Grass, not tree: Why it took India 90 years to reclassify bamboo
On December 20, the Lok Sabha passed a bill amending the Indian Forest Act, 1927. A week later, the amendment was passed by Rajya Sabha. The amendment seeks to remove bamboo from the purview of the definition of a tree. The Centre promulgated an ordinance on November 23 to the same effect, which this bill seeks to approve.
Scientists have classified bamboo as grass. A simple Google search is enough to tell you that. But the government of India has taken 90 years to introduce an amendment to reflect the taxonomic classification in the colonial-era law.
India has the largest area of bamboo resources in the world. Bamboo is commonly known as green gold and poor man's timber as it has a variety of uses (including flooring, furniture, incense, ply, paper and pencil). Bamboo shoot is also eaten as a dietary supplement in some parts of the country, as BJD MP Tathagata Satpathy mentioned.
Minister of environment and forests, Harsh Vardhan, recited what seemed to be an exhaustive list of the uses of bamboo when he was introducing the bill. (In fact, it was so comprehensive that an MP asked him to finish the rest of his speech after other speakers during the minister's reply). In addition to this, the bamboo is a renewable resource as it is easily cultivable. The Ministry of Environment and Forests has also introduced the National Bamboo Mission to encourage the cultivation of bamboo, which has caught up in states like Karnataka.
The omission of bamboo from the ambit of the definition of tree in clause 2 of the Indian Forests Act, 1927, means that the felling and transit of bamboo will now be easier. This is especially useful as bamboo is cultivated mostly by SC/ST farmers and tribals. Another important point to note is that this amendment only deals with the bamboo grown on non-forest land.
Sikkim Democratic Front MP, Prem Das Rai, introduced a private member's bill in 2013 which was almost identical to the bill passed in Lok Sabha. This bill has since lapsed. But Rai did not give up. He introduced the unaltered bill again in 2014. The status of this bill remains pending.
However, our representatives continue to be absent on Friday afternoons when private members’ business is being taken up in the House. The most famous example of this is when Congress MP Shashi Tharoor attempted to introduce a bill to repeal Section 377 of the IPC, and the House was almost empty. Private member's bills are the only way for MPs who are not a 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 that 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 ethics. The absence of MPs indicates their utter lack of courtesy to the people. Their primary allegiance should be to the citizens of their constituencies.
Here is the government bill introduced by Harsh Vardhan. This is almost indistinguishable from Rai’s bill except Clause 3, which states that this bill replaces the ordinance which was promulgated about 22 days before Parliament reconvened for the Winter Session.
Tathagata Satpathy's opposition to the 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.
Article 123 of the Constitution that gives the President legislative powers states:
1) If at any time, except when both Houses of Parliament are in session, the president is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action, he may promulgate such ordinance as the circumstances appear to him to require.
2) An ordinance promulgated under this article shall have the same force and effect as an act of Parliament, but every such ordinance
a) Shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament and shall cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the reassemble of Parliament, or, if before the expiration of that period resolutions disapproving it are passed by both Houses, upon the passing of the second of those resolutions; and
b) May be withdrawn at any time by the president, where the Houses of Parliament are summoned to reassemble on different dates, the period of six weeks shall be reckoned from the later of those dates for the purposes of this clause.
3) If and so far as an ordinance under this article makes any provision which Parliament would not under this Constitution be competent to enact, it shall be void.
The Supreme Court has clarified that the legislative power to issue ordinances is "in the nature of an emergency power" given to the executive only "to meet an emergent situation".
Dr BR Ambedkar’s thoughts on this article were as such:
“My own feeling is that a concrete reason for the sentiment of hostility which has been expressed by my honourable friend, Mr [HV] Kamath as well as my honourable friend Mr [HN] 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 this power to be used only under extreme circumstances. The repeated usage of ordinances, instead of giving a chance to Parliament to function and legislate, extinguishes the spirit of democracy and obliterates the purpose of stimulation of debate and discussion in the law-making process. There has to be room for registering dissent in any working democracy, otherwise the idea of a participatory democracy is lost.
As Revolutionary Socialist Party MP, NK Premachandran, said in Lok Sabha on Wednesday (December 27), even a full stop or a comma can have huge ramifications in a legislation. This justifies the three-hour debate our MPs had just to remove a single word from the existing aforementioned statute.