deprived - pragmapragma.co.in/deprived-and-displaced.pdf · adivasi communities live in the...

D. T. Reji Chandra

Forum for Collective Forms of Cooperation

Deprived DisplacedLivelihood of adivasi communities in Tamilnadu

and

D. T. Reji Chandra

Forum for Collective Forms of Cooperation

Livelihood of adivasi communities in Tamilnadu

and Deprived Displaced

forum for collective forms of cooperation

Deprived and Displaced Livelihood of adivasi communities in Tamilnadu 2015

D. T. Reji Chandra [email protected] | +91 98433 84832

Published by Forum for Collective Forms of Cooperation (FCFC)

National Secretariat: ODAF, NA/204, Neelachal Apartments, Cuttak Road, Bhubaneshwar, 751006, Odisha

South Regional Secretariat: FCFC South Region, SCINDeA, 219, Kottaiyur Road, Yelagiri Hills 635 853, Vellore District, Tamilnadu

Design & Production: +G Publishing, Madurai | +91 99940 82224

AcknowledgementsDr. William Stanley, National Convener, FCFC, Bhubaneswar

Dr. Sheila Benjamin, South Regional Convener, FCFC, Yelagiri, Tamilnadu

Mr. M. L. Alphonse Raj, Indo Sri Lankan Development Trust (ISLAND TRUST), Kothagiri

Mr. A. Renganathan, Village Reconstruction Development Project (VRDP), Salem

Mr. Xavier Mariadass, People’s Craft Training Centre (PCTC), Thiruvannamalai

Mr. Charles Prabhu, Centre for Action and Rural Education (CARE), Erode

Mr. Godwin Gloridason, +G Publishing, Madurai

i

deprived and displaced: a study report

Contents

Risking life for a living 1

1. Adivasi Life and Livelihood 3

Adivasi, the indigenous people; Indigenous people; Scheduled Tribes; Tamilnadu Context; Livelihood study; FCFC

2. Livelihood, Conservation, and Commerce 11

Changing livelihood context; Forest and land rights; Agriculture; Non-timber forest products; Livestock; Labour and wages; Community rights and conservation policies; Government Schemes

3. Deprived and Displaced 27

3.1 Resources and risks 29Agriculture; Livestock; Forest and forest products; Migration, Labour, wages

3.2 Key issues 39Land ownership and alienation; Displacement; Vulnerable to discrimination and exploitation; Animal conflict; Alcohol

3.3. Constraining and conducive factors 49Transport; Water; Access to market; Access to credit; Health; Education; Government schemes

4. Restoring Rights, Rebuilding Capacities 55

Adivasi rights; Value for products; Rebuilding capacities; Looking ahead

ii


1


Risking life for a livingI thank FCFC (Forum for Collective Forms of Cooperation) for giving me the opportunity to work on this document; an opportunity to visit adivasi settlements and interact with the indigenous communities in Tamilnadu to understand their life and livelihood. It was an enriching as well as a disturbing experience. Adivasi communities live in the periphery, face severe poverty conditions, and are subjected to deprivation and discrimination. This striking reality, faced at many occasions during the visits, challenged the hypocrisy of our development claims.

My visit began with a distressing incident related to adivasi communities in Tamilnadu. I was in Salem on 7th April on my way to Aladipatti, an adivasi settlement in Salem district, when the news about the killing of twenty woodcutters was flashed in the television channels and later in the news papers. The news that most of the killed, alleged to be red sanders smugglers, belonged to Vellore and Tiruvannamalai districts in Tamilnadu sparked widespread protests in the State. The political parties and human right groups declared that what has happened was a massacre of innocent woodcutters. Subsequently, a magisterial inquiry was ordered by Chittoor administration and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) also took suo moto cognizance of the incident and issued notices.

Next morning, as I have scheduled to visit a few adivasi settlements in Salem and Thiruvannamalai districts the following days, I started to Aladipatti, a village in Salem district; and the following day to another settlement in Thiruvannamalai district. Though no one was killed from these two villages in the recent encounter, people were visibly upset because those got killed belonged to settlements known to them. Moreover, they also started recalling many people from their own villages who had gone earlier to cut trees in Andhra forests; some lured into this by promising huge amounts of money, and many others deceived with the assurance that government approval was obtained to cut trees. In some instances workers realised that they were trapped into an illegal activity only after reaching the forests after long travels or once they were caught and jailed.

2


In the adivasi settlements I visited, people also recollected those who were arrested for cutting red sanders. A few of them are now free on bail but still following their cases. Some are still in Andhra jails, since the families could not bring them out. In a few cases, the whereabouts of people are not known for months. Perhaps they are in some jail or even dead. Family members do not have the required resources or capacity even to find out if they are in jail or dead.

After the killing of the twenty woodcutters in Andhra forest, a series of writings and features on adivasi livelihood appeared in the media. This shocking incident also brought out the organised red sanders smuggling operation going on for decades where the rich and powerful benefited and the poor workers ended up as victims. Various reports revealed that more than 1000 workers are currently in Andhra jails arrested for allegedly cutting red sanders and many thousands out on bail with their cases on. Many of these reports finally conclude by saying that the Tamilnadu and Andhra governments are equally responsible for the plight of the workers.

The real issue is larger and deep rooted than the problem of red sanders or migration. The most critical issue in the context of adivasi livelihood, as widely accepted, is the loss of their livelihood right. Adivasis are literally thrown out of the forest, which was the primary source of livelihood and integral part of their indigenous identity. Those who owned these resources once, now live as refugees in their own lands. They are further displaced in all aspects of life and livelihood. The oppressive laws and systems in practice starting from British period till now outweigh and prevail over some of the provisions assured by the laws that are enacted to protect them including the fringe benefits offered by welfare schemes for Scheduled Tribes.

In a poverty context, like that of the adivasi settlements, vulnerable households are forced to adapt coping strategies to protect their livelihood and life. They, with the limited employment options and ongoing harassment by authorities, try to strengthen existing livelihood activities or migrate to other places for employment. One such common strategy found in almost all settlements is diversifying into non-farm activities and seasonal migration to other areas. This vulnerability makes it easy for others to lure them into risky jobs.

Whether those who opt for such jobs know the truth or they are lured into this, they are well aware of the serious risks involved in this type of migration. Yet, they risk their life for a living.

Madurai Reji ChandraJune, 2015

3


1. Adivasi Life and LivelihoodAdivasi, the indigenous peopleAdivasi is a common term for the ethnic and tribal groups living in forests and adjacent terrains in India considered as the native population. The word adivasi has two parts; the first part Adi means first or original, and Vasi means dweller or inhabitant. Adivasi, then, means the “first inhabitants.” Various names are in use in different languages in different regions of the country meaning ‘forest dwellers or hill people’. The term ‘Adivasi’ is commonly agreed and currently used widely, because the term has a specific meaning that refers to the original inhabitants of a region.

Substituting the terms such as ‘aborigines’ and ‘tribes’, with "Adivasi”, gives a notion of historical autonomy and indigenous nature to these communities that entitle them for certain rights. Majority of India’s adivasi communities live in the forests and forest borders depending on the forest resources for their livelihood. The primitive nature of these communities as regard to their existence and their traditions close to nature, qualify them as the indigenous people of the country, the native communities, who have the prehistoric right over their dwelling places.

Indigenous people The adjective ‘indigenous’ derives from the Latin root that means "native" or "born within”. “Indigenous people are those groups specially protected in international or national legislation as having a set of specific rights based on their historical ties to a particular territory, and their cultural or historical distinctiveness from other populations”. (Douglas Sanders, 1999)

Special legislations and entitlements are ensured for these communities based on the fact that most of these indigenous people are vulnerable to exploitation, marginalisation, displacement, and oppression by governments formed by colonial rules or controlled by politically dominant ethnic groups. United Nations has issued a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, 2007 to guide member state nations

4


to the rights of indigenous people such as culture, identity, language, and access to employment, health, education, and natural resources.

A defining characteristic for an indigenous group is that it conserves traditional ways of living, such as present or historical reliance upon subsistence based production, and be a predominantly non-urban society. Indigenous societies may be either settled in a given region or exhibit a nomadic lifestyle across a large territory. But in most cases they are historically associated with a specific territory on which they depend for their livelihood. Indigenous societies are found in every inhabited climate zone and continent of the world. (UN EASC, 1981)

Indigenous groups are increasingly faced with threats to their independence, environment, and access to natural resources. Specifically, the rapid deforestation of tropical rainforests threatens the subsistence lifestyles of many native communities. The adivasi communities in India fall well within the definition of indigenous people to claim all rights as adopted in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Constitution of India also provides them a special status as Scheduled Tribes (ST) that guarantees specific rights and privileges.

Scheduled TribesThe Imperial Gazetteer of India, 1911, defines a tribe as a “collection of families bearing a common name, speaking a common dialect, occupying or professing to occupy a common territory and is not usually endogamous though originally it might have been so”.

Another definition of a tribe by D.N. Majumdar is that “a tribe is a collection of families or group of families bearing a common name, members of which occupy the same territory, speak the same language and observe certain taboos regarding marriage, profession or occupation and have developed a well-assessed system of reciprocity and mutuality of obligations”. Different scholars have attempted to provide definitions of a tribe.

Gillin and Gillin: Any pre-literate local group may be termed as tribe, whose members reside in a common area, speak a common language and have common culture.

Dr. W.H.R. Rivers: Tribe is a simple type of social group whose members speak a common dialect and work together at the time of war.

R.N. Mukherjee: A tribe is that human group, whose members have common interest, territory, language, social law and economic occupation.

5


Article 366 (25) of the Constitution of India refers to Scheduled Tribes (ST) as those communities, who are scheduled in accordance with Article 342 of the Constitution. This Article says that only those communities who have been declared as such by the President through an initial public notification or through a subsequent amending Act of Parliament will be considered to be Scheduled Tribes.

The Commissioner of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, in its reports (1952), though a series of changes and revisions effected between 1950 and 1956, has listed eight features of the tribal groups in India:

? They live always away from the civilized world and are found in the inaccessible parts lying in the forest and hills.

? They generally belong to three stocks such as Negritos, Australoids, and Mangoloids. ? They speak the same tribal dialect. ? They prefer primitive occupations such as gleaning, hunting, and gathering of forest

produce. ? They are mostly carnivorous. ? They live and prefer to be naked and semi-naked. ? They have nomadic habit and are fond of drinking and dancing. ? They prefer primitive religion known as “Animist” in which they worship ghost and

spirits as the most important elements.

The essential characteristics, laid down by the Lokur Committee in 1965, for a community to be identified as Scheduled Tribes are:

? Indications of primitive traits ? Distinctive culture ? Shyness of contact with the community at large ? Geographical isolation ? Backwardness

The Scheduled Tribe (ST) population in India is estimated to be 104.3 million constituting 8.6% of total Indian population, as per 2011 census. The recent Socio Economic and Caste Census 2011, estimates this as 10.97 percent. This is a significant indigenous minority in the total population of the country. Among the total rural population this is 10.4 percent. Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, and Karnataka are the States having larger number of Scheduled Tribes. These States account for 83.2% of the total Scheduled Tribe population of the country. Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Jammu & Kashmir, Tripura, Mizoram, Bihar, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, and Tamilnadu, account for another 15.3% of the total Scheduled Tribe population. The share of the remaining States is negligible. According to the Census

6


2011, the tribal population is increasing along with the Indian population but at a rate lower than the general population. The list of Scheduled Tribes is State specific; and a community declared as a Scheduled Tribe in a State need not be so in another State.

The Constitution of India incorporates several provisions for the promotion of educational and economic development of Scheduled Tribes and their protection from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. Programmes for ST welfare are implemented by various departments and ministries and in 1999 the Ministry of Tribal Affairs was set up after the bifurcation of Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. A strategy was also developed to achieve these objectives called Tribal Sub-Plan strategy (TSP), which was adopted at the beginning of the Fifth Five Year Plan.

Tamilnadu ContextThe majority of adivasi communities (Scheduled Tribes) in Tamilnadu live in the mountain regions in the North and West. The Western Ghats spread southwards and end at the Cape Comorin which is the southernmost border of the state. The Eastern Ghats that originates in Orissa, passes through Andhra Pradesh, and extends into Tamilnadu across the districts of Thiruvannamalai, Salem, and Coimbatore; finally joining the Western Ghats to form the famous Nilgiri Plateau where primitive tribes like Toda, Kurumba, and Kota live.

The estimated Scheduled Tribe population in Tamilnadu as per the 2011 census is around 6,51,321 which constitutes 1.1 percent of the total population of the State. They are spread across 30 districts, but largely concentrated in 15 districts, most of them residing in the Western and Eastern Ghats, in the area extending from Erode to Kanyakumari in the west and in the area of Tiruchirappali, Nammakkal, Salem, Dharmapuri and Vellore in the east. There are marginal variations between different sources in estimating the percentage of adivasi population in Tamilnadu, but it ranges between 1.02 to 1.1 percent. The recent Socio Economic and Caste Census of 2011 estimate this as 1.81 percent.

In Tamilnadu, 36 tribes and sub-tribes are listed as Scheduled Tribes. Of them, Malayali, Irular, Kattunayakan, Kurumbas and Kondareddis together constitute above 80 percent. The ST population is more than three percent in Thiruvannamalai, Salem, Namakkal, and Nilgiris districts. Villupuram and Dharmapuri districts have less than three but above two percent. All other districts have around or less than one percent. In Tamilnadu, Scheduled Tribes constitute a marginal group in terms of their proportion to general population in any district in the state.

7


Out of the 36 Scheduled Tribe communities in the State, six communities - Toda, Kota, Kurumbas, Irulur, Paniyan and Kattunayakan - have been identified as primitive tribes. In general, adivasi communities in Tamilnadu live inside the forests and its vicinity, and a few groups outside the forest areas in revenue villages, and a negligible number permanently migrated to other locations.

Majority of the ST communities in Tamilnadu are cultivators, agriculture labourers, or dependents on forest products for their livelihood. Their socio-cultural life is integrally linked with forest and nature. Denial of their rights over forest and forest resources, and subsequently the degradation of forests for commercial interests have affected their livelihood opportunities causing unemployment, low income, food shortage, and seasonal migration. Such external factors seem to have exposed these communities to face a new set of issues in an evolving livelihood context with risks and livelihood insecurity.

