Sahariyas and their Vulnerabilities

Source: Action Aid India

Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan together have more than 2.45 crore tribal population divided into 46 and 12 groups respectively. Seven tribal groups in Madhya Pradesh and one in Rajasthan what is termed as Particularly Vulnerable Tribal groups or PVTGs (earlier called Primitive Tribal Groups or PTGs). Sahariya is one among these PVTGs inhabits   eight districts of Madhya Pradesh and few places in Rajasthan. According to Census 2011, Sahariya is the largest community in the list of 75 PTGs with a population of more than seven lakh. Around 85 per cent of Sahariyas live in Gwalior, Guna, Shipuri, Vidhisha, Datia, Bhind, Sagar and Tikamgarh districts of Madhya Pradesh. The government of India recognized the vulnerability of Sahariyas in 1975-76 by including them in PTGs but in the late end of the 20th Century, the enforcement of environmental laws, insensitive displacement, schemes for mainstreaming and ignorance of their vulnerabilities as PTG marginalized them further.

Livelihood of Sahariyas:

Traditionally Sahariyas are forest dwellers. They practiced shifting cultivation, hunting gathering, pastoralism, and a quiet nomadic life. Similar to many other PTGs, Sahariyas had also close link with forest and forest product for their livelihood. They practiced agriculture in mountains and during non-agricultural season, they collected forest products. According to a study conducted by Vikas Samvad, Bhopal in 2007, Sahariyas used to barter forest product like Gums and Chironji with that of cereals and also used to prepare baskets out of ‘Siari’ wood to store their half yearly requirement. Sahariya’s economy before the enforcing of environmental laws was self-sufficient and was in harmony with the local ecology.

After government took over the control of forest, Sahariyas lost their main source of livelihood. Vikas Samvad in its study of Madhya Pradesh argues that the government policy on forest wiped them from forest and forest products. According to the Census 2001 data, more than 70 per cent of Sahariyas are non-cultivators. Most of them are agricultural labourers. A study by the Centre for Tribal Development in 2002 reported that the annual per capita income among Sahariyas was Rs. 2,691, or about Rs 7 a day, less than one-third of the national poverty line figure of Rs. 26 a day in rural areas. Curtailing forest rights of Sahariyays, through environmental policies, what they were inheriting since ages destroyed their existence. On the other hands government’s un-planned, insensitive and shortsighted rehabilitation and development plan for Sahariyas pushed them to further deprivation.

Major Visible Vulnerabilities

Modern development initiatives in India in last few decades undermined socio-cultural diversities of PTGs such as Sahariya. Despite recognizing the vulnerabilities of PTGs in 1970s their voices remain unheard in developmental programs targeted to them. It seems that in last few decades their vulnerability increased instead of decreasing. Some of these vulnerabilities are discussed here in brief.

Starvation:

After losing control over production of grains and accessing food item through their traditional barter system in last few decades, Sahariyas are now facing starvation situation on every day basis. Due to scarcity of food, they rely on ‘tubers’ and ‘leaves’ collected from nearby forests. When drought hits and there is nothing to eat, Sahariyas depend on bread made of ‘Sama’ (a locally grown wild grass) and soup made from its seeds. Very often even this grass is not fit for consumption as it doesn’t ripen due to lack of water , which make them difficult to digest.

High Malnutrition:

Insufficient food has led to wide spread malnutrition amongst every age group of Sahariays. Action Aid India reported that the malnutrition level among Sahariya children under three is as high as 66.3%, which is much higher the national average of 47%. Many such other studies of Sahariyas revealed high level of undernourishment and hunger deaths. According to a paper inquiring status of women and children of Sahariyas of Madhya Pradesh published in Indian Medical Journal in 2013 found that Chronic Energy Deficiency (CED) affected 42.4 percent women whereas 90.1 percent women were anemic. In their study, Kapoor et al (2009) noted that CED amongst males was about 48.8 percent. As per World Health Organization a CED of 40 percent exhibits a critical health problem.

