NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM

PESA AND SELF-GOVERNANCE: A CONCERNOF 12TH FIVE YEAR PLAN

February 25-26, 2013

Conference Hall, IIPA, New Delhi

1

CONTENTS

Pg. Nos.1. Executive Summary 3

2. Opening remarks and Introduction 6

3. Panel DiscussionsI. PESA: A Legal Analysis with Strategies 36

II. PESA: Left Wing Extremism and Governance: Concerns and Challenges 57

4. Paper PresentationsI. PESA and Self Governance:

Challenges and Strategies 82

II. PESA: A Legal Analysis with Strategies 93

III. PESA and Natural resource Governance:Role of PRIs 99

5. Abstracts of the Papers Presented 103

6. Programme Schedule 132

7. List of Participants 138

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Part IX of the constitution, deals with panchayats and it was extended to the scheduled areas with such exceptions and modifications as are mandated in the provision of Panchayats (Extension to the Schedule areas) Act, 1996(PESA). While the enabling framework for providing a self governance structure, consonant with customary laws and traditional management practices for preserving resources of community is outlined in PESA, actual implementation of the provision lies with the states. It was expected that the PESA would lead to self governance and empowerment of the people. However the implementation of PESA is far from satisfactory. “. Most of the States have not framed rules for implementation of PESA so far1”

Schedule V Areas of 9 States namely, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Rajasthan are characterized by poverty, illiteracy, weak infrastructure and deprivations in general. Given the vulnerability of the people, Schedule V of the Constitution makes special provisions such as: (a) Report by Governor to the President regarding the administration of these Areas, (b) Tribes Advisory Council to advise Governor on matters pertaining to the welfare and advancement of the STs, (c) Direction by Governor through public notification that any particular Act of parliament or of the State Legislature shall or shall not apply to a Scheduled Area or any part thereof, (d) Governor to make regulations for the peace and good government, (e) Union Government to give direction to the State as to the administration of these Areas.2

Nevertheless, pressure on natural resources in these Areas continued due to the large projects being set up therein and unscrupulous elements indulging in illegal mining & forest felling. Land alienation and exploitation also continued. This led to dislocation of the communities and loss of major sources of livelihood. It was, therefore, critical that customs, rights and livelihoods of these people are protected through their empowerment. Accordingly, PESA was enacted in 1996 which extended Part IX of the Constitution to the Schedule V Areas and provided for people-centric governance and people’s control over community resources and their life, with central role to the Gram Sabhas. The Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA) is the most important law meant for the Adivasis (natives of India) that can radically

Implementation of Protective Legislation: PESA

Basic Features of PESA(i) PESA extends Part IX of the Constitution to Fifth Schedule Areas, subject to

certain exceptions and modifications.

(ii) The Act has defined a village as ordinarily consisting of a habitation or a group of habitations or a hamlet or a group of hamlets comprising a community and managing its affairs in accordance with traditions and customs. It has been laid

1 Faster, Sustainable and More Inclusive Growth: An Approach to Twelfth Five Year Plan, Government of India, Planning Commission,October,2011,www.planningcommission.nic.in2 No. N-11012/1/2007-PESA (Pt)Government of India Ministry of Panchayati Raj Dated: 21st May, 2010, A.N.P. Sinha,

3

down that every village will have a Gram Sabha which will be competent to safeguard and preserve the traditions and customs of the people, their cultural identity, community resources and customary mode of dispute resolution.

(iii) The manner of Reservation of seats at each level of Panchayats has been provided for in the Act. It has been stipulated that reservation for the Scheduled Tribes will not be less than half of the total number of seats and that all seats of Chairpersons of Panchayats at all levels will be reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. Further, it has been provided that the State Government will nominate persons belonging to such Scheduled Tribes as have no representation in the Panchayat at the intermediate level or the Panchayat at the district level and that such number will not exceed one-tenth of the total members to be elected in that Panchayat.

PESA: A Legal Analysis with Strategies While all States have enacted requisite compliance legislations by amending the

respective Panchayati Raj Acts, certain gaps continue to exist. Further, some states are also yet to amend the subject laws, like those relating to money lending, forest, excise etc. Consequently, the compliance remains incomplete, perfunctory and formal in virtually most states. Vital issues like the ownership of minor forest produce, planning and management of minor water bodies, prevention of alienation of tribal lands etc., which have been duly recognized in PESA as the traditional rights of tribal living in the Scheduled Areas have still not received the warranted attention and the necessary correctives remain unapplied. There are also issues relating to powers statutorily devolved upon the Gram Sabha and the Panchayats, not being matched by concomitant transfer of funds and functionaries resulting in the non-exercise of such powers. The states have, over the years, been repeatedly urged to expedite this process and the matter has been discussed a number of times at the meetings of the Ministers of Panchayati Raj as also in the meetings of the Committee of Secretaries of Panchayati Raj of the States. In view of inadequate response from the State Governments, the Ministry of Rural Development had commissioned research studies on implementation of provisions of PESA in some States as also regarding the evaluation of the status of PESA in different States. The matter was again discussed in the Third Round Table of Panchayati Raj Ministers in September 2004 where the State Ministers agreed to enforce the provisions of PESA and also to undertake a wider consultation with other government departments so as to harmonize the provisions of the concerned laws with the aims and objectives of PESA. Change the socio-political landscape of India, only if it is implemented honestly.

PESA and Left Wing Extremism (LWE) Left Wing Extremism (LWE) has emerged as a great challenge to the internal

security of the country. It is growing in strength particularly in the forest and tribal areas. According to the Ministry of Home Affairs, 76 districts in the nine states of AP, MP,

4

Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Bihar, Orissa, Maharashtra, UP and West Bengal are afflicted with LWE forming an almost continuous Naxal Corridor. Of 94 PESA districts, 32 have been identified as Extremist Affected Districts (EADs). Of 76 EADs, 32 are PESA districts. Of 34 Most Extremist Affected Districts, 19 are PESA districts.

Various Committees/Commissions have gone into the reasons for this and have recommended measures to mitigate the factors leading to extremism. Of particular mention are the following two reports: Seventh Report of the second Administrative Reforms Commission: ‘Capacity Building for Conflict Resolution; Friction to Fusion’; ‘Development Challenges in Extremist Affected Areas’ : Report of an Expert Group of the Planning Commission.

The Report of the MoRD on Priority Development Schemes for LWE Districts has identified that weak governance structures persist in these districts, as PRIs have not been adequately strengthened by delegating sufficient administrative and financial powers (Chapter III, page 13). Chapter IV suggests long and medium term interventions, which include the strengthening of PRIs by ‘delegation of requisite administrative and financial powers

PESA was also the subject matter of the Governors Conference called by Her Excellency, President of India (16.9.8).”The provision of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act 1996 (PESA) has extended Panchayati Raj to the nine States namely , Andhra Pradesh , Gujarat , Himachal Pradesh , Chhattisgarh , Jharkhand , Madhya Pradesh , Orissa and Rajasthan under fifth Schedule. However they are yet to frame requisite Local enactment to comply with PESA Act.”

Natural Resource Governance and PESAMoreover, issues like ownership of minor forest produce, planning and

management of minor water bodies, prevention of alienation of tribal lands etc which have been duly recognized in the PESA Act as the traditional rights of the Tribals living in the Scheduled areas, have still not received the warranted attention. There are also the issue relating to powers statutorily devolved upon gram sabhas and the Panchayats not being matched by concomitant transfer of Funds and Functionaries resulting in the inability to exercise such powers.

So, Effective Implementation of PESA Act is necessary for removing the discontent among the tribal population and for the future progress.Not surprisingly, various Expert Committees have recommended implementation of PESA in letter & spirit. It can achieve three things simultaneously:

(1) Deprive the Naxal of the fertile ground of backwardness and poverty in the “Red Corridor” and make them baseless;

(2) Assimilate the 8 percent tribal Adivasis into the mainstream political current through self governance; and (3) Preserve forests and local ecology because they only know their land and its resources the best.

The second administrative reforms commission too had stressed the effective implementation of the PESA, 1996 “The Union and State legislations that impinge on

5

provisions of PESA should be immediately modified so as to bring them in conformity with the Act”3

Moreover, international organizations too have stressed the rights to self determination of these groups. “Indigenous people around the world have sought recognition of their identities, their ways of life and their right to traditional lands, territories and natural resources; yet throughout history, their rights have been violated.”4 

According to the Approach paper to Twelfth Five Year Plan, “There is a case for creating a special arrangement whereby in the first two years of the Twelfth Plan, funds can be unconditionally released for all these districts to facilitate the speedy implementation of PESA”5.Hence, PESA seems to be the best policy to fulfill this concern. It is important to grasp the profound impact its proper implementation will have for the future development.Steps to be taken for implementation of PESA6

Essential features of PESA that need to be complied with in relevant statutes/rules/guidelines and covers (a) Delimitation of Villages and Gram Sabhas, (b) Procedure to be followed for consultation with Gram Sabha for land acquisition and defining minor minerals and securing recommendation of Gram Sabha [Section 4 (k) and (ℓ )], and (c) Endowing Gram Sabhas with powers and authority under Section 4m (i) to 4m (v) relating to Excise, MFP, Land alienation, Village markets and Money lending. Broad themes for discussion had the following dimensions:

1. PESA:A Legal Analysis With Strategies 2. PESA, Left Wing Extremism and Governance Concerns 3. PESA and Natural Resource Governance: Role of PRI’s4. Strategies : Way Forward

OPENING REMARKS AND INTRODUCTION

DR. NUPUR TIWARI: A very warm welcome and good morning to all of you. We are

honored to have with us Hon. Shri Mani Shankar Aiyar Ji, former Union Minister of

Panchayati Raj and presently Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha, as our chief guest. It

is a pleasure to have with us Shri Bhalchandra Mungekar Ji, presently Member of

Parliament, Rajya Sabha. We also have with us the Chairman, IIPA, Shri T.N.

Chaturvedi Ji, we have Shri Onkar Marwah Ji, currently Distinguished Fellow in the

3 Recommendation of 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission, 20084 United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, October 20065 Faster, Sustainable and More Inclusive Growth: An Approach to Twelfth Five Year Plan, Government of India, Planning Commission,October,2011,www.planningcommission.nic.in6 Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Letter No. N-11012/1/2007-PESA (Pt), Dated: 21/05/2010 : Author : A.N.P Sinha,

6

Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi. He is also a former member of Indian

Administrative Service. We have Shri A.N.P. Sinha Ji, presently Member, Bihar State

Planning Board and former Secretary, Ministry of Panchayati Raj and Secretary,

Department of Official Language under the Ministry of Home Affairs, we have Avdhash

Kaushal Ji, who is a human rights activist, who heads an organization called RLEK,

Dehradun, which works, among others, to promote the cause of van gujjars. Let me have

the opportunity to welcome the dignitaries on the dais with a bouquet of flowers.

I request Chairman Sir to please welcome Shri Mani Shankar Aiyar Ji.

DR. NUPUR TIWARI: Thank you everyone for coming and making it possible. I

would like to say a few words about the Symposium on PESA and Self-Governance.

The PESA Act, 1996, perhaps the most progressive law passed since Independence,

extends Part IX of the Constitution to Fifth Schedule Areas subject to certain exceptions

and modifications. PESA is innovative because it legally recognizes the capacity of tribal

communities to strengthen their own system of local self-governance. The Gram Sabha of

the village becomes the focal institution endowed with significant powers.

While all the States have enacted requisite compliance legislation by amending

their respective Panchayati Raj Acts, certain gaps continue to exist and so PESA can

change the socio-political landscape of India only if implemented in letter and spirit. As

noted by an expert committee, it can achieve three things simultaneously—

(1) Deprive the Naxals of the fertile ground of backwardness and poverty in the

Red corridor and make them baseless;

(2) Assimilate tribal Adiwasis into the mainstream political current through self-

governance; and

(3) preserve forest and natural resources because they only know their land and

its resources capacity.

So, we have a two-day symposium on PESA and Self-Governance. The first day

is a panel discussion by experts and practitioners and the second day is the Paper

presentation by academic discourse. Broad themes for this panel discussion will have the

following dimensions:

(1) PESA: A legal analysis with strategies

7

(2) PESA: Left Wing Extremism and Governance concerns and challenges

(3) PESA and Natural Resource Governance: Role of PRIs

(4) Strategies and the way forward.

However, these dimensions are indicative, not exhaustive. About 30 participants,

including experts, development practitioners, administrators, policy makers and social

activists will be with us for this symposium.

WELCOME ADDRESS

SHRI T.N. CHATURVEDI: Shri Mani Shankar Aiyar, former Hon. Minister and an

Hon. Member of Rajya Sabha, Shri Bhalchandra Mungekar, former member of the

Planning Commission and now Hon. Member of the Rajya Sabha, Mr. Onkar Marwah,

Mr. Kaushal and friends. I am sorry, I apologize, I do not remember all the names. I

extend a very warm welcome to all the special guests who have agreed to participate in

this particular programme. It is a very important programme as one finds. Unfortunately,

I was told about it when I was just leaving for Chittorgarh two days back that there is a

programme of this kind. Dr. Agarwal, who is holding the fort as Director since our

Director who has been suggested by the search committee is yet to be formally appointed,

also mentioned that for certain reasons he

8

had to be away, so I felt that I should in any case be there if I could. He also mentioned

that the Minister of State also might be coming, whom I had never had the privilege to

meet earlier. But I thought that if he comes for such a programme, it will be worthwhile

because the Institute, in earlier years and even later on, has done a fair amount of work in

the field of earlier community development, extension service and earlier stages of

Panchayati Raj and was associated with many other committees at different times, even

non-official committees, to look into the working of the different stages of Panchayati

Raj. I was particularly happy to note that Mani Shankar Aiyar has agreed to come

because I have known personally his interest in the subject of decentralization of power

to people in the real sense of the term and not just as a slogan or as a ritual homage at

different times. He has struggled for it. Whether he was in the Government or he was out

of the Government, he continues to do so. He even takes pains to go to many of the

conferences. I had also agreed to go to one of them in North Karnataka from here but

unfortunately because of the accident, I was in the hospital and it was not possible for me

to go. So, I thought that this is an important subject and all that I knew was that it is about

protective legislation. I did not have the opportunity to go through the legislation but

with some amount of background about protective legislation and about PESA – though

acronyms are always quite annoying so far as I am concerned because I live still in the

1940s and 1950s in which I was brought up - I could guess what it is. I know that Nupur

Tiwari has been working very hard in the panchayat area at different times and since this

was one of such programmes, so, I said, all right, if Mr. Agarwal is not able to come, I

shall try to be there, thought I might be delayed. Unfortunately, the train was even more

delayed but, by and large, I found that I was not very late. Three of our distinguished

guests were already there and Mr. Mungekar also arrived in the meanwhile. So, my

apologies to all of you for being late and that is why this programme is also starting late.

I do not want to talk much about this legislation because I just had the opportunity

to glance through the first page. I would only like to say that so far as the Panchayati Raj

is concerned, it ultimately is a part of our development process, part of the Panchayati

Raj system and through Panchayati Raj, we want not only an instrument of local self

government or just an instrument of delivery system of the Government or the schemes

handed over, but to develop an effective local government. This is the idea. There is

9

three-tier system after the amendment to the Constitution was made and the two articles

were added. Unfortunately, the State Governments have been lagging behind and at

other levels also, even in the Government of India, except at different times, it has not

always been the kind of support that this concept really needs. Yes, there are difficulties

and inadequacies in the working of the Panchayati Raj. We are well aware of that. But so

are in the total governance of the country. But how they can be rectified, how can the

corrective measures be put and are we taking effective steps towards what was our basic

aim about the Panchayati Raj or not? One of the important matters related to this is that

after all the panchayati raj system should cover the entire country. Of course, our

Constitution makes some differences obviously for specific reasons and the special

conditions prevailing in different parts of the country, but now the time has come that

those who have worked in the field and who are interested in the subject and the experts,

feel that this can be extended to these areas also with some changes. But what are the

difficulties and what more can be suggested so far as the Act is concerned, for that, a

discussion is always worthwhile. But I personally have felt all along that now for very

long, Panchayati Raj has been set up, established, initiated. There have been different

stages, such as Balwant Rai Mehta Committee and so many other developments. But

now with the amendments in the Constitution - the two amendments which were made

for the rural areas and for the urban areas - a new look is necessary at the various aspects

of this Panchayati Raj system - its plus points, its minus points, particularly in relation to

the aims and aspirations of what we want to have, the local planning and all other things.

It is very important that we should look into all the aspects of it. Still we cannot

homogenize the entire country, nor can there be a uniform pattern. There will be some

differences or some variations but, by and large, the basic features need to be revisited

and re-looked. This is what these two articles did in the Constitution. Otherwise there

was only one article – I think article 40 or something – in which panchayats were

mentioned, and I think it was because of the efforts of Mahatma Gandhi that this was

added at the last stage. Now there is a scope for us to seriously look at it. When there is a

failure of the system at higher level, the tendency is to pass it on to the Panchayati Raj.

But that was not the concept of decentralization of the Panchayati Raj; it was much more

positive.

10

The other thing I would like to say - I am sorry to say this, Mr. Mungekar - is

that the panchayat and this whole thing has been a bit downgraded so far as the Planning

Commission is concerned. I find that only lip homage has been given all along by the

Panchayati Raj Ministry and even by other Ministries. Panchayati Raj is one Ministry.

They will have some substantive areas of their work and their responsibilities. But the

other Ministries also, for whom the effective instrument or the tool or the agency will be

the Panchayati Raj, have to be equally cooperative and helpful. Many of the nation

building Ministries or the social sector, has to take a more positive interest and this is

necessary. I remember the interest that the Prime Minister Nehru used to take about

panchayats. He went all the way to the different panchayats in Rajasthan as well as in

Andhra Pradesh. I remember the speeches that they used to make about planning. Now

the planning itself I think is much more a corporate planning - pardon me for saying that.

Of course, Mani Shankar Aiyar is here, I do need his permission also to say so -

planning for the villages, planning for the rural areas, planning for the extension of the

Panchayati Raj because what I find is only the sensitivities of the corporate sector are

being taken care of. I have worked fairly long so far as the industries are concerned but

I do not find the same sensitivities and the same sensibilities and the same requirements

and the needs of the panchayats and the locals. The other day I saw six or seven districts

of Karnataka. Though I knew about the North Karnataka, I reported how backward they

are. I also saw four or five districts in Rajasthan. I happened to be in one of them

yesterday – Chittorgarh – and found that the condition is the same. In Karnataka, people

do not look beyond Bangalore or Mysore. They do not look beyond Chandigarh or Pune

– pardon me for saying Pune because I am telling you what are the conditions outside. If

you go there, it becomes mind-boggling except in some English schools or a little bit

more light in the shop and so on. But so far as the villages are concerned, they are

suffering from the same kind of conditions. The only reach to them will have to be

through the Panchayati Raj system by putting the correctives if the things go wrong, and

guiding them, rather than through the Planning Commission. I was aghast to find that

earlier the Planning Commission used to get the Plan document published. I have still

with me a large number of them, since my papers have come back from Jaipur; they were

lying there for 30-40 years. These are the old documents of Nehru’s time - plan

11

documents with small forewords, the summarized documents translated in Hindi and

many other languages. Now the Plan document is being published or the report is being

published by the Oxford University Press. We do not hear anything about the Panchayati

Raj or the next stage of the Panchayati Raj. For many things, it is planning for the people.

The President has said in his speech earlier when he had assumed the office of the

President that this percolation theory will not work. You know we were given a lot of

literature from the Planning Commission to send it to the intermediate schools. In the

1950s and the early 1960s how many colleges had economics as a subject. You had the

district planning committees in the schools for discussion of the problems and the local

planning, but now I find that so far as the people are concerned, they are completely away

from the planning. Pardon me for saying that for the Deputy Chairman, probably the

planning is only for the corporate sector and for industry.

We know what is happening to the agriculture - the fall in production and so on. -

But what has happened to the irrigation facilities, power and so on? The social

infrastructure we know, but the point is what is being done about the people-centered

plan which was the basic idea in the first two Plans? We were just looking with awe at

Mahalanobis discussing something and Pandit Nehru discussing something. You feel

sometimes a bit aghast that there is hardly anything being done in any of these things.

I am sorry I have taken much more time and have digressed into other things

though they may also be indirectly related to the planning system under which the

Panchayati Raj also comes because everything now goes to the Planning Commission. I

wonder very much how much the Ministries exercise their own discretion in policy

making. The framework for the policy comes and then they ask you to adjust yourself to

this.

Sorry, I have just said a few things which I felt strongly about. I may be

thoroughly mistaken because I was completely away even from the Government

documents and from any information about administration at the first hand. I am

particularly thankful to Shri Bhalchandra Mungekar and Shri Mani Shankar Aiyar, Shri

Marwah, Mr. Sinha and Shri Kaushal who, I find, is an activist in the field of Panchayati

Raj, and all the participants, particularly those who have come, a large number of former

officers who are working in different areas and have worked very much in this particular

12

field or the related field. But I am glad also that the Ministry is represented by the Joint

Secretary, Mr. Jain, and he will be able to inform the participants about what exactly is

the thinking and the policies of the Ministry at first hand, to which you can contribute.

The whole discussion is going to be PESA and self-governance, a concept of the Twelfth

Five Year Plan.

DR. NUPUR TIWARI: Thank you, Sir, for some of the very positive comments about

local self-governance. Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas in particular, indeed

brings together in a single frame the simple system of tribal communities governed by the

customs and traditions and the formal system of State governed exclusively by law.

INAUGURAL ADDRESS

DR. NUPUR TIWARI: May I now call upon Shri Bhalchandra Mungekar Ji to give

the Inaugural Address. May I say a few words in his honour.

SHRI BHALCHANDRA MUNGEKAR: Shri Chaturvedi Ji, my colleague Mr.Mani

Shankar Aiyar, Mr. Marwah, Mr. Kaushal, Mr. Sinha - once upon we were colleagues in

the Planning Commission when I was working there - distinguished participants,

academics, social activists, intellectuals. First of all, without being formal, let me say at

the outset that I have reservations about my competence to speak on such topic and

particularly to deliver lecture as what is called inaugural lecture. In economics, we say

demand is different from desire. That is why desire backed by ability to purchase

becomes demand. As a concerned citizen I have always been interested in this subject

since my school days when I was studying. At that time, district local boards were there.

But in course of time when I tried to get myself acquainted with some of the issues of the

governance, the planning, the poverty, unfortunately, I pursued economics for my post-

graduation because that makes me everyday vulnerable after understanding the problems

of poverty and the logistics that people are finding themselves in.

So far as PESA is concerned, let me begin by saying, without being much

competent, it is at the crossroad, it is in the stalemate, and in order to solve the problem,

the extent of which I am particularly skeptic about, we have to raise certain important

13

questions before the ruling classes in the country. Whether PESA should be passed, in

what form, whether to be implemented or not, decisions always are taken at a particular

point of time by the ruling classes, and at this point of time, without my making

distinction between the ruling classes and the ruling party, they are basically different.

One may have different political parties but they may be backed or engineered by the

same political class. Today, if somebody asks me what is the state of PESA so far as

implementation is concerned, it is in the crisis, it is at the crossroad because there is no

will on the part of the ruling classes in the country to implement PESA in proper letter

and spirit. In 1996, PESA Act was passed. I was privileged to be the Chairman of the

Inter-sectoral Issues of Tribal Development in the Planning Commission and K.B.

14

Saxena, my guru, Dr. B.D. Sharma, Mr. Narayan, a senior civil servant earlier in Kerala

Government, and so on, were so galaxy that they submitted their inputs. This is

essentially dealing with the tribals, that is, 10 per cent of the population of the country. If

we take into account all positive indicators of development or human development,

tribals are at the bottom, and the negative indicators of development, such as poverty,

illiteracy, destitution, deprivation, discrimination, they are at the top. Tribal are not

formally part of the Hindu social order. Hindu social order has transmitted everything in

their structure, in their content, in their philosophy, in their ethos, in one way or the other,

to tribal community. If you see the extent of poverty, extent of illiteracy, extent of

unemployment, they are because of the attitude of the ruling classes, the ruling elite of

the country. When the 1996 Act was passed, I shall, for my sake - because many of you

are well- versed, in fact, all of you - just to refresh myself, I read the major provisions of

1996 PESA Act as follows:

(1) Mandatory executive functions to approve plans for the village panchayats,

identify beneficiaries for schemes, issue certificates of utilization of funds

(2) Right to mandatory consultation in matters of land acquisition, resettlement

and rehabilitation and prospecting licenses, mining leases for the minor

minerals

(3) Power to prevent alienation of land earlier alienated

(4) Power to regulate and restrict sale/consumption of liquor.

(5) Power to manage village markets,

(6) Control money-lending to Scheduled Tribes.

(7) Ownership of minor forest produce

(8) Power to control institution functionaries in all social sectors, and

(9) Power to control local plans and resources for such plans, including TSP etc.

After spending five years in the Planning Commission and being in charge of the

tribal development, practically, without going into statistical probability, nothing of this

happened so far as the PESA Act is concerned. For 2011-12, they have given the

compliance report – I think Mr. Sinha has given this in his presentation. In 1996, there

are two types of compliances which are required. One is State Panchayat Raj Act, where

there is compliance with section 4 of the PESA, most of the States – there were nine

15

States – where tribal population was important or significant, except the North-Eastern

States, they passed the Panchayat Raj Institutions Act. Without embarrassing my

colleague, Mr. Mani Shankar Aiyar, if I understand, so far as the governance structure of

this country is concerned, as you will appreciate, 73rd and 74th amendments to the

Constitution making Panchayati Raj institutions mandatory is the gift of late Mr. Rajiv

Gandhi to the country, and I appreciate Mani’s single-handedly handling Panchayati Raj

Institutions drafting of 73rd and 74th amendments. Now, the question is, so far as PESA

provisions are concerned, that is, compliance of important subject laws with PESA of all

the nine States, there are nearly 54 squares which you are having with yes or no. Out of

these 54 squares asking whether you have implemented/ complied with or not, you are

not having more than 6 or 7 ‘Ayes’, i.e., yes, and around 48-49 Noes. This means not a

single State Government, even after passing the legislation, complied with its provisions.

That is insult to the legislature because when Legislature passes the Act and when it is

not implemented, it is nothing more than the insult to the legislature, that is, sovereign

power of the people. Now, the State Legislature has passed the Panchayati Raj

Institutions Act but then in almost all the cases they did not comply with the provisions

with respect to PESA.

Now, let us take these provisions which I read out just now. When I say that they

are in the stalemate, in the crisis, it is for the following reasons.

Let us take the case of minor forest produce. Late Mr. Arjun Singh Ji told me

when he was the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, he had implemented minor produce

legislation on a minimum support price for them. Today, there is not a single State,

including these nine States, including even the North-Eastern States, which has

introduced the Statutory Minimum Price for minor produce, which is the main source of

livelihood for the millions of tribals in the country. I have moved in Orissa, Madhya

Pradesh, Jharkhand, Chhatisgarh, and I have found how the tribal women are working for

10-12 hours a day, carrying the heaps of tendu leaves on their head and practically selling

to the middlemen. The whole market said they are getting the maximum amount of profit.

Now the Central Government is willing to provoke the States that they should pass this

kind of legislation.

16

Second is the Tribal Sub-Plan. You know that Tribal Sub-Plan was introduced

first in 1974. It was at the instance of Shrimati Indira Gandhi. The Tribal Sub-Plan

means that the population proportion allocation of the total plan resources for the tribal

development, that is, 10 per cent - at present it is around 9.5 per cent - annually must be

earmarked for the development of the tribals or the development of the Scheduled Tribes.

Till July, 2004 – Mr. Sinha will agree with me – not a single State Government, including

the Central Government – as Chaturvedi Sahib was saying, Central Government is far

ahead of the State Governments in non-implementing of this thing – earmarked

population proportion resources for the development of tribals. We made it compulsory

and then we saw that 16 State Governments’ annual plans were rejected because they did

not make the statutory provision for the tribal development as proportion of their

population. We rejected the annual plans of these States, including Maharashtra, for

2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. We ruthlessly implemented it. In 2009 again,

degradation started. (1) Sometimes, because of compulsion, they make allocation; (2)

there are no funds yet to release on the ground that there are no proper plans and

programmes designed; (3) the money remains unutilized; and (4) by 31st of March or

middle of March, the money is diverted. In 51st meeting of the National Development

Council, the Prime Minister said, - I was privileged to draft that for him and he

suggested that let it be there – that the money earmarked for the special component of

the Tribal Sub-Plan will be non-lapsable and non-divertible. This does not happen at all.

That is why the question is, the willingness on the part of the State is not forthcoming, the

willingness on the part of the Central Government to make the State implement these

provisions is not sufficiently forthcoming, and the last big issue is, we are virtually in a

liberalized, privatized economy. I am not commenting good or bad, but privatization,

liberalisation essentially - let us try to take this issue in a much bigger level; of course,

we shall be discussing logistics – implies domination of capital over all other factors of

production. It is the capital which will dominate the social relations. Now, capital

naturally has tendency towards centralisation and your entire PESA is giving emphasis

over decentralisation. That is why the stalemate and the crisis today is the crisis of

centralization vs. decentralization. It is a much bigger problem - people who are

expecting to do something substantial for the philosophy of development, autonomy,

17

good administration, managing social relations, right to livelihood so far as the tribals are

concerned. You know what is happening to the Forest Tribals Diet Act? Fortunately, we

were instrumental to draft that legislation for forest tribals’ and traditional dwellers’

entitlement to forest land, we drafted that legislation. What is the fate of that? First of

all, after drafting that and passing by the Parliament, for one year the law was not

implemented at all. There were no grounds prepared. In fact, I was personally against

giving right to forest land to the traditional dwellers because the Act is giving right to the

tribals and also to traditional dwellers. Now, traditional dwellers are dominating so far as

the entire procedure of transfer of land is concerned and more than 50 per cent of the

claimants’ applications today are languishing in the offices and cupboards of the State

Governments. That is why the big question is we have got strong desire, we have

commitment - we mean the people who are swearing in the name of the deprived sections

of the society. I did not discuss about the deprivation, about discrimination. Forget

about PESA, PESA is much bigger thing. Even in Delhi University it was shameful to

read that the North-Eastern girls were considered to be separate from the rest of the

country. In terms of philosophy, in terms of economics, in terms of ethics, in terms of

sociology, in terms of integration of the country, PESA is a much bigger thing. Even the

elite in this country, of which we all are part, re-examines its attitude, its behaviour, its

obligations, I do not think - forget about PESA - any meaningful problem concerning the

people in this country will be solved.

The last point is, PESA is concentrating on the needs of the tribals. Now,

between the tribals’ needs and the needs of the development model, again there is a

tradeoff. For example, on this Land Acquisition Act, the debate was going on. Nobody

disputes that mineral resources and the natural property, national resources, forests,

minerals etc. must be exploited for the development of the society. No society can

develop without exploiting these natural resources. But what kind of exploitation, for

example? For land acquisition in tribal areas, whether 75 of the Gram Sabha

membership will support or 65 per cent of the Gram Sabha membership will support,

they brought down from 75 per cent to 65 per cent. What does it mean? The Minister

of Environment and Forests is on record to say that not a single country in the world

historically during the last 200 years of industrial revolution had license to start the

18

industry anywhere it demands without fulfilling certain obligations. And what kind of a

question is being raised? The entire English speaking elite urban class in the country is

raising the false question of dichotomy between development and environment, which is

wrong. It is not necessary that there must be tradeoff between development and

environment.

