After water, tea is the most popular drink in the world with 15,000 cups drunk per second.
The next time you are sipping a hot cup of tea, you may not want to understand the conditions faced by people involved behind the growing and plucking of it.
Over 1 million persons are directly employed in India. Women constitute nearly 51% of the total workforce.
Before the last two years, market prices for tea had dropped markedly over the past five years. Faced with global oversupply of tea, producers in many regions were selling much of their product at below the cost of production.
While the wholesale prices have been more or less stuck in the $2 to $2.20 range since the 1990s, costs of production and transportation – labour, diesel, equipment – have risen by far more.
In this context of low market prices, the labour conditions of tea workers in plantations are also deteriorating. The plight of tea plantation workers is a well known issue in many producing countries like India, Sri Lanka and Kenya.
Plantation workers often earn pitiful living, below legal minimum wages. They are heavily dependent on estate owners for most of their basic needs, such as healthcare, housing, primary education for their children and water access. In an attempt to cut costs basic needs are often not properly met, leaving workers and their children little alternative but to continue the cycle of dependency and vulnerability.
But, the wholesale price of a kilo of tea has doubled in a couple of years, to a peak of about $4 a kilo. Why?
The short answer is that supply has fallen and demand has risen. In three of the main tea-producing countries of the world, political disturbance and poor weather have conspired to restrict supply.
Tea's troubles began in Kenya with the election crisis and violence of last year and 2007. That displaced the tea plantation workers, disrupted supply generally and disabled Mombasa as a major centre of trading and export for the whole of east Africa,
Meanwhile, a drought in India has caused mayhem in the production of virtually all her staple and cash crops, including sugar, rice and wheat, and tea. Late monsoons have hit west Bengal and Assam particularly badly. Separatist activity and a strike have also exacerbated the problem in Darjeeling in India, knocking production back by 20 per cent in the state. In Sri Lanka a serious frost on higher ground has also inflicted damage on the crop, even as the political situation there has eased.
But these are but short term movements - “the only long-term, sustainable solution is for estates to give workers a stake in the earnings.”
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Sunday, December 13, 2009
36garh or Chhattisgarh - Part 4 - Tribals - Post independence - Displacement - Habitual Offenders - Economic Reforms - 5th Schedule - PESA - Forest Act
WHAT HAPPENED POST-INDEPENDENCE?
Displacement
Post Independence, India, went on a binge of large projects – Dams, Hydroelectric projects, Coal Mines, Industry set up in backward areas, Sanctuaries and national parks. You, me and probably everyone except the tribals have benefitted from these projects. Close to 20 million people (2% of india’s population have been displaced till the 90’s due to these large projects. 50% of those displaced happen to be tribals. Less than 20% of those displaced were rehabilitated. This statistic tells us more stories than one! Some 90 per cent of India’s coal mines, 72 per cent of the forest and other natural resources, and 80 per cent of India’s minerals, are in Adivasi lands. Over 3,000 hydroelectric dams are also located in these areas. Therefore, the primary resources for India’s industrialization and urbanization lie in Adivasi areas.This statistic tells us more stories than one! Every time you switch on the light or use water or take a vacation to watch wildlife – remember many tribal lives have been sacrificed.
Forest Act
If you thought, we would learn to manage our forests better, we were as good or even better than our colonial masters, we not only continued with what they did, but had full control on the minor forest produce trade as well.
Wildlife protection Act 1972
It restricted the rights of Adivasis in the wildlife sanctuaries and removed their rights in national parks.
1894 Land Acquisition Act
An instrument of British colonialism – ais still being used to legally take over Adivasi territories
The Coal Bearing Area Act, 1957,
It provides sweeping powers for land acquisition for ‘national interest’ or ‘public purpose’. While Adivasis may be displaced by such mining, for example, they are not entitled to any of the profits.
Tendu - No other issue unites Madhya Pradesh, and its politicians, as the Rs 2,000-crore tendu leaf-bidi trade. The reason is simple. The business involves 37 per cent of the State's Scheduled Tribe/Scheduled Caste population, 35 of its 45 districts, the tendu cooperative movement and a direct vote bank of 20 lakh tribal families. Besides, the State accounts for 65 per cent of the entire bidi leaf collection in the country.
