Indian Tribal People Chosen to be Killed!

Indian Tribal People Chosen to be Killed!

Indian Holocaust My Father`s Life and Time - Eight HUNDRED FORTY FIVE


Palash Biswas

http://indianholocaustmyfatherslifeandtime.blogspot.com/



http://basantipurtimes.blogspot.com/
Fifth Schedule (Article 244) – This provides for the administration and control of Scheduled Areas[Note 2] and Scheduled Tribes[Note 3] (areas and tribes needing special protection due to disadvantageous conditions).

Sixth Schedule (Articles 244 and 275)— Provisions for the administration of tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram.

Rights of Indigenous People

"Indigenous people around the world have sought recognition of their identities, their ways of life and their right to traditional lands, territories and natural resources; yet throughout history, their rights have been violated." United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, October 2006

PA Sangma is presidential Candidate on behalf of All India Tribal forum headed by eminent tribal leader from Chhattishgarh Arvind Netam. Sangh Pariwar excluding Shiv Sena and led by BJP does try to make it a most close contest. What an irony it is that the self styled tribal leader, if Pranab defeated may be the Next President of India is MUTE after the encounter killing of tribal women and children in Bastar where BJP Government has launched Salwa  judum against the aborigine Humanscape. Sanga has no objection to the violation of fifth and sixth schedule of Constitution nor he has voiced ever against Armed Forces special Power Act, it is true. Since he is fighting for the topmost post in Indian democracy as a TRIBAL Candidate, he should have cried first against this Genocide! I have mentioned the most relevant name in Indian Power Politics today who happens to be the Challenger against the Ruling Hegemony Field Marshal , the son of the world, Ex De facto Prime Minister and theoritecally he may rather become the Next President! Just see from this point of view, why Indian Tribal People should not support the Maoist Ideologue who at least voice in defence of their rights for Jal , jangal Jameen and address the economic Problems while the Democratic set up has NO Space for the suffering people at all!The Apathy against the Aborigine Humanscape is well expressed in the Media Hype on so called Maoist Menace which only help to intensify the Economic ethnic Cleansing which has been the gist of the recent History since the British Rulers transferred Power.The Tribals are selected to be killed and Displaced, deprived of everything. The State as an Enemy Military Power has launched an infinite war against its people living in the aborigine humanscape just to hand over Natural resources to Corporate Imperialism!

Irony it is that amid the controversy over the anti-Naxal operation in Chhattisgarh in which tribals were suspected to be among the 19 victims, the Union tribal affairs ministry today called the offensive "completely unacceptable" and targeted the state's BJP government.

Is it only the BJP government which has launched the war?

What happens in other States?

Who does cry that the Maoist Menace is the greatest Challenge and declares War against the tribal world?

The Ethnic Cleansing continues all on name of development, big dams,Nuclear Clusters, SEZ, NMIZ, Industrial Corridors, Industrialisation, Urbanistaion, Steel Plants, Air Ports, Infrastructure, Mining and so on!

Indian Politics has NOTHING to do!

Political Parties and ideologies betray the tribal people in the same way as PA Sanga and the Maoists do!

I have writing and speaking for long that the Maoists have nothing against the India incs or MNCs and they have never struck against the interest of the Corporate world otherwise Mining would have come to standstill. Rather the Maoists have helped the Military State and Corporate India to eject out the Tribal people out of their home as most of the tribal villages are not recorded as Revenue Village. Once they leave the village seized within in Cross Fire , they may not return.

In most of the cases, Not the Maoists , only the Tribal Villagers are killed in encounter.

The Government of India has enough striking power and equipment and technology that it might wipe out the Maoist Menace at any given time.

It does not intend to do that as the Maoists have become the tools of Displacement and evacuation in the best interest of the Corporate world!

The media hype against Maoist Menace is created to justify the Ethnic Cleansing and the Genocide Culture!

The Naxals alias Maoists are known to put women and children in a protective circle around them in case of an attack. They are also known to recruit minors and women as soldiers of the cause. If innocent people are killed in an operation by the para-military forces, ...

A controversy has erupted over the killing of 19 persons in anti-Maoist operations by security forces in Chattisgarh last week amid questions whether or not the victims were all Naxals and Chief Minister Raman Singh saying the rebels were using humans as "shields".At least 19 suspected Naxals were killed in a fierce gunfight in the dense jungles of Dantewada during the night-long encounter on June 27-28 in a joint operation by over 300 CRPF and state police personnel from three directions.Union home ministry on Monday sought a report from the CRPF and the Chhattisgarh government on the June 29 encounter in the state in which 17 people, alleged to be Maoists and their sympathisers, were killed. The ministry has ruled out any judicial inquiry into the encounter.

As controversy rages over security forces killing people in an anti-Maoist operation in Chhattisgarh some days back, Union Tribal Affairs Minister V. Kishore Chandra Deo said the state has a notorious record in this regard.

"Chhattisgarh has a very notorious record of a programme called Salwa Judum which they had. I had opposed it at that time. Both extremist and government forces were using poor young tribals for killing each other," Deo said Tuesday.

Talking to news channel NDTV, Deo said the manner in which villagers were killed, as it appeared, was wrong and sought a report on the encounter.

"We are double-checking the identities of the people killed in the encounter. The exercise will take a day or two. We suspect that one person killed in the encounter was the main accused in Dantewada jail break case of 2007 in which 300 inmates, including around 100 suspected Maoists, had escaped," said a senior home ministry official.
In an interview to NDTV, CRPF director general K Vijay Kumar defended the action and wondered if only killing of security forces should be the norm. He added that his force, inside the jungles of Silger in Bijapur district, drew the first fire in the night and his men retaliated according to Standard Operating Procedures.

