Forest Savouries

When I joined Forest Service as a probationer we were often told that forest wealth was an open treasury that could be plundered easily if not guarded properly. There were many pockets in Kerala too where illicit felling of trees was rampant and forest protection was a nightmarish duty; literally. Sincere Divisional Forest Officers and Range officers along with other frontline staff used to patrol at night in vulnerable areas to apprehend the timber smugglers who were mostly active under the cover of darkness. Sometimes there used to be a tip off that led to seizures and arrests but occasionally the misinformation was also passed on to mislead the forest staff to facilitate smuggling elsewhere. I once asked Shri R. R. Shukla, under whom I had worked as Assistant Deputy Conservator of Forests in Kothamangalam, how to distinguish between a genuine information and the attempt of the miscreants to mislead. He explained that there was no sure way to make out but if one developed a network of informers then the reliability of information from a particular source could be judged based on past success or failure. In any case, inaction on a tip off was not an option; even an honest informer would be reluctant in future if his information was not acted upon seriously. This early lesson of keeping all the channels of communication open became a mantra throughout my career and especially when I worked as Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Vigilance & Forest Intelligence) before retirement.

            During my Range training in Kannavam I came across a section forester who was an old timer. His uniform belt used to be tightly looped over his khaki pant around his expansive girth. Despite his age and bulk, he was quick on his feet.  He had, earlier in his career, worked in Nilambur- a historically famous place because for the first time anywhere in the world, teak plantations were raised there by a British Collector, Conolly, and the local forest officer, Chatu Menon, in 1842. Few of those trees are still standing today in Conolly’s plot -  as time capsules erected above ground. Kerala Forest Department continued raising excellent plantations thereafter also.

In late 1980s many locals used to surreptitiously get in to the teak plantations almost everywhere in Kerala and also in Nilambur, cut the valuable trees and transport the timber with impunity by whatever means possible- on foot, in vehicles or by floating it in Karulai river. The forester told me that the experienced forest staff could detect a habitual timber smuggler just by feeling his shoulder muscles. Indulging in illicit felling repeatedly involved hauling heavy timber logs on one’s shoulder in the dead of night. Therefore, those career smugglers had strong bulging shoulder muscles.  I neither verified this story from other sources nor tried groping a smuggler’s shoulder, though the latter option might had been quite weird- even as a friendly gesture -because section 377 IPC was still in force!  The so called insight of the forester could, possibly, also be a spicy lore to impress a greenhorn like me. In any case, I was sure the courts would not treat the strong shoulder muscles as ample evidence for conviction for illicit felling.

            I am also reminded of another jungle gossip that you tend to hear when you are patrolling on foot with your subordinate staff who feel comfy with higher level officers on such occasions because it is then that everybody is sharing even the same meal which, at times, could be just avil (beaten rice), nenthra pazham (plantain) or karikkya (tender coconut). On one such occasion I was informed that that there were elephant poachers in Kerala who were not only sharp shooters but also daredevils because of their confidence in their misguided craft. They had the guts to stand boldly right in the middle of the path of a charging tusker and also had the expertise of killing an elephant with just one gunshot aimed at its temple. The charging elephant would invariably fall down dead in its track in a split second.

Fortunately, I never saw this story in action but once I came across a fresh elephant carcass deep inside the forest in Parambikulam Wildlife Sanctuary. The elephant had been killed by poachers and was lying spread-eagled on its limbs with its massive head erect and resting between its forelegs that were grotesquely sprawling out in front while the belly was touching the ground. The trunk was hacked by the poachers to provide an easy access to the tusks that had been sawn off. It was a very gory and nauseating scene but gave some credence to the gossip that was shared with me earlier.

            Once Director, Indira Gandhi National Forest Academy, late Shri P B Gangopadhyay, addressed the young probationers and made it clear to them that forest protection was not the only mandate of IFS officers. He further elaborated logically that the duty of physically guarding forests could, perhaps, be done much better by a forest guard, police constable or an army jawan with a gun. There was absolutely no need for the rigorous selection of IFS officers from among the highly educated young men and ladies in the country through UPSC and then further subjecting them to a technical training in forestry in IGNFA for two years, if protection of forests was the only motive or mandate for them. The take away was, obviously, that were many other aspects of forestry that senior level officers were supposed to be not only aware of, but were also expected to execute.