If the brits called you a criminal, your own people will call you a habitual offender
After Independence, the government, realising that the Criminal Tribes Act was a shameful colonial legacy, repealed the Act in 1952. Tribes that were ‘notified’ became ‘denotified’. In a retrograde step, in 1959, new laws in the form of the Habitual Offenders Act were introduced in various states. Even whilst eschewing branding people of certain communities ‘born criminals’, these Acts retained many of the provisions of the Criminal Tribes Act such as registration, restrictions on movement, and incarceration in ‘corrective settlements’ earmarked for ‘habitual offenders’. The bias against nomads lingered, as is apparent in the way the Acts enjoined the government to look at whether a person’s occupation was “conducive to an honest and settled way of life… not merely a pretence for the purpose of facilitating commission of offences,” while exercising its power to restrict the movement of the person. The police routinely used the Habitual Offenders Act against members of nomadic and denotified communities.
In February 2000, the National Human Rights Commission recommended that the Habitual Offenders Act be repealed. More recently, in March 2007, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination stated: “The Committee is concerned that the so-called denotified and nomadic tribes, which were listed for their alleged ‘criminal tendencies’ under the former Criminal Tribes Act (1871), continue to be stigmatised under the Habitual Offenders Act… The Committee recommends that the State party repeal the Habitual Offenders Act and effectively rehabilitate the denotified and nomadic tribes concerned.” The offensive Act has not been repealed till date.
Economic Reforms
With Economic reforms in the early 90s, came the infusion of foreign capital – on the search for high return investments – what is a better bet than mining for all those materials that India had in the states of Orissa, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh. From Posco in Orissa, Mittal in Jharkhand and the Tatas in Chhattisgarh, there are a number of multinationals which have lined up the money and waiting to get the relevant permissions to invest
5th Schedule, PESA, 2006 Forest Act
There are three three steps which have prevented easy acquisition, which are the 5th Schedule, PESA, 2006 Forest Act.
Article 244 (i) of the Indian Constitution provides for a Fifth Schedule, which can be applied to any state other than those in North-East India. The Governors of the concerned states have been given extensive powers, and may prevent or amend any law enacted by Parliament or the state assembly that could harm the Adivasis’ interests. Furthermore, the Governor can inform state government’s administration of the area, by ascertaining the views of a Tribal Advisory Council (TAC). A TAC is to be constituted in each state having scheduled areas, and should consist of no more than 20 members, of whom up to 15 should be the representatives of the STs in the state’s legislative assembly. Eight states with scheduled areas, plus Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, have established TACs. The Governor is also empowered to frame new laws and make regulations in consultation with the TACs, in particular to prohibit or restrict the transfer of land by or among members of STs, and to regulate the allotment of land to STs.
However, all of these laws and regulations must be submitted to the President for agreement. This makes the procedure very circuitous and centralized. Furthermore, if the Governor chooses not to take the TAC’s advice, the TAC can do little. Many feel that the Fifth Schedule is vague and inadequate, and that it has not been used constructively. In many states, the TACs hardly meet. Governors could have brought appropriate modifications to Acts like the 1927 Indian Forest Act, the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, and other mining and land acquisi-tion laws for the benefit of Adivasis, extending these to the scheduled areas; but this has not happened. Instead, all laws have been routinely extended to the scheduled areas. All Governors of states with scheduled areas are required to make an annual report to the President regarding their administration. In the case of Bihar, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa and Rajasthan, no report have been received by the President since 1992, in Andhra Pradesh since 1986 and in Madhya Pradesh – which has the highest ST population – since 1990. Some Adivasi areas were omitted by the President while scheduling. In 1976, Parliament amended the Fifth Schedule to enable the President to increase the scheduled areas. Central government directed the state governments to send proposals for scheduling. However, Adivasi areas in Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal remain unscheduled, and the eight states with scheduled areas – Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa and Rajasthan – have still not been fully covered. Many believe that the Fifth Schedule has failed.
The law in point here is the Provision of Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act (PESA).
The Constitution of India, through its 73rd Amendment, paved the way for a separate and progressive legal and administrative regime for tribal areas to usher in genuine tribal self-rule. The framework was laid down by PESA, a law enacted in pursuance of the constitutional mandate in 1996. All ten states with tribal areas were to adopt this law within one year. Perhaps the most progressive law passed since Independence, the PESA, was to enable the gram sabha, ie, the collectivity of village adults, and gram panchayat to take control of their destinies. It empowered villages to protect community resources, control social sector functionaries, own minor forest produce, manage water bodies, give recommendations for mining leases, be consulted for land acquisition, enforce prohibition, identify beneficiaries for poverty alleviation and other government programmes and have a decisive say in all development projects in the villages.
What does the Forest Rights Act do?
The Act basically does two things:
• Grants legal recognition to the rights of traditional forest dwelling communities, partially correcting the injustice caused by the forest laws.
• Makes a beginning towards giving communities and the public a voice in forest and wildlife conservation.
Who is a forest dweller under this law, and who gets rights?