On the other hand,it is widely alleged that of the 20 people killed, many were innocent villagers, not Naxalites. Demanding a judicial probe on the lines of Rajinder Sachar and Swami Agnivesh into the killings of 20 villagers in the jungles of Dantewada, Janhastakshep said justice should be ensured to the poor tribals.

CPI(M) demanded a time-bound judicial inquiry into last week's killing by CRPF and state police of 19 people, including a woman and two children, alleging they were either brutally axed to death or killed in "indiscriminate firing". With his government coming under attack from the opposition Congress over the incident, Singh said if any innocent person was killed or injured, then the Naxals must be held responsible for it as they often use innocent villagers as back-up for themselves during such gunfight and use them as "human shields". Singh said the Congress should not politicise the matter. The Congress alleged that the incident was a "completely fake encounter" and that the victims "innocent Adivasis."

"They (villagers) said no Maoists were present. Children have died, school students have died, women have died. How can they all be Naxalites?" Kowasi Lakma, a Congress MLA who headed a team that visited the site was quoted as saying by The Hindu. However, he was unable to explain how some security personnel had sustained injuries during the incident.

Tribal affairs minister V Kishore Chandra Deo said he will raise the issue with home minister P Chidambaram.As if Chidambaram happened to be the Saviour of the tribal People. He is responsible for internal security and handed it over to MOSSAD and CIA to defend the interest of the Corporate Imperialism aligned with Zionism and Global Hindutva!

Kishore Chandra Deo was born in Kurupam to Raja V. Durgaprasad Deo of Kurupam and Rajmata Sobhalata Devi. He belongs to the Konda Dora scheduled tribe community, and is from a family of tribal hill chiefs. He was educated in Madras, he holds an M.A. degree in Political Science and a B.A. degree in Economics from Madras Christian College, Madras (now Chennai). He is the one of the most respected Parliamentarians in India.

"I am getting inputs from various sources. We have to get to the truth. It is completely unacceptable. State government does not have any authority to call such an action," Deo told PTI i n New Delhi here. Obviously, the Minister is not concerned with tribal welfare and he is trying his best to corner the Political rival in the Hindutva hegemony ruling India with seer Excommunication, Exclusion and ethnic Cleansing/ The Minister simply wants to corner the BJP Rulres in Chhattishgarh . the tribal Cause is irrelevant as it always has been.

Vyricherla Kishore Chandra Suryanarayana Deo (born 15 February 1947) is an Indian politician and a member of the Indian National Congress political party. He has been elected to the Lok Sabha for five times, and has also held one term in the Rajya Sabha. Since July 2011, he is the Union Cabinet Minister for Tribal Affairs & Panchayati Raj.Deo is a member of the Lok Sabha representing the Araku (ST) constituency in the southern state of Andhra Pradesh. He has been a member of the Congress Working Committee (CWC) which is the highest decision-making body of the party. He was first elected to parliament in 1977 and has been elected to the Lok Sabha five times, and has also held one term in the Rajya Sabha (upper house of Parliament). On 12 July 2011 he was sworn in as a Cabinet Minister in the Union Cabinet, holding the portfolios of Tribal Affairs and Panchayati Raj.He was also a Minister of State for Steel, Mines and Coal in the Central Cabinet in 1979-80.He has served on numerous parliamentary committees, and has been the chairperson of several key parliamentary committees, including the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill that led to the Forest Rights Act.He was also the Chairperson of the Parliamentary Committee on Public Undertakings (CoPU).

He headed the parliamentary investigation into the 2008 cash-for-votes scandal.

Let me ask what has he been doing as a tribal leader either in Tamilnadu or in Andhra?How did he defend the interest of the aborigine humansacpe under Mining Zone?

About his planned meeting with Chidambaram, Deo said, "We are trying to get further concrete information on the event and it will be done as early as possible. Then I will discuss it with my colleague in the government."

Dubbing as "notorious" Chhattisgarh government's record in conducting anti-Naxal operations, Deo said, "Salva Judum was one of such notorious movements by the Chhattisgarh government which I had opposed as a Member of Parliament."

On Naxals reportedly using tribals as human shields to target security forces, he said, "These things are completely not acceptable to anyone.But at the same time indiscriminate firing by security forces is also wrong."

It had always been the Truth denied by Prime Ministers and central; Home Ministers and the State Governments.

Deo further pointed out that the biggest sufferers during these operations are the women and children from tribal areas.

"For how long our tribal people will be used as cannon fodder in the name of action against naxals, especially women and children. We need to protect them and address their issues and protect their dignity," he said.

Just read the PTI report and you may be aware of the Apathy underneath:

Raipur: Twenty naxalites were killed and six CRPF jawans injured after a fierce overnight encounter in the jungles of Dantewada in Chhattisgarh.    The encounter, which took place in the jungles of Silger, a "liberated" Maoist zone between the naxal hotbed of Jagargunda and Basaguda in Dantewada, was launched last night by the CRPF from three directions. Two Maoists have also been arrested after the encounter. The encounter is significant as this is the first time that the central force has recovered these many bodies of naxals.    The arrested Maoists have been airlifted to the state capital Raipur. Official sources said six CRPF men, including two CoBRA commandos, have sustained bullet injuries and they have been air-lifted for medical aid. Preliminary reports suggest that the casualty figures of the naxalites could increase as information from deep inside the jungles is trickling in slowly.    This is the same area, close to Chintalnar, where naxals have carried out the biggest ever attack on security forces killing 75 CRPF men and one state police personnel in April 2010. According to the sources, the CRPF has mobilised three units of commandos and regular troops, aided by two helicopters for the encounter. Firing is still on and the force has rushed in additional troops and logistics to the area in the wee hours today.

