Adivasi leaders, representing forest-dependent communities across Karnataka, have strongly criticised the State government for depriving tribal families of long-promised rehabilitation and settlement of forest land rights. Speaking at recent meetings and local gatherings, they accused Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s administration of ignoring the Forest Rights Act (FRA) mandates and delaying compensation packages for displaced people. Many leaders said that incomplete claims, pending settlement processes, and stalled livelihood programmes have pushed entire communities into uncertainty. They argued that while political announcements emphasise welfare, in reality, thousands of affected Adivasi families still await formal recognition of their land rights.
Several organisations representing Soliga, Jenu Kuruba, Yerava, Koraga, and Siddhi tribes stated that displacement without rehabilitation continues in multiple districts, particularly in areas falling under conservation zones and wildlife reserves. They pointed out that families living in these regions are regularly pressured to vacate their lands without receiving proper documentation or alternative land. Community leaders say forced relocation and withheld compensation contradict the FRA’s guarantee that no eviction can take place without final settlement and consent of the community. They questioned why the government continues to treat tribal settlements as illegal even after decades of habitation and recorded occupation.
Many activists have claimed that the government’s repeated failure to process community and individual claims reflects a systemic bias against indigenous communities. They pointed out that State panels often prioritise forest conservation strategies over tribal rights, even though the FRA legally recognises Adivasis as traditional custodians of biodiversity. Leaders said that this narrow interpretation of conservation is erasing indigenous knowledge and weakening forests by alienating the very people who sustain them. They argued that the government must stop acting as a gatekeeper and instead honour the FRA’s original spirit, which empowers communities as stewards, not trespassers.
Communities Say Conservation Policies Cannot Override Human Dignity
For many families residing in the Western Ghats and forested regions of Chamarajanagar, Kodagu, Uttara Kannada, Shivamogga, and Dakshina Kannada, continuing uncertainty has deeply affected education, healthcare, and social security access. Adivasi groups explained that ration cards, voter IDs, and housing benefits often remain blocked because settlements are not officially recognised. This bureaucratic limbo creates a harmful cycle where communities are treated as illegal residents in their own ancestral lands. Activists said that this denial strips them not only of land but basic dignity and citizenship, forcing them to depend on inconsistent charity-driven relief.
Some families have reportedly faced intimidation during eviction attempts, including threats of losing access to forest routes, grazing corridors, and collection of minor produce such as honey, herbs, bamboo, and medicinal plants. Community elders argue that these threats weaponise conservation policies against indigenous livelihoods. They insist that responsible forest protection must not exclude Adivasis, whose cultural and ritual practices revolve around sustainability. Adivasi women’s collectives highlighted that restricted access to forest produce also affects household incomes, nutrition, and traditional medicinal practices. They criticised the government for overlooking the gendered impact of delayed rehabilitation and rights recognition.
Legal rights groups supporting tribal communities have emphasised that the FRA requires State governments to complete field investigations, mapping, and paperwork at the panchayat level before moving to district committees. However, many claims in Karnataka have allegedly been rejected without proper verification. Activists say that such rejections often cite “lack of evidence,” even when satellite records, revenue archives, and oral histories confirm occupancy. They stress that oral testimonies are recognised as valid evidence under the Act, yet officials continue to demand documentary proof that never existed before colonial-era forest restrictions. This outdated interpretation undermines both the law and justice.
Forest department representatives, when questioned, maintained that certain relocation measures are necessary to protect fragile ecosystems and wildlife corridors. They also stated that rehabilitation packages are being revised to ensure fair compensation. However, tribal activists argue that these assurances have remained unchanged for years without implementation. They accuse authorities of speaking the language of conservation while ignoring the real pressures faced by forest communities. They assert that relocating people without legal settlement of rights is not conservation but dispossession. Community leaders demand a transparent timeline for rehabilitation and an end to bureaucratic delays that erase indigenous presence.
Adivasi Voices Call for Policy Accountability and Transparent Dialogue
At recent district-level meetings, tribal representatives demanded that the Chief Minister create a special monitoring committee to track FRA implementation in Karnataka. They asked that this committee include elected tribal representatives, village elders, and women organisers rather than bureaucrats alone. Leaders said that decisions about forest rights must not remain confined to secretive boardrooms, as those most affected by relocation are rarely included in policymaking. They stressed that continuous dialogue between communities and government would prevent misinformation, arbitrary eviction threats, and corruption in compensation processes. They repeated that accountability cannot exist without representation.
Adivasi youth groups have also stepped forward, declaring that they will not remain silent in the face of delayed justice. Many said they are organising awareness sessions in villages to educate people about their legal rights under the FRA. They believe that informed communities will resist unlawful pressure more effectively and collectively document their traditional land use. Youth leaders emphasised that tribal futures cannot depend solely on outdated forest labour or seasonal tourism jobs, but require secure land titles that enable economic independence. They said the government must ensure that land rights lead to long-term development, not temporary welfare.
