One finds it odd that civil society has not reacted to the Supreme Court’s observation that Indian nationals were not meant to be hunted down by the police in encounters. The court was reacting to the killing of two Maoists in an “encounter” when they were responding to private peace overtures. Why does the government persist in its belief that the force can suppress discontent? Violence is what I detest in solving a problem. Maoists or Naxalites are defaming their movement by using the gun. However, the fact of state terrorism remains.
It is not a secret that the state has arrayed the maximum possible force against the Naxals, who are portrayed as the “worst internal security threat” in the country. The most affected area is the Dandakaranya region. This was promised a special rehabilitation deal by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in 1958 while inaugurating the Dandakaranya Development Authority. That undertaking was never met.
Power from the barrel of the gun began to be seen in the late 1960s in areas such as Naxalbari in West Bengal and Srikakulam in Andhra Pradesh. It was only in 1980 that some Andhra groups moved into remote places of Baster in Madhya Pradesh for shelter and training. Their very presence in concerned areas gave the simple tribals some relief against the patwari-havaldar-dafedar trio.
The language barrier proved to be the most effective screen for Naxal consolidation in Bastar. The national policy of teaching through mother tongue in elementary classes was buried beneath the compulsory instruction in Hindi. Even learning of tribal dialects by all state functionaries was ignored.
The people’s communication with outside world, therefore, was largely through middlemen or a privileged few. The Naxals, on the other hand, established direct rapport with the people in no time. They started attracting the youth to become a part of their cadre with no other rival in the realm of ideas or even information. Abujhamar that had been kept outside the purview of normal administration since 1930s with restricted entry to outsiders became their most favourite area. Thus, here was the most propitious opportunity for the Naxalites to consolidate their hold on a part of Bastar as a “liberated zone”.
With the firm resolve to meet the challenge of internal security threat, the state has used every force except the Army in this region. Hundreds of villagers have either deserted their homes or are closeted in camps. Many are moving out to adjoining states. There is practically no chance for a dialogue between the state and the Naxals. The Andhra experience has proved to be a calamity. Yet there are countless special deals with liberal financial assistance for infrastructure and social services for the hither-to-“neglected poor tribals”.
The rulers have faulted in the very first step in their perception about the real issues concerning the tribal people. The worst insult which a self-respecting tribal has to swallow in the name and game of development is the tag “poor” given to him by the officialdom and others. This is being done on purpose so that politicians, officials and the elite can project themselves as the well-wishers of the tribals. The bitter truth is that the tribal is not poor but disinherited. Less said the better about the infrastructure and other development programmes.
A radical start was made by abolishing the commercial sale of intoxicants in tribal areas (1974) and conceding the ownership of minor forest produce (the 1976 conference of tribal and forest ministers). These vital decisions and the need to raise the level of administration were forgotten by the end of the decade. However, an array of fortune seekers rushed to the tribal areas in the real style of gold rush.
The tribal people in India have their respective territory. They manage all their affairs as members of a virtual “village republic” in accordance with their customs and traditions. They depend for their livelihood on the natural resources of their habitat. Although the state is enforcing the model of individual ownership, land even now is not property. The traditional frame of “community ownership and individual use” is still in vogue among many communities, especially in the Northeast.
A simple tribal lives in the present, unconcerned about the future. There is no future tense in many a tribal dialect. Theirs is a subsistence economy with heavy dependence on forest and water resources that have been endowed by nature in plenty. The tribal is a “man of word” and proud about the same. It is worth recollecting the incident of a Naga chief storming out of the court with a resolve never to return when a lawyer started cross-examining him.
The British had to accept the freedom-loving spirit of the tribal people after a number of unsuccessful expeditions into their territories. They were obliged to face the entire communities. It is a prevarication of history that the British conquered tribal territories. People’s refusal to acknowledge British authority was at the root of some of the major revolts in the tribal areas.
There was a qualitative change in the legal regime of the tribal areas with the adoption of the Constitution. Some of the excluded areas and partially excluded areas in various provinces and also some territories in the erstwhile princely states were designed as Scheduled Areas under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution in 1950. The near-ideal frame of the Scheduled Areas, which has been eulogised as “constitution within constitution” became virtually dysfunctional ironically with the adoption of the Constitution on November 26, 1949.
Take the case of Bastar. The traditional system of dispute resolution is so powerful and pervasive that on an average one case in two years is reported per police station in the whole district. But this system has no sanction of law. Therefore, all proceedings in village councils, especially in non-bailable cases, are violations of law. Proceedings can be initiated against one or more members of the village council by some operator or the police, notwithstanding the consensus-reached decision which is accepted fair by all parties in dispute.