Read more at: http://news24online.com/20andnbsp;maoists-gunned-down-in-Dantewada_News24_46688.aspx


And mind the language used to defend the Killing!Even as civil rights alarmists play the victim card on behalf of Maoists by describing the Dantewada massacre as a "fallout of the dirty war launched by the government", the Opposition has begun piling up pressure on the government for a tough response to the problem.BJP leader Ravi Shankar Prasad, who cautioned the government against 'buying' into the 'propaganda' of the 'enablers' of Naxalites, said Maoists, through their actions, have been demonstrating that they have no concern for human rights or democracy.Thus reported in the Times of India publication Economic Times!(http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-04-08/news/27625069_1_dantewada-naxalites-human-rights)

"Tribal leaders who are part of the legitimate political process are being targeted by Naxalites. The Naxalites are on a killing spree. They killed the son of BJP's senior leader Balram Kashyap in Chhattisgarh, they killed son of JVM leader Babulal Marandi in Jharkhand, JMM leader Sunil Mahato was assassinated by Naxalites and Congress leader Mahendra Karma was targeted several times," Mr Prasad said.

The BJP leader's statement coincided with efforts by human rights activists to lay the blame at the political leadership's doorstep. "It is an unfortunate fallout of the dirty war the government has launched on its own people...I blame the government for this (killings in Dantewada).

When they are ruling out a war against Pakistan, they don't have the courage, sincerity and imagination to solve a social problem with a humane approach," an agency report quoting Gautam Navlakha, editorial consultant of the Economic and Political Weekly, said. He also said the government should immediately stop anti-Naxal operations and publish the number of MoUs on mining license signed with industrialists.

Mr Navlakha's 'rationalisation', however, may not convince anyone outside his peer group. For a recent communication from CPI(Maoist) top leader Ganapathy to the polit bureau members had said that the attempts of the outfit is not economic well being of the people, but a devastation of the country's assets.

In his letter, Ganapathy had asked the Maoist leadership and cadre to focus on areas housing industrial plants such as Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Bharuch, Surat, Valsad, Vapi, Pune and Mumbai.

The human rights activists' continued delusion that climate of poverty was the cause of attack came in for sharp attack from political parties. "Why are human rights advocates not showing any anger when people are massacred by Naxalites. Those who write long pathos-laden articles on behalf of Naxalites are in the silent mode after the brutal attack in Dantewada," said Mr Prasad.

But Mr Navlakha's view that the Centre's economic policies are to be blamed for increased Naxalite activity found a receptive ear in CPM. "Instead of adopting measures for the socio-economic development of such regions, the policies of the central government are harming the interests of the tribal people," CPM said in a statement.

The party claimed that "the displacement of tribals and the loss of their livelihood and habitats" were a direct result of the policy of the Centre to "indiscriminately throw open all these areas for mining operations, legal and illegal".

Terming the recent encounter in Dantewada region of Chhattisgarh as 'fake' and 'cold blooded' murder of 20 tribals, human rights activists led by Justice Sachar have demanded the resignation of Union home minister P Chidambaram and a high-level independent judicial probe to uncover the truth.

The activists said they demand a judicial inquiry into the incident as they have no faith in either CBI or a magisterial inquiry. Justice Sachar said an independent inquiry should be conducted by a retired judge of the Supreme Court.

The activists including Swami Agnivesh, Himanshu Kumar and BD Sharma sought an apology from prime minister Manmohan Singh for the ghastly and 'biggest condemnable incident in India' and forgiveness from the tribals besides removing Chidambaram for leading these kind of joint operations against tribals.

"We will soon be sending a delegation to the place of the encounter to unravel the truth, said BD Sharma, adding the delegation will also meet the PM and president Pratibha Patil.

Quoting Congress MLA from Konta Kawasi Lakma, Swami Agnivesh said there were no Maoists present in the area.

The Union home ministry, however, remained steadfast on its stand, describing the encounter as a well-fought battle by the CRPF jawans despite heavy odds and taken by surprise by a heavy gunfire.

"How can those who are saying that the encounter was fake, can explain injuries to 6 CRPF by low velocity weapons. It cannot happen in a crossfire as CRPF uses high velocity INSAS rifles that inflict serious injuries. Moreover, how come the meeting being held late in the night had an assembly of people from several villages," a senior MHA official questioned.

"We had credible information that a company of Maoists had entered from Odisha - Andhra border in this area and had called the village janmilitia for a meeting to decide where to put landmines and set up booby traps to kill CRPF men," said the official.

Refuting the charges, the MHA and CRPF officials claimed killing three Maoist leaders - Marakkam Suresh, Marakkam Nagesh and Iruppa Somalu in the encounter. "If it was simple assembly, how these were killed?The UN has also documented how the Maoists are employing small children as fighters," a senior CRPF officer said.

Constitution and the Tribals

In India most of the tribes are collectively identified under Article 342 (1&2) as Scheduled Tribes and right to self determination guaranteed by Part X : The Scheduled and Tribal Areas – Article 244: Administration of Scheduled Areas and Tribal Areas.

(1). The provisions of the Fifth Schedule shall apply to the administration and control of the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes in any State (other than the states ofAssam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram).

(2). The provisions of the Sixth Schedule shall apply to the administration of the tribal areas in the State of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.

The Indian Constitution is supposed to protect tribal interests, especially tribal autonomy and their rights over land, through Fifth and Sixth Schedules. Scheduled Areas of Article 244(1) are notified as per the Fifth Schedule and Tribal Areas of Article 244(2) are notified as per the Sixth Schedule.