Livelihood studyForum for Collective Forms of Cooperation (FCFC) is a national platform of networks (Collective Forms of Cooperation), for mutual dialogue, exchange of knowledge, learning from experiences, and joint action. Most of the member networks of FCFC, work with their partner NGOs or movements on a range of development and human right issues in specific geographic locations with diverse approaches and organisational structures. A few CFCs also work at the national level.

The theme of FCFC for the current phase of 2012 - 15 is livelihood. This includes activities such as capacity building, studies and research, and workshops on emerging issues related to livelihood, with a focus on livelihood issues of excluded communities. As part of the study and research programme, FCFC South Region initiated this study on “Livelihood of Adivasi Communities in Tamilnadu”. South Central India Network for Development Alternatives (SCINDeA), the South Regional Convener of the FCFC coordinated this study, which is one of the several studies by FCFC on livelihood.

Study objective: The main purpose of the study is to understand the livelihood context of adivasi communities in Tamilnadu, as perceived by the community. This is an attempt to identify and document some of the dominant conducive and constraining factors that impact on the livelihood of adivasi communities, which could be integrated into the programming processes of FCFC member organisations.

Specifically, the study aims to identify, understand, and assess the opportunities, strategies, practices, and patterns of adivasi livelihood in Tamilnadu; the conducive and constraining factors that affect adivasi livelihood and the community response

8


towards such conditions; and the influence of conservation laws and protective provisions for adivasi rights.

Methodology: As a first step, a workshop was organised in Coimbatore with adivasi representatives from ten districts in Tamilnadu and NGO staff working with these communities. The purpose was to identify key areas that impact and influence adivasi livelihood, design the study tools, finalise data collection and field visits.

The workshop clearly revealed that except the differences in their cultural practices, adivasi families mostly face similar livelihood problems across the state. The differences are mostly based on their living contexts and not group specific. Communities who live in forest areas face the same set of problems, even if they belong to different tribal groups with cultural differences; whereas the communities who live in revenue villages close to the forest areas almost face a common but different set of problems from that of the forest dwelling communities.

A questionnaire was prepared to collect data from 30 settlements/villages in the ten districts on livelihood related areas such as land, agriculture, non-timber forest products (NTFC), livestock, labour, wages, migration, policies and laws related to forest and conservation, and other emerging issues related to adivasi livelihood. Four regions were shortlisted, based on the collected information from the 30 locations, for field visits and direct interactions with communities.

The four short listed areas included communities from different geographical locations, representing the major two categories of adivasi communities based on their living context such as those who live in forests, and those live in revenue villages close to the forest areas.

The field visits covered Thiruvannamalai, Salem, Nilgris, and Erode districts that included adivasi groups such as Malayalies, Irulas, Kurumbas, and Soligars. Except Erode, all the three districts have more than three percentage of adivasi population. During the field visits, Focused Group Discussions were organised to interact with families and NGO staff. Interviews with selected persons and families helped to understand specific issues and experiences, and to develop case studies that validate collected information and the perceptions of people on their livelihood. The visits also helped to profile selected settlements/villages for greater understanding of the contexts.

The report covers the major issues associated to adivasi livelihood such as land, agriculture, forest, forest products, livestock, labour, and wages. It also attempts to understand the implications of laws that govern conservation and development, and the constitutional provisions to protect the rights of adivasi communities. The study

9


FCFC (Forum for Collective Forms of Cooperation)

FCFC (Forum for Collective Forms of Cooperation) is a national forum of networks (CFC), formed in 2002, with a purpose of “enhancing effectiveness and impact of members, and enable them to network, cooperate, and undertake joint action programmes at local, regional, national and global level, in order to pursue a sustainable pro-poor development process”. By design, FCFC is a non-institutional, non-hierarchical network and the efforts by its members are voluntary in nature. FCFC is having a national secretariat, currently at Bhubaneswar with ODAF, which coordinates the forum with five regional chapters (North, North East, East, West, and the South) and focusing on identified key areas that cut across all the five regions, based on the emerging national issues in consultations with regions. FCFC partnering with EED/BftW, plans and facilitates implementation of programme activities by member CFCs.

FCFC aspires for a harmonious society where people live a better life and a better future through addressing a number of issues affecting the life and livelihood of the poor and marginalized sections of the communities. FCFC has taken up wide range of campaign and advocacy on emerging development issues to influence a favourable policy environment in favour of the weaker and vulnerable sections of people, in the areas of land and agriculture, women and children, social welfare schemes, rights and entitlements of marginalised, disaster, drought, environment, education, and health. FCFC has a focus area for every three years and after focusing on climate change during the past few years FCFC has identified livelihood as the current focus area. This includes research and documentation, orientation on emerging issues, and cooperation and facilitation for building networks and strengthening alliances.

FCFC functions with six regions coordinated by regional conveners and a National Secretariat coordinated by Dr. William Stanly based in Bhubaneswar, Orissa. The South Region, responsible for this study, is coordinated by Dr. Sheila Benjamin based at Yelagiri, Tamilnadu.

in its attempt to understand adivasi livelihood, more from a qualitative perspective, gives primary importance to community perceptions on issues associated with their livelihood, livelihood context, and life, which are integrally linked with the forest.

10


organisations participated in the study

1. Association for Rural Mass India (ARM), Villupuram.

www.arm.org Mr. A. Bakthavatchalam

2. Centre for Action and Rural Education (CARE), Erode.

www.caretn.org Mr. Charles Prabhu

3. Development Education and Environment Protection Society (DEEPS), Pennagaram.

www.deepstn.org Mr. Shankar

4. Indo Sri Lankan Development Trust (ISLAND TRUST), Kothagiri.

www.islandtrust.org Mr. M. L. Alphonse Raj

5. Native Medicare Charitable Trust (NMCT), Coimbatore.

www.nmctngo.org Mr. A. S. Sankaranarayanan

6. People’s Craft Training Centre (PCTC), Tiruvannamalai.

www.pctcability.org Mr. Xavier Mariadass

7. Rural Development Council (RDC), Thenkanikottai.

www.rdctribal.in Mr. X. Stalin

8. Village Development Centre (VDC), Mannachanallur, Tiruchi.

www.vdcindia.org Mr. K. R. Raju

9. Village Reconstruction Development Project (VRDP), Salem.

www.vrdp.org Mr. A. Renganathan

10. Nuthana Trust, Mulagumoodu. [email protected] Mr. Clement Winsly

11


2. Livelihood, Conservation, and Commerce

Changing livelihood contextAdivasi communities, an integral part of the forest ecosystem in early days, historically have an inseparable relationship with forest and nature. They enjoyed a peaceful coexistence with nature by depending on forest resources for their subsistence as well as protecting the natural resources. A well balanced forest management system, evolved over a period of time, was in place integrated with their traditions and cultural practices.

Adivasi communities used forests for hunting, gathering tubers, fruits, flowers and herbs, and for grazing their cattle. They cut wood from the forest only to build their dwellings and to make implements. If they collect and sell some forest produce, it was to buy or exchange for other things they needed from the market. They never had the notion of selling forest products as a commodity to accumulate personal wealth. Besides, as a measure to preserve forest resources and its eco system, when they cut trees, they cut only aged trees and allowed new trees to grow as part of their regeneration practice. Although strips of forest land were cleared for cultivating food crops, it is only for their subsistence, and the major areas of land continued to remain under forest cover. Those who used forest resources as a source of their livelihood also have taken up the responsibility of protecting it.

Such a situation started changing from the time of the British rule in India. Cities were emerging and the government was laying long stretches of railway lines across the country. Ships were built and mines opened. These changes created a need for large quantities of wood which resulted in a rapid increase in timber trade, destruction of forests, and raising plantations with money crops. Obviously commercial interests prevailed over conservation of natural resources. The attempt to take over the control of forest resources for commercial purposes, from indigenous people, started at this stage. This was spearheaded by the British rulers and rich traders, first using political

12


power and later on the pretext of conservation. Both processes displaced adivasi communities from their native land, which they had owned and protected for ages.

The British government, and the British companies, including some influential Indian companies, made large profits from this growing trade. The contractors paid large sum of money to win the contracts through auctions held by the government for cutting trees in forests. Moreover, in such areas, after the trees were cut, plantations with money crops such as tea, coffee, and rubber were grown by traders who were close to the regime or who had money to invest. Subsequently, after causing grave damages to the forests by intensified commercial interests, the government set up a Forest Department in 1864 to legally formalise the control over forest and its resources. The government, on the pretext of conserving and protecting the forests, started justifying the need for a comprehensive Act and also advocated its relevance in protecting the forest from people living in and near them. So, in 1878, a new forest law was enacted to stop people from using forests freely.

Under this law, forests were divided into reserved forests and protected forests with separate rules for access and use by people. The forest department, equipped with legal power in its favour, formally started alienating and displacing adivasis from their land and livelihood rights.

The Forest Act placed restrictions on the free movement of people in the forest areas and prevented them from engaging in their traditional lifestyle cultivation and use of the forest for firewood and other resources. This caused unrest in many tribal areas resulting in armed conflicts spreading across regions. The imposed forest laws violated the rights of adivasis and they had to fight for their livelihood rights on their own, with little or no help from outside. Most of such uprisings were armed struggles against the British.

More than 55 such major conflicts are documented. Some of these conflicts, started at different period of time and regions, continued for a few years before the British could finally curb them. Among the major conflicts, the famous Halba rebellion by Halba tribes in Bastar area, currently in Chhattisgarh, started in 1774 and continued till 1779. Six such conflicts occurred in the 18th century at different regions. More than 40 major conflicts are reported between the period 1800 and 1899 in almost all regions where adivasi communities lived in considerable numbers. In the 19th century between 1911 and 1942 nine major conflicts are documented.

The Munda rebellion in Bihar from 1899 to 1900, spearheaded by Birsa Munda in the current Bihar and Jharkhand areas, and the Rampa Rebellion (1922-23) of Andhra Pradesh led by Alluri Sitarama Raju, and fought by the adivasi communities as a

13


protest to the oppressive Madras Forest Act of 1882 are two major conflicts to mention. Though 55 of such uprisings are considered as major conflicts, there are also references in various sources about many more local and small level resistances between the adivasi communities and the oppressive forces including the British government.

As soon as the British took over Eastern India, revolts broke out in adivasi settlements to challenge the external threats to their traditional lives and livelihood practices. In the early years of colonisation, only adivasi communities resisted the British invasion. As a result they also faced disastrous consequences, especially the communities who lived in the current Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Bengal, and Andhra Pradesh States. Though some writers acclaim these conflicts as freedom struggles, in reality adivasi communities were fighting for their rights when their life and freedom were threatened. They would have put up the same resistance against anyone attempted to disturb their free life in the forest. It appears from references that adivasi problems assumed no importance for the groups fighting for independence at that time. The fact is that even after independence, the plight of the adivasis has not changed much.

After independence the Government of India has almost continued the same policy of reserving forests and restricting their use by the people. This created an ironic situation of denial of adivasi livelihood rights by restricting their use of forest, but opening up of forest and its resources for industries and commercial ventures. The opening up of forest land for mining, tourism, and timber trade rapidly reduced the forest cover, causing many social and economic effects with far reaching consequences on environment, specifically to water resources, soil quality, wildlife, and climate. Moreover, while many provisions were created in the constitution that guarantees the protection of Scheduled Tribes, the restricting British laws also continued. They still exist with a set of more tougher and far reaching new laws and amendments passed to curtail the free movement of forest dwellers and their access to forest resources. This policy contradiction and double standard arising from these overlapping and conflicting laws and practices have still not been resolved.

A large number of tribal populations in remote regions of India still depend on a forest based economy for their livelihood, specifically provisions for their basic necessities like food, fuel, and housing materials. Though it is claimed that there are improvements in certain areas, in general adivasis living close to forest areas constitute the most disadvantaged groups based on per capita income, literacy rate, health status, and access to resources, services and basic amenities.

Currently, adivasi livelihood depends on and is impacted by three major areas: land, forest resources (NTFP), and Acts governing forest and conservation. Similarly,

14


the major livelihood activities of adivasi communities include agriculture, labour and wages, collection of forest products (NTFP), and livestock. However, since their life and livelihood prospects are completely constrained by the government policies and current commercial interests, the life of adivasi communities is extremely vulnerable to risks and exposed to insecurity than other rural and urban poor in the country.

Forest and land rightsIndian State of Forest Report (ISFR) 2013, by Forest Survey of India, estimates the forest cover in India as 21.23 percent of the total geographical area. According to the 2011 report it was 23.81 percent showing a gradual decline in forest cover over the years.

In Tamilnadu, the forest cover is 18.33 percent of the total geographical area, which is less than the national average. ISFR report categorises forest as dense forest, moderate dense forest, and open forest which is the private or government land with high intensity trees like mangoes, coconuts etc. In Tamilnadu, according to the report, there is an increase of 219 sq km of forest cover between 2011 and 2013. But this is the increase in the open forest category that could be private and cultivated area. In the case of dense forest there is a decrease of 122 sq km, which most probably could be forest areas.

The survival of adivasis primarily depends on forest land and forest products. Their close relationship to forest is reflected in their culture, specifically in relation to marriage, family, assets, food habits, and spirituality. Adivasis are part of the forest ecosystem essential to maintain the natural balance and bio diversity. As they are part of the forest, forest essentially become the integral part of their livelihood and life. This is evident in all aspects of their life that are closely linked to their human, natural, and super natural beliefs and practices.

The authentic land holding details of the adivasis are not available, since this is a complex area to collect data. Moreover, the pattern of land holding differs from location to location based on their living context and different laws in force. But the National Agriculture Census 2010-11 gives details of operational holding of land by Scheduled Tribes, though the information does not indicate the land ownership pattern of adivasi communities. This survey includes all land which is used wholly or partly for agricultural production and is operated as one unit without regard to the title, legal form, size, or location.

