Abstract

Scheduled Tribes in India, including Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (sub-category), are intrinsic to the sub continent’s history and ecology. Their history indicates a struggle with colonization and a lived experience of exclusion and marginalisation. This has raised fundamental questions concerning ethical standards of both state and dominant societies. Emerging analysis as viewed from empirical data reveals that Scheduled Tribes and especially Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups occupy the lowest class of society in the state of Maharashtra on various economic criteria. While these communities are resilient and have withstood hardship over time within a society that is extremely characterised by complex and dynamic social, economic and political factors, this paper attempts to understand the historicity of the processes of social exclusion based on specific factors of ethnicity within the said context. While arguing for the restoration of the intrinsic connection between land and livelihood from justice framework as viewed from the empirical data emerging from the lived experience of Scheduled Tribes in Maharashtra, it proposes a theory and practice that could emancipate these identities.

Introduction

The section of the society variedly categorised as the Scheduled Tribes and Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups in the state of Maharashtra is an intrinsic part of the ecology and history of the region. The understanding drawn from the lived experience of ‘struggle for survival’ of these social groups unravels a complex colonial/national as well as local historicity of colonization and exclusion over time and place. In such a circumstance, social and economic exclusion to certain sections of the society in the region is a historical phenomenon. In particular, it can be specified that Scheduled Tribes of the state are commonly described in the framework of ‘social continuum’ or ‘co-existence’ in time and place. Nevertheless, going by the understanding of their lived experience, they also form a part of the larger continuum of the ecologically embedded ethnicities. In that sense, their concept of land, forest, territory, work and livelihood is closely linked to their worldview and cultural ethos. Therefore, work and livelihood are embedded and foundational constituting the very core of their existence. In fact, social exclusion and marginalization of Scheduled Tribes fundamentally can be defined as a historical event of being alienated from the land and forest leading to ‘disembedment’ of their very existence itself. The fact that this section of the society still clings onto the special constitutional safeguards for protection even today is indicative of this historical process of dislocationing people from their ecology and worldview. Their lived experience of being landless, poor, malnourished, ill-health and illiterate reflect a severe structural exclusion of a kind normally invisible in the ‘mainstream’ narrative. However, in reality this phenomenon is vividly observable at the sites of urbanization, boundaries of social assimilation, industrialization and development projects. Viewed from this understanding, the emerging lived struggles within the Adivasi consciousness truly qualifies a movement for reclamation of the foundational values of work and livelihood (Savyasaachi 2012). Therefore, Adivasi movement for ‘jal, jungal zameen’ in deeper sense is a struggle for equity, equality and justice understood within the ecological and ethnicity realm.

Further, it is also affirmed historically that the colonial and post colonial state gave differential treatment towards this section of the society culturally and politically. In particular, the scheduling of tribal areas (Fifth and Sixth Schedules) and scheduling tribes since 1950s, although increasingly being influenced by the electoral and dominant identity politics (also indicated in Kulkarni 1994), is a state politico-administrative process. Moreover, it is a historical fact observed that the national policy debate is informed by the panchsheel and self rule philosophy as witnessed in the Constitutional Debates, 1949. Since this time, it is known that the arrived at approach to defined this section of the society as Scheduled Tribes therefore reflects the democratic ethos of a kind expressed in the preamble and the governance structure both at the level of the centre, state and tribal areas. It may be also pointed out that there are no clear cut criteria for scheduling tribes or areas. However, in normal condition, the scheduling process is undertaken within the Constitutional Article 342 framework. Besides, the Lokur Committee suggested criteria for scheduling tribes acts as an important guideline ( Statistical Profile of Scheduled Tribes in India (SPSTI), 2011). The criteria are stated below;

a) Indications of primitive traits

b) Distinctive culture;

c) Shyness of contact with the community at large;

d) Geographical isolation; and

e) Backwardness.

Presently, there are approximately 500 Scheduled Tribes (Ministry of Tribal Affairs Report 2005: 29) recognised under Constitution article 342 which constitute 8.2 per cent of the total population of the country. A majority of this population is concentrated in the states of Madhya Pradesh (14.51 per cent), Maharashtra (10.17 per cent), Orissa (9.66 per cent), Gujarat (8.87 percent), Rajasthan (8.42 per cent) and Jharkhand (8.4 per cent) (SPSTI 2011: 3). Furthermore, the Constitution also recognises the scheduling of primitive tribes (PTGs) which today are usually referred to as Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs). At present, there are 75 PVTG communities. Maharashtra has three recognised PVTGs. The PVTG is commonly scheduled within the given parameters of (SPSTI 2010: 3):

a) Pre-agriculture level of technology;

b) Stagnant or declining population;

c) Extremely low literacy; and

d) Subsistence level of economy.