There are two stages to be eligible under this Act. First, everyone has to satisfy two conditions:
1. Primarily residing in forests or forest lands;
2. Depends on forests and forest land for a livelihood (namely "bona fide livelihood needs")
Second, you have to prove:
• That the above conditions have been true for 75 years, in which case you are an Other Traditional Forest Dweller (s. 2(o));
OR
• That you are a member of a Scheduled Tribe (s. 2(c)); and
• That you are residing in the area where they are Scheduled (s. 4(1)).
In the latter case you are a Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribe.
What kind of rights do forest dwellers get under this Act?
The law recognises three types of rights:
Land Rights
No one gets rights to any land that they have not been cultivating prior to December 13, 2005 (see section 4(3)) and that they are not cultivating right now. Those who are cultivating land but don't have document can claim up to 4 hectares, as long as they are cultivating the land themselves for a livelihood (section 3(1) (a) and 4(6)). Those who have a patta or a government lease, but whose land has been illegally taken by the Forest Department or whose land is the subject of a dispute between Forest and Revenue Departments, can claim those lands (see section 3(1)(f) and (g)).
There is no question of granting 4 hectares of land to every family. If I am cultivating half a hectare on December 13, 2005, I receive title to that half a hectare alone; and if I am cultivating nothing, I receive nothing. If I am cultivating more than 4 hectares without documents or a dispute, I receive title to only 4 hectares.
The land cannot be sold or transferred to anyone except by inheritance (see section 4(4)).
Use Rights
The law secondly provides for rights to use and/or collect the following:
a. Minor forest produce things like tendu patta, herbs, medicinal plants etc “that has been traditionally collected (see section 3(1) (c)). This does not include timber.
b. Grazing grounds and water bodies (sections 3
c. Traditional areas of use by nomadic or pastoralist communities i.e. communities that move with their herds, as opposed to practicing settled agriculture.
Right to Protect and Conserve
though the forest is supposed to belong to all of us, till date no one except the Forest Department had a right to protect it. If the Forest Department should decide to destroy it, or to hand it over to someone who would, stopping them was a criminal offence.
For the first time, this law also gives the community the right to protect and manage the forest. Section 3(1) (i) provide a right and a power to conserve community forest resources, while section 5 gives the community a general power to protect wildlife, forests, etc. This is vital for the thousands of village communities who are protecting their forests and wildlife against threats from forest mafias, industries and land grabbers, most of whom operate in connivance with the Forest Department.
How are rights recognised?
Section 6 of the Act provides a transparent three step procedure for deciding on who gets rights. First, the gram sabha (full village assembly, NOT the gram panchayat) makes a recommendation - i.e who has been cultivating land for how long, which minor forest produce is collected, etc. The gram sabha plays this role because it is a public body where all people participate, and hence is fully democratic and transparent. The gram sabha's recommendation goes through two stages of screening committees at the taluka and district levels. The district level committee makes the final decision (see section 6(6)). The Committees have six members - three government officers and three elected persons. At both the taluka and the district levels, any person who believes a claim is false can appeal to the Committees, and if they prove their case the right is denied (sections 6(2) and 6(4)). Finally, land recognised under this Act cannot be sold or transferred.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
36garh or Chhattisgarh - Part 3 - Tribals, Forests, British, Tribal Rebellions, Forest Act and Criminal Tribes Act
TRIBALS AND INDIA
About 8% of India’s population is tribal and the same statistic for Chhattisgarh is 33% - four times – you go south of Chhattisgarh to Bastar and the figure is 67%. That is how different 36garh is from the rest of India and why?
If you read Jared Diamond’s “guns, germs and steel” – quoting a para which concludes Chapter 4 says this:
“in short, plant and animal domestication meant much more food and hence much denser human populations. The resulting food surpluses, and (in some areas) the animal based means of transporting those surpluses, were a prerequisite for the development of settled, politically centralized, socially stratified, economically complex and technologically innovative societies. Hence the availability of domestic plants and animals ultimately explains why empires, literacy and steel weapons developed earliest in Eurasia and later, or not at all, on other continents. The military uses of horses and camels, and the killing power of animal derived germs, complete the list of major links between food production and conquest that we shall keep exploring.”
Tribals are largely hunter gatherers and depend heavily on the forest and its produce rather than on settled agriculture. Using Jared Diamond’s argument, most tribal societies have not evolved as have other societies which went from hunting-gathering to settled agriculture followed by industrialisation.