The “All India Report on Number and Area of Operational Holdings - 2014”, divides the operational holding of land into marginal, small, semi-medium, medium,

15


and large which is classified based on the area of land under cultivation. The small and marginal holdings taken together (below 2.00 acre) constituted 85.01 percent in 2010-11 against 83.29 in 2005-06 and the operated area at 44.58 percent in the current Census as against the corresponding figure of 41.14 percent in 2005-06. The large holdings (10.00 acre and above) were 0.70 percent of total number of holdings in 2010-11. The average size of operational holding has declined to 1.15 hectare in 2010-11 as compared to 1.23 hectare in 2005-06. In Tamilnadu, scheduled tribe operational holding is: Marginal 29.32; Small 32.80; Semi-medium 24.31; Medium 11.62; and Large 1.96 percentages of the total holding.

Historically adivasis had right over their land, owned by their respective communities for ages, with free access into the forest and its resources. They feel as part of the forest and for them forest is more than a livelihood asset, a different understanding from conventional economic perspective that considers land as a tangible asset. Though they are in occupation of these lands for years, legal proprietorship of land was not in practice among adivasis. Land grabbing and displacement started from the British days with a process of registering forest land as government property under forest law, and also as private properties for those who had political connections, commercial interests, and capital to invest.

The transfer of forest land continued, in post independence period also, with industrialisation, urbanisation, exploitation of mineral resources, wild life sanctuaries, and hydropower being major reasons for land transfer. Thousands of hectares of forest land were acquired for setting up industrial complexes, residential flats, tourist resorts, schools, hospitals, spiritual centers, water supply schemes, energy schemes, mines, roads, market complexes etc. Ironically, while on one side taking away large areas of land from adivasis, Government of India also declared that sale and mortgage of tribal lands to non-tribal people are considered as alienation of land. Even leasing out lands against loans to non-tribal people are considered as land alienation, perhaps on the assumption that the adivasis are not capable of redeeming their debts to get back their lands. In spite of such laws, land alienation is rampant. State governments have also accepted the policy of prohibiting transfer of land from adivasis to others and restoration of alienated land back to adivasis. These people, who live in and near India's forest lands, have no legal right over their lands, homes, or livelihood assets.

AgricultureWith more than 70 percent of the total adivasi working population being cultivators, though mostly at the subsistence range, agriculture has become the main occupation of adivasis in Tamilnadu. The workers engaged in agricultural activities (cultivators

16


and agricultural labourers) constitute 74.1 percent of the total workers against 81.8 percent recorded at 1991 Census. Though agriculture has become the predominant economic activity of adivasis, in recent years, the percentage is decreasing.

Most of the ST areas in Taminadu are grouped under the “High Altitude Agro-Climatic Zone’ which covers the Nilgiris, Kodaikanal, Shevaroy hills, Yelagiri, Javadhu hills, Kollimalai, Pachamalai, Yercaud, Anamalais, Palani, and Podhigaimalai. The land areas that adivasi families use for cultivation are divided into four types such as the upland in the hill, the low land in the valleys, flat land in the riversides, and the kitchen-garden at the backyard of their houses.

Agriculture is predominantly rain-fed and the crop varieties are area specific. Horticulture exists marginally with the present area under fruits and vegetables accounting for only about 2.5 percent of the total cultivated area. Family farm, defined due to family labour, is the basic unit of agriculture, with the exception of small level plantations of cardamom, coffee or tea, as in some regions. Adivasi farmers are essentially owner-cultivators, who take occasional hired labour. There is total cooperation among families of a settlement or village, on a reciprocal basis, especially at the times of cultivation and harvesting. Varieties of grains and rice, pulses and vegetables are cultivated with millets being a major crop variety in most of the adivasis areas. Women participate in all agricultural operations, except ploughing and sowing of rice seed, contributing between 70 and 80 percent of the total labour, which is more in terms of family labour rather than through wage labour.

Cultivation of all crop varieties starts after the southwest monsoon rains. The success of cultivation depends on the choice of right type of crops, time of planting, and amount of rainfall. The available land, water and soil nutrients are efficiently utilised to produce crops necessary for their livelihood. The adivasi farmers seem to manage well, in spite of the inherent difficulties in slope cultivation and water shortage.

Non-timber forest products Globally, Non Timber Forest Products (NTFP) or Non Wood Forest Products (NWFP) is defined as “forest products consisting of goods of biological origin other than wood, derived from forest”. They include fruits, nuts, vegetables, medicinal plants, resins, essences and a range of barks and fibers, bamboo, rattans, and a host of other palms and grasses. These are also called as minor forest products.

A large population in India lives close to the forest with their livelihoods significantly dependent on the forest ecosystem. According to the Ministry of

17


Environment and Forest (MoEF) Report, there are around 1.70 lakh villages located in and around forests. The figures available for the forest dependent population in the country, as estimated by different sources, range from 275 million (World Bank, 2006) to 350 - 400 million (MoEF, 2009). The sub-group of the Planning Commission for the Twelfth Plan looking into issues connected with NTFP held that half of all adivasi households are involved in this activity (Planning Commission, 2011).

The Haque Committee set up by the Ministry of Panchayat Raj (2011) estimated that between 20 percent to 40 percent of the income of forest dwellers came from the sale of NTFP, while other estimates placed it between 35 percent to 80 percent in certain regions (Planning Commission, 2011). It is estimated that 275 million rural poor people in India, which is more than 25 percent of the total population, depend on NTFP for supporting part of their income and subsistence (Malhotra and Bhattacharya, 2010). According to these various estimates, NTFP significantly provide support to subsist during the lean seasons, particularly for people living in and close to the forests. In many regions, mostly women collect and use or sell NTFP, making it a strong link to women’s financial empowerment in forest areas. NTFP have a tremendous potential to generate large scale employment opportunity, besides provide a range of prospects to promote eco-friendly, and small to medium enterprises at local level.

NTFP commodities were nationalised by the States from 1960 to the end of 1970s, perhaps with the intention of helping the poor, but in reality it has affected the interests of adivasis adversely. The general view is that nationalisation has reduced the number of legal buyers, hindered the free flow of goods, created a set of corrupt and cumbersome procedures, and delayed payment to the gatherers as government agencies often fail to make prompt payment. This also resulted in contractors and intermediaries entering into the sector replacing the poor forest dwellers. Moreover, it became impossible for the communities to access forests and collect products due to the new restrictions, huge capital requirement, and corrupt practices in the contract process.

The Report of the Sub-Group –II on NTFP and their sustainable management in the 12th five year plan, which included the Planning Commission’s Working Group on Forests and Natural Resource Management, 2011 lists a number of factors that affect NTFP and propose recommendations to improve it. This planning commission report and many other studies offer some key reasons for the failure in utilising NTFP potential to improve the livelihood conditions of adivasi communities who depend on these resources. Laws restricting free movement of NTFP bring uncertainty in market operations, and restrain gatherers from maximising the returns.

18


? In a competitive and efficient system there should be a large number of buyers and sellers. Information and awareness about the buyers and the prevailing market price are not freely available limiting the contact point of the gatherer to the village buyer.

? Gatherers seldom take their produce to the town. They are uncertain about the price they would get in the town in relation to the costs and risks of transporting. Although these products ultimately reach a very large market and fetch high prices, the market is limited at the village level for the gatherers.

? In many situations, both the gatherers and traders need licenses to collect or buy the products, which are difficult to get. As a result only limited buyers operate monopolising the sector and exploiting the gatherers.

? There are too many middlemen between the gatherers and consumers, though gatherers do not have the choice of contacting many intermediaries. This is mainly due to interlocking of products with credit that forces the gatherer to sell to the moneylender. Gatherers do not get the advantage of the choice of several buyers, which is essential for a competitive price.

? The sale of most NTFP is done without any processing or value addition. ? Most of the gatherers are poor, chronically indebted to middlemen, and are thus not

in control over their labour or other terms of exchange which forces the disposal of NTFP at a low price. This is mainly caused by the rural credit markets and poor access to formal credit.

? Most NTFPs are collected seasonally, though these products have a demand throughout the year. But lack of storage facilities at the local level reduces the bargaining power of the communities and forces them to sell the products at low prices as and when collected.

Although NTFP accounts for about 68 percent of the export in the forestry sector, government strategies focus largely timber as the main product with only secondary attention to NTFP development. NTFP, being one of India’s important unorganised sectors having a dependent population of about 300 million, and with a business turnover of more than Rs.6,000 crores per year, needs more attention. The situation has not much changed even after the introduction of the Schedule Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006.

LivestockLivestock Census started in India in the year 1919 and so far 18 such censuses have been conducted. The Livestock Census in 2012, the 19th in the series, gives the details of livestock populations and its economic share in the total national income of various sectors and the GDP (Gross Domestic Product). Though there is no figure available

19


in relation to forest areas or Scheduled Tribe communities, the report mentions that the livestock sector alone contributes nearly 25.6 percent of value of output at current prices of total value in agriculture, fishing and forestry sector. This indicates that livestock is a major sector generating income and creating livelihood opportunities in agriculture, fisheries, and forest sectors with a share of more than 25 percent.

Adivasi communities, primarily hunters and collectors of their food, eventually settled down with cultivation and raising domestic animals. Cattle are considered as a source of food and also as wealth which could be exchanged for money. Earlier, due to their close association with forest and free access to grazing lands, cattle rearing became customary and also complemented their cultivation activities. The change to cultivation from hunting and collection of forest products made livestock a natural choice for adivasis to use animals both for food and agriculture.

Government schemes exist offering credit to buy cattle and in some cases to avail free cattle. Since new breeds are more popular and productive, for better returns, it is necessary for families to acquire knowledge on managing the new varieties, instead of depending on their traditional knowledge of managing the usual breeds. These constraints are reported in many studies as the major issues for those who depend on livestock for livelihood or as a source of supplementary income.

Labour and wages Due to the restrictions for accessing forest resources and with limited opportunities for agriculture in their localities, the choice before adivasis is migrating to other places for jobs. They are in demand for jobs allied to their skills such as wood cutting, slope area cultivation, and plantation work.

In Tamilnadu, agricultural labourers constitute the highest proportion (47 percent) among the total workers. This figure is higher than that of the national average which is 36.9 percent. Cultivators account for 33.3 percent and ‘other workers’ constitute 15 percent. Tribal workers engaged in ‘household industry’ constitute only 4.8 percent.

As in Tamilnadu, in a situation where adivasis face loss of their land and traditional livelihood practices fail, they are forced into the labour market. Even here, adivasi workers earn low wages compared to other labourers. Besides, they also encounter dreadful work conditions. The data from the National Sample Survey on labour and wages clearly show that wages for adivasi men and women workers were low, and lower than the wages of workers from other social groups. These studies also calculate the wage gaps between adivasis and other labourers. In 1999–2000, the daily wage earned by an adivasi male worker in an agricultural occupation was just Rs 33; a decade later,

20


in 2009–10, the average wage increased to Rs 73. In non-agricultural operations the daily wage was higher, Rs 54 in 1999–2000 and increasing to Rs.111 in 2009–10. In 1999–2000, the average wage of an adivasi male worker in an agricultural occupation was less by Rs 13 than the corresponding average wage for workers from all social groups; in 2009–10, this gap increased to Rs 14. In non-agricultural occupations, the average wage gap between male adivasi workers and workers from other social groups increased from Rs 11 in 1999–2000 to Rs 18 in 2009–10.

Landlessness among adivasi households is growing. Correspondingly, the number of adivasi households that cultivate land is decreasing. This indicates an increase in the downward social mobility of a section of adivasi families, where people move from being either an employer, or self-employed, to being employed as wage labourer. Moreover, the NSS data reveals that among rural adivasi households, the proportion of households whose primary occupation is wage labour is higher than the proportion of households whose primary occupation is cultivation. This means that there is a gradual increase in adivasi families taking up work for wages more than working in their family farms. As a result, relatively a significant proportion of adivasi workers are seasonal and short-term migrants. Regarding women, the work participation rate among adivasi women is higher than the work participation rate among other social groups although the wages of adivasi women are lower.

These factors also indicate that the chances of accumulating profit and wealth by other social groups is high by exploiting adivasi goods and cheap adivasi labour.

Community rights and conservation policiesThe Constitution of India included many provisions and safeguards for the welfare and development of the adivasis by notifying them as Scheduled Tribes (ST).

The relevant articles regard to Scheduled Tribes fall under four major heads: 1. Protective Provisions (Articles: 15, 16, 19, 46, 146, 342, etc.) 2. Developmental Provisions (Articles: 46, 275, etc.) 3. Administrative Provisions (Articles: 244 & 275, etc.) 4. Reservation Provisions (Articles: 330, 332, 334, 335, 340, etc.)

The Protective Provisions safeguard ST people from social injustices and all forms of exploitation, while the Developmental Provisions promote educational and economic interests of the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes (SC). The Administrative Provisions under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules give special powers to the States for the protection and governance of adivasi areas. The Reservation Provisions ensure representation of the ST and SC in legislative bodies and government jobs. In addition,

21


there are various articles that have specific provisions towards protection of rights and promoting livelihood of indigenous people of the country. The constitution also had a provision to establish a National Commission for the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes. In addition to the constitutional provisions, there are number of laws, both at Central and State levels, to provide protection and to safeguard the interest of the Scheduled Tribes.

While such various provisions to protect the interests of ST communities are available, there also exists, a set of Acts, continuing from the British time that gives enormous power to State mechanisms. These provisions have enormous power to interfere and control people who live in the forest areas or linked with any of the forest resources for their livelihood. These controls come from the provisions of the Acts enacted during the British period, with amendments in some cases, and the many new laws that came into effect after independence. In the absence of a comprehensive national policy approach, that respects the livelihood rights of adivasis, the existing constitutional and legal provisions intended to protect people become ineffective. In reality, the provisions to protect people and the existing laws to control the forest more often end up conflicting with each other.

Specifically, the following Acts provide enormous power to control adivasi livelihood, in spite of the other protective provisions: The Cattle Trespass Act 1871; The Tamilnadu Forest Act 1882; The Indian Forest Act 1927; The Tamilnadu Hill Area (PT) Act 1955, The Wildlife Protection Act 1972. The Forest Conservation Act 1980 with amendments (1988), The Environment Protection Act 1986, The Wildlife Protection (Amendment) Act 2002, and the Biological Diversity Act 2002. In addition to these acts, there is a list of complex set of guidelines and more than 17 set of rules enacted from 1973 on various aspects of these Acts.

