Himanshu Kumar on why Indians should support Tribals in their resistance...

Himanshu Kumar speaking in the midst of his 3 month long cycle yatra, explains why the nation should support the tribals in their resistance against the govt.

He says that if the govt. wins this battle, it will drive them to winning the war and grabbing land from people illegally and unconstitutionally will become the order of the day.

He urges the activists across the country to get off the net and go amidst the people. That simply by sitting and writing on the internet, one cannot create pressure on the govt. Till such time we don't go amongst the masses we won't be able to awaken them or pressure the govt. to deliver justice to all its citizens.

He urges the people to go to the masses and learn about the grassroot resistance across the country and to support them.

The YouTube Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTnncO8kc-Y

A Formula for More Land and Resource Grabbing: Dangers of the Green India Mission

Forest Movements' Joint Statement

As national platforms of forest dwellers' movements and struggle organisations, we strongly oppose the “Green India Mission” recently announced by the Ministry of Environment and as part of the National Action Plan for Climate Change. This Mission, in its current form, will lead to increased land grabbing, violation of people's rights, environmental destruction, and loss of common lands and livelihoods based on them, without in any way genuinely responding to the burning problem of climate change.

• India's forests and forest lands are the homelands of millions of people, the adivasis and other forest dwellers. Huge areas of land officially classified as “forest” are in fact being lived in, cultivated or otherwise used and depended upon by forest dwellers. Despite the Forest Rights Act of 2006, however, their community rights to common forests, lands etc. are still being trampled upon and ignored.

• The Forest Department's main “green” activity is tree plantations. Such “afforestation” programmes often take place on cultivated lands (including shifting cultivation fallows), village commons, community pasture lands etc. that actually belong to people; they also destroy biodiversity rich natural open forests and grasslands, reducing people's access to forest produce and animal fodder. In October 2008, the Standing Committee on Environment and Forests sharply criticised such programs¹, saying “afforestation ... deprives forest dwellers and adivasis of some or all of their lands and impacts their livelihoods and basic needs – for which they are neither informed, nor consulted, nor compensated.”

This is what the Green India Mission seeks to promote, despite lip service to the contrary. The true impact of any policy is shaped not by its rhetoric but by its institutional structure:

1. Despite much talk of gram sabha and village based management, all the Mission's bodies above the village – the Division and State Forest Development Agencies etc. - are controlled by the Forest Department (Paragraph E). How is the gram sabha to manage anything if funds, policies and coordination are controlled by the Forest Department?
2. Within the village, the non-statutory Joint Forest Management Committee is slipped in as a “sub committee of the gram sabha”, when it is, once again, controlled by the Forest Department and not accountable to the village. There is even talk of twisting the Forest Rights Act – which explicitly provides for gram sabha control over forests – to legitimise JFM Committees and vest them with legal status (Paragraph 5.4.1.(b)). Thus, the undermining of local control begins in the policy text itself. Instead of replacing Joint Forest Management, the document is promoting it.
3. So-called “community agents” are to be hired and trained, but once again we find that they are to be under the Forest Department, and the document even says they can be used to “augment Forest Department staff” (i.e. presumably serve as departmental contract labour). This appears to be a further extension of Forest Department control over village decision making, thereby undermining the decision making authority of the gram sabha.
4. The Forest Department has neither the expertise nor the skill to implement “restoration of ecosystems and habitat diversity,” nor is there space for such expertise. Within the document itself, the old Department line shows through: forest restoration is almost equated with plantations (Para 5.2.2) and grassland restoration with grazing reduction (5.2.3). The document totally ignores indigenous and local knowledge about ecosystems and eco-restoration.
5. The only really measurable targets given are for plantations and some schemes such as stove distribution. As funding is largely target driven in the government system, this indicates where the money will go. The draft talks of 20 million hectares being afforested, but this is effectively impossible, as such a huge area of land will have myriad existing uses and rights. The draft also refers to 44,000 crores being spent. Such enormous targets, with such an institutional structure, will only result in more land grabbing and corruption.

What will this actually lead to? We can expect the following consequences:

1. Industrial monocultures as a result of plantation programs – while expressing the point that monocultures are “more vulnerable”, the draft document nowhere rules them out, and they would be the natural result of this process. These would be harmful to the environment and dangerous for people's rights and livelihoods (lip service on these issues notwithstanding).
2. A commoditisation of forests, converting people's homelands and livelihood resources, without even consulting them, into tradable commodities through the system of carbon trading. This will likely involve private companies as well, triggering even more land grabbing. The carbon storage figures that are given are clearly aimed at establishing a basis for such a system. In reality, such figures are usually hogwash. Forests do not consist of just standing trees – trees grow, fires and other disasters take place, people and wildlife consume non-timber forest produce, etc. Forests are constantly changing. An obsession with carbon storage and incentives in the form of trading will lead companies and the government to shut off forests from all use by people, on the one hand, and on the other will encourage fictional carbon storage figures.
3. Conversion of areas such as pastures, grazing areas, shifting cultivation fallows, and other common lands into plantations for the purpose of meeting targets and earning profits through carbon trading.

