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 The only difference being that savageness has been replaced by relatively more refined terms such as ÔprimitiveÕ or ÔbackwardÕ.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.