Sixth Schedule contains provisions as to the administration of tribal areas in the states of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. This law gives enormous freedoms to the autonomous regions and districts in terms of legislative and executive power. The law notes that each autonomous region shall have its own autonomous Regional Council and every autonomous district its own autonomous District Council.

Indira Gandhi introduced what is called as Tribal Sub-Plan in the planning process, earmarking a portion of funds for tribal development. Only to ensure their share of the Central Plan allocations, the States started the notification of tribal areas again. However, the money seldom reached the tribals.

When Rajiv Gandhi's successors passed 73rd and 74th Amendments to the Constitution to enact Panchayat and Nagarpalika Bills, they simply forgot that these do not automatically become applicable to Tribal and Scheduled Areas.

Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (or PESA), 1996

Village level democracy became a real prospect for Indiain 1992 with the 73rd amendment to the Constitution, which mandated that resources, responsibility and decision making be passed on from central government to the lowest unit of the governance, the Gram Sabha or the Village Assembly. A three tier structure of local self government was envisaged under this amendment.

Since the laws do not automatically cover the scheduled areas, the PESA Act was in acted on 24 December 1996 to enable Tribal Self Rule in these areas. The Act extended the provisions of Panchayats to the tribal areas of nine states that have Fifth Schedule Areas. Most of the North eastern states under Sixth Schedule Areas (where autonomous councils exist) are not covered by PESA, as these states have their own Autonomous councils for governance. The nine states with Fifth Schedule areas are:

Andhra Pradesh                 Chhattisgarh           Gujarat

Himachal Pradesh            Jharkhand                Maharashtra

Madhya Pradesh                Orissa                         Rajasthan.

BRINDA KARAT writes in Hindu:

The proposed liberalisation of the mining and minerals sector is an assault on the rightful owners of the land and its resources.
Tribal and indigenous communities across the world have been asserting their rights to the mineral wealth often found under the land they own or possess or have traditional rights to. They have been historically denied even a share of that huge wealth, leave alone legal rights of ownership. Under the contemporary deregulated neo-liberal policy framework, the exploitation and plunder of natural resources, including minerals, by domestic corporates and multinational mining companies has intensified. But the resistance by affected communities across the world has also grown and is reflected, over the years, in the establishment of an international framework through ILO and U.N. Conventions, which recognise in varying degrees the rights of indigenous and tribal communities to ownership, control and management of land and resources traditionally held by them either individually or as a community; the right to a decisive role in decision making for development needs in their areas; and the right to prior, free and informed consent to any projects in their areas. While these are encouraging advances won by the struggles and immense sacrifices of tribal communities, what is important is their translation into legal instruments in member countries. The issue has immediate relevance for India, as the UPA government has introduced a Mining and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2011 (MMDRA), which is presently before the Parliamentary Standing Committee.

Promoting privatisation

In India, ownership of minerals lies with the State. However, the Central government which has control over all major minerals like iron ore, bauxite, copper, coal and most State governments which have control over minor minerals like sand, stone, granite, etc., have promoted privatisation through leasing mines to private companies apart from handing over captive mines of iron ore and bauxite to steel and aluminium corporates like the Tatas and Birlas. According to a recent report compiled for the industry by Ernst and Young, of the 4.9 lakh hectares of land given out in mining leases in 23 States by the end of 2009, 95 per cent of the leases comprising 70 per cent of the land were given to private companies.

The MMRDA Bill aims to further deregularise and liberalise the mining sector and encourage privatisation based on the recommendations of the Hoda Committee. It introduces the concept of high technology reconnaissance, prospecting and exploration licences, and easy terms of conversion to mining leases to encourage the entry of FDI and foreign companies. It also gives weightage, in the allocation of leases, to a set of criteria which favour such companies and also allows them activity on much larger tracts of land than previously. This has adverse implications for equity, the environment and growth.

While these aspects need comprehensive analysis, here we focus on those provisions, which claim to address the rights of tribal communities. There is a provision that makes it mandatory for coal mining companies to give funds amounting to 26 per cent of the profits. For other major minerals, an annual amount, which is the equivalent of the royalty paid in the financial year, must be given. While the principle of mandatory payment by companies is necessary, the problem in the MMRDA is that these funds are to be under the control of a district mineral foundation dominated by mine owners and the bureaucracy with a nominal representation of local communities. Interestingly, in the U.S. where the Federal Government had set up trusts to manage funds paid by companies using the land on reserves owned by Native Indians, the government was recently forced to pay a compensation of $1.2 billion to 41 Native American communities for "mismanagement of the assets" of the trust and is expected to have to pay another $3.4 billion in a similar case. When the affected people do not have a decisive say in the management of such funds, as in the case of the proposed district mineral foundation in the MMRDA Bill, "mismanagement" is inevitable. Also, rates of royalties in India are notoriously low. Until recently, for example, the royalty for one tonne of iron ore fixed by the Central government for Orissa was just Rs. 26. With a low extraction cost of only Rs. 250 to 300 per tonne and a high market price around Rs. 7,000 a tonne, mining companies made huge profits. While royalty rates have been recently increased, it is still a pittance compared to the profits companies make.

Patron-client relationship

The very premise of the scheme replicates the patron-client relationship, which has reduced tribal communities into recipients of charity, instead of recognition as owners of the land and its resources. The related provisions of the Bill constitute an outright assault on the constitutional rights given to the tribal communities, in particular in Fifth Schedule areas.