Poor Health:

Curative health care is not an option for most. In most cases, health centers are very far away from Sahariya villages. Moreover, many report being callously treated at the health centers by the staff. Many times Sahariyas are not aware about what they are being prescribed. Therefore, most times,’ quacks are preferred. Empirical studies have found that major causes of death include pneumonia, malaria, tuberculosis, gastric problems and diarrhea. Low standard of living, poor food habits, low socio-economic conditions, lack of portable water and unfavorable environment all contribute to poor health standards. 

Low Education and Child Labour:

Sahariyas do not have access to education; Census data reveals that only 2 per cent of Sahariyas have studied until the secondary level. The literacy rate of Saharia both in Rajasthan and in Madhya Pradesh is the lowest amongst all the tribes in these states. In Rajasthan the tribal literacy rate is 52.8 whereas Sahariya literacy rate is 48 percent. Similarly, Madhya Pradesh has a tribal literacy rate of 50.6 whereas the Sahariya literacy is recorded at 42.1 percent. Women literacy amongst the Sahariyas is much less with Madhya Pradesh at 32 and Rajasthan at 33.7 percent respectively.

Hindustan Times recently reported that children, instead of being sent to school are working to sustain their families. Increasing debt due to crop failure and food insecurity forces families to send their children  to work for wages ranging between INR 2000-6000. The children are employed to herd sheep and other animals in the jungles of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.

Conclusion:

Even after being identified as a PTG group, policies dealing with Sahariyas have not kept in mind the features that make them an especially primitive group. However, continuous ignorance of their culture continuous to feature in the way government is formulating response to them. As mentioned earlier, they are frequently ill treated, which marginalizes them further. Moreover, when they access government services, the nourishment provided is not suited to their dietary practices. Children cannot digest or do not prefer panjeeri and soya buffs. The reason a special category of tribes was created was so that policies are customized to their lifestyle. Thus, the developmental approach of Saharaiyas must emphasize an effort to understand their social, cultural and economic conditions that make them a Primitive Tribal Group.

Jeet Singh and Shriyam Gupta 

Forest Rights Act and Land Ownership in India



Source: the Hindu

Introduction and Brief Background

Forests in India house over 250 million people whose home, hearth and livelihood comes from their forest dwellings for generations. However, forest dwellers in India are among the most marginalized and neglected sections of the society comprising primarily of tribal and Dalit communities whose livelihood depends on the forest produce of the land that they have used for centuries.

During the colonial era, the draconian Indian Forests Act (IFA) was enacted in 1927 divided the forest into the Reserved (no human activity allowed) and Protected (controlled human activity allowed) categories. Some felling was allowed in the latter category, but cultivation and livestock grazing were banned in both. This destroyed the traditional way of life.

The abolition of the Zamindari system exacerbated the situation as more common lands were nationalized and converted into protected forests. This was later amended and the traditional occupants were given titles based on the length of occupancy. This, however, gave disproportionate power to the Patwaris (keeper of land records), and given the non-existence of ownership records corruption became rampant. The FRA sought to rectify this by providing a clear, transparent and environmentally friendly procedure for the resettlement of the people and displaced wildlife.

However, the act is not serving the purpose with which it was enacted. Where is the implementation lagging behind? Would the current government keep up the Centre’s commitment of equality in land ownership notwithstanding the differences political ideology with the previous UPA government? What exactly is the FRA? These are some of the issues examined in this essay.

The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006

The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA) was enacted in 2006 to address the sever shortcomings of the 1927 act. The IFA resulted in the alienation of tribals and other forest dwellers. It is an act which protects the land ownership titles in the tribal belt of India and had been demanded for long to safeguard the interests of the most marginalized people of the country. However, the implementation record (including guaranteed land holdings under the act) has been poor.

Discrepancies in tribal forest land allocation and redistribution has also been at the centre of India’s Left Wing insurgency in what is called the Red Corridor. Therefore, he 2006 act’s importance multiplies in not only addressing the injustice done to the traditional forest dwellers over centuries, but also as a means to combat what has been called India’s worst national security crisis.