Demography, Ecology and Ethnicity

Scheduled Tribes and PVTGs of the state of Maharashtra constitute one of the major demographic categories of the state. They are covered under the Fifth Schedule and various other welfare/development and administrative structures as specified within the state (as indicated in TDP 2003). According to Census 2001, the total population of Scheduled Tribes of the state is estimated at 8,577, 276. It accounts for 8.9 per cent (showing some degree of decline since 1991) of the state population. Since the enactment of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act no. 108 of 1976), forty-seven tribal communities have been recognised in the list of the Scheduled Tribe of the state. However, two omissions have been made in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act no. 10 of 2003). Besides, it is also noted that Katkaria (Kathodi), Maria Gond and Kolam are specified as the PVTGs. Kolams, numbering 173,646 in population as in 2001 Census are mainly distributed in the districts of Yavatmal, Nanded, Osmanabad, Chandrapur and Gadchiroli. Katkaria and Maria Gonds are identified as subgroups (separate Census records are yet to be available).

Further, it is observed in Census 2001 that the Bhil, Gond, Koli Mahadev, Varli, Kokna and Thakur are the major Scheduled Tribes of the state in terms of population size. They together constitute 73.3 per cent of the Scheduled Tribe population of the state. A majority of them (87.3 per cent) is concentrated in the rural areas. The Bhils (95.2 per cent), the Kokna (93.4 per cent) and the Varli (92.7 per cent) constitute relatively the higher part of the rural population-size of the Scheduled Tribes. While the Gond (87.5 per cent), the Thakur (86.3 per cent) and the Koli Mahadev (80.3 per cent) formed part of the lower section of rural population-size group. In particular, the Bhils number 1,818,792 (constituting 21.2 per cent of the state’s Scheduled Tribe population), the Gonds are 1,554,894 (18.1 per cent), the Koli Mahadev are 1,227,562 (14.3 per cent), the Varlis are 627,197 (7.3 per cent), the Koknas are 572,195 (6.7 per cent) and the Thakurs are 487,696 (5.7 per cent). The rest of the nineteen recognised Scheduled Tribes of the state have small numerical size counting less than thousand populations each.

As observed in the statistical report, the Scheduled Tribes are spread across all districts of the state. The highest percentage of Scheduled Tribe population is concentrated at Dhule district. The lowest is recorded in Sindhudurg District. In general, it is observed that the population spread of the Schedule Tribes of the state indicates a trend that a majority of them lives in the hill ranges of the state; Sahyadri, Satpuda and Gondwana ranges, in particular. They are hill and forest dependent peoples. It may be also pointed out that this region since the post independence (event of state re-organization) can be located within the territorial units of various states. In such a sketch of the state boundary, Maharashtra is one of the prominent states of this contiguous region. Therefore, this state is an extended part of the larger ecological system and ethnic historicity of the region presently lying within the border regions of the states such as Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Andra Pradesh.

Situation of Exclusion and Marginalization

Going by any parameters of development, Scheduled Tribes in Maharashtra occupy the lowest bottom, the invisible section of the society. The reality of this section reflects the nature of growth and development of the state as a whole. As viewed from their experience, it indicates that the state development status suffers from inclusive drive with equity and justice. For example, the situation of landlessness among them in the state is still very high (43 per cent as reported in Benchmark Survey 1997-1998 and Lobo 2011:18). In fact, it is shown that landlessness is relatively high(above 60 per cent) in the Integrated Tribal Development Projects (ITDP) areas of Pen with 68 per cent (Raigad District), Yawal with 66 per cent (Jalgaon ditrict), Shahapur with 63 per cent (Thane district) and Pandharkawda with 62 per cent (Yavatmal district). The situation of landlessness is relatively low in the ITDP areas of Gadcharoli and Amhmednagar districts; less than 30 per cent. In specific, it has been observed (Lobo 2011:18-19) that “Katkaris of Pen have moved directly from being forest dwelling food gatherers to becoming labourers in the unorganized sector, and as such have never owned much land”.

Further, the available empirical data also indicates that the situation of landlessness is highest among two Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups; Katkaris (83 per cent) and Kolams (63 per cent) (also indicated in Goswami 2008 and Dalvi and Bokil 2000). This situation seen among the Madia Gonds is relatively low (17 per cent). The variation of landlessness trend seen among Scheduled Tribe communities in the state indicates that a land alienation process is high among people and region with weaker political standpoint (discussed in Kulkarni 1985; Prabhu 2002; Dalvi and Bokil 2000; Goswami 2008; and Lobo 2011). Further, it has also been shown that the landholding of the Scheduled Tribes is relatively poor in quality as seen against irrigational facility. It is stated that 85.8 per cent of Scheduled Tribes’ landholding is un-irrigated. This trend, in specific, has also been identified among Scheduled Tribe communities in Thane (Dhanu), Jawhar and Shahapur and Raigad (as cited in Lobo, 2011). The Benchmark Survey 1997-98 further indicates that the situation of being landless gives rise to wage labour occupation as 43 per cent of Scheduled Tribe population engages as agricultural labourers.