The Bill gives legal sanction to the arbitrary rights of governments, both at the Centre and the States, to give different types of licences and leases from reconnaissance to exploration, prospecting and finally extraction without any procedure for even consulting, leave alone taking the consent of tribal communities. The only reference to "consultation" (not consent), is for the grant of licences for minor minerals (but not major) in Fifth and Sixth Schedule areas where "the gram sabha or the District council, as the case may be shall be consulted." Thus even the provisions under other laws such as the Panchayat Extension (to Schedule Areas) Act (PESAA), which mandates consultation with the gram sabhas, are violated by the complete absence of any consultative process prior to the granting of lease for major minerals, which are the main sites of tribal deprivation. In another provision for notification of giving leases in forest areas and wildlife areas, the State government has to "take all necessary permissions from the owners of the land and those having occupation rights." Thus an unwarranted differentiation is made between the rights of tribal communities in Fifth Schedule non-forest areas and forest areas. However even in the case of forest areas there is no provision for what would happen in case the owner does not give permission.

In Fifth Schedule areas, the law prohibits transfer of tribal held land to non-tribals. Different States have also enacted such laws like 70/1 in Andhra Pradesh, the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act and the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act in Jharkhand. None of the mining companies that gets leases is owned by adivasis. Presumably this was the reason why in the Samata case, the Supreme Court held that sale, transfers and even leases of tribal land to non-tribals are illegal. It directed that governments should consider a mechanism to include cooperative societies of tribal communities for mining operations. The Bill overrides the Samata judgment. Tribal cooperatives have been disqualified in the list of those eligible to get a lease for mining of major minerals, which can only be companies registered under the relevant laws. It is only for minor minerals and small deposits in the Fifth and Sixth Schedule areas that the State government "may" (not "shall") consider tribal cooperatives for getting the lease. An earlier draft of the Bill in 2010 had included a provision for a guaranteed stake of tribal communities in mining companies. The provision had said "the company"… "will allot free shares equal to 26 per cent through the promoters quota." South African law under the Broadbased Black Economic Empowerment Act has a provision of mandatory sale of 26 per cent shares in all mining companies to "historically socially disadvantaged sections." But in India, caving in to pressure from mining lobbies, the earlier provision has been replaced with a token allotment of "one share per member of the affected family."

There are other issues such as compensation and compensatory jobs in lieu of lost livelihood which are inadequate and also ambiguous. With cuts in permanent jobs and widespread contractual and casual work in the mining sector, the promise of employment to land losers cannot be taken at its face value. Seen together with the pending Land Acquisition Bill which specifically excludes the issue of leasing tribal land, this Bill not only buries the ownership rights of tribal communities but facilitates the easy entry of international and domestic corporates to Fifth Schedule and tribal-dominated mineral-rich areas to plunder the natural resources of our country. India, which is a signatory to many international conventions on the protection of tribal rights, is violating these conventions and adding to the burden of historical injustice. The Bill, in its present form, should and must be opposed and resisted. Concerned movements should work together for an alternative model which will recognise the ownership and other rights of tribal communities in mining in Fifth Schedule and tribal areas through effective legal mechanisms.

(Brinda Karat is a member of the Polit Bureau of the Communist Party of India – Marxist.)
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article3419034.ece


    TRIBAL LAWS IN INDIA AND TRIBAL CONVENTIONS ON                  RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE WORLDWIDE.

The most common problems relate to recognizing that the tribes have a right to autonomy and not merely decentralized administration; that they have a right to seek justice within their own traditional or customary laws; and that they have a right to own and exploit the natural resources in their habitat. These issues are addressed in the Constitution of India and through tribal-people-specific statutes, but there are considerable differences in the way the north eastern and peninsular tribes are treated in the Indian legal system. The distinction in the law is based on the two criteria that had guided the colonial British Indian government in determining the degree of self-government that the tribes would exercise: (a) whether the tribe had the ability to manage its own affairs, and (b) whether the tribal region in question had a significant non-tribal population. Judged by these two criteria, the north-eastern tribes—who are also isolated but seen to be more 'socially advanced'—have been given considerable autonomy under Constitution, while the tribes in the rest of the country have been placed under the aegis of provincial governors. This arrangement has been codified in the Constitution's Fifth Schedule for tribes in peninsular India, and the Sixth Schedule for the north eastern tribes. The separate systems were approved by the Constituent Assembly formed at the time of independence after receiving recommendations that the distinct 'community structures' and 'attitudes' of the tribes in the two regions could not be treated in a common law. Though an overwhelming majority of India's tribal people inhabit the fifth schedule areas, they were only recently introduced to decentralization when the Indian Parliament legislated the Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (or PESA) exclusively for these areas. PESA mandated the states to devolve certain political, administrative and fiscal powers to local governments elected by the communities (whether tribal or non-tribal). PESA did not amend the Fifth Schedule, however. Instead, it sought to secure the participation of the tribal communities through limited self government, expecting this arrangement to be better suited to their 'level of advancement'. After a decade, it is apparent that PESA is clearly not achieving that objective. On the contrary, blatant violation of tribal interests and the reluctance (in some cases, sheer procrastination) of the state administrations to cede authority have often compelled tribes in the Fifth Schedule areas to reassert their identity and rights violently. Yet, there has never been a serious debate about alternative schemes for governing the tribal regions in peninsular India, even though various developments in the past few years—the creation of two new states, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh, in 2000 through tribal political movements, the soon-to-be introduced revision of the National Tribal Policy, and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act passed in December 2006, which grants tribes some measure of ownership in forest lands and produce for the first time—emphasize that tribal rights are increasingly figuring as a prominent national concern.

