2704/stories/20100226270409100.htm
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/tribal-familiesto-leave-wildlife-sanctuary/article7598516.ece
https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/settlers-in-wayanad-wildlife-sanctuary-to-be-relocated/article3295442.ece
https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-kerala/settlers-in-wayanad-wildlife-sanctuary-to-be-relocated/article3295442.ece


[71] Eleonora Fanari 

30. Ayappan R. 2017. “Kerala: 20,000 families in forests to be relocated to safety.” Deccan Chronicle. Sept. 20, 2017. 
https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/in-other-news/200917/kerala-20000-families-in-forests-to-be-relocated-to-
safety.html.  

31. PA Updates, February 2011 (No 89) pg. 8  http://www.kalpavriksh.org/images/PAUpdate/PAUPDATE_89_Feb2011.pdf 

32. Saju, Sajin. 2017. “A tribal tragedy: Baited by large compensation, Baigas of Kanha grapple with post-eviction dilemma.” The 
Indian Express. May 30, 2017. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/a-tribal-tragedy-baited-by-large-compensation-baigas-
of-kanha-grapple-with-post-eviction-dilemma-4680814/.   

33. Venkateshwarlu K. 2015. “Mass evictions from tiger reserves: French TV.” The Hindu. July 23, 2015. 
https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyderabad/mass-evictions-from-tiger-reserves-french-tv/article7454461.ece.  

34. Redd Monitor. 2015. “WWF scandal (part 6): Eviction of Indigenous people in India for Tiger Tourism.” Redd Monitor. July 
23, 2015. https://redd-monitor.org/2015/07/23/wwf-scandal-part-6-evictions-of-indigenous-peoples-in-india-for-tiger-
tourism/.  

35. Ranjan, Rakesh. 2016. “We cannot pollute our surroundings': Madhya Pradesh's deprived Baiga tribe is learning to survive 
outside forests after being evicted from Kanha National Park.” Mail Online. June 12, 2016. 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-3636991/We-pollute-surroundings-Madhya-Pradesh-s-deprived-
Baiga-tribe-learning-survive-outside-forest-evicted-Kanha-National-Park.html.  

36. Hazik Sabreen. 2015. “Stop illegal eviction of tribes from Kanha Tiger Reserve, urge activists.” Down To Earth. July 04, 2015. 
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/stop-illegal-eviction-of-tribes-from-kanha-tiger-reserve-urge-activists-48277.  

37. Business Standard. 2016. “With Luxury Encroaching In Forest Areas, Tribals Fear For Their Existence.” Business Standard. 
June 18, 2016. http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/with-luxury-encroaching-in-forest-areas-tribals-fear-for-
their-existence-116061800258_1.html.  

38. Dutt Bahar. 2017. “How to Drown a Tiger.” The Hindu, April 22, 2017. https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-
environment/how-to-drown-a-tiger/article18183135.ece.   

https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/in-other-news/200917/kerala-20000-families-in-forests-to-be-relocated-to-safety.html
https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/in-other-news/200917/kerala-20000-families-in-forests-to-be-relocated-to-safety.html
http://www.kalpavriksh.org/images/PAUpdate/PAUPDATE_89_Feb2011.pdf
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/a-tribal-tragedy-baited-by-large-compensation-baigas-of-kanha-grapple-with-post-eviction-dilemma-4680814/
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/a-tribal-tragedy-baited-by-large-compensation-baigas-of-kanha-grapple-with-post-eviction-dilemma-4680814/
https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyderabad/mass-evictions-from-tiger-reserves-french-tv/article7454461.ece
https://redd-monitor.org/2015/07/23/wwf-scandal-part-6-evictions-of-indigenous-peoples-in-india-for-tiger-tourism/
https://redd-monitor.org/2015/07/23/wwf-scandal-part-6-evictions-of-indigenous-peoples-in-india-for-tiger-tourism/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-3636991/We-pollute-surroundings-Madhya-Pradesh-s-deprived-Baiga-tribe-learning-survive-outside-forest-evicted-Kanha-National-Park.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-3636991/We-pollute-surroundings-Madhya-Pradesh-s-deprived-Baiga-tribe-learning-survive-outside-forest-evicted-Kanha-National-Park.html
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/stop-illegal-eviction-of-tribes-from-kanha-tiger-reserve-urge-activists-48277
http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/with-luxury-encroaching-in-forest-areas-tribals-fear-for-their-existence-116061800258_1.html
http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/with-luxury-encroaching-in-forest-areas-tribals-fear-for-their-existence-116061800258_1.html
https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/how-to-drown-a-tiger/article18183135.ece
https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/how-to-drown-a-tiger/article18183135.ece


