Tribal Policy: Pulling Back from the Brink?

Ambiguous and weak-kneed administrative will blocks effective implementation of the progressive legal measures designed to prevent land alienation. This failure operates in many ways. First, in most sub-divisions in the state, cases have not been even initially registered under section 170(B) of the Code. This is in defiance of the mandatory responsibility placed on the SDO to suo moto register cases.

The situation is even more dismal with regard to 'benami' transactions, in which land nominally owned by tribal landowners is in practice cultivated by non-tribals. Whereas such cases are common knowledge in any village, they are rarely reported by patwaris and other local revenue officers or by the non-official committees, which were set up for such local investigation by the state government.

Disposal of cases tends to be slow, and the large majority of cases tend to be decided mechanically in favour of non-tribals. A 1983 study of eight districts by the TRI reported that of the 4118 cases registered in these eight districts, only 1782 or 43.20 per cent cases were decided, of which 1140 cases or 64.5 per cent were against the tribals. A close scrutiny of many of the cases decided in favour of non-tribals show that disposal has been frequently in contravention to the law.

Further the 1983 study also revealed that in the majority of cases decided in favour of tribals, they had not secured actual possession because of threats and violence by the non-tribals in possession of the land, and delays and complicity of local revenue functionaries. The 1987-88 study reported that fresh cases of tribal land alienation have considerably reduced under the impact of protective legislation, but restoration of land already lost was delayed.

The second set of problems relates to the nature of our legal system which, even in the context of sensitive and pro-poor legislation like the Sections 170(A) and 170(B) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 tends to be strongly weighted against the tribal poor. We have seen how the Code restricts litigation to a single appeal, but non-tribal litigants easily get around this restriction by resorting to revisions, which are not barred. However, typically the legal system is systematically misused to harass and tire out tribal litigants, most of who despair and become weary or are pauperised before the almost unending legal battle reaches its conclusion. The restriction on legal practitioners is also generally observed more in the breach, because presiding officers of courts frequently do not wish to alienate the powerful lobbies of the bar.

We have seen that the fundamental cause of tribal land alienation is chronic indebtedness. No law to protect the tribals can be successful unless it is complemented by measures to meet their genuine credit needs, including those for consumption, and to protect them from usury.

In the last analysis, any measure for social justice can succeed only if the intended beneficiary group is aware of its provisions, convinced about the legitimacy of the protective legislation, and mobilised and organised both to use its provisions, and to enforce its effective implementation. However, these conditions are mostly not fulfilled with regard to the tribal victims of land alienation of Madhya Pradesh. The studies by the TRI have noted and lamented the very poor levels of awareness of tribals of the measures contained in sections 165 (6), 170 (A) and 170 (B) of the Code. The majority of tribal people are not even convinced about the moral legitimacy of these provisions. It has been the experience of this writer that frequently, tribals refuse to apply, or to co-operate with suo-moto proceedings, because they believe that to accept restoration of the land would constitute a morally intolerable breach of an agreement made in the past by their elders, even if such an agreement was with an exploitative moneylender. Even when individual tribals are convinced and seek redress, they are powerless as atomised individuals fighting the might of socio-economic and political power, with judicial instruments heavily weighted against them. Only if they combine and seek organised legal redress, are they likely to succeed. But this rarely happens.

These same problems act as barriers to the implementation of all forms of legislation for the protection of tribal communities.

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