Besides, it can be also inferred that the situation of poverty and lost of livelihood are related to the situation of landlessness (also cited in Prabhu 2002: 248). Towards this understanding, the survey conducted by Punarvasan Sangharsh Samiti indicates that poverty, malnourishment related deaths are closely linked to land alienation and lost of livelihood. This situation is projected on the rising trend as observable among Scheduled Tribes of the region. In fact, the situation is very severe among PVTGs(also indicated in Radhakrishna 2009 in general). The report of the survey highlighted that more than 98 children died in three months of 2005, in Akkalkuwa block of Nandurbar district (Shinde, 2006). The situation of malnutrition among children children of Scheduled Tribes is further reaffirmed in Mahrashtra Human Development Report (2010, p. 10).

It is also observed that Scheduled Tribes population persists to remain excluded as viewed in terms of other development indicators such as education, health, household facility conditions and accessibility to basic amenities and entitlements of life. For example, the literacy rate of Scheduled Tribes (55.20 per cent in 2001 against 76.90 per cent at the state level) is still far below the state literacy rate. In the same direction, the situation of access to health facilities covering Tribal Sub Plan Areas is estimated to be only at 26 per cent (Benchmark Survey 1997-98). The Benchmark Survey 2011 also indicates the marginalised situation of the Scheduled Tribes by household conditions of life. In specific, the survey reveals that 7.90 per cent of the household surveyed is living under ‘dilapidated houses’. In particular, it is observed that only 47.98 per cent of households is considered to be of a ‘good condition’. Besides, the rest of the Scheduled Tribe households (44.12 per cent) is considered to be living in a ‘liveable house’. The survey also indicates that in the rural areas, a majority of the Scheduled Tribes households do not have access to ‘tapwater from treated sources’ (only 20.40 per cent has access). They depend primarily on the ‘uncovered well’ (26.67 per cent), handpump (23.70 per cent) and ‘tapwater from untreated sources’ (16.83 per cent). Besides, it is also known that only 50.15 per cent of tribal household has access to electricity. They (45.06 per cent) still depend on the kerosene lamps.

Livelihood with Equity and Justice

In an ideal sense, the primary responsibility of the state as people’s institution is to protect civility and life, provide welfare and development to all the citizens of the country as a whole. In general, it stands on the democratic principles of equality, liberty and justice as enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution. With regards to tribal areas, the state is also bound to commit to the philosophy of panchsheel and self rule, the administrative logic of the Tribal Sub-Plan (planning from the below approach) and the juridico-political framework of the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996. In particular, the conceptual understanding of land, forest and territory; encroachment and regularization has to be informed by a justice frame of the community. It has to take into consideration the historical experience of being alienated from the land and worldview in the event of the state process such as the establishment of centralised administration; forest and revenue department, and industrialization and urbanization. The nature of the impact of such structures in the lived experience of Scheduled Tribes can be inferred from the emerging issue surrounding land acquisition and debates on the principle of eminent domain in the Fifth Scheduled Areas, in general (Sharma 2010). With regards to Maharashtra state in specific, the case of ‘dalhi land’ is unique. In fact, as seen emerging from the empirical studies of lived struggles, the case for regularization and restoration process of the alienated lands and dalhi land is complex and politically dynamic (also discussed in Dalvi and Bokil 2000). At this juncture, one case worthy of a mention indicating ‘a way forward’ is observed in the “The Dissenting Report to the Final Report of the Inquiry Committee appointed for Thane District to Investigate the Claims in Writ Petition no 1778/86”. This Government Report took cognizance of the ‘oral evidence’ based jurisprudence, for the first time, in favour of tribals and landless people. In fact, the report suggests that ‘encroachment’ is a symptom of the larger and local social and economic structural processes. In that sense, regularization process is seen only as a short term strategy. The report further recommends a long term response to this issue in terms of providing ‘alternative’ means of livelihood (Saldanha 1992: 106-112). Therefore, considering the historical facts of exploitation, alienation from ecological and cultural systems, it needs to be emphasised that a dignified livelihood strategy should focus on empowerment of the Schedule Tribes population as a whole. Utmost attempts should be made on building and facilitating local institutions based on tribe-centric approach (also discussed in Akhup 2009). In principle, the challenge is to provide livelihood options with equity, equality and justice. Some of the legal instruments considered important towards this endeavour in the state are (also cited in Kulkarni 1985; Goswami 2008 and Tribal Development Plan 2003);