The Provisions of the PESA (Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act 1996, and The Schedule Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006, conveyed a lot of hope when they were passed. But even after many years, they have not changed the condition much. The historical, Forest Rights Act 2006, was seen as an atonement for what the British and successive governments have done to the adivasi communities and to their livelihood. In the midst of other oppressive acts still active and the destruction of forest resources in the name of development continuing, this new act generated a lot of optimism, because this new act recognises the rights of forest dwellers over the forest; their responsibility to conserve it; and transfer of power to communities in defined areas. The Act basically grants legal recognition to the rights of traditional forest dwelling communities, partially correcting the injustice caused by the forest laws, and makes a beginning

22


towards a role for communities in forest and wildlife conservation. Particularly, the law recognises land rights; rights to use minor forest produce, grazing grounds, and water bodies; and right of people to protect and conserve.

The Ministry of Tribal Affairs is the nodal agency for implementing the provisions of the Act. The Ministry, to ensure that the intended benefits of this welfare legislation flow to the eligible forest dwellers, has also issued comprehensive guidelines to the State Governments on 12.7.2012 for effective implementation of the Act.

Government SchemesThe Government of India and the States have set up exclusive ministries and different departments along with a range of welfare and development schemes to fulfill constitutional provisions and support Scheduled Tribes. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India, functions as the national level ministry to coordinate affairs of the Scheduled Tribes in the country.

The Ministry of Tribal Affairs: The Ministry was set up in 1999 by bifurcating Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment with the objective of providing focused approach for the development of the Scheduled Tribes in a coordinated manner. Prior to the formation of this Ministry, tribal affairs were managed by different Ministries. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs is the nodal Ministry for overall policy, planning, and coordination of programmes for development of ST communities. These include: social security and social insurance to the scheduled tribes, tribal welfare planning, project formulation, research, evaluation, statistics, training, promotion and development of voluntary efforts on tribal welfare, scheduled tribes scholarship to students, development schemes for scheduled tribes, and all matters including legislation relating to the rights of forest dwelling scheduled tribes.

The programmes and schemes of the Ministry are intended to support and supplement, through financial assistance, the efforts of other Central Ministries, the State Governments and voluntary organisations, and to fill critical gaps in the living conditions of STs. These schemes, comprising economic, educational and social development, are administered by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs and implemented through the State government administrations and voluntary organisations.

Ministry of Tribal Welfare has listed more than 26 schemes for scheduled tribes covering a range of areas such as vocational training, marketing, education, scholarships-including for study in overseas universities, hostels, grants for area development projects, establishment of training centers, and support for cooperatives and other organisations for the welfare of adivasi communities.

23


Integrated Tribal Development Projects (ITDPs): The ITDPs are generally implemented in adjacent areas of the size of a Block or more in which the ST population is 50% or more of the total population. However ITDPs in some States are smaller or not contiguous for demographic reasons. A few states have also opted for an independent legal model under the Registration of Societies Act. So far 194 ITDPs have been demarcated in the country in various states including Tamilnadu.

Modified Area Development Approach (MADA) pockets: These are identified pockets of concentration of ST population containing 50% or more within a total population of minimum of 10,000. A total number of 259 MADAs are identified so far in various States. Generally, MADA pockets do not have separate administrative structures to implement development programmes. The departments of the State governments implement development programmes in MADA pockets under the overall control of the district authorities.

Adivasi settlements

24


Clusters: These are identified pockets of tribal concentration containing 50% or more ST population within a total population of about 5,000 or more. As in the case of MADA pockets, there are no separate administrative structures for Clusters. So far 82 clusters have been identified in various States.

Primitive Tribal Groups (PTGs): Primitive tribal groups are tribal communities among the STs who live in remote, isolated, inaccessible habitats. They are characterised by a low rate of population growth, pre-agricultural level of livelihood, and extremely low levels of literacy. So far 75 PTGs have been identified in the country.

Tribal Sub-Plan: The basic objective of Tribal Sub-Plan is to channelise the flow of outlays and benefits from the general sectors in the Central Ministries and Departments for the development of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to their population. The broad objectives of the TSP are reduction in poverty and unemployment; creation of productive assets in favour of Scheduled Tribes to sustain the growth; human resource development of the Scheduled Tribes by providing adequate educational and health services; and provision of physical and financial security against exploitation and oppression. The Tribal Sub-Plans are integral to the Annual Plans as well as Five Year Plans, making provisions that are non-divertible and non-lapsable, with the specific objective of bridging the gap in socio-economic development of the STs within a specified period.

The Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India (TRIFED): The Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India, called as TRIFED, came into existence in 1987. It is a national-level apex organisation functioning under the administrative control of Ministry of Tribal Affairs. TRIFED, with its registered and Head Office located in New Delhi, has a network of 13 Regional Offices located at various places in the country. This cooperative supports the promotion and development of forest products and also crafts of adivasis. TRIFED, to accelerate the economic development of ST communities, has set TRIBES INDIA, the exclusive shops of tribal artifacts. These shops aim to showcase and market the art and craft items produced by the communities.

The National Scheduled Tribes Finance and Development Corporation: This finance corporation was incorporated in April, 2001 as a Government of India company under Ministry of Tribal Affairs. The not-for profit company is registered under section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. It is managed by the Board of Directors with representation from Central Government, State Agencies, National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI), Tribal Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. (TRIFED) and

25


representatives from the Scheduled Tribe communities. The objective is for providing financial assistance for the economic development of the Scheduled Tribes.

National Commission on Schedule Tribes: The National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) was established by amending Article 338 in the Constitution through the Constitution (89th Amendment) Act, 2003. By this amendment, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was replaced by the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC), and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) with effect from 19 February, 2004. The Commission has the powers of a Civil Court trying a suit, and in particular in respect of summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of India and examining the person on oath; calling for the discovery and production of any document; receiving evidence on affidavits; requisitioning of any public record or copy thereof from any court of office; issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses and documents; and any other matter which the President may, by rule, determine.

Adi Dravida and Tribal Welfare Department: The Department of Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare, Tamilnadu Government was formed in 1988, after bifurcation from the Social Welfare Department. This department functions as the nodal department for the all round development of Adi Dravidar and tribal communities in the State of Tamilnadu. The basic objective of the department is to formulate policies, laws, regulations, and programmes for the economic, educational and social development of the Adi Dravidars and Scheduled Tribes in the State. The aim is to empower the communities through their educational, economic and social development. Accordingly, this department implements various programmes and schemes, specifically in areas such as bonded labour, criminal appeals, removal of civil disabilities, welfare and advancement of SC and STs, eradication of untouchability, and all welfare schemes of SC and STs. The Tribal Welfare Directorate, under the department manages these various schemes for STs.

Forest Department: In Tamilnadu, the Forest Department, though mainly managing the control of forests and forest resources, also claims to implement many development programmes for adivasi communities, including provision of infrastructure support for development of settlements. The department mainly works in areas such as health, education, electricity, drinking water, housing and laying approach roads. Specifically, the Forest Department in Tamilnadu runs 19 schools in tribal areas in Tiruvannamalai, Vellore, and Coimbatore districts in which more than 5000 students are studying.

26


Documents referred

1. Statistical Profile of Scheduled Tribes in India 2013, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India.

2. Report of the Sub Group II on NTFP and their Sustainable Management in the 12th 5 Year Plan, 2011, Planning Commissions Working Group on Forests and Natural Resource Management.

3. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, United Nations, 2007.4. National Forest Policy, 1988, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of

India.5. The Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest

Rights) Act 2006.6. Agriculture Census 2010-11, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of

Agriculture, Government of India, 2014.7. Livestock Census 2012, All India Report, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying

and Fisheries, Government of India.8. India State of Forest Report 2013, Forest Survey of India, Ministry of Environment and

Forests9. National Forest Policy, 1988.10. Annual Report 2014-15, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India.11. Panigrahi, Nilakantha., Tribal Livelihood in Changing perspective, (Odisha) SSDN

Publishers, New Delhi, 2014.12. Khan, Ismail., Indian Tribe through the Ages, Vikas Publications, New Delhi, 1986.13. Annual Report 2012-13, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India.

27


3. Deprived and DisplacedThe study covered thirty locations consisting of fifteen settlements in forest areas and fifteen in revenue villages, selected from ten blocks in ten districts of Tamilnadu, where significant number of adivasi population lives. This comprises of 4015 adivasi families with a total population of 17,967 with an average family size of 4.4. The details were collected by interviewing families, rapid assessments, focused group discussions, and from the data already available with various government departments and NGOs who have been working in these locations. Ten NGOs participated in the process covering three villages or settlements each. The association of these NGOs with the communities enabled their staff to approach families and collect information on their livelihood.

no district block area ngo1 Villupuram Kallakurichi Kalrayan hills ARM 2 Erode Anthiyoor Anthiyoor CARE3 Nilgiris Kothagiri Karikaiyoor Island Trust4 Dharmapuri Pennagaram Hogenakkal DEEPS5 Coimbatore P.N. Palayam Anaikatty NMCT6 Tiruvannamalai Thandarampattu Kalrayan Hills PCTC7 Krishnagiri Thenkanikottai Thenkanikottai RDC8 Trichy Uppiliyapuram Pachaimalai VDC9 Salem Yercaud Yercaud VRDP

10 Kanyakumari Thiruvattar Pechipparai Nuthana Trust

Initially, a one day workshop, with the participation of community representatives and selected NGO staff who have been working with the respective communities, was organised to identify key issues that mostly affect adivasi livelihood. Three areas—land and forest, forest products, and regulations that directly affect adivasi life—emerged

28


as the three key factors linked to adivasi livelihood. In addition, the constraining factors associated with adivasi livelihood, specifically in agriculture, employment, market, transport, health, and education, were also identified by the participants.

The study included four communities namely Kanikkars, Soligars, Irulas, and Malayalis, having cultural variations with regard to worship, marriage, food habits, and family norms. In some cases location specific differences exist even among the same groups. However, the livelihood issues seem to be common even among such culturally diverse groups. This means that there are not many variations observed on livelihood issues between these communities belonging to different group identities, but rather, the differences, irrespective of their clans, are between families who reside in forest areas and those who live in revenue villages adjacent to forest areas. These differences exist mostly in the pattern of land ownership, agriculture and agricultural practices, access to forest resources, labour and wages, access to market, and in availing government schemes.

As a second step, four locations were shortlisted from among the thirty settlements, for field visit and direct

interaction with families and other stake holders. These locations represent diverse communities living in both forest and revenue areas. Except Erode district, one among the four districts selected for field visits, the other three districts, Salem, Thiruvannamalai and Nilgris, have an adivasi population of more than three percent. In Salem and Thiruvannamalai districts, revenue villages were selected and in Erode and Nilgris districts, communities living in the forest areas were selected. The visits specifically aimed to understand the perception of communities on issues that have direct impact on their livelihood.

Workshop at Coimbatore

29


3.1. Resources and risksAgricultureMore than 90 percent of the population in the selected 30 locations is involved in agriculture as their primary livelihood activity. The increasing opportunities for adivasis to hold land enabled more families to take up agriculture, making it the dominant occupation in all the 30 villages. They cultivate a variety of crops such as millets, tapioca, beans, vegetables, and small grains as intercrops. In nine villages, paddy is cultivated when adequate water is available.

Traditionally, adivasis depended upon organic manures, but currently the situation has changed by moving towards the modern inputs with seed and chemical technologies. Earlier, they go for mixed cropping in different periods of one year to meet their food requirements, but currently they have been changing according to the market demands. As such, many families do not consume, as earlier times, what they cultivate, but sell their products and buy rice from the market to avoid the drudgery and time consuming processing of the grains for cooking.

Adivasi communities in agriculture suffer from various problems, such as unproductive and uneconomical land holdings; land alienation, indebtedness, lack of irrigation facilities, lack of power, absence of adequate roads and transport, lack of access to bank credit facilities, seasonal migration to other places for wages, lack of extension services, and lack of access to market and market information. In general, adivasi regions get low returns from agriculture.

Since agriculture is mainly rain fed, water for cultivation is available only for around four months. In the slopes, since no irrigation systems are available, rain water flows down to the plains. Besides, people from more than 25 villages said that the rainfall rate and water availability have been coming down during the recent years compared to the past affecting cultivation further. The exploitation of ground water for industrial purposes in some areas also adds to the scarcity.

Marketing of agriculture products is expressed as a major constrain due to lack of market information, poor or no roads, limited transport facilities, and the cost involved in transporting to the nearby markets. So, almost all these villages depend on intermediaries, who come and collect the products directly from villages or even fields during harvest seasons.

In many cases, during cultivation time an advance amount is paid by these traders as credit linked to the procurement of the yield at the time of harvest. Cooperative or joint efforts, to address these constraints, are not tried out, since people feel it will not

30


work due to the complexities involved such as price fluctuations and varying quality between crops. As a result, people do not get a fair price for what they produce.

The other threat is from wild animals. Since these fields are not fenced, families usually guard the crops in the night during the time of yield. In spite of such efforts, there is heavy loss reported due to animal intrusions. This loss also cuts down their returns.

Never Ending JourneyAround 170 families of Malayali tribes live in Athipatti, a revenue village close to the hill in Thiruvannamalai district. Malayali communities live in Tamilnadu, specifically in Dharmapuri, Thiruvannamalai, North Arcot, Pudukottai, Salem, South Arcot and Thiruchirapali Districts. They also call themselves Malaikaran and Male Gounder, while other refer to them as Malai Jathi or Malai Goundan, meaning hill tribes or people belonging to the hills. Tamil language and the Tamil script are used by them for both inter-and intra-group communication.

In addition to an elected panchyath leader, following their tradition, the village also has a village leader called Oor Gounder, elected for a period of one year. Most of the disputes, within family and outside, are settled by this village head as per norms that are in practice for generations.

Malayali tribes believe that they have migrated from the hills when the forest areas dried up due to lack of rain and livelihood options. The village leader pointing at the hill above and said, “look, this hill what you see above, was full of trees and green when I was a youth. Now you see only rocks and thorny shrubs. During rainy season some vegetation comes to life, but the forest has lost its potential to provide us livelihood. Perhaps that is the reason why, for a living, we moved down to the plains close to the hill.”