The conviction rate of forest crimes is very low- a meagre 5% - and there are numerous reasons attributed to it. Also, it has been experienced that in order to protect their clients in forest crimes, defendant lawyers generally try to confuse the prosecution witnesses- the forest staff- by asking them to describe the scene of crime and how the arrest was made. The lawyers buttonhole the staff with a series of questions with the intention to make them nervous, disoriented and deviate from the facts recorded in the mahazar (First Information Report) during cross-examination and discredit the witnesses before the judge. The court case becomes weak once a doubt is sown in the mind of a judge especially if the forest staff presented as prosecution witnesses inadvertently contradict the statements in the mahazar.

  In order to prevent such mishaps, I was told about a fascinating informal SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) by Shri K J Varughese, IFS, in a particular forest division for facing the court proceedings. As a part of the SOP all forest staff who wrote mahazars were directed to have a fixed template from which they should not budge.  For instance, the template simply prescribed that the mahazar should customarily begin by stating that on the day of commission of offence the forest staff were on perambulation and approached the crime scene from south direction. Next it should describe that the offenders, on seeing the forest staff, tried to escape in north direction but were chased and subsequently arrested. Interestingly, no matter what the time, place of crime or the circumstances were in a particular case, the template prescribed in advance (!) the scene of crime, method of arrest of offenders and other facts so that they were frozen in the ‘memory’ of the staff and the mahazars were written accordingly in a predetermined format. Thereafter, no amount of diversion tactic of the defendant lawyer could confuse the forest staff in the court if the template was strictly followed! It may sound preposterous to suggest that the new generation of foresters should analyze the data regarding conviction rate of forest crimes in that division to gauge the utility of this magical SOP. For the obvious reasons it should be kept as a top secret from judiciary! However, a puritan may find the whole practice as not only legally untenable but also ethically abhorrent. Few may discredit this SOP as a flight of imagination or simple wishful thinking. Take your pick.

*-------*--------*---------*-----------*----------*---------*-----------*--------*

Democratization has happened everywhere – in corporate world as well as in government departments. There was a time when Henry Ford could defiantly tell the world about his Model T cars that were produced having only single black paint, "You can have it in any color you want, as long as it is black." Today, the private companies are catering to all the wishes of its customers in order to thrive and customer is definitely the king.  On similar lines, over the years Forest Departments have stepped down from their colonial towers to cater to the poorest of the poor.

  Participatory Forest Management has become an important tool, not only in India but globally too, for forest protection, eco-restoration and for equitable sharing of benefits from forests. The essence behind this concept is that all stakeholders- poor tribals, forest based industry, forest dependent villagers, traditional vaidyas, NGOs, public representatives, other government departments etc.- in forestry sector should join hands in a meaningful partnership where everyone’s voice is heard and decisions are taken by all jointly for the common good rather than in the pursuit of a single agenda pushed by Forest Department alone.

Initially there was some resistance within the department against this concept and the forest personnel who opposed it did not like the idea because it would erode their authority as decision making would be a shared responsibility after arriving at a consensus. However, it was also evident that the cooperation of different stakeholders obviously made the job of a forest officer easier too, so long as one had the aptitude of getting along with people rather than lording over them as was happening in good old days. Today, it is a well-accepted philosophy from Central Ministry to the last man in the field but there were initial days when the new code was struggling to strike roots.

In police department too, the concept of community policing emerged on similar lines and one can imagine the turmoil it might had created there because police wield even more power and the unwillingness to share it lower staff and with other stakeholders was quite understandable. It is not only a travesty but enlightening and hilarious too when you witness how lofty ideas and principles of management get transformed by the time they reach the implementation on ground in various departments.

Shri T M Manoharan, retired Hoff, once shared jokingly the attitude of a senior police officer in this regard who addressed the stakeholders in a preliminary discussion, “The Police Department has decided to transform its image, be more public friendly and open to suggestions regarding its working. I am particularly very much in favour of Participatory Management which, in a nutshell, is very simple- you participate and I will manage!” Needless to say that such officers must had treated and tolerated Participatory Management nothing more than an oxymoron.

A.K.Dharni, IFS, 1987