Meeting on Tribal and Indigenous People

The meeting was convened as a precursor to the proposed round-table with various civil society groups, NGOs and individuals working on Tribal and indigenous issues. The meeting was expected to generate ideas to focus on the final issues with activists, NGOs, intellectuals etc. later this month. It was intended to be a close, informal gathering of the people to share their experiences and ideas in the field of Tribal and indigenous people. The meeting was attended by a number of grass-roots activists, prominent academics and individuals working on Tribal issues.

Standing the proceedings, Vagish Jha welcomed the participants and outlined the objective of the meeting. He requested the speakers to focus their attention on the draft Tribal Policy brought out by the government recently.

Eminent anthropologist Prof. B.K. Roy Burman kicked off the discussion by terming the Draft Tribal Policy as flowed, both conceptually and factually. He felt that the draft-policy has been prepared as thout giving a proper thought to conceptual and factual issues. Elaborating on the failure of the government in managing the forest resources, Prof. Burman pointed out that the forest managed by government are degraded while those under the community management are doing fine.

Responding to the draft Tribal Policy, Mr. Prakash Louise, Director, Indian Social Institute and eminent scholar pointed out that the draft policy has completely ignored the committees and recommendations of the past. He said that in the discussions tribal, indigenous and Adivasi are used interchangeably but the government is deliberately avoiding the word ‘indigenous’ as it may have wider-political ramifications in future. He spoke about the struggles being waged by the indigenous people in Orissa, Kerala, Jharkhand etc. against government policies detrimental to the interest of tribals. In this connection he spoke in detail about the struggle of Tribals in Nagarnar (Chhattisgarh) against the mining of Iron-ore, Buthanga (Kerala) for land-right and Netarhat (Jharkhand) against the firing range.

Prakash Louis pointed out that the draft policy seems to that Adivasis as homogenous group in India. The draft also overturns an earlier judgement of the courts called ‘Samata Judgement’ which accepted tribals in alienable right to land. In fact 75% of the displaced tribals have not got any compensation till date. This reflects the duplicity of the government. Also, the document is silent about the mechanism to restore land to the tribals and extending scheduled areas to non-scheduled area. He lamented the fact that draconian laws such an Armed Forces Special Act in the North East continue to exist. He felt that the talk of bringing the tribals into mainstream has only resulted in the tribal society adopting dowry-system, emergence of ‘Creamy layer’ within them and a section of the youth being criminalized. Criticising the suggestion of setting up of ‘Tribal Advisory Council’, he suggested that empowering the Gram-Sabhas is the only way Tribals can survive.

Intervening is the debate Mr. Roy Burman said that the government has set up a commission under Article 339-1 on tribal affairs. The commission has recently come out with a questionnaire which is flawed because a number of its questions are irrelevant and majority of the questions are addressed to the techno bureaucracy. He said that it was wrong to take of ‘the mainstream’ as India was a confluence of mainstreams. Talking about the constitutional provision, Mr. Roy Burman pointed out that 5^th schedule was paternalistic while the 6^th schedule granted autonomy to the tribals. He felt that the 5^th schedule should be replaced by the 6^th schedule in all Tribal dominated areas. He expressed concern over the declining population of the tribals and said that internal-colonisation of the tribals was essential for the success of globalisation. However, for the survival of mankind the ethos of tribal life could provide the alternative.

Presenting his paper Ville Veiko from Finland pointed out the dominant and destructive influence of the western concepts of democracy and nature which legitimises the destruction of both indigenous people and nature. The western notion of democracy also promotes unequal opportunity to decide. He stressed the need to understand and conceptualise nature from the indigenous perspective. He was critical of the western democracy for its failure to protect the rights of all lives.

Mr. Roy Burman pointed out that in the west too there has been various strands of thought and suggested that it is better to look at the two orientations namely ‘Power Orientation’ and ‘Value-Orientation’ which cuts across the geographical boundaries of east and west. In fast many of the values have got a common universal legacy, said Mr. Burman.

Activist and writer Narendra pointed out that in the Adivasi world view there is no concept of ‘waste’ and utility. In fact the concepts like sustainability cannot capture the Adivasi World View towards nature. The tribal looks at nature not as resource but in a much more reverential manner. Narendra also agreed that this world view of the Adivasis was earlier shared by many other communities and its under the impact of modernity that we see this difference in the worldviews of the modern and indigenous.

Journalist and grassroots activist from Uttarakhand Mr. Bhuvan Pathak expressed his dilemma on the issue of development, which he said, is now being demanded even by the Adivasis. He felt that the question of development Vis-à-vis Adivasi life should be given prominent attention. He wondered if people like himself are really not denying the fruits of development to Adivasis by extolling their ‘values life’

Activist on water issues Mr. Arun Kumar sought to resolve the contradiction between ‘development’ and ‘tribal way of life’. He felt that it is wrong to impose our notions of history and evolution on the tribals since they consider themselves to be sons of God. Kai Vaara, Finland, felt that tribals have something unique to offer us and the question is what we can learn from them for a sustainable life?