A Review of PESA: Tribal Laws and the Impairment of Tribal Rights in a Decentralized Government

Even  though PESA is projected as legislation transforming tribal representation in Fifth Schedule areas, the tribes feel as much "culturally deprived and economically robbed" as under colonial rule. Neither PESA in the last decade, nor the Fifth Schedule before it, has helped the tribal communities "acquire the status and dignity of viable and responsive people's bodies," as Parliament had intended. Tribal local governments are often ignored in development plans and the benefits of any actual development "rarely percolate down to the local tribes," which are "subordinated to outsiders, both economically and culturally." PESA and the Fifth Schedule have also not prevented large corporations from gaining "control over the natural resources which constituted the life-support systems of the tribal communities;" neither have they made the tribes prosperous from the mineral-rich land on which they live. In fact, the tribes have "gradually lost control over community resources such as forests" to both settlers and the State; and one author would go so far as to equate non-tribal acquisitions with tribal displacement. Deceit and the active connivance of state employees with non-tribal communities is another debilitating factor reversing, in this case, the benefits of land reform legislation. Shankar's study of tribal lands in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh revealed a nexus between traditionally influential nontribal landowners and corrupt government officials. The latter exercised their discretionary powers to favour non-tribes by transferring lands over which tribal communities may have had a valid claim. Even in a tribal majority state like Jharkhand in the north, the tribes are the worst affected in the population since the state government's mining operations and hydroelectric power projects exploit natural resources in the resource-rich tribal areas, thus making the tribes "outsiders in their own land." Faced with this onslaught, many tribes have resisted settlers, the government and private enterprises, and sought to reassert their identity. For instance, in the Bengal region The Kamatapur tribal movement has cited neglect, exploitation, and discrimination, and demanded a separate state. Tribes in the neighbouring state of Orissa have demanded a prohibition on private consortiums that intend to mine bauxite from one of the most richly endowed regions in India. Similarly, in the south, Kerala's tribal population has recently begun to defend its rights by banding together in various political groups at the state and local community levels in order to compel the administration to review land alienation, poverty, and exploitation by private enterprises. It is far too easy to dismiss these incidents as mere consequences of "misplaced development strategies" and lack of interest among state administrations. The critics of tribal governance in India see the dangers in an extremely narrow compass, criticizing provisions in PESA as "impracticable" or the states as legislatively ignorant. In sum, they believe that good civil administration alone will assuage tribal woes. To begin with, PESA only marginally altered the power balance between state governments and the tribes because of ineffectual participation by the former, and the "general tendency at the state level to monopolize power rather than share power with people at large." This apathetic attitude has manifested itself in two forms. First, the majority of the states with tribal populations procrastinated in their decentralization programs. Although all states with Scheduled Areas have now enforced PESA, their past dilatory performance has led to the risk of delays in future amendments necessary to reflect changed circumstances.

Second, when they did legislate, the states either ignored tribal "customary law, social and religious practices and traditional management practices of community resources" or enacted incomplete laws.

The Tribal Struggle to Cope with Imposed Laws

Contrary to PESA's guarantees that state laws would respect tribal customs and traditions, the Act has debased the tribal traditions of self-governance. The propensity to violate tribal norms is not only a product of sub national apathy, but also the outcome of a statutory scheme that compels the tribes to adopt non-tribal concepts. By promoting the system of local government prescribed for non-tribal communities in Part IX of the Constitution,the Indian Parliament has instantly abolished centuries-old systems of Indigenous governance.

The abrupt shift from traditional institutions to alien concepts of elected representatives and Panchayats has resulted in "very low" tribal participation and an underutilization of the institutions.Our country is home to the largest population of indigenous peoples of any country in the world. Roughly a quarter of the world's indigenous population – around 80 million people – are scattered across India, their numbers a staggering diversity of ethnicities, cultures and socio­economic situations. They range from some of the last uncontacted indigenous communities in the world, like the Sentinelese of the Andamans, to some of the largest, such as the Gonds and Santhals of central India. They include not only communities who live under conditions of extreme destitution, but also communities with social indicators well above the national average. But across circumstances and areas, like other indigenous communities around the world, India's indigenous peoples do share one characteristic – social, political and economic marginalisation.

In recognition of this fact and reflecting more than a century and a half of continuous struggles by indigenous people, India has a panoply of laws, policies and Constitutional provisions aimed at protecting the rights of such communities. Yet India is also distinguished by the extreme reluctance of the government to acknowledge or accept the international framework for such protections, embodied primarily in International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, 1989 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), 2007. While India is a signatory to ILO Convention No. 107 on Indigenous and Tribal Populations (the predecessor to Convention 169) and voted in favour of the UNDRIP, it has adamantly insisted that its own indigenous peoples cannot claim status or protection under these laws. The government rejects the very term 'indigenous peoples', insisting that all Indians are indigenous, and is particularly hostile to any reference to the rights of indigenous people to autonomy, self-governance or self-determination. This is despite the fact that India's own laws provide for varying degrees of such protection - in some cases, far reaching - to certain communities.


The Indian policy and legal framework on indigenous peoples' rights through the lens, values the spirit of international law. Part I of the report describes the social and political situation of indigenous communities in India, while Part II examines the policy and legal framework on specific areas of indigenous peoples' rights. The report is primarily focused on the extent to which the Indian political and legal situation conforms to the principles of equity, self-governance and justice that underlie the international instruments. We find that on all three fronts, India falls far short of international standards on indigenous peoples' rights. The seemingly impressive range of legal and policy instruments that exists in Indian law for indigenous peoples' rights is vitiated by one fundamental flaw – the Indian state's reluctance to respect the political rights of indigenous peoples and the subsequent widespread violations of these.

