The tribal question

CPI(M) Polit Bureau member Prakash Karat addresses the convention. - PICTURES: V. SHANMUGHAM

A convention organised by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in Jharkhand highlights the need to link tribal struggles to the larger movement against communal fascism and the new economic policies.

THE early 1940s saw a spate of activities and struggles led by the undivided Communist Party of India (CPI) in several tribal areas, particularly in Tripura, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. The struggles of the Tripura-based Ganamukti Parishad and the work done by Godavari Parulekar and other activists of the CPI among the Warli tribal communtiy of Thane in Maharashtra are well-known examples in the history of the Communist movement. These raised issues such as alienation of land and the lack of access to forests, which were pertinent to the survival of the tribal people. In taking up such issues, they not only followed the traditions of earlier movements, but also set the paradigm in which the Left would respond to the tribal question in the future. However, despite this, there has been a feeling among environmental and tribal movements that the organised Left has failed to respond to the tribal question in a significant manner.

After being active on issues of tribal development for several decades, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) organised the first All India Tribal Convention on November 18 and 19, 2002 in Ranchi, the capital of Jharkhand. The occasion was indeed historic as it was the first time that the CPI(M) assembled its cadre from among the tribal people and passed a charter of demands that it sought to publicise through a nationwide campaign. It also served to highlight how the CPI(M)'s campaign was different from those of other tribal and environmental movements. The convention was attended by more than 300 delegates from 16 States, who reported on the nature of the struggles that they had been carrying out for several years.

The convention highlighted the need to build strong democratic movements among the tribal people and sensitise other mass organisations to their needs. The delegates pointed out that to build such movements it was necessary to develop a leadership from among the tribal people. The work of the Andhra Pradesh Girijan Sangam in Telengana is particularly interesting from this point of view.

Delegates from the State reported that they had covered a population of about 90,000 and trained 2,100 local leaders in their respective areas. The other significant aspect highlighted by the convention was one of maintaining class unity among all the oppressed people. The fact that the CPI(M) had chosen Jharkhand as the venue for the convention was itself significant in this regard as the State government had just declared its controversial domicile policy. The convention passed a resolution that emphasised the need to forge unity among all the natives of Jharkhand and forge an alliance between the tribal people and the other toiling masses of the State. It accused the Babulal Marandi-led Bharatiya Janata Party government of trying to divide the masses through its divisive policy.

The convention emphasised that the rights of all working people, tribal and non-tribal, have to be respected and their movements knit into a common democratic movement even while focussing on the demands of the tribal people. Another important point emphasised by the convention was the fact that neither the Congress(I)- nor the BJP-led Central governments had been able to ameliorate the conditions of the tribal people. It underscored the need for the decentralised management of tribal areas, especially in the form of granting autonomy to them under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.

In this respect the convention highlighted the achievements of the Tripura government, which had been instrumental in operationalising the autonomous tribal district councils in an effective manner. It was noted that the powers given to the councils in Tripura were far more than what such areas in other States had. In fact, such councils could be more effective instruments in ameliorating the lot of the tribal people than separate States. In order to drive home this point, the convention highlighted how governments led by Left parties had been significantly more sensitive and different from others in their treatment of tribal people. It also stressed the Left-led movement's important difference from some other grassroots movements that have been arguing for the protection of the tribal people through the Fifth Schedule. Clearly, the CPI(M)'s view in this matter is that the Sixth Schedule is a more democratic mechanism for tribal development and should be strengthened and amended for a greater devolution of powers to local tribal representatives.

The convention called upon tribal activists across the country to identify areas where struggles for the application of the Sixth Schedule could be waged. Of special significance in this regard was the report of the delegates from Assam, who stated that 30 ethnic groups in the State had been classed as Scheduled Tribes and that they had been granted regional autonomy using the discretion of the State government. Councils, which had no statutory status or demarcated boundaries, had resulted in the creation of a tribal middle class with vested interests, who were oppressing poor tribal people.