The true threats to the climate and India's environment arise from resource grabbing, unequal resource use and expropriation by corporates and elites. These are not being addressed at all, and instead such sham programs – whose benefits are grossly exaggerated and almost impossible to actually calculate – are being proposed as an eyewash. The Green India Mission is likely only to result in conflict, resistance, impoverishment and displacement, while itself causing environmental damage.

Any such Mission has to begin with a democratic framework that, in particular, disempowers the Forest Department and creates the space for genuine people's empowerment. This document does the opposite. Hence, we oppose this program and call instead for the Environment Ministry and the Central government to respect people's rights, indigenous knowledge and democratic control over forest and land resources, which will do far more to tackle climate change than such dangerous programs.

1194^th report of the Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests, on the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Bill 2008.

Forest Tribes Lose Rights

Goa’s Velip tribal people are battling the Forest Department for the right to use their ancestral lands. The Forest Department has claimed Velip land as a wildlife sanctuary. But the Velip people have used the land, which they see as sacred, for as long as living memory.

Locals claim the Forest Department has named the area as a wildlife sanctuary so it can move the tribal people out and eventually hand the land over to rich mining companies. There are robust deposits of valuable minerals in the area. Mining companies operating in Goa are highly interested in expanding their operations. Many claim the Forest Department hands over protected lands in exchange for large sums of money.

The Forest Department is in the process of removing Velip rights to use the land. They have issued restrictions on Velip people’s movements, built 3-metre stone fences around the area and dug deep trenches along the Velip’s footpaths to prevent them from crossing into the area.

Velips depend on the land to cultivate cashews—a primary source of income for the tribe. Without access to these harvests, the Velips will be robbed of their ability to support their families as they have for so long. Khotigaon is a sacred worship center for Velips, where they honor their deities. To them, it is an irreplaceable space.

In this video, Devidas reports on the Velip people’s situation in Khotigaon.

Uncivilized Practices of the Civil Society

By Gladson Dungdung first published in Jharkand Mirror. It provides a very crucial insight into the view of society towards adivasis in India.

The term ‘Civil Society’ is mostly used for voluntary organizations, non-governmental organizations and non-profit institutions. These are also called as civil society organizations. Interestingly, most of these organizations are always busy in criticizing the state (which is of course not wrong as the state is a failure), but they themselves behave like the state when it comes to the issues of Adivasis, Dalits and Women of D-section (deprived sections), even though they have also failed in delivering justice to marginalized peoples. Most of these organizations are led by elites even after 62 years of Indian independence. They enjoy corporate rate salaries, luxurious accommodations and air travel in the name of Adivasis, Dalits and women of D-section. The misappropriation of funds in the name of marginalized groups remains uncounted, despite that they are masters in lecturing on the issues of responsibility, transparency and accountability.

There are very interesting kinds of so-called civil society organizations – 1) based in the small cities or villages and getting less funds, 2) headquartered in Delhi and other big cities and bagging huge funds, and 3) NGO federations called people’s organizations. Perhaps, the secretary, director and chief functionaries of these organizations are never replaced against their will, though they talk much about democracy. These civil society organizations also bring the mass organizations, social movements and displacement movements into their clutches and cash these in dollars, euros and pounds. Don’t be surprised if some organizations based in Delhi show you a beautiful power point presentation about the Adivasi movements against displacement in Jharkhand, Orissa or Chhatishgarh.

There are also the holy cows called ‘funding agencies’ (national and international), who love to be called civil society organizations, whose prime job is to collect the money, enjoy most of it and give the rest to other organizations. Ironically, these organizations fund those NGOs headed by non-Adivasis for the revival of Adivasi tradition, culture and ethos, but at the same time they avoid joining hands with Adivasi-headed organizations for the same purposes. The sad part is, the Adivasis are still unqualified for the funding organizations; therefore, a few Adivasis can be seen in the lowest strata of these organizations, despite their professional qualities, commitment and dedication. There are also some organizations who advocate for the Adivasi Chief Minister for the state of Jharkhand, but when it comes to the matter of their organizations, they cannot bear to see an Adivasi in the driving seat. They also advocate for promotion and protection of Adivasi languages, but their doors are always closed for the non-English speaking, marginalized people.

