Revisiting the ‘development’ debate amidst emerging forms of
labour bondage among Adivasi communities in India

“Let it not be said by future generations that the Indian Republic has been built on the destruction of the green earth and the innocent tribals who have been living there for centuries.” — K.R. Narayanan, President of India, Address to the nation on 25 January 2001.[1]

This statement of the President in the first year of the 21^st century is relevant. Nearly 10,000 people of the Koraga tribal community in the Dakshin Kannada and Udupi districts of Karnataka were forced to work in a system of labour bondage called Ajalu.[2] Similarly, members of the Malekudiya tribal community in Belthangady taluk of Dakshin Kannada district were held in the plantations of their masters, who are known as Hebbars. The community is denied mobility and the freedom to cultivate their own gardens, which could give them some economic independence.[3]

Further, the Scheduled Tribes (STs) from Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Southern Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Gujarat have suffered a gradual erosion of access to traditional livelihood systems. They have long been subject to exploitative debt relations leading to loss of land and bondage to non-tribals.[4]

In India, the bonded labour system was abolished 30 years ago with the enactment of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act of 1976. To date, more than 2,86,245 bonded labourers, most of whom are Adivasis and Dalits, have been released and rehabilitated, according to official figures.[5] The National Human Rights Commision, which has been entrusted by the Supreme Court to monitor the implementation of the Act, reports that the actual number of Adivasis in bondage can be much higher than the figures reveal because many states take the stand, under political pressure, that they have no bonded labour.[6]

Although most of the agencies intervening on the issue agree that Adivasis and Dalits, placed at the bottom of social ladder, are the most vulnerable of groups to fall prey to bondage,[7] there are basic differences between the forms of exploitation for these socially excluded communities. Virginius Xaxa rightly points out in his article ‘Protective discrimination: Why scheduled tribes lag behind scheduled castes?’[8] that the pattern of historical development has been different for scheduled castes (SCs) and STs. The latter have never been an integral part of mainstream society. He further argues that identity is one of the main differences between Adivasi and Dalit communities. Whereas the Dalits have been through the historical experience of oppression and discrimination for centuries, this was not the case with the Adivasis. Further, the oppression and exploitation of Adivasis is essentially political and economic and does not extend to the social and cultural levels as was the case with Dalits. Hence, it becomes very clear that with the causes of labour bondage among Adivasis and Dalits being different, they need to be treated accordingly.

In addition to this, Dalits have been victims of traditional labour bondage practices since the Mauryan period whereas the bonded labour system is relatively new among Adivasis communities. The latter were largely autonomous and egalitarian and were free from the perversion of the caste system. However, the growing interference of dikkus (non-tribals/outsiders) disturbed their socio-economic systems, pushing them to poverty and indebtedness. The advent of colonial rule and the introduction of new forms of land and forest administration  imparted a new dimension to the autonomous character of Adivasi societies. This also gave birth to the system of forced labour, which was threefold in character:

• Forced labour by ryots, tenant cultivators, to malguzars, revenue collection agents
• Forced labour in public works, roads, building, construction and repair
• Forced labour to visiting officials[9]

The introduction of the alien concept of private property began with the permanent settlement of the British in 1793 and the establishment of the ‘Zamindari’ system that conferred control over vast territories, including Adivasi territories, to designated feudal lords for the purpose of revenue collection for the British. This forced the restructuring of the relationship between Adivasis and their territories and the power relationships between Adivasis and the dikkus.

This became the natural basis of the altered perception of the Adivasis by the dikkus in determining the economic and political space in society that was emerging. Relegating the Adivasis to the lowest rung in the social ladder was but natural and formed the basis of social and political decision-making authority by the mainstream, which was largely controlled by the upper castes. Ancient Indian scriptures, scripted by the upper castes, provided further legitimacy to these assumptions. Subjugated peoples were relegated to a low status and isolated, instead of either being eliminated or absorbed. The entry of the Europeans and the subsequent colonisation of Asia transformed the relationship between the mainstream and tribal communities of this region. The introduction of capitalism, private property and the creation of a countrywide market broke the traditional economy that was based on use value and hereditary professions.[10]

The rulers of independent India adopted a system that retained parts of the colonial political administration and laws. The lack of a mechanism for self determination, coupled with an imposed colonial rule that negated self-governance has resulted in increasing alienation and conflict. An economic system and a development model, in opposition to the Adivasi ethos, worldview and life were firmly adopted by the new rulers. This was also inimical to the Adivasis’ distinct and fundamental relationship with nature. The opening up of Adivasi areas for the exploitation of resources intensified in scope and speed. These resources were considered by the elite to belong to the state and it was deemed that the Adivasis had no right over them. Moreover, the elite created a monopoly on these resources via laws, in the name of national interests.[11]

Since the early 1950s, several mega projects for hydro-power, irrigation, mining and industries have been implemented in resource rich Adivasi areas, resulting in large-scale displacement. In addition, programmes of economic development in these areas have often resulted in irreversible changes in the lives of indigenous people who depended on the natural resources for their survival.

