Adivasis defend land grabbing
EK INCH BHI JAMEEN NAHIN DENGE
Affected area: Blocks of Karra, Torpa, Kamdara & Raniya in the districts of Gumla, Khunti and Simdega in Jharkhand.
Context
The state of Jharkhand, since its formation in the year 2000 has already signed 98 MOUs with the industrialists. The total land required for all the 98 projects would be around 500,000 hectares and undoubtedly would displace thousands of villages of Adivasi habitat. According to the Rehabilitation Policy 2008 every cultivable land has to be replaced by cultivable land but where would the government get so much land? Furthermore, if the land is acquired by the company itself, the provisions as per the Rehabilitation Policy would not be followed. The government of Jharkhand has deliberately ignored that the region is a Fifth Scheduled Area and giving away land for industrial purposes itself is an illegal activity, more so, Adivasi land is also protected by Constitutional provisions such as the Chotanagpur Tennancy Act 1908. Land grabbing has been made ‘official’ in Jharkhand. Post independence, 2.5 million Adivasis have been victims of displacement due to various developmental projects set up in Jharkhand who are neither been rehabilitated nor paid any compensation and the ill effects of which could be seen from their present situation.
Adivasis have always been the victims of all forms of development policies and are being deliberately deprived of their life sustaining resources i.e. land, water & forest. Today the Adivasis from this region are in fact challenging the present/prevailing form of ‘development’ and are talking of ‘people centred development’. A lot of land has been already taken in the form of mining minerals and other allied industries and 500,000 hectares more of Adivasi land is no more possible on their part. People are united in the form of various organizations and forums to counter the malafied intentions of the industrialists and of the state government.
One of the beneficiaries of the MOU is the Arcelor Mittal Company which would require 25000 acres of land for setting up of a steel manufacturing plant displacing around 25000 families from 44 villages affecting a total population of 53,264 , 37,943 are Adivasis of which 5,873 are BPL families.
The struggle….
A number of organizations and movement groups are involved in raising voices of the Adivasis for restoring the land which the Arcelor Mittal Company is planning to grab. These are:
1. INSAF, Jharkhand
2. Jameen Bachao Sangathan, Karra
3. Adivasi Moolvasi Raksha Manch,
Torpa
4. Block level Gram Sabha, Kamdara
5. DBSS, Chotanagpur
6. Achra Jan Sangharsh Samiti, Basiya
7. Adivasi Ekta Manch, Bano
8. Yuva Sangharsh Morcha, Torpa
9. 22 Parha Mahasabha, Pakra
10. Yuva Pressure Group, Kamdara
11. Munda Sabha, Raniya
DBSS Chotanagpur has been actively involved in the struggle ever since the problem has begun along with other organizations in the affected region.
AN initial survey of land was conducted by representatives of the Arcelor Mittal Company and few middlemen in February 2007. The village Committees of the several villages with the help of some organizations like the DBSS Chotanagpur formed a much larger forum for assertion of their rights and named it as “Adivasi Moolvasi Astitva Raksha Manch”. DBSS with the help of village committees of the affected villages organized awareness meetings in 73 villages and motivated people to raise their voices and stand up for their assertion of rights. A number of rallies and dharnas have been organized so far in all the affected blocks and district headquarters as also in the capital city of Ranchi.
Mass meetings and rallies were organized on 4th March 2008 in Karra, 7th March 2008 in Kamdara, 10th March 2008 in Torpa and 25th March 2008 in Raniya in which memorandums were submitted to govt officials not to initiate any process for land transfer for the company.
