Network Past Issues

Tribal Development in Post-independence India

S. Bhavani Shankar, FPRM-4

The symbiotic relationship between tribals and forests remains unchanged even 59 years after India achieved independence. On the one hand, this relationship helps tribals preserve their traditions and culture and symbolises their autonomy. On the other hand, it is this dependence that reduces their opportunities in the mainstream. Leaving aside the tribals who have been mainstreamed with the support of the government, there are still many who are living a life filled with misery, exploitation, and hopelessness.

Panchsheel, an idea put forward by Nehru, envisaged the gradual integration of the tribals into the national mainstream. Accordingly, the government initiated, modified, and implemented various provisions, policies, and programmes from time to time. Since the inception of the planning process, the integration of the tribals into the national mainstream has been confused with the process of assimilation. Even though we take the recommendations of the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of the Constitution of India, which are aimed at empowering tribals, in the right spirit, the attitude of the implementing agencies remains the same, that is, tribals are regarded as ignorant and incapable people. It is this attitude that hindered the attainment of Panchsheel as visualized by Nehru.

Due to this official attitude of condescension and neglect, development programmes in tribal areas have not yielded the desired results. Even if we agree that these programmes benefit the tribals, we must admit that they are technical and time consuming, and do not yield the desired results as they are frequently changed, or are implemented improperly, or are abandoned. The failure of these programmes is again attributed to the tribals, and they are branded as an ignorant lot. What we tend to ignore is the fact that ten Five-Year Plans have not succeeded in bringing about a significant change in the life of the tribals, and the condition of the marginalised lot among them seems to have deteriorated even further.

If one suppor t s the e conomi c deve lopment a rgument of the government, is it not meant for passing the benefits of development to all citizens (of whom the tribals are also a part)? Looking at the changes taking place in the country, what proportion of the benefits of economic development is being transferred to the tribals after they have been evicted from their lands for large projects? This is a question that is very rarely answered. To evade this troubling question, some more development programmes are introduced haphazardly without any understanding of the actual needs of the tribals. Because they usually live in regions endowed with natural resources, the tribals are displaced for the setting up of industries, mining activities, and the construction of dams and other large projects, which promise them very few benefits. The irony is that many government officials and planners are not even aware of, or do not want to recognise, this misery of the tribals. The only justification offered is that someone has to bear the burden for the overall development of the country. In the 59 years since independence, why is it that the tribals are the only people who are still expected to bear the costs of development projects? (The majority of the people evicted or displaced because of the construction of development projects like dams and power projects are tribals.)

The deve lopment progr amme s implemented at the micro level and the policies implemented at the macro level stand contradictory in the case of tribal development. One wonders whether it is possible to bring about tribal development without legitimising the rights of the tribals to forests and land. This issue was debated for a long time but successive governments have conveniently neglected to arrive at a proper resolution. When the root cause of the problem is forest and land rights, the government continued the eviction and displacement of tribals from forests for development projects without addressing this core issue. This has nullified the positive impact of the development programmes, if any. What is this benefit that we are talking about? What future do we see for tribals who have lost everything and who are victimised in all respects?

To look at the positive side of the issue, the recent passage of a tribal bill in Parliament and the announcement of a national tribal policy have rekindled hopes that the tribals will receive some justice and fair play. Apart from the changes that these policies are expected to bring about, the tribals also need to be given space so that they can define the parameters of their own development. Efforts need to be made to help the tribals live with dignity along with non-tribals.