Friends, I was apologetic but then I suggest that the topic and the issue of PESA is

much more demanding and so far as the present development pattern is concerned, how

to intervene in that is one of the greatest challenges. I think that a workshop like this and

a collective understanding, collective thinking alone will enable us to deal with the

problem. Thank you very much.

SHRI T.N. CHATURVEDI: Thank you, Prof. Mungekar for placing the issue in the

proper perspective. I am glad that extracts of papers have been published. Probably the

entire Papers also, which may be obtained later on or which might have come also, will

also be published and will be widely circulated among the policy makers.

KEYNOTE ADDRESS

SHRI MANI SHANKAR AIYAR: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Director-General, other

distinguished members of the panel, ladies and gentlemen. In view of the remarks that

have already come from the Chairman and Prof. Mungekar, I think the key notes have

already been struck and it is difficult to deliver a keynote address after that because the

most important points have already been mentioned.

CHAIRMAN: But you have still to deliver the keys.

SHRI MANI SHANKAR AIYAR So, inevitably there will be a certain amount of

overlap between what you have already heard and what I am going to say. It is pointed

out by Prof. Mungekar that PESA was passed in 1996, that is, within a period of four

years of the passage of Part IX and Part IXA of the Constitution, and I think that is where

the fault lay. It was passed without discussion and without consultation with the States as

a kind of slate of hand, and was put as a feather in the cap. But there was no commitment

whatsoever to it on the part of any of the IXth Schedule States, specifically none of the

Governors of the Fifth Schedule States nor of the Central Government nor indeed of any

Ministry of the Central Government because the Ministry of Tribal Affairs said that

since PESA is an outcome of the panchayat system, it should be the responsibility of the

19

Panchayat Ministry and, of course, there was no Panchayat Ministry for eight years after

the passage of PESA. So, this is the kind of legislative leisure to which I would express

my strong opposition because all you do is you get documents on to the Statute Book and

then there is no compulsion to implement it. I would very very very strongly condemn

civil society for not having resorted to public interest litigation in order to rectify the deep

injustice that is being done to our tribal population by not allowing the implementation of

an Act that was uniquely devised for them. Indeed I go further. Back in 1948 when the

Constitution was being drafted, it was felt in the wisdom of our founding fathers – I do

not quite know why wisdom is always attributed to them because one significant

indication of their total lack of wisdom was their reducing Panchayati Raj to three lines

through an amendment in article 40 of the Constitution – that because the Fifth Schedule

areas are areas where there is a total predominance of tribal people in the population that

the Governor of the State would have a particular responsibility for ensuring that

whatever legislation is passed by a Fifth Schedule State would be reviewed by the

Governor in order to make such amendment as he, in his personal judgement, believes

appropriate before the legislation is implemented in the Fifth Schedule areas. It is

something of a tribute to the numerous Governors who have been in States with Fifth

Schedule areas that not one of them has in the last 60 years attempted to even amend one

comma of any State legislation before it is implemented in a Fifth Schedule area.

Equally, that same Fifth Schedule says in paragraph 3 that the Government of India, the

Union Government, can give directions for the administration of Fifth Schedule areas in

any State. It empowers the Union Government, and the Union Government quite

significantly has never ever sent a single direction to any such State to do something in a

tribal area. What is perhaps even worse is that there is no Raj Bhavan secretariat in the

country. I am specifically talking here of the nine States where PESA is being

implemented because they have scheduled areas. Not one Raj Bhavan secretariat has a

Cell that enables the Governor to take an independent decision in reporting to the

President of India on what is happening in the scheduled areas and, therefore, Governors

are totally dependent upon the sinners, the Tribal Affairs Department or relevant

department of the State Government, to prepare their reports, and so you have glowing

testimonials from any Governor who has ever cared to send such a document to the

20

President about how the Fifth Schedule areas are being administered. The consequence of

this outstanding administration of the Fifth Schedule areas is that the Prime Minister is

now obliged to say that the single biggest internal security problem of India is the revolt

in these Fifth Schedule areas and let us mince no meet on this. The Fifth Schedule areas

are all in the heart of India.

There is no way in which any Pakistani Jehadi can turn up and provoke revolution, there

is no way in which the Chinese can get hold of Indian Mongolian people and make them

undertake this revolution. The stories that are told about how the Khalistanis were

encouraged and financed and supported by Pakistan are of no relevance whatsoever to

what is happening in Central India, and equally the stories we have heard of Chinese and

Myanmarese support to rebel elements in North-East India also has absolutely no

relevance to what is happening in Central India. In Central India it is an authentic Indian

revolution, and it is not a revolution that is taking place in some limited pocket of

Central India. There are 35 districts of India which are recognized by the Home Ministry

as having barely any presence of the Indian State - by that I do not mean just State

Government, I mean also the Central Government; I am using Indian State of the

21

capital. 35 districts have virtually spun out of the control of the State in India. There are

another 50 or so which have been recognized as being districts which require the special

support of the Union Home Ministry which has devised a development plan called the

Integrated Action Plan to deal with issues of development in insurgency affected areas,

and then there are another 100 districts of India approximately – the figure keeps varying

almost on a day-to-day basis and significantly the Home ministry has stopped publishing

this figure in its reports sine 2011 - which are partially affected by insurgency. In other

words, one-third of India has risen in revolt against the State and the Constitution,

partially in many places, wholly in other places and entirely in yet other places. There is

no issue before India that is as important as this insurgency and yet, except when Indian

security forces are shot dead by the rebels, it hardly figures in the newspapers. I was

asked on a television programme yesterday why when the Congress party has twice

risked its political life – once on the Indo-US nuclear deal and once on FDI in multi-

brand retail – it does not risk its life on the question of jehadi terrorism? Well, I was only

able to add that what about internal terrorism that has nothing to do with jehad. It is not

in our consciousness at all and the principal reason for that is the divide in our society, to

which Prof. Mungekar referred, which has become the Bible, the Quran and the Gita of

the Planning Commission, the GDP growth rate. I think the Planning Commission reacts

to the words GDP in much the same way as I react to the centerfold of Playboy. It really

excites them. I find this bizarre because it is the Planning Commission which, in the

Twelfth Plan document, was much more blunt in the approach to the Twelfth Plan. Then

they discovered that they were digging their own grave. So, they added several words.

But the truth remains there, as revealed by the Planning Commission, that in an era where

our GDP growth rate has averaged “over 8 per cent per annum”. These three last words

are a quote from both the approach and the final document - the rate of poverty

alleviation in India has averaged under 0.8 per cent per annum. This includes all of India.

If we were to look at what is happening in tribal India, I think you will have to add

several zeros after the decimal point before you got to the figure ‘8’. It is a disaster and

yet it is not a preoccupation. And why? For the good reason that there is no Naxalism in

Lutyens’ Delhi, none at Nariman Point or Dalal Street, not to be found in Mylapore or

Alwarpet in Tamil Nadu in Chennai and, of course, not to be found in Chowringhee in

22

Kolkata either. There was a British philosopher called Bishop Barkley (PL. CHECK

THE NAME) who put the theory that, only that which I can see actually exists because

how do I know that, that which I do not see actually exists at that point in time? So, he

argued that if I see a tree, it means the tree exists, but if I do not see a tree, I cannot

guarantee that it actually does exist. This Bishop Barkley’s philosophical theory has now

been transferred to the political realm that if I do not see insurgency at No. 12,

Safdarjang Lane, where I live, then it does not exist or at least I do not have to bother

about it. There are so many people who go and live in the jungles and if they suffer the

fate that awaits them in the jungles, well, please ask them why did they live in the jungle

in the first instance or why the hell they did not get out of the jungle. If this kind of

blindness to what is happening to the poor in India continues, I am afraid, we are really

endangering the single biggest achievement of India since Independence, which is our

democracy, and the single biggest aspiration of India since Independence, which is

development. We are endangering both democracy and development and that is because

it starts the other way round. It was in the 1940s that Shri Chaturvedi talked about or, let

me say, in 1950s and 1970s that I could mention as being the heart of my life, and the

1990s that the young lady sitting there has some bare memory after she entered the 21st

century. We thought that development was desirable but at least one third of India is

saying development is not desirable, development is disruptive. And that is what that

famous report written by Shri D. Bandyopadhyay and his colleagues was all about when

he gave it the title ‘Development Challenges in Extremists-affected Areas’. I have done

two reports for the Government of India. You can easily recognize them by the amount of

dust that is covering them. But even more dust than is covering my reports is covering

Shri Bandyopadhyay’s report because Shri Bandyopadhyay’s report came while I was in

Government, and I have no hesitation in revealing what some might call a State secret

that in that same year the request from the Home Ministry came for several hundreds of

crores of rupees to be spent on getting khaki shorts and stockings and shoes and guns and

various other things to fight the insurgency. In the Cabinet I asked, it was all very well to

have khaki shorts and stockings and nice sturdy shoes and plenty of guns with which to

shoot down the Maoists, but what about this document “The Development Challenges in

Extremists-affected Areas’, and I was told formally in Cabinet, well, the issue here is

23

how to give these khaki shorts; your issue will be taken up later. I am convinced after so

many years that it was never taken up. Instead, what was decided was that whereas the

panchayats in one-third of India are entitled to one-third of the Central outlay on matters

listed in the Eleventh Schedule to the Constitution which amount is approximately

Rs.1,50,000 crore a year now, which means I get about Rs.50,000 crore. Take half away

to keep the State happy, leave the rest Rs.25,000 crore, distribute them. First, do not

distribute them in 35 districts where you cannot go, reduce the distribution in the other 50

districts where you have some difficulty getting into, take the 100 districts that are

outside these worst affected areas and say that they constitute one-sixth of that Rs.120

crore or so and, therefore, take about Rs.20 crore and distribute it in those districts and

then give a clear choice to the people living in the jungle that you come with us, all this

money is yours. It is for you to decide how you are going to develop yourselves. If you

do not come with us and remain with them, either they will kill you or very possibly we

will kill you. Just give them that choice. Why would they not wish to come with us?

But if you say, no, you are poor, you are illiterate, you do not know how to govern

yourselves, we need some IAS officer who passed an examination at the age of 21 and

became unbelievably arrogant at the age of 22 and was convinced because mummy had

kissed him on his forehead when he was a child and said, darling, there is nobody like

you, and then he proved to become the teacher’s pet and he was so stupid that instead of

chasing girls in the Delhi University’s coffee house, he spent his time in the library,

succeeded in getting a first, then passed the IAS exam. Naturally, he becomes an SDM

and everybody is salaaming him. He really believes, however intelligent he may be, that

he is God’s gift to humanity. And you send him into a jungle and say to him, please ask

these people what it is they want, and the standard answer is, how can a tribal know what

he wants? After all, we have been to the London School of Economics and, therefore, we

are Director-General of IIPA, or like me who has been to Cambridge , which is why I

was sacked from three Ministries. The fact is that the IAS has set a norm of governance

which is derived from the colonial practice of saying efficient governance involves the

alienation of the governor from the governed and the transience of the governor because

the British said that we are going to send out administrators. First there were only white

men who would go out into the districts, then some brown sahibs get in as a result of the

24

Indian National Congress’s efforts. But it was determined then that if you are a Madrasi,

you go to UP, if you are a UP wala, you go to Gujarat so as to keep the alienation going.

And then there was a big fear among the British that when their impartial white man

arrived in a district town, to begin with, he would impartially administer justice to a

people who are inherently caste-ridden and, therefore, nepotistic. But then after his first

week in the district town, the local nawab would say, ‘why don’t you come and have

dinner with me?’ And this poor fellow who is 23, lonely, bored, would agree to the

nawab for dinner, and then after three dinners he would say ‘kuchh naach waach ka

intzaam karen to see Indian culture?’ So, he will go native. In order to stop him from

going native, or if he has gone native, then ask him to start again, they would transfer

him. There is no such system in the United Kingdom. The one reason why the United

Kingdom has lasted as a democracy is that they never had the ICS in the United

Kingdom. They brought it in here and we followed it. So, there is such a distancing of

the top of our administration from the people who are administered that the culture

spreads downwards until at least the sympathy which an IAS officer might in theory have

for the people whom he is governing, there is total contempt on the part of a forest

inspector or a forest ranger, total contempt on the part of a patwari, total contempt on the

part of a gram sewak for those people whom they are supposed to deal with. Therefore it

is very very easy for them to discover that these folk can have their money stolen with

nobody to complain and, therefore, you get rampant corruption, there is frequent

alienation of land, which is banned by our Constitution, and now there is this ruthless

entry upon the habitats of people who are like us. Do you think the Prime Minister of

India would allow POSCO to take over 7, Race Course Road? No. We would uphold if

the upper middle class and the middle class of India were to have their properties taken

away. Of course, we did it to the poor Rajas, Maharajas and so forth. So, having stolen

the property of the Rajas and the Maharajas, we have then been carefully guarding the

property of the new class that came to rule but are totally ruthless about the property of

those who do not belong to this empowered elite, and so the Forest Dwellers Act. And

who are the ones who are living there in addition to those people? Those are all exactly

the criminals who have alienated the land from the tribals without any tribal permission

and in any case against the Constitution and the law of the land. To protect their right,

25

we have this Forest Dwellers Act. Professor Mungekar’s complaint about that is

entirely genuine. It is a form of compounding a crime that you say that no, you are also

entitled to these things. In these circumstances, the definition of what ought to be a Fifth

Schedule area has got so diluted that without any delimitation taking place once again to

discover which are genuinely those parts of India that constitute the definition of the Fifth

Schedule in the wisdom of our founding fathers, as also to consider what are displaced

tribals who have gone to live in areas that are not under the Fifth or the Sixth Schedule.

So, these are the problems that need priority attention and yet what does the

Twelfth Plan say about them? My friend Dr. Nupur Tiwari has given a special title to

this seminar “The concerns of the Twelfth Plan”. I do not see a single concern of the

Twelfth Plan in the Twelfth Plan document. They are not concerned at all. They are

concerned about the repo rate and the reverse repo rate, they are deeply concerned about

macro balance, they want to know how to revive the growth rate, they want to know how

we get foreign direct investment into India, they boast about foreign exchange reserves of

$ 360 billion. Well, the Reserve Bank of India Governor may have seen those $ 360

billion but please tell me one single tribal who has seen one cent of those $ 360 billion.

Of course, you are wrong. You are building roads in order to send soldiers down that

road, in order to shoot up more tribals. Have the tribals asked for a trunk road through a

forest area or have they asked for a village link road? Which have they asked for? Have

you ever listened to anybody in a village in the forests of India as to whether they want a

link road or not? Have you asked them whether they have any objection to their being

scattered because suddenly there are going to be trucks thundering down what used to be

their absolutely little hamlets? Who is asking them? And why should they take it lying

down? It is most unfortunate when Jawaharlal Nehru went to the Hirakud Dam and said,

these are the temples of modern India. When I went 50 years later, I said, what happened

to the people who used to live here? Every local administrator scratched his head. They

said they do not know. Actually they did not know. But the truth is they did not care. It

did not matter what happened to these people. They have been chucking out. They do not

have a voice. Now they are discovering a voice. And now that they are discovering a

voice, in comes the State Government with the largest single foreign investment that has

ever been made in India and say, look, this is development, a POSCO steel plant with

26

billions of dollars - I think it is $ 12 billion, if I am not mistaken – and the locals say, we

do not want it. They say, how can you be so barbaric, so completely atavistic as to not

want $ 12 billion? But they say, yes, $ 12 billion is all right but why are you taking away

my land, why are you taking away my home, why are you taking away my tribe, why are

you taking away this mountain which I worship, why are you taking away the trees from

which I know how to pluck berries? They say, we will give you a job in the steel plant.

He says, really! But I do not know what a steel plant is but I do know what berries are.

So, there is absolutely no empathy with the problems that these people face. And having

faced severe discrimination for the last 60 years, now they are getting up and saying, we

would not allow it. We heard yesterday through Mr. Adi Godrej – I am not referring to

the guy who makes your morning soap, I am referring to the Chairman of the CII,

although he also happens to be the same person who makes your morning soap – saying

that of course the environment is important but development is even more important.

Well, that is the question I am posing to you. If there are environmental objections, are

you going to go ahead with development? What is the point if you are saying you think

the environment is important, if you think development is even more important? If I want

to dance the evening away at Trinkas, it does not affect development. So, I can dance and

have development. But if you are going to cut people’s forests, render them homeless,

render them destitute, render them incapable of earning an alternative living, then by

what right are you taking away their livelihood? They point to the Kuznets curve. If you

do not know the Kuznets curve, I am afraid, you do not know the concerns of the Twelfth

Plan. The Kuznets curve states that all growth leads to widening inequality but none of

this amounts to any lack of equity because in the end development benefits everybody.

In the United Kingdom and the United States, they have interpreted this to me that we

will start our industrial revolution about 1760-1770, that we will grossly exploit our own

people until we arrive at a stage some time after the Second World War, after having

massacred a considerable number of our own people, we will then provide a measure of

prosperity for everybody. That is the actual meaning of the Kuznets curve. The Kuznets

curve was drawn in 1954 when there was no experience of development in a developing

democracy. They only had the experience of the United States, for example, which said,

development will be conducted in the following way: We will kill every Red Indian who

27

resists between the Atlantic and the Pacific, we will steal their land - we would not even

acquire it - and to make their land work, we will import a huge number of slaves from

West Africa and while the creed of the United States of America is that every human

being has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, if you read carefully, there

is an asterisk there and in the footnote it says ‘except Negroes and Red Indians’. That is

how they developed. There were waves of immigration that would come in and each

wave would be mercilessly discriminated against until they had become all American

kids. The United Kingdom, very simply - just sent the white trash to the colonies. Our

big problem is what do we do with our brown trash? Should we send them to Male? We

do not have a colony. That is exactly why somebody, either Krishna Menon or Gandhi - I

am not quite sure who said it – on hearing the slogan in Hyde Park that the sun never sets

on the British empire, he replied, that is because even God would not trust the British and

the dog. These are the historical circumstances in which they grew. You have heard, I

am sure all of you, the expression that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. But

it was not a clever remark at all, it was the statement of justice in the United Kingdom

that if anybody was sentenced to be hanged – in those days you were hanged for very

very small crimes - the judge gave you an alternative. The alternative was to work with

the merchant navy where you were going to be taken off to the sugar fields of the West

Indies and probably killed by the pirates of the Caribbean. Serving the British Navy was

called patriotism. So, when he said that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, what

he meant was that the alternative to being hanged was for him to be a patriot, in the sense

that he worked for British interests and was almost certain to be killed while doing so.

Now, we do not have any of these alternatives in India. The British at the stage of 70

years of their industrial revolution, which is the stage that we have now arrived at, did not

permit Catholics to vote. It was only in 1832, that is, about 70 years after James Watt sat

down to make himself a cup of tea and launched the industrial revolution that religious

persecution in the political sphere was ended. Then it was not till 1867 - 100 years after

the commencement of the industrial revolution - that people without property were

allowed to vote, and it was not till about 70 years after that that half the population of

Britain, namely, the women of the United Kingdom were given the right to vote –

completely restrictive democracy. France were a little better. They had a slogan at the

28

fall of the bastique which said: Libayakhte, egalite, fratebilite,. Since they had forgotten

to add sarorite, (SEEM TO BE FRENCH WORDS) the women of France got the vote

only in 1945 and I was surprised that Semen da Bowa (PL. CHECK THE NAME)

regarded herself as the second sex. So, when we become a full-fledged democracy, we

have to realize that we do not have the Kuznets window. The Kuznets window was A

200-year window to move from inequality to equity Ours is a five-year window. If I get

elected, I have to go back to the voter in five years. To begin with they said, ‘chalo

Panditji achchhe aadmi hain aur swatantrata sangram hua’, so, they voted the Congress

again and again – in 1952, 1957 and 1962. But three elections later, they were saying

‘yeh hai kya cheez?’. So, in the 1967 election you could go from Wagha in West

Pakistan to Jessore in East Pakistan without having to put your foot on Congress territory.

The Congress was rejected in all the States of northern India but succeeded in becoming

the largest single party and so it was able to run the Government most of the time. But

now we have reached a stage where every election is seen by the people as the

opportunity for revenge. Eh, kick that fellow out. Even when they bring the UPA back,

about two-thirds of the UPA MPs who retired in 2009 were not re-elected, including

really good guys like myself. It is just revenge. We want it to be changed. Rajiv Gandhi

years ago told me when I asked him what it was all about, why he was so interested in

Panchayati Raj? He said, he discovered that ‘Natha Singh and Prem Singh is one and the

same thing’, you bring in the BJP, you kick out the BJP; you bring in V.P. Singh, you

kick out V.P. Singh, you can do what you like in taking revenge at elections, but the

governance remains the same. So, I delivered myself of the one sentence which is

responsible for my present political penury. I said that once in every five years it really is

the masses who determine who will rule this country and in between it is the classes who

decide how it will be run. Hence the repo rate, the reverse repo rate, the multi brand

retail, the foreign exchange reserves, none of which is of any concern to the people of

India. The fall of the growth rate from 8 per cent to 5 per cent is a matter of deep worry

for those who minted it during the period of 8 per cent growth, but it is a total

indifference to those who were struggling at 0.8 per cent poverty alleviation, and the

Planning Commission has the gall to say that they have improved poverty alleviation by

50 per cent because more recently it has gone up to 1.22 per cent, which means that if we

29

have a billion people who are poor in India, it will take 100 years before they move, not

in the prosperity but from a consumption in real terms of Rs.10.50 a day to Rs.10.51 a

day because with your poverty line being a unique line, you are either APL or you are

BPL. You cannot be both. But you have to be one. So, the darban outside Ambani’s

office in Nariman point is BPL, and so is Ambani APL. So, with this construction of

what is poverty in terms of how much can I spare from the rich to put into poverty

alleviation, you get more and more restrictive definitions, you get really clever Ministers,

such as the one alongside whom Shri Chaturvedi served as Statistics Minister, who said

change the question. Do not ask them what they ate last week, ask them what they ate last

month. I am sure enough our poverty ratio plummeted from 37 per cent to 26 per cent.

One change of question and you get poverty alleviation at an amazing rate. Because that

was the BJP figure, we produced somebody who said no, no, it is back to 36 per cent.

This is the way in which games are being played with the poor and the worst affected are

the tribals, and for the tribals, the legislation of PESA is so revolutionary that not one

single State that is a PESA State has notified the rules. This is a legislation which is now

16-17 years old. They have not notified the rules and nobody is taking them to court. Of

course, we cannot take them to court, that is, the Ministry of Panchayati Raj. Mr. Sinha

was my Secretary and, therefore, I look at him. He was my senior consultant in the same

Ministry. We cannot take them to court because we are a Central Government and it will

become a Centre-State issue, federation of India, etc. But why not you take them to

court? You just take Chhatisgarh, Orissa, Jharkhand to court, you are bound to win. But,

of course, they are never bound by court judgements, they will find some clever

Advocate-General to argue that this is not what he meant, this is what he meant. After 20

years we will have litigation. But something has to be done by civil society. My own

answer is that we should have a National Commission on Panchayati Raj, like we have a

National Commission on Minorities or the National Commission on the Scheduled

Castes and the Scheduled Tribes so that without bringing in questions of federal relations,

Centre-State relations, we can have an authorized statutory body to make

pronouncements which could constitute the basis for action. You can reprimand the State

Governments and then leave it to them to either suffer the indignity of having been

reprimanded or have somebody from that State who is an affected person, go to the court.

30

That is I think the ultimate answer. But if we do not do something drastic to ensure that

PESA, which is an amazingly good piece of legislation, which if only it had been

properly referred to a Standing Committee, considered by them, modified, brought in and

then with everybody’s assent moved, we are not going to really ever get PESA. Mr.

Sinha has taken a lot of trouble to suggest how we can make amendments to the PESA.

If you start making amendments to the PESA and amendments to the Constitution, the

whole thing is going to come on wrapping because there are States in India that do not

want village panchayats, there are other States in India who do not want intermediate

panchaysts and there are yet other States in India who do not want the district panchayats

and so, they will come to a consensus among them that we should have Panchayati Raj

without village panchayats, without intermediate panchayats and without district

panchayats, and somebody else is going to get up and say, these gram sabhas are useless,

so remove them also. So, I would not touch the Constitution and I would not even touch

the law because I think if you touch the law, then some of the key provisions that passed

unnoticed that a gram sabha not a panchayat is going to authorize the execution of any

plan or project or program prepared by the village panchayats and most revolutionary of

all that no gram panchayat can issue a utilisation certificate without the authorization –

that is the legal term used – of the gram sabha.

Minor forest produce totally belongs to the panchayats except a bit like that Red

Indian Negro clause in the US Declaration of Independence. Except that, nobody defines

what is an MFP. There are many noble States which say that bamboo is not a minor forest

produce and somewhere like Maharashtra where there are not too many tribals, they say,

bamboo is a minor forest produce. So, if you do not know what is a minor forest product,

you do not know how you are going to redefine a habitation to make the size of a

panchayat the same as the size of a habitation. If you do not empower the locals to

actually determine how to run their lives, you are driving them into the hands of the

Maoists and it is unbelievable that my Government, UPA-II, has decided that the way to

implement the Bandyopadhyay Committee report is to have an Integrated Action Plan

under which sums of money are handed over to a committee comprising of the Collector,

the Superintendent of Police and the DFO to decide what is development. Who are the

31

three people responsible for the absence of any administration or development in these

areas. I quickly name them. It is the Collector, the DFO and the Superintendent of Police.

You ask the Pope to name a committee and he picks the three bigger sinners. I do

not understand how does this amount to participatory development. I give you the

answer. You have built so many schools, you have built so many roads, you have built so

many wells and then they will give you the figures that Maoists have smashed so many

schools. They really smashed the schools. But don’t you use your schools to put your

security forces to stay? Who is teaching in those schools? Is there a teacher there or is it

some guy totting a gun who lives there? So, naturally when the Maoists finish a school,

it is not a school at all, it is a security barrack. And this inability to come to grips with

what is fundamentally a matter of politics and a matter of ethics is driving our country

down into a very dark tunnel. We are just recovering in most parts of the North-East

from the insurgencies that affected that area. I advisably say ‘most parts’ because I think

Manipur is far from rescued from it and the agreement in Nagaland, on which everyone is

agreed except the Home Ministry, is pending for a year and a half as to whether to sign

the document or not. The insurgency has come down. My friend Neiphiu Rio, the Chief

Minister of Nagaland - at least till tomorrow when I think the results are coming out –

remarked that the safest place for a non-Naga to be is Nagaland because nobody kills

non-Nagas. The most dangerous place for a Naga is Nagaland because they get caught in

cross fire between various factions that are fighting each other rather than fighting the

Indian State any more. The best job to get for those of you who are looking for an easy

job is to join the police service in Sikkim because three quarters of the police stations

there never record an FIR throughout the year; there is no crime whatsoever. Much of

Assam has been freed of what at one stage seemed an extremely dangerous situation.

Mizoram was the centre of the worst insurgency that India has seen; it is now the best

example of peaceful democracy and peaceful democracy and peaceful transition from one

Government to the other. In Tripura which was wrecked by insurgency, now, apart from

Dholai district, in the rest of the State you have a fair measure of security. Certainly I

would advise any girl who wishes to catch a bus, to catch it in Dimapur rather than catch

it in Delhi; you will be much safer over there. So, progress has been made in North-East

32

India. In Kashmir, in Punjab and parts of Rajasthan, there has also been progress, but in

Central India, the internal security situation is fast deteriorating. It seems almost

irretrievable and, therefore, PESA - one single Act of two and a half pages. You

implement that and you can end insurgency within months. If you do not implement that,

whatever else you do, the heart of India will continue to burn. Thank you.

DR. NUPUR TIWARI: Thank you, Sir, for these enriching words and convincing

arguments. The Prime Minister himself has called the left wing insurgency as the biggest

security threat to India and according to the Ministry of Home Affairs, 76 districts in nine

States are affected by left wing extremism forming a Naxal corridor. So, we look

forward to having symposium on PESA and finding solutions to some of these issues.

May I request any of the dignitaries who would just like to add one or two lines,

otherwise we shall just go to a vote of thanks.

DR. NUPUR TIWARI: Okay. May I now ask Prof. P.K. Chaubey to propose a vote of

thanks.

PROF. P.K. CHAUBEY: Thank you, Nupur, for asking me to propose a vote of thanks.

Shri Chaturvedi Ji, who is mentor of the Institute, Shri Mani Shankar Aiyar,

whom I had occasions to interact and last time invited him to speak on corruption in

Hindi here, my friend Dr. Mungekar who inaugurated the conference, of which I was the

president, Dr. A.N.P. Sinha, and other dignitaries. Dr. A.N.P. Sinha, after a couple of

sentences of interaction, entrusted to me a study which I carried out along with Dr. Alok

on devolution index, which was initiated, of course, by Shri Mani Shankar Aiyar.

First of all, I would like to thank Nupur Tiwari herself. Despite a little sub-title,

she thought of conducting this symposium with an organisation which does not give

much money, ICSSR. She was told, not reprimanded exactly, by one of the officials in

the Institute that she was not bringing enough money, as if we are here only to churn

money, we do not have any social concern in life. But she withstood all this and thought

that yes, this is what is needed and that will be done.

I would also like to thank the participants well chosen by Dr. Nupur Tiwari. She

invited the Mizoram Civil Service officers also who are attending another course here –

Shri Mani Shankar Aiyar also referred to the kind of situation prevailing there. I think

they will be better exposed to the subject in the subsequent sessions.

33

SHRI T.N. CHATURVEDI: They should learn the right lessons from what Shri Mani

Shankar Aiyar has said, not the wrong lessons.

PROF. P.K. CHAUBEY: I think they are intelligent enough to choose what they have to

pick and what not to pick.

I would also thank Nupur Tiwari for making me read the Mungekar Report. I

have been a man of mathematical statistics and mathematical economics and I thank IIPA

to have inducted me here. So, my canvas has tremendously become vast. So, I was made

to read the Mungekar Report on PESA. That is about Nupur Tiwari.

I also thank Shri Mani Shankar Aiyar who always accepts our request to come over to

34

IIPA and enrich us with his uncharacteristic and characteristic style of speaking and

integrating several themes in one single theme in such a way that the message gets

conveyed, that is, the grass-root Panchayati Raj which may deliver the solutions to the

kind of problems we are actually facing.

I have not heard Shri Mungekar but I believe that the report which I have gone

through, will be good enough as a substitute for his lector. But we shall have many

occasions to interact with him. He said, one day we are going to sit together because

there are other issues also related to economics and economic association and so on. I

would like to thank him on behalf of the Institute, and on behalf of Nupur Tiwari and

myself.

As far as I know, Dr. A.N.P. Sinha had occasions to come to IIPA after this

devolution index events started taking place in IIPA.

Then, there are other friends also. I think I am missing Dr. Prodipto Ghosh who

was to join us.

DR.NUPUR TIWARI: He will be joining later on.

PROF. P.K. CHAUBEY: Dr. Prodipto Ghosh is a good academic and administrator.

Presently he is a distinguished Fellow in TERI.

Then, there are other friends with whom I have not interacted much, who will be

speaking to you a little later.

35

Panel Discussion: PESA: A legal analysis with strategies

Chair: Shri A.N.P. Sinha

DR. NUPUR TIWARI: Welcome to all of you again. We can start with our first session.

This session is on ‘Legal analysis with strategies’ and is being chaired by Shri A.N.P.

Sinha. He is a former IAS and is at present Member, Bihar State Planning Board,

Government of Bihar. I call upon the panelists of this session Shri Mahi Pal Ji, Shri Joy

Elamaon Ji, Shri Onkar Marwah Ji, Shri Avdhash Kaushal Ji and Shri Sanjeev Upadhyay

Ji to please come on the dais.

