Itanagar, Apr 9: A controversy erupted in Arunachal Pradesh after forest officials allegedly seized wild herbs and vegetables from local vendors at Gandhi Market here on Tuesday, triggering protests and condemnation from civil society groups.
The seized items included wild banana flowers, Indian prickly ash, and aromatic litsea — all traditionally consumed and sold by indigenous communities. Vendors claimed they were not informed in advance about any restriction on selling such produce.
“On customer demand, we collect wild herbs and sell them in the market. Today, they seized our vegetables and harassed us,” said Takam Yajak, one of the affected vendors. Another vendor, Yapung Rigia, added, “If we're banned from selling wild herbs, what will we sell? Our families depend on this.”
The operation was reportedly carried out based on a directive issued by Itanagar Capital Region Deputy Commissioner Talo Potom on March 27, following a report by Nabam Regum, Chairperson of the Papum Pare Biodiversity Management Committee (PPBMC). The report alleged that vendors were selling wild animal meat and other forest produce.
Regum, who also led the inspection, said only items falling under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, were seized.
However, the Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change distanced itself from the operation, saying it had not authorised the raid. In an official statement, the department clarified that no personnel or individuals had been deputed for such action under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
Viral videos and images from the incident showed a magistrate, police, and two frontline staff from the Itanagar Sanctuary Division participating in the seizure. The department stated that the action was allegedly conducted at the behest of Regum, who also claims to lead the All-Arunachal BMC Members Association.
The Forest Department said the herbs seized are not among the protected species listed under the Wildlife Protection Act. It added that fishing and collection of non-timber forest produce used traditionally by local communities are not restricted unless involving endangered species or protected areas.
The department has sought an explanation from the Deputy Chief Wildlife Warden on the involvement of its personnel and requested clarification from the Arunachal Pradesh State Biodiversity Board (APSBB) on Regum’s role.
The Arunachal Pradesh Women’s Welfare Society (APWWS) also condemned the action, terming it an “attack on tribal food practices.” It claimed the operation caused economic loss and psychological trauma to women vendors and violated the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
The APWWS has called for government intervention, compensation to the affected vendors, and action against officials responsible. It plans to submit a formal representation to the chief secretary seeking redress.