If we look at India over the years we as a civilizational have been unified thrice; under the Mauryan empire, the Mughals and the British. All these three empires left alone the densely forested tribes of central India and the northern tribes on the other side of the Indus. None of the three empires penetrated these regions administratively. This was primarily because all three were agrarian empires and these two regions did not have any agricultural surplus. Therefore it did not make economic sense to penetrate these two areas,"
The reason I am going into so much detail, is to make the differences as distinct as possible between tribal India and the rest of us and the importance of forests for tribals. So any attempt, whether by pre independence Indian rulers, british or independent india, to destroy the forests and therefore change the way tribals lead their lives have led to rebellions by the tribals.
BRITISH and the INDIAN FORESTS
Once the colonial state had consolidated its control over large parts of India, it started looking towards the forests to gain access to natural and forest resources essential for ‘development’. Interestingly, colonial rule had to face stiff resistance from the forest inhabitants and local communities, characterised by several peoples’ movements and a tribal uprising against the colonial administration. These movements and uprisings were an assertion of the traditional rights of the tribal and local people over the forests and their resources. They also asserted the organic linkage of tribal culture, tradition and social systems with the forests. The colonial administration considered state monopoly rights over forests essential for achieving its own interests, thus the sharp conflict between the colonial state and the tribal people continued. The history of Jharkhand, Uttarakhand and the north-east is full of such peoples’ protest movements and uprisings in forest areas against the colonial state. Indeed, such movements generated a prolonged debate within the colonial bureaucracy on whether to treat the customary use of forests by tribals as based on privilege or on right. It was settled by the principle that the right of conquest is the strongest of all rights.
HOW THE BRITISH APPROPRIATED THE INDIAN FORESTS
The British with their expansionist vision, appropriated 100,000 square miles of forest land in the name of conservation in 1878 by passing the Indian Forest Act.
Devoid of good forests in England, the British realised the commercial value of Indian forests and tried to establish rigid control over them. We can trace the beginnings of a systematic forest policy to 1855 when the Governor General, Lord Dalhousie, issued a memorandum on forest conservation called the charter of Indian forests. He suggested that teak timber should be retained as state property and its trade strictly regulated.
In 1856, Dietrich Brandis, a German botanist, was appointed as the first Inspector General of Forests. The Forest Department was organised and the first forest act was enacted under his guidance. Brandis made an inventory of trees in India and classified them.
The first act for the regulation of forests was passed in 1865. It empowered the government to declare any land covered with trees or brushwood as government forest and to make rules to manage them. The act was applicable only to the forests in control of the government and did not cover private forests. It made no provision regarding the rights of the users.
The Act of 1865 was replaced by a more comprehensive Indian Forest Act of 1878. Forests were divided into reserve forests, protected forests and village forests. Several restrictions were imposed upon the people’s rights over forest land and produce in the protected and reserved forests. The act empowered the local government to levy duty on timber produced in British India or brought from any place beyond the frontier of British India, thus encouraging them to earn revenue from forests.
The Indian Forest Act of 1878 radically changed the nature of common property and made it state property. According to Baden-Powell, ‘The right of government to all uncultivated, unappropriated land is the basis on which the Indian forest law proceeds.’ This was only partially correct as a number of lands taken over by government were appropriated and used by tribal communities, though this was not legally recorded. These rights of people over forest lands and produce were later regarded as concessions.
The government announced its forest policy by a resolution on 19 October 1894. The policy emphasized state control over forests and the need to exploit forests for augmenting state revenue. The Indian Forest Act of 1927 replaced the earlier Act of 1878. This act embodied all the major provisions of the earlier act, extending it to include those relating to the duty on timber. The act is still in force together with several amendments made by state governments. The preamble states that the act seeks to consolidate the law relating to the transit of forest produce and the duty leviable on timber and other forest produce. Thus, there is a clear emphasis on the revenue yielding aspect of forests.
The Government of India Act, 1935, created a dual system of government by setting up provincial legislatures and assigning certain subjects to them, of which forests was one. Thereafter, the provincial governments made several amendments to the Indian Forest Act of 1927. In short, during British rule, the Department of Forest was organised, a systematic inventory of trees made, customary rights of people over forest land and produce curtailed and transformed into concessions to be enjoyed at the will of the forest officials and, most important, forests became a major source of revenue for the government.
SIMPLE ECONOMICS AT WORK
By around 1860, Britain had emerged as the world leader in deforestation, devastating its own woods and the forests in Ireland, South Africa and northeastern United States to draw timber for shipbuilding, iron-smelting and farming. The onslaught on the forests was primarily because of the increasing demand for military purposes, for British navy, for local construction (such as roads and railways), supply of teak and sandalwood for export trade an extension of agriculture in order to supplement revenue. This process greatly intensified in the early years of the building of the railways network after about 1853. While great chunks of forests were destroyed to meet the demand for railway sleepers, no supervision was exercised over the felling operation in which a large number of trees was felled and lay rotting on the road.