Honey, broom grass, nelli (Amla), jack fruits, and kadukkai (chebula) are still available during seasons and some families occasionally collect them, but due to the restrictions from the forest department people are reluctant to go into the forest and collect them.

In the village, more than 50 families own land up to a maximum of two acres. They mainly cultivate cotton, rice, and tapioca. Some families also cultivate in temple or government lands with permission. Cows and goats substitute their income. Merchants or agents from the nearby markets come and collect the produce by fixing a price. Since people have no access to current market information, they sell their products for prices that the agents offer. It is also not advantageous for them to transport these products in small quantities to the market by spending money for transport and lot of time in travel.

31


Due to the seasonal employment in agriculture and lack of access to formal credit, borrowing from moneylenders is common. The interest rates range from 36 to 100 percent. Moneylenders visit the village regularly from the nearby towns and collect back on weekly installments.

Most of the families, who could contribute their margin for the construct-ion, have built houses under government supported schemes. Unemployment is high and youth migrate to other states for job. They are also lured into cutting and smuggling red sanders tree. According to the village head, four persons from the village, among the six arrested, are still in Andhra jails caught by the police when involved in red sanders cutting and smuggling. The other two persons were taken out on bail by their wives by spending huge amount of money. The cases are still going on. These families, who walked into the trap of agents, are now heavily indebted due to this.

“We discourage people to take up such risky jobs, but unemployment is so high and often people knowingly or unknowingly risk their life for income”, said the village leader. He continued to say, “See, we have come down from the hill for a living, but even here we could not survive and our journey started from the hill still it continues, and perhaps it is a never ending journey.” As the leader remarked, it looks like a never ending journey, taking people even further too far away into forests with added risks.

LivestockMostly cows and bulls, goats, poultry, and in some places piggery are the common animals in adivasi households. Though poultry and goats are present in almost all households in the villages, 27 villages consider livestock as an important source of income for the family. Poultry is common almost in all households. Around 60 percent

Boiling rice in the street

A hut made of grass in Athipatti

32


have goats and around 15 percent have cattle. Except poultry and goats, cattle rearing is coming down due to lack of space to keep the animals, difficulties for grazing in forest land, wild animal attacks, and cost of the fodder. It is also difficult for them to purchase fodder due to its cost and also the difficulty involved in transporting from outside. People also face difficulty in marketing the milk in small quantity by taking it to long distances. Milk cooperatives are also not available in the vicinity. The other major constraint is lack of access to timely health care for cattle. This makes livestock farming a non viable economic activity.

Access to veterinary services is also difficult for majority of the villages, except eight villages receiving help from nearby government veterinary department with periodic regular visits by doctors. Due to these location specific constraints, added with financial exclusion by formal credit institutions, people find it difficult to operate livestock farming to the required scale for ensuring economic viability. Though there are some government schemes to avail credit support for buying cattle and as well some schemes offer free distribution of cattle for ST, the prevailing constraints make it difficult for many families to regard it as a major livelihood option.

Forest and forest productsThe major forest produce available in the areas of study are tamarind, honey, variety of herbs and roots, gooseberry, soap nuts, broom grass, kalakkai, shikakkai, silk cotton, and bamboo. In some areas there are seasonal fruits like jack fruit, variety of forest berries, butter fruits, ramphal, and naval (Jamun).

In the 30 settlements, 28 are involved in the collection of these forest products. In this, 15 settlements fall in the forest areas and the other 13 settlements located in revenue villages adjacent to forests. In the 30 locations, a total of 15 villages depend more on forest produce for their income and livelihood though they also cultivate in small areas of forest land. In 13 villages NTFP is an employment option during off season providing some subsidiary income. In all the 28 settlements where people collect forest produce, they express that getting a license for collection and marketing of forest products is very difficult due to the huge amount of money involved, cumbersome process, and corrupt practices. So in most of the cases, forest dwellers end up working as labourers for contractors, who control the collection with the approval of the forest department. The forest officials, as they hold enormous power over the forest resources and also the communities who live in forest areas, are able to employ the contractors and thereby have control over the business of collection and marketing of these products.

33


As stated by many adivasi families, the community has no direct access to forest products. For the purpose of contracting, different practices are being followed in different areas. But in general, forest department still retains the control, in spite of the provision for the communities to have a right over these products under the new Forest Right Act. It is also alleged that in many cases the contracts are given away to traders in the name of an adivasi family or village committee. Forest department uses the complexity of the system and the gaps in it as an opportunity to continue control over these resources. In addition, certain other factors such as lack of community awareness on the forest rights and limitations in marketing the products also aid them to maintain the control.

In most of the villages the awareness level regarding the Forest Right Act is very low. A few people are aware of the existence of such a law through the awareness programmes by NGOs, but do not believe in it since the practices in the ground are different from what people say about the Act. In six villages, committees are formed, but they are not functional as envisaged in the Act. In one village, the leader of the committee does not even know how much money they have in their bank account. According to him, even the bank passbooks are kept by the forest staff. A few of the committee members expressed that even the provisions for the welfare measures are decided by the forest department and done without consulting the villagers or the village committee.

Among this 28 villages involved in NTFP collection, 13 villages have some form of a committee as required by the Act, or the existence of a committee is known to some people in the village. In these villages, though the control is still with the forest department officials, a few provisions are implemented. In the other villages people lack knowledge of the Act, and even if the committees exist in some form, are not aware of it.

New Act But Earlier PracticesThamaraikariai is an adivasi settlement located in the forest area on the way to Bargur from Anthiyoor in Erode district. Around 140 families belonging to Soligar community live in this settlement. Soliga, also known as Sholaga, is an ethnic group inhabiting the Biligirirangan hills and connected ranges in southern Karnataka, and Erode districts of Tamilnadu. The Soliga speak the Sholaga dialect. Soligas, means ‘children of the bamboo’. They live depending on forest produce like honey, berries and timber. They also cultivate vegetables and millet but mostly for their consumption. Many Soligas, even today, live in small shelters deep inside the dense forests of Southern Western Ghats. The community is so dependent on biodiversity that they

34


revere nature as mother, not just the forests, but the animals and the trees, and even the land they cultivate. The Soliga livelihood, in recent years, has been severely threatened

by degradation of their habitats, external control over their livelihood practices, restrictions for collecting forest produces, and the constrains caused by the Wildlife Protection Act since 2006. Moreover, in recent years, the low and irregular rainfall has also caused a drop in their agricultural productivity.

Soligars in Thamaraikariai do not own lands but some families are in possession of small areas of forest land, where they cultivate millets and tapioca. Agriculture, depends on rain, occupies them for a maximum period of four months. Rest of the days they look for jobs outside and migrate as agriculture or construction workers. They also migrate to other tea plantations as families. Children go to school but most of them stop at 7th or 8th Standardd and go for some work to earn. Some government schemes have reached this village, especially free houses availed by many families. Unemployment and indebtedness make them migrate, in many cases the whole family.

The forest has rich resources such as honey, gooseberry, broom grass, nutmeg, soap nut, kalakkai, etc. The settlement

has a Forest Committee with twelve members. Siva is the leader. Murugesan, who has studied up to 7th standard, is a member of the committee. The group gets license to collect and sell NTFP from the forest, but according to the committee members, this is very much controlled by the forest department. The accounts are maintained by the forest staff and the bank pass book is also in their custody. The process involves intermediaries, accepted by the forest officials, who buy the collected forest products from these people. The amount is paid to the forest department and credited into the group’s bank account. The families in the village, including committee members, state that they do not know how much money they have in the group account and for what the money is being spent.

Thamaraikariai

Siva, the leader

35


Occasionally families were given loans from these funds. But people are not aware of the interest rate, but only know how much they get and how much they pay back in how many installments. Based on the interest rate and repayment schedule, definitely this is a better deal for the community than borrowing from moneylenders; but loans are available not when people need it but when money is available they have to avail it. This again makes them to approach moneylenders who are ready at their door steps to deliver at any time. The Village committee undertakes some development work in the village, but according to them all such decisions are made by the forest department.

In spite of many provisions, over land and forest products, assured by the specific Forest Right Act, in reality the community is not aware of many of the provisions of the Act. This becomes an advantage for those who want to continue the control.

Migration, labour, wages Adivasi communities lack employment opportunities due to many reasons such as small land holding, cultivation seasonal and totally dependent on rain, restrictions for colleting forest products, and other transport and marketing issues. The opportunity to supplement income through livestock, which is the other option available for these communities, is also decreasing due to grazing restrictions and marketing problems.

Such adverse living conditions and traditional livelihood practices result in high level of unemployment forcing families to migrate. Most of these migrations for employment are seasonal and linked to their skills in cultivation, plantations, and forest specific works like cutting woods. A small number of men take up other jobs in construction and industrial sectors.

In the 30 settlements, habitual migration was reported in 27. In four villages the migration rate is more than 80 percent. They move as cluster of families. In some cases, almost the whole village migrates, leaving back the elders and children under their care. Such migrants are usually expected to work for a minimum period of 40 days once they take up such contract. After the 40 days work, they are free to return to their places or continue to work for more days. Among these settlements, permanent migration is almost nonexistent with very rare exceptions. Perhaps this is due to their attachment to their native settlements and the land they hold for cultivation. In three villages/settlements among the 30, no incidence of even seasonal migration was reported. The presence of the Scheduled Tribe population in urban areas is a meager 2.4 percent according to the 2011 census. Though insignificant in number, there is an increase in the number and proportion of adivasi people permanently migrating to urban areas and taking up mainstream jobs.

36


RISKING LIFE FOR A LIVING Aladipatti is a panchayath village, in Salem district inhabited by around 200 Malayali families. Almost all families own small pieces of land ranging from half an acre to two acres. Mostly they cultivate millets and tapioca. Being a hilly terrain, rain water flows

down since there are no options to store the water.

Since agriculture depends on rain they could work only for three to four months. Non-timber products are available in the forest area such as amla, pungai (Pongamia) seeds, silk cotton, and a variety of grasses used for broom making and other purposes. Forest produces are also not providing them a stable option of income due to restrictions and seasonality. So families migrate to other parts of the State and also to the neighboring Andhra and Kerala. Due to lack of family support, children often drop out from school education. Early girl child marriage is quite common due to poverty and lack of livelihood support for the family.

Alcohol is another major problem as expressed by women. Incidents of suicides were, very common among both men and women till a few years back. Someone remarked, “Perhaps this is due to the easy availability of etti (Strychnos nux-vomica), a seed in the forest that is highly poisonous. Since this is available in the nearby forest, they just pluck it and eat for committing suicides”.

Due to high level of unemployment people are forced to borrow from moneylenders for higher rates of interest and also migrate to other places for jobs through brokers. The level of unemployment, in many cases, has led to illegal cutting of red sanders trees. Red sanders, an endangered species also called as red sandalwood, has a huge demand abroad, and carry a good price. Many adivasi men from this village and surrounding areas go for this work, some of them knowing well the consequences, and many others

Aladipatti Village view with a mobile tower

Etti, the poisonous seed

37


not aware of the risks. Their familiarity to move and survive in hill terrains, skills in cutting trees, and ability for carrying in slopes draw brokers to them. Some men know that it is illegal and still go tempted by the huge money paid as wages, ignoring the risk of being jailed. But many workers also get trapped into this promising other jobs. They realise that they are dragged into an illegal act only after reaching the forest. Since all of them receive an advance payment before leaving their villages, they are compelled to take the risk after reaching the work location. There are also instances where brokers assure that they have acquired license from the government to cut trees, but the workers come to know that they are cheated only when they are caught and jailed.

Recently, twenty woodcutters from Tamilnadu, were killed in an alleged encounter in the Seshachalam forest at the foot of the Tirumala hills.

This incident, widely covered by all newspapers and television channels, was refuted later by human right activists with evidences against the Andhra government version, as a human right violation and outright murders. Since these wood cutters are from Tamilnadu, the incident sparked widespread protests in the state. Subsequently, a case was registered and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) also took up the incident and issued notices to the Andhra Pradesh authorities involved, while the Chittoor administration also ordered a magisterial inquiry into the killings.

Beyond these legal and human right issues linked to this incident of the killing of 20 wood cutters, which shook adivasi settlements all over, this also brought to the fore the existing livelihood conditions of adivasi communities and the fact that already

38


thousands of such wood cutters are languishing in Andhra jails for many years unable to come out in bail due to their poverty conditions. Since their wives and families do not have the source of money or support to bring them out, they have been in prison for years with remote chances of joining back their families.

The fact behind this situation is that adivasi communities are willing to expose themselves and are forced to risk even their life for survival. This is a clear indicator for the level of unemployment that exists in majority of the adivasi settlements. In this vulnerable livelihood context, people are often forced to choose risky options that involve even risk to their life.

Fortunately there was none from Aladipatti caught in the incident of killing. But according to villagers more than 15 men were jailed from this village, and only six of them were brought out in bail by their families spending huge amount of money. The cases still continue making it hard for the families to spend for lawyers and travel for each hearing. Nine of them are still in Andhra jails, since the families could not afford to spend money to bring them out. It is hard to believe that in some cases, there is no information regarding the whereabouts of the migrant workers for months and the family is not sure if they are in one of the jails or even alive.

RADIKA HAS NO CHOICERadika aged 18, lives in Thamaraikariai, a Soligar settlement in Erode district. She has studied up to 8th standard. After she left school a few years back, she started working

in a textile mill in Coimbatore area for a daily wage of Rs.250. The mill provided her with accommodation and food. Like Radika, many girls of her age, worked in this mill. A woman warden is there to take care of them as in a regular hostel. Radika said that they were all well taken care of by the warden with no incident of ill treatment or discrimination. She was happy because she lived and worked with many girls of her age. “When I shared my intention of taking up the mill job, many people scared me of ill treatment. Even, I have heard different experiences of girls about working in a mill away from home. But to me, it was a different experience. In this mill, they treated us well. I think, we need to choose a mill through the experience and opinion of those who previously worked there as I did through a friend. I was happy there except missing my family,” said Radika. Perhaps the opportunity to go away from the isolated settlement in the forest and

39


to live and work with many friends itself would have given a feeling of happiness and freedom to Radika.

