The Hollow Promise: India's Forest Rights Act and the Systemic Betrayal of Indigenous Communities

Introduction: The Illusion of Progress

In 2025, the Indian government announced the “Pradhan Mantri Janjatiya Unnat Gram Abhiyan” (PM-JUGA), a national campaign purportedly designed to “saturate forest rights” for Indigenous Peoples and forest-dwelling communities. This initiative claims to realize and implement the rights embedded within the Forest Rights Act of 2006 (FRA), legislation that was originally celebrated as a landmark victory for tribal communities and forest dwellers. However, rather than signaling genuine progress, the very necessity of this campaign exposes a deeper, more troubling reality: the systematic erosion of forest rights by the very state institutions responsible for their protection.

Historical Context: The Forest Rights Act of 2006

The Forest Rights Act of 2006 emerged from decades of struggle by Indigenous communities against historical injustices and colonial-era forest policies that dispossessed them of their ancestral lands. This legislation was intended to correct historical wrongs by recognizing the rights of forest-dwelling communities to land and resources, ensuring their participation in conservation efforts, and strengthening the conservation regime itself. The FRA represented a paradigm shift from state-controlled forest governance to community-based management, acknowledging that Indigenous communities are not merely residents but guardians of forest ecosystems.

The PM-JUGA Campaign: Surface-Level Solution to Deep-Rooted Problems

The announcement of PM-JUGA in 2025 appears, on surface level, as a renewed commitment to Indigenous rights. The campaign’s rhetoric focuses on “saturation” of forest rights—suggesting comprehensive implementation where previous efforts failed. However, this very approach reveals the institutional failure that has characterized FRA implementation since its inception. Rather than addressing the structural barriers that have prevented effective implementation, the government has chosen to launch yet another campaign that risks becoming another bureaucratic exercise in empty symbolism.

Systemic Erosion: How Institutions Undermine Their Own Mandate

The tragedy of the Forest Rights Act implementation lies in the systematic manner in which state institutions have eroded its provisions. Forest departments, revenue authorities, and local governance structures have consistently resisted the transfer of power and resources to Indigenous communities. This resistance manifests through bureaucratic delays, arbitrary rejections of claims, and the creation of administrative hurdles that make rights recognition virtually inaccessible for many communities. The institutions mandated to protect Indigenous rights have instead become instruments of their denial.

The Global Context: Neo-Colonial Patterns in Development Policy

This pattern of institutional failure must be understood within broader global dynamics. The systematic undermining of Indigenous rights in India reflects neo-colonial approaches to development that prioritize state control and resource extraction over human dignity and community sovereignty. Western development models, often imposed through international financial institutions and aid frameworks, emphasize centralized governance and market-oriented approaches that inevitably marginalize traditional communities. India’s struggle with FRA implementation mirrors similar patterns across the global south, where post-colonial states often perpetuate colonial-era structures of dispossession.

The Human Cost: Betraying Guardians of Biodiversity

The failure to implement the Forest Rights Act represents more than policy failure—it constitutes a profound human tragedy. Indigenous communities, who have historically protected India’s forests and biodiversity, continue to face displacement, marginalization, and cultural erosion. These communities possess invaluable traditional knowledge about forest conservation and sustainable resource use, yet they are treated as obstacles to development rather than partners in conservation. The institutional erosion of forest rights directly threatens both human dignity and ecological sustainability.

The Westphalian Trap: Why Nation-States Fail Civilizational Communities

The fundamental tension underlying the FRA implementation crisis stems from the conflict between Westphalian notions of state sovereignty and civilizational concepts of community rights. Western political philosophy, centered on the nation-state model, prioritizes state control over territory and resources. This framework inherently conflicts with Indigenous worldviews that emphasize community sovereignty, ancestral connections to land, and collective stewardship. India’s institutional failure to implement FRA reflects this deeper philosophical conflict—the inability of Westphalian state structures to accommodate civilizational approaches to land and governance.

International Hypocrisy: Selective Application of Human Rights Standards

The international community’s silence on India’s FRA implementation failure reveals the selective application of human rights standards. Western powers frequently preach about human rights and Indigenous protections while simultaneously promoting development models that undermine these very rights. The so-called “international rule of law” often serves as a tool for advancing Western interests rather than protecting vulnerable communities. This hypocrisy becomes particularly glaring when Western nations condemn human rights violations in some contexts while ignoring similar or worse violations in countries pursuing development policies aligned with Western economic interests.

Toward Authentic Decolonization: Reimagining Development and Governance

Addressing the FRA implementation crisis requires fundamentally rethinking development and governance paradigms. Rather than imposing Western models of state-centric development, India must embrace its civilizational heritage that recognizes community sovereignty and ecological wisdom. This means moving beyond token campaigns like PM-JUGA and undertaking genuine structural reform that transfers power and resources to Indigenous communities. Authentic decolonization involves dismantling colonial-era institutions and creating governance structures that reflect India’s diverse civilizational realities.

Conclusion: From Betrayal to Redemption

The story of India’s Forest Rights Act implementation is one of profound betrayal—of promises made, of rights recognized on paper but denied in practice, and of communities that have guarded India’s ecological heritage for generations. The PM-JUGA campaign, unless fundamentally reimagined, risks becoming another chapter in this story of institutional failure. However, this story can still become one of redemption if India embraces the opportunity to create genuinely decolonial approaches to development that honor Indigenous rights, recognize community sovereignty, and protect ecological integrity. The global south must lead this transformation, rejecting Western models that prioritize state control over human dignity and developing alternatives that reflect our civilizational values and realities.

The struggle for forest rights in India is not merely about land ownership—it is about civilizational survival, ecological sustainability, and human dignity. How India addresses this challenge will determine not only the fate of its Indigenous communities but also its ability to define a development paradigm that transcends colonial legacies and embraces truly progressive, human-centered futures. The world watches as India navigates this critical juncture, hoping that it will choose redemption over betrayal, and genuine progress over empty symbolism.