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [72] 

39. Asia Indigenous People Pact Foundation. 2016. “Subject: Calling urgent attention to the eminent forced eviction of 
indigenous Gond people for expansion of Panna Tiger Reserve.” April 4, 2016.  http://iphrdefenders.net/wp-
content/uploads/2016/04/Letter-WWF-Panna-Tiger-Reserve-AIPP.pdf  

40. Aggarwal Mayank. 2017. “Wildlife panel recommends clearance of tiger corridor area for canal.” Live Mint.  Sept. 14, 2017. 
https://www.livemint.com/Politics/YKourKehbfj4FKnrdCPx3N/Wildlife-panel-recommends-clearance-of-tiger-corridor-
forest.html.  

41. Pinjarkar, Vijay. 2017. “Mansighdeo merges with Pench Tiger Reserve.” The Times of India. May 01, 2017.  
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/mansighdeo-merges-with-pench-tiger-reserve/articleshow/58450088.cms. 

42. Langescoirx, Kothari. 2009. “Displacement and Relocation from Protected Areas: A synthesis and analyses of case studies.” 
Economic and Political Weekly. XLIV (49). 

43. Pinjarkar, Vijay. 2017. “Ramtek MLA Reddy finally opposes fishing in Pench.” The Times of India. August 26. 
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/60226508.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_ca
mpaign=cppst.  

44. Pallavi, Aparna. 2012. “Tribal fishers to move court after one of them is killed by forest staff in Pench National Park.” Down 
To Earth. July 06, 2012. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/tribal-fishers-to-move-court-after-one-of-them-is-killed-by-
forest-staff-in-pench-national-park-38623.   

45. PA Update, February 2010, (No 83) pg. 11. http://wiienvis.nic.in/WriteReadData/UserFiles/file/83Jan2010.pdf.   

46. Vijay Pinjarkar. 2014. “Finally, Jamni makes way for Tadoba tigers.” The Times of India. March 04. 
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/Finally-Jamni-makes-way-for-Tadoba-tigers/articleshow/31365480.cms 

47. CFR-LA. 2017. “Promise and Performance of Forest Rights Act, Maharastra 2017”. CFR Learning and Advocacy group in 
Maharastra.  

http://iphrdefenders.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Letter-WWF-Panna-Tiger-Reserve-AIPP.pdf
http://iphrdefenders.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Letter-WWF-Panna-Tiger-Reserve-AIPP.pdf
https://www.livemint.com/Politics/YKourKehbfj4FKnrdCPx3N/Wildlife-panel-recommends-clearance-of-tiger-corridor-forest.html
https://www.livemint.com/Politics/YKourKehbfj4FKnrdCPx3N/Wildlife-panel-recommends-clearance-of-tiger-corridor-forest.html
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/mansighdeo-merges-with-pench-tiger-reserve/articleshow/58450088.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/60226508.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/60226508.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/tribal-fishers-to-move-court-after-one-of-them-is-killed-by-forest-staff-in-pench-national-park-38623
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/tribal-fishers-to-move-court-after-one-of-them-is-killed-by-forest-staff-in-pench-national-park-38623
http://wiienvis.nic.in/WriteReadData/UserFiles/file/83Jan2010.pdf


[73] Eleonora Fanari 

48. Pinjarkar, Vijay. 2014. “Maharashtra to seek Rs 217 crore from Centre for relocation”. The Times of India. June 06. 
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/36117455.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_ca
mpaign=cppst.  

49. Pallavi, Aparna. 2015. “Relocation by Half Measure.” Down To Earth. July 04, 2015. 
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/relocation-by-half-measure-3690. 

50. Pallavi, Aparna. 2010. “Tribal Challenge Forest Department”. Down To Earth. March 15, 2010, . 
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/news/tribals-challenge-forest-department-999.  

51.  Aghor Ashwin. 2009. “19 rehabilitated families return to Tadoba”. DNA. May 25, 2009. 
https://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-19-rehabilitated-families-return-to-tadoba-1258711.  

