The issue of Tribal Rights representation played a significant role in the unification, consolidation and reconstruction of a India. This issue continues to be a source of contention among different communities India.
In this light, this examines the politics and functioning of one-man-one-vote system of political representation which replaced It analyses the democratic effects of tribal Rights in asserting tribal identities and ensuring “genuine tribal representation” in the indian Legislative Assembly. The major thrust of this study is the fundamental transformation in these ethnic associations from being discriminatory more exclusive and democratic.
Tags: Association, Constituency, Democracy, Identity, Minority, Original Inhabitants, Political Representation, Political Parties, Scheduled Tribes, Tribal Rights, Implementation In India
Introduction of Tribal Rights
One of the most marginalized communities in India are the tribal communities, who despite special enabling provisions for them in the Constitution, a legal framework for the implementation of these provisions and several targeted public policy initiatives, have continued to suffer deprivations of different kinds. In other words, the rights guaranteed to the tribal population have been grossly violated.
The tribal population not only faces severe socio-economic marginalization but also the threat of undermining of their distinctive culture and identity, which in turn is rooted in their livelihood patterns.
The Constituent Assembly of India broke new grounds when it incorporated a chapter on fundamental rights whose objectives summarized in the preamble to the Constitution, declares that the state will not only guarantee “equality of status and of opportunity” and “justice, social, economic and political rights” but also seeks to promote amongst all citizens “fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual”.
Clearly, individual rights, as enumerated in Part III of the Constitution, are guaranteed. Simultaneously, the same section of the Constitution also created certain groups rights under Cultural and Educational Rights wherein the right of “any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof” to have “a distinct language, script or culture of its own” and the “right to conserve the same” was also guaranteed.
These provisions also declare that “no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them”.
The simultaneous upholding of both individual and group rights has taken place in a socio-economic and political context in which a number of historically disadvantaged communities have continued to suffer a variety of social, economic and political, with the result that the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution are far from being realized. This tension lies at the root of the problem in assessing the rights of marginalized sections, as well as the political contestation for the realization of these rights in a resource-deficit political economy.
In fact, tribal rights acquire a substantive content of the right to socio-economic development, as well as the right to the preservation of their socio-cultural distinctiveness. However, the substantive aspects of tribal rights are under threat from the development processes adopted by the Indian State, leading to pressure on the space needed to negotiate these rights in their correct context. In this manner, a body of development and identity issues have been created, which has perhaps formed the leitmotif of all contestation for tribal rights in India.
The above discussion makes it clear that while significant attention has been paid to the issue of the rights of the individual, particularly those of marginalized communities such as the tribals, clarity about the meaning and contents of these rights is expanding as it evolves via the avenue of changing discursive structures of the international debate on human rights.
However, the fact remains that the content of tribal rights remains both contested and difficult to concretize. Nonetheless, there appears to be a degree of consensus that the right to development forms a central pillar of definition of tribal rights; based as it is on the internationally accepted conventions and idea of human rights. It is therefore relevant to draw upon the now well-accepted human rights-based approach to development to provide content to the idea of tribal rights.
UN inter-agency understanding on HRBA to development cooperation
While many efforts have been made to concretize the idea of human rights in development programming, perhaps the single largest contribution in this field has been made by the multi-faceted and multi-tiered effort by the UN system, chiefly the UNDP and UNHCHR. It is now widely recognized that, inspired by the writings of Amartya Sen, the UN system has made a significant contribution to the development and acceptance of a human rights perspective in the analysis of development issues.
This is commonly known as the human rights based approach to development, and was most clearly articulated during the second “Interagency Workshop on Implementing a Human Rights-based Approach to Development in the Context of UN Reform” (5-7 May 2003, Stamford, United States). The Inter-agency agreement on HRBA to development clearly delineates that “development cooperation contributes to the development of the capacities of ‘duty-bearers’ to meet their obligations and/or of ‘rights-holders’ to claim their rights”. Going further, the agreement lays down six principal components of human rights, which are central to development programming:
1. universality and inalienability;
3. interdependence and inter-relatedness;
4. non-discrimination and equality;
5. participation and inclusion;
6. accountability and the rule of law.
