IndiaÕs tribal
situation and self-determination
VIRGINIUS XAXA
THE Government of India declared 15 November 2021, the birth
anniversary of legendary tribal freedom fighter Birsa Munda, as the Janjatiya
Gaurav Divas (Glorious Tribal Day). The celebration lasted for a week holding
different programmes in different parts of India. The celebration was a part of
the larger year-long celebration called Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav to mark 75
years of IndiaÕs independence.
The term
Janjatiya Gaurav Diwas seems paradoxical to say the least. Janjatiya
carries an underlying idea of savageness (junglee), a term hardly glorious or
in sync with tribal peopleÕs dignity. Rather, Janjatiya is the kind of
dehumanizing colonial concept increasingly discredited in the contemporary
world. However, such an idea still prevails among people in India, including
those working for tribal ÔdevelopmentÕ. The only difference being that
savageness has been replaced by relatively more refined terms such as
ÔprimitiveÕ or ÔbackwardÕ.
While the
celebration was a recognition of tribal history, culture, and their
contribution to the freedom movement, and as such to be commended, the
celebration remains hollow, as it resonates little with peopleÕs lived
experience, in which there is often little to be proud of. To begin with, there
is hardly any formal recognition of tribal languages and culture in various
policies and programmes at the national and state level, which would protect,
safeguard and promote them. The school education imparted to them is an apt
illustration. What they learn from the very beginning of their schooling is the
language, culture and history of the dominant nationality of the state they
belong to and not of their own. They form even today a disproportionately large
share of people living below the poverty line and have the poorest educational
and health status.
Over and above,
they have been the worst sufferers of dispossession from their land and forest,
undermining their life support system in post-independence India. Such has been
tribal peopleÕs experience despite well-meaning special constitutional
provisions such as reservation in the political sphere, state employment and
higher educational institutions, the 5th and 6th Schedule administrative
provisions, besides many others. Yet tribal peopleÕs experiences and
developmental status have not been uniform throughout the length and breadth of
the country. Northeast India tends to be very different in this regard.
This variation demands introspection and
reflection. In doing so, one finds that at the root of the poor status
described above lies the deeply entrenched colonial structure and the lack of
space for self-determination. I make this argument based on (i) better
economic and development status of tribal people in Northeast India, (ii)
considerably less dispossession and displacement from their lands and resources
in comparison to tribes in mainland India, and (iii) more rootedness in
their language, culture, and history there. All these positive features in the
Northeast seem to stem from less entrenched colonial structures and greater
space for self-determination. The latter is evident in the existence of
autonomous structures, ranging from statehood to the territorial, district, and
regional councils under the 6th Schedule of the Indian Constitution or state
statutory law, notwithstanding numerous flaws and limitations.
The driving forces underlying any
articulation of self-determination are the values of freedom, equality and
justice. The imperative of self-determination necessitates space for autonomy
for people to exercise their freedom. Unfortunately, the idea of
self-determination has become such an anathema to many in India today that even
articulating it has been branded as seditious or anti-national, despite its
emphasis in IndiaÕs Constitution.
The crackdown on
the Pathalgarhi Movement is a case in point. Yet articulating values of
freedom, equality and justice were the dynamic forces in the aftermath of World
War II, resulting in the birth of many new nation states, especially in Asia
and Africa. IndiaÕs birth as a free nation has its roots in this ideological
climate. When India emerged as a nation in 1947, it fell far short of the idea
of the nation state as conceived and prevalent in Europe. Academics in India
were acutely aware of this limitation which led many to think of India as a
nation in the making. Asserting values of freedom and self-determination went
beyond winning the countryÕs freedom from the yoke of the British.
Alongside the
struggle for freedom against the British, there have also been many assertions
of sub-national aspiration alongside the national aspiration. This already
resulted in the creation of provincial states on linguistic lines under the
British. The creation of Assam, Bihar, and Odisha in the Bengal Presidency are
instances of this. Such sub-national assertion gathered momentum after IndiaÕs
independence, involving the reorganization of more states on linguistic lines.
Yet similar assertion and aspiration from amongst tribal peoples did not find a
positive response from the post-colonial national leadership on various
grounds, one of them being the diversity of languages among them.
It is a paradox
that the very diversity that led to the formation of India as a nation, was taken as an
obstacle to the creation of a separate state for tribal peoples. The cases of
the Nagas in Northeast India and Adivasis in mainland India are an illustration
of it. Nagas were eventually granted a form of self-determination that fell far
short of their aspirations.
