AARM alleges Centre undermines constitutional rights of tribal communities

The Adivasi Adhikar Rashtriya Manch (AARM) has accused the Union government of diluting constitutionally backed self-governance of Indigenous communities over their forests. The group says a recent joint directive from the Ministry of Tribal Affairs and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change weakens the authority that the Forest Rights Act (FRA) and the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA) vest in Gram Sabhas to manage Community Forest Resources (CFRs).

The communication, dated July 28 and circulated to chief secretaries in states and union territories where the FRA is operational, outlines steps for the “protection, conservation and sustainable management of Community Forest Resources.” AARM contends that, beneath the conservation rhetoric, the guidance recentralizes power in state administrations at the expense of village assemblies.

What the new directive seeks

According to AARM, the circular asks state governments to draw up time-bound action plans, oversee the preparation and rollout of Community Forest Resource Management Plans (CFRMPs), and align financing by tapping multiple central and state schemes. While the letter refers to “facilitating” Gram Sabhas, AARM argues that the operative design shifts core decision-making to departmental structures, with Gram Sabhas relegated to a consultative role rather than serving as primary authorities.

Why Gram Sabhas fear dilution of powers

AARM leaders, including chairperson Jitendra Chaudhary, say the approach contradicts the spirit and letter of the FRA and PESA, which recognize Gram Sabhas as custodians of community forests with the authority to map, claim, and govern CFRs. In their view, planning, budgeting, and implementation driven from the state level undermines the autonomy and accountability that community institutions require to steward forests equitably and sustainably.

For communities living in and around forests, that authority is not abstract: it underpins food security, livelihoods, cultural practices, and local biodiversity management. From an ecological standpoint, community-led governance has been widely associated with reduced deforestation, better fire management, and climate resilience—outcomes that contribute to India’s climate goals when CFRs are managed by those who depend on them most.

Stalled claims and a widening implementation gap

AARM highlights the slow pace of CFR recognition as a warning sign. Out of 1,79,422 community forest resource claims filed nationwide, 1,24,189 have been approved, leaving roughly 57,000 pending or rejected. The organization argues that layering new state-driven procedures onto an already backlogged system risks further delays and may discourage communities from asserting their statutory rights.

A shifting policy landscape

Campaigners link the July 28 directive to broader policy shifts that, in their assessment, make it easier for commercial and infrastructure interests to access forested areas. They point to recent changes in forest governance and environmental clearance regimes as part of a pattern that sidelines community consent and environmental safeguards. Against this backdrop, the Gram Sabha’s legal powers under the FRA and PESA are seen as crucial guardrails for both rights protection and conservation integrity.

The concern is not solely about who signs a management plan. It is about whether CFR management prioritizes subsistence needs, ecological thresholds, and long-term stewardship over short-term extraction. AARM warns that weakening community control could fragment landscapes, threaten wildlife corridors, and erode carbon stocks—outcomes at odds with national biodiversity and climate ambitions.

Demands and next steps

Calling the directive a step backwards for tribal rights, AARM has demanded its immediate withdrawal. The organization has also announced a large-scale mobilization in New Delhi in September, framing the issue as a defense of constitutional and legal protections for Adivasi communities. Leaders accuse the current administration of betraying those protections and vow to escalate protests if the guidance is not rescinded.

What to watch

How states interpret and implement the circular will be decisive. Key tests will include whether Gram Sabhas retain the authority to draft, approve, and revise CFRMPs; whether financing mechanisms are transparent and responsive to community priorities; and whether safeguards ensure free, informed, and democratic decision-making at the village level. Legal challenges are also possible if communities or civil society groups argue that the directive conflicts with statutory provisions of the FRA and PESA.

At stake is more than administrative turf. The governance model chosen for India’s community forests will shape the future of livelihoods, biodiversity, and climate resilience across some of the country’s most ecologically significant landscapes. AARM’s challenge puts that choice squarely in the national spotlight.