In addition, the inter-agency agreement also enjoins UN agencies to ensure that people are the key actors in their own development, which leads to the inevitable stress on participation as both a means and a goal. This mode of development
programming must also ensure that the process is empowering, particularly for weaker and marginalized sections of the population (such as the tribals) and that it must also include all concerned actors and should be locally owned, transparent and be accountable.
From this brief delineation of the HRBA to development, it can be argued that the key factor is participation, without which all the goals listed above would have little substantive content. Participation is therefore a central tenet of the implementation of tribal rights.
Conceptualization of tribal rights in India
As the discussion above shows, the substantive content of tribal rights is not only contested but also difficult to concretize. It could mean very different things to different persons, depending on their viewpoint as well as context.
In contemporary South Asia, political contestation appears in large part to take the shape and form of politics of identity. The politics of tribal rights lies very much within this category. The premises, boundaries, self-definitions, mode of articulation, etc., of such politics of identity may vary in each region and case but the basic argument stands; that there seems to be almost no serious contestation of the political space (with the state as well as with other similarly politically-articulate groups) that is not rooted in (and often articulated through) the politics of identity.
For instance, the range politics of identity in India is wide. With only very few exception, all other articulations of identity demand various degrees and forms of autonomy. However, there is no consensus on the meaning and content of ‘autonomy’. Articulations of visions of autonomy are as varied as the groups and political actors demanding it.
• Right to preservation of their socio-cultural distinctiveness;
• Right to socio-economic development.
The first covers a set of tribal rights which invokes the liberal notion of rights and multicultural politics, fundamental rights and human rights. The local political
contestation for the realization of these sets of tribal rights is normally expressed in demands for administrative autonomy (including the right to self-determination), right to special representation, the right to special culturally-oriented affirmative programmes and often, demands (not necessarily claims) for collective esteem: symbolism of flags, names, public holidays, national anthems, public funds for cultural activities, educational curricula, etc.
The second set of tribal rights straddle the framework of right to development and various international articulations on socio-economic rights. This set of tribal rights lay a claim on the state for adequate public policy mechanisms for ensuring that the members of the tribal societal groups are able to claim the same level of socioeconomic development as the rest of the population.
Many aspects of these sets of rights are rooted in an ‘original settler’ argument by the tribal populations and thereby claim an over-riding right to the resources of the region. While this aspect of tribal rights are central in any analysis of the tribal right to socio-economic development, it must be kept in mind that these arguments often become essentialist.
The two sets of rights enumerated above are not exclusive to each other. It can be argued that one set of tribal rights is meaningless without the other. In fact, the two are closely linked through: (i) the politics of development and identity; and (ii) claims for structures for participation in decision-making (for instance, local governance).
Further, both these sets of rights, particularly the second (right to socio-economic development) have additional dimensions. While the importance of participation in the decision-making process on development planning cannot be overstated, it is also equally important that people from tribal community have an equal opportunity to benefit from the fruits of the process of development. If the flow of these benefits (for instance, livelihood, literacy, health facilities, etc.) to the tribal communities and individuals is marginal, the right to participate in the development process is being violated and thereby, tribal rights are under threat.
This framework will be utilized to assess the status of tribal rights in India – the newest State of the Indian Union – whose creation was premised on tribal identity and arguably, is the fruition of some of the tribal rights claim on the Indian State.
While a number of terms are used to refer to the tribal population, such as tribes, Adivasi, aborigines or autochthones, social science has “not examined the term ‘tribe’ in the Indian context rigorously’.30 Hence, the discussion about tribal population in India has largely followed the government categorization of Scheduled Tribes (STs), under which 212 tribes have been declared STs by presidential order under Article 342. This study has adopted the categorization in use by the governmental agencies, as well as social scientists and the terms tribe, tribal and STs have been used synonymously.