Who Are Indigenous People And What Makes Them Different?

There does not seem to be one definitive definition of indigenous people, but generally indigenous people are those that have historically belonged to a particular region or country, before its colonization or transformation into a nation state, and may have different—often unique—cultural, linguistic, traditional, and other characteristics to those of the dominant culture of that region or state. (For more details, see this fact sheet from the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues  (UNPFII).)

In some parts of the world, they are very few indigenous people, while in other parts, they may number into the hundreds of thousands, even millions. Over the years, many groups of people have been wiped out, either by diseases of colonizing peoples, or through policies of extermination. Those indigenous societies that remain today are predominantly subsistence-based (i.e. farming or hunting for food for immediate use), and non-urbanized, sometimes nomadic. Some people have been critical of indigenous peoples' treatment of the environment, noting examples such as the deforestation of Easter Island or the disappearance of large animals from parts of America and Australia caused by native people.

However, others have argued that more generally, many indigenous people, for decades—even centuries—have accumulated important knowledge and traditions that allow them to work with nature rather than destroy it, because they are dependent on it and thus have a sense of interdependence.

In other parts of the world, such as India, Brazil, Thailand, and Malaysia, multinational companies have been accused of participating in "biopiracy" whereby biological resources used by communities openly for generations (decades, centuries, or even millennia in some cases) have been patented away, leaving the local people unable to use their own local plants and other resources.For other indigenous people, logging, dam projects and other activities threaten ways of life, sometimes leading to conflict.

The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues  (UNPFII) notes:

Indigenous peoples around the world have sought recognition of their identities, their ways of life and their right to traditional lands, territories and natural resources; yet throughout history, their rights have been violated. Indigenous peoples are arguably among the most disadvantaged and vulnerable groups of people in the world today. The international community now recognizes that special measures are required to protect the rights of the world's indigenous peoples. Indigenous people have often found their lands and cultures overridden by more dominant societies.

Many Europeans at that time saw native peoples from regions such as Africa, Asia and the Americas as "primitives," or "savages" to be dominated. This would help justify settlement and expansion into those lands, and even slavery. Without civilization these people could be regarded as inferior, and if seen as "non-people" then European colonialists would not be impeding on anyone else's territory. Instead, they would be settling "virgin territory" (sometimes "discovered") overcoming numerous challenges they would face with much courage. Under international law, tribal people, for example, do have some recognized rights. The two most important laws about tribal peoples are Conventions 107 and 169 under the International Labour Organization (ILO), part of the UN system.

These  conventions obliges governments to identify the lands and protect these rights. It ensures recognition of tribal peoples' cultural and social practices, obliges governments to consult with tribal peoples about laws affecting them, guarantees respect for tribal peoples' customs, and calls for protection of their natural resources.

The struggle for such rights is still not over. Many governments routinely violate the rights of indigenous people. A slow process is, however, raising hope for a more comprehensive set of rights, although some major countries are still against some particular aspects.

U.N. Draft on Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The Declaration emphasizes the right of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions and to pursue their development in accordance with their aspirations and needs.

Although it would not be legally binding if it were ever adopted by the General Assembly, indigenous communities around the world have pressed hard for this and have felt that the adoption of the declaration will help indigenous people in their efforts against discrimination, racism, oppression, marginalization and exploitation.

Major Countries Opposed To Various Rights For Indigenous Peoples

The process to draft the aforementioned declaration moved very slowly, not because of some imagined slowness and inefficiencies of an over-sized bureaucracy, but because of concerns expressed by particular countries at some of the core provisions of the draft declaration, especially the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples and the control over natural resources existing on indigenous peoples' traditional lands.

Some historically and currently powerful countries have been opposed to various rights and provisions for indigenous peoples, because of the implications to their territory, or because it would tacitly recognize they have been involved in major injustices during periods of colonialism and imperialism. Giving such people's the ability to regain some lost land, for example, would be politically explosive.

As Survival International also notes, individual rights is sometimes an alien concept to some societies, and it can be easier to exploit individuals than a collective people.

Full collective rights over land and resources are essential for the survival of tribal peoples. The Yanomami of Amazonia, for example, live in large communal houses called yanos. The concept of 'individual ownership' of such a building is nonsensical. A tribe's right to decide, for example, whether a mining company should be allowed to operate on its land, also only makes sense as a collective right. The UK claims, however, that these vital collective rights should be individual rights 'exercised collectively.' In the USA, the infamous Dawes Act of 1887 demonstrated the danger of this approach. The Act turned communally-held Indian lands into individual plots; 90 million acres of Indian land were removed at a stroke, and the reservations were broken up.

As reported by IPS, some African countries who had previously supported the declaration this time raised concerns about the phrase "right to self-determination" because much of Africa is considered indigenous and they feared unwanted rebellions by some groups within their borders.Some indigenous leaders, disappointed by this, claimed it was pressure from US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and others opposed to the declaration, that had lobbied for this position, behind the scenes.

Customary Law—Backward Or Relevant Justice Systems?

Many indigenous cultures having developed their own societal traditions and norms naturally have ways to deal with crimes. Various anthropologists and others have noted some interesting differences between some traditional systems of justice and modern law. Indigenous law consists of a series of unwritten oral principles that are abided by and socially accepted by a specific community. Although these norms may vary from one community to another, they are all based on the idea of recommending appropriate behaviour rather than on prohibition.

Customary indigenous law aims to restore the harmony and balance in a community; it is essentially collective in nature, whereas the Western judicial system is based on individualism. Customary law is based on the principle that the wrongdoer must compensate his or her victim for the harm that has been done so that he or she can be reinserted into the community, whereas the Western system seeks punishment. In various countries in Africa, traditional systems of justice have often helped people come to term with conflict as part of a rebuilding process. Truth and reconciliation commissions, such as the well-known one in South Africa have bought victims and perpetrators together.