52. PA Update, December 2010. (No 88), pg. 9. http://www.kalpavriksh.org/images/PAUpdate/PAUPDATE_88_Dec2010.pdf.   

53. Alliday Adam. 2015. “Mizoram: Decision on Dampa Tiger Reserve by September end.” The Indian Express. Sept. 01, 2015. 
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/mizoram-decision-on-dampa-tiger-reserve-by-september-end/   

54. Govt. of Maharastra. 2014. “Melghat Tiger Reserve, Amravati. Tiger Conservation Plan: Core Area.” 
http://www.melghattiger.gov.in/documents/TCP%20CORE%20PLAN%20in%20MTR.pdf .  

55. Jamwal Nidhi. 2015. “Tension over relocation at Melghat sanctuary.” Down To Earth. July 4, 2015. 
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/tension-over-relocation-at-melghat-sanctuary-6229. 

56. Pinjarkar Vijay. 2017. “Encroachers evicted from Melghat tiger reserve.” The Times of India. July 5, 2017. 
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/encroachers-evicted-from-melghat-tiger-
reserve/articleshow/59447859.cms. 

57. Press Trust of India. 2017. “Relocation of village in Melghat tiger reserve gains momentum.” Business Standard. June 03.  
http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/relocation-of-village-in-melghat-tiger-reserve-gains-momentum-
117060300397_1.html  

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/36117455.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/36117455.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/relocation-by-half-measure-3690
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/news/tribals-challenge-forest-department-999
https://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-19-rehabilitated-families-return-to-tadoba-1258711
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/mizoram-decision-on-dampa-tiger-reserve-by-september-end/
http://www.melghattiger.gov.in/documents/TCP%20CORE%20PLAN%20in%20MTR.pdf
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/tension-over-relocation-at-melghat-sanctuary-6229
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/encroachers-evicted-from-melghat-tiger-reserve/articleshow/59447859.cms
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/encroachers-evicted-from-melghat-tiger-reserve/articleshow/59447859.cms
http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/relocation-of-village-in-melghat-tiger-reserve-gains-momentum-117060300397_1.html
http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/relocation-of-village-in-melghat-tiger-reserve-gains-momentum-117060300397_1.html


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [74] 

58. Viren Lobo, Sunil Dubey, Aman Singh. 2016. “Deliberate Deprivation of Forest Resource Rights and Forced Eviction of 
Indigenous Communities Violation of FRA, 2006 in Sariska Tiger Reserve, Alwar, Rajasthan.” Institute for Ecology and Livelihood 
Action.   

59. Information shared by Abhishankar Sharma, Krapavis, in the consultation meeting on Forest Rights Act in Protected Areas, 

15 November 2017, Delhi.  

60. Shekhawat R.S. 2014. “Tiger Conservation Plan: Sariska Tiger Reserve.” Government of Rajasthan.   

61. Times of India. 2015. “Funds delay hampering village relocation for tiger corridor.” The Times of India. June 24, 2015. 
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/47793499.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_ca
mpaign=cppst.   

62. Sunny, Sebastian. 2002. “Villages to be shifted out of Ranthambhore this year.” The Hindu. July 7, 2002. 
https://www.thehindu.com/2002/07/07/stories/2002070703510700.htm.  

63. Times of India. 2016. “Relocating villages: Ranthambore struggles to find space for tigers.” The Times of India. Sept. 25, 2016. 
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/54504642.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_ca
mpaign=cppst 

64. Down To Earth. 2015. “Relocation farce. Only promises: some villagers want out, others fight it out.” Down To Earth. June 28, 
2015. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/coverage/relocation-farce-10511  

65. Dey, Anindo. 2015. “Ranthambore National Park: Turf war.” The Times of India. Aug. 27, 2015. 
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6442888.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_cam
paign=cppst  

66. Sharma, Seema. 2014. “Few Van Gujjars in Uttarakhand have documents to claim job quota.” Times of India. Feb. 04, 2017.   
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Few-van-gujjars-in-Uttarakhand-have-documents-to-claim-job-
quota/articleshow/29869537.cms   

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/47793499.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/47793499.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
https://www.thehindu.com/2002/07/07/stories/2002070703510700.htm
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/54504642.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/54504642.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/coverage/relocation-farce-10511
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6442888.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6442888.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Few-van-gujjars-in-Uttarakhand-have-documents-to-claim-job-quota/articleshow/29869537.cms
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Few-van-gujjars-in-Uttarakhand-have-documents-to-claim-job-quota/articleshow/29869537.cms


[75] Eleonora Fanari 

67. Sharma, Seema. 2017. “Shifting of Van Gujjar from Rajaji reserve begins.” The Times of India. Nov. 26. 
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/shifting-of-van-gujjars-from-rajaji-reserve-
begins/articleshow/61799253.cms  

68. Rastogi, Archi. 2015. “Court Ruling on Forest Rights Cheers Van Gujjars.” Down To Earth. July 05. 
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/court-ruling-on-forest-rights-cheers-van-gujjars-6462.  