The 2001 Census shows that STs represent 8.2 percent of India’s population ( as opposed to 8.08 percent in the 1991 Census) and continue to be at the margins of the development process “incidence of poverty was higher among tribals in 1999- 2000 at 44 percent, while that among ‘others’ (i.e. non-adivasi, non-dalit), was 16 percent. Between 1993-1994 and 1999-2000, while the poverty ratio among dalits fell from 49 to 36 percent, and that of ‘others’ (non-dalit, non-adivasi) even more from 31 to 21 percent, that of adivasis fell from 51 to just 44 percent”.
Thus, the tribal population has recorded not only a higher rate of poverty but also a slower rate of decline in poverty. Shortfalls in the policy mechanisms, both at the planning and implementation levels is responsible but much of the blame has to be borne by the industrial and large projects development model adopted for most of India, tribal areas included.
Much of tribal economy, which is rooted in locally available natural resources (forests, land, water, etc.), has been threatened by the industry-led development model adopted by both the colonial and post-colonial state in India. Such ‘modern’ forms of economic activity have limitations in tribal areas owing to the geographical factors, while older and perhaps, more sustainable livelihood patterns have been severely disrupted by the commercialization of resources.
This leaves tribal communities with very few options, severely threatening their rights. Furthermore, the creation of modern industry and projects in tribal areas (many of which have a wealth of natural resources, minerals, forests, hydro-electric potential, etc.) have often dislocated the tribal communities. This, not only destroys their life and livelihood, but also creates a serious dislocation of communities, thereby impacting on their cultural distinctiveness.
To secure the tribal rights of such communities in India, the Union Government introduced the Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill in 2005, along with a draft national policy on tribals for discussion and comments. Both of these initiatives have been severely criticized and form the immediate context of the study.
Methodological Note
The study has adopted a combination of methodological tools. Background library work and desk research were conducted for placing the study in its context but much of the research materials for addressing the questions of tribal rights were collected with the help of field research in India.
METHOD USED
This paper has done theoretical and conceptual analysis of the two inter-related and important concepts of this study that are democracy and association. It has done an analytical survey of both primary and second sources including gazetteer, official reports, memorandum, books, newspapers, journal articles and archival materials. The research procedures adopted in conducting this study are as follows:
1. Mapping associational activity of tribal associations of tribes in India ;
2. Distinguishing these associations on the basis of their composition, purpose and affiliation;
3. Analysing the changing trends in the demands of these associations over the years and;
Conclusions: Challenges and Opportunities
The forgoing analysis of tribal rights in India throws up a mixed picture with respect to the status of tribal rights in India. As far as the question of autonomy and recognition of the tribal identity is concerned, the creation of the State of India is a positive step. The principle of tribal right has been accepted, and along with Constitutional provisions concerning socio-cultural rights, there is little formal threat to tribal rights.
However, the exercise of these rights by the tribal population is another story. The issues of land, water, forests and local resources, which are central to the tribes for both, preserving their livelihood as well as socio-cultural identity, are under constant threat from various quarters. Formal rights are of little use in the absence of structural conditions for their enjoyment by the tribal population. It is here that the socio-economic rights enter the discussion.
As has emerged in the earlier discussion, there are significant threats to the realization of the tribal’s socio-economic rights. Not only are the tribes the weakest section of the population as far as their socio-economic development and participation in economic activity is concerned, they seem to have a low priority on the State’s public policy agenda. This emerges from the fact that areas largely populated by the STs in India have seen the slowest creation of infrastructure which would enable the STs to participate more fully in the economic activities. Further, in terms of some select human development indicators as well, the STs are amongst the weakest.
In such a situation, the possibly of the tribal population exercising their rights appears bleak. However, what is positive is the intense and vigorous public debate that has emerged on various aspects of tribal rights. This indicates a degree of democratic contestation, which can only strengthen tribal rights in India. The announcement by the Planning Commission that provision is being created for allocation of 25 percent of all plan funds to the development of SC/ST population is a step in the direction of securing tribal rights.
