Adivasi communities and human rights activists across Karnataka have raised strong objections to the ongoing forced evictions of indigenous tribes from tiger reserves, especially in the Western Ghats region. These evictions, mainly in the Nagarahole, Bandipur, and Bhadra tiger reserves, have displaced thousands of families, depriving them of their ancestral lands, livelihoods, and cultural identities.
Karnataka’s tiger reserves, rich in biodiversity, have become critical conservation zones. However, the push to preserve wildlife often comes at a heavy cost to Adivasi populations. Tribes like the Jenu Kuruba, Betta Kuruba, and Soliga have lived in harmony with these forests for generations, long before these lands were declared protected areas. Despite their deep connection with nature and sustainable lifestyles, these communities are now being uprooted in the name of conservation.
The Forest Department, with backing from the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), justifies these evictions by citing the need to reduce human-wildlife conflict and safeguard endangered species like the tiger. However, activists argue that such actions violate the Forest Rights Act (FRA) of 2006, which guarantees legal land rights to forest-dwelling communities. Implementation of the FRA in Karnataka has been uneven, and many Adivasis are still without formal land titles due to bureaucratic hurdles.
Over 2,500 families from the Nagarahole region alone have reportedly been displaced since the 1990s, with similar trends in Bandipur and Bhadra. Relocated families are often moved to the fringes of towns or into urban slums where they lack access to clean water, healthcare, education, and employment. These conditions strip them of their cultural identity and thrust them into cycles of poverty and marginalization.
Though the government promises rehabilitation packages including land and housing, activists claim these are rarely delivered adequately. Often, families are given non-arable land or meager compensation, pushing them into wage labor or forcing them to migrate to cities. Traditional livelihoods—like the honey-gathering of the Jenu Kuruba—are now inaccessible, further compounding their hardship.
Protests have erupted across Karnataka, with demonstrations in cities like Bengaluru, Mysuru, and Chamarajanagar. Organizations such as the Adivasi Rights Forum and Karnataka Tribal Welfare Collective have accused authorities of prioritizing eco-tourism and conservation over indigenous human rights. Ironically, while infrastructure for tourism—such as roads and resorts—expands within reserves like Bandipur, indigenous people are being evicted in the name of protecting the forest.
Adivasi women have borne the brunt of these displacements. As key contributors to the forest-based economy, their loss of access to non-timber forest products directly impacts their families’ survival. Furthermore, decisions are often made without any consultation with the communities affected, in violation of international agreements like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
In contrast to Karnataka’s approach, activists have highlighted successful community-led conservation models, such as the Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple (BRT) Tiger Reserve. Here, Soliga Adivasis were granted community forest rights, enabling them to co-manage the forest and contribute to conservation without displacement. This stands in sharp contrast to the Forest Department’s top-down, exclusionary strategy elsewhere in the state.
The cultural and psychological impacts of eviction are deep and lasting. Displaced communities face cultural erosion as rituals, traditions, and oral histories tied to the forest are disrupted. Children from these families often drop out of school due to relocations, economic strain, and lack of infrastructure. Reports of mental health issues such as depression and anxiety are increasingly common among displaced Adivasis.
Legal challenges to the evictions have been filed in the Karnataka High Court, but progress is slow. Many Adivasi land claims are denied due to outdated surveys or lack of formal documentation—a result of colonial-era forest policies that still influence contemporary conservation practices. Although NTCA guidelines mandate “voluntary relocation,” many evictions are carried out forcefully, with homes demolished and belongings seized without notice.
Environmentalists sympathetic to Adivasi causes argue that traditional knowledge can greatly benefit conservation. For example, indigenous fire management techniques and biodiversity practices have historically protected forests better than modern interventions. However, the state’s focus on eco-tourism and tiger population numbers often overrides these contributions.
The growing tiger population—over 500 in Karnataka according to recent surveys—is used to justify evictions, but critics argue that this success shouldn’t come at the cost of thousands of displaced humans. Activists have called for a moratorium on further evictions until all FRA claims are addressed and full rehabilitation is ensured. Social media campaigns have also emerged, with X (formerly Twitter) becoming a platform for sharing stories of resistance and loss.
Youth from Adivasi communities are increasingly joining advocacy efforts. They use digital media to document evictions, raise awareness, and demand justice. Tribal leaders have launched outreach campaigns targeting urban audiences to highlight the ecological and cultural wisdom of Adivasi communities. Meanwhile, the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission has received complaints about human rights violations and the excessive use of force by forest officials.
The issue has also sparked concerns about the broader agenda behind evictions. Activists allege that forest lands are sometimes cleared under the guise of conservation but are later diverted for mining or industrial use. The lack of legal aid for Adivasi communities further hampers their ability to challenge these displacements in court.
In Chamarajanagar, the Soliga community continues to demand rights similar to those granted in the BRT reserve. Despite NGO-led skill development and employment programs, these initiatives often fail to match the sustainable livelihoods that forest life once offered. This ongoing crisis has fueled debates on ethical conservation, land justice, and indigenous rights, drawing attention from both national and international organizations.
Prominent writers and public intellectuals in Karnataka have voiced support for inclusive conservation models that recognize indigenous stewardship. Calls have grown louder for a state-level task force to oversee proper FRA implementation and transparent rehabilitation. Adivasi women have formed advocacy collectives, organized protests, and submitted petitions demanding their legal and cultural rights be upheld.
Amid growing international solidarity, the Karnataka government has signaled intentions to revisit FRA policies. However, Adivasi communities remain skeptical due to years of unfulfilled promises and continued marginalization. Their struggle is now emblematic of broader issues of land justice, echoing the challenges faced by other marginalized groups like Dalits and small-scale farmers.
Cultural festivals and traditional performances have become new venues for resistance, spreading awareness about the consequences of eviction. Activists are also urging educational reforms to include Adivasi histories and contributions in school curricula. They’ve asked the media to better represent indigenous voices and move beyond simplistic conservation-versus-human-rights narratives.
There is also scrutiny of international conservation NGOs that fund tiger protection without ensuring indigenous inclusion. In response, Adivasi leaders are demanding a meaningful role in policymaking and conservation planning. Their continued resistance—through litigation, protest, storytelling, and education—underscores a broader demand: the right to live with dignity on the land they have protected for generations.
Sponsored
FACTS Transcripts
Apply for a University document anywhere
https://www.factstranscript.com
Quick Transcripts for popular Universities, check your University name now and get started. We help you to get your transcript application online which is accepted for use of IRCC.
No DD, NO Paperwork. 100% Authentic, Reliable.
FACTS Transcripts Charges · Reviews · Assam Universities · Home · Know your University