TRIBAL REBELLIONS
Chhattisgarh has witnessed several tribal rebellions starting from the late 18 century through the 19 century to the first few decades of the 20 century. However the central narrative of these rebellions remained largely common and unchanged. All these rebellions were focussed and asserted the traditionally inalienable right of the tribals on the local resources land and forests.
The key tribal rebellions were:
The Halba rebellion is a very important event in the history of Bastar as it was responsible for the decline of the Chalukya dynasty, which in turn created circumstances that first brought the Marathas and then the British to the region. The rebellion was initiated in 1774 by the governor of Dongar, Ajmer
Singh with the intention of establishing an independent kingdom at Dongar. The Halba tribe and Halba soldiers supported him. However, the fundamental reasons for the rebellion were economic in nature. There had been a prolonged famine, which had severely affected the people who had very little cultivable land. The presence of Maratha forces and the terror caused by the East India Company in these adverse circumstances precipitated the rebellioin. The stronger armies of
Bastar supported by the British and the Marathas crushed the rebellion. A massacre of Halba tribesmen followed the defeat of the Halba army. However, the revolt created conditions for the decline of the Chalukya dynasty which in turn significantly altered the history of Bastar.
The Paralkot rebellion followed where the tribals were opposing the taxes levied by the Maratha rulers. In essence this rebellion was directed against the foreign interference and control of Bastar and wanted to re-establish the freedom of Bastar.
The rebellion of Tarapur (1842-54) was once again the assertion of the tribals against opposition to taxes levied under the pressure of Anglo-Maratha rule. For the tribals, these experiences of coercive taxation were alien and new, and therefore they opposed them.
The Maria rebellion, which lasted nearly 20 years from 1842 to 1863, was against the insensitive and intrusive handling of tribal faith. The Anglo Maratha combine did not hesitate to enter and pollute the temple of Danteswari.
All these rebellions were defensive movements, they were the last resort of tribesmen driven to despair by the encroachments of outsiders on their land and economic resources What is surprising is not the occurrence of uprisings, but the infrequency of violent reaction on the part of the aboriginals to the loss of their ancestral lands and to their economic enslavement. These rebellions continued as increasingly the forest was looked upon as a resource by the British empire and directly started affecting the livelihoods of tribals.
RESIST AND YOU ARE A CRIMINAL
In order to safeguard the forests that they continue providing the much needed revenue for the British Empire, they took shelter in a law. In 1871, the colonial state passed the notorious Criminal Tribes Act to deal with these ‘suspect’ communities -- nomadic or forest-based -- and prepared a list of communities that were ‘notified’ under the Act as being ‘criminal’. Members of these communities were seen to be “addicted to the systematic commission of non-bailable offences”. The Act provided for registration of members, restrictions on their place of residence, and their ‘reform’ by confinement in special camps where low-paid work could be extracted from them. By 1921, the Criminal Tribes Act was extended to all parts of India and new communities were continuously added to the list of ‘criminal tribes’.
About 8% of India’s population is tribal and the same statistic for Chhattisgarh is 33% - four times – you go south of Chhattisgarh to Bastar and the figure is 67%. That is how different 36garh is from the rest of India and why?
If you read Jared Diamond’s “guns, germs and steel” – quoting a para which concludes Chapter 4 says this:
“in short, plant and animal domestication meant much more food and hence much denser human populations. The resulting food surpluses, and (in some areas) the animal based means of transporting those surpluses, were a prerequisite for the development of settled, politically centralized, socially stratified, economically complex and technologically innovative societies. Hence the availability of domestic plants and animals ultimately explains why empires, literacy and steel weapons developed earliest in Eurasia and later, or not at all, on other continents. The military uses of horses and camels, and the killing power of animal derived germs, complete the list of major links between food production and conquest that we shall keep exploring.”
Tribals are largely hunter gatherers and depend heavily on the forest and its produce rather than on settled agriculture. Using Jared Diamond’s argument, most tribal societies have not evolved as have other societies which went from hunting-gathering to settled agriculture followed by industrialisation.
If we look at India over the years we as a civilizational have been unified thrice; under the Mauryan empire, the Mughals and the British. All these three empires left alone the densely forested tribes of central India and the northern tribes on the other side of the Indus. None of the three empires penetrated these regions administratively. This was primarily because all three were agrarian empires and these two regions did not have any agricultural surplus. Therefore it did not make economic sense to penetrate these two areas,"
The reason I am going into so much detail, is to make the differences as distinct as possible between tribal India and the rest of us and the importance of forests for tribals. So any attempt, whether by pre independence Indian rulers, british or independent india, to destroy the forests and therefore change the way tribals lead their lives have led to rebellions by the tribals.