Women-led organisations questioned the State’s promise of inclusive development, saying that rehabilitation schemes rarely address women’s land rights or autonomy. They pointed out that compensation packages typically list male heads of households, overlooking women who are primary gatherers of forest produce. Leaders argued that this exclusion perpetuates patriarchal norms and ignores the central role of Adivasi women in stewardship and community survival. They urged the government to recognise women’s land ownership within rehabilitation policies. Without clear rights, they fear that displacement will only deepen gender inequality, leaving women more vulnerable to exploitation and economic dependence.
Experts in environmental governance argue that the ongoing conflict between tribal communities and conservationists reflects a flawed understanding of nature. They say that modern conservation must abandon the colonial mindset that treats forests as empty landscapes to be protected from humans. Historical evidence worldwide shows that indigenous stewardship is critical to biodiversity. Karnataka’s Adivasis, these experts affirm, have nurtured ecosystem balance through seed preservation, controlled burning for soil renewal, sustainable harvesting, and wildlife coexistence. They claim that ignoring these contributions is not only unjust but environmentally counterproductive, making forests more vulnerable to commercial exploitation and climate stresses.
The controversy has sparked support from several civil society organisations, who stated that the government must release district-wise data on pending FRA claims, rejected applications, and rehabilitation packages. They called for transparency in land allocation and mapping, describing the current process as opaque. Many believe that without public scrutiny, political pressures will continue to override constitutional mandates. They pointed out that Karnataka prides itself on progressive policy leadership, and must now prove this reputation by resolving delays affecting the very communities that sustain forest heritage. Public disclosure, they said, will reduce corruption and build trust.
Several tribal activists recalled earlier promises made during election campaigns, where leaders vowed expedited settlement of community rights and dignified rehabilitation. They expressed disappointment that these commitments have not translated into action. They said that the gap between political rhetoric and governance reveals a pattern where Adivasi concerns are acknowledged for public applause but sidelined in administrative priorities. This sentiment has sparked anger, prompting some groups to consider peaceful protests if delays persist. Elders emphasised that while they prefer dialogue, silence cannot be mistaken for acceptance, and their struggle for recognition will continue.
Administrative officials have responded by citing procedural complexities, including disputes over boundary markings, overlapping claims, and restrictions imposed by protected forest categories. However, Adivasi organisations countered that such explanations cannot justify indefinite delays. They argued that complex governance structures must serve justice, not stall it. They reminded authorities that constitutional protections exist precisely to ensure that vulnerable communities are not left at the mercy of inconsistent bureaucratic systems. They reiterated that administrative red tape must yield to the FRA’s purpose: restoring historical injustice and granting secure land rights to indigenous people.
Policy analysts have suggested that Karnataka must invest in capacity building for local officials responsible for implementing FRA decisions. They observed that many committee members lack training to verify community land records, understand tribal customs, or conduct participatory mapping. As a result, decisions are often arbitrary or poorly informed. Analysts argue that empowering local governance mechanisms, particularly gram sabhas, would streamline implementation and reduce the burden on district officials. They believe that empowering communities through self-governance aligns with FRA principles and is more effective than top-down bureaucratic interventions.
Urban activists, who often advocate wildlife protection, suggested that conservation debates must evolve to include indigenous justice. They said that environmental priorities need not conflict with human rights if guided by informed collaboration. They proposed joint stewardship models in which forest departments and Adivasi communities share decision-making authority. Leaders emphasised that coexistence, not exclusion, must shape future policies. They pointed out that international frameworks already acknowledge indigenous leadership as critical to ecosystem resilience. They asked why Karnataka, home to rich tribal cultures, has yet to fully embrace this transformative approach.
Grassroots workers said that documenting cultural practices is essential to strengthening FRA claims, as indigenous heritage often defines territorial relationships. They recommended that community knowledge of seeds, seasonal cycles, sacred groves, and wildlife migration be officially recorded. Such efforts, they argued, would safeguard both culture and ecology while providing strong legal support for land rights. They emphasised that rehabilitation must not only relocate families but protect cultural relationships to land. Leaders stressed that uprooting communities without cultural integration is not resettlement but cultural erasure, breaking the identity of generations.
Conclusion: A Call for Urgent Justice and Meaningful Rehabilitation
Adivasi leaders maintain that the delayed settlement of forest rights is not merely a bureaucratic lapse but an ongoing injustice that threatens dignity, security, and cultural identity. They demand that the Karnataka government demonstrate its commitment to equitable development by ensuring transparent rehabilitation, community ownership, and timely resolution of claims. They insist that conservation must coexist with indigenous rights, not override them. As community members await decisive action, their message to the Chief Minister remains clear: promises must become policy, and policy must become justice. Karnataka’s forests cannot thrive if the people who sustain them are silenced.
Follow: Karnataka Government
Also read: Home | Channel 6 Network – Latest News, Breaking Updates: Politics, Business, Tech & More