In Jharkhand, the movement continued for
decades after independence, but Jharkhand as a separate state remained a
distant dream for too long. Finally, when it was created in 2000, Jharkhand
barely met the aspirations of its tribal citizens. Its creation was more of an
administrative reorganization of the state of Bihar, aligned to extractive
industries. Tribal people had turned into a minority by then in their own
territory due to the influx of people from outside that started in the colonial
period but greatly accelerated post-independence, following industrial
development in the region. Extractives were tied to the industry as raw
material on the one hand and stimulant as the supplier of energy on the other,
both with devastating consequences on tribal people and the surrounding
environment.
The idea of self-determination has been
historically articulated in the form of political independence or sovereignty
as per the UN covenants. The idea has, however, got watered down over time.
This is most evident in the discussion on issues of Indigenous Peoples at the
UN that finds the clearest expression in the Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples. Article III of the declaration states that Indigenous
Peoples have the right to self-determination and that, in exercising this
right, they have the right to autonomy or self-government in and freely pursue
their political, economic, social, and cultural development. Article IV states
that, in the exercise of their right to self-determination, Indigenous Peoples
have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their
internal and local affairs, as well as the means to finance their autonomous
functions.
Despite much
change in the concept of self-determination, the recognition of rights of
self-determination to tribal communities seems an anathema to IndiaÕs ruling
elite. For example, India has refrained from ratifying the ILOÕs Indigenous and
Tribal Populations Convention 169 of 1989, which makes case for tribal people
to exercise control over their institutions, ways of life, and economic
development, and to maintain and develop their identities, languages, and
religions within the framework of the states in which they live.
This is in
striking contrast to ILO Convention 107 of 1957, which India ratified without
any hesitation, as that convention referred to the assimilation of tribal
people into the dominant structure and ethos of the country. Paradoxically,
however, India was a signatory to the UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples, which promotes self-determination and autonomy. One can
therefore only infer that India may have signed the declaration because it is
legally non-binding, but is reluctant to endorse ILO convention 169 as it tends
to be legally binding.
IndiaÕs resistance to self-determination and
autonomy for tribes in mainland India is intriguing when one understands how
many instances of such provisions there are in Northeast India. Tribes in much
of Northeast India enjoy a considerable degree of self-determination. This is
evident in various kinds of autonomous institutions, ranging from tribal states
with special constitutional status to autonomous districts and territorial
regional councils under the 6th Schedule, and autonomous councils under state
law, as in Manipur and Assam. Such self-determination has had a positive
bearing on the economic, social, and political empowerment of people in the
region.
In the economic
sphere, it is visible in tribal peopleÕs active participation in managing
trade, commerce, and even industry of small and medium scale. Above all, far
fewer people live below the poverty line. In 2004-2005, hardly any Northeastern
state showed a rural poverty ratio higher than the national tribal average of
47.3%. In contrast, many states in mainland India had a poverty ratio
considerably higher.
In the
educational sphere, the positive effects of self-determination reflect in the
high literacy rate and enrolment in higher educational institutions, as well as
the high density of educational institutions. All states in Northeast India had
a literacy rate much higher than the national tribal average of 59% as per the
2011 census, in stark contrast to many large states in mainland India.1 In the sphere of health, it is evident in
better health infrastructure at different levels as well as the health status
of the people. In the political sphere, they govern themselves either through
state or autonomous councils that make laws, rules, and regulations, especially
in those states coming under the 6th Schedule provision. Such autonomous
structures are conspicuous by their absence in mainland India.
The presence of
autonomous structures in Northeast India has been conceded largely due to its
location on the frontier of India and intermittent demands for secession from
India. Equally important has been the relative weakness of colonial structures,
which has tended to prevent domination by particular ethnic or caste groups.
Wherever such domination emerged, it represented more of a localized structure,
that has tended to get dismantled following movements of varied kinds,
sometimes violent. In contrast, tribal regions in mainland India are deeply
entrenched in colonial and caste structures. Such structures have their genesis
in colonial rule, and have got consolidated in post-independence India.
