45 adivasi families were duped into selling their lands near Bokaro, Jharkhand, lured by promises of jobs in a garment factory that was never built. This is only one of thousands of cases of adivasi land alienation in Jharkhand, 100 years after the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act prohibited transfer of adivasi lands to non-adivasis
The alienation of adivasis from their land is not a new issue in Jharkhand. According to the Ministry of Rural Development’s Annual Report 2004-2005, Jharkhand tops the list of adivasi land alienation in the country, with 86,291 cases involving 10,48,93 acres of land
The Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act 1908, which prohibits the transfer of adivasi land to non-adivasis, marked its 100th year on November 11, 2008, as adivasis across the state demanded immediate action against breaches in the law that have resulted in the loss of over 22,00,000 acres of land since Independence.
The case of the adivasi village of Tetulia, located near the steel city of Bokaro, in Jharkhand, is an important example of land alienation through breach of law. The village has completely lost its identity and is now known as Bari Cooperative; 250 posh buildings have replaced the earlier mud houses and non-adivasis are now the proud owners of land that once belonged to the Santhal adivasis. Forty-five Santhal families used to live in the village but their lands were grabbed and they were forced to leave the area. The few who survive live in mud houses outside the cooperative area.
The Bari Cooperative Society was established in 1980 by two property dealers, R K Singh and B K Singh, who approached the local adivasis with a proposal to establish a cloth factory. Besides money for their land they were also promised jobs. Finally, the dealers managed to acquire 50 acres of land for the Bari Cooperative Society for which they paid less than the promised Rs 1,000 per acre. Forty-year-old Pankisto Manjhi says: “I was given just 10 kg of rice for three acres of land.” Fagu Manjhi (60), whose 1.27 acres of land were also acquired for the cooperative, was given a job as guard for a monthly salary of Rs 800. But when the cooperative was closed, he was left high and dry. Likewise, Kari Manjhi had 9.26 acres of land of which 4.24 acres were taken by the Bari Cooperative and 2.36 acres captured by migrant Biharis. He has only 2.66 acres left with him; despite filing a case in the Bokaro Civil Court against the Bari Cooperative in 2006, nothing has happened.
Interestingly, though the land was bought under the guise of setting up a garment factory it closed down just a few days later and the owners constructed posh buildings on the land which they sold to non-adivasis at the market rate. When the matter was brought to light, Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, Amrendra Pratap Singh conducted an investigation in 2005 and found that 95% of the buildings had been built on adivasi land, in serious violation of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. Unfortunately, no action has been taken.
Twenty-eight long years have passed since the adivasi land was grabbed in the name of a garment factory. And justice has still not been done.
The alienation of adivasis from their land is not a new issue in the state of Jharkhand. It began in the medieval period and flourished during the British Raj. The British-Indian government introduced the zamindari system by enforcing the Permanent Settlement Act in 1793 which caused an upheaval among adivasi communities. Consequently, there was a series of adivasi uprisings in the state. The Santhal uprising in Santhal Pargana, the Kolh revolution in Kolhan, and Birsa Ulgulan in Chhotanagpur that resulted in the enforcement of three pieces of legislation -- the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act 1908, Wilkinson’s Rules 1837, and the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act 1949. The prime objectives of these laws were protection of adivasi lands, traditional self-governance and preservation of culture. However, these laws have been seriously violated.
In 1969, the Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation Act was enforced for the prevention of illegal land transfers and of adivasis. An area regulation court was set up and the deputy commissioner (DC) given special rights over the sale and transfer of adivasi land. According to the provision, an adivasi could not sell or transfer land even to another adivasi without the DC’s permission.
When the special court started functioning, a huge number of cases were registered. According to a government report, 60,464 cases concerning 85,777.22 acres of illegal transfer of land were registered till 2001-2002. Of these, 34,608 cases relating to 46,797.36 acres of land were considered for hearing, and the remaining 25,856 cases relating to 38,979.86 acres of land were dismissed.
After the hearing, however, a mere 21,445 cases, relating to 29,829.7 acres of land, were given over to the original holders; the rest remains with non-adivasis. A total of 2,608 illegal land transfer cases were registered in 2003-2004, 2,657 cases in 2004-2005, and 3,230 cases in 2005-2006 -- clear indication of an increase in the number of cases of illegal land alienation. According to the Union Ministry of Rural Development’s Annual Report 2004-2005, Jharkhand tops the list of adivasi land alienation in the country with 86,291 cases involving 10,48,93 acres of land.
Bandi Oraon, a prominent adivasi leader and vice-chairperson of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, has conducted a study on implementation of various laws meant to protect the illegal transfer of adivasi land to non-adivasis in the state. The study was confined to 15.703 cases registered with the Ranchi collectorate with respect to adivasis living in and around Ranchi city.
The study reveals that a mere 41.46% of cases were accepted for hearing; 26.82% were rejected and 31.72% kept pending. Interestingly, however, 96% of the cases heard resulted in actual possession being given.
Non-adivasis often employ underhand methods to acquire adivasi land. The ‘best’ and most widely used trick among non-adivasis to buy adivasi land is to marry an adivasi girl and register the land in her name. Many adivasis too are forced to surrender their land to moneylenders after being trapped in the debt cycle. And, there are the usual threats, coercion and preparation of illegal documents to acquire land. Authorising the deputy commissioner for land transfers works to the disadvantage of adivasis as many non-adivasi officers justify land transfer to non-adivasis. In some cases, the courts have defined the laws in favour of non-adivasis.
The amendment of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act in 1947 for the purposes of urbanisation, industrialisation and various ‘development’ projects also deprived hundreds of adivasis of their land. Indeed, the laws on land have all been misused, violated and interpreted against adivasis by policymakers, bureaucrats and non-adivasis.
Under these mitigating circumstances, how can the issue be resolved?
The National Advisory Council constituted by the Government of India sent a recommendation to the government on January 19, 2005, that has ample provisions to address the issue. According to the recommendation, the state is required to play a proactive role in monitoring the restoration of lands to adivasis. It calls for transparency and access to land records (at the village level) by adivasis in the local language, speedy disposal of cases where adivasis are involved, and consideration of oral evidence where records are not available. All pending land disputes must be settled at the earliest so that adivasis do not face harassment at the hands of non-adivasis, revenue officials and others. There must be regular updates of land records, regular jamabandhis and the display of revenue details at the village level. Often where lands have been restored to adivasis, non-adivasis obtain stay orders from the courts; this must be discouraged. All states with scheduled areas should have a prohibitory clause on the transfer of lands by tribals.
The council strongly recommends that there should be no displacement of adivasis for any project (mining, energy or any other) in scheduled areas. The Land Acquisition Act may be amended in line with the PESA Act, 1996, so that the rights of people are protected in fifth schedule areas. The setting up of industries in scheduled areas without assessing their impact on the adivasi economy should stop forthwith. No agricultural land or land used for community purposes must be allowed to be transferred or purchased to set up industry. At no cost should the laws of the fifth and sixth schedules of the Constitution be considered for amendment to open up areas of control or ownership to private non-adivasi individuals, industries or institutions. The honest implementation of legislation and the recommendations of this council would go a long way in addressing the problem of tribal land alienation.
(Gladson Dungdung is a human rights activist based in Jharkhand)