Another important facet of the Left perspective is the way in which it seeks to link the tribal struggles with the struggles against fascism and for a democratic society. The convention noted several instances where tribal areas were penetrated by the divisive forces of the Sangh Parivar and underlined the need to organise the tribal people against such activity. While several delegates pointed out that other separatist forces were also active in tribal areas, special mention was made of the need to fight Hindu fundamentalist forces, especially in the context of the anti-minority violence in Gujarat. The fact that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) were active for over 20 years in the tribal areas and were attacking the minorities in such areas underscored the urgency of linking tribal struggles with the larger struggle against fascism and separatist forces. It is in this context that CPI(M) Polit Bureau member Prakash Karat said that the Left had to build a democratic and ideological movement of the tribal people. He said that tribal languages and customs would get their due recognition only in a truly democratic society.

Lastly, the Left perspective on tribal traditions is not as uncritical of them as other grassroots movements are. This was true especially with respect to the question of women's rights. At the convention, several instances of women's oppression by their own community were recounted. Delegates from Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Maharashtra gave instances of sexual harassment in tribal areas. Demands were made for influencing tribal institutions with special emphasis on women's rights to property and freedom from domestic and community-based violence. Delegates from West Bengal demanded that the Left Front government give joint pattas in tribal areas. They pointed out that tribal women could play an important part in building the parameters of the larger democratic movement.

THE convention was held in the backdrop of a circular issued by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests in May 2002 that directed the States to evict by September 30, 2002 people from 12.5 lakh hectares of forest land that had been "encroached". The convention noted that one crore people would be displaced if the circular was implemented. It pointed out that reports of evictions had already started coming in from Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Assam. Delegates from various States highlighted the need to intensify their struggles for tribal rights to land and for the restoration of alienated tribal lands; and wage a nation-wide campaign for the withdrawal of the circular. It was also reported that struggles had been waged to stop evictions and pressure the State governments into regularising all existing tribal holdings in the forests.

The convention emphasised that land reforms were an essential measure and should form the basis of all demands on the land question. This point was emphasised by comparing the situation in Tripura and West Bengal with that in other States. It was recounted that out of 11 lakh acres (4.4 lakh hectares) distributed in West Bengal, 25 per cent was distributed to Scheduled Tribe families and that Scheduled Castes and Tribes together formed 56 per cent of the beneficiaries. In Tripura too, land ceiling and reform laws were enacted and more than 7,000 acres (2,800 ha) had been restored to tribal people.

In contrast to these developments, struggles for land in other parts of the country show that the situation with respect to land rights is unsatisfactory even though the Left is waging struggles in several States. For example, in Kerala, a major land struggle was waged under the leadership of the State unit of the All India Agricultural Workers Union (AIAWU), in March 2002. About 4,000 people participated in this struggle organised in Wayanad district. Nine people were injured and 400 were arrested in police action during the course of the struggle. It was noted that the Congress(I)-led United Democratic Front (UDF) government had not implemented the agreements signed with tribal leader C.K. Janu. Instead of restoring lands to the tribal people, the government gave it to departments at cheap prices. In another instance, in Chandauli district of Uttar Pradesh, the erstwhile Raja was evicted from approximately 1,000 acres (400 ha) he had occupied in the name of the panchayat. The tribal people withstood state repression and participated in the struggle for land led by the All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS).

The report from Andhra Pradesh stated that the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) government had amended the Forest Conservation Act to allow mining in tribal areas. The Girijan Sangam initiated an agitation on this issue and the State government was compelled to stop the implementation of the amended Act. In Telengana, 3,000 acres (1,200 ha) occupied by landlords were evicted through struggle waged by the tribal people. The authorities sought to suppress the agitation and jailed the activists.