• The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and Tenancy Laws (Amendment) Act, 1974
• The Maharashtra Restoration of Land to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974
• The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966
• The Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974
• Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
• Special Powers to Gram Sabas and Gram Panchayats in the Scheduled Areas; PESA 1996

Conclusion

The search for dignified and sustainable livelihood of the Scheduled Tribes of the state of Maharashtra necessitates a deeper understanding of the state-tribe relationship from the Adivasi (indigenous) perspective. Interestingly, it is observed that this state has made various efforts towards this end. “The Tribal (Indigenous Peoples) Development Plan, 2003” is a case in point. Towards this direction, it is important to mention that the Adivasi ethos builds on qualities of worth and dignity of humanity as embedded within the ecological realm; cosmo-centric in a sense. It is self sustaining, self-balancing, self reliant and self-adjusting. It operates based on the principles of equity, equality and justice within the framework of self rule. Self rule is a fundamental culturo-political principle. In fact, this principle finds its international recognition in the United Nations Convention (ILO 107 and 168) and United Nation Human Rights for Tribal and Indigenous Peoples, 2007. In the framework of the self rule, self definition and self determination indicate that the self/collective doesn’t become subservient to the dominant. It proactively nurtures self/collective as an agency. Therefore, as understood from an Indian experience, self rule is directly related to collective ownership of the land and forest (as recognised in ILO 107, article Nos.4 and 11), territorial rights (as stated in ILO 168, article No.13) and the right to govern it with one’s own customs and genius. It is imperative that a livelihood strategy for Scheduled Tribes should be understood, conceptualised and operationalised within the Adivasi perspective.

References:

• Akhup, A. 2009. ‘Interface between State, Voluntary Organisations and Tribes A Perspective towards Tribe-Centred Social Work Practice’ Indian Journal of Social Work, Vol. 70 (4):597-615.
• Dalvi, Surekha and Bokil, Milind. 2000. ‘ In Search of Justice; Tribal Communities and Land Rights in Coastal Maharashtra’ Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 35 (32):2843-2850.
• Damodaran, Vinita. 1997. ‘Environment, Ethnicity and History of Chotanagpur, India, 1850-1970’ Environment and History, Vol. 3 (3): 273-298.
• Goswami, Paromita. 2008. ‘Problems of Restoration of Alienated Tribal Land in Maharashtra: Case Study of Chandrapur District’ Indian Journal of Social Work, Vol. 68 (5):617-634.
• Guha, Sumit. 1999. Environment and Ethnicity in India, 1200-1991. New Delhi: Cambridge University Press.
• Kulkarni, Sharad. 1994. ‘ Identifying Scheduled Tribes: The Gowari Tragedy’ Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 29, (49):3073-3074.
• Kulkarni, Sharad. 1985. ‘Adivasis, Law and Social Justice’ Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 20 (28):1171-1174.
• Lobo, Brian. 2011. Status of Adivasis/Indigenous Peoples, Land Series-3: Maharashtra. Delhi: Aakar Books.
• Maharahtra Human Development Report: Towards Inclusive Human Development, Sage Publication, 2010.
• Ministry of Tribal Affairs. 2004-2005. Annual Report. Government of India.
• Prabhu, Pradeep. 2002. ‘Land Alienation, Land Reforms and Tribals of Maharashtra’ in Ghanshyam Shah and Sah D.C.(ed.,) LandReforms in India, Vol.8: Performance and Challanges in Gujarat and Maharashtra. New Delhi: Sage Publication.
• Radhakrishna, Meena. 2009. ‘Starvation among Primitive Tribal Groups’ Economic and Political Weekly,Vol. 94 (18):13-16.
• Saldanha, Denzil. 1992. A Dissenting Report to the Final Report of The Inquiry Committee Appointed for the Thane District to Investigate into the Claims in Writ Petition no 1778/186. Mumbai: Tata Institute of Social Science.
• Savyasachi. 2012. ‘ Struggles for Adivasi Livelihoods; Reclaiming the Foundational Value of Work’ Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 97 (31):27-31.
• Sharma, B.D. 2010. Unbroken History of Broken Promises; Indian State and the Tribal People. Delhi: Sahyog Pustak Kuteer.
• Shinde, Pratiba (2006). “Malnutrition Amongst Maharashtra’s Tribals: How Bad It Is?” Infochange News and Features.
• Department of Tribal Department. 1997-98. Benchmark Survey. 1997-98. Government of Mahashratra.
• Department of Tribal Development. 2011. Benchmark Survey. Government of Maharashtra.
• Ministry of Tribal Affairs. 2010. Statistical Profile of Scheduled Tribes in India. Division, Governmetn of India.
• Water Supply and Sanitation Department Government of Maharashtra. 2003. Tribal (Indigenous Peoples) Development Plan, Second Maharashtra Rural Water Supply and Environment Sanitation Project.