NEW DELHI (India): Indigenous Peoples Rights International (IPRI) has condemned violent state actions against tribal communities seeking to reclaim ancestral lands within India’s tiger conservation zones, urging authorities to halt forceful evictions and uphold Indigenous land and human rights.
The statement follows confrontations between Indigenous groups and forest officials in southern India as the state expands protected tiger habitats.
IPRI said members of the Jenu Kuruba, Betta Kuruba, Yerava and Paniya communities declared intentions to return to their traditional forest villages in Nagarahole National Park after long periods of displacement under India’s “fortress conservation” approach. In early May, about 52 Jenu Kuruba families began constructing sacred spaces as part of re‑establishing their villages, a customary practice when Indigenous groups settle land they regard as their traditional territory. Instead of engaging in dialogue, the Karnataka Forest Department and the Karnataka State Tiger Protection Force deployed around 120 personnel to remove the families. The response, IPRI says, exacerbates marginalization and violates core human rights protections.
India’s tiger reserve system, one of the largest in the world, has been built over decades through successive expansions of protected areas that now cover vast swaths of forest. Nagarahole was first declared a wildlife sanctuary in 1955 and was later designated a tiger reserve under the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. Over the years, thousands of tribal families were relocated from core habitats, often without adequate rehabilitation or consent. Violations of Indigenous rights have fuelled longstanding grievances, with tribal activists and legal advocates citing provisions in the Forest Rights Act of 2006 and the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act of 1996 that are meant to recognize community land rights and require local consent for land use changes.
Critics of India’s conservation model argue that its strict protection framework prioritizes biodiversity objectives at the expense of human rights, treating Indigenous inhabitants as encroachers rather than custodians of the environment. Tribal advocates maintain that Indigenous stewardship has historically supported biodiversity and that exclusionary policies have led to cultural disruption, economic hardship and strained relations between communities and conservation authorities. IPRI’s statement also cites cases in which community members have faced criminalization, including false accusations of assault or smuggling, and reports of past violent confrontations with forest guards.
IPRI called on both state and national authorities to respect the rights of tribal peoples over their ancestral lands, conduct impartial investigations into alleged acts of aggression by forest officials, and hold perpetrators accountable. The group urged authorities to dismiss what it described as spurious charges against Indigenous leaders and members and to cease using force against returning communities. IPRI also pressed for meaningful dialogue aimed at respecting tribal communities’ wellbeing and cultural ties to land, and for a comprehensive review of conservation laws and policies to align them with recognized Indigenous rights.
The controversy reflects broader tensions in India between wildlife conservation goals and legal obligations to protect tribal rights. While India has achieved notable success in increasing its tiger population through initiatives such as Project Tiger and strengthened habitat protections, these gains coexist with disputes over land rights and human displacement. Tens of thousands of tribal and forest dwelling families have been affected by relocations from protected zones, leading to sustained advocacy for reforms that balance conservation objectives with social justice and community participation.
Indigenous leaders and rights defenders argue that integrating traditional knowledge and securing free, prior and informed consent from local communities offers a more sustainable and equitable approach to conservation. Without such measures, they warn, conflicts over land and rights will persist, undermining both human rights and the long-term goals of biodiversity protection.
Click here to follow our WhatsApp channel and get instant updates