The 2006 act was radically democratic in many ways as it acknowledged the historical injustices done to the forest dwelling communities and set a forward-looking path to correct those. There are twelve types of rights enlisted in the 2006 act to undo the damage that has already been done and these include rights to land occupation, forest produce, both timber and non-timber, management of community forests and home and hearth. It also empowers and makes accountable the traditional forest dwellers to protect the biodiversity, water resources and other resources of the forest as well as catchment areas and seeks to establish a community based forest administration in the country with the Gram Sabhas at the helm of affairs. The land ownership titles will be ascertained to the maximum limit of 4 ha per person by a committee comprising the District Collector, the Divisional Forest Officer and the Superintendent of Police.

There are many misconceptions surrounding the act for which it has come under criticism. Many people believe that the FRA is meant to redistribute land up to a maximum ceiling of 4 hectares per person. However, the truth is that this act is not a land redistribution act and does not empower anyone to do so. On the issue of land, the FRA requires the state and central government to legally recognise the lands as revenue lands on which forest dwellers have been carrying out farming prior to 13 December 2005.

For non-Scheduled Tribes (STs), this recognition comes after proving that they have been farming on the land in question for the past 75 years. As per the FRA, the traditional forest dwellers and STs will only receive rights to ‘land under their occupation’ and no more, for the time specified up to a maximum of 4 hectares per person. Any claims over the stipulated 4 hectares will not be entertained. No new land distribution will take place and the titles given as per the act cannot be sold or transferred, except through family hierarchy. It is not a welfare scheme and deals with defining the forest land and its occupation.

In 2012, then Minister for Tribal Affairs, Mr. Kishore Chand Deo had written a letter to the CM’s of states, urging them to implement the act properly. However, despite all the efforts by the previous government and civil society activists, the implementation record of the act has remained poor. Moreover, widespread corruption which still exists in the process of implementation has hindered the powers of the act substantially. 

Critics of the FRA say it was enacted by the government for privatizing natural resources and making vote banks out of the forest dwellers. But the basic principles of the act were largely misinterpreted and contorted based on state-wise implementation record.

Conclusion

The enactment of the 2006 FRA is an example of inclusive, democratic and enabling legislation which came in a favorable pro-poor political environment. However, the implementation rests with local authorities and state governments where the failure is stark. According to Ministry of Tribal Affairs’ report from January 2014, 36, 54,420 claims have been filed and 14, 18,078 titles have been distributed. Further, 15,864 titles were ready for distribution. A total of 31, 06,690 claims have been disposed of (85.01%). Unfortunately, there are no records of details of the amount of land under each title. Whether these gains for the forest dwellers are consolidated in forms of actual substantive rights and access remains an open question. There is also no readily available record of uses for such land. Various non-government report states that this number is grossly inflated and titles to a full authorized 4 ha per person are rare in all the states.

There are also several cases on encroachment still pending in the courts of different states wherein, lack of proof of occupation has led to a traditional forest dweller to be incarcerated as a squatter.

The role of Gram Sabhas has also not been exemplified under the act yet on ground. Moreover, mining activities on traditional forest land in some of the states by corporate houses is still going unnoticed. 

In spirit, this act is phenomenal but the leakages in implementation reduce it to the status of just another act which is supposed to work but isn’t.   

The current government needs to look beyond political differences and keenly push for a better implementation of the FRA under due process. This is one of the landmark legislations which follow the democratic principles enshrined by our founding fathers in our constitution. 

Medha Chaturvedi

Development Roadmap: Threat to India’s Environment and Wildlife

The development roadmap of present government as indicated through their recent



Photo: Survival International

economic policies would sharply pose a threat to India’s marginalized communities, green environment and precious wildlife. Thus with the dilution of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 by the Ministry of Environment and Forest to grant forest clearances for facilitating development projects is a step towards this. The most sensitive areas around tiger reservation, national parks and sanctuaries now would be under the grab of project developers as they have been de-linked from wildlife assessment impacts.

Such kind of policy decision would necessarily help the developers to go ahead with the linear projects of irrigation, canals, highways and power lines, but by massive destruction of India’s rich forest areas and its wildlife. Though providing funds for compensatory afforestation is mandatory, but fair utilization of this fund would be a challenge.

 The present government has also done away with the need for consent of tribals for forest and mine openings in their traditional lands, which clearly violates their rights. The state government can no longer put any additional conditions to protect forest and biodiversity for those projects which have been cleared from the Centre.

