After Niyamgiri……Bibek Debroy
Our tribal policy is a mass of contradictions
Our tribal policy is a mass of contradictions
What does it mean to say that tribal voices will be heard in Delhi only now? Regular elections to panchayat bodies will be ensured and the amended act in respect of the Fifth and Sixth Schedule Areas will be implemented…. The UPA government will immediately review the overall strategy and programmes for the development of tribal areas to plug loopholes and to work out more viable livelihood strategies. In addition, more effective systems of relief and rehabilitation will be put in place for tribal and other groups displaced by development projects. Tribal people alienated from land will be rehabilitated. That quote is from National Common Minimum Programme (NCMP) of May 2004, and Fifth and Sixth Schedule areas refer to the Constitution.
The Fifth Schedule talks about a Tribes Advisory Council and confers comprehensive powers on the governor. For instance (and this is just one example): Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution the governor may by public notification direct that any particular act of Parliament or of the legislature of the state shall not apply to a scheduled area or any part thereof in the state or shall apply to a scheduled area or any part thereof in the state. And: In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may… prohibit or restrict the transfer of land by or among members of the Scheduled Tribes in such area. The Sixth Schedule is specific to tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.
We cannot keep ducking the core issue indefinitely. Articles 244(1) and 244(2) of the Constitution provide separate governance and administration of tribal areas. There is an inherent conflict with Article 243 and the 73rd Amendment. Yes, after the Bhuria Committee, we have PESA (Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act) of 1996 and it provides for gram sabhas, but these need not be elected. While there are systems of community ownership and practice and, occasionally, tribal mechanisms of governance too, tribes arent homogeneous. Even if they were, does the existence of such traditional systems warrant a completely different form of governance and administration? Principles of governance and administration ought to be the same, whether it is a scheduled area or not. It is one thing to argue there should be decentralised planning in the way one treats development, land, forestry and other natural resource issues. Literacy is only one indicator of development or deprivation. In the 2001 census, female literacy among STs was 15.54 per cent in Bihar. On the literacy indicator, the Northeast is different. But in bulk of the Fifth Schedule areas (Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, MP, Orissa, Rajasthan and even Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra), assorted government programmes havent delivered much and this is starker if one uses non-literacy indicators.
We didnt need a Posco or a Vedanta to tell us this. Therefore, why wasnt a tribal voice heard in Delhi earlier? Even if one doesnt delve into history, there was an Eleventh Five Year Plan document, authored after UPA-I came into power. The first of its three volumes was titled Social Justice and it had an extensive section on STs. This first listed out constitutional safeguards and assorted government initiatives and then told us the following: Since most of the tribal habitations are located in isolated villages and hamlets in undulating plateau lands coinciding with forest areas, they have limited access to critical infrastructure facilities such as roads, communication, health, education, electricity, drinking water, and so on. This widens the gap between the quality of their life and the people in the country.
There are 2,474 distant forest villages in the country, 893 in MP, 499 in Assam, 425 in Chhattisgarh, and the rest are scattered. The Plan document also tells us: Though the majority of the tribals are settled cultivators, their farming activity is generally uneconomical and non-viable due to the lack of access to necessary agricultural inputs, specially assured irrigation. Hence, let us be clear. ST populations do not live in a tribal Arcadia, to which they will return, once Posco and Vedanta are out of the way. The subsistence-level standard of living isnt one worth returning to.
The core issue should be flagged differently. Why is the average condition of SCs superior to the average condition of STs? Because SCs are geographically integrated and STs arent. Lack of integration means lack of connectivity, especially transport connectivity. Without roads and electricity, remaining elements of physical and social infrastructure dont follow either. Development comes through mainstreaming, not through segregation in enclaves. Thats the lesson everywhere in the world and there is no reason why India should be different. In other words, if implemented properly, Article 243 can lead to decentralised planning and consultation of stake-holders and local communities. (It is a separate matter that the government doesnt want to do this.) But Article 244 is a bad idea. With integration, some of those isolated villages and hamlets will also disappear as a result of development. Thats inevitable and desirable. Providing social and physical infrastructure there is simply not viable, even if it is done by the public sector.
Since tribal regions are rich in minerals, one should also mention the Supreme Courts 1997 Samata judgment. The bullet points of that judgment are the following. A gram sabha has powers to prevent alienation of land in scheduled areas and restore unlawful alienation. Minerals must be exploited by tribals themselves (individually or collectively). Ideally, there should be prohibition on exploitation of minerals (through leases) by non-tribals. In the absence of complete prohibition, 20 per cent of net profits must be earmarked for developmental expenditure, reforestation and ecology. The Supreme Court, or any other court, interprets the law of the land. Whether that law furthers the cause of tribal development is a broader question, outside the purview of courts. Are these Supreme Court guidelines implementable? In scheduled areas, they will bar all private mining and tribals do not possess the wherewithal to exploit minerals individually or collectively. With Avatar analogy being used so much, that is Unobtanium.
But right at the end, the Supreme Court did add a further guideline: Conference of all chief ministers, ministers holding the ministry concerned and prime minister, and Central ministers concerned should take a policy decision for a consistent scheme throughout the country in respect of tribal lands. What we need is more than a conference. We need to take stock of our entire attitude towards tribal development and principles of segregation, vis-a-vis mainstreaming. The answer wont be found in Lanjigarh or Niyamgiri. It has to be found in Delhi.
The writer is a Delhi-based economist express@expressindia.com
URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/after-niyamgiri/678131/
URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/after-niyamgiri/678131/2
URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/after-niyamgiri/678131/3
URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/after-niyamgiri/678131/4