69. Sharma, Seema. 2016. “With no political patronage, exodus of Van Gujjars finally begins from Rajaji Tiger Reserve.” The Times 
of India. April 20, 2016. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/With-no-political-patronage-exodus-of-Van-
Gujjars-finally-begins-from-Rajaji-tiger-reserve/articleshow/51915167.cms.  

70. Sharma, Seema. 2017. “Kalagarh encroachers will be evicted from Corbett after elections.” The Times of India. Feb. 14, 2017. 
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/kalagarh-encroachers-will-be-evicted-from-corbett-after-
elections/articleshow/57150121.cms.  

71. Economic Times. 2016. “NGT seeks MoEF reply on funds to rehabilitate Kalagarh people.” Economic Times. Sept. 8, 2016. 
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/environment/ngt-seeks-moef-reply-on-funds-to-rehabilitate-kalagarh-
people/articleshow/54196253.cms.  

72. Mazumdaar, Jay. 2017. “Corbett, now on sale.” Tehelka. Sept. 17. 
https://www.pressreader.com/india/tehelka/20120512/281694021796267.  

73. Express News Service. 2016. “NTCA report on Satkosia village relocation sought.” The New Indian Express. Nov. 13.   
http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/odisha/2016/nov/13/ntca-report-on-satkosia-village-relocation-sought-
1538024.html  

74. PA Update, August 2010 (No 86) pg. 12. http://www.kalpavriksh.org/images/PAUpdate/PAUPDATE86_July2010.pdf  

75. Tripathi, Bhasker. 2017. “Pushed out of the woods.” Business Line. June 23, 2017. 
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/blink/cover/pushed-out-of-the-woods/article9733528.ece 

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/shifting-of-van-gujjars-from-rajaji-reserve-begins/articleshow/61799253.cms
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/shifting-of-van-gujjars-from-rajaji-reserve-begins/articleshow/61799253.cms
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/court-ruling-on-forest-rights-cheers-van-gujjars-6462
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/With-no-political-patronage-exodus-of-Van-Gujjars-finally-begins-from-Rajaji-tiger-reserve/articleshow/51915167.cms
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/With-no-political-patronage-exodus-of-Van-Gujjars-finally-begins-from-Rajaji-tiger-reserve/articleshow/51915167.cms
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/kalagarh-encroachers-will-be-evicted-from-corbett-after-elections/articleshow/57150121.cms
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/kalagarh-encroachers-will-be-evicted-from-corbett-after-elections/articleshow/57150121.cms
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/environment/ngt-seeks-moef-reply-on-funds-to-rehabilitate-kalagarh-people/articleshow/54196253.cms
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/environment/ngt-seeks-moef-reply-on-funds-to-rehabilitate-kalagarh-people/articleshow/54196253.cms
https://www.pressreader.com/india/tehelka/20120512/281694021796267
http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/odisha/2016/nov/13/ntca-report-on-satkosia-village-relocation-sought-1538024.html
http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/odisha/2016/nov/13/ntca-report-on-satkosia-village-relocation-sought-1538024.html
http://www.kalpavriksh.org/images/PAUpdate/PAUPDATE86_July2010.pdf
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/blink/cover/pushed-out-of-the-woods/article9733528.ece


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [76] 

76. The Hindu. 2017. “Tribals against shifting of villages from protected areas.” The Hindu. January 7, 2017. 
https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-otherstates/Tribals-against-shifting-of-villages-from-protected-
areas/article17002794.ece  

77. The Ecologist. 2014. “India: tribes face eviction for ‘tiger conservation’.” The Ecologist. May 13, 2014. 
https://theecologist.org/2014/may/13/india-tribes-face-eviction-tiger-conservation  

78. Vasundhara. 2016. “Draft Report on the Implementation of Forest Rights in Protected Areas in Odisha.” Vasundhara.  

79. Information shared by Satpathy, Pushpanjali, Vasundhara. May 2017. 

 

 

 

https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-otherstates/Tribals-against-shifting-of-villages-from-protected-areas/article17002794.ece
https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-otherstates/Tribals-against-shifting-of-villages-from-protected-areas/article17002794.ece
https://theecologist.org/2014/may/13/india-tribes-face-eviction-tiger-conservation

