Transcript THE STRUGGLE OF THE ADIVASIS IN VISAKHAPATNAM (VISAG) DISTRICT,

CASE STUDY :
THE STRUGGLE OF THE ADIVASIS IN
VISAKHAPATNAM (VISAG) DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH, CENTRAL INDIA
TO RECOVER TRIBAL LANDS
1. Demographic and Livelihood Profile:
 Total Adivasi population: 67.8 million (1995)
or 8.1% of total country population, classified
by Constitution as Scheduled Tribes (STs)
and distributed as follows:

87% - Central India (Madhya Pradesh,
Chattisgarh, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh
Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat,
Jharkand and Maharashtra)
Map 1: India
• 10% - Northeast India (Assam, Nagaland,
Manipur, Tripura, Meghalaya,Mizoram)
• 3% - other States
Andhra Pradesh (A.P.) – 7th largest State in India
 Total population: 6,636,000
 Adivasi population: 96,000 or 1.5% of the
population consisting of Kondareddies,
Kondadoras, Bagatas, Jatapus, Savaras, Khonds,
Parjas and Valmiks
 Dialects: Adivasi odiya, Telugu, Kui, Savara,
Jatapu and Gadaba
 Religion: animistic form of worship but now
influenced by Hinduism, Christianity and Alekha
sect of Buddhism
Map 2: Andhra Pradesh
 Main forms of livelihood of Adivasis: settled
and shifting (Podu) agriculture, and collection
of non-timber forest produce –
consumption/subsistence economy.
2. Rights Accorded to Scheduled Tribes by
Government Laws
 Constitution – special provisions restrict
entry and ownership of land and immovable
resources in Adivasi areas by non-Adivasis
and outsiders;
 Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation Act
of 1959 – transfer of land or immovable
property from tribal to non tribal in scheduled
area is null and void.
 A.P. Scheduled Area Land Transfer
Regulation (Amendment) Act, Section 1 of
1970 prohibit the transfer of land from nontribal to non-tribal in the scheduled area.
3. Historical Overview of Development by
Government in the Region
 1950’s –Policy of development through
construction of multipurpose projects like
reservoirs, hydroelectric, etc. (e.g. Sileru,
Machund, Balimela and Duduma);
 1960’s – laying of the DandakaranyaBolangir-Kirbur-Bolangir-Kirbur railwayline
 1970’s - decade of irrigation and
hydroelectric projects where relocated tribals
again displaced for national development.
 1980s – shift in government interventionpublic sector industrial projects initiated;
largely mineral-based projects where large
tracts of tribal and forest lands were acquired;
other industries set up were paper, pulp and
wood.
 1990’s onwards - entry of MNCs in economic
model of liberalisation; natural resources of
Eastern Ghats apportioned by MNCs; State
made an overt change towards
industrialization through private sector
particularly in power and mining industries.
4. History of the Adivasis’ Struggle to Gain Back
their Lands in Visag District
Borra panchayat – 14 tribal villages denied
title deeds to their lands by government;
mining leases granted to non-tribals and
private companies
Borra Adivasis petitioned the government
for 2 decades to grant title deeds to no avail;
Sought help of Samata- a small voluntary
social action group;
Samata assisted tribals by filing Public
Interest Litigation decided in favor of tribals
 Tribals gained courage –organized themselves
and initiated protest actions to demand land
rights
 Karaiguda village – mining lease for 50 acres
granted to non tribal then transferred to Indian
Rayon and Industries in 1995
 Volasi panchayat – Birla Periclase mining
project obtained lease from non tribal and
started survey in 1993
 Tribals boycotted road construction/laid road
blockades to prevent survey.
 Tribals filed petitions in court and presented
issues to government, media, other sectors
Companies involved
LOCATION
Borra Reserved Forest
Borra Reserved Forest
Borra Reserved Forest
Borra Nonreserved
Forest
Borra Reserved Forest
Borra Nonreserved
Forest
Borra Reserved Forest
Borra Reserved Forest
Nandkote Reserved
Forest
Chimidapalli/Saripalli
villages
Veduruvada Reserved
Forest
OWNER
K. Appa Rao
M/s Perclase India Ltd.
