Adivasis, or India’s Indigenous Peoples, constitute 8.6 percent of India’s total population (Government of India, 2013). Land and forests are the “twin pillars of the Adivasi economy” (Ambagudia, Reference Ambagudia2010, p. 61). The term “Adivasi” is believed to have originated in the state of Bihar during the 1930s (Ambagudia, Reference Ambagudia2019; Hardiman, Reference Hardiman1987) and was popularized by social worker A. V. Thakkar in the 1940s to advance the unique cultural, property, and political rights of Adivasis. Today, many tribal communities employ it as a political term of self-reference in contemporary India. Despite being a signatory to the International Labour Organization ILO Convention 107 (1957), the first international instrument to protect Indigenous Peoples from labor market discrimination, and endorsing the United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (2007), India recognizes neither the term “Indigenous Peoples”Footnote 1 nor Adivasi for that matter. The contention revolves around the additional rights and privileges that recognition may grant Indigenous Peoples or Adivasis, particularly around rights to lands and natural resources (particularly as these relate to consent) (Nikolakis & Hotte, Reference Nikolakis and Hotte2020).
The Indian state uses the statutory and constitutional term “Scheduled Tribes” (STs) to differentiate Adivasis from other social groups.Footnote 2 To paraphrase Article 342(1) of India’s Constitution, STs are “the tribes or the tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribe or tribal communities” whom the president may specify as STs. There are no criteria set out in the constitution for declaring STs. The Indian state has adopted five criteria for determining STs – primitive traits, a distinctive culture, geographical isolation, shyness of contact with the community at large, and backwardness – prescribed by the Lokur Committee in 1965 for recognizing an ST. Most of these criteria are outdated in contemporary India but continue to be used and have important implications for Adivasi recognition and land rights – being granted ST status provides additional rights and privileges. Adivasis, however, would prefer to define themselves based on their relationship with land, water, and forests.
In 2006, the Indian state enacted one of the key Adivasi land rights mechanisms, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act (commonly known as Forest Rights Act, FRA). The FRA grants Adivasis the heritable, inalienable and non-transferrable legal rights to four hectares of forest land per person. There are also other statutory provisions, such as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, the Panchayat (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act 1996 (PESA), the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 (LAA), Compensatory Afforestation Fund Rules 2018, and many others at the federal and state levels to recognize and safeguard the land interests of Adivasi.
Against this backdrop, the chapter analyzes the various nuances of Adivasi land rights. First, the chapter discusses the land tenure systems in Adivasi areas. Second, it briefly describes the legislative measures enacted by various federal and state governments to protect Adivasi land rights and their ramifications over Adivasis. Third, it deals with federal legal measures to allot land to Adivasis. Fourth, it delves into the land situation in the Adivasi area. Fifth, it discusses the nature and scale of Adivasi land alienation. Sixth, it explores the various strategies that Adivasis have adopted to advance and safeguard their land rights. This is followed by the conclusion. Recommendations are offered for strengthening Adivasi land rights in practice, which includes the need for safeguards, consistent governance, and independent monitoring of land rights.
Land Tenure Systems in Adivasi Areas
While there is heterogeneity, traditionally, Adivasi communities had individual and communal ownership, and these have continued into the contemporary period, albeit with some changes. Individual land ownership broadly includes kitchen garden/homestead land; swidden land, terrace land; paddy land; wetland acquired through inheritance, purchase, gift, and mortgage; and dry lands or up lands. Individual lands are transferred through the patrilineal system of inheritance. In contrast, collective areas include sacred sites, such as ritual places, funerals and cremation sites, and sacred groves; swidden land (dangar) owned collectively by clan members or belonging to the village; socio-culturally significant lands; village grasslands and grazing land; and commons for thatching grass and firewood (among others) (Kumar & Choudhary, Reference Kumar and Choudhary2005).
In central and eastern India, Adivasis use a clan-based land tenure system that provides customary rights to land, trees, and forests, with collective decision-making around use (Kumar & Choudhary, Reference Kumar and Choudhary2005). Among the tribes of northeast India, the Nagas of Manipur, for example, have village community land, clan, or lineage land, and individual private land defines the land ownership system (Devi, Reference Devi2006). In contrast, a feudal system of land ownership exists among the Kuki and Kuki-Chin-Mizo tribes’ villages, where the village chief owns village lands, and the villagers are considered tenants. The tribal communities of the Sixth Scheduled area of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura of northeast India largely have community ownership of almost all lands, except the land under reserve forests, with customary legal and institutional mechanisms for their management and governance, and some individual ownership of lands (Land Portal, n.d.). Nevertheless, the state now controls most of the lands under communal ownership.
Federal Constitutional Framework and Land Legislation
Adivasi lands include lands located in the Fifth and Sixth Schedule Areas, and those that the Adivasis possess outside the Scheduled Areas. At the institutional and federal levels, the Indian state has established the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes and the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. These examine issues concerning Adivasi land, and both conduct or commission studies to understand the Adivasi land rights, and the extent of land alienation and restoration. State governments have Adivasi welfare departments to advance and safeguard Adivasi land rights. The states also have dedicated research institutes to conduct studies on Adivasi socio-economic needs and land rights.
On the legislative front, both the federal and state governments have enacted laws to protect and promote Adivasi land rights (see Table 12.1). Central laws such as the PESA, the FRA, and the LAA protect and advance Adivasi land rights. The PESA prohibits Adivasi land alienation and restores lands unlawfully dispossessed in Scheduled Areas. The FRA grants Adivasis communal and individual rights to forest land and empowers them to make decisions on Adivasi land alienation and forest conversion. The LAA prohibits land alienation in Scheduled Areas. In the case of unavoidable circumstances where land acquisition is essential, the prior consent of the Gram Sabha (village council) is mandatory. In addition, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 punishes those guilty of wrongfully occupying or cultivating Adivasi land.