We have circulated a circular of the former Secretary, Ministry of Panchayati Raj,

Shri A.N.P. Sinha. I would like to call upon Sinha Ji to start the session with his own

address.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I know after the oratory of the first session, any technical

session becomes a little dull and dry. Nevertheless, we shall try to make the session

interactive so that the dullness component is minimized. I would not be speaking much

except saying a few things because I was Secretary in the Ministry for more than three

and a half years and we made certain efforts. Whether we succeeded or failed, people

know it well.

36

First of all, let me say what lessons we can draw from the first session. I think two

points came very loud and clear. One was that ruling elite in any society is against

decentralization. Therefore, every time we made an effort in the Ministry to push PESA

or Panchayati Raj, there was an inherent and natural and very perverse reaction. The

second lesson was that this PESA Act was drawn in haste and passed in haste. Had there

been very serious intensive consultations, including with the State Governments and, of

course, with the key Central Ministries, the law could have been perhaps framed better

and could have been understood better and people’s concerns perhaps reflected more in

the law. What do we do now? The title is ‘Legal analysis with strategies’. As regards

37

the legal analysis, I am not going to say much except that when we had discussions with

the States, with Ministries and with experts, like Mr. Upadhyay, we found that there is a

lot of lacking in the law itself. I remember discreetly, I had prepared a Cabinet Note

suggesting amendment in the PESA Act. A summary of those amendments is given in

the enclosure of my circular dated 21st May, 2010. The Cabinet Note was circulated way

back soliciting comments of the State Governments, Ministries and so on and so forth.

Unfortunately, since it was not in the priority agenda of the Government, the whole thing

just did not happen. That was one part. Secondly, in all PESA States, I had made it a

point to have meetings with the Chief Ministers along with their full team, e.g., Chief

Secretaries and all Principal Secretaries of the key departments – I remember, Jharkhand,

Chhatisgarh, this and that. In the meeting, maybe because politicians are smart and the

bureaucrats are perhaps smarter, they gave an impression that it is a question of time

only. If not today, tomorrow or day after something is going to happen. And with the

help of Mr. Upadhyay and also D.K. Jain – D.K. Jain was my Joint Secretary – we did a

lot of work. We had also suggested to each State what kind of amendments they needed

to make in the key Acts relating to forests, minor forest produce - on all aspects of the

PESA content. So, again I found to my dismay that even though we had long meetings

with the Chief Ministers and the whole team for making precise amendments in the State

laws, not much happened. I know that when people blame States for Panchayati Raj or

PESA Act implementation, I find much is wanting in the Central Government. I

remember, with all the Ministries we tried our best, both about Panchayati Raj and PESA

Act, but the Ministries would just not listen to you. I know when UPA-I came to power,

one of the agenda was to really push through Panchayati Raj. A directive went on the

orders of Prime Minister from Cabinet Secretary to all the Ministries to amend all laws

and policies in consonance with those constitutional amendments. In fact, reminders also

went and I also pursued. But every time we talked to the Ministry, they would say how

do I trust panchayat? They are known to be corrupt, inefficient, unaccountable and so on

and so forth. But as Mr. Aiyar said, it is very difficult to say in real life. I belong to IAS.

I have put in 38 years in the IAS. I belonged to Bihar cadre when Bihar was one. I have

served in Palamu and Gumla districts of Bihar – now in Jharkhand. How does one

presume that panchayats are any worse than the bureaucracy? Even today it fails to

38

convince me. Both are equally bad, equally good. The key issue is of setting up

mechanism which really makes people accountable. Are bureaucracy or politicians

accountable today? No. Likewise, panchayats also. Therefore, they have not devised a

simple but very good systems about ensuring transparency and accountability. But again,

for want of support from the Planning Commission and the Central Ministries, we could

not do much.

Mr. Aiyar also talked about Integrated Action Plan. It was basically piloted by

Planning Commission where the Secretary was ex-Panchayati Raj Secretary. In spite of

all my protests, Integrated Action Plan happened and results are not really much to see.

Even in Bihar, when I went back to Bihar where I belonged to, there are pockets of Naxal

areas and whatever improvement has taken place in Naxalite areas of Bihar and

Jharkhand, I can say with confidence, it was largely on account of social changes made

due to political factors. It had nothing to do with any governmental programme,

including IAP. I am sure, some of you are activists and some of you are academicians. It

should be empirically tested. The reduction in naxalism in Bihar and intensification in

Orissa or now Jharkhand or Chhatisgarh, you should contrast. In Bihar it has lessened

because of social changes. It has nothing to do with Government programmes, including

Integrated Action Plan. I stop here. I conclude again by repeating that –

(1) The dominant view when I was in the Ministry for a long tenure was that

PESA Act has certain infirmities. The proposed changes somehow did not happen

(2) State laws and policies in the relevant Government had infirmities and needed

corrections, but it did not happen

(3) Whatever little PESA had and all the Panchayati Raj Acts of the States were

amended, it could have been taken to a distance. Somehow it did not happen.

Having said that, I would invite my colleagues now. I invite Mahi Pal Ji first.

SHRI MAHI PAL: Thank you very much for inviting me. I am from the Ministry of

Rural Development but I am speaking in my personal capacity because this subject is

very close to my heart.

These are the salient features of the PESA Act – consulting power,

recommendatory powers, endowment of power to panchayat or Gram Sabha.

39

These are the different powers given to the panchayats.

The other important aspect of this PESA Act was that the cardinal principle of

allocation was adopted. This was not there in the 73rd Amendment, but here it is

mentioned “….enable them to function as institutions of self-government shall contain

safeguards to ensure that Panchayats at the higher level do not assume the powers and

authority of any Panchayat at the lower level or of the Gram Sabha. That is very

important to devolve the powers keeping in view the capacities in different years of the

Panchayati Raj.

This is again an important area, that adopts the pattern of Sixth Schedule areas to

give the autonomy or authority to the panchayat in the Fifth Schedule areas. So, the

important relation is that put jal, jangal, jameen under the control of the gram sabha or

panchayat. Basically these are the three things which are the cornerstone of the economy

of the tribal areas that is to be under the control of the panchayat .

CHAIRMAN: This is an important point which is being made. So, I shall elaborate this.

If you compare the Sixth Schedule area provisions, Sixth Schedule areas have far more

40

powers and it is emphasized that in course of time the so-called PESA areas should have

provisions of the Sixth Schedule. So, this is a very important point.

SHRI MAHI PAL: So, basically, as the Chairman said, these are the three aspects that

make the gram sabha as a cornerstone - the entire decentralized governance, planning and

development, and relationship between the Gram Sabha and panchayat is just like a

legislature and Government because Gram Sabha is holding the balance and devolution

of powers, not the delegation of the power. This is basically devolution of powers to the

panchayat .

Now, if you see the grass-root realities that are based on the reports of the

Ministry of Panchayati Raj, this is the present status of the different provisions, such as

Gram Sabha, approval of the Gram Sabha. These are all the provisions of PESA. So, in

respect of each of these provisions, what is the status of the different States, that is given

in the annual report of the Ministry of Panchayati Raj.

If you see this article (m), this is about land acquisitions, excise, forest produce.

CHAIRMAN: Dr. Mahipal, I would suggest that please go straight to your suggestions

on PESA Act and its implementation.

SHRI MAHI PAL: Okay, Sir. So, these are certain examples of what is happening at

different levels in the States.

This is the task ahead—

Amendment to PESA

Amendment to the confirmative legislations

Formulation of rules and confirmative amendments

Awareness

Training

Capacity building

Strengthening the institution of Gram Sabha.

These are fine. But the issue is how to enable the tribals to participate in the local

governance, planning and development. Basically their involvement is missing and that

involvement is necessary. For that, I thought that organic participation is required. There

are two types of participation. One is induced participation which means some external

agency induces it – it may be Government, it may be some other agency. So, organic

41

participation is not emerging and for that broadly it require social movement that fight for

the greater democratic expressions and for the rights of the people, such as the civil rights

movement. It also includes items to build up membership based organisations to improve

the livelihoods and living standard, such as the Gramin Banks in Bangladesh or self-

employed women associations in India. It also includes some sort of labour movement,

such as, forming the unions, protecting the workers and forming trade unions to represent

the interests of a particular industry. In nutshell, this organic participation means that

intrinsically it should be motivated by the local actor to drive the organic participation.

The experience shows that the meetings or conferences that have been held, have been

sponsored by somebody else and no effective translation into action has taken place.

Very few associations, participation, conferences have been organized by the people

themselves. So, it is my personal suggestion that the formation of local groups to apprise

the tribals about their exploitation process and their outcome is necessary. If you see, the

tribals are not organized in the way they should be. For example, if we compare the

dalits or minorities, they are more organized and they are more assertive. They have more

organized powers to influence the policy makers, the decision makers. But as far as the

tribals are concerned, they are not so much organized. In the morning session, they were

talking about the geographical locations and the demographical allocations. So, basically

at the local level, it is a political issue.

So, this is what I want to say in nutshell. Because of paucity of time, I could not

talk much about it. Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN: Now, Shri Sanjay Upadhyay.

SHRI SANJAY UPADHYAY: I think the keys have been pressed, notes have been

suppressed, I do not know what music I am going to give you. But I shall attempt in this

brief time that I have been given.

I think it is important that the debate has been really set staged by Shri Mani

Shankar Aiyar Ji. One is to understand that PESA is at the intersection of local self-

government on one side and schedule area administration on the other. I think that is

where PESA is located, which is often misunderstood. In fact, I am of the view that this

is not an extension Act and it should not have been an extension Act because there is

nothing to do with extension of panchayat in these areas which are called scheduled areas

42

for the simple reason that the Constitution which was emphasized in the morning actually

envisages a completely different form of governance in scheduled areas. I think that is

what we have missed in designing the PESA itself that it was also about scheduled area

governance at the core where the Governor had a very very emphatic role, the Tribes

Advisory Council had a very emphatic role, but unfortunately that never really took place

and the framework was never addressed in that manner, and it is not surprising because,

as was said in the morning, it is a top down diktat, no discussions etc. So, what we have

essentially is a set of exceptions and modifications that you may apply to a panchayat

law in a particular State, and then hope that scheduled areas governance will emerge from

below. I think that is a fundamental flaw and the fundamental premise that we come with,

and that is where the problem lies.

I have been asked to speak more about natural resource governance as I am an

environmental lawyer. What you have seen in terms of how it is governed, and I have

been to enough field areas to understand that, is that PESA is at best an aspirational law,

it is not an operational law, because the person on the ground does not understand all this

big talk that we do in Delhi and in nice conferences like this. They understand clear

directions for implementation. Unfortunately, forest law is what the one pal understands,

panchayat law is what the Gram Sachiv understands, not you and I sitting here. I think

that is really the central question, are we really empowering them to understand the spirit

and the letter of this so-called wonderful legislation called PESA?

43

I was very fortunate to actually go through this for almost 15 years now, right from my

NRD assignment in 1999 of how this is impacting the country. What is important is that

there are very wonderful words which are used in the beginning. You will find State

PESA has to be in consonance with customary laws, traditional practices of community

resources. What does it really mean when you say customary law? People still do not

know how to distinguish between customary practice and customary law. So, where is

that distinction? Who is documenting those customary laws? What is really safeguarded

by the Gram Sabha, we still do not know. There is no process, no implementation

arrangement to even understand the basic tenets on which PESA stands. It is said, the

Gram Sabha is competent. Fine. Gram Sabha is competent but how have we allocated

powers? Have we really empowered the Gram Sabha. There is a huge difference when

you look at empowerment of Gram Sabha vs. empowerment of panchayat. They stand at

a completely different footing. But we really mix the two unfortunately on the ground.

The core of this particular law is the definition of village itself. Which village are we

talking about? We are talking about the hamlet. Has that hamlet ever been notified by

44

the Governor in any of the nine scheduled States? No. So, the premise on which this unit

of administration stands actually gets negated because that village is not the village that

was envisaged in PESA. Therefore, any super structure on that village will be incorrect

because the basic premise of that village is a hamlet–based concept which is not a

number-based revenue village concept. But we have not really changed the definition of

our village in the true sense of the word. No village that I have seen has been notified by

the Governor based on PESA. Therefore, if you do not have the basic structure, how do

you expect the superstructure to work? I think those are the fundamental issues that we

need to grapple with.

If you look at the entire scheme of the legislation, you will find that it is basically

an allocation of power game, some which are exclusively given to the Gram Sabha - we

talked in the morning about all the provisions there - some which are exclusively given to

the panchayat – for example, minor water bodies. But what is minor water body, still we

do not know. What is being actually given to the panchayat? Is it 200 hectares, is it 800

hectares. is it more than 800 hectares? Some States have tried in a very brief manner as

to what will go to the panchayat. Some even go to the extent, like Madhya Pradesh and

Chhatisgarh, of giving ownership rights to minor water bodies. But we still do not know

what is minor water body, and that is a fundamental flaw in terms of definition.

Then, you have a set of powers which may be given to the Gram Sabha or to the

panchayat. Wisdom of the State is where it all comes about. And those are two crucial

provisions – land acquisition on one side and minor minerals on the other. Why minor

minerals only? Why not major minerals? And what is minor mineral? Believe me, if you

ask anybody on the ground, nobody knows what is really the minor mineral. How many

people read minor mineral concession rules of every state to understand what is minor

mineral? If you ask the community, they have a different set of parameters of what is

needful for them, what is minor minerals for them. Similarly, we have land acquisition.

Now we have a more beautiful provision called consultation of the Gram Sabha. What is

consultation? Has it ever been defined in any law? There is only one parallel legislation

that I have seen, which is the environment impact assessment notification. Now that has

some roots of what could be a consultative process. First of all, we have moved away

from being a consent-oriented provision to a consultation-oriented provision. If you look

45

at the Bhuria Committee report, it talked about consent, not consultation. But

nevertheless, even if it is consultation, what does it really mean? Nobody has defined it.

What are the parameters of consultation, what is prior information that you are going to

give before a consultative process takes on, none of these has been explained. None of

the States has attempted to even define what is that. So, I think these are fundamental

issues that we need to look at. If you look at the provisions of minor forest produce or

alienation of land or planning, as was talked in the morning, again there are several

infirmities in terms of the core definition itself. Minor forest produce fortunately has

been defined by the Forest Rights Act but when you talk about ownership of minor forest

produce, most State Governments say we know how to manage it. If you go to

Chhattisgarh or Madhya Pradesh or even Jharkhand for that matter, you will find that

they have their MSP federations which work very well. We have the State Trading

Corporation that works very well. We do not really need to give this ownership right to

the community. But what prevents the State to actually allow a competitive environment

to take the best price? We talk about MSP, for example. No State, apart from certain

items which are very economically viable according to them, has any minimum support

price. I remember, the Haq Committee, in lot of detail, getting into MSP issue. But again

it is gathering dust like many reports I am told since morning. So, I really feel that if you

look at a legislation which is at crossroads of tribal and panchayat, as it is today, where is

the convergence between the Ministry of Panchayati Raj and the Ministry of Tribal

Affairs? Thank God we have one minister today looking at two Ministries. But I think

unless that convergence happens between these two Ministries operationally, not just a

Minister being there as Minister of two particular Ministries, unless you have operational

convergence, this law will never take off. I am sorry to sound so pessimistic but that has

been my experience because it is no one’s baby. I remember when Sinha Ji was the

Secretary, the kind of enthusiasm he had in looking at it precisely in his unique style that

you saw. He was very very categorical in terms of how this law should unfold, writing to

State Governments, bashing them up literally in his own style. But it has not worked.

And why it has not worked is because we are talking about two sets of legislations here.

There is a set of Panchayati Raj which has to evolve as far as scheduled areas are

concerned on the one hand and you have at least 12 subject matter laws which really have

46

to come of age to talk about self-governance. I think none of that has happened really in

its true terms. I disagree that rules have not been framed. There are two States which

have attempted. Rajasthan is one example, Andhra Pradesh is another example. But again

there are far far infirmities in the legislative framework itself. Why would PESA not

have a rule making power? It belies me as a lawyer to see a Central legislation which

does not have rule making power itself. So, what is the framework we have to issue

directions? We do not have the power to issue directions under PESA, we do not have

the power to make our own rules which can serve at least as a model rule for the State.

So, I think there are design elements that we need to really question. What is the linkage

between the panchayati law and the customary law and the traditional management of

community resources? None of these. Now we have FRA which is a very powerful

legislation again but with very little linkage of forest governance on one hand and

scheduled area governance on the other. I think these connects are really important

because unless you solve the forest governance and scheduled areas governance

framework together, I do not think we are out of the LWE problem that we are talking

about since morning, and I think that is the key.

I have talked about village. Let me just come to another small point of

recommendatory powers. If you look at the legislation, you will find recommendation is

mandatory. Fine! But what happens to those recommendations? Are they binding?

Obviously not, because, unfortunately in law, recommendations are not binding. But all

this seems like a very nice set of words used where there is a notion of participation but

there is not any true participation, the way we think about participation as far as this law

is concerned.

If you go to State reactions, I can go on and on and on about how different States

have reacted. But the short point is that none of the provisions has been actually adopted.

For example, Land Acquisition Act has never talked about consultative process. I do not

see any State Government. At best there are administrative instructions that please do

consult. But if I do not follow, what happens? No legal consequence actually falls on me.

So, I may put a very nice administrative order that please consult the Gram Sabha, but if

you do not, I cannot do anything to you. I am talking about the court. I have been to a

court in Rajasthan High Court. Believe me, it took me six hearings to actually explain to

47

a Gujarati judge – I will not name him; he is in Supreme Court; he retired recently –

about what is PESA, and believe me, after six hearings he tells me ‘Vakeel sahib, yeh

pesa to maine sirf Gujarat mein doosra suna hai, yeh aap kaun se pesa ki baat kar rahe

hain?’ (Mr. advocate, this is another ‘pesa’ that I have heard only in Gujarat, what is this

PESA that you are talking about?). This was said in an open court by the way. The

understanding of judges, with all due regards to My Lords, is far from being real as far as

tribal issues are concerned. Unfortunately, they are not educated in the judicial

academies on these issues. I think institutions which deal with training and curriculum

development should get these kind of social welfare legislations right up there as a

priority if you are really looking after a model scheduled area governance or a model

natural resource governance in the country.

I shall stop there. Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN: Shri Joy Elamaon.

SHRI JOY ELAMAON: Friends, actually I started looking into PESA after seeing that

long letter – directions to the States – you had written and posted on the website of

MOPR when you were the Secretary. I have a few points only. Because basically I am

not a lawyer, so, I shall look into more of the strategies rather than the legal aspects

which he has already been mentioning. One is, if you look at the strategy for

implementation of PESA, we need to actually go through a concern of the 12th Five Year

Plan where in the Approach Paper, there is not even any strong emphasis on panchayats

itself, forget about PESA. In fact, the discussion started with decentralization of local

governance, but when the Approach Paper came, all those were excluded. So, even the

panchayats do not find serious mention in the Approach Paper itself.

Second is about the conspiracy of silence when you talk about operationalisation.

It starts from the passage of the amendment itself. If you look at the 73 rd Amendment,

you had several days of discussions in the Parliament whereas for the 74 th Amendment,

the Minister had to answer only in one sentence ‘please pass the amendment’. And then

you could see the impact of the 74th Amendment. I do not think even the Ministry of

Urban Development really knows where the 74th Amendment stands now. Nobody talks

about 74th Amendment.

48

The third point is, when it came to PESA, it is not that there were no discussions.

Actually, the Bhuria Committee went for almost one and a half year discussing about the

PESA. But then how many minutes did it take to get it passed? It was just tabled and it

was passed without even one person talking about it. It is a conspiracy of silence, I would

say, and that could also be due to the name of the title, which you mentioned. It is

actually extension of the Panchayati Raj. So, it could have been that it is already passed,

it is just extension and it would have been forgotten, or it is the conspiracy of silence – let

them pass it, we will not implement it kind of thing. Anyway, the name itself is a

misnomer basically because it is not about extending it to the scheduled areas. You

cannot extend that. Constitutionally you cannot extend it because it is totally different.

But now we cannot. As Mani Shanker Aiyar Ji rightfully said, if you are trying to do

anything in the Parliament now, the whole thing may get cancelled. So, let us not do that.

Hence it is the case.

Fourthly, nowhere it really mentions about who is responsible for this. The

Ministry of Panchayati Raj got into this, but if you take the entire content of the Act, who

all are responsible? It is not just the Ministry of Panchayati Raj. Of course, the Tribal

Affairs Ministry have to come in and also the Ministry of Environment and Forests have

to come in. There are so many other Ministries which have to come in. It is applicable to

panchayats also. It is not just the Ministry which should look after the entire thing, it has

to be the entire Government which has to look after this Act basically.

The fifth point is about MESA – Municipalities (Extension to Scheduled Areas).

Why I say it here is because there is a risk. That again was tabled and nobody knows

where it is. Why I mention it here is because I am told that at least 600 villages have been

upgraded as urban areas to bypass PESA, especially for land acquisitions. Also, the

Madhya Pradesh High Court had issued an order relating to the Municipalities (Extension

to Scheduled Areas) which is still somewhere but it has not got passed.

The sixth point is, if you refer to the Second Administrative Reforms

Commission, they specifically mentioned about the harmonization of various other rules,

legislations and other things - a long list is there - and also various policies. Although it

says that once PESA is there, all these things have to be in accordance with PESA, but in

49

practice that does not happen. So, we need to do that, including Government orders,

guidelines and other things.

Then, there are some specific issues. One is, as a strategy, one has to go back to

the Bhuria Committee report and the spirit of the Bhuria Committee report. For example,

it says Gram Sabha. But then, as you said, many States are yet to actually define the

areas, otherwise they go by the revenue village concept, and revenue village and the real

habitation do not match in reality. So, that is one thing.

The second one is also about this issue that each tier of local government is

independent. That is what PESA says. Each tier of local government is independent and

in PESA it always starts from the Gram Sabha onwards. When the States started

operationalising it, they went by the 73rd Amendment concept where Gram Sabha is still a

subordinate kind of thing and the panchayat becomes still the higher authority kind of a

thing. That is not the case if you go word by word by the PESA Act.

Then again, the question which you rightfully raised is to protect the traditions,

beliefs and culture of the tribal communities and there it is a vast sea. That is the way to

bypass the entire thing. When it is not defined properly people can take you to any

direction.

Another one which is still confusing in many States is about the role of the Gram

Sabha, especially in the land acquisition and other things, whether it is the consent or

the consultation issue. You have already heard that consent is one thing, consultation is

different. If you go by the eight-ladder approach of the participation, where will you find

the Gram Sabha in a PESA area? In which ladder will you put the Gram Sabha

participation? I would say, it is more an engineered participation rather than only

consultation kind of thing.

I have one more point and then I shall stop. Sometimes what happens is, we go

sentence by sentence of the Amendment, whereas the whole issue is about PESA and

self-governance, and governance is the key. We cannot just talk about one aspect of the

PESA Act and say that this has to be implemented. Take, for example, minor forest

produce. With that alone, PESA cannot be strengthened. With that alone, Gram Sabha

cannot be strengthened. If you only consider Gram Sabha as the rightful forum of the

local governance or the self-governance, and if you do not try to put that as a strategy to

50

strengthen that forum as the governance platform, not about implementing one aspect or

the other aspect or preparing a plan or giving utilization certificate, it is not about that, it

is about considering it as a local self government which is more important and where it is

not just about one or two aspects, it is about larger issues, it requires lot of activities, lot

of interactions and lot of discussions. How that can happen, not just one or two points of

the PESA Act. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN: Any queries, any comments, any suggestions?

QUESTION: Sir, the present speaker has pointed out that there is need to isolate the

three-tiers in PESA. But it is not in 73rd Amendment. Is it possible under PESA to

separate the powers of all the three tiers of the Government?

SHRI JOY ELAMAON: It is not about isolating, each tier has its own roles. There has

to be role clarity. When there is ambiguity, that is where centralized forces come in. For

example, Gram Sabha has specific roles to play. Here, it is powers and authority, it is not

just roles. But then if you are putting it in a hierarchical framework where Gram

panchayat is above your Gram Sabha, then there is always the chance of the Gram

Panchayat rules, not the Gram Sabha rules. So, each has its role clarity and power. So,

that can still be maintained.

CHAIRMAN: If you look at the whole governance structure, right from Central

Government down to the people as individuals, no Constitution, no law can

compartmentalize. There will always be some element of overlap. But what is the

objective of framing rules and executive guidelines? They are supposed to define very

clearly roles and responsibilities of each level. Secondly, even under Panchayati Raj,

Gram Sabha is a fulcrum. Unfortunately, because of power politics which involves

bureaucracy at block and district level, the mukhiya himself and all those local

politicians, Gram Panchayat although has legal status, gets completely bypassed. So, it is

not a question of legality that the Gram Sabha is ignored, it is basically a local power

game which is played between the block administration, local mukhiya and the local

politicians.

QUESTION: My question is addressed to Dr. Mahipal Ji. Sir has pointed out that there is

need to amend PESA. On the other hand you are saying that it has not been implemented

so far in letter and spirit. On what ground can we amend it until and unless we

51

implement it sincerely? So, what amendment or recommendation would you like to

suggest regarding the amendment of PESA?

DR. MAHI PAL: Mr. Upadhyay has clearly mentioned about the amendments in the

PESA Act – Gram Sabha or panchayat – so that there is role clarity at different levels.

That is the intention behind it. I am saying that a two-pronged strategy has to be adopted -

because of shortage of time, I could not devote much time to that. One is clear

demarcation of the functions. For example, from 73rd Amendment to article 43(g) say

that panchayat will be as an institution of self-government and they will prepare the plan

for economic development and social justice, including the 29 subjects. Now, what is the

local self-government? It has three components basically. The powers, the functions

and the authority may be clearly defined and it should be backed properly by the finance

and the executive machinery. That is local self-government. It is a government. So, that

has to be done. If it does not happen, the civil society and others may go to the court

saying that this is the definition but it has not been put into practice. You might be

remembering why PESA came into being. It was because some Samata NGO in Andhra

Pradesh went to the court saying that it was implemented without any exceptions.

Because this was extension of the areas, the amendment had to be adopted with the

approval of the Parliament. But that did not happen. The other side of the phenomenon

is, I remember that in a meeting wherein all the Secretaries and the Ministers were there,

the Minister of Rajasthan said that since Independence we have been implementing the

Panchayati Raj in the scheduled areas also and there has been no hue and cry. Does it

mean that because people were not aware, the law could be extended to them? So, I was

saying in that context.

The second thing is that it is Bill vs. will. We have been talking as students of

Panchayati Raj, local self-government, that it is the will, not the Bill. Okay, fine!

Suppose the amendment, as Mr. Upadhyay and others are suggesting is carried out, what

will happen? It again requires political will to implement that. There are so many laws

that have been clearly defined but what is happening? That is why the will is very

important, and will has to organically emerge from the people who are affected from that.

That is what I wanted to say.

52

CHAIRMAN: See, there are two aspects. One, we all understand that the system is run

by elite who, for certain interests, do not want to centralize, and if you frame a law which

is not very clear-cut in evolving functions and framing rules and issuing instructions, then

the system will have no even greater power to put into practice the intentions of the law.

Secondly, as one of the speakers said, unless people at the grass-root level understand,

first, through the Government guidelines and secondly, through repeated monitoring by

their superiors, it is not going to happen. I have worked in the administration. I know that

we are BDOs, SDOs, DMs and all. So, grass-root functioning has to understand and has

to be monitored, which again is lacking.

QUESTION: Sir, it was said in Singh Sahib’s lecture that organic participation is

required and it includes social movement. I want to know whether Naxalism is not a

social movement.

ANOTHER QUESTION: I just want to add that please also indicate what methods you

suggest for that organic participation.

DR. MAHI PAL: I just wanted to say in this context that the people should organize

themselves in their own way to assert their powers and responsibilities.

QUESTIONER: I am sorry, Sir, I am interrupting here. I will speak a very vague thing

but I have to speak that one to make my point very clear. For instance, we are a few

dozen people sitting here, who are discussing on this wonderful pious issue. Do you

think after this two-day symposium, we shall organize ourselves? Although we are very

informed, very enlightened so-called, very intellectual, yet we do not try to organize

ourselves. We do not have the particular will to participate. How can you imagine of a

larger mass organising themselves voluntarily unless there is some institutional

provision?

CHAIRMAN: I shall answer your point. I remember, I had done a Cabinet note on

dealing with Naxalism, a very comprehensive note which I could not place on the

website. There are two issues again. I totally agree with you that it is very easy to say

that people should organize. I know in my own locality, in Gurgaon or Delhi, even two

residents cannot organize. But you should look at the larger context, why democracy?

You look at this constitutional provision which great thinkers have framed. It is not

framed by one person or one country, it has evolved across millennia. The whole political

53

system down to the people should, in course of time, lead to a situation where individual

people’s interests are served. Again, look at our own country. I am from a village in

Bihar and when I was in the school, I used to go to my village twice a year. The

transformation and transition that has taken place, social, economic and political, is

phenomenal. But I do agree that certain pockets of the country where this process has

not even started, are suffering because of Naxalism. Go to any place, even Chhatisgarh

or Jharkhand or Orissa, you go to any Naxal area, you will find that there is complete

vacuum. Democracy is lacking, political leadership is lacking, local leadership is lacking

and the middlemen have full play. So, my own feeling is, maybe I may sound a little

heretical for the Government official, that when there is a vacuum, somebody would

come and fill. I have inspected many jails. You go and talk to people who are lodged in

jails as Naxals. It is a pathetic story. But as District Magistrate, you cannot do anything.

Police has booked them. You know that this is a bad case but you do not interfere with

the prosecution. So, this is a vicious circle. I do not know, Mr. Aiyar made a point,

which he made very indirectly, that there is a political vacuum in these areas. Go for

yourself and see. When I was in the Ministry, I used to go to villages, I did not go to just

State headquarters. There is a vacuum and that is why Naxalism. And Naxals are playing

a good role at least in provoking the Government. But if the Government is provoked

only through guns, that is no solution. So, hopefully, if the aspirations are not fulfilled in

the 12th Plan, this is going to happen and it will happen more when the interests of the

capitalists are hurt more and more, when politicians are not able to deliver land to

POSCO, this and that. So, again what I am trying to say is that democracy itself is a great

boon for the society and what has happened in the rest of the country is going to happen

in the central India. First it has taken the shape of Naxalism, in course of time some great

leader comes, like in Bihar, who will co-opt all those Naxalism. What did Laluji do in

Bihar? 10-15 years after Laluji, Naxalism virtually vanished from Bihar. You go and

look at the records. So, this is about that.

QUESTION: You have said that Naxalites in Chhatisgarh and Jharkhand etc. are

organized. Can you elaborate this point? I am asking this particularly with reference to

the role of the middlemen, traders, etc.

54

SHRI SANJAY UPADHYAY: With the permission of the Chair, I just have two stray

thoughts which I thought are very important before I come to you. One, I think, is, we

keep talking about amendments. But the fact is that there are design issues in this law

and you have to address those design issues because if the design is faulty, it cannot be

implemented and, therefore, the need for amendment. And that is what we have been

advocating. That is one. The other is, very very subtly we use the word local self-

government. I do not know whether that is coming because you are from the

Government. But this law actually talks about local self-governance and there is a huge

difference between local self-government and local self-governance. I think what we are

talking about is local self-government and I think this frame has to be used in that sense

and I think that is the future of this law.