M/s Unirock Minerals
Pvt. Ltd.
M/s Unirock Minerals
Pvt. Ltd.
M/s Kalyani Minerals
M/s Kalyani Minerals
PERIOD/YR
20 yrs. (1979-1999)
NI
NI
AREA
Not indicated (NI)
NI
125.30 acres
NI
45.70 acres
NI
NI
48.0 acres
32.0 acres
M. Seetharama Swamy
Shri R.K. Deo
Chalapati Rao
NI
NI
20 yrs. (1972-1992)
300 acres
NI
50.0 acres
Chalapati Rao*
20 yrs. (1974-1994)
11.0 acre
Andhra Phosphates
Ltd.
40 yrs. (1957-1977;
renewed 1978-1998)
271.5 acres
LOCATION
Konapuram, Anantagiri
Mandaparti Village
OWNER
M. Venkatapathi Raju*
M/s Visaka Mines and
Minerals
Reserved forest of
M/s Visaka Mines and
SivalingamVillage
Minerals*
Dumbriguda Village
Associated Mica
Exports*
Borra panchayat
Associated Mica
Exports*
Mallagumuru Village
Madan Mohan Reddy*
Same lease transferred M/s Trowall Cements
to
Ltd.
Same lease subleased M/s Indian Rayon Ind.
to
Ltd.
Ninmalapadu Village
M. Laxminarayana
Same lease transferred M/s AP Mineral Devt.
Corp. Ltd.
Anantagiri Mandal
M. Laxminarayana
Anantagiri Mandal
Indian Rayon & In. Ltd.
PERIOD/YR
20 yrs.(1981-2002)
20 yrs. (1978-1998)
AREA
13.8 acres
Not surveyed
20 yrs. (1977-1997)
130 acres
20 yrs (1986-2006)
50.0 acres
20 yrs. (1983-2003)
10.0 acres
20 yrs. (1984-2004)
20 yrs. (1985-2005)
NI
NI
Same period as above
NI
20 yrs. (1995-2005)
Same as above
21.56 acres
Same as above
10 yrs. (1986-1996)
Obtained in 1993 from
a nontribal
20 yrs. (1974-1994)
37.9 acres
120 acres
Peddamaredumilli
M/s Hyderabad
318 acres
Reserved forest
Abrasives and Minerals
*Mining operations not carried out or carried out partially.
Source: Judegement on “Samata vs. State of Andhra Pradesh.” July 11,1997.
 Mining leases violate Environment Protection
Act of 1986 and Forest Conservation Act of 1980.
 Decades of perseverance by tribals to obtain
title deeds yielded no results, yet it takes not
more than one week to survey/acquire tribal
lands on behalf of non tribal lease holders.
 Companies allowed to operate projects without
fulfilling legal requirements of submitting EIA
and EMP documents; no relief or rehabilitation
plans, disaster management plans, employment
or other provisions to local communities
 No transparency followed by the state while
sanctioning these projects or no information is
provided to the public or the affected
communities.
 Public hearings not conducted/superficially
conducted/affected communities are not even
informed.
 Guidelines issued by different ministries to
protect tribal exist on paper alone and often
circumvented by authorities concerned.
 When tribals protest or demand information,
they are suppressed, arrested or illegally held,
and forcefully evicted by the State
5. Impact of Mining in the Adivasi Region
 In India most of mineral deposits found in
tribal and forest regions; impact of mining is
therefore felt most severely by Adivasi
communities
 About 89.40% of coal mining in India is in the
tribal area.