BRITISH and the INDIAN FORESTS
Once the colonial state had consolidated its control over large parts of India, it started looking towards the forests to gain access to natural and forest resources essential for ‘development’. Interestingly, colonial rule had to face stiff resistance from the forest inhabitants and local communities, characterised by several peoples’ movements and a tribal uprising against the colonial administration. These movements and uprisings were an assertion of the traditional rights of the tribal and local people over the forests and their resources. They also asserted the organic linkage of tribal culture, tradition and social systems with the forests. The colonial administration considered state monopoly rights over forests essential for achieving its own interests, thus the sharp conflict between the colonial state and the tribal people continued. The history of Jharkhand, Uttarakhand and the north-east is full of such peoples’ protest movements and uprisings in forest areas against the colonial state. Indeed, such movements generated a prolonged debate within the colonial bureaucracy on whether to treat the customary use of forests by tribals as based on privilege or on right. It was settled by the principle that the right of conquest is the strongest of all rights.
HOW THE BRITISH APPROPRIATED THE INDIAN FORESTS
The British with their expansionist vision, appropriated 100,000 square miles of forest land in the name of conservation in 1878 by passing the Indian Forest Act.
Devoid of good forests in England, the British realised the commercial value of Indian forests and tried to establish rigid control over them. We can trace the beginnings of a systematic forest policy to 1855 when the Governor General, Lord Dalhousie, issued a memorandum on forest conservation called the charter of Indian forests. He suggested that teak timber should be retained as state property and its trade strictly regulated.
In 1856, Dietrich Brandis, a German botanist, was appointed as the first Inspector General of Forests. The Forest Department was organised and the first forest act was enacted under his guidance. Brandis made an inventory of trees in India and classified them.
The first act for the regulation of forests was passed in 1865. It empowered the government to declare any land covered with trees or brushwood as government forest and to make rules to manage them. The act was applicable only to the forests in control of the government and did not cover private forests. It made no provision regarding the rights of the users.
The Act of 1865 was replaced by a more comprehensive Indian Forest Act of 1878. Forests were divided into reserve forests, protected forests and village forests. Several restrictions were imposed upon the people’s rights over forest land and produce in the protected and reserved forests. The act empowered the local government to levy duty on timber produced in British India or brought from any place beyond the frontier of British India, thus encouraging them to earn revenue from forests.
The Indian Forest Act of 1878 radically changed the nature of common property and made it state property. According to Baden-Powell, ‘The right of government to all uncultivated, unappropriated land is the basis on which the Indian forest law proceeds.’ This was only partially correct as a number of lands taken over by government were appropriated and used by tribal communities, though this was not legally recorded. These rights of people over forest lands and produce were later regarded as concessions.
The government announced its forest policy by a resolution on 19 October 1894. The policy emphasized state control over forests and the need to exploit forests for augmenting state revenue. The Indian Forest Act of 1927 replaced the earlier Act of 1878. This act embodied all the major provisions of the earlier act, extending it to include those relating to the duty on timber. The act is still in force together with several amendments made by state governments. The preamble states that the act seeks to consolidate the law relating to the transit of forest produce and the duty leviable on timber and other forest produce. Thus, there is a clear emphasis on the revenue yielding aspect of forests.
The Government of India Act, 1935, created a dual system of government by setting up provincial legislatures and assigning certain subjects to them, of which forests was one. Thereafter, the provincial governments made several amendments to the Indian Forest Act of 1927. In short, during British rule, the Department of Forest was organised, a systematic inventory of trees made, customary rights of people over forest land and produce curtailed and transformed into concessions to be enjoyed at the will of the forest officials and, most important, forests became a major source of revenue for the government.
SIMPLE ECONOMICS AT WORK
By around 1860, Britain had emerged as the world leader in deforestation, devastating its own woods and the forests in Ireland, South Africa and northeastern United States to draw timber for shipbuilding, iron-smelting and farming. The onslaught on the forests was primarily because of the increasing demand for military purposes, for British navy, for local construction (such as roads and railways), supply of teak and sandalwood for export trade an extension of agriculture in order to supplement revenue. This process greatly intensified in the early years of the building of the railways network after about 1853. While great chunks of forests were destroyed to meet the demand for railway sleepers, no supervision was exercised over the felling operation in which a large number of trees was felled and lay rotting on the road.