As of now the movement has grown up to be a strong one under the banner of Adivasi Moolvasi Astitva Raksha Manch which is effectively advocating the plight of the Adivasis in the state. Although there are a few middlemen who also are working for tempting the Adivasis for giving up their land to the company, the much aware Gram Sabhas of the villages are leading the movement whenever required and their demand stands like this:
- Adivasi land should not be taken away for setting up of any industry
- No project should be implemented in this region which involves displacement
- At no cost we will give our land
- Do not manipulate CNT Act
- Cancel all the MOUs that have been signed and order probe
- EK INCH BHI JAMEEN NAHIN DENGE (We will not give an “inch” of land)
As reported by Dayal Kujur, Issue Facilitator, DBSS, Chotanagpur
CNI RCSA , RANCHI
Challenges to the Traditional Customary Rights of the Adivasis:the Jharkhand Experience
Bineet Mundu
Delhi Forum, New Delhi, India
Paper submitted at
Indigenous Rights in the Commonwealth Project
South & South East Asia Regional Expert Meeting
Indian Confederation of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (ICITP)
India
India International Centre
New Delhi, India
11th - 13th March 2002
Be it in the historical past or the present day scenario, what is it that makes the Adivasi community different from other communities or groups? Today, this not only remains a sociological or anthropological question, but is a political question of the struggle against disempowerment and alienation from their very livelihood resources, i.e., land, forest, and water.
The distinct characteristics of the Adivasi community which are reflected in their distinct way of life. These distinct characteristics have been the major motivating factors in the Adivasi struggle against outside intrusion. The early written records, such as the Vedas, also speak of such struggles waged by the Adivasi community when faced with Aryan invasion.
A brief history of the origin of the Adivasi communities in Jharkhand
According to prominent historians like S.C. Roy, the Mundas were spread all over the north of India in the 3rd Millennium BC, and they were constantly on the move. Their wanderings were some times due to natural causes, but often due to invasion by outsiders. The Mundas fled to the hilly regions to preserve their independence and identity. At one time, they inhabited what is presently Punjab. Later they came down to Utter Pradesh, then to Bihar and finally they settled in Chotanagpur or Jharkhand.
The Oraons, representing the Dravidian tribes, were originally in the Konkan region of what is presently Karnataka. Later they moved towards Maharastra, Bihar and finally to Chotanagpur a few centuries after the Mundas.
The Santhal tribe had lived prosperously for some centuries in the Champ region (now in Chattisgarh). Later they moved towards Bhagalpur, and finally to Saont in Midnapur, from which they derived the name Santhal.
The Adivasis inhabited the Gangetic plains during the pre-Vedic period and were an agrarian society. When the pastoral Aryans invaded the Gangetic plains they succeeded in conquering the fertile area since they had horses which enabled them to be more mobile.
One of the main characteristics of the Adivasis in the course of their history of struggle with alien cultures was the fact that they were always away from the centre of power, they were frequently on the fringes. In the era of small kingdoms developing into empires such as the Magadha empire and the Ashoka Mauria during the 800 BC, and the Guptas and Cholas around 10th and 12th AD, evidence of the marginal existence of the Adivasi community is to be found. In all the records we find references to Adivasi people as dasyu, danavs, rakshasha and savage, etc.
The Aryan people were more dominant and aggressive. They had a monarchical system of governance based on the varna system and a standing army with fighting skills. Egalitarian Adivasi communities did not have a kingship system, since it was based on hierarchy — a concept alien to the tribal ethos. Instead of Kingship the Adivasis had clan groups among the Kily system — the clan system. This later developed into the Khutkati system. Nor did they have a standing army, since the self-sufficient Adivasis communities did not have a division of labour based on workers and non-workers.
Marginalisation of the Adivasis continued during the medieval period. During this period, the Muslims came to India, as early as 711 AD, as a part of an expedition led by the Arab General Muhammad bin Qasim. Shortly thereafter, Sindh, part of lower Punjab, was incorporated into the Arab Umayyad Caliphate. In the course of time, the Muslims conquered a number of Hindu kings. However, the Muslim Emperors were not interested in invading the Adivasi areas, except for collecting malgujari – tax. Even during this period, the Adivasis continued their traditional system of socio-cultural and political governance – the Parha and the Manki Mundua system. This was the basis of the social union among the Adivasis in Jharkhand.