The gradual but systematic resource alienation of the Adivasis led to severe food insecurity, chronic hunger and further resource alienation to non-tribal outsiders in the form of gradual loss of their lands and assets for credit they could never repay. Today, Adivasis have lost their prime lowlands to money lenders and are toiling in sub-human conditions of bondage. Stringent land transfer laws applicable to tribal communities are useless as all land transactions are conducted verbally. This is because verbal agreements are more acceptable than legal documents for the Adivasi communities. The loss of livelihood from forests and lands, with no access to alternative coping mechanisms, spelt disaster for the weaker sections of the Adivasis. For them, a single crop loss was enough to trap them in the vicious cycle of poverty. During health emergencies or upon some social expenses based on rituals, the vulnerability of these indigenous inhabitants of the land increased, forcing them to borrow and mortgage assets because of the lack of any safety net in the community and lack of access to food and employment entitlements. In the absence of funds for investment, land remained fallow in many cases. Credit was the only means to avoid hunger. This debt trap and the lack of other alternative livelihoods or safety mechanisms have, over the years, increased the food insecure period from four months to nine months, forcing the poorest among the Adivasis to become part of the most extreme form of marginalisation — ‘bondage’.

The Convention of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), held in June 1989, concerning indigenous and tribal people in independent countries proposed a special clause to address the increasing trend of bondage among indigenous communities. Article 20 of the Convention specifically mentioned that “The Government should ensure that the workers belonging to these (indigenous) people are not subjected to coercive recruitment systems, including bonded labour and other forms of debt servitude.”[12]

Unfortunately, India has neither signed nor ratified this Convention. The Indian government’s position at the UN working group on indigenous people (UNWGIP) has been that the STs are not indigenous people and that “the entire population of India… (is) indigenous to the country.” The use of term ‘self determination’ in the discourse on indigenous people’s rights, with its implied right to secede (despite clarifications to the contrary at the UNWGIP) is one of the contentious issues for the Indian government. At the time of the ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (1966), India entered its reservation that “with reference to Article I … the government of India declares that the word ‘self-determination’ appearing in this article applies to sovereign independent states or to sections of a people or nation, which is the essence of national integrity.”[13]

This position of the Indian government sums up the attitude of the ruling elites to the problems of the Adivasi communities. They have now become the victims of development projects, which are initiated in their name but remain estranged from the benefits of such activities. In the present situation, where the state itself has become the biggest exploiter of indigenous communities, the poorest among the Adivasis are left with no option but to toil in indebtedness and bondage.

References:

1. Bales, K., Disposable People – New Slavery in the Global Economy, University of California Press, 1999.
2. Bijoy, C.R., History of Discrimination, Conflict, and Resistance, PUCL Bulletin, New Delhi, 2003.
3. Breman, J; Patronage and Exploitation – Changing Agrarian Relations in South Gujrat, India, University of California Press, London, 1974.
4. Hasnain, N., Bonded Forever – A Study of the Koltaas Himalayan Tribe, Harnam Publications, New Delhi, 1982.
5. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Bonded Labour in Tribal Areas; A Historical Perspective with Special Reference to Bastar, Government of India Press, Faridabad, 1978.
6. Mishra, L. ‘Annotated Bibliography on Forced/Bonded Labour in India’, Working paper, International Labour Office Geneva, Dec. 2002
7. Mohapatra, B.B., ‘Bonded labour in a tribal district: A study’, Yojana, Feb. 16-28, 1990.
8. Parulekar, G., Adivasis Revolt – The Study of Warli Peasants in Struggle, National Book Agency, 1975.
9. Patnaik, U., Dingwaney, M, Chains of Servitude: Bondage and Slavery in India, Sangam Books, New Delhi, 1985.
10. Ratnakar B., Bijoy, C.R., Shimreichon, L., The Adivasis of India, Minority Rights Group International, London, 1998.
11. Sharma, B.D., Tribal Affairs in India: The Crucial Transition, Sahyog Pustak Kutir, New Delhi & India Centre for Human Rights and Law, Mumbai, 2001.  
12. Stisden S. (Ed.), The Indigenous World, International Working Group for Indigenous Affairs, , Copenhagen, Denmark, 2006.
13. Vyas, N.N., Bondage and Exploitation in Tribal India, Rawat Publications, Jaipur, 1980.