Responding to some of the points raised during the discussion Ville Clarified that ‘Western’ related more to world view and ideas than to geography. He elaborate upon the intricate relationship between ‘language and development. Language being an unconscious structure of mind, the western concepts of nature in the English language is unable to capture the reality experience in which tribal lives. He agreed with Kai that interest in Tribals is for our survival and the western nothing to offer for a sustainable life. He accepted that the Tribals should not be denied the fruit of development but unfortunately the very process of development is premised on exclusion, unequal access and denial of the choice of being what they are.

Mr. Vagish Jha spoke about his experiences during his research on Oral Folk Culture. He said that in the tribal tradition which is over-whelmingly Oral the animals, inanimate nature, supernatural and the divine are combined together in a seamless fashion, the tribal world is unique and universal at the same time and there should be an attempt to facilitate the dialogue between these, he said.

The post-lunch session began with a presentation by Mr. Arun Vinayak who has been working with tribals in Jharkhand. He pointed out that ‘tribal’ was derogatory and we should instead use indigenous. He pointed out the acts of aggression both internal and external. He gave the examples of the link-high way project, Netarhat firing range and Damodar Valley Corporations which have displaced a large member of tribals. To improve the condition tribals, he demanded that the control of natural resources should be with the people in the villages. The reality of the situation is that it’s the bureaucracy which wields the real power. The tribal leadership is passing through a phase of vacuum. Mr. Vinayak said that the spread of Naxalite movement in the tribals areas is an expression of people’s anger. It is an act of resistance against the attempts to Qush the tribal culture. He agreed that communitarian lifestyle of the tribals can be an effective anti-dote to globalisation. He highlighted the democratic ethos of the tribals reflected in consensus based decisions and the right to recall as basic elements of tribal community life.

Kai Vaara spoke about his experience with the tribals and NGOs working among them in the Course of his work for the Finnish foundation. He informed that his organisation is aiming to develop networking among tribal-groups and organisations while they are funding. During his interactions with tribal groups and NGOs, a core-group has been formed which has a number of active grass-roots workers and organisations in it’s a number of these groups have been working on issues like status of women, alternative and ecological agriculture, a forestation Dalit and tribal issues etc. He felt that bringing together the NGOs would help in mobilisation against globalisation. He expressed his happiness on the work being done by many of the NGOs in the south although he came across instances of internal differences too among the NGOs.

Kai said that in the West there was a strong movement for alternative and sustainable lifestyle and he was looking at connections with such groups in South too. He informed that he had a meeting with a number of worries group and shared experiences about sustainable life style. Talking about higher education he talked about the possibility of evolving a structure so that learning from traditional cultures and heritage can be mode available. A similar effort is on in canoed where the traditional knowledge is imparted through teachers drawn from such societies who are without any formal academic qualification. Speaking of Finnish society, he said that the problems of adjustment with modern life is seen in high suicide rates. He felt that there is a great possibility of learning from the experience of the indigenous people who have a sustained way of life for thousands of years.

The next speaker was Bhuvan Pathak. He talked about his experience in the Middle Himalayas. He felt that the basic difference between tribals and non-tribals is the way they negotiate with nature and the world in their daily during of life. The tribal looks at himself as part of nature but the modern man envisages his relation with nature as adversary or at best as consumer of resources. Tracing the historical legacy of Uttarakhand, Bhuvan said that the process of assimilation of Uttarakhand started in 1815 when it was brought under the British control. Gradually it got integrated with the political, economic and educational mainstream. Another watershed is 1952 when the demand for a separate state of Uttarakhand. The Indo-China war of 1962 caused a major disruption in the economic life of Uttarakhand which had a vibrant trade with China. This marked the beginning of large-scale migration in search of jobs and opportunities. But all through the period, the theme of backwardness has pervaded the ideological, political and even the literary discourse of the state. After the on set of green-revolution in the decade of 60s-70s, the traditional knowledge about agriculture practiced is Uttarakhand state getting eroded. Now once again there is a talk of bio-manuring etc. He lamented that the indigenous people are guinea pigs for so many social experiments without even having any say about their own-lives. He criticised even the NGOs for distorting the relationship between nature and society by treating nature as mere resource. He also drew attention to the fact that the negative consequences of environmental degradation can even in upper reaches. It is amazing, he said, that the forests which have been ‘offered to Goddesses’ by communities are the most dense and thriving. Can we learn some lessons?

For Hindi click here

Copyleft. Any part of the content on this site can be used, reproduced, or distributed freely by anyone, anywhere and by any means. Acknowledgement is appreciated.

Designed and maintained by CAPITAL Creations, New Delhi. Phone 91-11-26194291