Kingship developed amongst the Adivasis as a result of the necessity to protect their natural and livelihood resources from alien predations and to pay taxes to more powerful emperors. The kings would appoint someone from amongst their kin to be an agent to collect tax. The revenue thus collected was then used for paying the taxes to the emperor. The Nagbashi Rajas, the Jaria Garh Raja, the Ratu Raja, etc., were amongst some of these small kings. They would collect malgujari from the people to pay to the Emperors. This system of kings can be seen in the Oraon areas, in the western region of Jharkhand. This kingship system was resisted by the Adivasis. The Hos resisted the malgujari, and so too did the Santhals and the Mundas.
This resistance became more prominent during the British rule in India which resulted in the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, and the Wilkinson Rule. These rules and acts recognised the distinctiveness of the social-cultural and political institutions of the Adivasi people. They also provided the British government with a better way of collecting tax from a people who refused to part with the lands that had been cleared and cultivated for several generations.
It is clear that the customary system of self-governance of the Adivasis has existed and evolved in the course of history as far back as we can trace it. Their customary practices have been one of the main strengths of the Adivasi people. This is how they have been able, in the past, to resist outside forces encroaching into their freedom.
Disempowerment
The economic effects of forcible incorporation of Adivasis into a stratified market economy have been well recorded. However, as well as the economic exploitation and land alienation, the incorporation and subordination of the Adivasi society in to the market economy, has led to the destruction of the community as a whole. This disempowerment was done through a very conscious destruction of the Adivasi institutions of governance. In the case of Jharkhand, with the establishment of British rule we find a conscious effort to destroy the traditional Adivasi institution of self-governance, self-regulation, such as the Munda Manki system and the Parha system. These representative institutions were supplanted by a new set of institutions to enable the British not only to appropriate the economic and labour resources of the Adivasi communities in the form of land revenue and indentured labour, but also to make these new institutions independent of the control of the Adivasi community. It is no accident that unlike the Munda Manki system, which was communitarian and not necessarily hereditary, the new system was always based in an individual authority and in several cases hereditary. These offices of revenue extraction were vested with authorities of a feudatory chief or raja.
Apart from the system of revenue and labour extractions a new and bureaucratic civil and criminal administration was also set up. Bureaucracy, police and courts were encountered by the Adivasi communities for the first time. These institutions not only destroyed the Adivasi communities, since they were completely out of the control of the society, they also eroded the communitarian principles that permeated the self-regulatory mechanism of the Adivasi society. The impact of this ethos was evident in the mechanism of dispute settlement in the traditional Adivasi institutions.
In the case of disputes, such as inter-clan clashes, murders or debts, the emphasis of the community panchayat was on justice, rather then judgement or punishment. All this changed with the advent of the modern bureaucracy that was based on individualism and impersonality. The Adivasis notion of justice was replaced by the modern binary of crime and punishment. The inability of the Adivasi people to grasp this subtle but deadly shift often led to tragic consequences. In the initial year of the establishment of police stations there are several recorded instances of the Adivasi warriors reporting to the police station with the body of their victims. What has been patronizingly recorded by the police officials as the “innocence and simplicity of the savage tribals” was in fact the result of the failure of the Adivasi communities to understand the full import of the modern judicial principle of crime and punishment.
Rather then endeavouring to resolve the cause of acrimony between the Adivasi individuals or groups so that harmony could once again be restored, as was the traditional custom of the adivasi panchayat, the modern institutions resorted to punitive action, since for them an individual was solely responsible for its acts of omission and commission.
The Adivasi mechanism of grievance redress was therefore trespassed and violated. Furthermore, in its dealings with modern bureaucracy, judiciary and police the Adivasi notion of self-respect was violated. The elitist attitude of the colonial and Indian mindset was largely responsible for this. It either treated the Adivasi as a barbarian or as a simple or genial savage who was incapable of taking care of himself. Such an attitude violated the Adivasi’s notion of dignity.
Apart from the attitude of the officials, the mystifying processes and functions of these new institutions made it impossible for the Adivasis to engage with these institutions on an equal footing. Official work during the colonial period was done entirely in English and in the post independence era in Hindi. Given the preponderance of these non Adivasi languages, Adivasis were either compelled to learn the language of their conquerors and the attached cultural baggage or depend on non-Adivasis in their efforts to seek justice from the modern institutions.