These organizations tirelessly use the connotation ‘empowering the marginalized’, ‘voice to the voiceless’ and ‘women empowerment,’ but when it comes to the question of leadership, they just escape in one way or the other. Why did the civil society organizations fail in bringing up the Adivasi leadership was the most important question repeatedly asked in the National Consultation on Adivasis of India organized by the National Centre for Advocacy Studies (NCAS) in Delhi on December 15-16, 2009. A noted Gandhian and founder of the Ekta Parishad, P.V. Rajgopal, accepts in denial mode that the civil society organizations have failed in bringing up the Adivasi leadership but he also advocates for a united fight by saying, “The issue like displacement is not just limited to the Adivasis but it is also hitting the farmers, vendors and fishermen.” But does it mean that the question of Adivasis get less priority?

Ironically, the non-Adivasi leaders of the civil society organizations not only respond diplomatically but also justify their leadership of the Adivasis. While responding to the questions of Adivasis leadership, a prominent social activist from Jharkhand, Sanjay Bosu Mullick, says, “Since the Adivasis do not know about the exploitative system and structure of our (non-adivasis) society, therefore we are fighting with our people on behalf of them.” One can only appreciate this diplomatic response and thank the God who has given wits, wisdom and knowledge only to the non-Adivasis for not only understanding their society but also the Adivasis, and shame on those Adivasis (like me) who do not even possess the wisdom to understand their own society.

The reality is that the Adivasis are racially discriminated, exploited economically and denied their rights in the civil society organizations. Similarly, the Dalits are treated like untouchables, uneducated and inhuman, and the women of D-section are not only exploited socially, economically and mentally but they are also exploited sexually by the Big-bosses of the civil society organizations. The irony is, our participation is for them is to listen to our sorrows patiently through their tongues in a conference hall, give our consent to their words and always make sure that they are our messiahs. How would you explain it when your wisdom, commitment, dedication, capacity and efficiency do not matter for them but your race, caste, class, colour and relationship possesses multiple values for them instead?

When the Adivasis enter into these organizations, especially in the funding ones, their years of work experience are counted as one or two years (so that they can be kept in the lowest strata), they are compared with their counterpart (always a non-adivasi is used as a parameter for them) for further promotion and their ten achievements are not enough to beat the couple of achievements of a non-Adivasi. When one raises these issues in the organizations, they would manipulate, manufacture consent with their colleagues and dilute the whole debate to ensure that the Adivasis lose the game. Finally, if the Adivasis leave these organizations, they would frame them as opportunists, non-committed to the Adivasi cause and counted as one more enemy of the Adivasis.

One can question that why are the marginalized people of these organizations keeping quiet in these circumstances? The instant answer is, a wage labourer bears all kinds of discrimination, exploitation and torture only because he/she knows that the day a question is raised, he/she would be thrown out of the job. Similar theory is applied to the marginalized people, who are ensuring their daily bread from these civil society organizations. How can one dare to question the big-boss, when he/she is just struggling for survival? Can you imagine how the marginalized people are being exploited, denied and discriminated against in those organizations, who tirelessly talk about participation, empowerment, rights, equality and justice?

The fact of the matter is the perception, attitude and behaviour of the elite heads of civil society organizations towards Adivasis, Dalits and women of D-section are no different from the common people of the so-called civilized society. They talk much about participation, empowerment, rights, equality and justice merely to ensure themselves a luxurious life, bag awards and become a role model in the name of Adivasis, Dalits and Women of D-section; therefore, they also play the game of words just like the politicians do. Can anyone remind me about how many Adivasis, Dalits and women of D-section were awarded (megasese) for their extraordinary work and became a role model for all Indians?

Interestingly, the vision of these organizations is more or less the same – formation of an equitable and just society, but the pertinent question is how the utopian vision can be achieved through discriminatory, inequitable and unjust practices? In fact, the elite heads of the civil society organizations should stop their uncivilized practices, which they are carrying out for decades. It is the right time to let the marginalized people play their own game, become umpires and take over as the match referee. And the elites should only become the fourth umpires rather than playing match for the marginalized people. Then only their talks about the empowerment, equality and justice can be fulfilled.

Before civil society organizations organize the next consultation, convention or conference on Adivasi, Dalit or Women’s Rights, all marginalized people should stand up and say strongly that enough is enough, let the Adivasis, Dalits and women of D-section speak for themselves. The time has come to tell them (non-Adivasis heads) that we are grateful to you for advocating on behalf of us for the last six decades, but no more manipulation please. We are tired of hearing about our grievances through your holy tongues; therefore, we want the world to listen to our grievances through our mouths. We want to speak for ourselves and we are capable enough to save our culture. But the question that may remain unanswered is, will you, the Messiahs of the Adivasis, Dalits and women listen us?

Gladson Dungdung is a Human Rights Activist and Writer from the Adivasi (Indigenous) Community of Jharkhand. He can be reached at gladsonhractivist@gmail.com