TRIBAL REBELLIONS
Chhattisgarh has witnessed several tribal rebellions starting from the late 18 century through the 19 century to the first few decades of the 20 century. However the central narrative of these rebellions remained largely common and unchanged. All these rebellions were focussed and asserted the traditionally inalienable right of the tribals on the local resources land and forests.
The key tribal rebellions were:
The Halba rebellion is a very important event in the history of Bastar as it was responsible for the decline of the Chalukya dynasty, which in turn created circumstances that first brought the Marathas and then the British to the region. The rebellion was initiated in 1774 by the governor of Dongar, Ajmer
Singh with the intention of establishing an independent kingdom at Dongar. The Halba tribe and Halba soldiers supported him. However, the fundamental reasons for the rebellion were economic in nature. There had been a prolonged famine, which had severely affected the people who had very little cultivable land. The presence of Maratha forces and the terror caused by the East India Company in these adverse circumstances precipitated the rebellioin. The stronger armies of
Bastar supported by the British and the Marathas crushed the rebellion. A massacre of Halba tribesmen followed the defeat of the Halba army. However, the revolt created conditions for the decline of the Chalukya dynasty which in turn significantly altered the history of Bastar.
The Paralkot rebellion followed where the tribals were opposing the taxes levied by the Maratha rulers. In essence this rebellion was directed against the foreign interference and control of Bastar and wanted to re-establish the freedom of Bastar.
The rebellion of Tarapur (1842-54) was once again the assertion of the tribals against opposition to taxes levied under the pressure of Anglo-Maratha rule. For the tribals, these experiences of coercive taxation were alien and new, and therefore they opposed them.
The Maria rebellion, which lasted nearly 20 years from 1842 to 1863, was against the insensitive and intrusive handling of tribal faith. The Anglo Maratha combine did not hesitate to enter and pollute the temple of Danteswari.
All these rebellions were defensive movements, they were the last resort of tribesmen driven to despair by the encroachments of outsiders on their land and economic resources What is surprising is not the occurrence of uprisings, but the infrequency of violent reaction on the part of the aboriginals to the loss of their ancestral lands and to their economic enslavement. These rebellions continued as increasingly the forest was looked upon as a resource by the British empire and directly started affecting the livelihoods of tribals.
RESIST AND YOU ARE A CRIMINAL
In order to safeguard the forests that they continue providing the much needed revenue for the British Empire, they took shelter in a law. In 1871, the colonial state passed the notorious Criminal Tribes Act to deal with these ‘suspect’ communities -- nomadic or forest-based -- and prepared a list of communities that were ‘notified’ under the Act as being ‘criminal’. Members of these communities were seen to be “addicted to the systematic commission of non-bailable offences”. The Act provided for registration of members, restrictions on their place of residence, and their ‘reform’ by confinement in special camps where low-paid work could be extracted from them. By 1921, the Criminal Tribes Act was extended to all parts of India and new communities were continuously added to the list of ‘criminal tribes’.
36garh or Chattisgarh - Part 2 - Poverty Line or Starvation Line
I decided to start with poverty, as this is what we need to get rid of. We all know what poverty is, but probably not the government of india – which in order to show progress has come up with what I would call a keep them from dying line or a starvation line. I say this, because when we keep hearing reports on how poverty has reduced from 40% to 26%; we need to understand what the hell do they mean and it is best explained by Dilip D’Souza at http://www.indiatogether.org/2006/mar/ddz-povline.htm -
A gist follows:
The definition according to the Government's Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation: "The official estimates of the poverty line are based on a norm of 2400 calories per capita per day for rural areas and 2100 per capita per day for urban areas."
Something important to note here: it's not that your expenditure on food - the portion of your earnings that you spend on food - had to be more than this amount for you to be recognised as being above the poverty line. No, the definition assumed that your entire earnings had to be more than the amount. That is, the official definition of the poverty line assumed that you spend all your money on food. Keep that in mind.
So what we are saying is that if your total earnings amounted to more than Rs 540 a month, you were not considered poor. We are saying that if you earned, let's say, Rs 600 a month, out of which you paid Rs 540 for food, you were not considered poor. And it is by this calculation that we estimate that 26 per cent of India is below the poverty line; that we are pleased that that number has declined from 36 to 26.
Even if for a moment we were to accept this ridiculous argument, this is hardly an achievement, as the rate of decline of poverty since 1973 has been at a dismal 0.81% per annum. If we were to add healthcare, electricity, kerosene for black-outs, clothing and other expenditure, the 540 would go up to 840 a month, meaning about 68% of India is below the poverty line.
