Placating tribals

On November 15, 2000, tribals, mostly from central India, had something to rejoice about. A demand
articulated for over a century saw the birth of the state of Jharkhand.

Demands for separate statehood for Jharkhand were first raised in 1914 by tribals, as mentioned in the
State Reorganisation Committee Report 1955-56. Tribal politicians vigorously took up the cause,
supported by other indigenous communities. For long, the mineral-rich areas of Chota Nagpur and
Santhal Pargana had been exploited and the tribal people displaced in the name of development.
Racial discrimination of tribals by outsiders, referred to as dikus in the tribal tongue, was rampant. The
demand for separate statehood was not merely to establish a distinct identity but also to do away with years
of injustice.

However, the creation of Jharkhand has only increased the vulnerability of tribals. The token concessions
of a tribal chief minister and a few reserved constituencies were deemed a green signal to displace tribals
for so-called ‘development’. According to reports of the Indian People’s Tribunal on Environment and
Human Rights, a total of 6.54 million people have so far been displaced in Jharkhand in the name of
development. The ongoing land acquisition at Nagri village (near Ranchi, Jharkhand) for the Indian
Institute of Management (IIM) and National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL) may seem
like development projects in the eyes of the educated and the affluent. But these elite educational institutes
have displaced over 500 tribal villagers. The displacement in the name of dams, factories, mining, etc goes
largely unreported.

In a place where displacement and development have become synonymous, the strategic reasons for such
oppressive measures go beyond monetary gain. One senses, quite palpably, consistent attempts by various
corporate firms to exert control over the policy formulation process. This political-corporate nexus was
very apparent when 42 MoUs were signed as soon as Jharkhand came into being. According to a
human rights report published by the Jharkhand Human Rights Movement (JHRM), the state
government of Jharkhand has so far signed 102 MoUs which go against the laws of the Fifth
Schedule. Vast tracts of land will be required to bring these MoUs to fruition.

People’s opposition and various constitutional laws against land acquisition have always been
impediments to the corporations. In 2011, a people’s movement forced Arcelor Mittal to pull out of a
proposed project in Jharkhand. The corporate sector has been trying hard to change the status quo in its
favour, and in doing so has adopted some dubious means. The Chota Nagpur Tenancy (CNT) Act is one
of several laws provided by the Constitution to safeguard tribal interests. It was instituted in 1908 to
safeguard tribal lands from being sold to non-tribals. The law was meant to prevent foreseeable
dispossession, and preserve tribal identity. Loss of land would naturally lead to loss of tribal identity as the
issuance of a community certificate requires proof of land possession.

The private sector seems to have taken a special interest in drastically reforming or abolishing the CNT
Act. Corporate-owned newspapers like Prabhat Khabar and Dainik Bhaskar have campaigned vigorously
for reforming the Act to make transfer of land from tribals to non-tribals more flexible. Needless to say,
any reform in this direction would directly benefit corporations that own mines in the tribal lands of
Jharkhand, and pave the way for future land acquisition.

The state government, irrespective of party banner, has been part of such threats to tribal interests. Non-
inclusion of the Sarna religion in the religion category of census data has drastically downsized tribal
populations. There have been lapses on the part of the administration to provide accurate data on tribal
populations, many of which are underreported.

With the never-ending displacement, the tribal population figure has dropped to a mere 28% on paper.