Coming very specifically to MFP, again it requires probably a day to talk about

forest governance because I look at MFP as one of the central figures of forest

governance itself. What is happening today in these federations with all very good

thoughts about giving fair price to the tribal collector and so on? What is happening is, it

is becoming a caucus of Rs. 800 crore or Rs.1,000 crore every year which is being

distributed at a political level, in the garb of that going to the community, in the garb of

that going to the tribal. I think that is the problem because when you make a certain so-

called nationalized product and make it totally subservient to Government control, you

lose out the benefit of giving a fair price to that collector. And when you look at the

calculations they make on administrative cost, for example, and those include the salary

of the driver of the DFO, his broken sofa set and lot of those bills actually get cleared in

so-called operational expenses. I think that is the fear that what are we talking about in

terms of economics when you are talking about granting of ownership on the one hand

and then putting these State holy cows or white elephants, whatever name you call them,

in the name of tribal welfare, I think that is the problem. Again a design issue that we

need to make it very clear that decentralization of, say, forest products in this manner

needs to reinvent itself in the light of FRA spirit and the Forest Act spirit, and I think that

is missing currently.

CHAIRMAN: Actually, I was Secretary, Forests way back when Bihar was one and

MSP was a big racket in a few districts – this Rohtas tendu leaves, Gumla tendu leaves.

55

There was always a discussion about bamboo being a minor or major forest produce.

Actually, if you really go into the nitty-gritty, three aspects emerge. One is that Forest

Corporations, State Trading Corporations were supposed to take care of small collectors..

A tribal person in a remote tribal area collecting a produce and selling at best price, is a

pipe dream because what I saw in the field was, the traders do a very good service to the

society by going to remote villages and buying small quantities. So, one challenge is

collecting small quantities. So, everything the people know is perhaps a pipe dream.

Secondly, there are certain major forest produces like tendu leaves, where the stakes are

very high. This is a strange combination which I have noticed in all States now - Naxals,

contractors, politicians and Forest Officers. This is such a nexus that nothing can break it.

In fact, all our efforts to make certain minor changes in management - there are two

things; you make structural changes, then you make management changes - the

management changes are not going to happen because of the combination of nexus

between these four.

Lastly, I have been in constant dialogue with the Ministry of Forests about

definition of minor forest produce and the extent of control. You could see very

interesting dynamics within the Ministry - Minister on the one hand, Mr. Jairam

Ramesh, and bureaucrats on the other. Again - although these are anecdotes but these are

worth sharing - one day Mr. Jairam Ramesh called me along with his Forest Officers. I

was from Panchayati Raj. There were lot of discussion. There were always diverse

opinions. So, he got so fed up that one day he called me and said, you just draft what

changes you want. So, I just drafted. Then perhaps he made a little concessions to his

own officers and asked them to issue the guidelines. But please remember who is going

to issue the guidelines of the Ministry. So, nothing much happened. In fact, I got so

desperate that I constituted the Haq Committee. If I say something, they will say some

bureaucrat is saying. So, what do we do in Government? Constitute some committee, put

some technocrat as head, you tell him to right this, this, this. So, that report is very good

because that was done after serious consultation. But again it got bogged down. So, you

rightly said, nothing has happened; nothing is going to happen also.

QUESTION: My question is that in a democratic set up, one can argue on that particular

issue or one can oppose that issue. So, if Naxals argue and oppose any question of the

56

Government or any issue of the Government, why should they be treated as an

extremist?

CHAIRMAN: See, there is a rule of law. The rule of law is the final test of any action.

If the rule is bad, nothing can be done. So, rule of law says that you have right for

peaceful assembly, you can demonstrate, you can peacefully organise, put petitions, but

you cannot take to guns and shoot.

QUESTIONER: Peacefully they can argue or oppose any issue of the Government. Then

why they should be treated as extremists?

CHAIRMAN: Peaceful people are not treated as extremists. They are treated as

extremists only when they resort to violence.

QUESTIONER: As a Government representative, have you seen that in implementing

PESA in any rural areas, people have opposed any Government plan or any programme

peacefully?

CHAIRMAN: To be very honest with you, after our training, we are made BDOs, then

we become SDMs, DMs and so on and so forth. I worked in two districts of Jharkhand,

Palamu and Gumla, and again I am being very frank with you, I was never really told

what Panchayati Raj is, and later on, what PESA is. I never bothered about it because we

all seek directions from above which never came. I was a very committed person. I

joined IAS at the youngest possible age. In our times, we were all communists and

leftists. So, ignorance was the key word.

Panel Discussion: PESA: Left Wing Extremism and Governance Concerns and

Challenges

Chair: Dr. A.K. Dubey

DR. NUPUR TIWARI: Welcome everyone after the lunch break. We can start this

panel discussion on Left Wing Extremism and Governance Concerns and Challenges.

This session is being chaired by Dr. A.K. Dubey. He is Joint Secretary, Ministry of

Tribal Affairs, Government of India. Since we had to shift from the Conference Hall to

this APPPA Hall, so some of the participants will be joining us very shortly. But since

the time is short, we can start the session right now. I just wanted to honour the Chair

with a bouquet of flowers.

57

CHAIRMAN: Prof. Deshmukh, Chirangda, Mr. Kaushal, participants, friends,

organizers. In post lunch session, discussing a very serious matter is a real challenge, I

can understand that. But it is as challenging as the issue itself. I do not know how it was

conducted earlier but the best thing would be that first we listen to the preliminary

remarks by the panelists and then followed by the question-answer session. You are

absolutely free to interject wherever you want to, but then before that, let the panelists

complete their remarks and make the full presentation for whatever views they are

making. I am cutting short all the formalities because time is short.

First I call upon Prof. Neelima Deshmukh to make her presentation.

PROF. NEELIMA DESHMUKH: Thank you, Chairman, Sir. As suggested, I would like

to speak a very few lines because tomorrow I shall be presenting my Paper which is quite

at length and it is based on the case study of Gad hchiroli district in Maharashtra. It has

been a revolutionary step and the changes have been made over there. We have heard in

the first session the topmost dignitaries sharing their experiences, the expectations what it

should be and what it should have been, dichotomy between development and growth,

and PESA and other problems. Of course, they all were there. But Maharashtra State is

the first State in the whole of India to implement those changes. They have handed over

the land to the rural people and they are having complete set up as to how the gram

panchayat should function. It was expected that to make the gram panchayat self-

sufficient, to ensure the livelihood sources, to preserve CRS, and all the relevant

activities, the local people in the village should get together. Gadhchiroli is a major

Naxalite affected area of Maharashtra and all the activities there are at standstill. Every

now and then there are murders, police officers are being killed, there is no development

at all. But a few people from Lekhamonda village got together and initiated the efforts to

set PESA into action, to which they got success. It was in December, 2012 when Jairam

Ramesh Ji, the Minister himself came to that place,

58

he handed over the pieces of land, he handed over the transit passes that gave them the

right for collection of forest produce. The definition of forest produce was also under

consideration and the Maharashtra Government is relaxing all the terms and conditions.

As Collector Sahib is here, so I may not be able to speak much about it, but there is

consultation about land. But what exactly is the consultation? They are taking

consultation, not the consent, but they should have taken the consent. There are many

SEZs coming in Maharashta and those SEZs are after procuring the lands of tribals. They

are being deprived of their lands. In order to tackle that and to ensure the sustainable

development, the gram panchayat of that area has been given total rights. They made it

self-dependent and. One Devaji Tohfa, who was an Adiwasi Mariagond - took the

leadership, he organized the people, he got the law with himself, he got the Act translated

in local vernacular language and did a lot of organising in that area and lot of

involvement of local people. Public participation is the essence, so, they have done it

and with that, they have gained the success. So, tomorrow I shall be presenting that

Paper. It says that if the fruits of development are to be reached, they should reach to the

last level. If people there are given the proper opportunity, they can do wonders. The

59

extremism, the problem of Naxalites could be handled in an effective way, as Mani

Shankar Ji said in the last session. So, it is a root cause. If they do not get the fruits of

development, they are going to be violent. They are going to create all sorts of problems.

So, simple thing is, if they get the fruits, the things can be fine. But we need to have

sincere efforts in that direction. The Act should be implemented in letter and spirit. The

issue is, if the Lekhamonda village can do it, why can’t others? So, this is being set as an

example all over the country and the things can move easily in that direction I feel.

With these few preliminary remarks, I put a full stop to what I want to say. I shall

be speaking tomorrow. That Paper is quite at length. I would like to sum up by saying

that if we handle this issue successfully, if the powers are transmitted in real sense, if the

Gram Panchayat and the Gram Sabhas are strengthened, there is possibility that the

scenario will improve. Also, there should be sufficient allocation of money. Finance is

the main problem because money does not reach them. They should also be given the

power to sell their minor forest produce. The definition of forest produce is also another

ticklish issue. If all these issues are tackled in a practical way, the solutions could be

reached. Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN: Now, Dr. Marwah.

DR. ONKAR MARWAH: Thank you very much. I had prepared some notes yesterday

but as of this morning, after the very passionate speech by my friend, Shri Mani Shankar

Aiyar, I would like to put a few things forward on the whole issue. I am not going to

discuss PESA per se because I think there are much better informed people than me on

the intricacies of what has been done through PESA and what has not been done, and

perhaps Prof. Deshmukh will tomorrow give us a success story - I hope, it is a success

story because if that succeeds, that to me is the answer.

I begin by telling you that as a young boy, up to the age of 15, I spent all my

childhood in all these areas - in Madhya Pradesh and Chhatisgarh in Bastar district in

south Bihar. Because my father was a mining engineer, so I had to go with him into all

these areas because we were transferred. Let me straightaway tell you that these people

were some of the nicest, most hospitable people that I have ever met in my life, and their

villages were also, then at least, the cleanest villages that I saw in India. So, this, to me, is

a very special group of people. We should not just see them as tribals, we should see

60

them as some very special good people. When I think of what has happened there since

my childhood days, it is a form of sadness, and I want to go a little further. Today Mr.

Mani Shankar Aiyar spoke very passionately about the injustices being done to them.

But then it also went into the idea of how there are imbalances of power as a consequence

of economic power in these areas. I think all of us know that practically in every district

of India, there are local mafias, there are mafias which corner, whether it is forest

produce or it is liquor or it is contracts or it is minerals - we know this as a reality - while

in other parts of India, there may not be people as innocent as the tribals – ‘innocent’ I

use in a guarded sense; I do not mean that every individual is innocent, but as a

community they are less tuned into all the intricacies of the modern world as we have

been. They have absolutely no chance. There is no way that they can contend with these

forces, either local or from other parts of India, because these are rich areas with

tremendous mineral resources. Our richest mineral resources of all types are in those

areas and I would venture to say that there are many other things which have yet to be

discovered. So, I do not see in any way that this can be ever avoided when we talk about

environment, when we talk of the right to pick a berry or to have a steel plant, as Mr.

Aiyar was saying. I do not think there is any choice in that. I do not see any Government

of India, of any political party, which will somehow not build steel plants or all the other

mineral extractive processes that I think our country needs. The question really is, can it

be done in an environmentally appropriate way? I think it can. I do not see why we

should say that it is an either/or situation. I am sure, there are ways in which the

environment can be protected, the way that the rights of the local people can be protected.

For instance, there was a proposal that 20 per cent or 30 per cent of the royalties of all

these extractive processes in these rich mineral areas would be allocated to the future

needs of the tribal population. I do not hear any more of it. Why not? It should be done.

They deserve it. This is their land and they deserve to get primary rights to the fruits of

the area which has been there. It has been there since time immemorial. So, I think there

are certain questions, and I just put them out. One is the question of development and

security. Let me say one other thing. Yes, we get frightened to see so many districts of

India, such a huge territory. You look at the map of India. This red, yellow and different

shades. This is all aflame. Perhaps it is. Although in the last few weeks or months we

61

have been hearing that overall, the rate of terrorist activities has relatively gone down,

that 2012 was the least terror-prone year as compared to the earlier years, and that there is

a possibility – I can say this from many statistics that I have read – that a tipping point

has been reached. A tipping point is one where you reach a certain peak about terrorist

activities. After that it starts falling down. Not that it disappears but it starts falling down

and it becomes manageable. This happened in the North-East. If you will go back to our

short history after Independence, in the first year the whole of the North-East was aflame.

Now, we learnt this morning, and I think all of us know, that there are one or two spots

where there is still a problem. We must be aware of the fact that the might of the Indian

State is immense. There is no way that anyone of these insurgencies, whether here or

there, can content with it. Our duty as citizens is not to misuse that power, not to go into

an approach of killing people left and right. I think our people, our political bosses and

our whole administrative set up is not set up to do that sort of activity. I do not see it. It

has never been done. I am talking only of the basic premise. There has never been one

where we go out to destroy people and destroy villages. So, the first question is, how do

you balance development and security? Second is about implementation of all that we

have heard this morning. All of you know what needs to be done. No one has to be told.

We have studied every subject and I think we have all the answers. The question really

is, is it going to be implemented for the reasons that have been mentioned and for the

reasons that we have been told why it cannot be implemented? Are there governance

issues? Yes, that is also there. But you should also understand that on a per capita basis,

compared to 20 other countries, the G-20 countries, we are the most under-policed, under

administered and under-protected by law country in the world. We have very few people.

If you have been to the villages, you will find one or two guys there representing the

State. So, that also is a matter which we have to take into account. Not that it excuses

any wrongdoing on our part. I would also say that you go back to the whole question of

how States have dealt with these people. We call them tribals, in other countries they are

called indigenous people – the Red Indians, the Blacks or whoever he was mentioning.

Well, the sad fact is that all over the world, the indigenous people have had a short end of

the stake. There is no country which has treated its indigenous people with gentleness.

You go to the history, not just of the United States, go through South America, go

62

through other parts of the world, they have always been losers. That is unfortunate, and I,

as an Indian, would like to hope that we will be different, that our whole process will

give our indigenous people a better stake and that we can do it in an environment of free

State.

So, I would say, we have all the laws, we have all the means to implement this

and as I say, I am very heartened to hear what Prof. Deshmukh has just mentioned that

there is a success process that is possible and I will hope that that can be duplicated

across all these areas. I have no doubt that as a consequence of this, these people will

become part of the Indian State as providers and not as victims, which they are just now.

So, I stop on that point. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Marwah. Now Avdhash Kaushal Sahib.

SHRI AVDHASH KAUSHAL: Friends, in fact, why a terrorist becomes a terrorist?

Why the people are joining left extremism? This is one issue which we must keep in

mind whenever we decide on any issue. Historically, many people feel that even the

history has not done justice to them. I was born at Meerut and I was very proud, and all

of you were told, that the first freedom struggle started from Meerut by Mangal Pandey.

But when I met van gujjars of a forest village in Dehradun – they are tribals in Jammu

and Kashmir and in Himachal Pradesh, but in U.P. and Uttarakhand, they are not being

given the tribal status – they said that our ancestors were killed by the British. I did not

believe them till I got one book called Members of Doon written by C. Williams.

Thousands of people gathered and they declared to free this country from foreign rule. I

am not saying this, this has been said by C. Williams. Kindly read that book which was

published much before the Forest Department came into existence. Not only that, they

were so afraid that they called the army, surrounded the forest and killed 125 van gujjars.

He has written that, I am not saying. Then, about 80 were wounded and they were taken

into prison and Kalua, their leader, was caught, beheaded, and his head was put in an iron

cage at the door of Dehradun jail. The same thing happened in Jharkhand. I have visited

Latehar many times to monitor NREGA and to educate the people about the legal

awareness. I discussed with them. They also told that their forefathers have fought with

the British. In Chhattisgarh also so, in , they feel that they are not being given their

rights. All of us know the access and control of the people on all natural resources is

63

decreasing day by day. Secondly, they feel that they have been living in those areas but

who is controlling, who is governing? IFS – Indian Forest Service people - who are city-

based people. They would get into IFS and for three months they would undergo the

foundation course in the Lal Bahadur Shastri Academy of Administration, and for one

and a half year they will be given training. They have not seen even tigers or forest,

except zoo in Delhi or some other places. The people who have been living in these

forests have knowledge about the selviculture, they have knowledge about the wild life.

All of them live without guns in the forests. No Forest Officer can go in the forest area

without gun. They feel who will control these forests. Chipko movement you might

have heard. No one talked at that time of saving environment. People like Gaura Devi,

Sundarlal Bahuguna, Chunni Prasad Bhatt started talking about the environment after the

Environment Protection Act came in 1986 because of the intervention by the Supreme

Court in limestone mining case. It was also the question of ownership. Gaura Devi was

opposing the cutting of trees saying this is my tree, how you can cut it? You kill me but I

will not allow it to be cut. What we say is, what is happening? PESA talks of traditional

rights. What was the traditional role of panchayat? The traditional role of panchayat was

to dispense justice at the doorstep without cost, without adjournment, in a transparent

manner. Then the 73rd Amendment came. That role has been taken away. Courts said, no,

no, we will decide. Who will decide? The Judges here in Delhi. More than there crore

cases are pending in the courts and they will increase everyday. Why is this happening?

Why I say it will increase everyday is because now they are much more busy in cyber

crime, in corporate law and all that. For me, as a tribal, day-to-day dispensation of justice

is much more important. Many States even now have – Jammu & Kashmir has,

Himachal Pradesh has - their own nyaya panchayats. I tried to convince Mr. Mani

Shankar Aiyar and Shri H.R. Bhardwaj that kindly bring nyaya panchayat Bill. You have

committed this mistake. The late Rajiv Gandhi also accepted that we committed this

mistake. Unfortunately, he died. Gram Nyayalaya Bill has come. What does Gram

nyayalaya mean? Gram nyayalaya means that same advocates, same judges will go to

the villages in the forest area and they will decide. The tribals cannot decide themselves.

H.R. Bhardwaj was telling me - he was earlier a Minister, now he is Governor - Mr.

Kaushal, we have kept so much of money but no State is ready to bring this Gram

64

Nyayala Bill. It is anti-people. You are taking power from them. That is the reason why

the extremist problem is there. The Nyaya Panchayat Bill is pending. They do not want

to pass it. What is happening? Why we should not give the management of the forests to

the people who are born there with the wild life, Who knows the silviculture? If you are

born in France or if you are born in some other country, you need not go to the school or

to Lal Bahadur Shastri Academy - I was teaching at Lal Bahadur Shastri Academy also -

and you need not go to FRI to learn what is this tree, how it will grow, how to save the

elephant. They know it. They were born there with them. Now the so-called

environmentalists, pseudo environmentalists are saying that no, they should not be given

any development. I worked in 1986 for environment protection. I feel uneasy to call

myself an environmentalist. I do not attend any meeting now where environmentalists

are there. Who is much more environmentalist? These are the people. But they are not

heard, they are not allowed to decide their fate. PESA was one of the rays of light. But

unfortunately, I know who are going to oppose it – Forest Department, so-called

environmentalists, so-called conservationists, so-called wild life specialists. So, this is the

problem.

I am sorry, I have taken much of the time, but these issues came during the earlier

discussions.

DR. CHITRANGADA CHOUDHURY: Hello friends. Let me just thank Mr. Marwah at

the outset for trying to demolish this stereotype view that tribals are backwards. Even in

Government documents, practically in every Government document you read, you will

hardly find sentences where these two words are not used in conjunction with each other.

As our senior-most panelist mentioned, they have so much of knowledge and in many

ways they are probably superior than all of us in this room. So, this is not to romanticize

them but to say that let us look at them as equal citizens and not patronize them or look

down on them as governments often do.

65

Mr. Mungekar mentioned in the morning that capitals’ tendency is to centralize

and that is what we are seeing in the districts right now. There is also another very strong

centralizing force going on at the moment which is that of paramilitary action and

military action. Lot of authorities concentrated either in the SP of the districts or the

relevant CRPF officer. In such a situation, the balance of power is so one-sided that

imagining that the Gram Sabha or members of the community can stand up and say

anything against this is complete sort of dream. In such a situation, imagining that PESA

can be implemented or FRA can be implemented, and none of these two laws envisage

the kind of military balance we have seen in the districts right now. Again those are

questions we should ask whether in such conditions, can we really speak of implementing

PESA?

The third point that I want to mention is what has also happened in these districts

based on my research and journalistic skills that there are so many non-violent

movements going on. The people are trying to assert their rights, whether it is FRA as

Prof. Deshmukh mentioned, or protesting the takeover of their land or even a simple

thing like a liquor shop operating in the village, women getting together. All that is also

being criminalized by the Government quite easily. So, that is also creating the conditions

66

for mentioning things like this is the greatest internal security threat. If you travel to the

ground and you see this Red corridor becomes a speckled band. It is not like all these

districts. None of them are in the control of the State. There are certain areas which are

definitely not in the control of the State. At least one-third of the police stations have

witnessed a certain number of instances of Maoists violence in the year. Again, we heard

Mr. A.N.P. Sinha tell us that if you go into the jails and speak to people suspected as

Naxals, pathetic stories emerge. But it is very hard for anybody from outside to go and

verify this. So, we should take all these claims of how much violence, what sort of

internal security threat, with some degree of questioning. But, at the same time, as Prof.

Deshmukh mentioned, maybe, you can confirm from us, in Mendalekha village after this

transit power was given to them apparently the Maoists in the area were not very happy.

So, we should also be realistic about the Maos. They are a political movement like all

other political movement. They seek power, even if that happens through the barrel of the

gun. That is their ideology. But that is also one of our oldest movements that has been

around for 40 years. So, the question to ask is why are they suppressed but emerge again

after a few years because the conditions in which they exploit or which they use or

which they build on, those go and change. So, we should be realistic about the Maoists

also because the violence, as they have themselves mentioned in my statements and

interviews, is to their advantage as they see it because of polarized conditions and then

they imagine that more people will come over to their side. So, the extremism is

something which the State and the Maoists in a perverse sort of way, both are benefited

by.

In the last three years, the Government has put out a number of circulars which

are actually taking away the Gram Sabha’s powers in a very damaging way. There is an

IAP, to which Mr. Aiyar mentioned in the morning. Those take away all powers from the

Gram Sabha. So, things like utilization, decentralization norms which otherwise the

Planning Commission has for every other scheme, in the IAP it is not there. This SP and

the Collector and the DS through video conference decide what project should be done.

There is no evidence of what is the consultation that is taking place, there has been no

independent assessment of IAP. One C&AG report from Orissa has been very critical of

the IAP. If all of you can read that, you can see that Gram Sabhas are not involved at all.

67

Mr. Sanjay mentioned in the morning that there are very few outlines of how

consultation should happen. The…did this under FRA, 2009 August, very clearly

outlining how Gram Sabha should be involved, whether it should be videographed, what

are the sort of evidences which should then reach the Centre to know that yes, it was

consulted and their opinions were taken. That has recently been changed in February,

even though there is a very strong letter from the Minister where he is writing to his

colleague in the Government and he is saying, FRA is not anti-development, it is merely

a measure to ensure that initiatives are taken in a democratic and transparent manner that

actually benefit the people. About two months after he wrote this letter, after a committee

put up by the PMO, that these rules have been taken back. Wherever linear projects have

to be built, the Gram Sabha’s clearance is not needed any more. So, anything from roads

to cable lines, and this is followed by very scary ‘etc.’ which means etcetera. So, you

never know what all could go under that. So, all those centralizing tendencies within

Government which, if someone of you travels to the ground, will realize that probably

Left wing extremism is not the only problem which we should make out. All through the

morning we have one single theme which we have listened in every presentation, that

Government equally violates the Constitution. So, naturally the leaders should think are

we going to see violence stop in this area any time soon.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Before we open it for question-answer, just two or three

things I want to say. It has been talked from different perspectives. There has been a

reference to the Forest Rights Act also. I would like to clarify that forest rights are the

entitlements, they are not the rights in the sense of possession so that you can sell,

purchase or otherwise dispose of. Therefore, the most crucial issue in Forest Rights Act is

that before anything happens to the area, the rights must be determined, confirmed,

recorded and recognized, and there are enough detailed guidelines issued by the Ministry

of Tribal Affairs in this regard. The process is on; it is yet to conclude. You can allege it

to be very tardy, slow, everything that you can, in a stereotyped way, associate with

Government, you can associate with this process also. But yet the intentions are there, the

directions are there and the process is on.

Second is about PESA. Well, whatever is the history, right from the day one

when the first homo sapien would have tried to hunt an animal and kill and

68

simultaneously another arrow must have pierced that and there was a fight between the

two. So, the fight started the moment one more homo sapien joined the scene. This is

always there, this has also been there, this shall always be there. Even within NATO

countries which are absolutely bound by the capitalist presumptions and prerogatives,

there are differences of opinion. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in having difference

of opinion. The problem lies in how we handle those differences of opinion and whether

we are able to manage those contradictions, if there are any, and in all probability there

shall be umpteen number of them.

Then, the PESA in particular. In 1996, when this Act extended Part IX of the

Constitution to the scheduled areas, there are two or three things. Today we all have

become champions of scheduled area, keep abusing that the British have left this legacy

for us to kill ourselves on that. But then we have verbatim copies from the same much

maligned British drafts, the Government of India Act, 1935. We did not exercise our

mind, I am sorry to say this with due regard to the framers of the Constitution. It was

taken verbatim. And while doing so, the most positive thing was that there was a

preference that the decision about these areas should be left to them, for, at that time

probably they were supposed not to have that much of capability, therefore, the

Governor became the agent of that. So, Schedule V was born. And Schedule V says that

the Governor shall do following things - clauses 3,4 and 5. It is in public domain. You all

know that, the practitioners as well as the academicians, about it. I am not going to report

it. The problem is not there. We have umpteen number of laws, enough provisions,

enough instructions. The problem, as in course of our initial presentations it was told, is

about implementing them. Implementing them from which angle? It is true that there are

attempts of decentralization and then there are re-centralising tendencies to that. These

are all probably part of the way the democracy functions. First we wanted elected

democracy at the grass-root level, extended it to scheduled areas, then we have got

parallel bodies to clip in those democracies, and this democracy is being directed or

clipped by a democracy elected at a bigger level. So, these are all kinds of contradictions

that are quite mind-boggling, to my mind. But in the context of PESA, two-three things

are important. One is that these areas are inhabited by people who were deprived of the

services that were otherwise available to the rest of the population. This could be because

69

of inaccessibility, this could be because of their failure to come to the mainstream or

their active or passive resistance of their coming. Whatever be the reason but it is a fact.

Probably one mistake we had all along been doing was that when we talk of Naxalism,

we always take it as a law and order problem and there cannot be a much more bigger

folly than this. It is essentially a matter of development, it is essentially a matter of deficit

in administration, it is essentially a matter where the administrative lacuna has to be filled

up because of the geographical, because of the historical, because of the cultural reasons.

Not because that is my cadre but I would like to quote an example of Kerala which by

one stroke of pen by E.M.S. Namboodripad, who was the then Chief Minister, the land

reform was indeed implemented. So, Keshav Nambiar, owner of 48,000 acres of land as

on 31st December, 1968 was left with 20 acres of land on 1st January, 1969, just by one

signature. It was a democratically elected government, therefore, it is doable. I always

say that. In West Bengal, the Operation Barga was a tenancy reform, it was not the land

reform. And look at these two States. Kerala has stamped out – I am using the word

‘stamped out’, many of you may have objection to that – Naxalism. Why? Because

wherever violence is involved, that has to be contemned because violence only begets

and propagates violence, nothing else. So, the answer to violence is not a bigger violence

but answer to lack of decentralization is a bigger decentralization. There are certain

contradictions about it. So, an attempt was there but then there are counter tendencies

which seek to negate them, either overtly or covertly.

Finally, it is a very funny situation. The PESA Act, 1996 says that following

provisions have to be provided - necessary legislations and all that - and any State law on

subject matter, which is in contradiction or not in consonance with that, shall be

repugnant to that extent. Now, you take very strictly the legal view. A clause is there

which contains only one sentence in three lines. One and a half line contravenes the

PESA Act and, therefore, it is repugnant and, therefore, it is null and void. So, you are

left with the half which is inoperative. Sixteen years the State have taken, but many of

them have not brought their laws in consonance with this. They have not yet harmonized.

The reasons I leave to you to imagine and think. Probably at some stage you all might

have been part of it. Therefore, there is a legal vacuum to that. It must be filled up. If

there is a legal vacuum, who will fill it? The most natural tendency is for violence to fill

70

it. We do not realize this. So, I feel that if there is a legal lacuna, if there is an

administrative lacuna, if there is a financial lacuna, if there is a lacuna in giving the

power, which in one word means decentralization, then the result is violence. A violence

is therefore a symptom, it is not cause. The cause is something else. Cause is that we have

denied something which was natural to them, cause is something that we have seen that

we not only deny it now, we deny it in perpetuity. Therefore, in future also they are

unable to demand that. So, these are the kind of problems that we always feel, except one

very funny thing. I think Mr. Kaushal was saying about IAS officers and all that. Let me

assure that not because of the sense of camaraderie, but I must say that majority of IAS

officers do not come from completely urban background, and even if they are, it does not

matter. I do not think their commitment to the service is really questionable. We cannot

be very outlandish in branding a particular service. I am sorry to comment like this. He is

eldest among all of us.

With this, I leave it open to you. You may like to interact with anyone of us.

Thank you.

QUESTION: Having listed all the lacunae, legal, financial and all, I would say that these

are not all the lacunae. It is only illustrative, not exhaustive.

CHAIRMAN: You suggest that.

QUESTIONER: I want to know it from you because you are in the Government. It is a

Government kitty.

CHAIRMAN: Saying all those who have created these lacunae, each one of them, and

obliquely you are also a part of the Government because you have elected your

Government, are responsible for this, is a lame kind of argument. But nonetheless, the

way out probably would be as follows: (a) implement the rules or the laws. If the rules

have not been framed, frame them, implement them, which means actually that in the

context of PESA and in the context of the Fifth Schedule, exercise of jurisdiction, which

was constitutionally and legally mandated, should be done. For example, in independent

India, you have never come across a bright example where Governor has actually

exercised his jurisdiction under clause 3, 4 and 5 of the Fifth Schedule. Why it is so? I

mean, Governor is a constitutional authority. He is not bound by the advice of the

Cabinet as far as the Fifth Schedule is concerned. He is not bound by that. It does not

71

mean he negates it. There is a difference between the two. Unfortunately, our

Constitution also says that there is a writ particularly dedicated to it that if a public

authority is not exercising his jurisdiction, you can file the writ and ask him to exercise

that jurisdiction. And yet nothing happens. So, the problem is, for whatever reason, if

there is a failure in exercising jurisdiction, the reply or the answer does not lie in taking

away that power and exercising at a higher level. The answer is that if a District

Magistrate has to dispose of a case, it is he alone who should dispose of the case, not the

Commissioner. He should ask the District Magistrate to do that because if you are taking

it back, then the centralization is running against it. So, this has become unfortunately a

problem with the entire system. I do not think in a day or by one single brief discussion,

it can be settled. But then yes, let me also say that there is a sense of realization at

different levels. Probably slow but it should come up. The answer lies only in sticking to

this.

QUESTION: I do not like a layman deliberately saying so because I am an elected

member of Zila Parishad in Bihar for the past two years, and as he rightly pointed out to

Gram Sabha and all, the problem is not from above. We have to go to the grass-roots.

Gram Sabhas, we say, are constitutional bodies. We decide something. Our

recommendations are not binding. Why I am trying to link this is, it is not only about

PESA area, it talks of any small pockets in Bihar, U.P. and people have already a sense of

rebellion there, just because they are not being heard, their voices are not being included.

As he rightly said, the DM and DDP have a radio conferencing and they decide what is

true and what is not true. Then the only thing is, how do we go ahead from here because

we keep on talking about all this, that these are the reforms, these are the things, but

nothing happens there.