Truth commissions attempt to establish what happened, why, by whom, and may even include provisions for amnesty, forgiveness, or appropriate justice, all in the hope that "never again" should such gross human rights abuses occur. Victims get the chance to be heard and perpetrators have the opportunity to reintegrate back into society without the fear of backlash. In Africa, there have been commissions in South Africa, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, the Central African Republic, Ghana, Nigeria, and Kenya. Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo have also hinted at the prospect of truth commissions.

These systems are not perfect, as sometimes war criminals may get off lighter than expected.

Indigenous Peoples' Struggle around The World

The International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) has for years worked on these issues. Their world reports detail issues and struggles for indigenous people around the world. Human Rights are universal, and civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights belong to all human beings, including indigenous people. Every indigenous woman, man, youth and child is entitled to the realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on equal terms with others in society, without discrimination of any kind. Indigenous people and peoples also enjoy certain human rights specifically linked to their identity, including rights to maintain and enjoy their culture and language free from discrimination, rights of access to ancestral lands and land relied upon for subsistence, rights to decide their own patterns of development, and rights to autonomy over indigenous affairs.

The Human Rights at Issue

The human rights of indigenous people and peoples are explicitly set out in the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (No. 169), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and other widely adhered to international human rights treaties and Declarations. They include the following indivisible, interdependent and interrelated human rights

In recognition of the fact that indigenous and tribal peoples are likely to be discriminated against in many areas, the first general, fundamental principle of The Tribal People's Convention No. 169 is non-discrimination. Article 3 of the Convention states that indigenous peoples have the right to enjoy the full measure of human rights and fundamental freedoms without hindrance or discrimination. In Article 4, the Convention also guarantees enjoyment of the general rights of citizenship without discrimination. Another principle in the Convention concerns the application of all its provisions to male and female indigenous persons without discrimination (Article 3). Article 20 provides for prevention of discrimination against indigenous workers.

In response to the vulnerable situation of indigenous and tribal peoples, Article 4 of the Convention calls for special measures to be adopted to safeguard the persons, institutions, property, labour, cultures and environment of these peoples. In addition, the Convention stipulates that these special measures should not go against the free wishes of indigenous peoples.

Recognition of the cultural and other specificities of indigenous and tribal peoples and consultation of the Tribal People's convention No. 169

Indigenous and tribal peoples' cultures and identities form an integral part of their lives. Their ways of life, customs and traditions, institutions, customary laws, forms of land use and forms of social organization are usually different from those of the dominant population. The Convention recognizes these differences, and aims to ensure that they are protected and taken into account when any measures are being undertaken that are likely to have an impact on these peoples. The spirit of consultation and participation constitutes the cornerstone of Convention No. 169 on which all its provisions are based. The Convention requires that indigenous and tribal peoples are consulted on issues that affect them. It also requires that these peoples are able to engage in free, prior and informed participation in policy and development processes that affect them.The principles of consultation and participation in Convention No. 169 relate not only to specific development projects, but also to broader questions of governance, and the participation of indigenous and tribal peoples in public life.

In Article 6, the Convention provides a guideline as to how consultation with indigenous and tribal peoples should be conducted:

Consultation with indigenous peoples should be undertaken through appropriate procedures, in good faith, and through the representative institutionsof these peoples;

The peoples involved should have the opportunity to participate freely at all levelsin the formulation, implementation and evaluation of measures and programmes that affect them directly;

Another important component of the concept of consultation is that of representativity. If an appropriate consultation process is not developed with the indigenous and tribal institutions or organizations that are truly representative of the peoples in question, then the resulting consultations would not comply with the requirements of the Convention.

The Convention also specifies individual circumstances in which consultation with indigenous and tribal peoples is an obligation.

Consultation should be undertaken in good faith, with the objective of achieving agreement. The parties involved should seek to establish a dialogue allowing them to find appropriate solutions in an atmosphere of mutual respect and full participation. Effective consultation is consultation in which those concerned have an opportunity to influence the decision taken. This means real and timely consultation. For example, a simple information meeting does not constitute real consultation, nor does a meeting that is conducted in a language that the indigenous peoples present do not understand.

The challenges of implementing an appropriate process of consultation with indigenous peoples have been the subject of a number of observations of the ILO's Committee of Experts, as well as other supervisory procedures of the ILO, which the ILO has now compiled in a Digest. Adequate consultation is fundamental for achieving a constructive dialogue and for the effective resolution of the various challenges associated with the implementation of the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples.

 Implementation of Convention No. 169

Since its adoption, Convention No. 169 has gained recognition well beyond the number of actual ratifications. Its provisions have influenced numerous policy documents, debates and legal decisions at the regional and international levels, as well as national legislation and policies.

The Provisions of Convention No. 169 are compatible with the provisions of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the adoption of the Declaration illustrates the broader acceptance of the principles of Convention No. 169 well beyond the number of ratifications.

The Convention stipulates that governments shall have the responsibility for developing co-ordinated and systematic action to protect the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples (Article 3) and ensure that appropriate mechanisms and means are available (Article 33). With its focus on consultation and participation, Convention No. 169 is a tool to stimulate dialogue between governments and indigenous and tribal peoples and has been used as a tool for development processes, as well as conflict prevention and resolutions.
http://www.articlesbase.com/national-state-local-articles/tribal-laws-in-india-and-tribal-conventions-on-rights-of-indigenous-people-worldwide-5692431.html