All these steps are taken with a justification that India need development, and all its citizens must enjoy the fruits of it. But such a policy roadmap to modernize India clearly in contradiction with the issue of the rights of tribals over their forest land, which would also be at the cost of precious environment and wildlife. This development policy is unsustainable and undemocratic. Can this development ensure the well being of the last and the least in the country or is it a path towards more inequity in the economy?

Read More

http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/fresh-dilution-of-green-norms-114091700027_1.html   

 

by RGICS

Realistically Defining Tribal Identity for Effective Policy Interventions

Photo Source: IndiaNetzone

In India’s struggle to safeguard tribal rights, the deliberations on tribal identities are still coloured by stereotypes. The discourses pertaining to tribal populations and tribal identities invariably fall upon the civilised-uncivilised, primitive-modern dichotomies.

Political representatives in the country have not been able to effectively lobby for tribal rights and tribal voice in policy decisions. The National Tribal Policy, which was formulated in 2008 and is still in the draft phase, bears testimony to this fact. The country has not yet formulated a comprehensive national policy guaranteeing tribal rights. Apart from the lack of a strong political will; the policy formulation mechanism is also based on the model of assimilation of a ‘primitive’ culture to a ‘mainstream’ culture, the root cause of which, perhaps, is that the discourse governing policy decisions is a bureaucratic discourse prescribing modes of modernisation of the primitive instead of being driven by the tribal voice and demands, the Draft National Tribal Policy is a case in point.

Need for Tribal Welfare

The need to safeguard tribal rights arises because; “as per the 2001 Census, the tribal population was 8.43 crore or eight per cent of the total population, with over 90 per cent living in rural areas with poor social indicators...Infant mortality, maternal mortality and neo-natal death figures are unacceptably high among the STs because of lack of healthcare infrastructure [and] low literacy rates.” Moreover almost 40% of those who have been   permanently displaced from their native habitats due to development projects are tribals.

As a result of these displacements a large number of tribals have migrated to metropolises where while some work as domestic and shop servants, rickshaw-pullers, even sex-workers, some get pushed into petty, deviant and criminal activities. But the draft notices that tribes are scattered “over all the States/Union Territories, except Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, and the Union Territories of Pondicherry and Chandigarh.” These three states and two union territories do not have the native communities scheduled as tribes; however, they have a considerable population of migrant tribals. While the draft acknowledges this phenomenon, it does not provide for acknowledging this section of the tribal community, which has moved out of the conventional markers of tribal identity.

Locating Stereotypes

Clause 20 of the draft, which deals with the Scheduling and De-scheduling of Tribes, refers to criteria evolved by the Lokur Committee for determining which communities could be classified as Scheduled Tribes which include: (i) an ensemble of primitive traits, (ii) distinctive culture, (iii) geographical isolation, (iv) shyness of contact with the community outside, and (v) backwardness. It follows by noting that the criteria laid down by the Lokur Committee are hardly relevant today. The draft notes that “for instance, very few tribes can today be said to possess ‘primitive traits’. Other more accurate criteria need to be fixed.”

Again, while the draft acknowledges the need for more accurate criteria, it does not provide for reformulating the tribal identity as one that is dynamic and not static. Vinay Kumar Srivastava in his analyses of the draft policy, by way of an analogy notes, that many “of the traits that are found in the so-called primitive societies, may also be found among the contemporary affluent and patriarchal societies.” Moreover he notes that in “the context of definition, we need to use concepts that have an operational value, i.e., they are given an empirical content, and with their help, we are able to classify societies as objectively as possible.”

Conclusion

Policy interventions cannot be effective unless the policy making decision is guided by the needs of the stakeholders. For this Srivastava notes, realistic understanding of tribal society lies in refraining from using value-loaded assumptions, such as the ones the draft notes: tribal way of life is “woven around harmony with and preservation of nature.”

Preserving a culture to contribute to the ethnic diversity of the country traps the tribal community in a frozen image. The dynamic reality of tribal living is missing in the draft, the policy needs to incorporate tribal voice and more comprehensively acknowledge the dynamism of tribal identity.

Ashwin Varghese