The Hindu : Atrocities on Adivasis

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Jun 17, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Atrocities on Adivasis — II

By V. R. Krishna Iyer

A compassionate legislation is constitutionally permissible for Kerala, with the concurrence of the Centre, restoring the traditional forest resources to the tribals.

THE BANKRUPTCY of socialist sympathy for the landless Adivasi is evident from the fact that the Kerala Government moved the High Court, time after time, to gain more time to fulfil the obligations under the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction of Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975. Finally, the High Court granted time for the Government to give right and justice to the tribal proletariat by January 5, 1999. The time so gained was used for the oblique purpose of passing a new bill, namely the Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Land to Scheduled Tribes Bill, 1999.

The tribals were political lightweights — the settlers and others who had seized Adivasi lands had tremendous political clout. Inevitably, the new bill was enacted and the progressive bill of 1975 repealed. Litigation followed in the shape of petitions in the High Court and the Supreme Court. Contempt proceedings were also instituted and the fate of these proceedings depends on the final verdict on the appeal now pending in the Supreme Court.

A new chapter of non-viable commitments by the Chief Minister, A. K. Antony, of the UDF was made on October 16, 2001, at a conference where C.K. Janu, leader of the Adivasis, took militant part. Land for every Adivasi family was the basic understanding.

Wayanad district is where the Adivasis are hard hit in landless destitution. But Wayanad is where, under the 1971 Act, vast extents of private forests were vested in the State, compensation free. An affirmation was made that land from these vested forests may be identified and allotted to the landless Adivasis, of course, after securing the Central Government's approval. The deplorable fact remains that most of the Scheduled Tribes are duped.

The Kerala Private Forest Vesting and Assignment Act, 1971, was upheld as a measure of agrarian reform. Section 10 of the Act obligated the State to assign vested forestland to property-less tribals. In breach of the promise by the Chief Minister, and mindless of the constitutional urgency of land allotment, the State Government sought an option in inaction infuriating the tribals.

Perhaps, the alibi was that a Central Forest Conservation Act was brought into force in 1980 and any assignment of forestland needed the approval of the Centre.

Had the 1975 Act been implemented, the 1980 Central Act, then unborn, could hardly have been a hindrance. The problem now is to secure large extents of land to settle the Adivasis. The apparent impasse can be surmounted, given the political will. Some measures may be considered in the context of the grave crisis which looms large over the whole State after the battle of Muthanga.

Why did the Adivasis occupy Muthanga? The jurisprudence of tribal despair is `do or die' justice!

Who deprived the tribals of their lands? The settlers from the plains. It is true that they sold away their belongings at home and settled in large numbers dispossessing the tribal population by petty allurements and tricky operations. Gaining a foothold, they expanded by encroachment.

Of course, arriving with their culture and working hard on the hilly terrain, they made improvements, cultivated crops, built homesteads, constructed schools and established churches.

This civilising mission eclipsed the Adivasi flock; and the uprooted chunk of humanity became alien in its own land, desperate for a source of survival and slaving for rightless existence. Historic justice may well warrant redistribution of the lost land and rehabilitation of the rootless diaspora.

The moral foundation of the 1975 Act is the re-taking of the alienated land for re-settlement, but the intervening period of development in which the settlers had, with blood and toil, added to the value of the land and created a new homeland became a reality which could not be wished away. At the same time, the forlorn aboriginals morally and legally deserved reinstatement.

The obvious source of land for resettling them was, therefore, retaking a reasonable slice from the settlers from the plains. Perhaps exceptions may have to be made to exclude from resumption church buildings, schools, essential community centres and the like. Where there has been expansionist encroachment of the Adivasi land, there is clear justification for evicting the occupants. There will be resistance, especially because the occupying community is politically powerful.

Indeed, the State's inexcusable delay in implementing the 1975 Act and the legislative and litigative strategies to undo the 1975 Act prove beyond reasonable doubt the culpable operations of the settlers. Today, when a violent crisis is brewing, the mood has to change, the mind-set has to become sterner and the commitment to restorative justice uncompromising. If this new locomotive of land redistribution were adopted without hanky-panky, a substantial portion of land can be given back to the landless tribals.

The Government can, on a war footing, survey the encroachments, discover and recover the extra land so occupied and, on just terms of compensation, give it back to the Adivasi. Fifty committees spread over Malabar with Adivasi representatives and technical services of land surveyors can finish this operation in a few months' time.

Immediate orders must be passed vesting in the local tribals the encroached land. Will the Government, what with its commitment and legislative backing, undertake a blitz operation? No. The bourgeois State Cabinet is anti-tribal when it comes to restoration, phoney professions notwithstanding.

Indeed, the tribal is part of bio-diversity and is its sentinel rather than its hostile. Based on this fundamental, the Forest Policy Statement of 1988 was formulated, propounding the philosophy of `symbiosis of tribal and forest', harmonising this duality. This ecological confluence of aboriginal and his forest milieu, if applied to the Kerala Adivasis and their arboreal haven, will happily resolve the present confrontation and clashes.

The Government must not lose a sense of priority in regard to land ownership. The first charge on land for sheer survival belongs to the aboriginal, the last claim, viewed from a value base, belongs to huge corporations. In Kerala, large (excessive) forestland for alleged plantation and other purposes are with big business houses such as the Tatas, Gwalior Rayons, etc. Those lands must instantly be taken over by the State and made over for Adivasi occupation. This will relieve the scarcity situation a great deal without tears.

A compassionate forest legislation is constitutionally permissible for the State, with the concurrence of the Centre, restoring the traditional forest resources to the tribals. All that is needed is for the Government and the people of Kerala to decide on whose side they are — with the needy tribal proletariat or the greedy feudal proprietariat.

(Concluded)

Related Stories:
Atrocities on Adivasis — I

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Need now is for restraint

Ban corporal punishment

Religions in dialogue

Atrocities on Adivasis — II

Maoists' bid to allay India's fears

German unity in peace and freedom