Against The Forest Department

We tend to forget about the Forest Department, the biggest enemy of India’s poorest people, our forest-dwellers.

But this little piece of news highlights the fact that our forests are rich, and forest dwellers should be too.

The news says that the police spends 10 lakhs to guard a sandalwood tree worth 1 lakh.

This particular sandalwood tree is in the compound of the Bangalore high court. It is the property of our The State so our The State is guarding it.

Yet, our The State’s legislation goes far beyond this: The legislation on the matter says that ALL sandalwood trees are the property of our The State. And so they all must be looked after by the forest department and the police.

Now think of the poor forest dweller: If he possessed Liberty Under Law, he would plant some sandalwood trees himself, look after them himself, guard them with his life, cut them down in maturity and sell them and, with the proceeds, buy an SUV or send his son to Harvard, or both.

When the sandalwood don Veerappan was murdered by the Karnataka police in cold blood, I was the only journalist to comment on the fact that, had it not been for legislation that gave all the sandalwood to The State, Veerappan would have been a respectable sandalwood businessman.

Note that sandalwood need not grow in forests alone. The tree can be grown in cities – as in the Bangalore high court compound. Indeed, sandalwood could grow anywhere on the western ghats. The forests where Veerappan was active occupy territory that belongs to Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala. The entire area can grow sandalwood as a perfectly legitimate business.

And why sandalwood alone? There are various prize timbers that can be grown here. Coffee planters in Coorg told me of rosewood and ebony that grows wild on their estates – but they cannot sell them because legislation says they all belong to the forest department. Ditto for mahogany, another highly prized wood.

In our little cottage in south Goa, we have a tall teak tree growing right in the middle of our garden, but we cannot cut it down without the permission of the forest department. Read my old post on this senselessness here.

It is the silly environmentalist who looks upon the forest department as a “wildlife protector.” The forest dweller sees the same department as a forest exploiter, as an enemy of the forest dweller.

All this natural wealth belongs to the people, not The State. The people should be free to farm these trees and sell them. This will also help preserve the species – there will be more sandalwood, more ebony, more teak, more rosewood and more mahogany if these trees were farmed.

The same applies to wildlife species too, as I pointed out in an earlier post. There will be more deer if they were ranched – and venison was legal.

The wealth of the forests belong to the forest dwellers. They need Liberty Under Law.

It is the forest department that must be cut down.