SHRI AVDHASH KAUSHAL: It is an established fact that if you are empowering

someone, you are also disempowering someone. This is also an established fact that the

least governance is the best governance. What is happening is, when in 1986, this

Environment Protection Act came, the Environment Ministry was being run from Bikaner

House in four or five rooms. Now it is a huge empire. In Uttarakhand, we are having

more than 65 per cent forest cover. There was only one Additional Chief Conservator of

Forests, hardly eight DFOs and a few Forest Officers. Now we are having nearly 200 of

72

them. We are having 5-6 Principal Chief Conservators, Chief Conservators, Principal

Wild Life Officers. So, who benefits? Sometimes the benefits do not go to those for

whom the laws have been enacted. Some people in between are so smart that they get the

benefit. In democracy, people are supreme. We should not forget that. There was a time

when democracy was being defined as ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’; now

unfortunately, it is redefined as ‘off the people, far the people, buy the people or bye-bye

the people’. So, we have to keep democracy a real democracy. How can it be a

democracy when people are not heard, when you cannot enter the area? You are having

these traditional rights. I asked the Forest Officers, wherefrom will you get your salary?

They said. In Bannigam, we are having Rs.400 crore worth of wood every year. Kaushal

Sahib, we will be having Rs.600 crore worth of wood every year. People feel that

because these people have joined the Government, they are cutting the trees. We are not

allowed to even log the tree. We are not allowed even to cook our food. This is the

problem. Then they recommend, go and take the cylinder. Where are the cylinders?

Fortunately here in Delhi, now gas pipeline is there but in hill areas, in forest areas

people are very distressed, particularly in Jharkhand. I went to Latehar for monitoring the

NREGA. When the NREGA funds reached there, I asked the Collector where that money

had gone. He said, we have given this money to the Forest Department for plantation. I

said, let me see where the plantation has been done. He took me to a protected area – I

forget its name. They made me sit on the elephant and took me to a round of that whole

area. But I did not see even one plant having been planted. Who has taken away the

money? Even the people did not get employment. So, we have to organize them. If we

do not organize them and we do not give help to them, they will organise themselves.

They have their own way of organising themselves. That is what we are discussing today.

So, a big problem is going to happen.

QUESTION: I really do not have a question to ask, just some observations I want to

make based on today’s proceedings. The first thing about PESA or our other Acts,

statutes, plans and policies for Adiwasis are based on some assumptions that these are our

plans and programmes, these are the parameters and we have to fit in the Adiwasis into

these parameters. I have often wondered how does one fit PESA into the Adiwasi

scheme of things or FRA or modes of governance or development process or so much

73

else. And then we expect them and we complain that they do not participate because

somewhere we are convinced of the relevance of our programmes by our Government

and the civil society as much. At the level of understanding the Adiwasis, experiencing

the Adiwasis, the only treatise up to now which resonates Adiwasis has been Hind

Swaraj. After that there is no document in any social sciences, political sciences,

environmental sciences, economics which resonates even in a distinct way the Adiwasi

notion of how society is to be conducted. So, we are obsessed with how to fit them into

this instead of how does this fit into that. That has never been our concern, maybe. And

that is exactly where the rise of the Maoist problem lies. Unfortunately, in a very small-

minded way, we ascribe the Maoist problem to lack of developmental facilities or

they’re not getting enough economic power. Well, they had been living without the

economic power till early 1980s when the Maoists first began coming to Bastar. I have

been living in Bastar for the last about 32 years, so, I can say that I have some

impressions of the area. Because people were fed up, they did not get the economic pie

so much, they did not really want the developmental benefits so much because even if the

school was built, it did not run, even if the hand pump was installed, it did not work, and

if we go a little further, if we go to Abhoothimar, there was no development, no political

process, no economic pie, no so-called livelihood as we define in the modern sense, no

modes of modern governance, no political process. They did not even know their part of

India. Now, in the same Abhoothimar where the State mercifully had kept away since

1932 when Wilkinson was the Commissioner of Bastar, it was his diktat that there

should be no access to Abhoothimar, but more than the diktat, it was the inaccessibility of

the rich because it was too forest an area. Now come the Maos there with the same

agenda which the State was supposed to fulfil. Now Maoism is becoming as irrelevant to

Bastar – I cannot talk of other Adiwasi areas – as the State has become. Maoism is

surviving in Bastar, unlike in 1980s, not because the people are with it but because it has

muscle power. It is the only movement in the world which is thriving on State funds and

corporate funds and I am sure you understand what I mean by State funds – all the cuts

and commissions that go from each tender into funding their movement and all the cuts

and commissions they get from the corporate sector and all the cuts and commissions

they get from Class III and Class IV employees who stay in the countryside. Now, all

74

these forces - the State, the Judiciary, the Government, civil society, media, people like

me – are all trying to fit them into this scheme of things. That is where the rise of the

Maoists lies in Bastar because we have given no power to them. We say, strengthen the

people. Strengthen what? The modern political process? The way we have defined to

them what is a forest, what do we do with land - as if they did not know earlier -. what is

governance, what should be its mode, whether it should be Panchayati Raj or what, what

should be the size of the village, what to do with soil, with water, with animals, and so on

and so forth. They are not really after the economic pie which to some extent Kaushal

Sahib pointed out. What they want is for both the parties – the State and the Maoists -

and, of course, the civil society, to keep away from them. That is just one observation I

wanted to make.

SHRI AVDHASH KAUSHAL: There is a big gap between the legality and reality. So,

the first thing is, whatever laws we are having, they should be implemented in letter and

spirit. When we started legal literacy programme in Latehar and many other areas, they

said, what more are we asking? But do not bring the police or those who come with red

lights on their vehicles. Judge sahib said, take me also there. So, what I say, they have to

be made aware of these things. I do not say that our laws are anti-people, our laws are

very pro-people. Otherwise they would not have been passed. But for the people for

whom the law has been made, they do not know. About panchayats, Mani Shankar Aiyar

or someone was telling that they do not know the Panchayat Act. Not only that, after the

Panchayati Raj Act was passed, it is mandatory that five years is the term and no longer,

but the Government of Bihar, the Government of Orissa, Tamil Nadu,

75

Himachal Pradesh, U.P., they did not go for election. For 26 years the same mukhiya was

sitting because there was reservation for women, for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes. So, I have no option but to go to the court. Justice G.N. Ray gave the judgement

and then said that yes, five years and no longer. Otherwise in Orissa bureaucrats were

sitting for seven years. There is no provision for an administrator in Panchayati Raj. Six

months before the term is over, the election has to be held. Only in the case of war or

earthquake, you can push forth the election.

QUESTIONER: I am not against the laws or the Judiciary. I am only giving the

Adiwasis’ response that how inadequate he finds them. In the Adiwasi scheme of things,

the court has to deliver a judgement which has to be adhered to, which has to be

enforced, if it is violated, there is contempt of court, and so on and so forth. The court

stops at delivering a judgement but the Adiwasis justice system goes beyond the

judgement. After judgement, it is reconciliation. That is a very important aspect of the

judicial courses in Adiwasi areas. So, I am not against laws or judiciary. I am not saying

that . I was just referring to the sheer inadequacy in their experience.

DR. ONKAR MARWAH: I would not pursue the logic of your talk. First of all, when

you say what does the State want to do, the fact is that the State is asking to empower

76

them, it is not trying to fit them into anything. It is just saying, we empower you. That is

an ideal thing that we give you Gram Sabha, you take the decisions. So, it is not fitting

them anywhere. I am sorry to say that in the ideal context that is what the State wants to

do. It may fail, it may not be successful, it may not be able to do so, but that is what its

objective is. Secondly, if we go through the logic of your second issue that this is what

the Adiwasis want, well then we are saying, leave them in the noble savage State. Let

them live as they do. In the morning someone said, they pick their berries, have their

mahua wine and these things. Yes, that is okay, if that is what they want and if the State

can permit that. But there is a possibility that you can give them in their own context, at

their own pace better health facilities. They do not have them. I have also left in those

areas. In fact, the Maharaja Vijay Chandra Bhanjdev was a class fellow of mine. I went

to Bastar in 1940s. So, I have been to all those areas that you are talking about. Yes, if

you are going to put the noble savage life on a pedestal, I am afraid this is not going to

happen in our country or in any other part of the world. The best that you can do is you

can respect their culture, you can respect their forms of life and not push anything on

them.

But there is no way that it would be appropriate to say that do not get any education, do

not get health facilities, do not do anything else. They may reject it but it should be

available to them.

CHAIRMAN: Precisely it is not a question of fitting or not fitting. But when we

formalize something in the form of a law, like you mentioned about the Bastar

Commissioner Wilkinson, the same Wilkinson, when he was Deputy Commissioner of

what is known today as Chaibasa in Jharkhand, there is a small area which is an

exception to all the rules, and the rule that applied there was called Wilkinson’s rule.

The reason was very simple. Wilkinson thought that these people are very self-respecting

and they have got their own way of saying. So, he pleaded with his Commissioner and

said that our general rules will not apply to these people and there was an exception to

that. It was just one and a half page rule, meaning thereby that it is not a question of

trying to fit or not to fit. When you are saying that for 150 years they did not have formal

education, the very concept of education was not there in pre-Macaulay time. So, it was a

different kind of education. Education was there but not in the modern sense. So, what

77

happened was, some of us who studied English, they went about 3-4 generations ahead.

And this is happening even today. So, those who are not studying English, for example,

you teach them for two generations and see that they will also go up. Similarly,

accumulation of wealth also had stages. Therefore, in the development of capitalism, this

also is a part of it. When accumulation starts and they feel that well, out of this

accumulation they are getting deprived because they are being denied an opportunity to

partake in that, I feel that this kind of sense of deprivation is absolutely correct. Yes, we

have not actually exercised equality before law, equality of opportunity to them. That is

where all our laws are basically addressed or trying to address this kind of thing. Afford

them opportunity. If today there are debilitations, remove them. Then, of course, as

regards legality and reality difference, that is there, we have to struggle with that.

PROF. NEELIMA DESHMUKH: As mentioned by you that they do not need anything

and they are not after it, they do not bother, I do not agree with that. The reason is simple.

If you remember the case of Malkangiri Collector – I do not remember his name – Prof.

Hargopal from Hyderabad was asked to mediate in between. He was taken on motor

bike. First he went by flight, then by car, then he was taken by helicopter and then from

helicopter, two of the party workers of Naxalites came and they took him on motor bike,

put a blinder on his face so that he does not know where he is going, who is taking him

and all that. They were simple boys, 20-22 years old or 18 years old. They were talking

and they also did not understand why they were doing this, why they kidnapped him,

what was it that they really wanted.

78

When he spoke to them at length, they told small small things like, we do not have ration

cards, we do not have schools, we do not have kerosene and these kinds of things which

they could have got easily. But just because they are being deprived of the facilities or

suvidha which we all are getting, so they were against the Government. And this fellow

was a Collector. So, naturally they thought kidnap the Collector, then all our problems

will be solved. That was their concept. Without knowing what they were doing, how

serious it was, will it solve any of their problems, they simply followed somebody that

try this also. So, that is how I feel that it is their plight for equality that what everybody

else is getting, they should also get. So, they have been doing all sorts of activities and

terrorizing people, creating chaos. But to say that they do not want anything is not true.

They want everything. In fact, they should be given like any other common citizen of

India. They should also be given all the facilities which are given to others. They do need

it. The time has lapsed when people were ignorant. Now they see others. In every tribal

community or the Adiwasi communities, you see lot of people are having mobile phones

and televisions. They are well aware, which means there has been a growing level of

understanding and they feel that they have been deprived and why should they be

79

deprived? Therefore, I think observation is somewhere off the line and that needs to be

corrected. Thank you very much.

QUESTION: It is a kind of observation-cum-question to Marwah Sahib. You are not

questioning the intention of the State. It is a kind of justifying everything what the State

intends to do, I mean, the real intention of the State. But somewhere in a subtle way,

when State is supporting a kind of an organization against the tribal brothers - it is a kind

of tribals against tribals - then Chhatisgarh Government supporting the special police

officers for killing the tribals, how can you justify the State which wants to transform the

so-called noble savage – in our terms we feel like we are civilized people, so they are

noble savage or whatever? How can you justify this kind of dichotomy or the paradox

of the State?

DR. ONKAR MARWAH: Let me first say I am not trying to justify the State. You may

get that impression but let me try and explain to you that I am talking in a much larger

context, and when I use the term ‘noble savage’, it is a term that is very colloquial. It

does not mean that I think that they are the savages. I think they are very cultured people.

So, please let me make those points clear to you first.

The second thing is, running a State is no joke. Please do not think that the State is sitting

there trying to balance it at every stage. Running the State is a hell of a thing and there is

a lot of dirty stuff that goes on. I do not have to explain that to you. All States use all

types of means. What is happening in these areas in its most nasty aspect is killing –

killing from both sides. After all, what have the Maoists wanted to do? Whatever the

reasons, they want the destruction of the liberal State, they want the destruction of the

open democratic system. That is what they say. So, what are you going to do in response

to that? Are you going to go to them and say, here you are, you take the thing, we will not

fight you or we will employ what the State has employed for 2,000 years? I mean you

can go back to Chanakya and Kautilya and you read up over there the details on how to

run the State- saam, daam, bhed and dhand. That is what our State does even now. For

instance, earlier we were talking that - I think one of our colleagues said that - the money

goes from the Centre or from the contractors to the Maoists in that area. Yes. Do you

think the Central Government does not know this? Do you think that the Central

Government, maybe, does not encourage it? It is part of the process. What do you think

80

happened in North-East India? They say, now in Guwahati, along the Ganges, all the big

skyscrapers are owned by the ex-militants of that area. So, that is part of the process.

Please try and see that the State is not a goody-goody thing, it is a nasty piece of work. It

does good where it can but where it cannot, it uses all the tactics that are required to

maintain the State. I am sorry to say but that is what our State is also doing, like all the

other States. Thank you.

QUESTION: Sir, you being one of the senior officers of the Government of India from

the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, I would just like to ascertain whether you are satisfied with

the existing grievance redressal mechanism in tribal areas? It is my question to you.

The second question is, is PESA a viable solution of left wing extremism or Maoism?

CHAIRMAN: I will answer them in reverse order. PESA, yes, I do see because there is a

set of arrangements. If put in place, that will take care of that. So, my answer is yes to

your second question.

As regards the first question, this seeks a subjective opinion. As a person working for

Government of India, my personal opinion is immaterial. It has no value. My official

opinion is what the Government’s opinion is.

QUESTIONER: I am just seeking your opinion as a Government official, not your

personal opinion. Since you are sitting here in the capacity of Joint Secretary, Ministry

of Tribal Affairs, so, I am just seeking the opinion of the Government. As a Government

official, are you satisfied with that?

CHAIRMAN: That is what I am saying. You want my opinion and I have given my

opinion both as a person and as an officer. Thank you.

DR. NUPUR TIWARI: The discussion can just go on and on, but there is a time limit for

every session. So, I would like to thank the Chair, Dr. A.K. Dubey Ji for managing the

whole session so well. All the remarks given by the Chairman were very convincing and

we were highly enlightened.

I would also like to thank Dr. Onkar Marwah Ji, Prof. Neelima Deshmukh Ji, Shri

Avdhash Kaushal and Dr. Chitrangada Choudhury for making this session so successful

and enriching. Thanks a lot to everyone.

05.00-06.00pm

81

Session I : PESA and Self Governance: Challenges and Strategies

Chair: Prof Dolly Arora, Professor, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New

Delhi

Shri: P.C Behera: Scheduled Tribes (STs) constitute more than 22 per cent of the total

population in Odisha. There are 62 ST communities, each differs from the other. Among

them, as many as 13 communities are regarded as Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups.

About 44.70% of the area of the state has been notified as the Scheduled Area. Of the 30

districts of the state, the entire area of 7 districts comes under this category. Poverty in

the state has been a critical concern, more so among the tribal. Empirical evidence shows

high incidence of poverty and low human development indices where the concentration

of tribal population is more. PESA, Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act,

1996, is a powerful instrument to work in favour of the tribal population in the state.

It gives the tribal communities to exercise control of land and communal resources in

their locality. However, the reality is something different. Land alienation and

decreasing landholding size have been affecting the peasantry. Along with that, the land

based commons are declining in the state because of industrialisation. These processes

reflect the forces of globalization serving the interests of the elite and marginalising the

poor. In a market led economy with weak government policies, the processes and the

forces of globalization are serving the interests of the elite and accentuating the

problem of marginalising the poor. The paper reviews latest literature on these

processes, over the years, and reflects how the changing circumstances have been

affecting the poor in the state. It substantiates with data from various state and

national level surveys on landholding, incidence of poverty, and declining of the

natural resources in the state. The figures and perspectives from the literature would be

collated and presented to show how land alienation, growing industrialisation causing

decline in the commons, incidence of poverty and threats to the livelihoods are going to

affect the STs in the state. The paper would suggest policy and practice imperatives.

Shri Bijender Pradhan: The poor health status of Tribal Community in PESA

(Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas) states is reflective on their poor environmental

circumstances and lack awareness among tribal people, the main reasons behind it is the

backwardness and detrimental of the states are; poverty, in accessible of trained health

professional and believing on traditional healer among the tribal community is possessing

the poor health-strata than the other general caste people as on National average. The

82

study is based on the existing secondary data, to analyse the role of Panchayati Raj on

health in these scheduled area, whether the tribal people are markedly benefiting from

health care programme, which the government is running in scheduled area. The

scheduled tribe is the most deprived and vulnerable specially women and children, so

government has took initiative to enhance the health care system among the tribal

communities through devolution of power, participatory democracy and local self-

governance system. This paper deals with how health care practices are practiced among

the tribal communities in PESA states through the PESA Act.

Dr. Ved Pal Deswal: India’s policymakers have been continually seized by the issue of

crafting public policies sensitive towards the vulnerable tribal communities. In last six

decades India has achieved significant milestones in the areas of economic growth,

cultural assimilation and global political interests. However, within the purview of

development the tribal affairs have been shoved under the shelf to serve the vested

interest of some. The poor tribals have been made to feel like aliens in their own

indigenous lands. Over the decades the process of development has frequently led to a

progressive erosion of their traditional rights over their land resources including the

forests. This can be aptly ascribed to the lacunae in the laws, faulty implementation, and

rapacious exploitation by the unscrupulous traders, money-lenders, etc.

PROVISIONS OF VARIOUS ACTS

A. Provisions of Indian Constitution

B. 73rd and 74th Amendment Act 1993

C. Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (or PESA), 1996

D. Biological Diversity Act, 2002

E. Forest Rights Act 2005

Provisions of Constitution

In India most of the tribes are collectively identified under Article 342 (1&2) as

Scheduled Tribes and right to self determination guaranteed by Part X : The Scheduled

and Tribal Areas – Article 244: Administration of Scheduled Areas and Tribal Areas.

83

(1) The provisions of the Fifth Schedule shall apply to the administration and control of

the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes in any State (other than the states of Assam,

Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram).

(2) The provisions of the Sixth Schedule shall apply to the administration of the tribal

areas in the State of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.

The Indian Constitution is supposed to protect tribal interests, especially tribal autonomy

and their rights over land, through Fifth and Sixth Schedules. Scheduled Areas of

Article 244(1) are notified as per the Fifth Schedule and Tribal Areas of Article 244(2)

are notified as per the Sixth Schedule. Sixth Schedule contains provisions as to the

administration of tribal areas in the states of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.

This law gives enormous freedoms to the autonomous regions and districts in terms of

legislative and executive power. The law notes that each autonomous region shall have its

own autonomous Regional Council and every autonomous district its own autonomous

District Council. Indira Gandhi introduced what is called as Tribal Sub-Plan in the

planning process, earmarking a portion of funds for tribal development. Only to ensure

their share of the Central Plan allocations, the States started the notification of tribal areas

again. However, the money seldom reached the tribals.

When Rajiv Gandhi’s successors passed 73rd and 74th Amendments to the Constitution

to enact Panchayat and Nagarpalika Bills, they simply forgot that these do not

automatically become applicable to Tribal and Scheduled Areas. Village level democracy

became a real prospect for India in 1992 with the 73rd amendment to the Constitution,

which mandated that resources, responsibility and decision making be passed on from

central government to the lowest unit of the governance, the Gram Sabha or the Village

Assembly. A three tier structure of local self government was envisaged under this

amendment. Since the laws do not automatically cover the scheduled areas, the PESA

Act was enacted on 24 December 1996 to enable Tribal Self Rule in these areas. The Act

extended the provisions of Panchayats to the tribal areas of nine states (Andhra Pradesh,

Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh,

Orissa and Rajasthan) that have Fifth Schedule Areas. Most of the North eastern states

under Sixth Schedule Areas (where autonomous councils exist) are not covered by PESA,

as these states have their own Autonomous councils for governance. Less has been done

84

and more is required to be done to safeguard the rights of the adivasis i.e. members of

tribal communities. We need to join our hands with NGO’s, Social Activists, Media and

Governement to make the proper implementation of the policies and laws which have

been by the parliament of India.

Dr. Rajbir Singh Dalal: India is the largest democracy in the world having far socio-

economic disparities. However, the survival of democracy depends upon the active

involvement of people in public life. Accordingly, provisions have been made in Indian

constitution so that no one can remain away from the main stream or feel marginalized.

As SCs and STs constitute a significant part of Indian population and are the most

deprived and vulnerable sections of the society since ages, therefore positive

discrimination has been made by the state in their favour. The part IV, VI, IX and XVI of

Indian Constitution make adequate provisions not only to curb atrocities and violence

against them but also to empower them by all respects. The tribes constitute about 8% of

India’s population and are the most backward and exploited sections of the society

spreading over two dozen states in 94 districts, hence it was felt necessary to pay

attention to their problems and prospects so that their resources and energy can be

properly utilized and channelized for national development. To meet out these goals, the

Government of India enacted the PESA Act, 1996 to decentralize powers and to

strengthen democracy at the grass root level. As about 1/3 of the PESA districts are

disturbed and many more are going in the clutches of ultras that may be NSCN, ULFA,

Maoists or other Naxalites like PWG, therefore PESA seems to be a viable solution to

tackle the problem. It provides wide opportunities to tribal people in decision making and

development process at the grass root level and eliminates the feeling of apathy or

isolation prevailing among these sections due to intruders, encroachment of their areas

and resources as well as their deprivation from their traditional means of livelihood or

inaccessibility to their resources. As the PESA Act is in operation for more than one and

a half decade and the government has earmarked special funds and grants for these areas

under 12th plan on the recommendation of second ARC, therefore it becomes pertinent to

evaluate its impact on tribal people particularly in terms of self government and their

empowerment. The main constraints in proper execution of PESA have been highlighted

with some remedial steps to make it more viable and pragmatic.

85

Day 2

Session I(CONTD.): PESA and Self Governance: Challenges and Strategies

Chair: Prof R.K. Barik, Professor, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New

Delhi

10.00am-11.30pm

86

Dr. Neelima Deshmukh: During last decade, environmental issues have been receiving

increasing attention in all spheres of life, including greater coverage in the media. There

is also a growing awareness of the need and importance of involving people actively in

the protection of environment and management of the natural resources of their locality.

While the disasters, like the Bhopal tragedy and Chernobyl accident, the recent nuclear

plant emissions in Japan have heightened the awareness among the general public and

the governments as to the grave dangers posed to making, both present and future

generations, the most significant contribution of the nascent environmental movement in

India has been to bring into sharp focus the vital connection between growing poverty of

vast numbers of marginalized people and the accelerating environmental degradation and

the need to involve the people especially the affected people actively in the protection

and management of the natural resources, especially the Common Property Resources

(CPRs), like forests, rivers and grazing lands. Issues of violation of rules & regulation, by

the industries creation of more & more SEZ, problems of CRZ have further added to the

gravity of the situation worsening the prospects. Environment is not just “pretty trees and

tigers”. It is the marginalized people who are the focus of the environmental movement

as they are very much part of the focus of the environmental movement and depend on it

87

for their critical basic needs. So environmental conservation and restoration of ecological

balance must include not just rivers, forests, and soil but also the human beings, who are

very much a part of the ecosystem. The goals of improved equity, eradication of poverty

and environmental sustainability, which must form the basis of development in the Third

World, can only be achieved if basic human necessities are met on a much wider scale

than before. It is the contention of this article that development requires a large scale,

decentralized but coherent effort for the application of science to basic needs problems,

and the delivery of goods and services aimed at fulfilling these needs through the

government machinery, judicial, administrative, social and academic institutions. The

local goverment institutions have been playing major role in improving the standards of

life of an ordinary common man through the appropriate implementation of it’s plans,

policies, programmes leading to the national development in letter and spirits. 73rd &74th

amendment acts have been doing fairly well in case of rural and urban development

respectively but Panchayat (Extension of Schedule Areas) Act 1996 the most important

law meant for the natives of India that can radically change the sociopolitical scenario of

India if it is implemented honestly has not been effective, from the point of meeting it’s

desired objectives. In the recent past the policy makers have been focusing their attention

on proper implementation of PESA through it’ s implementing machinery at Gram Sabha

level and accordingly various administrative reforms have been planed and some have

been introduced. There are certain problems arising out of the prevailing situation, both

with certain Central laws and State legislations as have been passed in pursuance of Act

40 of 1996 including emerging crucial issues such as land rights of tribal in forest areas,

allocation of powers on land, threatened sources of livelihood because of the definitions

and the scope of Minor forest produce and it’s ownership posing various challenges all

through. It is in this context tribal village Lekha mendha of Gadchiroli district created a

history on 26th April 2011 when it’s Gram Sabha was accorded the rights for collection

and disposal of bamboos at the hands of Union Minister of State for forest &

environment Jairam Ramesh. Mr. Devaji Tofa, noted tribal activist and chairman of the

Gram Sabha received the transit passbooks amidst the thunderous applause of noted top

level political dignitaries, bureaucrats and local common public as the village became the

first one in the country to exercise such rights.

88

Dr. S.C. Roy: In the last six decades, India has achieved significant milestones in the

area of economic growth, social and cultural development and global political interest but

the tribal feel like aliens in their process of development. It has led to a progressive

erosion of their traditional rights on their land resources including the forests. This can be

ascribed to the lacunae in the law, faulty administration and exploitation by the

unscrupulous traders and money lenders .The Indian constitution is supposed to protect

the interest especially their tribal autonomy and their rights over the land through 5 th and

6th schedules under Article 244(1)and Articles 244(2) respectively. The 73rd and the 74th

amendment to the constitution for the empowerment of panchayats could not

automatically empower the tribal in scheduled area. Therefore, which was forgotten in

1993, was realized and revived in 1996, with legislation PESA, panchayats (Extension to

scheduled Areas) Act 1996. This Act provides self rule in the scheduled Areas. This Act

extended the authority of panchayats to tribal areas of nine states which are under 5 th

schedule .But the 6th scheduled states are still uncovered by PESA, as these states have

their own Autonomous council for governance. The fundamental spirit of PESA act is

devolution of power and authority to Gram sabha rather than delegation. It has paved the

way for participatory democracy. This Act calls for every legislation on the panchayats

in 5th schedule to be inconformity with the customary law ,social and religious practices,

and traditional management practice of community resources. It directs the state

government to endow power to the authority to make Gram sabha and panchayats to

function as local self Government especially for the ownership of forest produce ,prevent

alienation from land and rehabilitation, management of village markets and control over

money lending. PESA has tried to empower the panchayats to initiate plans for social and

economic development, identify the beneficiary under poverty alleviation program,

protect natural resources including the forest produce and be consulted prior to land

acquisition. Despite the constitutional provisions and provisions under PESA fiscal

power remains with the state. PESA is applicable in those areas which legally regarded as

scheduled area. A significant number of Tribal live out of scheduled area which is not

covered by PESA. Panchayats is not eligible to levy taxes. PESA has been reduced to a

89

paper tiger .The mindset of the government machineries is also negative, who believe that

the tribal are inferior people.

In this context, this paper seeks to study the aims and objects of PESA 1996 .Here it

will be a sincere endeavor to search the way as to how PESA can empower the tribal

community in letter and spirit and bring them into main stream of development. How the

extremist problem could be tackled in order to bring socio-economic justice, especially

when the scheduled areas are very rich in mines and minerals and forest produce,

protection of wild varieties and exploit economic benefit under plant variety and farmers

rights Act. The low rate of literacy is also a subject matter of great concern in this area.

The protection of women and children from exploitation is another concern. PESA can be

a cure of all the ills of the scheduled area if the beneficiaries are empowered. Can

‘operation green hunt’ empower the tribal?

Shri Notan Bhushan Kar: PESA (Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act was

introduced in 1996 by the Government of India, keeping in view the welfare and socio-

economic development of the tribals in India. The Government had thought that with the

enforcement of this law, tribals would be able to implement their own ideas that would

lead to their progress and the development of their habitat by self governance or Gram-

Sabha. Moreover, Government had also thought that this law would bring down the

overwhelming Maoist affect on tribals if it was enforced honestly. Unfortunately, the

Government has failed to implement this law properly. Besides, the administrative

lacunae, the impact of globalization is also responsible for the failure of proper

implementation of this act. During the globalization era in India, both the Central and the

State Governments had undertaken such development programmes which in reality had

an adverse affect on the tribals. In many cases we have seen them being routed out of

their native habitats and were forced to give up their livelihoods. Among these

programmes, one is mining policy of the Government of India. As per this policy both the

Central and the State Governments are allowing the big national-multinational companies

to extract rich mineral from the tribal habitat areas. As a result, tribal (Adivasis)

displacement has been enormous. Prof. Walter Fernandes, a noted anthropologist

provided a comprehensive data in this regard. He has shown that after independence 6

crore people were displaced due to various development projects in the country. Among

90

them, 40 percent displaced people are tribals, though tribals comprise 8 percent of India’s

population among a billion people. Obviously, indigenous people (Adivasis) are resisting

their loss of livelihood and uprootment from their native lands. In this context,

Government has been branding these tribal resistances as “Maoist threat”. To resist this

tribal protest Governments have deployed para military forces who have undertaken an

operation called “Operation Green Hunt” in different parts of tribal habitat for curbing

the Maoist activities. The spontaneous and non-violent resistance of tribal to destructive

mining has often been mispresented by the big corporate led media. Thus, bloody conflict

between tribal and para military forces has become a daily feature in tribal areas in India.

Recently passed, ‘Forest Right Act-2006 for the rights and protection of forest dwellers

has also been violated by the Government for the interest of big corporates. The

Government has been permitting them to procure tribal lands forcefully for setting up

SEZ (Special Economic Zones). The twelvefth five year plans as implemented by various

Central Governments after independence had special mention of the development of the

tribals. Many development programmes had been included for the upliftment of the

tribals, their habitat and also the areas in their vicinity. Funds were also sanctioned for

PESA. But all efforts have remained fruitless under the present structure of the state

machineries. This paper mainly deals with the effectiveness of PESA act in the tribal

areas and also the negative effect of the globalization policy in the implementation of

PESA Act in India. The methodology used in this research paper is mainly from primary

and as well as secondary sources.

Dr. Vikrant Sharma: iapk;rh jkt O;oLFkk us xzkeh.k Hkkjr dh rLohj fufoZokn :i ls cnyh( ijUrq lqnwj vkfnoklh {ks=ksaesa ;g bruk dkjxj ugha gks ik jgk FkkA vr% vuqlwfpr {ks=ksa ds fodkl dks xfr nsus ,oa muds lalk/kuksa o laLd`fr ds laj{k.k gsrq gekjh laln us iapk;r ¼vuqlwfpr {ks=ksa esa foLrkj½ vf/kfu;e 1996 ikfjr fd;kA 24 fnlEcj] 1996 dks jk"Vªifr egksn; ds gLrk{kj ds ckn ;g ykxw gks x;kA

;g ihlk@islk ¼PESA½ ds uke ls yksdfiz; gSA ihlk lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 244¼i½ ds vUrxZr 5oha vuqlwph esa of.kZr vkB jkT;ksa esa ykxw gSA vf/kfu;e ds vuqlkj jkT;ksa dks ,d o"kZ ¼fnlEcj 1997½ rd vius dkuwu

91

la'kksf/kr djus Fks( ijUrq jkT;ksa us f'kfFkyrk iznf'kZr dhA jktLFkku jkT; us 26 twu 1999 dks v/;kns'k tkjh dj jktLFkku iapk;rhjkt ¼vuqlwfpr {ks=ksa esa fØ;kfUor mica/kksa dk la'kks/ku½ v/;kns'k] 1999 tkjh dj ykxw fd;kA ckn esa mls vf/kfu;e dk Lo:i ns fn;k x;kA blesa dqy vkB ¼8½ v/;k; ,oa 33 mica/k gSaA vf/kdka'k izko/kku dsUnzh; dkuwu ¼ihlk] 1998½ ds ;Fkkor j[ks gSaA

bl dkuwu dk eq[; mn~ns'; & vuqlwfpr {ks=ksa esa iapk;rh jkt dk foLrkj lqfuf'prdjukA o xzkelHkk dks l'kDr djuk]

{ks= ds ewy fuokfl;ksa dk izfrfuf/kRo lqfuf'pr djuk] tutkfr laLd`fr] ijEijk ,oa izkd`frd lalk/kuksa dk laj{k.k] lkekftd U;k; gSA

izLrqr 'kks/k i= esa jktLFkku jkT; esa ykxw bl dkuwu ds izko/kkuksa dks lqLi"V djrs gq;s bldh O;kogkfjd fØ;kfUofr dh leh{kk dh xbZ gSA 12oha iapo"khZ; ;kstuk esa foÙkh; o"kZ 2012&13 rd ihlk {ks= vFkkZr~ mn;iqj] ckalokM+k] Mwaxjiqj] izrkix<+] ckjka] HkhyokM+k] fpÙkkSM+x<+ ftyksa ds vf/kdka'k rglhyksa ds iapk;rh {ks= dks dsUnz ,oa jkT; dh ;kstukvksa dks vkoafVr /ku rFkk xzke iapk;r ds ek/;e ls gq, dk;ksZa dh lkekU; foospuk gSA Mwaxjiqj ,oa ckalokM+k ftyksa esa bl dkuwu dk [kfut {ks= esa ykxw gksus dk foLrkj ls v/;;u gSA

v/;;u esa ihlk dkuwu ds izko/kku ,oa [kfjt vkoaVu dh izfØ;k dk rqyukRed v/;;u fd;k x;k gSA ftlesa Hkw&vf/kxzg.k ,oa [kfut iV~Vs vkoafVr djus esa ihlk dkuwu dk mYya?ku ik;k x;k gSA vUrr% dkuwu dks O;kogkfjd :i ls izHkkoh cukus ds lq>ko fn;s x;s gSaA ;gh ugha jktLFkku jkT; dh HkkSxksfyd fLFkfr ,oa tutkfr;ksa ds oxhZdj.k] vuqikr] tula[;k bR;kfn dk lkjxfHkZr ,oa laf{kIr foospu gSA v/;;u dk eq[; fcUnq xzke&jksguokM+k] rglhy&okxMkjh] ftyk&Mqaxjiqj dk izdj.k

92

v/;;u ¼Case Study½ gSA jktLFkku ds o"kZ 2012&13 esa tutkfr mi;kstuk {ks= ds fy;s vkoafVrctV dk fo'ys"k.k Hkh fd;k gS rkfd oLrqfLFkfr dk irk yx ldsA

93

Session II: " PESA: A legal analysis with strategies " Prof Furqan Ahmad, Dept. of Political Science, Jamia Milia Islamia University, New Delhi 11.50 am- 01.15pm

Dr. Gurukalyan Rout: In the post-73rd amendment act scenario, the Panchayat Extesion

to Scheduled Area (PESA) Act 1996 was a beacon light in the arena of extended political

decentralization to schedule areas and adivasi people’s empowerment in India. But even

after 16 long years of PESA legislation, the implementation is still an enigma in Odisha.

The adivasi people in Odisha have suffered deprivation, exploitation, oppression and

domination at the hands of non-adivasi people and the urban elite since 1996. Nearly 62

indigenous tribal groups of people inhabit Odisha and are marginalized due to absence of

central role in Gram Sabha. This paper highlights the negligence of Gram Sabha due to

non-implementation of the provisions of the PESA act 1996. The indigenous adivasi

people of Odisha are still mired in poverty, illiteracy and weak infrastructure. Finally

Gram Sabha Niyam Samhita as proposed by Mungekar committee was not implemented

in Odisha. In post-PESA period mis-governance, corruption and mis-appropriation of

public money meant for adivasi and public welfare by nexus of bureaucrats-contractors-

politicians would not have happened if the Gram Sabha was empowered according to the

provisions of PESA. In fact pressure on natural resources of PESA districts in Odisha

continued due to large projects and unscrupulous elements indulging in illegal mining,

forest felling leading to dislocation of adivasi communities and loss of major source of

livelihood. On the issue of land alienation, Governor’s report in Odisha is largely silent.

It should have suggested proper implementation of PESA. The paper will deal with all

these aspects and make some policy suggestions.

Shri Janmejay Sahu: Odisha, surrounded by the thickly forested hills is one of the

prosperous states of India owing to its fertile land and rich mineral resources viz. coal,

iron ore and bauxite. According to 2001 Census, the tribal population of the State is 81,

45,081constituting 22.13% of the total population of the State i.e. 9.66% of the total tribal

population of our country. There are 62 tribal communities including 13 Primitive Tribal

Groups (PTGs) in the State. Odisha has the third largest concentration of tribal population

in the country. About 44.70% of the State’s geographical area which is known as

94

Scheduled Area, extends over 118 out of 314 Blocks in 12 districts and covers Scheduled

Tribe population of 55,46081. This accounts for about 68.09% of the total tribal

population of the State. More than half of the tribal live in three districts of Koraput ,

Sundergarh and Mayurbhanj in Odisha. As tribal culture of Odisha is rich and distinctive,

the Adivasis work hard to preserve it. A tribal village manages its internal affairs very

smoothly through two institutions – the village council of elders and the youth dormitory.

However, introduction of PESA Act, 1996 has aimed at strengthening the tribal

community with their own tradition, customs and beliefs in the development process of

tribal empowerment. In reference to Central PESA Act, Odisha government enacted

amendment to its 3 major panchayat laws, namely Orissa Grama Panchayat Act,1964,

Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 and Orissa Zilla Parishad Act,1991 within one year of

notification of Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act 1997, as enjoined under

Section 5 of the latter. It covers 7 districts i.e. Mayurbhanj, Sundargarh, Koraput,

Malkangiri, Rayagada, Nowarangpur and Kandhamal in full and Keonjhar, Gajapati,

Kalahandi, Balasore, Sambalpur and Ganjam in part spread over 1966 Gram Panchayats

in 118 Blocks in full and 3 Blocks in part. However, many studies has emphasised that

Odisha Act has tried to demarcate the constitutional provisions of the Central Act by

adding a clause 5 ‘consistent with relevant laws in force’ while incorporating the

constitutional provision concerning the competence of the Gram Sabha to manage

community resources and dispute resolution as per the customs and traditions of the

people which does not reflect the true sense of the PESA Act, 1996. Further, the

mandatory provisions of the Central government PESA Act, ensures tribal communities

to control over natural resources, in granting licenses for minor minerals and their

exploitation and acquisition of land by government for development projects to be

enforced through Gram Sabhas, have not been complied with. As a result, this has made a

slow progress towards the betterment of the tribal people in Odisha. However, the

panchayat rules of Odisha government confirm the reservation of seats for STs in

scheduled area on the proportion of their population. All the posts of chairpersons of the

PRIs at all levels are reserved for STs. Therefore, the paper tries to critique the role of

Odisha in fulfilling the real objectives of the Central PESA Act.

95

Ms. Shomaila Warsi: This paper explore the functioning of the Panchayat (Extension to

scheduled area) Act 1996 PESA from here on which governs areas in nine states of India

covered by the Vth schedule of Indian constitution. This Act is great political

commitment attempted to shift the balance of power towards the communities by

providing a mechanism for self protection and self governance .This paper deals with the

approaches to 12th plan of planning commission on the speedy implementation of PESA

Act 1996 and various recommendation for upliftment of schedule tribes.

Shri Kapil Sikka: PESA, Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, is the

most important law meant for the Adivasis (natives of India) that can radically change the

socio-political landscape of India, only if it is implemented honestly. PESA was enacted

in 1996 which extended part IX of the Constitution to Schedule V Areas, and provided

for people-centric governance and people’s control over community resources and their

life, with a central role to the Gram Sabha. The pressure on natural resources in these

areas continued due to the large projects being set up therein and unscrupulous elements

indulging in illegal mining & forest felling. Land alienation and exploitation also

continued. This led to dislocation of the communities and loss of major sources of

livelihood and also increased vulnerability and disenchantment with governance. For

effective implementation of PESA powers had been conferred to the Gram Sabhas to

enable self rule in these areas. Generally PESA areas and their vicinity, suffer from

extremism. The rights, livelihood and habitat of the people in these Areas, therefore,

continue to be under stress, leading to disaffection with the system. According to the

approach paper to 12th plan, there is a case for creating a special arrangement whereby in

the first two years of the Twelfth Plan funds can be unconditionally released for all these

districts to facilitate the speedy implementation of PESA.

Session II(CONTD.): "PESA: A legal analysis with strategies Chair: Dr. George Mathew, Chairman, Institute of Social Science, New Delhi 02.15pm-03.15pm

Dr. Pradip Praida: With the onslaught of globalization process, the whole governance

system is undergoing metamorphic change in contemporary time. When we talk about

growth, what about ‘inclusive growth’? What about ‘growth with social justice’? These

96

issues are being examined minutely in the social discourse today. However the inclusion

of the marginalized, i.e.- dalits, tribals, aboriginal inhabitants in a particular society

along with the people in the periphery of development system, due to the structural

inequality in our society, has always been marginalized till date. What about the voice of

the subalterns? Is it getting reflected in the policy dimensions of our country? The

enactment of PESA by Government of India seems as if a mile stone in this context,

despite of having lacunas in the act itself. There is question regarding its

implementability. There is lack of consensus among the states regarding the modalities of

power transfer to the tribes. The fundamental issue in this background is, let the tribal

people decide their governance issues by themselves, having certain independent &

autonomous power to them. This is within the broad provision of the Indian constitution.

The notion of ‘Gram Sabha’ in the backdrop of PESA gives enormous power to the

97

villagers/ hamlet inhabitants in the PESA implemented area to decide everything, which

is going to affect them, including mining, establishment of industries, royalty collection

apart from general duties & responsibilities bestowed upon a panchayat. Are the

Panchayts equipped enough to handle these issues by themselves?

Dr.Debashis Poddar: Schedules areas of India, designated under Schedule V to its

Constitution, are scattered in nine provinces. In terms of self-governance, these

areas were worst deprived since the same may avail neither relative autonomy

under Schedule VI nor self governance under the Constitution (Seventy-third

Amendment) Act, 1992. Consequently, since 1992, there seems a complete void

in jurisprudence of decentralization that splits India in three divergent areas to

gross detriment of unity and integrity of the Nation being a basic feature of the

Constitution as declared by the Apex Court. Indeed there is PESA since 1996 to

extend Panchayati Raj to Scheduled areas. In the absence of patronage from these

states, irrespective of political colour, PESA by and large remains in statute

book. Even there are states where PESA is not yet to be introduced after fifteen

years of its enactment with a result that Planning Commission grapples with a

98

conundrum of implementation of this Act sans political will. The author explores

maladministration in scheduled areas and thereby invokes a jurisprudent strategy

from within constitutional governance to arrest the same through a proclamation

under Article 356 of the Constitution for failure of constitutional machinery in

literal sense of the term that seems too apparent to these areas on the face of

record. Since these nine states are ruled by divergent political powers,

application of the same to all these states cannot attract allegation of political

bias like earlier decades. Also the author offers a constructive critique of the way

Panchayati Raj system- meant for rest of its territory- was extended by PESA to

these Scheduled Areas with no heed to regional reality of these areas each of

them being quite distinct from others. While Scheduled Areas deserve minimal

autonomy, if not optimal like Tribal Areas under Schedule VI, equalizing the

same with otherwise unequal areas of rest of the territory and its people seems

defeat of ethno-jurisprudence underlying in the Constitution of India. Irony of

fact, however, lies here that even the same stands still for lack of

implementation.

Dr. Biswajit Mohapatra: PESA, enacted in 1996 assumed that people-centric

governance may become reality if Part IX of the Constitution is extended to the Schedule.

V Areas, for which Gram Sabha were accorded central role. It was assumed that Gram

Sabhas, would develop competence over a period of time to safeguard and preserve the

traditions of the people in the area and maintain control and proper utilization of

community resources to enrich the socio economic life of the people besides ensuring

sustainable growth and prosperity in the rural areas. The existence of high degree of

poverty, exploitation of tribal population and above all lack of infrastructure, which not

only have posed obstacles to the fast development of these areas besides have perpetuated

illiteracy and marginalization for the people. The growth of left wing extremism being

spearheaded by the Naxalites has now posed greater difficulties not only in terms of

implementation of government sponsored welfare programmes for alleviation of poverty

but also towards realization of long term development vision. As such the present

challenges call forth immediate attention on our part towards the present day level of

incapacity on the part of Gram Sabhas in properly discharging of the requisite executive

99

functions for approving and undertaking development plans sensitive to the local villages

and in matters of resettlement and rehabilitation of poor tribals in the context of their

land acquisition for any development oriented projects ,be it in the nature of construction

of dams or other such bigger projects. The loss of ownership over the minor forest

produce available in the area and giving away licenses/mining leases for minor minerals

to bigger industries, by the leadership of the Gram Sabhas has often meant, not only loss

of the major sources of revenues for them by way of royalty but also cessation of

powers to control important institutions and over various functionaries in the much

needed various social sectors, etc. Recently these bodies have also been criticized for

engaging in corrupt practices, which has vitiated the atmosphere and also having been

converted into hotbed of power politics between the dominant social groups active in the

villages, thus suffering a loss in their image of being the trusted vehicle of rural

development and ushering in social justice. In the prevailing democratic milieu in India,

as there is no alternative to people centric governance and institutions like Gram Sabhas,

in Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh & Jharkhand, it’s but

natural that we engage in the identification of proper strategies and measures to enable

the Gram Sabhas to function as capable instruments of both rapid development and social

justice.

Shri Amitabh Yadav: This paper is an attempt to classifying the components, which are

having some interest with the government. If we see some specific resources that have

been impacted by the law on tribal self rule and the subsequent state legislations which

include; management of minor water bodies, forest land especially relating to ownership

of minor forest produce and tribal land alienation and restoration. Perhaps the biggest

hurdle comes from the forest department officials who have historically derived power

from the Indian Forest Act of 1927, which puts them in the twin roles of police and

landlords. Thus, they are at pains to see the ownership of minor forest produce go into the

hands of “encroachers”, as they have always seen the tribal community living

“unauthorized” on the forest lands “owned” by the State. The culture and knowledge

systems of indigenous people and their institutions provide useful frameworks, ideas,

guiding principles, procedures and practices that can serve as a foundation for effective

endogenous development options for restoring social, economic and environmental

100

resilience in many parts of the country. Tribal people are the truly the indigenous people

of India. Currently, they occupy about 18 percent of the total geographical area of the

country. Since 1891 their population has varied from census to census, depending upon

they were enumerated. The biggest misfortune of the Tribal people is that they inhabit

lands that are highly rich in minerals, water and other resources that the state and private

corporations need for “development” of the country. Almost 90 percent of all coal and

around 50 percent of the remaining minerals are in their regions. The ambit of

committees, reports and discussion have been done but still the scheduled areas are

unable to practice their local government.

SESSION III: PESA and Natural Resource Governance: Role of PRI’sChair: Shri Avdhash Kaushal, Director, RLEK, Dehradun03.15-04.15pm

Shri Jagdish Kumar Narang: Natural resource governance has been at the centre stage

of policy experiments since last two and half decades in large number of developing and

transitional economies like Latin America, Africa and Asia. The main focus of

decentralised governance in south India is on Natural resources, viz., how the natural

resources can be ‘best’ utilized? Who are the ‘Real’ owners of these resources? The

research Paper highlights the reasons behind the entry of private institutions and Civil

Society organisations in natural resources management and how these actors have

become actively involved with the Governments in organising and mobilising the poor

tribal people in the management of ‘their’ own resources. The proposed paper will

address different themes through case studies in south India on resources, livelihood and

its governance. The research paper will explore the debates on how the ‘management of

natural resources has evolved and governed in last two and half decades. Many studies

have found that top down approach has failed to recognize the rights of indigenous

communities over the natural resources. To address this issue, governance reforms have

begun in the form of decentralisation process. The main aim of natural resource

governance is to devolve property rights over natural resources to local individuals and

tribal community. The paper seeks to familiarise audience with concepts and practices of

101

the governance of natural resources and livelihoods. Audience will be exposed to

theoretical and conceptual issues involved in governance and natural resource

management (NRM) as well as changing paradigms in NRM and livelihood. The

research paper is based on case study- based learning and interactions and paper will

highlight the practical issues and problems in natural resource and livelihood in

developing countries. This paper will comprise of both theoretical and empirical

evidences that are built on Institutions and Resources. The Paper will also critically

analyse power and politics in rural contexts, particularly around differential access to

resources. Possible themes include the conflicts around new and old bureaucracies,

differential access within rural communities, issues related to the role of civil society, the

often contradictory legal frameworks that govern resource access. The paper will also

discuss the policies and politics in and around the natural resource governance in

developing nations. To this end, the paper will examine the use and conservation of

resources such as land, water, forests and minerals by rural communities and other

agents.

Shri Shrawan Kumar: Why PESA? To empower people so that their customs, rights

and livelihood of these people are protected. PESA enacted in 1996 which extended Part

IX of the constitution to the Schedule V areas and provide for people centric government.

102

According to 73rd Amendment, the Schedule Areas were excluded from the provisions of

the Act. There was no provision of PESA when Panchayati Raj was enacted but later to

avoid conflict and considering the growing discontent among people (Tribals and Tribal

Community) the union government constituted a committee headed by Dilip Singh

Bhuria in 1994 recommended the adoption of 3-tier system in the 5th Schedule Areas.

Since PESA has been enacted it has given space for self governance and enhancement of

political participation of the people in the mainstream politics. Apart from participation

many issues has been taken into account which can be done efficiently if these people

given chance to do like local ecology can be best served by the local people because they

know how to preserve their resources well. In preserving ecology will give Adivasis

sense of empowerment. PESA Act-Few Challenges: Though the Act is in operation since

one and half decade but still there is no conformity there between states. The passing of

the conformity Act by the respective States is not only a pre-requisite but rather the States

have to formulate the rules and regulations to give effect to that.

103

104

ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS PRESENTED

PESA AND PEOPLE-CENTRIC GOVERNANCE: REVISITING THE CHALLENGES AND STRATEGIES FOR SELF GOVERNANCE

Dr Biswajit Mohapatra

Article Type: Conceptual

PESA, enacted in 1996 assumed that people-centric governance may become reality if Part IX of the Constitution is extended to the Schedule. V Areas,for which Gram Sabha were accorded central role. It was assumed that Gram Sabhas, would develop competence over a period of time to safeguard and preserve the traditions of the people in the area and maintain control and proper utilization of community resources to enrich the socio economic life of the people besides ensuring sustainable growth and prosperity in the rural areas.

The existence of high degree of poverty, exploitation of tribal population and above all lack of infrastructure, which not only have posed obstacles to the fast development of these areas besides have perpetuated illiteracy and marginalization for the people. The growth of left wing extremism being spearheaded by the Naxalites has now posed greater difficulties not only in terms of implementation of government sponsored welfare programmes for alleviation of poverty but also towards realization of long term development vision.

As such the present challenges call forth immediate attention on our part towards the present day level of incapacity on the part of Gram Sabhas in properly discharging of the requisite executive functions for approving and undertaking development plans sensitive to the local villages and in matters of resettlement and rehabilitation of poor tribals in the context of their land acquisition for any development oriented projects ,be it in the nature of construction of dams or other such bigger projects.

The loss of ownership over the minor forest produce available in the area and giving away licenses/mining leases for minor minerals to bigger industries, by the leadership of the Gram Sabhas has often meant ,not only loss of the major sources of revenues for them by way of royalty but also cessation of powers to control important institutions and over various functionaries in the much needed various social sectors, etc.. Recently these bodies have also been criticized for engaging in corrupt practices, which has vitiated the atmosphere and also having been converted into hotbed of power politics between the dominant social groups active in the villages, thus suffering a loss in their image of being the trusted vehicle of rural development and ushering in social justice.

In the prevailing democratic milieu in India, as there is no alternative to people centric governance and institutions like Gram Sabhas, in Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh & Jharkhand, it’s but natural that we engage in the identification of proper strategies and measures to enable the Gram Sabhas to function as capable instruments of both rapid development and social justice.

105

IMPLEMENTATION OF PESA (PANCHAYAT EXTENSION TO SCHEDULED AREAS) IN HIMACHAL PRADESH

Dr. Baldev Singh Negi

Article Type: Case Study

Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 is innovative because it legally recognizes the capacity of tribal communities to strengthen their own systems of self‐governance or create new legal spaces and institutions that can not only reverse centuries of external cultural and political onslaught but can also create the opportunities to control their own destinies. PESA is an opportunity and it is flexible enough to mould to local conditions. For instance, even if an institution called Gram Sabha is unknown it can provide the basis, under changed conditions, of a new democratic institution that the tribal themselves would come to recognize as an organic entity that facilitates the restoration of their comprehensive rights. PESA even makes it possible to redraw the administrative boundaries that presently inform their governance. The tribal area of Himachal Pradesh constitutes two districts namely Kinnaur and Lahaul & Spiti and two blocks namely Pangi and Bharmour of Chamba district. Basic purpose of the present paper is to analyze the implementation level of PESA Act in the tribal areas of Himachal Pradesh.

Keyword: Implementation, PESA, Tribal Area, Himachal Pradesh

ISSUES AND CHALLENGES OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PESA AND SELF GOVERNANCE: A CONCERN OF 12TH FIVE YEAR PLAN

DR. B. N. KAMBLE

Article Type: ConceptualAccording to the 2001 census, the tribal people number around 84.3 million,

accounting for 8.2 percent of India's total population. There are nearly 700 state-specific Scheduled Tribes scattered all over the country. The term 'Scheduled Areas' has been defined in the Constitution as "such areas as the President may by order declare to be Scheduled Areas", Paragraph 6 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution.

The paper is based on secondary sources, examines the impact of PESA and the present status and effectiveness of the Act across the sates with reference to the powers and the paper is organized in five sections.

A number of acts such as the Scheduled Tracts Act 1870, Scheduled Districts Act 1874 and the Government of India Act 1919 were enacted by the British Parliament, Government of India Act 1935 was brought in providing for the creation of 'excluded' and 'partially excluded' areas with separate political representation for the tribes, after independence and the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes Commission 1961.

106

Accordingly, Clause (2) of the paragraph 6 of the Fifth Schedule was amended vide the Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1976, to empower the President to increase the area of any Scheduled Areas in any state.

Legal Provisions in Scheduled Areas: After independence, the Constituent Assembly appointed a Sub-committee with Thakkar A. V. as its Chairman9 to formulate provisions to safeguard the interests of the tribal population. The Sub-Committee examined the overall situation of the tribals and recommended that on the basis of past experience, it was necessary to provide statutory safeguards to protect the economic life of the tribals and their traditional customs and institutions.

The 73rd amendment to the Constitution and the subsequent enactment of Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA) aimed to operationalise decentralization in India, through the transfer of power to the Gram Sabha or the village assembly. The PESA attempted to vest legislative powers in Gram Sabha, specifically in matters relating to development planning, management of natural resources and adjudication of disputes in accordance with prevalent traditions and customs. In December 1992 that the Constitution Seventy-Third (Amendment) Bill had been passed by Parliament and became operative in May 1993.

The Bhuria Committee submitted its report in January 1995 and based on the committee recommendations the Panchayats Extension to Schedule Areas Act (PESA), 1996, was passed by Parliament and came into effect on 24"' December 1996. The Act extends to the tribal areas of nine states, namely Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh. The paper examines the impact of PESA and the present status and effectiveness of the Act across the sates with reference to the powers. Under the Act, Gram Sabhas are endowed specifically with such powers and authority as to enable them to function as institutions of self-government. These powers are: ownership of minor forest produce, to enforce prohibition, to prevent alienation of land, to control local plans and resources including the Tribal Sub-Plan, to manage village markets, to control money lending to STs and to control institutions and functionaries in all social sectors.

The paper will review the following issues and challenges: Right to Self-rule under PESA, Right to control over land and natural resources, Right to protect culture and cultural identity, Minimalist interpretation of PESA, Devolution of Powers to Gram Sabha, Safeguards to the Traditional Laws and Practices, Reservation of Seats for STs, Minor water bodies, Land Resources, Land Acquisition, Land Alienation, and Minor Forest Produce.

107

LOCAL SELF-GOVERNANCE IN SCHEDULED AREAS OF INDIA: A CAVEAT ON LAW AND PRACTICE UNDER CONSTITUTIONAL

GOVERNANCE

Debasis Poddar

Article Type: Conceptual

Schedules areas of India, designated under Schedule V to its Constitution, are scattered in nine provinces. In terms of self-governance, these areas were worst deprived since the same may avail neither relative autonomy under Schedule VI nor self governance under the Constitution (Seventy-third Amendment) Act, 1992. Consequently, since 1992, there seems a complete void in jurisprudence of decentralization that splits India in three divergent areas to gross detriment of unity and integrity of the Nation being a basic feature of the Constitution as declared by the Apex Court.

Indeed there is PESA since 1996 to extend Panchayati Raj to Scheduled areas. In the absence of patronage from these states, irrespective of political colour, PESA by and large remains in statute book. Even there are states where PESA is not yet to be introduced after fifteen years of its enactment with a result that planning Commission grapples with a conundrum of implementation of this Act sans political will. The author explores maladministration in scheduled areas and thereby invokes a jurisprudent strategy from within constitutional governance to arrest the same through a proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution for failure of constitutional machinery in literal sense of the term that seems too apparent to these areas on the face of record. Since these nine states are ruled by divergent political powers, application of the same to all these states cannot attract allegation of political bias like earlier decades.

Also the author offers a constructive critique of the way Panchayati Raj system- meant for rest of its territory- was extended by PESA to these Scheduled Areas with no heed to regional reality of these areas each of them being quite distinct from others. While Scheduled Areas deserve minimal autonomy, if not optimal like Tribal Areas under Schedule VI, equalizing the same with otherwise unequal areas of rest of the territory and its people seems defeat of ethno-jurisprudence underlying in the Constitution of India. Irony of fact, however, lies here that even the same stands still for lack of implementation.

Keywords: Schedule V, Scheduled Areas, Scheduled Tribes, schedule politics, self-governance, constitutional amendment, exclusion, legislation, inclusion, PESA, non-implementation, implication, etc.

108

EMPOWERMENT OF THE TRIBAL THROUGH ‘PESA’ACT 1996: ISSUES AND CONCERN

Dr. S.C.ROY

Article Type: Conceptual

In the last six decades, India has achieved significant milestones in the area of economic growth, social and cultural development and global political interest but the tribal feel like aliens in their process of development. It has led to a progressive erosion of their traditional rights on their land resources including the forests. This can be ascribed to the lacunae in the law, faulty administration and exploitation by the unscrupulous traders and money lenders .The Indian constitution is supposed to protect the interest especially their tribal autonomy and their rights over the land through 5 th and 6th schedules under Article 244(1)and Articles 244(2) respectively. The 73rd and the 74th

amendment to the constitution for the empowerment of panchayats could not automatically empower the tribal in scheduled area. Therefore, which was forgotten in 1993, was realized and revived in1996, with legislation PESA, panchayats (Extension to scheduled Areas) Act 1996. This Act provides self rule in the scheduled Areas. This Act extended the authority of panchayats to tribal areas of nine states which are under 5 th

schedule .But the 6th scheduled states are still uncovered by PESA, as these states have their own Autonomous council for governance. The fundamental spirit of PESA act is devolution of power and authority to Gramsabha rather than delegation .It has paved the way for participatory democracy. This Act calls for every legislation on the panchayats in 5th schedule to be inconformity with the customary law ,social and religious practices, and traditional management practice of community resources .It directs the state government to endow power to the authority to make Gramsabha and panchayats to function as local self Government especially for the ownership of forest produce ,prevent alienation from land and rehabilitation, management of village markets and control over money lending. PESA has tried to empower the panchayats to initiate plans for social and economic development, identify the beneficiary under poverty alleviation program, protect natural resources including the forest produce and be consulted prior to land acquisition. Despite the constitutional provisions and provisions under PESA fiscal power remains with the state .PESA is applicable in those areas which legally regarded as scheduled area. A significant number of Tribal live out of scheduled area which is not covered by PESA. Panchayats is not eligible for levy taxes. PESA has been reduced to a paper tiger .The mindset of the govt. machineries is also negative, who believe that the tribal are inferior people? In this context, this paper seeks to study the aims and objects of PESA 1996 .Here it will be a sincere endeavor to search the way as to how PESA can empower the tribal community in letter and spirit and bring them into main stream of development. How the extremist problem could be tackled in order to bring socio-economic justice, especially when the scheduled areas are very rich in mines and minerals and forest produce, protection of wild varieties and exploit economic benefit under plant variety and farmers rights Act. The low rate of literacy is also a subject matter of great concern in this area. The protection of women and children from exploitation is another concern. PESA can be

109

a cure of all the ills of the scheduled area if the beneficiaries are empowered. Can ‘operation green hunt’ empower the tribal? Keywords: Empowerment, Decentralization, delegation, PRIs. , Scheduled areas, tribal.

LEGACY OF ADIVASIS EXPLOITATION AND MIS-GOVERNANCE IN POST-PESA ACT IN ODISHA

Dr. Gurukalyana Rout

Article Type: Conceptual

In the post-73rd amendment act scenario, the Panchayat Extesion to Scheduled Area (PESA) Act 1996 was a beacon light in the arena of extended political decentralization to schedule areas and adivasi people’s empowerment in India. But even after 16 long years of PESA legislation, the implementation is still an enigma in Odisha. The adivasi people in Odisha have suffered deprivation, exploitation, oppression and domination at the hands of non-adivasi people and the urban elite since 1996. Nearly 62 indigenous tribal groups of people inhabit Odisha and are marginalized due to absence of central role in Gram Sabha. This paper highlights the negligence of Gram Sabha due to non-implementation of the provisions of the PESA act 1996. The indigenous adivasi people of Odisha are still mired in poverty, illiteracy and weak infrastructure. Finally Gram Sabha Niyam Samhita as proposed by Mungekar committee was not implemented in Odisha. In post-PESA period mis-governance, corruption and mis-appropriation of public money meant for adivasi and public welfare by nexus of bureaucrats-contractors-politicians would not have happened if the Gram Sabha was empowered according to the provisions of PESA. In fact pressure on natural resources of PESA districts in Odisha continued due to large projects and unscrupulous elements indulging in illegal mining, forest felling leading to dislocation of adivasi communities and loss of major source of livelihood. On the issue of land alienation, Governor’s report in Odisha is largely silent. It should have suggested proper implementation of PESA. The paper will deal with all these aspects and make some policy suggestions.Key Words PESA, Decentralisation, Adivasi, Gram Sabha and Odisha

PESA ACT IN ODISHA: A CRITICAL OVERVIEW

Janmejay Sahu

Article Type: Conceptual, Empirical

Odisha, surrounded by the thickly forested hills is one of the prosperous states of India owing to its fertile land and rich mineral resources viz. coal, iron ore and bauxite. According to 2001 Census, the tribal population of the State is 81, 45,081constituting 22.13% of the total population of the State i.e. 9.66% of the total tribal population of our country. There are 62 tribal communities including 13 Primitive Tribal Groups (PTGs) in the State. Odsha has the third largest concentration of tribal population in the country.

110

About 44.70% of the State’s geographical area which is known as Scheduled Area, extends over 118 out of 314 Blocks in 12 districts and covers Scheduled Tribe population of 55,46081. This accounts for about 68.09% of the total tribal population of the State. More than half of the tribal live in three districts of Koraput , Sundergarh and Mayurbhanj in Odisha. As tribal culture of Odisha is rich and distinctive, the Adivasis work hard to preserve it. A tribal village manages its internal affairs very smoothly through two institutions – the village council of elders and the youth dormitory. However, introduction of PESA Act, 1996 has aimed at strengthening the tribal community with their own tradition, customs and beliefs in the development process of tribal empowerment.

In reference to Central PESA Act, Odisha government enacted amendment to its 3 major panchayat laws, namely Orissa Grama Panchayat Act,1964, Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 and Orissa Zilla Parishad Act,1991 within one year of notification of Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act 1997, as enjoined under Section 5 of the latter. It covers 7 districts i.e. Mayurbhanj, Sundargarh, Koraput, Malkangiri, Rayagada, Nowarangpur and Kandhamal in full and Keonjhar, Gajapati, Kalahandi, Balasore, Sambalpur and Ganjam in part spread over 1966 Gram Panchayats in 118 Blocks in full and 3 Blocks in part. However, many studies has emphasised that Odisha Act has tried to demarcate the constitutional provisions of the Central Act by adding a clause5 `consistent with relevant laws in force’ while incorporating the constitutional provision concerning the competence of the Gram Sabha to manage community resources and dispute resolution as per the customs and traditions of the people which does not reflect the true sense of the PESA Act, 1996.

Further, the mandatory provisions of the Central government PESA Act, ensures tribal communities to control over natural resources, in granting licenses for minor minerals and their exploitation and acquisition of land by government for development projects to be enforced through Gram Sabhas, have not been complied with. As a result, this has made a slow progress towards the betterment of the tribal people in Odisha. However, the panchayat rules of Odisha government confirm the reservation of seats for STs in scheduled area on the proportion of their population. All the posts of chairpersons of the PRIs at all levels are reserved for STs. Therefore, the paper tries to critique the role of Odisha in fulfilling the real objectives of the Central PESA Act.

Key words: PESA Act, Schedule Area, Tribes, Development, Empowerment.

PANCHAYAT EXTENSION TO THE SCHEDULE AREAS (PESA): A REVOLUTIONARY STEP TOWARDS TRIBAL AND SUSTAINABLE

DEVELOPMENT IN THE INDIAN CONTEXT: THE CASE STUDY OF GADCHIROLI DISTRICT OF MAHARASHTRA

Prof. Neelima Deshmukh, Mr. N.K. Sharma Article Type: Case Study

During last decade, environmental issues have been receiving increasing attention in all spheres of life, including greater coverage in the media. There is also a growing

111

awareness of the need and importance of involving people actively in the protection of environment and management of the natural resources of their locality. While the disasters, like the Bhopal tragedy and Chernobyl accident ,the recent nuclear plant emissions in Japan have heightened the awareness among the general public and the governments as to the grave dangers posed to making, both present and future generations, the most significant contribution of the nascent environmental movement in India has been to bring into sharp focus the vital connection between growing poverty of vast numbers of marginalized people and the accelerating environmental degradation and the need to involve the people especially the affected people actively in the protection and management of the natural resources, especially the Common Property Resources (CPRs), like forests, rivers and grazing lands. Issues of violation of rules & regulation, by the industries creation of more & more SEZ, problems of CRZ have further added to the gravity of the situation worsening the prospects. Environment is not just “pretty trees and tigers”. It is the marginalized people who are the focus of the environmental movement as they are very much part of the focus of the environmental movement and depend on it for their critical basic needs. So environmental conservation and restoration of ecological balance must include not just rivers, forests, and soil but also the human beings, who are very much a part of the eco-system.

The goals of improved equity, eradication of poverty and environmental sustainability, which must form the basis of development in the Third World, can only be achieved if basic human necessities are met on a much wider scale than before. It is the contention of this article that development requires a large scale, decentralized but coherent effort for the application of science to basic needs problems, and the delivery of goods and services aimed at fulfilling these needs through the government machinery, judicial, administrative, social and academic institutions. The local govt. institutions have been playing major role in improving the standards of life of an ordinary common man through the appropriate implementation of it’s plans, policies, programmes leading to the national development in letter and spirits.

73rd &74th amendment acts have been doing fairly well in case of rural and urban development respectively but Panchayat (Extension of Schedule Areas) Act 1996 the most important law meant for the natives of India that can radically change the sociopolitical scenario of India if it is implemented honestly has not been effective, from the point of meeting it’s desired objectives. In the recent past the policy makers have been focusing their attention on proper implementation of PESA through it’ s implementing machinery at Gram Sabha level and accordingly various administrative reforms have been planed and some have been introduced. There are certain problems arising out of the prevailing situation, both with certain Central laws and State legislations as have been passed in pursuance of Act 40 of 1996 including emerging crucial issues such as land rights of tribal in forest areas, allocation of powers on land, threatened sources of livelihood because of the definitions and the scope of Minor forest produce and it’s ownership posing various challenges all through. It is in this context tribal village Lekha mendha of Gadchiroli district created a history on 26 th April 2011 when it’s Gram Sabha was accorded the rights for collection and disposal of Bamaboos at the hands of Union Minister of State for forest & environment Jairam Ramesh.Mr. Devaji Tofa noted tribal activist and chairman of the Gram Sabha received the transit passbooks amidst the thunderous applause of noted top level political dignitaries,

112

bureaucrats and local common public as the village became the first one in the country to exercise such rights.

The present paper aims to present and analyse this evolutionary administrative reform introduced in the naxal affected tribal area of Gadchiroli District in Maharashtra which has always been deadly challenge to the state from its law and order situation causing impediment to the development and growth of the region. The paper further attempts to analyse the impact of this newly introduced reform in terms of improvement of livelihood sources through the revenue generated by Gram Sabha which would be a contribution for the sustainable village development through it control natural resources from commercial point of view and ensuring the development linked to the environment protection for the practical purposes.

The development programming and sectoral priorities of governments are fundamental for environmental planning and management of economic development. Environmental decisions have always presented difficult choices between public welfare and private needs, on the one hand, and between the preferences of the present generation and the uncertain needs and desires of future generations, on the other. Even where these simple choices are to be equitably reconciled to the satisfaction of all interests, still unintended effects can and frequently do follow, either for lack of sufficient information.

A basic requirement of any environmental system is that it should enter the planning process as early as possible so that its role becomes more one of developing alternatives then of resisting a particular course of action. Therefore, the input is needed by all administrators. Further many of the environmental laws are difficult to enforce, and whatever enforcement has been undertaken is generally very poor. In most cases, environmental impact assessment has yet to be instituted as an enforceable regulation, and there is no overall view of how other comprehensive environmental legislation can be applied. For the most part environmental law is made in a piecemeal fashion, not in accordance with policy but in response to immediate requirements. For environmental law, to be effective, public awareness and public opinion must be mobilized which can be done very easily by the academic institutions like schools, colleges, university research foundation through their emphasis on tailor made syllabi, their proper implementation, research findings ultimately the dissemination of knowledge and moral policing to inculcate the conducive culture in the minds of the students from their childhood wherein their teachers, mothers can play very effective role to contribute to the cause of mankind .

LIVELIHOOD CRISIS IN THE SCHEDULED AREAS IN ODISHA: RELEVANCE OF PESA IN A WEAK STATE

Pratap Chandra Behera

Article Type: Conceptual

Scheduled Tribes (STs) constitute more than 22 per cent of the total population in Odisha. There are 62 ST communities, each differs from the other. Among them, as many as 13 communities are regarded as Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups. About 44.70% of the area of the state has been notified as the Scheduled Area. Of the 30 districts of the

113

state, the entire area of 7 districts comes under this category. Poverty in the state has been a critical concern, more so among the tribal. Empirical evidence shows high incidence of poverty and low human development indices where the concentration of tribal population is more.

PESA, Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, is a powerful instrument to work in favour of the tribal population in the state. It gives the tribal communities to exercise control of land and communal resources in their locality. However, the reality is something different. Land alienation and decreasing landholding size have been affecting the peasantry. Along with that, the land based commons are declining in the state because of industrialisation. These processes reflect the forces of globalization serving the interests of the elite and marginalising the poor. In a market led economy with weak government policies, the processes and the forces of globalization are serving the interests of the elite and accentuating the problem of marginalising the poor.

The paper reviews latest literature on these processes, over the years, and reflects how the changing circumstances have been affecting the poor in the state. It substantiates with data from various state and national level surveys on landholding, incidence of poverty, and declining of the natural resources in the state. The figures and perspectives from the literature would be collated and presented to show how land alienation, growing industrialisation causing decline in the commons, incidence of poverty and threats to the livelihoods are going to affect the STs in the state. The paper would suggest policy and practice imperatives.

PESA ACT AND TRIBAL WELFARE: IN THE GLOBALIZATION ERA IN INDIA

Notan Bhusan Kar

Article Type: Conceptual

PESA (Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act was introduced in 1996 by the Govt. of India, keeping in view the welfare and socio-economic development of the tribals in India. The Govt. had thought that with the enforcement of this law, tribals would be able to implement their own ideas that would lead to their progress and the development of their habitat by self governance or Gram-Sabha. Moreover, Govt. had also thought that this law would bring down the overwhelming Maoist affect on tribals if it was enforced honestly. Unfortunately, the Govt. has failed to implement this law properly. Besides, the administrative lacunae, the impact of globalization is also responsible for the failure of proper implementation of this act. During the globalization era in India, both the Central and the State Govts. had undertaken such development programmes which in reality had an adverse affect on the tribals. In many cases we have seen them being routed out of their native habitats and were forced to give up their livelihoods. Among these programmes, one is mining policy of the Govt. of India. As per this policy both the Central and the State Govts. are allowing the big national-

114

multinational companies to extract rich mineral from the tribal habitat areas. As a result, tribal (Adivasis) displacement has been enormous. Prof. Walter Fernandes, a noted anthropologist provided a comprehensive data in this regard. He has shown that after independence 6 crore people were displaced due to various development projects in the country. Among them, 40 percent displaced people are tribals, though tribals comprise 8 percent of India’s population among a billion people. Obviously, indigenous people (Adivasis) are resisting their loss of livelihood and uprootment from their native lands. In this context, Govt. has been branding these tribal resistances as “Maoist threat”. To resist this tribal protest Govts. have deployed para military forces who have undertaken an operation called “Operation Green Hunt” in different parts of tribal habitat for curbing the Maoist activities. The spontaneous and non-violent resistance of tribal to destructive mining has often been mispresented by the big corporate led media. Thus, bloody conflict between tribal and para military forces has become a daily feature in tribal areas in India. Recently passed ‘Forest Right Act-2006 for the rights and protection of forest dwellers has also been violated by the Govt. for the interest of big corporates. The Govt. has been permitting them to procure tribal lands forcefully for setting up SEZ (Special Economic Zones). The twelve five year plans as implemented by various Central Govts. after independence had special mention of the development of the tribals. Many development programmes had been included for the upliftment of the triabls, their habitat and also the areas in their vicinity. Funds were also sanctioned for PESA. But all efforts have remained fruitless under the present structure of the state machineries. This paper mainly deals with the effectiveness of PESA act in the tribal areas and also the negative effect of the globalization policy in the implementation of PESA Act in India. The methodology used in this research paper is mainly from primary and as well as secondary sources.

THE TRIBAL RIGHTS THROUGH PESA 1996: MYTH AND REALITY

POOJA SINGH

Article Type: Conceptual

“ --- the Vth Schedule, an integral scheme of the Constitution with direction, philosophy and anxiety is to protect the tribals from exploitation and to preserve valuable endowment of their land for their economic empowerment to elongate social and economic democracy with liberty, equality, fraternity and dignity of their person in our political Bharat”.

From the case The Samatha v. State of Andra Pradesh

The need to realize the pursuits of democracy in relation to the scheduled tribes in the remote area has laid the foundation of the 73rd Constitutional amendment in the Constitution of India. This amendment has introduced the three tier amendment viz at village, intermediate and district level to provide the real democracy by declaring the

115

Panchayat Raj system in a democratic manner. PESA (Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act of 1996) has as its milieu in the recommendations of the Bhuria Committee. It was the second extended step to promote the indigenous and tribal populace rights in the lawful manner in the year 1996. But the myth is still continue for the settlement of the various issues pertaining to the trial and indigenous persons such as the land acquisition, mega projects, mining issues and the issues related to restore their cultural, religious and social identity in the country. The past one and half decade has presented the unsatisfactory story of the effective implementation of the PESA 1996. It has been dragged from its real motive that is to protect, conserve and provide the democratic setup in the tribal villages and empower the gram sabhas to make their own decisions for the development of the village domains in the real sense but it is the bitter reality that PESA is lagging behind its rationale. The stories of singoor and Vedanta depict the gloomy side of the PESA 1996 that entails the crucial stories of restoration of the cultural rights and heritages of the adivasies who resides in the forests.

This paper will inclusively and exclusively deal with issues of IDP (Internally Displaced Persons), who have dreamt for the prosperity but resultantly faced the extortive land acquisition in lieu of the prosperous future. The gram sabhas in undue influence or the monetary influence have bartered the peace and happiness of villages.

This paper will further explore and furnish the data and statistics that have been calculated by the planning commission in the 12th five year plan along with the Constitutional provisions described in the constitution of India. This paper will finally, endow the suggestions to curb the menace of the PESA and make it as an effective tool to uphold the democratic ethos rather than a paper tiger. This will definite provide the ‘Gram Swaraj’ and ‘Village Republic’ that has been coined by the Mahatma Gandhi.

Key Words- Panchayat Raj, Indigenous persons , Tribals’ Rights, Constitution , Human Rights.

INCLUSION OF THE MARGINALIZED - CONTEXTUALIZING THE TRIBAL PROBLEMS: A CASE STUDY OF ORISSA

Dr. Pradip Kumar Parida, Ms. Smita Raut

Article Type: Case Study

With the onslaught of globalization process, the whole governance system is undergoing metamorphic change in contemporary time. When we talk about growth, what about ‘inclusive growth’? What about ‘growth with social justice’? These issues are being examined minutely in the social discourse today. However the inclusion of the marginalized, i.e.- dalits, tribals, aboriginal inhabitants in a particular society along with

116

the people in the periphery of development system, due to the structural inequality in our society, has always been marginalized till date. What about the voice of the subalterns? Is it getting reflected in the policy dimensions of our country?

The enactment of PESA by Government of India seems as if a mile stone in this context, despite of having lacunas in the act itself. There is question regarding its implementability. There is lack of consensus among the states regarding the modalities of power transfer to the tribes. The fundamental issue in this background is, let the tribal people decide their governance issues by themselves, having certain independent & autonomous power to them. This is within the broad provision of the Indian constitution. The notion of ‘Gram Sabha’ in the backdrop of PESA gives enormous power to the villagers/ hamlet inhabitants in the PESA implemented area to decide everything, which is going to affect them, including mining, establishment of industries, royalty collection apart from general duties & responsibilities bestowed upon a panchayat. Are the Panchayts are equipped enough to handle these issues by themselves?

This paper tries to examine the applicability of PESA in reality with specific reference to Orissa, as Orissa is also a tribal dominated state & the undercurrent of strong left wing extremism is visible at this point of time. At the end of the day, this paper will try to provide some possible way of addressing the urgent needs of tribals with specific reference to the particular part of the world.

Key WordsInclusive Growth, Development Paradigm, Marginilsed Sections of Society, Tribes in Orissa, PESA, Gram Panchayats, Tribal Problems, Extremist Movements, Gram Swaraj, Self-Sustined Development Models,

PESA- A BLUE PRINT FOR DEMOCRATIC INCLUSION

Rudra Prasad Sahoo

Article Type: Conceptual

India is now in transition because its focus is now elite to participatory form of democracy. India in the initial phase of democratic journey picked a handful few elite ruled the nation but with passing time more segregated group demand recognition and their voice is recognized. Take the case of tribal; they are now in the forefront of media because of their agitation to achieve their right. Now the Panchyat Extension of Scheduled Area Act (PESA) provided a new hope for the tribal to achieve their aspiration through these legal rights. The terminology of village is change according to PESA. I t has suggested that village can be recognized on the basis of community and not by population. Like wise grama sabha in a village can be more than one if the member of the grama sabha so desire. Grama sabha is responsible for safeguarding the tradition and custom of the community. It will act as a dispute resolution mechanism. All natural resources available with in particular area are subject to the management of grama sabha. This suggest that how PESA will work as a little republic and provide due justice to this

117

vulnerable community who are all way victim on the hand of forest mafia, local police and other coercive apparatus of the state. This act has enough strength to change the power equation in the scheduled area. Redistributive justice and recognition of identity definitely change the dynamic power equation in the scheduled area. So PESA not only a peace of amendment rather it is the true spirit of providing substantive democracy by eradicating poverty, increasing hope of self governance in the community by equipping them to manage their own affair rather than guided by outside. It will empower people and simultaneously bring an inclusion plethora in every walk of life. This main streaming is the motto of PESA and objective of inclusion in Indian democracy.

This paper is an attempt to focus the main feature of PESA and argue why the peace of amendment is vital for democratic inclusion process. And how inclusion will empower people and enhance the participatory democracy further to achieve the expected out come. Key word: PESA, Inclusion, Empowerment, Participatory democracy

PESA: AN OUTLOOK OF KARNATAKA

Rangaswamy D, Anitha K. N

Article Type: Conceptual

Self governance is a system of organizing public activities to address issues of local importance autonomously. The right to self-determination is a fundamental right enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenants of Human Rights and the Covenant of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization. The Constitutional guarantees and statutory mandates are the most important law meant for the Schedule Tribe that can radically change the socio-political landscape of Schedule Tribes in India. Despite these credentials, the principle of self-determination is problematic as a norm in India. While the self-governing might present some of the appearance of having achieved their political status goals, the people of the Karnataka, have not yet taken a decision on achieving a legitimate political status through an accepted act of self determination. People of the Scheduled Tribes in the State, have a long history of being discriminated against, exploited, and placed at the bottom of caste society.

Therefore, In the State of Karnataka, the question of how to formalize the competencies of Schedule Tribes of local self government has come to the fore. This paper looks at some of the issues and challenges associated with self governance of Schedule Tribes in Karnataka.

Key Words: Karnataka Schedule Tribes, Self governance, Issues, Challenges

118

TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT IN ANDHRA PRADESH

Shyla Venu

Article Type: Case Study

In India nearly 70% of the population resides in the rural areas. According to 199 1 census 67.76 % of persons belong to Scheduled Tribe (ST) in different States and Union Territories excluding Assam, Jammu and Kashmir. This constitute 8.08% of the total population. The percentage of Scheduled Tribe population has marginally increased from 7. 83% in 1981 to 7.95% in 1991. The Scheduled Tribe population has increased by 25.67% during the decade of 198 1 - 199 1. The growth rate is high in comparison to the total population of the country (23.79%). Tribal groups or Adivasis are considered to be the earliest inhabitants of India. The government instead recognizes most Adivasis under the Constitutional term “Scheduled Tribes” derived from a schedule in the Constitution Order of 1950. While the Order declared 212 tribes located in 14 states as Adivasis, the Government of India today identifies 533 tribes. To many therefore, any aggregate analysis of Adivasis is meaningless because it cannot capture the uniqueness that defines tribal groups.

The relatively slower decline in poverty among Adivasis means that they are increasingly concentrated in the poorest deciles. Comprising about 8 percent of India’s population, Adivasis accounted for a fourth of the population living in the poorest wealth decline in 2005. More worryingly, in states with high tribal populations (more than 10 percent of the state’s total population), Adivasi households exhibited poverty rates that were higher than the rates across the nation as a whole in 2004–05. In the state of Orissa, for instance, almost 75 percent of Adivasi households fell below the official poverty line. Poor access to health facilities for tribals is not just an issue of low demand for services as medical practitioners frequently say. There are serious issues of supply as well.

There have been measures to assure defacto autonomy and self-rule to Adivasis, but implementation has been patchy. The Indian government’s response to vulnerability among Scheduled Tribes has been proactive and has included a mix of constitutional and budgetary instruments. Both the Panchayat Extension In the remote tribal areas, Poverty and Social Exclusion in India Adivasis to Scheduled Areas Act (PESA) and the Tribal Rights Act fundamentally question the power relations between Adivasi and non-Adivasi areas and purport to transfer greater power to the formerWelfare Programmes for Tribes in Andhra Pradesh :

Andhra Pradesh (A.P.) – 7th largest State in India where Total population: 6,636,000. A divasi population: 96,000 or 1.5% of the population consisting of Lambadies, Koya, Kondareddies, Kondadoras, Bagatas, Jatapus, Savaras, Khonds, Parjas and Valmiks. They follow Religion of animistic form of worship but now influenced by Hinduism, Christianity and Buddhism.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;

119

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.

Review of Literature :-The review of literature focuses on the performance of the Panchayatiraj

department of the welfare programmes to tribes in anti poverty programmes and issues emerged related to the tribes in forest areas. A brief review of the rural development programmes in Andhra Pradesh relating to the tribal welfare programmes.

Methodology :-

The methodology adopted in the present study is on Secondary data as per the records of the rural development department and State Government of Andhra Pradesh. The secondary data on various schemes were collected from the district level and state level.

Conclusion: 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.

SOCIAL JUSTICE A FORBIDDEN FRUIT –A PERSPECTIVE ONADIVASI AUTONOMY IN TELANGANA REGION

Dr. P.Narendra Babu, Dr.Chikati Srinu

Article Type: Conceptual

The tribal population is identified as the aboriginal inhabitants of our country. They are most vulnerable section of our society living in natural and unpopulated surrounding far away from civilization with their traditional values, customs and beliefs. Since couple of decades, tribal communities have spearheaded the most remarkable struggles for social justice in the country. They were among those who first resisted British colonial interests much before the independence movement ‐ a contribution that (despite a few rare accounts of historic movements in a few regions) remains largely unrecognized. Predominantly living with India's forests and remote areas, they faced a steady assault on their livelihoods. As per the contemporary scenario, with one legislative change, the tribal became trespassers in their own forests victimized by externally motivated systems of forest management that directly violated various facets of their socio‐economic survival. Their forests and other natural wealth in their areas were

120

increasingly seen as commodities, their lands designated as private property and their growing dependence on ruthless moneylenders linked with powerful feudal landlords led to massive land alienation, and permanent or seasonal migration. The final act of violence legitimizing these onslaughts of systemic violence on a largely unsuspecting population was the imposition of alien judicial system and "law and order" machinery that subjugated them further compounding their vulnerability and subservience. Their own, highly subtle traditional political system and other customary practices were undermined. The result of all these processes was the erosion of their dignity, the devaluation of their identities and the disrespect of their ways of living. The Indian Government retained the same laws and continued the erstwhile colonial attitudes and policies over tribal communities even after the independence. They continued to be victimized, their socio‐economic practices above all their cultures disrespected, their resource base exploited, with hardly any benefit accruing to them. In actual practice, such State policy was aimed at assimilating them into the "mainstream" on terms that they had very little say in. In effect, while they participated in elections, the promise of democracy and justice was largely denied to them. The PESA Act is based on the Bhuriya Committee recommendation that emphasized creation of a judicial base for continuity of the unique characters of tribal. societies and their traditional pattern of self‐governance. It was therefore, recommended that the Amendment should focus the customary laws, life pattern, organization, cultural mores of tribes and the present day predicament of their exploitation, deprivation and marginalization. The Committee felt that “while shaping the new Panchayat Raj structure in tribal areas, it is desirable to blend the traditional with the modern by treating the traditional institutions as the foundation on which the modern supra‐structure should be built” (Bhuriya Committee Report 1995). The Act favours promotion of the traditional Gram Sabha by allowing it to safeguard and preserve the traditions and customs of the people, their cultural identify community resources and the customary mode of dispute resolution. The Gram Sabha has been entrusted with the power of giving approval to the village level development programmes undertaken by the Panchayat, exercise control on local plans and generation of resources for such plans, including the tribal sub‐plans, including the tribal sub‐plans. It has given the power to exercise authority over allowing acquisition of land for mining and establishment of industries in Scheduled and Tribal Areas and to identify beneficiaries for the poverty alleviation programmes. Furthermore, it is also expected to enforce prohibition on the sale and consumption of any intoxicant in local area, to manage the village market and to exercise control over the money lending. This paper discuss challenges and opportunities of adivasis in telangana region and their socio-economic and political background and importance of social justice in implementing of PESA act at this region and problems and prospects and need for empowerment of adivasis autonomy at this region.

121

PLANNED TO FAIL: A CRITICAL STUDY OF PESA ACT AND THE POSSIBILITIES

Swati Sehgal, Divyanshu Patel

Article Type: Conceptual

In this paper we have tried to explore the problems of planning in India and it effects with particular emphasis on the PESA Act (1996) and its consequences in those areas for which it was passed. In this paper we have tried to focus on three issues i.e. linkage between planning and development in tribal areas, causes of failure and what can be the solutions or alternative models of development.

For this the paper has been divided into four sections where we have attempted a comprehensive critical study of PESA Act (1996) in the light of current development processes and schemes which are going on in those scheduled areas. The first section of this paper deals with the conceptual framework. An overall analysis of planning process in India with respect to special schemes like PURA, MANREGA, and PESA etc. has been done. In the second section of this paper, the causes of failure of these developmental programmes and acts and the growing unrest among the people of those underdeveloped scheduled areas has been discussed. The third section of this paper by focussing mainly on the thoughts of the thinkers like Gandhi, Gramsci, Lohia, Vinoba Bhave attempts to etch out the understanding of what is essential to achieve an egalitarian and inclusive process of development. The fourth and last section of this paper forwards the conclusion of the study and reflects on various possibilities which can be very effective to address issues related to Naxalism in the country and facilitate in achieving an inclusive and participative society in true sense.

A glance at the trajectory of India’s developmental process reveals that it is divisive in nature and it is leaving the country every more fragmented. The two very popular nomenclatures ‘India’ and ‘Bharat’ are being used by various scholars these days to define developed and deprived parts of India respectively. After attaining independence it was official goal for our policy makers to make policies which could allay the myriad social and economic divisions. But unfortunately the cycle of development didn’t give us desired results and we have the responsibility for the same.

In current scenario of developmental processes in India where there is a strong opposition from the people of underdeveloped areas and states like Jharkhand, Chattisgarh, etc, Karl Marx’ theory of alienation becomes very relevant in which he discusses the process of deprivation of labourers from their own surplus and natural resources and feel alienated from the process of the development, this lead them for a resistance. If we examine this theory in the context of India we can have a better understanding of Naxal issues and resistance from the people.

122

ROLE OF THE STATE IN PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF TRIBAL COMMUNITIES

Dr. Ved Pal Singh Deswal

Article Type: Conceptual

India’s policymakers have been continually seized by the issue of crafting public policies sensitive towards the vulnerable tribal communities. In last six decades India has achieved significant milestones in the areas of economic growth, cultural assimilation and global political interests. However, within the purview of development the tribal affairs have been shoved under the shelf to serve the vested interest of some. The poor tribals have been made to feel like aliens in their own indigenous lands. Over the decades the process of development has frequently led to a progressive erosion of their traditional rights over their land resources including the forests. This can be aptly ascribed to the lacunae in the laws, faulty implementation, and rapacious exploitation by the unscrupulous traders, money-lenders, etc.PROVISIONS OF VARIOUS ACTS

F. Provisions of Indian ConstitutionG. 73rd and 74th Amendment Act 1993H. Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (or PESA), 1996I. Biological Diversity Act, 2002J. Forest Rights Act 2005

Provisions of Constitution In India most of the tribes are collectively identified under Article 342 (1&2) as

Scheduled Tribes and right to self determination guaranteed by Part X : The Scheduled and Tribal Areas – Article 244: Administration of Scheduled Areas and Tribal Areas.

(1) The provisions of the Fifth Schedule shall apply to the administration and control of the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes in any State (other than the states ofAssam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram).

(2) The provisions of the Sixth Schedule shall apply to the administration of the tribal areas in the State of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.The Indian Constitution is supposed to protect tribal interests, especially tribal autonomy and their rights over land, through Fifth and Sixth Schedules. Scheduled Areas of Article 244(1) are notified as per the Fifth Schedule and Tribal Areas of Article 244(2) are notified as per the Sixth Schedule.Sixth Schedule contains provisions as to the administration of tribal areas in the states of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. This law gives enormous freedoms to the autonomous regions and districts in terms of legislative and executive power. The law

123

notes that each autonomous region shall have its own autonomous Regional Council and every autonomous district its own autonomous District Council.

Indira Gandhi introduced what is called as Tribal Sub-Plan in the planning process, earmarking a portion of funds for tribal development. Only to ensure their share of the Central Plan allocations, the States started the notification of tribal areas again. However, the money seldom reached the tribals.

When Rajiv Gandhi’s successors passed 73rd and 74th Amendments to the Constitution to enact Panchayat and Nagarpalika Bills, they simply forgot that these do not automatically become applicable to Tribal and Scheduled Areas.Provisions of Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996

Village level democracy became a real prospect for Indiain 1992 with the 73rd amendment to the Constitution, which mandated that resources, responsibility and decision making be passed on from central government to the lowest unit of the governance, the Gram Sabha or the Village Assembly. A three tier structure of local self government was envisaged under this amendment.

Since the laws do not automatically cover the scheduled areas, the PESA Act was in acted on 24 December 1996 to enable Tribal Self Rule in these areas. The Act extended the provisions of Panchayats to the tribal areas of nine states (Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh,   Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Rajasthan) that have Fifth Schedule Areas. Most of the North eastern states under Sixth Schedule Areas (where autonomous councils exist) are not covered by PESA, as these states have their own Autonomous councils for governance.

Less has been done and more is required to be done to safeguard the rights of the adivasis i.e. members of tribal communities. We need to join our hands with NGO’s, Social Activists, Media and Governement to make the proper implementation of the policies and laws which have been by the parliament of India.

THE STATE, COMMUNITIES AND RESOURCES: CONFLICTING CLAIMS OVER ‘COMMONS’ IN TRIBAL ANDHRA

Aruna Kumar Monditoka

Article Type: Conceptual

Natural resource governance has been at the centre stage of policy experiments since last two and half decades in large number of developing and transitional economies like Latin America, Africa and Asia. The main focus of decentralised governance in south India is on Natural resources, viz., how the natural resources can be ‘best’ utilized? Who are the ‘Real’ owners of these resources? The research Paper highlights the reasons behind the entry of private institutions and Civil Society organisations in natural resources management and how these actors have become actively involved with the Governments in organising and mobilising the poor tribal people in the manage in ‘their’

124

own resources. The proposed paper will address different themes through case studies in south India on resources, livelihood and its governance.

