Inserting politics and history in conservation.

“On 2 October 2012, birthday of the Mahatma (Gandhi), Sargun Masomait, a 35-year-old tribal woman . . . began marching toward New Delhi from Gwalior. She was part of a group of 40,000 people – tribals, Dalits, nomads, nowhere people with no land of their own, the wretched of the Indian earth, out to claim their dignity; or to reclaim it” (Pandey 2012). The March of the Landless led to the signing of the Agra declaration between the marchers and the central government which included the demand for the “effective implementation of the Forest Rights Act (FRA)” (Jansatyagraha 2012). We recount this event from among many recent ones to emphasize the political and democratic support for rights-based legislation such as the FRA. Krishnadas et al. (2013) question the basis of the FRA and the conservation implications of sociopolitical and rights-based legislation. They criticize us (Bawa et al. 2011) for things we did not say, while crediting us with statements we did not make. We, therefore, repeat our major thesis: “we do not assume that rights-based approaches will mitigate loss of biological diversity, but suggest that efforts based on local knowledge, institutions, and practices will empower local communities to better manage biological diversity.” Krishnadas et al. misinterpret our central argument that the Forest Rights Act (FRA) although not a panacea, helps local stakeholders shake off the legacy of centralized state control of their lives and helps build local institutions that now barely exist. Here, we address 5 of their main arguments.