Now after working two years in the mill, Radika is back in the village for a month. Her parents do not want her to go back to the mill again and expect her to migrate with them to a plantation in Valparai for tea plucking, as these families usually migrate to Valparai and other tea plantations for work. Radika is not interested to leave her mill job and move with her family for plantation work, but there is no other option for her when the parents insist on this.

Perhaps in a year or so, as Radika mentioned during the conversation, she will be given in marriage within the community to continue her life as her parents. People here are afraid that girls who go out for work are exposed to the risk of choosing a boy outside their community, which they want to avoid. Rather they would like their daughters marry a member of the community and continue to live as they live.

The thought of leaving the current work and going to tea plantation make Radika unhappy. When she explained this her eyes were filled with tears. Her father, Baswan, who was near his daughter, intervened at this point and remarked that for him and the family it is important that their daughter stays with them and get married soon. Radika, though do not like this option, has no other choice.

3.2. Key issuesLand ownership and alienationAmong the thirty settlements, fifteen fall under forest areas where people have no legal ownership of land. In this, almost all families from nine settlements have operational holding of land. In the other six settlements around 80 percent hold operational ownership.

Among the communities who live in the fifteen revenue villages, almost all families hold land for cultivation. In another four villages, more than 90 percent families hold small areas, 0.5 to 2 acres. In the other eight villages, only around 50 percent have operational ownership of land, and the rest are landless. In all these villages, a sizable percentage of families also cultivate in government lands (poramboke) available near their fields. Almost all those who hold land, fall under marginal and small farmer categories, with a land holding between 0.5 and two acres. Among those who live in revenue villages, in an average, around 80 percent hold lands for cultivation, but in this less than 50 percent have legal titles (patta) and the rest only have operational holding. In a few such villages, it has been an ongoing struggle to get legal ownership

40


for their land which they hold and cultivate for years. Landlessness, including operational holding, is high among those who live in revenue villages. But the number of families who have legal ownership of land is high in these villages, where as even though in forest areas operational land holding is higher than the revenue villages, legal ownership is totally absent.

In general, the land size of average operational ownership, including the cultivating areas of government land, is one acre. The average land size in the case of legal ownership is also the same. Those who live in revenue areas and adjacent to forest areas have lower operational holding, but higher legal holding compared to those who live in forest areas. In forest areas majority have operational holding but lack legal ownership. Though families own lands, converting it into a legal form is a complex, cumbersome, and often corrupt process.

Land alienation is common in many settlements. Families just take money from other people and give the right to cultivate without any documentation. In the process, the operational holders become agricultural labourers in their own land. Around 40 percent of villages/settlements reported incidence of land alienation, be it forest or revenue areas. In conclusion, all those who live in the forest find it difficult to own the land which they hold and cultivate for years and the trend of cultivators becoming labourers in their own land is increasing.

No One To AnswerAnnathurai belongs to the Malayali tribe. He lives in Puliampatti village near Thiruvannamalai. Fourteen families from this village had been cultivating for many years in a land belonging to the village temple. Annathurai has documents to establish this, which he carries with him in a bag.

For years, people from both Puliampatti and nearby Udayarkuppam village worshiped in the same temple. During the last general election, a candidate instigated Udayarkuppam village to have a temple of their own, located in their village rather than going to another village for worship. For this the villagers were advised to claim a share of the temple land from Puliampatti village. People were tempted to do this, though for generations both the villagers worshiped in the same temple and celebrated temple festivals together.

At one stage, this was brought to the notice of revenue officials. They tried in vain to persuade people from Udayarkuppam. This disagreement eventually developed into a dispute between the two villages. Due to pressure from political groups, on one morning without any notice or prior information, revenue department officials with the help of police, came and destroyed all the crops in the fields.

41


Annathurai was almost in tears when he narrated this. “They could have allowed us at least to take the yield and later asked us to stop cultivating in future. Why so suddenly they destroyed the standing crops with such urgency? Even for a small routine approval, the department takes years, and in this case I do not understand how they could act so fast?” asks Annathurai. But there was no one to answer him. He has been running around and meeting everyone possible to narrate his case and find some remedy. This poor farmer, who belongs to a scheduled tribe community, seems to have lost himself in the power corridors of the rich and influential.

According to Annathurai, the irony is that only the crops of the fourteen Scheduled Tribe families were destroyed but in the same temple land, an area adjacent to their fields cultivated by a landlord from the nearby village was spared. This landlord still cultivates in this area. Annathurai said that this is reported even in the local press as an unfair act of the government department. He also showed the news clippings which he carries along with the other land related documents. Now Annathurai, runs from office to office and raises this issue but with no response. He does not have the capacity to file a case in the court. No one in the government is either answering him or addressing his problem.

Annathurai questions, “Why they destroyed the standing crops? Why they destroyed this so fast without even giving a notice? Why they did it to us despite the fact that we have been cultivating in that land for generations? Why the land lord was selectively spared who also cultivated in the same land owned by the same temple?”

But no one was there to answer. Perhaps no one has the answer.

DisplacementThe displacement of adivasi communities formally commenced from the British period. Senior people from among the communities still remember the days of conflicts and lose of control over their habitat. Many others recall from what their parents and grandparents narrated about such experiences.

Displacement usually happens in a specific location where people are moved out of their habitats by force, due to a dam construction, wild life sanctuary, or other commercial ventures. But many adivasi elders remind another type of displacement. This is less intensive, gradual, spread across many adivasi settlements, and happens

Annathurai

42


over a long period of time, and so not noticeable when it happens as in the case of the other visible types of displacements. People recall such developments happening over the years resulting in alienation from their basic livelihood contexts and life practices. According to the perception of these people, this process of marginalisation which started during British period still continues causing further exclusion of the community from their livelihood rights and resources.

Currently, in four regions, specific conflicts are going on, where animal sanctuaries are being established causing restrictions to life and displacement of families. In the 30 villages, four villages reported to have sanctuaries or other conservation related conflicts. On the contrary, allowing forest lands for resorts and educational institutions are reported in many regions. While forest dwellers find it difficult to own even the land which they hold for years, it seems like a mystery how these commercial groups could access such lands and build their infrastructure. These commercial interests also displace adivasi people by power or lured by financial offerings.

WHO PROTECTS AND WHO DESTROYS

Sivaraj lives in Anthirai, a small settlement of Kurumba community near Kothagiri. He is the settlement leader. Sivaraj narrated memories of his ancestors, living up in the midst of thick jungle and how they were pushed down to lower elevations almost to the edge of the forest which they owned once. He says it started at the time of British who ventured into forests for cutting trees for timber and cultivation of tea, coffee and other money crops that

had a commercial value. At that time the Kurumbas lived in the thick forest. They never used forest to accumulate wealth but only to subsist, by responsibly using the natural resources. They never had a concept of private ownership of land, but are the custodians of it as their birth right. The concept or practice of a legal document to own a land was not in their custom; rather land belonged to the community with mutuality and shared benefits.

Private ownership of land was an alien concept that was introduced by the British when they entered into the forest areas. Sivaraj remembers his father narrating some conflicts in the initial period against the intruders and how the might of the British forced them to move out looking for other places in the slope to live peacefully.

“The British also brought with them many traders, including some rich Indians, and offered them large areas Sivaraj

43


of land demarcated for cultivation of tea. They started cutting trees, destroyed the forest and planted tea in our areas. The objections from our community were ignored or suppressed by their power. In many cases the adivasis were also compelled to work along with many other labourers brought from other areas. All these areas are now legally owned by the plantation companies, just because the British authorised them with documents to cultivate. This is how our forest land was taken away from us; we were made landless, and even compelled to work in these plantations for wages. We do not even have the right to enter into the forest land which our forefathers owned and protected, but live almost as refugees in our own lands.”

Sivaraj feels that even now this deprivation continues and destruction of forest goes on with intensified commercial interests. “In many places they chased us out in the name of conservation, but on the contrary continued to destroy the forest and its resources for making money. Earlier we only cultivated or collected for our consumption. Land is considered as common. ‘Take only what you want to live and conserve the forest as a common property’ was our belief and practice. But I do not know how one could even imagine that we destroy the forest, and it needs to be protected from us? In fact, the government is protecting those who destroy the forest and displacing those who protected it. We being powerless and voiceless, continue to struggle for our survival, watching what is happening before us as mere spectators.”

It is a concern to know that such helplessness and frustrations are expressed by people not only in Anthirai but also in many adivasi settlements, confused by the myth created around the forest on who protects and who destroys.

Vulnerable to discrimination and exploitation Adivasi communities, already facing the inherent risks for being located in an exclusive livelihood context, are exposed further to a wide range of external threats. While they struggle to deal with the location specific issues, these external influences further make life difficult for them. Specifically forest department comes first in the

Tea plantation

44


list. People invariably allege that they face high level of harassment, discrimination, and exploitation from forest department staff. Next to forest department, they point out the mainstream traders and land owners, who always exploit the vulnerability of adivasis to maximize their revenue. Adivasis, in many instances, realise that they are being exploited, but they have no other option except depend on the traders.

Adivasis feel that they are treated like slaves by most of the forest staff, because they live in the forest areas without any legal ownership. Forest department assumes that people who live in the forest are also under their control, as they have power over the forest and forest products. People cite a few of the past and currently ongoing conflicts and struggles in some locations, to establish their point. Their experiences clearly indicate that there is a high degree of harassment and discrimination happening, and that most of the forest officials still work with a colonial mindset. The enormous power the forest officials have to book cases against people who live in forest areas, without anyone to defend the vulnerable people, make the situation worse.

In all the 30 villages, people invariably share instances of harassment from forest department as the key problem they face in their life. The forest department influences all areas of their life and livelihood such as land holding, cultivation, cattle grazing, collecting forest products, constructing their dwelling places, selling their produce, transport, and bringing things into forest. People also agree that there are exceptions and gratefully recall some forest staff who have been fair and supportive. But in general they feel that forest staff endlessly harass and exploit them, posing a major threat to their peaceful existence.

In the 30 villages 28 villages reported widespread ongoing harassment by forest department and the other two villages expressed that this has come down in their settlements but still there are isolated incidents. One major reason seems to be the laws which were enacted in a colonial setting, give little opportunity for the affected to defend themselves. The already vulnerable adivasi communities with low level of literacy, lack of external support systems, and dependence on forest for livelihood feel that they are further subjected to inhuman conditions by these external powers. They also expressed some hope that in recent times, some human right and adivasi associations, including the media, take up such issues with the government and also through legal remedies.

Animal conflictHuman-animal conflicts, generally with elephants, bears, tigers, bison, and wild boar, are reported in 20 villages. Many incidents of animal attacks and a few deaths due to this were reported in these villages. This issue, being widely reported in the media for

45


the past many years and reasons for such conflicts being discussed at different levels, evades a solution to the affected people and perhaps to the animals too.

In addition to the risk of people being attacked, these animals are becoming a threat to their crops, livestock, and properties including houses. Such animal threats and fear of attacks also affects the collection of forest products. The general complaint by the community is that many of the animal paths are blocked by commercial initiatives such as proliferating educational institutions in hill areas, tourist resorts, and spiritual retreat centers. As a result, animals shift to alternate paths or cross human habitats looking for food and water. Most of these newly built infrastructures are protected with walls, electric fences, and security systems. So adivasi people who live in open settlements and cross forest areas by walk become vulnerable and get exposed. The animals destroy their growing crops in the open fields that are without fences and attack livestock kept outside their houses. They face heavy loss of their crops, often including human loss. This issue, considered as a major threat to their life and property and environment, is alive in the news and forums both from the environmental and livelihood perspectives, but not yet addressed.

NO NEED TO MIGRATE, BUT…

Anthirai is a settlement close to Solurmattam, 20 kilometer from Kothagiri. Around 26 Kurumba families live in this settlement which is deep down in the forest away from the road. Most of the roads in these areas belong to the plantations.

Traditionally Kurumbas are hunters and gatherers. Currently many of them work in nearby tea plantations. Since they are used to live in steep edges of jungles, they are familiar with ‘shifting cultivation’. Early settlements were usually isolated, but in recent times they have been forced to inhabit lower elevations due to deforestation and other commercial interests. They speak Kurumba dialect which has many Tamil words mixed with other expressions.

Kurumba community has a tradition of administering the settlement through a community head person. In earlier days they had three heads; one to take care of agriculture and livelihood related matters, the second for family issues, and the third leader functioned as the spokesperson of the village. In some clans, a Muthali or Ejaman administers the village with the help of three assistants one specialising in agricultural issues, one for marriage issues, and one who works as a messenger or spokesman. A village council or urkuttam also takes decisions especially regarding marriages.

Since they live in forest areas they do not own lands, except operational holding for cultivation. In Anthirai, families have minimum half an acre to two acres of land for cultivation. According to them, they posses these lands for years, inherited from their

46


parents and have “conditional patta”, which means operational holding. A few families also cultivate in lands in the riverside which belongs to the forest area. The main income comes from agriculture, wages from plantations, and livestock. Goats and poultry are

common in most of the households in this settlement and a few families have cows also. Women mainly go for tea plucking in the plantations for a daily wage of Rs. 150 to 200 by working from early morning till afternoon.

Agriculture is totally rain fed. Millets and beans are the common crops. In small areas of around two acres some families have cultivated tea which they pluck and sell to nearby tea factories. The main forest products are honey, silk cotton, shikakai, and amla, with many other common grasses and roots of the forest. People are usually reluctant to go for NTFP collection due to the restrictions. Moreover, the contracting process involves an auction with large amount of money as security deposit which is not possible for the community. In such circumstance, only traders from outside could take the contract for collection through these auctions. Marketing of these products is also another problem for the community due to the distance and remoteness and the small quantity that they have to take

for more than seven kilometers. They know little about the Forest Right Act and its provisions. They vaguely recalled about the formation of a committee, but not sure where and how it functions. A functional committee does not seem to exist.

There is a weekly mobile clinic of Tamilnadu Government available at the road side near the plantation. Free health service for animals on call basis is also available. Moneylending from nearby towns is common with interest calculated on a weekly basis which works out to be 60 percent to above 100 percent. Financial exclusion from mainstream sources is a major impediment for the development of these communities. Due to the availability of plantation work, in addition to farming, migration is almost absent in this settlement.