Similarly, in Maharashtra, under the leadership of the Adivasi Parishad affiliated to the AIAWU, over 1 lakh people participated in a struggle for the regularisation of settlements and to prevent evictions in the last few years. Struggles are also being waged in the Purnea, Bhagalpur and Saharsa districts of Bihar, where the Bhumihar landlords and the State government wanted to suppress the land struggle led by the AIKS. The convention passed a resolution entitled "Withdraw Anti-Tribal Circular" and asked the CPI(M) to appeal to the Supreme Court against its implementation.

AN important issue raised was that of the displacement of tribal people through the occupation of their lands for developmental purposes. This was increasing the incidence of landlessness among tribal people. For example, the delegates from Jharkhand noted that 40 lakh tribal people were displaced after Independence and only 47.5 per cent of them had been rehabilitated. In fact, struggles against displacement were brutally repressed by the state authorities.

In Rajasthan too, the main issue was one of land occupied by non-tribal people and forest encroachments. However, since the land struggle started, the AIKS has not let non-tribal people or the government occupy tribal lands in the State.

In Madhya Pradesh, the situation was a little different as the government had distributed tribal land among rich non-tribal people. Although the Madhya Pradesh government formulated a policy for distribution of surplus commons to tribal people and Scheduled Castes, it made no efforts to enact land ceiling laws. As a result of the policy, the commons were being privatised at a rapid scale, and the Madhya Pradesh government had regularised holdings of big landholders who were squatters.

The delegates from Jharkhand stated that large tracts of land had been alienated from tribal people since the days of the Maharaja and demanded that special courts be set up to settle claims of the tribal people. The majority of the delegates agreed that no development projects should be started in tribal areas without the consent of the tribal people and emphasised the need for a proper democratic process for rehabilitation. It was emphasised that both land and livelihood security should be ensured when people were relocated. These points were also incorporated in the final resolution.

The question of land and livelihood was intimately linked with the question of tribal access to and mobility in the forest areas. Delegates from Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh demanded the ownership of land and forest produce. Instances were recounted from Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh where CPI(M)-led mass fronts had struggled against repression by forest authorities, especially with respect to land evictions and the harvesting of forest produce. While local tribal people were being divested of their rights in forests, the government was helping big industry to divert forestlands for non-forestry purposes. For example, in Andhra Pradesh, the Joint Forest Management Programme has industry as its third partner and hence privatisation of forests is taking place. Moreover, forest areas are being given to private entrepreneurs in the name of promoting tourism.

Delegates from Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh emphasised how the decentralisation of the production of non-timber forest produce had strengthened the traders because of lack of infrastructure. They demanded a minimum support price for all forest produce. There was also a demand for the conversion of all forest villages into revenue villages. The need for sustained campaign on these issues was emphasised.

Delegates pointed out that development funds for providing basic needs to tribal people had not been utilised properly. Despite externally aided projects in tribal areas, the tribal people were living in abject poverty. In Andhra Pradesh, for example, more than 50 per cent of the tribal people did not have access to drinking water, 70 per cent did not have power connections and more than 75 per cent did not have access to roads. Although Rs.50 crore was allocated to private contractors for tribal education and health, thousands of tribal people were affected by malnutrition, hunger and disease.

In Rajasthan, the food security issue had assumed great importance because of the absence of a proper public distribution system (PDS) and the inability of farmers to sell their produce in the context of liberalisation policies.

Similarly, in Orissa, Rs.680 crores for tribal development had not been spent. All this showed that the CPI(M) had not only to fight against the nexus among the landlord, the contractor and the state, but also to link it with the larger fight against economic reforms.

The convention was unique and historic because for the first time it sought to highlight and consolidate the CPI(M)'s work among tribal people in a coordinated way. It also showed how the party's perspective was different from those of other movements. The former emphasised that tribal struggles should be linked to the larger struggles against the twin threats of Hindu fascism and economic reforms. In the process it was hoped that a strong democratic movement would be built among the most marginalised people of India.

Archana Prasad is a Fellow at the Centre for Contemporary Studies, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi.