Scientists have classified bamboo – commonly known as green gold and poor man’s timber – as “grass”, as a simple Google search will tell you. But the Government of India has taken 90 years to introduce an amendment to remove bamboo from the purview of the definition of a “tree” from the Indian Forests Act of 1927.
Last week, the Lok Sabha finally passed a government Bill amending the colonial-era law. The Centre had promulgated an ordinance on November 23, 2017, to the same effect, which the Indian Forest (Amendment) Bill 2017 seeks to approve.
The removal of “bamboo” from the definition of a “tree” in Clause 2 of the Indian Forests Act, 1927, means that felling and transit of bamboo will now be easier. This is especially useful as bamboo is cultivated mostly by SC/ST farmers and tribals. Also, it is important that the amendment only deals with the bamboo grown on non-forest land.
Bamboo, of which India has the largest cultivation in the world, is also a renewable resource as it is easily grown and has a variety of uses (including flooring, furniture, incense, ply, paper and pencil). Its shoot is eaten as a dietary supplement in some parts of the country, as BJD MP Tathagata Satpathy representing Dhenkanal (Odisha), mentioned.
Harsh Vardhan, minister of environment and forests, introduced the Bill in the House and recited what seemed to be an exhaustive list of the uses of bamboo. (In fact, the list was so comprehensive that an MP asked him to finish the rest of his speech after the others had spoken). His ministry has introduced the National Bamboo Mission to push the cultivation of bamboo, which has caught up in states such as Karnataka.
Private Members’ Bill pending
In 2013, Prem Das Rai, a Sikkim Democratic Front MP representing the state, had introduced a Private Members’ Bill which was almost identical to the government Bill passed in the Lok Sabha last week. This Bill had since lapsed.
But Rai did not give up. He introduced the unaltered Bill again in 2014. The status of this Bill remains pending.
Unfortunately, our representatives continue to be absent on Friday afternoons when private members’ business is taken up in the House. The most famous example of this is when Shashi Tharoor attempted to introduce a Bill to repeal Section 377 of the IPC and the House was almost empty.
Private Members’ Bills are the only way for MPs who are not part of the government to introduce new legislation. This is important as it allows our elected representatives to do their duty to the people of their constituencies and put forth Bills which are in public interest.
In spite of that, on Friday afternoons the House continues to be mainly populated by MPs who have been selected to speak and are looking for some air time to prove their work ethic. The absence of MPs indicates their utter lack of courtesy to the people. Their primary allegiance should be to the citizens of their constituencies.
Below is the government Bill introduced by Harsh Vardhan, and it’s almost indistinguishable from Rai’s Bill except for clause 3 which states that this Bill replaces the ordinance which was promulgated about 22 days before Parliament reconvened for the Winter session.
Misuse of ordinances
BJD’s Satpathy’s opposition to the government Bill was two-fold. One, that the amendment could be used to deplete the forest cover of India (which is a moot point). Two, that it was first introduced as an ordinance and the MPs were now being forced to approve the Bill – which was a sentiment echoed by many of his counterparts.
Ordinances are laws that are promulgated by the President on the recommendation of the Union Cabinet. They can only be issued when Parliament is not in session, and enable the central government to take immediate legislative action.
Article 123 of the Constitution which gives the President legislative powers states that:
Dr BR Ambedkar’s thoughts on this article were as such: “My own feeling is this that a concrete reason for the sentiment of hostility which has been expressed by my honourable friend, Mr Kamath as well as my honourable friend Mr Kunzru, really arises by the unfortunate heading of Chapter ‘Legislative powers of the President’. It ought to be ‘Power to legislate when Parliament is not in session’. I think if that sort of innocuous heading was given to the Chapter, much of the resentment to this provision will die down. Yes. The word ‘ordinance’ is a bad word, but if Mr Kamath with his fertile imagination can suggest a better word, I will be the first person to accept it. I do not like the word ‘ordinance’, but I cannot find any other to substitute it.”
Much has been written about the misuse of ordinances by governments. The framers of our Constitution intended for this power to be used only under extreme circumstances. The repeated usage of ordinances, instead of giving a chance for Parliament to function and legislate, extinguishes the spirit of democracy and obliterates the purpose of stimulation of debate and discussion in the lawmaking process. There has to be room for registering dissent in any working democracy otherwise the idea of a participatory democracy is lost.
As NK Premachandran, a Revolutionary Socialist Party MP representing Kollam (Kerala), said in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday, even a full stop or comma can have huge ramifications in legislation. This justifies the three-hour debate our MPs had just to remove a single word from the existing aforementioned statute.
Newslaundry is a reader-supported, ad-free, independent news outlet based out of New Delhi. Support their journalism, here.