Kurumba settlement

47


Wild animal threat is a major conflict in this settlement which is not addressed for years now. These animals, especially bears, damage crops and attack cattle and also people. These ongoing attacks, happening on a regular basis in this region, are well reported in the media, but with no solution. A Kurmba member explained their plight, “We do not migrate because we have work in our fields, and nearby plantations; and also get income from our livestock. But if the wild animal attacks continue like this, for which we are not responsible, causing loss to our crops and life, it may be difficult to live here. We are afraid to travel after six in the evening and our crops and cattle are in the open exposed to attack at any time. We live in constant fear”.

AlcoholAlcohol is widespread in all settlements directly affecting adivasi livelihood. In some villages even illegal brewing and distillation seems to happen. “We cannot control men from drinking, because they are the ones who take care of all outside work for the family and also at times for the community. When they go out for work they drink, or buy and bring it to the village”, said an adivasi woman. In a few settlements people divulged that some women also have the habit of drinking.

Though drinking is cited as a major cause for cash drain and borrowing, people failed to perceive it as a major issue. They admit that drinking affects them financially and it is often a major cause for family conflicts and occasional violence at home, but for such violence they blame the person who is addicted to drinking, rather than attributing it to alcohol. Alcoholism is present in all the 30 villages being the primary reason for many problems such as indebtedness, separation of spouses, domestic violence, and even suicides; yet people almost seemed to have accepted it as part of life and prepared to live with it. Since almost all of them drink, they believe that abolishing alcohol is not possible, though it affects them.

THE STORY OF RENUGARenuga, belonging to Malayali tribe, lives with her two sons in Aladipatti village, Salem district. Originally she belonged to a nearby settlement but after marrying Marappan, a native of Aladipatti, she moved to this village. Renuga recalls that from the beginning of her marriage, she was subjected to abuse by her alcoholic husband. Unable to bear the abuses and beating, which was almost a daily affair, within a few weeks of her marriage, she left her husband and went back to her parents. After a few days he went there and pleaded her to return back with a promise that he will not drink again. Parents and relatives also encouraged her to go back and start a new life. But once she returned, he repeated the same abuse again.

48


Renuga said that life went on for a few years like this as a pattern where she goes back to her parents; he comes and pleads to return with a promise, but repeats the same behaviour once she is back. Even after a few such separations the condition did not

change. By this time she had two sons also to take care. At one time, when he beat her with a firewood log, Renuga suffered an injury in her head, and fracture in one of her hands. She decided to leave him permanently and reached back to her parents with the two sons, where she was hospitalised and saved. As usual, after a few days, Marappan came again and asked her to return. She refused. He tried a few times and one day Renuga heard that her husband had committed suicide. He was forty when he died. “I was told that he consumed etti seed to commit suicide”, said Renuga with a smile in her face mixed with sorrow.

After his death, Renuga returned back to the village with her two sons and started cultivating the land which the family was holding. She worked hard in the land and brought up the children. The elder son has now completed school education and a teaching degree and works in a school, as an attendant, though he is qualified to be a teacher. Renuga waits with hope that one day soon her son will become a teacher. The second son is in high school. She was upset when she narrated her story. In between once, she even expressed a sense of guilt, for refusing to return when her husband invited her, and then convinced herself saying that she adjusted a lot and gave him many chances in spite of repeated sufferings. The only way left to her at that time was to be away from him for the sake of children.

Renuga says that along with the problems like unemployment, drought, and illiteracy, alcohol is a major issue in many families, especially for women and children. She was wondering why even after witnessing sufferings in many families, people are not serious about this evil.

Renuga

49


3.3. Constraining and conducive factorsTransport Mostly adivasi settlements are located in remote areas. The poor road and transport conditions, often absence of roads or even approaches, are experienced as major constraints for marketing their produce and accessing various services. This has a direct bearing on their livelihood means by affecting transport of their products, reaching other places, and even availing timely health care facilities. Such remoteness and lack of transport facilities are stated as key problems in 20 villages, mainly in the settlements located in forest areas. Eight villages have limited facilities, with roads close to their settlements and occasional public transport. Two villages have reasonably good connectivity with roads and transport with regular mini-buses. In areas near plantations, roads are laid by the owners and in some areas by the government. Even in such locations people have to walk long distances to reach their settlements which are mostly away from these roads.

In a few villages, people have to walk for kilometers together even to reach an access point. If someone fall sick or in other emergencies, they carry the person in a cot to the main road from where they can organise a transport. Snake bites, and other emergency health conditions become very risky due to this remoteness. It seems to be common for people in many remote settlements, to walk for more than 10 kilometers through forests with wild animals. In some cases this travel includes crossing rivers to reach an access point for roads and transport. People from many settlements have to travel six to fifteen kilometers through forests, rivers and then take private jeeps to reach a bus stop, for taking buses even for their panchyath offices, ration shops, and hospitals. In Kanyakumari district Kanikars have to travel by boat and then walk to reach the nearest bus-stop. Mobile phone connectivity is good even in many remote places which to some extent address the isolation of adivasi communities.

GOURI, HER LAND AND HER HOUSEPaviyoor is a settlement of Kurumbas in Kothagiri block. Almost all families in the settlement hold an average of two acres of land for cultivation. Mostly they cultivate tea, millets, and beans. Honey and sambranni (halmaddi) are available in the forest along with other common grasses, roots, and fruits. A license from the forest department is necessary to collect these products. In spite of the hardships in getting a pass, some families access it with much difficulty and go for collection. To avoid the cumbersome process and corruption involved in getting a pass, some families even take the risk of

50


collecting without a pass. If caught they pay money as fine for which no receipt will be issued.

Gouri lives with her husband Sukumar in the forest in the border of Paviyoor settlement. She belongs to Paviyoor and after marriage lives with her husband in an isolated area deep down in the forest, around two kilometer away from the village. Her house is in fact a hut made of forest grass on a flattened area in a slope of the land they cultivate.

From the road one can see the house deep down in the valley and admire or get scared about how someone can live in this area where there is no proper path to reach, added with wild animal threats. When asked about how they feel to live in this place, Gouri simply responded with a smile. “It is her livelihood” remarked someone from the group as a reply. Gouri and her husband have erected the hut, almost in the middle of their land of about two acres, so that they can protect the crops. This land is not owned by them but they can only cultivate in it. Gouri and her husband cultivate and live in this place, though farm work is available only for a limited period of time and wild animal threats are very common. Moreover, it is difficult to access health care facilities during emergencies. By overcoming all such risks and hardships, Gouri manages exhibiting the Kurumba characteristic of living in isolated, sloppy areas in the deep parts of the forest in huts. Gouri seems to be also an example to realise the hardships and risks these indigenous people face to secure a livelihood.

Gowri and her house

51


WaterThough the hill areas receive higher rate of rainfall compared to other areas in Tamilnadu, many settlements reported shortage of water both for cultivation and drinking. Due to lack of facilities to store rain water, it flows down from the hill area. In the 30 villages, 28 villages reported water shortage as an issue both for cultivation and drinking. Except around 10 revenue village areas, drinking water is a major issue in the other 20 settlements. In some villages ground water extraction by industries and resorts was expressed as a concern.

Access to marketLack of access to market information and market is a key constrain for the adivasi communities to trade their cultivated products and the forest products they collect. Along with the restrictions from forest department, this is one reason for many adivasi families restraining themselves from NTFP collection and selling. Rather they opt to work for wages. In the 30 villages, 27 of them expressed marketing as a major problem. Due to this limitation, intermediaries become critical for trading, leading to a chain of practices that starts from borrowing from traders for cultivation and selling to the same intermediary trader when harvested. These traders come to the villages and fields directly for disbursement of advance money at the time of planting and also later to collect the products during harvest. Since these traders do not charge any interest for the money paid in advance, the price for the crops in most cases are fixed by them.

Isolated project based experiments are going on in some locations by NGOs and government agencies for value addition and marketing of adivasi products, but most of them are not on a sustainable basis and a few which operate successfully are at a very small scale reaching out to a limited number of families or settlements on a few selected products.

Access to creditIn 27 villages among the 30 villages covered for the study, credit from formal sources is not available or accessible. In three villages, a limited number of families have availed formal credit. Adivasi families in all 30 villages have borrowed money from moneylenders and regularly depend on the informal money market for their entire credit requirement. Almost all families are constantly in a loan cycle, thereby at any given time they are indebted. As soon as they complete repayment of a loan, immediately they go for a new loan. These are loans delivered at their door steps without any security and collected back from each household on a weekly installment basis.

52


Moneylending is reported in all 30 villages as a common practice. But people do not perceive it as a problem, because they have no other source to access credit with such convenience. The interest works out to be from 60 to above 100 percent. The loans they receive as advance for crops are said to be interest free, but the interest is taken care of while fixing the price for the products. Access to formal credit is a fundamental prerequisite for adivasi communities to avoid cash drain and improve the income level of the families.

HealthAccess to health care is a major problem in all the 30 villages. In recent times, they use home or traditional remedies not by option but by compulsion, because in adivasi settlements health services are linked with many factors. It is very difficult to reach health care centers from the remote areas in the absence of roads and transport facilities. Animal attacks, insect bites, including snakes, are very common and many times they have to resort to traditional remedies for these emergencies. The practice of taking pregnant women for delivery to hospitals has increased. Besides, there is also awareness on small family with an existing average family size of 4.4, which means a maximum of two to three children. In some areas the government mobile health clinics visit villages once in a week.

EducationLiteracy level, though very low compared to the national average, has improved among adivasi communities. As per the 2011 census, for the Scheduled Tribe population in India, the literacy rate increased from 8.53 percent in 1961 to 58.96 percent in 2011 for STs, while the corresponding increase of the total population was from 28.30 percent in 1961 to 72.99 percent in 2011. This clearly shows that though there is an increase in literacy level among adivasi youth, this lags far behind the national average.

The trend is that around 90 percent of children start with primary but at middle level more than 60 percent drop out. Only less than 30 percent reach at the higher level and only less than ten percent go beyond school to higher education. The maximum educated among the villages visited is a woman who has completed her Masters in Science and currently teaching in Avinashilingam University, Coimbatore. In spite of the scholarship support, the number of candidates reaching higher education level seems to be low, compared to other social groups. Those who have reached higher levels mostly work in urban areas and a few of them in government jobs.

The recent cast based census reveals that only 3.34 percent of the ST population is with taxable income level. The Annual Reports from 2012-2015, Ministry of Tribal

53


Welfare, indicate the number of students supported through scholarships at school level and above. It says, “343 students in 53 institutions have been awarded the Top Class Education fellowship till 31st December, 2014.” The 343 students are from the whole country, which indicates the status of higher education in adivasi population. The irony is that in all these years, the amount spent is almost less than 50 percent of the allocated funds for this purpose. Tamilnadu State for these years has received Rs.26 lakhs for pre-metric scholarships and supported 6487 students; whereas for the post-metric scholarship during this period it has received Rs. 178 lakhs to support 11092 students. In most of the years funds were either not received or the received funds not fully utilised. This clearly indicates the education status of adivasi at National and State levels.

Perhaps one reason for this low growth in education rate could be due to the condition of schools in forest areas and quality of education offered there. The buildings are in a very poor condition. In a few areas, due to lack of coordination between departments, disagreements are reported especially between the education and forest departments regarding approvals for school buildings. Since forest department approvals are necessary for any construction in forest areas, the delay in the approval process holdup the projects. People reported a case where a school functions with 750 students and only one teacher. It is a common practice to accommodate students from different classes in the same room with a single teacher. As part of their welfare programme, forest department also runs schools in some villages, but with the same conditions as in the government schools. In these areas, according to people, the absence of teachers is a common and overlooked complaint.

Government schemesA range of schemes are available exclusively for Scheduled Tribe communities both by Central and State governments, including the forest departments. In Tamilnadu, all families have access to the free supply of rice from the government. A limited number of families, around 30 percent, have availed free goats and cows. Majority of families, more than 60 percent, in revenue villages have availed the free house schemes either from the Central government or from the State government.

The other major benefits availed by families are scholarships, hostel facilities, and in a limited cases, credit for economic activities. Usually, a high number of loans, including the subsidy component if any, availed for economic activities are used for consumption purposes. All such economic schemes are considered in practice as financial benefits and privileges both by the community and the government authorities who monitor the schemes.

54


The total dependency of adivasi population on informal money market for their credit requirements is one of the clear indicators for the impact of existing schemes. In general, the community has limited awareness on various livelihood schemes meant for them, as in many villages have not availed any such project supports. The process of applying and availing the benefits are very complex and cumbersome, which in most cases require intermediation and external help. Most of these projects are provisional and welfare oriented, failing to generate any lasting development impact on the community, except a few schemes that support education and promotion of enterprises. As always happen in any government programme, these schemes also have high administrative expense, which significantly reduce the advantage at the community level. These welfare measures are mostly perceived by the community more as temporary benefits and privileges rather than opportunities for building a secured livelihood.

55


4. Restoring Rights, Rebuilding Capacities

The various writings testify adivasi rights over forest in the past, and how deprivation started during the British period that continues even after independence. Historically being hunters and collectors once, adivasis later turned to be cultivators. Yet, the notion of private ownership of land never existed in their culture, as ownership was decided within the community in the form of operational holdings. Later, the intruders introduced a new concept and system of land ownership, which in turn advanced the process of deprivation of adivasi forest rights, alienation from land and forest resources, and displacement from their habitats. This intrusion, aiming at the forest land and resources, also interfered with their culture and way of life causing widespread resistance in many regions. But later, the British government, through a process of law, formally took over the traditional livelihood rights of the people and forced them to live almost like refugees in their own land. Such marginalisation has only helped non-adivasis to accumulate wealth by exploiting adivasi land and resources including their labour.

Even after independence, successive governments failed to restore the lost adivasi livelihood rights, grabbed by the British to promote their commercial interests, instead, included a set of special provisions in the Constitution to protect adivasis and also established different government departments to execute these welfare plans. Unfortunately, in spite of claims, these constitutional provisions and special privileges, even after years of independence, have not brought expected development in adivasi life conditions.

But on the contrary, adivasi communities continue to be voiceless and powerless in a changing livelihood context, mostly due to external interests and influences. In this emerging situation, the key factors that affect adivasi livelihood could be grouped as issues associated to the pattern of land ownership and the existing legal framework that directly impact on their life; low returns for their products; capacity constrains to

56


compete in their changing livelihood context; and life style practices such as alcohol, cash drain, and indiscriminate borrowing. In brief this is all about adivasi land rights, value for their products, and improved life management skills.