Either way, the Adivasis lost their autonomy, self sufficiency and self respect. It is not an accident therefore that in every Adivasi protest institutions of police, judiciary and bureaucracy were made targets of attack. It is worth noting here the curious case of the shooting of an arrow by Birsa Munda on a seminary in Sarvada to mark the beginning of his protest. This act has been interpreted by certain communal minded people as an attack on the religious beliefs of the inmates of the seminary. However, if the intention of Birsa was to destroy the seminary rather then shooting a single arrow from a great distance he would have organised a full fledged raid on the institution.
In the absence of such a raid, the significance of shooting a single arrow lies in the fact that one of the members of the seminary in Sarvada was mediating on behalf of the Adivasis in the courts of Calcutta. To be fair to the pastor, he did succeed in getting many favourable decisions for the Adivasis in the colonial court. Furthermore,
he did not behave like the professional lawyers of Calcutta, who taking advantage of their judicial functions, cheated the Adivasis. However, what a western anglophile failed to recognise is that the problem of Adivasis is not only the inability to successfully represent their case in the modern institutions, but the very act of incorporation of the Adivasi society within the modern institutions. The arrow shot on the pastor by Birsa was not aimed at his religious belief, but was intended to draw a line of demarcation between the Adivasis desire to retain their traditional autonomy and the desire of an anglophile to facilitate an easy and civilised way of coopting the tribal community into the modern system.
Oral tradition as a basis of customary practices
The Adivasi customary practices evolve from the praxis of oral traditional. In other words, the culture defines the customary practices. It is reflected in what people give value to and what they value. The event is important rather than the time in which it took place. It is not important that it is published but that it is remembered and recounted through the generations. The past is not a catalogue of facts but an encoding of events as the marker of Adivasi valor, justice, dignity, etc.
Oral traditions are expressions of communality and community unlike the written script which becomes individual and personal. The manner in which the Adivasi oral traditions were weakened was through the imposition of the written script by the ruling class. So today any and everything has to be written down in order to have validity. Whatever is unwritten and oral has been put in the category of myths and superstition.
Once the commonality of the material resources gets privatised there will be an adverse impact on social relationships among the members of the society and a very negative influence on the cultural values and attitudes of the people. This is precisely what the British did by introducing the individual patta system. This is exactly what happened to the Adivasi in India and in Jharkhand. As a result communalism is replaced by individualism. Common property becomes private property. Co-operation becomes competition. Consensus in decision making becomes majority decision. Equality among the members of the community becomes inequality.
When India became independent the local ruling class, which was largely non Adivasi and which hailed from north Bihar, and whose language was Hindi, systematically imposed Hindi on the Adivasi people of Jharkhand. Thus Hindi was made a necessary language both at the level of administration as well as in the formal education system. As a consequence, the children who started to go to primary school had to learn Hindi. The Adivasi school-going children did not fare well in Hindi because they did not speak it at home, whereas the non-Adivasi children, whose mother tongue was Hindi, did much better at school. Hindi was also propagated to lessen the importance given to English. In this effort however the independence government largely failed because English continued to hold its sway in college and university education. The net consequence of this language policy was that Adivasi languages suffered from a double assault from government patronized Hindi and elite patronized English.
National development leading to underdevelopment of the Indigenous people
India has one of the largest indigenous populations in the world. Adivasis in India form nearly 8 percent of India’s total population. In the state of Jharkhand, as S.C. Bhatt in the District Gazetteer of Jharkhand puts it, “during fifty years since independence, the Jharkhand land and the Jharkhandi people have been in a process of being reduced to shambles in several respects. The region consists of 79,714 sq kms of land with 2,69,09,428 population of whom 30 percent are indigenous Adivasis, whereas they were 60 percent at the start of the last century. Due to displacement processes the indigenous people of Jharkhand are perhaps the worst hit, other wise this region is the richest region in the whole country in terms of natural resources, viz. timber and several kinds of minerals drawn from far flung areas.”