 About 1,900,000 persons displaced by all the
mines in India are in tribal area with 70% tribal
people, the rest belong to Dalit communities
6. Impact of Mining on Adivasi Communities
 Increasing pressure on land for local
communities
 Loss of control over resources and common
properties
 No economic gain to local communities
 Loss of food security and domestic fulfillment
 Destruction to social system
 Loss of religious and cultural identity
 Deteriorating status of tribal women and
worsening health
 Political unrest
 Environmental destruction
7. Strategies Adopted by Samata and the Adivasi
Communities for the Campaign
 Social action for community mobilization
 Legal action and advocacy
 Networking with other campaigns and
peoples’ movements in the country
 Linkages with scientific and academic
communities
 Media advocacy
 Dialogues with government
8. Results of the Struggle
 Highlight of campaign was filing of legal case
against the state of Andhra Pradesh
 After protracted legal battle of 2 1/2 yrs at the
provincial High Court and 2 yrs at the central
Supreme Court, the Supreme Court gave
historic judgement in July 1997
 Important aspects of the court decision are:
 Court recognized 73rd Constitution Amendment
Act and the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj
(Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act
 Government lands, forest lands and
Adivasi lands in Scheduled Areas cannot
be leased out to non-Adivasis or private
industries.
 Government cannot lease out lands in Scheduled
Areas for mining operations to non-Adivasis as it
contravenes the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution.
 Any transfer of lease stands prohibited.
 Mining in Scheduled Areas taken up only by State
Mineral Development Corporation or a cooperative
of Adivasis
 Court recognized Gram Sabhas (village councils)
as competent to safeguard and preserve
community resources
• reiterated the need to give right of self-governance
to Adivasis.
• Chief Secretary of Andhra Pradesh state to
constitute a committee to collect factual information
and consider whether it is feasible to permit an
industry to carry on mining operations.
• Constitute a conference of chief ministers and
concerned Union ministers to take policy decision
to bring about a suitable enactment for a consistent
scheme throughout the country in respect of
Adivasi lands and exploitation of mineral wealth.
 Court directed that at least 20% of net profits of
companies be set apart as permanent fund for
establishment and maintenance of water
resources, schools, hospitals, sanitation and
transport facilities by laying roads, etc.; 20%
allocation would not include expenditure for
forest reforestation and maintenance of ecology.
 All mining operations in the region came to
standstill during the period of legal battle.
 Peoples’ resistance led the company to finally
offer compensation in the amount of Rs1.5
lakhs (Rs 1,500,000) per acre of wetland as
compared to original compensation given
amounting to Rs 1,500 per acre.
LESSONS LEARNT
 In ANY campaign no single organization or
movement can successfully bring pressure to
the State to adhere to policies of social justice
as liberalization is always favored; only the
collective efforts of movements all over the
country, and perhaps the world, can bring an
effective pressure on the State.
9. Actions by Government After the Samata
Decision
 State Government of Andhra Pradesh and
Central Government filed a joint petition
for modification of Samata order but
petition dismissed by Supreme Court on
March 6, 2000.
 Ministry of Mines drafted and circulated a
Secret Note to committee of Secretaries
proposing amendment to Fifth Schedule to
overcome Samata judgement and legalize
leasing of land to outsiders in tribal areas
in July 2000.
 Samata judgement referred to as a hurdle
to private coal mining in Draft Approach
Paper to the Tenth Five Year Plan (2002-2007)
issued by the National Planning Commission
on May 1, 2000 as stated in Paragraph 3.58 of
chapter 3 on Sectoral Policy Issues.
 In May 11, 2000, Minister for Disinvestment
made a statement in the Hindu Business
Line, Delhi Office, to the effect that they
wanted to review the Samata judgement.
 These actions show that many forces in the
central government of India still refuse to
accept the Supreme Court decision on the
Samata case.
•Ways forward :
• Persist in defending rights already accorded to
Scheduled Tribes by govt. laws and upholding the
Supreme Court decision.
• Defend and strengthen the development
framework and priorities of the Tribals,
themselves to ensure that their access and
control over their natural resources are secured
• Gather more national and international support
so that the gains will not be lost.