This involves preparing themselves to face the external threats for their legitimate land rights; building their capacities to face the changing livelihood contexts; and improving their life skill practices to better manage life. This is a combined effort to address both the external threats and the internal weaknesses as an endeavor to restore rights and rebuild capacities.

Adivasi rightsRight to own and responsibility to protect

Denial of adivasi rights over forest and forest resources not only displaced them from their home terrains but also from their traditional livelihood skills, strategies, and opportunities. The accusation, that the Indian Forest Act 1927 was brought by the British in fact had nothing to do with conservation, rather it was created to serve the British interest especially the need for timber, stands valid. This Act, by declaring forests as State property, overrode traditional rights of adivasis and also distorted the indigenous conservation practices.

No one questions the role of forests in sustaining the environment, specifically its crucial role in managing bio diversity. To ensure conservation, a set of policies, laws, and regulations were brought in by governments beginning with the British rule. Besides, different departments were established to regulate the use of forest and forest resources. Governance and control of forest land, forest products, and wild animals came under the purview of these government departments. This in turn developed a conflict with traditional adivasi rights and their livelihood. There is a general opinion that many such laws were brought in by the British, primarily not to protect the environment but rather to safeguard their commercial interests. Such an argument became valid when the new regulations, while instrumental for deprival and displacement of native communities, in fact benefited a large number of other trading groups. This is an unusual situation faced by adivasi communities, where the right over their dwelling places and livelihood opportunities were taken away at the pretext of conservation, but alongside access was given to traders for massive exploitation of forest and forest resources.

Even after independence, instead of restoring these lost rights by revoking the British laws or at least repealing clauses that deny forest dwellers their right, a range of parallel provisions to protect the community were brought in as constitutional and administrative measures. Following this, several departments had been created

57


to support adivasis and implement schemes with financial allocations. Alongside, existing laws and practices are also upheld in the name of conservation, development, and commerce that further intensified displacement of adivasis. Many laws which are currently in force to control forest and forest resources have their origin in British era. The forest departments still work with these same laws, including a few new ones, with the same colonial mindset. It is also alleged that the same features as in the Indian Forest Act of 1927 brought by the British, was subsequently built into the Wild Life Protection Act of 1972, and into many other such Acts passed after independence. On the contrary, the laws that exist or the ones recently passed like the Forest Right Act are implemented in practice in a weary way with much reluctance to transfer power to communities.

This conflict between the controlling and protecting provisions of the law is evident in almost all villages covered by this study. Such conflicting situations validate adivasi claims of harassment by forest department overriding the benefits assured and offered. People in general experience this conflicting trend where one set of laws executed forcefully that continues to deny their livelihood rights, and another set, enacted to protect their life, being taken lightly almost as a privilege rather than as their right to livelihood.

Moreover, the various schemes, except a few like educational scholarships and hostels, are isolated project type of activities that generate temporary results often failing to establish access to mainstream resources, services, and amenities that ensure livelihood security. Earlier during British period, the struggle by adivasis to protect their rights was termed as ‘rebellion’ by the rulers. In some cases, this was even glorified by national groups as ‘fight for independence’. But in reality, people were simply resisting to safeguard their life and livelihood. Now even after independence, according to situations in various adivasi regions, this trend continues where adivasis feel that their life and livelihood are endangered further in the name of conservation, commerce, and development.

The statements by various authors reiterate the position that restoring adivasi rights is fundamental for their development and for conserving forests and wildlife. “The scheduled tribes themselves tend to refer to their ethnic grouping as adivasis, which means 'original inhabitant….the term adivasi is preferable in India as it evokes a shared history of relative freedom in pre-colonial times ...” (Louise Waite, Embodied Working Lives, India, 2006)

“Although terms such as forest dwellers (atavika, vanavāsi) or hill people (girijan) are also used for the tribes of India, Adivasi carries the specific meaning of being the original and indigenous inhabitants of a given region and was specifically coined for that purpose in the 1930s. Over time, unlike the terms "aborigines" or "tribes", the

58


word "adivasi" has developed a connotation of past autonomy which was disrupted during the British colonial period in India and has not been restored.”

These statements and current confrontations in some adivasi regions, establish that the intensive deprivation and displacement process that started during the British period still continues. Unless adivasi rights deprived by colonial rulers with commercial interests are restored back, no laws enacted to protect them will be able to support their livelihood and sustain their life.

Value for productsFor what they cultivate and collect

Forest produce, a key livelihood option of forest dwelling communities with free access once, was brought under State control. Though removing the government controls and restoring free access to forest resources is the necessary first step, to make it beneficial to communities, it is essential to concurrently address several other aspects associated with collection and marketing of these products. This is more important, because the current livelihood context of the communities is different from the earlier context prior to the British intrusion. Over these years, a range of external factors have caused major changes in the adivasi livelihood context, both in the economic and social dynamics, causing changes in their production, gathering, marketing, as well as on their way of life.

Primarily, adivasis find it difficult to sell their products, both what they cultivate in their fields and also what they collect from the forest, in a changing market system. The main constraints they face are the lack of market information and access to market, poor roads and transport facilities, and the disadvantage of transporting small quantities for long distances which incur high cost and consume time. Overall, the NTFP business is a low volume and high risk proposition, not only for the collectors but also for the traders. Besides, inadequate market access and low returns hold the wages of collectors, mostly adivasis, also low.

A range of measures to improve transporting and aggregate producers and their products could achieve volume that improves bargaining power and makes marketing viable for increased returns. Value addition at the community level is another option to increase the income. Instead of investing funds on time bound welfare projects, it is crucial to build community capacities with formal linkages to access credit, resources, services and amenities that sustain their livelihood initiatives. Causing major constrains through unfavorable policy conditions on one side, and simultaneously spending money on welfare schemes on the other side will only generate temporary benefits and fail to create sustainable impact.

59


Though Village Forest Committees are formed and functioning in some areas, most of these committees need to be empowered by strengthening their capacity for self-governance and independently managing economic activities. It is also essential to break the dependency of forest communities on moneylenders and traders who often provide unfair prices for their products due to the widespread practice of loan based leverage. Since, timely credit at normal rate of interest in effect guarantees higher returns, establishing access to formal sources of credit is essential, instead of supporting with welfare programmes or one time subsidy.

In case of some NTFPs, specifically honey and medicinal plants, market expansion and high value uses have created considerable opportunities for forest dwelling communities. The market base of millets is also expanding in recent times, due to increased awareness on its health benefits. Increased value and returns for adivasi products require interventions and support systems that cover the total value chain, such as collection/cultivation, storing, processing, marketing, and regeneration, rather than extending isolated support through specific schemes.

Collection Cultivation

Regeneraton

Processing

Storing

Marketing

This approach requires changes at both policy areas of the State and capacity levels of the communities.

60


Rebuilding capacitiesLivelihood strategies and life management skills

Traditionally, adivasis subsisted on hunting and gathering as the main livelihood activities, which encompassed an element of nomadic living in some groups. Eventually they began to settle in specific localities and cultivate. This helped them to acquire agricultural skills that later enabled them to migrate and earn wages as labourers. Due to a range of such exposures and external influences, exclusive adivasi life practices gradually started changing. In addition, external forces such as government control and commercial interests also played a major role in changing their livelihood patterns. As a consequence, whether adivasi communities prefer or not and whether these changes are good or bad for them, the external factors have significantly impacted on their livelihood contexts, the integral aspects of adivasi life. So in this evolving adivasi livelihood landscape, many of the traditional adivasi practices, both economic and social, were also subjected to change.

Though adivasis in general express their inclination to preserve traditional practices, as these practices represent their identities, when it comes to livelihood issues they are open for adaption. This is evident in their eagerness to access education and health, own assets, and accept a changed way of life especially in food habits, way of dressing, and in many other lifestyle practices. Currently, they aspire life with security; want their children study; seek health care facilities and improved quality of life; look for options to reduce drudgery in work; and would believe in private ownership of land and eager to own land.

To achieve a secured livelihood in this changing context with renewed adivasi aspirations in life, it is necessary for them to adapt appropriate livelihood strategies along with an improved set of skills. This necessitates an internal capacity building process to improve both economic and life management skills. The mere restoration of the lost livelihood rights, though primary, is not going to offer results, unless these rights are complemented with community capacity to manage livelihood and life. This is an attempt to address both the external causes that deny their rights and also their internal weaknesses that expose them to risks.

Specifically, three internal weaknesses are dominant in almost all adivasi settlements. One is the habit of indiscriminate spending with lack of awareness on cash drain. Though seems like a cultural value at times, most of the families have little sense of savings or asset building, comparing to other social groups. What one woman said, “We do not care for tomorrow. Take care of today, tomorrow will take care of itself”, seems to be a trend. Even though families realise that cash drain happens in various ways and often becomes a major problem, they are unable to plan

61


and change. Alcohol is another major cause for cash drain leading to many other family and social problems. Both use of alcohol and unplanned spending end up in the practice of indiscriminate borrowing which further drains them. Besides erosion of income, both alcohol and borrowing cause a chain of other impacts on their health, family, and community life.

Looking aheadPast regrets and future hope

Adivasi communities, though primarily involved in agriculture as the key livelihood option, pursue a lifestyle different from agrarian communities in other parts of the country. In spite of a range of constrains, agriculture (both as cultivators and labourers) still continue as the primary livelihood activity for majority of them in

62


Tamilnadu. Adivasi communities face issues characteristic of their habitats, different from other agricultural areas, in relation to cultivation, collection, and marketing of their products. Their settlements, mostly isolated locations overlapping with forest areas, also face different set of livelihood issues often with high concentration of poverty. The National Sample Survey reports substantiate with data that there is acute deprivation with respect to living conditions in adivasi habitations and high levels of poverty among adivasi populations compared to other social groups.

In a poverty context, vulnerable households in risky situations are forced to adapt various coping strategies to protect their livelihood. Adivasis are no exception to this livelihood behavior. They, with the limited employment options and ongoing harassment by forest department, take effort to strengthen existing livelihood activities, look for new activities, access community support structures, leverage assets, change consumption patterns, and migrate to other places for employment. One such common strategy found in almost all settlements is diversifying into non-farm activities by seasonal migration to other areas.

Adivasi communities, like dalits, suffer additional social burden in the process of coping with their poverty conditions and protecting their livelihood. Being highly heterogeneous ethnic minorities with isolated living locations and distinct socio-cultural practices, they are not recognised as equal by other mainstream population. In addition, adivasis are exposed to the inhuman legislations that control almost all aspects of their economic and social life. As a result, they suffer discrimination and widespread human rights violations. They are the poor voiceless communities, but living in resource rich areas, which make them the target of commercial interests and State power.

The most critical issue in the context of adivasi livelihood, as widely accepted, is the loss of control over their land. Adivasis are literally being thrown out of the forest, which was the primary source of livelihood and integral part of their indigenous identity. Adivasi land, taken from them on the pretext of conservation, is being opened up in the name of national development for resource extraction and trade. Those who owned these resources, now live as refugees in their own lands. They are further displaced in all aspects of life and livelihood. The oppressive laws and systems in practice from British period till now, outweigh and prevail over some of the provisions assured by laws that are enacted to protect them including the fringe benefits offered by welfare schemes developed for Scheduled Tribes.

While reflecting on the risky past with regret and looking at the future with some hope, the disturbing current reality emerges through the recent “Socio Economic and Caste Census 2011”. This report reveals the current conditions of Scheduled Tribes in

63


India and in different States. The estimated percentage of ST population, according to this report, in India is 10.97 percent of the total population and in Tamilnadu it is 1.81 percent; an increase in both the national and state levels.

The report also reveals that more than 90 percent (1.63 in 1.81 percent) of ST population in Tamilnadu earns a monthly income of less than Rs.5000, eight percent (0.15 in 1.81) earn between Rs.5000 and 10000 and only two percent (0.04 in 1.81) earn more than Rs.10000. The data for the source of this income is also given as 25 percent from cultivation, 67 percent from wages, 1.5 percent from enterprises, and the rest from domestic and other services. More than 60 percent of ST population in Tamilnadu falls under deprived category. The percentage of people who draw a salary from government, public sector, and private sector jobs is only three percent in Tamilnadu. The national trend is almost the same where insignificant percentage has salaried jobs, earning from wages higher than from cultivation, and more than 75 percent experiencing deprivation under minimum one category.

These simple indicators from government sources clearly establish that, in spite of constitutional guarantees, a range of welfare programmes with various ministries and departments to implement them, the livelihood conditions of adivasi communities have not changed much even after so many years of independence. This is also evident when one visits the adivasi settlements and simply listen to the families.

The general feeling one gets after visiting the adivasi settlements and interacting with these people is that their displacement is an ongoing phenomena and the discrimination is a continuous one further making them vulnerable and desperate. Denial of their forest right makes them suffer as refugees in their own country. The whole governance system seems to have failed to realise that these were rights taken away from them at one point in history and it needs to be restored back to them. The real atonement is not offering provisions to protect them but rather restoring their deprived rights.

Adivasi communities believe, and they are right in believing so, that the forest belongs to them and they belong to the forest. They also believe that they are the protectors of the forest, and even if they take forest resources it is for subsistence as a livelihood option and not for making profits as a commodity. They are in the margin, living in desperation but watching the forest and its resources being massively destroyed by others before their eyes. Adivasi communities rightly believe that it is unjust to deprive the protectors and protect the destroyers.

Adivasi communities believe, and they are right in believing so, that the forest belongs to them and they belong to the forest.

Denial of adivasi rights over forest and forest resources not only displaced them from their home terrains but also from their traditional livelihood skills, strategies, and opportunities.

The National Sample Survey reports substantiate with data, that there is acute deprivation with respect to living conditions in adivasi habitations and high levels of poverty among adivasi populations compared to other social groups.

Being highly heterogeneous ethnic minorities with isolated living locations and distinct socio-cultural practices, adivasis are not recognised as equal by other mainstream population. As a result, they suffer discrimination and widespread human rights violations.

With the ongoing deprivation and displacement, adivasi communities live as refugees in their own land.