Hyderabad: For weeks, a carefully constructed narrative has dominated with a major push in media and activist circles: Chenchu Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG), is being forcibly evicted from the Amrabad Tiger Reserve in Telangana without consent, in violation of the Forest Rights Act, and with forged documents.
The story, amplified by urban forums based in Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam, speaks of threatened dignity, lost constitutional safeguards and a community pushed to the brink.
There is only one problem with this narrative when we see from inside of what is happening, much of it is false and motivated.
A ground-level examination of facts drawn from government records, community statements and the admissions buried within the activists' own claims reveals a different picture. This is not a story of forced displacement. It is a story of voluntary relocation accepted by both non-tribals and a section of Chenchu families, a generous state package, and a small but vocal minority that has refused to move and is now attempting to block others from doing so.
The Numbers: A Critical Correction
The devil lies in the details. The total number of families getting relocated is 417, of which 96 are families. There are, however, approximately 35 Chenchu families who have explicitly refused relocation.
The 35 families who refused have had their choice respected. They are not marked for any package and everyone should support their living in the forest survival with dignity and grace. They are inheritors of the Amrabad and they are not being evicted. They will remain exactly where they are. There is no forced displacement of these families.
The 96 families who said yes did so voluntarily. They signed consent forms. Many have been demanding this relocation package since as early as 2015, holding dharnas for exactly this outcome. The claim that free, prior and informed consent was absent is demonstrably false. The signatures exist. The records exist. The years of demand exist.
Who is threatening whom?
The clearly motivated narrative alleges that 'dominant non-tribal groups' are exerting undue influence on Chenchu families to relocate. It suggests collusion between forest bureaucracy and outsiders to undermine tribal interests.
The truth, the fact that these meetings are being conducted involving people who are either not from these villages or from families who have refused the package and the admissions buried within the activists' own statements, is precisely the reverse.
Some of the people who have refused relocation are not merely passive objectors. They are actively trying to undermine the relocation process with fake narratives that eviction is happening. They attend meetings under the banner of solidarity forums, not to represent the community but to intimidate those who have chosen differently.
The meetings are being held in Hyderabad, as local media would not buy the false claims. These meetings have generated much of the media coverage, which was attended exclusively by people who are not availing any relocation package; not a single beneficiary was present. What was presented as a community outcry was in fact a factional gathering of the minority. The real coercion, in other words, is coming from outsiders putting a small group that has decided that if they do not wish to leave, no one else should be permitted to either.
The forgery allegation that collapsed
One of the more dramatic claims made by activists was that the Gram Panchayat resolution from Sarlapally village agreeing to relocation was forged.
The resolution reportedly stated that the meeting was presided over by the Sarpanch. Activists argued that the Sarpanch had not conducted the meeting and that his signature was fabricated.
When asked, the Sarpanch stated clearly that his signature was not forged. He has since turned back under pressure, presumably from the same anti-relocation elements that are threatening families but his original statement stands.
The forgery allegation was a weapon of convenience, deployed to delegitimise a democratic process that produced an outcome the minority did not like.
The Legal Arguments: Misused and misunderstood
The activists' arsenal is heavy with legal citations: Section 38V of the Wildlife Protection Act, Sections 3(1)(e) and 3(1)(i) of the Forest Rights Act, Rule 12B(1) of the Forest Rights Rules, the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA), the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Each is invoked to suggest that the relocation is illegal.
But each invocation misses a fundamental point. Every single one of these legal provisions is designed to protect against forced displacement. None of them prohibits voluntary relocation. When a tribal family freely chooses to accept Rs 15 lakh or five acres of land, signs a consent form and has been demanding exactly this for years, no amount of legal citation can transform that choice into a violation.
The activists also demand recognition of habitat rights under the Forest Rights Act. But habitat rights belong to the community. And a section of the community has chosen relocation. To invoke habitat rights against the express will of those who wish to move is not advocacy. It is paternalism.
The policy contradiction that does not exist
The original narrative argues that the relocation contradicts Central Government schemes such as PM JANMAN and the Ministry of Tribal Affairs' Conservation-cum-Development (CCD) approach, which prioritise in-situ development of PVTGs.
This is a false binary. PM JANMAN and CCD apply to those who wish to remain in their habitats. The Telangana government has explicitly left the unwilling families out of the relocation scheme precisely so that they can benefit from such in-situ development.
The two approaches are not contradictory. They are complementary. Families that want to stay get CCD. Families that want to leave get a handsome package.
The activists' position, by contrast, offers no choice at all. It demands that all Chenchu families remain in the forest regardless of their own wishes, in the name of a romanticised vision of tribal life that many Chenchus themselves no longer desire.
What is really at stake?
The activists frame this as a question of survival, dignity and legal rights. But those are precisely the things that the 96 consenting families stand to gain by relocation. Five acres of land provides economic security that foraging in a tiger reserve cannot match. A pucca house offers dignity that a forest hut does not. Access to schools, hospitals and markets offers opportunities that life inside the core area cannot provide.
Meanwhile, the 35 families who wish to stay have had their choice respected.
They are not being evicted. They are not being marked for any package. They are being left exactly where they are.
The only people not being given a choice are the 96 families whom activists wish to trap in the forest against their will. That is not rights advocacy. That is coercion by other means.
The motive and agenda
Some of the activists, when confronted with facts, have on record said that Chenchus cannot take their own decisions and their consent does not matter.
We know what is better for them and we will override the consent given, is what they are saying. Falling victim to the propaganda are the well-intentioned, yet gullible urban people sitting in Hyderabad and Visakhapatnam, far from the Nallamala forests that claim to speak for Chenchu rights while ignoring the actual choices of actual Chenchu families.
It is the minority of 35 that threatens the 96 who wish to relocate. It is the forums and media outlets that amplify the voices of objectors while silencing the voices of consenters.
Local media, which knows the ground reality, has been far more restrained in its alarmism. It is the distant metropolitan forums that have manufactured a crisis where none exists.
Conclusion: Consent is not coercion
The Chenchu relocation from the Amrabad Tiger Reserve is not a violation of rights. It is an exercise of rights such as the right to choose, the right to consent, the right to accept a government package, and the right to leave a life of forest dependency for one of land, housing and security.
Ninety-six Chenchu families have said yes. Their signatures exist. Their years of dharnas exist. Their consent is real.
Thirty-five Chenchu families have said no. Their choice has been respected. They will receive no package and will not be relocated.
The only remaining question is whether the 96 will be allowed to exercise their choice without being threatened, intimidated and delegitimised by a vocal minority and its urban amplifiers. If the activists truly believe in tribal rights, they should start by respecting the rights of those who wish to relocate. That means ceasing their campaign of misinformation, withdrawing their threats and allowing the Chenchu families who have chosen a new future to pursue it in peace.
Coexistence with nature is one model. Voluntary relocation with dignity is another. Both have their place. But neither should be imposed. And in this case, a section of the community has already chosen. It is time for the activists to listen.
Shambu Santosh Kumar and Appisu Sai Babu are residents of Sarlapally and Vatvarllapally
The views and opinions expressed in the article are those of the authors who are closely working with the tribal community and do not reflect the official policy or position of NewsMeter.