So one can safely conclude that the number of poor are nowhere close to what the GOI claims but at least double (if you disagree, you can go and count ) – the idea is poverty is widespread and far from eradicated in a country
• where the SENSEX has gone from 4,000 to 20,000 in the last decade,
• the second fastest growing economy in the world;
• humongous forex reserves,
• overflowing foodgrains in the FCI godown;
• some of the world’s smartest people as reflected in all the software kids and MBAs
If you need more proof, sample this
• 35 per cent of the population consumes less than 80 per cent of its minimum human energy requirements,
• where 9 out of 10 pregnant women suffer malnutrition and anaemia, and, in consequence,
• 47 per cent of children under the age of 5 are moderately to severely undernourished
A gist follows:
The definition according to the Government's Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation: "The official estimates of the poverty line are based on a norm of 2400 calories per capita per day for rural areas and 2100 per capita per day for urban areas."
Something important to note here: it's not that your expenditure on food - the portion of your earnings that you spend on food - had to be more than this amount for you to be recognised as being above the poverty line. No, the definition assumed that your entire earnings had to be more than the amount. That is, the official definition of the poverty line assumed that you spend all your money on food. Keep that in mind.
So what we are saying is that if your total earnings amounted to more than Rs 540 a month, you were not considered poor. We are saying that if you earned, let's say, Rs 600 a month, out of which you paid Rs 540 for food, you were not considered poor. And it is by this calculation that we estimate that 26 per cent of India is below the poverty line; that we are pleased that that number has declined from 36 to 26.
Even if for a moment we were to accept this ridiculous argument, this is hardly an achievement, as the rate of decline of poverty since 1973 has been at a dismal 0.81% per annum. If we were to add healthcare, electricity, kerosene for black-outs, clothing and other expenditure, the 540 would go up to 840 a month, meaning about 68% of India is below the poverty line.
So one can safely conclude that the number of poor are nowhere close to what the GOI claims but at least double (if you disagree, you can go and count ) – the idea is poverty is widespread and far from eradicated in a country
• where the SENSEX has gone from 4,000 to 20,000 in the last decade,
• the second fastest growing economy in the world;
• humongous forex reserves,
• overflowing foodgrains in the FCI godown;
• some of the world’s smartest people as reflected in all the software kids and MBAs
If you need more proof, sample this
• 35 per cent of the population consumes less than 80 per cent of its minimum human energy requirements,
• where 9 out of 10 pregnant women suffer malnutrition and anaemia, and, in consequence,
• 47 per cent of children under the age of 5 are moderately to severely undernourished
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Jagannath Temple - Allows the Disabled
Refer to my earlier blog on the Jagannath temple.
On the World Disabled Day, 3rd of December, the authorities of the Jagannath Temple in Puri today decided to open the doors of the famous shrine to physically challenged persons in wheelchairs.The old and the disabled are at present allowed to be lifted into the temple as priests were opposed to wheelchairs. There was no written rule on allowing or disallowing wheelchairs in the 12th century temple, temple priest Soumendra Mudali, said. “There is also no tradition of wheelchairs in the temple premises. The Lord is lifted up by priests while emerging from the temple for the annual car festival,” he said. Secretary of the Sri Jagannath Sevak Kalyan Parishad Ipsit Pratihary, said “we will not oppose entry of disabled persons into the temple. The decision of allowing wheelchairs inside the temple premises will be taken later though discussions“. A three-member delegation of priests comprising Pratihari, Mudali and Hajuri Ramnarayan Khunita met physically-challenged people and assured them that they would allowed entry into the temple in wheelchairs. “If the state administration allows the disabled in wheelchairs, it will be a new tradition unheard of in the temple”, Mudali added.
So, Cheers and this is a small win for another minority - the disabled.
On the World Disabled Day, 3rd of December, the authorities of the Jagannath Temple in Puri today decided to open the doors of the famous shrine to physically challenged persons in wheelchairs.The old and the disabled are at present allowed to be lifted into the temple as priests were opposed to wheelchairs. There was no written rule on allowing or disallowing wheelchairs in the 12th century temple, temple priest Soumendra Mudali, said. “There is also no tradition of wheelchairs in the temple premises. The Lord is lifted up by priests while emerging from the temple for the annual car festival,” he said. Secretary of the Sri Jagannath Sevak Kalyan Parishad Ipsit Pratihary, said “we will not oppose entry of disabled persons into the temple. The decision of allowing wheelchairs inside the temple premises will be taken later though discussions“. A three-member delegation of priests comprising Pratihari, Mudali and Hajuri Ramnarayan Khunita met physically-challenged people and assured them that they would allowed entry into the temple in wheelchairs. “If the state administration allows the disabled in wheelchairs, it will be a new tradition unheard of in the temple”, Mudali added.
So, Cheers and this is a small win for another minority - the disabled.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)