Birsa Munda and all other tribal movements
against the British, that India has celebrated to mark 75 years of
independence, were not only a struggle against British rulers, but also against
Indian zamindars, ticcadars, and moneylenders. Accordingly, tribal rebellions
under the British were driven by the desire for freedom from both the British
and natives, in short, all forms of oppression and exploitation. Birsa MundaÕs
slogan of Abua Disum Abua Raj meant ÔOur Country, Our RuleÕ. Abua Disum
here basically meant the territory that tribes inhabited. The British brought
tribal peoples under their rule and administration through war, conquest, and
annexation. Tribes in this process lost their power over their territory.
Forests over which they had unrestrained access and governed through customary
law and traditional system of governance were taken away from their control and
vested in the state.
The area under state forest management was
further expanded in post-independence India through bringing more land under
Reserved and Protected Forests without regularizing tribal rights, thereby
turning them into illegal occupants. As for the land they owned and controlled,
it began to move away from tribal hands into the ownership of non-tribals.
Colonial rule and administration encouraged settlement of outside people into
tribal territories by opening them up through a network of roads and railways
as well as the spread of trade and commerce. Outsiders took advantage of their
familiarity with the colonial laws, rules, and regulations and used them to
dispossess tribes from their land through coercion, deceit, fraud, debt
mortgage, allurement, etc.
Thus, colonial
rule and administration led to two forms of colonialism in tribal regions of
mainland India – the British and the natives. Tribal regions have been
freed from the British, but internal colonialism has persisted and become
deeply entrenched in social, economic, political, and cultural structures, due
to the nature and agenda of development pursued by the state. Tribes live under
highly coercive structures of domination and sub-jugation. The lands they
inhabit are rich in natural resources, which have been exploited to the maximum
for growth and development. Most benefits from these extractive projects have
not gone to tribal people but to members of dominant social groups. This
largely explains why tribes continue to lose control over land and resources
and suffer from development deficits. The history of tribal people in
post-independence India has been a life devoid of any choice whether to do with
politics and political aspiration, or economic, social, and cultural
development.
Development in
respect of all those domains is driven by what others think is good for the
people called tribes. Accordingly, development schemes meant for rural India
are replicated in tribal regions without giving any recognition to their
distinct land tenure system, customary laws, and rules, social organizations,
culture, and traditions. The only
concession that such development schemes make in a tribal context is
demographic consideration given the ecological settings they inhabit.
The problems plaguing tribes in mainland
India, and even their causes, have been much analysed, and there are
well-meaning constitutional provisions and even laws for their protection. Yet
these have not worked. Take the case of the 5th Schedule areas, where the
Governor is the official guardian of the tribal peopleÕs rights. He has the
power not to extend any law and policy passed in parliament or state
legislature in the 5th Schedule areas, or to extend them with such modification
as he may deem fit, keeping tribal interests in mind. He also has the power to
repeal any act in force as well as make regulations for good governance. Yet,
throughout post-independence India, Governors have largely failed to exercise
these powers for the protection of tribal interests.
To address such
a situation, space for self-determination was provided in the enactment of what
is popularly referred to as Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) (PESA)
Act, 1996. This act was the outcome of a mass-based grassroots movement. It was
meant to provide space for people-centric governance, with Gram Sabha as the
cornerstone. However, even after 25 years, its performance has been dismal, due
to extreme indifference and even hostility to it at the level of the state. All
5th Schedule states have brought in required amendments, but in most states
these amendments have diluted the provisions in the act for self-determination,
eroding its ethos and spirit, and many states have not even framed rules for
implementation of the act to date.
To ensure this
people-centric governance, all acts and policies related to part IX of the
Constitution, central and state-wise, were to be synchronized with the
provisions of PESA. Yet most states have not taken any steps in this direction.
In the absence of such measures, self-rule, as envisaged under PESA, has not
been implemented at all – a fundamental failure to usher in the expected
far-reaching turnaround in what is seen as governance deficit and misgovernance
in the Scheduled Areas.
The reasons why PESA has failed to deliver
so far have been legal infirmity, bureaucratic apathy, and lack of political
will. Without the empowerment of the Gram Sabha (village council), the rights
of IndiaÕs tribal citizens are undermined at every level. The constitutional
safeguards and legislations emanating from them failed to protect tribal people
from the ravages of industrial and extractive development projects. PESA and
the Forest Rights Act unlike the earlier ones, go beyond and confirm tribal
people with self-determination rights to say ÔnoÕ to extraction and extractive
industries and revamp environmental governance to a sustainable livelihood.
Footnotes:
1. Govt of India, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Statistical Profile of Scheduled Tribes in India, 2013, p. 14, 118.