Yet, the government has ordered “denotification” of some villages in Bastar so that the Panchayat (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1966, is not applicable to them. The Act was specifically drafted to give tribal populations control over their lands. The state has not learnt any lesson from its mistake so far.
It is not a secret that the state has arrayed the maximum possible force against the Naxals, who are portrayed as the “worst internal security threat” in the country. The most affected area is the Dandakaranya region. This was promised a special rehabilitation deal by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in 1958 while inaugurating the Dandakaranya Development Authority. That undertaking was never met.
Power from the barrel of the gun began to be seen in the late 1960s in areas such as Naxalbari in West Bengal and Srikakulam in Andhra Pradesh. It was only in 1980 that some Andhra groups moved into remote places of Baster in Madhya Pradesh for shelter and training. Their very presence in concerned areas gave the simple tribals some relief against the patwari-havaldar-dafedar trio.
The language barrier proved to be the most effective screen for Naxal consolidation in Bastar. The national policy of teaching through mother tongue in elementary classes was buried beneath the compulsory instruction in Hindi. Even learning of tribal dialects by all state functionaries was ignored.
The people’s communication with outside world, therefore, was largely through middlemen or a privileged few. The Naxals, on the other hand, established direct rapport with the people in no time. They started attracting the youth to become a part of their cadre with no other rival in the realm of ideas or even information. Abujhamar that had been kept outside the purview of normal administration since 1930s with restricted entry to outsiders became their most favourite area. Thus, here was the most propitious opportunity for the Naxalites to consolidate their hold on a part of Bastar as a “liberated zone”.
With the firm resolve to meet the challenge of internal security threat, the state has used every force except the Army in this region. Hundreds of villagers have either deserted their homes or are closeted in camps. Many are moving out to adjoining states. There is practically no chance for a dialogue between the state and the Naxals. The Andhra experience has proved to be a calamity. Yet there are countless special deals with liberal financial assistance for infrastructure and social services for the hither-to-“neglected poor tribals”.
The rulers have faulted in the very first step in their perception about the real issues concerning the tribal people. The worst insult which a self-respecting tribal has to swallow in the name and game of development is the tag “poor” given to him by the officialdom and others. This is being done on purpose so that politicians, officials and the elite can project themselves as the well-wishers of the tribals. The bitter truth is that the tribal is not poor but disinherited. Less said the better about the infrastructure and other development programmes.
A radical start was made by abolishing the commercial sale of intoxicants in tribal areas (1974) and conceding the ownership of minor forest produce (the 1976 conference of tribal and forest ministers). These vital decisions and the need to raise the level of administration were forgotten by the end of the decade. However, an array of fortune seekers rushed to the tribal areas in the real style of gold rush.
The tribal people in India have their respective territory. They manage all their affairs as members of a virtual “village republic” in accordance with their customs and traditions. They depend for their livelihood on the natural resources of their habitat. Although the state is enforcing the model of individual ownership, land even now is not property. The traditional frame of “community ownership and individual use” is still in vogue among many communities, especially in the Northeast.
A simple tribal lives in the present, unconcerned about the future. There is no future tense in many a tribal dialect. Theirs is a subsistence economy with heavy dependence on forest and water resources that have been endowed by nature in plenty. The tribal is a “man of word” and proud about the same. It is worth recollecting the incident of a Naga chief storming out of the court with a resolve never to return when a lawyer started cross-examining him.
The British had to accept the freedom-loving spirit of the tribal people after a number of unsuccessful expeditions into their territories. They were obliged to face the entire communities. It is a prevarication of history that the British conquered tribal territories. People’s refusal to acknowledge British authority was at the root of some of the major revolts in the tribal areas.
There was a qualitative change in the legal regime of the tribal areas with the adoption of the Constitution. Some of the excluded areas and partially excluded areas in various provinces and also some territories in the erstwhile princely states were designed as Scheduled Areas under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution in 1950. The near-ideal frame of the Scheduled Areas, which has been eulogised as “constitution within constitution” became virtually dysfunctional ironically with the adoption of the Constitution on November 26, 1949.
Take the case of Bastar. The traditional system of dispute resolution is so powerful and pervasive that on an average one case in two years is reported per police station in the whole district. But this system has no sanction of law. Therefore, all proceedings in village councils, especially in non-bailable cases, are violations of law. Proceedings can be initiated against one or more members of the village council by some operator or the police, notwithstanding the consensus-reached decision which is accepted fair by all parties in dispute.
Yet, the government has ordered “denotification” of some villages in Bastar so that the Panchayat (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1966, is not applicable to them. The Act was specifically drafted to give tribal populations control over their lands. The state has not learnt any lesson from its mistake so far.
Source: The Tribune, Chandigarh, India
To know about India and its History check:
0 comments:
Post a Comment