The planners of India’s 5 year plans adopted a policy of “positive discrimination” towards Adivasis by providing them with certain extra facilities. However, in actuality, the tribals missed the bus during the first 4 five year plans, leading to a widening of the gap in the levels of development. The 5th five-year plan tried to make a difference by ushering in an ‘annual plan’ in 1966-67, and the 6th five-year plan introduced the ‘tribal sub plan’, all with the hope that the Adivasi people would at least share some of the benefits of the planned development. But all these hopes and expectations of the Adivasi people could not be realised.
Dr. B. D. Sharma observes with concern that “in the absence of effective protection of the state and as a direct consequence of disregard and exclusion of the community at the village level, the policy of development with torrential of money through rusted and leaking channels has made the exercise dysfunctional.”
This process of deprivation of Adivasis in and through the 5-year plans has continued up to now. In the beginning of the 1990s, the Adivasi members of Parliament brought the attention of the government both inside and outside parliament to the continued deprivation of their people. In 1992 the central government appointed a special commission under the leadership of Shri Delip Singh Bhuriua to make specific recommendations towards self- rule and self-development of the Adivasi people. The Report was ready within a few months and submitted to the government. However, the government sat on it and no concrete action was forthcoming. Finally, in 1996 all the Adivasi Members of Parliament staged a dharna accusing the government of failing to fulfill its promises. It became embarrassing for the ruling party and again an assurance was given that legislation would be brought forward very shortly. Thus in December 1996 the Panchayti Raj Act was passed in the Parliament and within a few days got the approval of the President. This act contains very specific stipulations that every state governmnet should establish grampanchayat in their respective state within a year, failing which the central law would become applicable to the state automatically. There was a provision that empowered the state government to give greater power to the grampanchayat than provided for in the central law. However, under no circumstance was the state government to reduce the authority of the local grampanchayat by state laws.
The Jharkhand State government passed a Panchayti Raj Act in 2001, but did so in violation of every constitutional principle and in defiance of the central act of 1996. The following examples demonstrate this:
1. As per the central act the Gram Sabha (GS) shall approve the plans, programs and projects for social and economic developments before they are taken up for implementation. The state act happily ignores this provision.
2. Every panchayat shall be required to obtain from the GS a certificate of utilisation of funds for the planners and programs. The state act does not give this power to the GS.
3. The GS shall be consulted before making the acquisition of the land in the Scheduled areas for development projects and before resettling or rehabilitating persons affected by such programs. The state does not give this power to the GS.
4. Planning and management of mineral water bodies to the Panchayats. The state act only gives it to the Zila Parishad.
5. The recommendations of the GS shall be mandatory prior to granting prospecting licenses for mining minerals. The state act does not give this power to the GS. The same is true for the exploitation of minerals by auction.
6. Central act provides that the GS shall prevent the alienation of Adivasi land by outsiders and repossession of the alienated land. The state law neatly ignores this provision.
Thus what the higher central level has acknowledged and accepted as legitimate for the GS, the State Act has failed to honour. Anti-Adivasi sentiment, which is prevalent among the bureaucrats, merchants, and businessmen, is chiefly responsible for this. The only way it can be counteracted by the Adivasi people is through planned and co-coordinated efforts and through peoples’ movements.
Conclusion
What has been reflected upon thus far about the Adivasi people in India as a whole and the Adivasis in Jharkhand in particular, is part of a broader process that is taking place at the international level. Whether they are the Aborigines of Australia, Chiapas in Mexico, or the Inuit in Canada, all are going through the same process. They are becoming conscious of the historical injustices done to them and are determined to struggle to assume their rightful place within nations as well as the international community. The recent achievement of indigenous peoples to establish a Permanent Forum at the UN is a pointer in this direction. Hence all those who feel concerned about the cause of indigenous peoples have to be involved at the local, regional, national and international level. We need to have forums to support and express our mutual solidarity in each other’s struggles. This is what will restore to us our traditional values, and attitudes that bind us together. Systematic struggles in smaller and larger forums will surely pave the way for us all to reach our human goal. Shall we say our present struggle is our goal.
Bineet Mundu Email: bineet_mundu@hotmail.com