The research paper will explore the debates on how the ‘management of natural resources has evolved and governed in last two and half decades. Many studies have found that top down approach has failed to recognise the rights of indigenous communities over the natural resources. To address this issue, governance reforms have begun in the form of decentralisation process. The main aim of natural resource governance is to devolve property rights over natural resources to local individuals and tribal community.

The paper seeks to familiarise audience with concepts and practices of the governance of natural resources and livelihoods. Audience will be exposed to theoretical and conceptual issues involved in governance and natural resource management (NRM) as well as changing paradigms in NRM and livelihood. The research paper is based on case study- based learning and interactions and paper will highlights the practical issues and problems in natural resource and livelihood in developing countries.

This paper will comprise of both theoretical and empirical evidences that are built on Institutions and Resources. The Paper will also critically analyse power and politics in rural contexts, particularly around differential access to resources. Possible themes include the conflicts around new and old bureaucracies, differential access within rural communities, issues related to the role of civil society, the often contradictory legal frameworks that govern resource access. The paper will also discuss the policies and politics in and around the natural resource governance in developing nations. To this end, the paper will examine the use and conservation of resources such as land, water, forests and minerals by rural communities and other agents.

ECOLOGY VS. ECONOMY-STRUGGLE FOR LIVELIHOOD OF TRIBAL PEOPLE – A COMPARISON BETWEEN SUNDER BAN (WEST BENGAL) &

KORAPUT (ORISSA)

Dr. Kakoli Banerjee

Article Type: Case Study

This paper tries to examine the governance system of natural resources which is intricately related to the life & livelihood of tribal people in India with specific reference to Sunder ban (West Bengal) & Koraput (Orissa). While doing that, it also tries to find out how to establish the linkage between livelihood patterns of tribal’s along with the localization of natural resource management, which might lead to its sustainability as well as eco-friendly, without creating environment pollution hazard. However due to the ongoing process of Industrialization & Marketization of natural resources, today we found there is conflict not only between man & nature but also between the tribal’s & the so called civilized state. These phenomena pose number of question to us. The ongoing forces of Globalization has led to a situation, where there are question marks regarding the governance in totality including the unmindful destruction of nature. What about the voice-less & the marginalized sections, i.e. - tribal’s? What about the sustainable development considering the ecology as well as economics where there is a

125

harmonious blend of nature, culture & livelihood system. This paper is a humble attempt to explore some possibilities to address those issues, which have some policy dimension as far as the livelihood of tribal’s are concerned.Issues to be covered:Specificity of Livelihood Issues of Tribal Problem:Issues Involved: Ecological, Socio- Cultural, Economical The Comparison between (Sunder ban) West Bengal & Koraput (Orissa):The Situation in India in General:Problems & Issues involved in Natural Resource Management by Local People:Road Map Ahead:

Key Words: Tribal livelihood, Natural Resources Management, Nature & Culture, Socio- Economic Problems & livelihood, Corporatization of natural resources, Industrialization, Problems of Governance, Road Map Ahead

THE IMPACT OF PRIS AND PESA ON TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT

Dr. Uma Narang, Shri Jagdish Kumar Narang

Article Type: ConceptualIn the colonial period, not much emphasis was made on local government

regulations by the Britishers. Therefore, government did not make panchayat as an agency for the development of local areas due to non availability of local governance rules of the colonial government. With the introduction of certain guidelines of the union government, recommendations of the Balwantrai Mehta Committee report after independence, a few governments have adopted three tier Panchayati Raj system in their states. The Panchayati Raj laws were revised again and made more effective following the 73rd Constitutional Amendment. Moreover PESA Act was enacted for the tribal areas which were earlier under the general principles of panchayat administration. Although village councils are working through their representatives and both the traditional and modern village councils are in peaceful co-existence with members of both the political bodies respecting, consulting and collaborating with each other in discharging their respective roles and responsibilities. The Panchayati Raj system in the state have undergone systematic changes in the post-colonial period and the recent changes following 73rd Amendment and PESA Act is treated as landmark revision. Therefore it is essential and imperative to examine the impact of Panchayati Raj on local development particularly in the tribal areas of Orissa, which has high concentration of tribal population. The present paper aims at analyzing the alterations that have been incorporated into the mode of governance in Tribal areas after the enactment of the Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act, 1996.Key Words: Panchayati Raj System, Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas, Traditional Village Council.

126

PESA, LEFT-WING EXTREMISM AND GOVERNANCE: CONCERNS AND CHALLENGES IN INDIA’S TRIBAL DISTRICTS

Dr. Syed Kabeer Hashmi

Article Type: Conceptual“There has been a systemic failure in giving tribal’s a stake in the modern economic processes that inexorably intrude into their living spaces…The systematic exploitation and social and economic abuse of our tribal communities can no longer be tolerated.” Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India, November 2009

Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA from here on), which governs areas in nine states of India, covered by the Fifth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. Tribal communities make up 8.2% or approximately 8 in 100 Indians – an economically and culturally vulnerable and distinctive group. The 1996 landmark law recognized this, and the historic injustices meted to them. Its passage—an act of great political commitment—attempted to shift the balance of power towards the communities by providing a mechanism for self-protection and self-governance. By recognizing that tribal communities are ‘competent’ to self-govern, we were, in effect, recognizing the validity of their way of life, value systems and worldview Today, it is universally acknowledged that the law has much to achieve on its promise of securing people’s participation, as the keystone of a meaningful democracy. An attempt is made in this paper of ‘the correlation between the promise and the reality of self-governance in selected states, especially those which have witnessed difficulties due to alternate mobilisations (and counter mobilisations) The paper will seek to build an assessment of issues and some common grounds for institutionalisation of local self-governments in such extremist affected states.’ This analysis starts by sketching a brief background to PESA, and outlining how the act intended to improve the lives of some of India’s most beleaguered sections, when it was passed in 1996. It then analyses the key challenges to the effective functioning of PESA today. The second section then analyses in detail the unfinished legislative agenda regarding the PESA. It does this by firstly looking at the unfinished legislative and executive work on the law in some key states of India. The third section moves to the ground in order to put a human face to the neglect of the act through selected case studies. It thus attempts to capture some of the big themes that currently militate against PESA, as expressed by people, for whom life is increasingly a quest for survival. Placing at the centre stage, peoples’ experiences of PESA and governance might make the analysis appear skewed, or even one-sided. But we believe that these voices from the ground are poorly heard in policy making and implementation—for a complex of reasons, from the community’s entrenched marginalisation to the absence of written traditions for communication—and hence need be given primacy. It looks at the failure of PESA and the alternate mobilisation’ that has happened. Though not included in this paper, the larger research elsewhere also outlines the complex intersection of what would be justifiably called governance failure and alienation, and its coterminous relationship with the phenomenon of left-wing extremism, i.e. the currently banned Communist Party of India - Maoist (However, there are a range of left-wing Naxal groups operating on the ground in PESA areas). The experience of fieldwork, which even entailed physical dangers, suggests that there is a veritable crisis in several

127

PESA areas, with despair, insecurity and a breakdown of the rule of law, and access to justice within the constitutional framework.

A final section lists some ideas, which would help institutionalize and actualize PESA in letter and spirit. These are entirely collaborative, and have emerged through fieldwork among communities, as well as in the course of many conversations with distinguished and tireless workers in the field. While the former, namely the people, sought policies that respected their dignity and ways of living, most tribal rights advocates stressed that a PESA-centric approach was essential to bring in the inclusive governance, which would be critical for the success of India’s current attempts for inclusive growth.

PESA ACT 1996: A REMEDY OF RISING NAXALISM

Dr. Rajbir Singh Dalal, Sh. Vijayvir

Article Type: Conceptual

India is the largest democracy in the world having far socio-economic disparities. However, the survival of democracy depends upon the active involvement of people in public life. Accordingly, provisions have been made in Indian constitution so that no one can remain away from the main stream or feel marginalized. As SCs and STs constitute a significant part of Indian population and are the most deprived and vulnerable sections of the society since ages, therefore positive discrimination has been made by the state in their favour. The part IV, VI, IX and XVI of Indian Constitution make adequate provisions not only to curb atrocities and violence against them but also to empower them by all respects. The tribes constitute about 8% of India’s population and are the most backward and exploited sections of the society spreading over two dozen states in 94 districts, hence it was felt a necessary to pay attention to their problems and prospects so that their resources and energy can be properly utilized and channelized for national development. To meet out these goals, the Government of India enacted the PESA Act, 1996 to decentralize powers and to strengthen democracy at the grass root level. As about 1/3 of the PESA districts are disturbed and many more are going in the clutches of ultras that may be NSCN, ULFA, Moasist or other Nexalites like PWG, therefore PESA seems to be a viable solution to tackle the problem. It provides wide opportunities to tribal people in decision making and development process at the grass root level and eliminates the feeling of apathy or isolation prevailing among these sections due to intruders, encroachment of their areas and resources as well as their deprivation from their traditional means of livelihood or inaccessibility to their resources. As the PESA Act is in operation for more than one and a half decade and the government has earmarked special funds and grants for these areas under 12th plan on the recommendation of second ARC, therefore it becomes pertinent to evaluate its impact on tribal people particularly in terms of self government and their empowerment. The main constraints in proper execution of PESA have been highlighted with some remedial steps to make it more viable and pragmatic.

128

HEALTH STATUS OF TRIBAL COMMUNITIES IN PESA STATES - PESA

ACT, 1996

Dr. Bijendr Pradhan, Ms. Kiran Dungdung

The poor health status of Tribal Community in PESA (Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas) states is reflective on their poor environmental circumstances and lack awareness among tribal people, the main reasons behind its the backwardness and detrimental of the states are; poverty, in accessible of trained health professional and believing on traditional healer among the tribal community is possess the poor health-strata than the other general caste people as on National average. The study is based on the existing secondary data, to analyses the role of panchayati raj on health in these scheduled area, whether the tribal people are markedly benefiting from health care programme, which the government is running in scheduled area. The scheduled tribe is the most deprived and vulnerable specially women and children, so government has took initiative to enhancing the health care system among the tribal communities through devolution of power, participatory democracy and local self-governance system. This paper deals with how health care practices are practiced among the tribal communities in PESA states through the PESA Act.

THE PESA ACT: THE CONCERNS AND CHALLENGES FOR INDIGENOUS INCLUSIVE GOVERNANCE

Balram Rao , Babita Sinha

Article Type: Conceptual

The indigenous people popularly known as ‘tribes’ or scheduled tribes in India consist of 8% of the total population and habitated across region in most of the Indian states and union territories. Each region is characterized by its distinct geo-climatic condition, socio-economic set up, political situation, ethnic composition and the kind of natural resources available there. After a long movement by the tribal people in India and subsequent decentralization PRI Act (1992) through 73rd Amendment, the tribal Panchayat (Extensions to Schedule Area) Act passed in 1996 known as the PESA Act. The Act (PESA) is advocated as one of the most innovative regulatory framework to empower the tribal people through decentralization of governance systems on parallel lines of PRIs. The Act constitutionally recognizes the capacity of tribal communities through ‘Gram Sabha’ to strengthen their own systems of self governance and empower them to create new legal institutions to‐ address their concerns of centuries old cultural, customary laws & livelihood practices along-with their traditional mechanism of handling the triangulated dimensions of polity-socio-economic sustainability. The ‘ Gram Sabha’ as the focal institution of the Act endowed with significant powers under section 4(d) of PESA to

129

safeguard and preserve the traditions and customs of the people, their cultural identity, community resources and the customary mode of dispute resolution.

The authors will examine the implementation of the PESA Act with the concept of self governance, community empowerment, ownership, sustainability and management of natural resources with regard to Schedule V. however challenges like non implementation of PESA in many states will also be highlighted. The paper will analyze the role of Gram Sabha or State, NGO, CBO and Corporate sector to address these grave concerns and challenges of exploitation of natural resources and the tribal people, illegal mining and land grabbing issues. The paper will focus on the right based programmes such as MGNREGA, NRHM, Right to Forest issue, NRLM, Bharat Nirman etc. to create sustainable infrastructure and livelihood opportunities through good governance practices by capacity building of tribal community under the new policy of inclusive growth of 12th plan.

Keywords: The PESA Act, Gram Sabha, Displacement, Polity-Socio-Economy Security, The Tribal Knowledge, Right Based Program, Land Rights & Women, NGO & CBO, and Self Governance etc.

PESA AND SELF GOVERNANCE: A CONCERN OF 12th PLAN

Ekta Chaudhary, Shomaila Warsi

This paper explore the functioning of the Panchayat (Extension to scheduled area)Act 1996 PESA from here on )which governs areas in nine states of India covered by the v schedule of Indian constitution .This Act is great political commitment attempted to shift the balance of power towards the communities by providing a mechanism for self protection and self governance .This paper deals with the approaches to 12 th plan of planning commission on the speedy implementation of PESA Act 1996 and various recommendation for upliftment of schedule tribes.

Key words- Gram Sabha, Panchayat, tribal self rule, PESA, scheduled areas

PESA, RECOGNITION AND ENHANCEMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNANCE

Shrawan Kumar

Article Type: Conceptual “There has been a systematic failure in giving tribal’s a stake in the modern economic processes that inexorably intrude into their living spaces…The systematic exploitation and social and economic abuse of our tribal communities can no longer be tolerated.”

Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India, November 2009

130

Why PESA? To empower people so that their customs, rights and livelihood of these people are protected. PESA enacted in 1996 which extended Part IX of the constitution to the Schedule V areas and provide for people centric government. According to 73rd Amendment, the Schedule Areas were excluded from the provisions of the Act. There was no provision of PESA when Panchayati Raj was enacted but later to avoid conflict and considering the growing discontent among people (Tribals and Tribal Community) the union government constituted a committee headed by Dilip Singh Bhuria in 1994 recommended the adoption of 3tier system in the 5th Schedule Areas.

Since PESA has been enacted it has given space for self governance and enhancement of political participation of the people in the mainstream politics. Apart from participation many issues has been taken into account which can be done efficiently if these people given chance to do like local ecology can be best served by the local people because they know how to preserve their resources well. In preserving ecology will give Adivasis sense of empowerment.PESA Act-Few Challenges:

Though the Act is in operation since one and half decade but still there is no conformity there between states. The passing of the conformity Act by the respective States is not only a pre-requisite but rather the States have to formulate the rules and regulations to give effect to that.Key Words: Empowerment, Governance, Resources, Participation and, Ecology

KEY FACTORS BEHIND THE UNSUCCESSFUL ACT; PESA (1996)

Amitabh Yadav

This paper is an attempt to classifying the components, which are having some interest with the government. If we see some specific resources that have been impacted by the law on tribal self rule and the subsequent state legislations which include; management of minor water bodies, forest land especially relating to ownership of minor forest produce and tribal land alienation and restoration. Perhaps the biggest hurdle comes from the forest department officials who have historically derived power from the Indian Forest Act of 1927, which puts them in the twin roles of police and landlords. Thus, they are at pains to see the ownership of minor forest produce go into the hands of “encroachers”, as they have always seen the tribal community living “unauthorized” on the forest lands “owned” by the State.

The culture and knowledge systems of indigenous people and their institutions provide useful frameworks, ideas, guiding principles, procedures and practices that can serve as a foundation for effective endogenous development options for restoring social, economic and environmental resilience in many parts of the country. Tribal people are the truly the indigenous people of India. Currently, they occupy about 18 percent of the total geographical area of the country7. Since 1891 their population has varied from census to census, depending upon they were enumerated. The biggest misfortune of the Tribal people is that they inhabit lands that are highly rich in minerals, water and other resources 7

131

that the state and private corporations need for “development” of the country. Almost 90 percent of all coal and around 50 percent of the remaining minerals are in their regions.

The ambit of committees, reports and discussion have been done but still the scheduled areas are unable to practice their local government.

Key words: Panchayat, tribal self rule, PESA, scheduled areas,

PESA AND THE ROAD TO SELF GOVERNANCE

Kapil Sikka

PESA, Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, is the most important law meant for the Adivasis (natives of India) that can radically change the socio-political landscape of India, only if it is implemented honestly. PESA was enacted in 1996 which extended part IX of the Constitution to Sch. V Areas, and provided for people-centric governance and people‘s control over community resources and their life, with a central role to the Gram Sabha. The pressure on natural resources in these areas continued due to the large projects being set up therein and unscrupulous elements indulging in illegal mining & forest felling. Land alienation and exploitation also continued. This led to dislocation of the communities and loss of major sources of livelihood and also increased vulnerability and disenchantment with governance.

For effective implementation of PESA powers had been conferred to the Gram Sabhas to enable self rule in these areas. Generally PESA areas and their vicinity, suffer from extremism. The rights, livelihood and habitat of the people in these Areas, therefore, continue to be under stress, leading to disaffection with the system.

According to the approach paper to 12th plan, there is a case for creating a special arrangement whereby in the first two years of the Twelfth Plan funds can be unconditionally released for all these districts to facilitate the speedy implementation of PESA.

This Paper will study the loopholes in governance which hinders the goals of Self Governance, and what PESA can do in plugging them.

ihlk ¼PESA½ ,oa jktLFkku jkT;¼Mwaxjiqj ,oa ckalokM+k ftys ds

lanHkZ esa½

MkW- foØkUr 'kekZ

iapk;rh jkt O;oLFkk us xzkeh.k Hkkjr dh rLohj fufoZokn :i ls cnyh( ijUrq lqnwj vkfnoklh {ks=ksa

132

esa ;g bruk dkjxj ugha gks ik jgk FkkA vr% vuqlwfpr {ks=ksa ds fodkl dks xfr nsus ,oa muds lalk/kuksa o laLd`fr ds laj{k.k gsrq gekjh laln us iapk;r ¼vuqlwfpr {ks=ksa esa foLrkj½ vf/kfu;e 1996 ikfjr fd;kA 24 fnlEcj] 1996 dks jk"Vªifr egksn; ds gLrk{kj ds ckn ;g ykxw gks x;kA

;g ihlk@islk ¼PESA½ ds uke ls yksdfiz; gSAihlk lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 244¼i½ ds vUrxZr 5oha vuqlwph esa of.kZr vkB jkT;ksa esa ykxw gSA vf/kfu;e ds vuqlkj jkT;ksa dks ,d o"kZ ¼fnlEcj 1997½ rd vius dkuwu la'kksf/kr djus Fks( ijUrq jkT;ksa us f'kfFkyrk iznf'kZr dhA jktLFkku jkT; us 26 twu 1999 dks v/;kns'k tkjh dj jktLFkku iapk;rhjkt ¼vuqlwfpr {ks=ksa esa fØ;kfUor mica/kksa dk la'kks/ku½ v/;kns'k] 1999 tkjh dj ykxw fd;kA ckn esa mls vf/kfu;e dk Lo:i ns fn;k x;kA blesa dqy vkB ¼8½ v/;k; ,oa 33 mica/k gSaA vf/kdka'k izko/kku dsUnzh; dkuwu ¼ihlk] 1998½ ds ;Fkkor j[ks gSaA

bl dkuwu dk eq[; mn~ns'; & vuqlwfpr {ks=ksa esa iapk;rh jkt dk foLrkj lqfuf'prdjukA o xzkelHkk dks l'kDr djuk]

{ks= ds ewy fuokfl;ksa dk izfrfuf/kRo lqfuf'pr djuk] tutkfr laLd`fr] ijEijk ,oa izkd`frd lalk/kuksa dk laj{k.k] lkekftd U;k; gSA

izLrqr 'kks/k i= esa jktLFkku jkT; esa ykxw bl dkuwu ds izko/kkuksa dks lqLi"V djrs gq;s bldh O;kogkfjd fØ;kfUofr dh leh{kk dh xbZ gSA 12oha iapo"khZ; ;kstuk esa foÙkh; o"kZ 2012&13 rd ihlk {ks= vFkkZr~ mn;iqj] ckalokM+k] Mwaxjiqj] izrkix<+] ckjka] HkhyokM+k] fpÙkkSM+x<+ ftyksa ds vf/kdka'k rglhyksa ds iapk;rh {ks= dks dsUnz ,oa jkT; dh ;kstukvksa dks vkoafVr /ku rFkk xzke iapk;r ds ek/;e ls gq, dk;ksZa dh lkekU; foospuk gSA Mwaxjiqj ,oa ckalokM+k ftyksa esa bl dkuwu dk [kfut {ks= esa ykxw gksus dk foLrkj ls v/;;u gSA

v/;;u esa ihlk dkuwu ds izko/kku ,oa [kfjt vkoaVu dh izfØ;k dk rqyukRed v/;;u fd;k x;k gSA ftlesa Hkw&vf/kxzg.k ,oa [kfut iV~Vs vkoafVr djus esa ihlk dkuwu dk mYya?ku ik;k x;k gSA vUrr% dkuwu dks O;kogkfjd :i ls izHkkoh cukus ds lq>ko fn;s x;s gSaA ;gh ugha jktLFkku jkT; dh HkkSxksfyd fLFkfr ,oa

133

tutkfr;ksa ds oxhZdj.k] vuqikr] tula[;k bR;kfn dk lkjxfHkZr ,oa laf{kIr foospu gSA v/;;u dk eq[; fcUnq xzke&jksguokM+k] rglhy&okxMkjh] ftyk&Mqaxjiqj dk izdj.kv/;;u ¼Case Study½ gSA jktLFkku ds o"kZ 2012&13 esa tutkfr mi;kstuk {ks= ds fy;s vkoafVrctV dk fo'ys"k.k Hkh fd;k gS rkfd oLrqfLFkfr dk irk yx ldsA

134

PROGRAMME SCHEDULE

DAY 1

9.30 -10.00 am Registration

Inaugural Session

10.00-11.45 am Welcome and Introduction Dr. Nupur TiwariFaculty

IIPA

Inaugural Address Shri Bhalchandra MungekarMember of

Paliament Rajya Sabha

Keynote Address Shri Mani Shankar Aiyar

Member of Paliament Rajya Sabha (Former Union Minister of Panchayati

Raj)

Vote of thanks Prof. P.K. ChaubeyFaculty

IIPA

11.45-11.55am Tea Break

Panel Discussion: PESA: A legal analysis with strategies

Chair: Shri A.N.P Sinha, IAS(Retd.)Member,

Bihar Planning Board, Govt of Bihar

135

12.00am-01.30pm Panel

Discussion and Q & A

Shri D.K. JainJoint Secretary,

Ministry of Rural Development, Govt. of

India

Shri Mahi Pal,Director, Ministry of Rural Development,

Govt. of India

Shri Manoj Rai,Director

PRIA, New Delhi

01.30 pm- 02.30pm Lunch

Panel Discussion: PESA: Left Wing Extremism and Governance Concerns and

Challenges

02.30pm-03.45pm Panel

Discussion and Q & A

Dr. Onkar Marwah,IAS (Retd.)

Distinguished Fellow IPCS, New Delhi

Prof. Neelima Deshmukh

Nagpur University, Nagpur

Ms. Chitrangda Choudhary

Research FellowCSDS, New Delhi

Remarks by the Chair

03.45-04.00 pm Tea Break

136

Panel Discussion : PESA and Natural Resource Governance: Role of PRI’s

Chair: Shri Avdhash Kaushal, Director, RLEK, Dehradun

04.00-05.00pm Panel

Discussion and Q & A

Dr. Prodipto Ghosh,IAS(Retd.)

Distinguished FellowTERI, New Delhi

Shri Sanjay Upadhyay,Advocate

Supreme Court of India, New Delhi

Shri Joy Elamaon,CEO, Intercooperation,

New Delhi

Remarks by the Chair

Paper Presentation

Session I: PESA and Self Governance: Challenges and Strategies

Chair: Prof Dolly AroraProfessor, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi

05.00-06.00pm Paper Presenters Shri P C Behera

Dr. Bijendr Pradhan

Dr. Ved Pal Singh Deswal

137

Dr Rajbir Singh Dalal

Open Discussion

Remarks by the Chair

06.00-06.15pm Valedictory: Summing Up and Future Strategies

Prof. K.B. SaxenaIAS(Retd.)Professor of Social Justice and

Governance, CSD, New Delhi

DAY- 2

Paper Presentation – 26 February 2013

Session I(CONTD.): PESA and Self Governance: Challenges and Strategies

Chair: Prof R.K. BarikProfessor, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi

10.00am-11.30pm Paper Presenters Dr. Neelima Deshmukh

Dr. S.C. Roy

Ms. Pooja Singh

Shri Notan Bhusan Kar

Dr. Vikrant Sharma

Open Discussion

Remarks by the Chair

138

11.30-11.45am Tea Break

Session II: " PESA: A legal analysis with strategies "

Chair: Prof Furqan Ahmad Dept. of Political Science, Jamia Milia Islamia University, New Delhi

11.50 am- 01.15pm Paper Presenters Dr. Gurukalyana Rout

Shri Janmejay Sahu

Ms. Shomaila Warsi

Shri Kapil Sikka

Open Discussion

Remarks by the Chair

01.15 pm- 02.15pm Lunch

Session II(CONTD.): "PESA: A legal analysis with strategies

Chair: Dr. George MathewChairman, Institute of Social Science, New Delhi

02.15pm-03.15pm Paper Presenters Dr. Syed Kabeer Hashmi

Dr. Pradip Kumar Parida

Dr Biswajit Mohapatra

Shri Amitabh Yadav

Open Discussion

139

Remarks by the Chair

SESSION III: PESA and Natural Resource Governance: Role of PRI’s

Chair: Shri Avdhash Kaushal,Director, RLEK, Dehradun

03.15-04.15pm Paper Presenters Dr. Uma Narang

Shri Aruna Kumar Monditoka

Mr. Shrawan Kumar

Ms. Mini Sinha

Open Discussion

Remarks by the Chair

04.15-04.30pm Valedictory: Summing Up

Dr. George MathewChairman, Institute of Social Science, New

Delhi

Vote of Thanks Dr. Nupur Tiwari

140

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

S.No. NAME DESIGNATION/DEPARTMENT

CONTACT DETAILS

1. Shri T. N. Chaturvedi

Director, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi

2. Shri Mani Shankar Aiyar

former Hon. Minister and an Hon. Member of Rajya Sabha

3. Dr. Nupur Tiwari

Assistant Professor, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi

4. Shri A. N. P. Sinha

former IAS and present member of Bihar State Planning Board, Government of Bihar

5. Dr. Mahipal Director, Ministry of Rural Development

6. Shri. Sanjay Upadhyay

Advocate, Supreme Court of India & MD Enviro Legal Defence Firm, New Delhi

7. Shri Joy Elamaon

CEO, Intercooperation, New Delhi

8. Dr. A.K. Dubey

Joint Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India

9. Prof. Neelima Deshmukh

Prof. & Head, PG. Deptt of Public Administration & LSG, RTM Nagpur University, Nagpur

10. Dr. Onkar IAS(Retd.), Distinguished

141

Marwah Fellow, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi

11. Shri Avdhash Kaushal

Director, RLEK, Dehradun

12. Dr. Chitrangadha Choudhury

Fellow, CSDS, New Delhi

13. Prof. Dolly Arora

Professor, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi

14. Shri P.C. Behera

Assistant Professor, Department of Social Work, Jain Vishva Bharati Institute, Ladnun, Nagaur District, Rajasthan and PhD Scholar, TISS, Mumbai

pcbehera@gmail.commob: 09461908247

15. Shri. Bijendra Pradhan

Assistant Professor, Department of Social Work, Jain Vishwa Bharati University, Ladnun, Rajasthan

16. Dr. Ved Pal Deswal

Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, M.D. University Rohtak

17. Dr. Rajbir Singh Dalal

Associate Prof. Dept. of Pub. Admn., CDLU, Sirsa (HRY)

18. Prof. R.K. Barik

Professor, Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi

142

19. Dr. S.C. Roy Associate professor, Chanakya National Law University, Patna

20. Shri. Notan Bhushan Kar

Independent Researcher, Kolkata

21. Dr. Vikrant Sharma

Assistant Professor, Kota University, Kota, Rajasthan

22. Prof. Furquan Ahmed

Department of Political Science, Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi

23. Dr. Gurukalyan Rout

Editor, Central Monitoring Service, National Technical Research Organisation

24. Shri. Janmejay Sahu

Ph.D Scholar, Political Science, Central University of Hyderabad

25. Ms. Shomaila Warsi

PhD Scholar, Dept of Political Science, Jamia Millia Islamia

26. Shri Kapil Sikka

Research Fellow, Dept of Political Science, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi

27. Dr. George Matthew

Chairman, Institute of Social Sciences, New Delhi

28. Dr. Pradip Parida

Asst. Professor , IIPA, New Delhi

Paridapradip1@gmail.com

29. Dr. Debashis Poddar

Assistant Professor of Law, National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India

debasis.bengal@gmail.com

30. Dr. Biswajit Mohapatra

North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong

31. Shri Amitabh Yadav

Department of Sociology, School of Social Sciences

143

JNU, New Delhi32. Shri Shrawan

KumarResearch Scholar, Center for Federal Studies, Hamdard University, Delhi

33. Dr. Uma Narang

P.G Department of Commerce, PGGC

34. Jagdish Kumar Narang

MA LLB PGDPMLW&IR AIII, Dy Manager, UIIC

35. V S Beniwal, ICSSR, Research Fellow, Dept. of Political Science, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi

36. Dr. Baldev Singh Negi

Project Officer, Institute of Integrated Himalayan Studies, Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla

37. Dr. B. N. Kamble

Professor and Director, Centre for Educational Studies, Indian Institute of Education, J. P. Naik Path, Kothrud, Pune

bnkamble@hotmail.com

38. Mr. N.K. Sharma

Life Member IIPA, I.R.I. Roorkee, Uttarakhand

39. Pooja Singh Assistant Professor, IIMT & School Of Law, GGSIPU, Delhi

40. Ms. Smita Raut

Research Fellow, MS Swaminathan Foundation, Koraput, Orissa

Smitaraut78@gmail.com

41. Rudra Prasad Sahoo

Assistant Professor, Center for the study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy (CSSEIP),Baba sahib Bhim Rao Ambedkar Central University, Lucknow

42. Rangaswamy D.

Assistant Professor, Government Law College, Ramanagara, Karnataka

43. Anitha K. N Assistant Professor, Government Law College, Ramanagara, Karnataka

144

44. Shyla Venu Research Scholar

45. Dr. P.Narendra Babu,

Professor, Department of Public Administration & Human Resource Management, Kakatiaya University Warangal, Andhra Pradesh

Pnbabu09@yahoo.com

46. Dr.Chikati Srinu

Lecturer, Department of Public Administration& Human Resource Management, Kakatiaya University Warangal, Andhra Pradesh

chikatisrinu@yahoo.com

47. Swati Sehgal Asstt Prof., Department of Education, S.P.M. College, University of Delhi

48. Divyanshu Patel

CSSS, SSS II ( Sociology), JNU, NEW DELHI

49. Aruna Kumar Monditoka,

Assistant Professor, School of development studies, Ambedkar University, Delhi.

www.aud.ac.in, arun@aud.ac.in

50. Dr. Kakoli Banerjee

Asst. Professor, Centre for Biodiversity Management, Central University of Orissa, Koraput

banerjee.kakoli@yahoo.com

51. Dr. Syed Kabeer Hashmi

Fellow - IIM Ahmedabad– Economics, Assistant Professor- University of Mumbai

52. Sh. Vijayvir Research Scholar, Dept. of Pub. Admn., CDLU, Sirsa (HRY)

53. Ms. Kiran Dungdung

Research Associate cum teaching, IGNOU, New Delhi

54. Balram Rao PhD Scholar (Economics), Dept. Of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee

balrajrao@gmail.com

145

55. Babita Sinha Asst. Professor, Dept. of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee

56. Ekta Chaudhary

PhD Scholar, Dept. of Political Science, Jamia Millia Islamia

146