Legislation for protection and promotion of land rights of adivasis
Table 12.1 (Part A)Long description
The table has three columns for federal or state, legislative measures, and descriptions.
Row 1. Column 1 reads. Federal.
Column 2 reads. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Prevention of Atrocities, Act 1989.
Column 3 reads. Makes it a punishable offence to wrongfully occupy or cultivate any land owned by or allotted to a member of a S T, or allotted or transferred lands.
Row 2. Column 1 reads. Federal.
Column 2 reads. The Panchayat, extension to the Scheduled Areas, Act 1996.
Column 3 reads. Empowers the Gram Sabha to prevent Adivasi land alienation and restore lands that were unlawfully dispossessed in Scheduled Areas.
Row 3. Column 1 reads. Federal.
Column 2 reads. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers, Recognition of Forest Rights, Act 2006. Grants land rights to Adivasis.
Column 3 reads. Endows the Gram Sabha with a critical role in customary forest and resource governance, including decision-making for Adivasi land alienation and forest conversion.
Row 4. Column 1 reads. Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
Column 2 reads. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Protection of Aboriginal Tribes, Regulation 1956. Mandated to protect the S Ts in the four tribal reserves.
Column 3 reads. This regulation empowers the government to prohibit and regulate the entry of outsiders, and restricts the transfer of lands to non-tribals in the reserves.
Row 5. Column 1 reads. Andhra Pradesh.
Column 2 reads. The Andhra Pradesh, Scheduled Areas, Land Transfer Regulation 1959, amended by the Andhra Pradesh, Scheduled Areas, Land Transfer, Amendment, Regulations of 1970, 1971, and 1978.
Column 3 reads. Prohibits transfer of land to non-tribals in Scheduled Areas. Authorizes government to acquire land in case a tribal purchaser is not available. There is, however, no legal protection to S T land outside the scheduled areas.
Row 6. Column 1 reads. Assam.
Column 2 reads. The Assam Land and Revenue Regulations 1886, amended in 1981.
Column 3 reads. Chapter 10 of the Regulation prohibits land alienation in tribal belts and blocks.
Row 7. Column 1 reads. Arunachal Pradesh.
Column 2 reads. Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation 1873, as amended.
Column 3 reads. Prohibits transfer of tribal land.
Table 12.1 (Part B)Long description
The table has three columns for federal or state, legislative measures, and descriptions.
Row 8. Column 1 reads. Chhattisgarh.
Column 2 reads. A. Sections 165 and 170 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code 1959. B. Madhya Pradesh Land Distribution Regulation Act 1964.
Column 3 reads. Sections 165 and 170B of the Code protects S Ts against land alienation.
The 1964 Act is in force in the scheduled areas.
Row 9. Column 1 reads. Dadra and Nagar Haveli.
Column 2 reads. Dadra and Nagar Haveli Land Reform Regulation 1971.
Column 3 reads. Protects tribal interests in lands.
Row 10. Column 1 reads. Gujarat.
Column 2 reads. The Bombay Land Revenue Code as amended by Bombay Land Revenue, Gujarat Second Amendment Act 1980.
Column 3 reads. Sections 73 A, 73 A A, 73 A B, 73 A C, and 73 A D prohibit transfer of tribal lands and provide for restoration of alienated land in Gujarat.
Row 11. Column 1 reads. Jharkhand.
Column 2 reads. A. Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act 1908, applies to old Ranchi district, mostly comprising Mundas and Uraons. B. Santhal Parganas Tenancy, Supplementary Provision Act 1940. C. Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation 1969. D. Wilkinson’s Rule 1837 applies to Hos of Singhbhum.
Column 3 reads. Prohibit alienation of tribal land and provide for restoration of alienated land.
Row 12. Column 1 reads. Karnataka.
Column 2 reads. The Karnataka Scheduled Caste, S C and Scheduled Tribes, Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands Act 1975.
Column 3 reads. Prohibits transfer of land assigned to S Cs and S Ts by government. No provision to safeguard S C or S T interest in other lands.
Row 13. Column 1 reads. Kerala.
Column 2 reads. The Kerala Scheduled Tribes, Regulation of Transfer of Land and Restoration of Alienated Land Act 1975.
Column 3 reads. Act of 1975 made applicable in effect from June 1, 1982, by notification of January 1986. Prohibits transfer of land of tribals and provides for restoration.
Row 14. Column 1 reads. Lakshadweep.
Column 2 reads. The Laccadive Islands and Minicoy Regulation I of 1912. Lakshadweep, Protection of Scheduled Tribes, Regulation 1964.
Column 3 reads. Alienation of tribal lands prohibited in entire union territory of Lakshadweep.
Table 12.1 (Part C)Long description
The table has three columns for federal or state, legislative measures, and descriptions.
Row 15. Column 1 reads. Madhya Pradesh.
Column 2 reads. A. Sections 165 and 170 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code 1959. B. Madhya Pradesh Land Distribution Regulation Act 1964.
Column 3 reads. Sections 165 and 170 B of the Code protect S Ts against land alienation. The 1964 Act is in force in Scheduled Areas of Madhya Pradesh.
Row 16. Column 1 reads. Maharashtra.
Column 2 reads. A. The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966, as amended in 1974. B. The Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act 1974
Column 3 reads. Prohibits alienation of tribal land and provides for restoration of both illegally and legally transferred lands of a tribe.
Row 17. Column 1 reads. Manipur.
Column 2 reads. The Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act 1960.
Column 3 reads. Section 153 forbids transfer of tribal land to non tribals without permission of the District Collector. The statute has not been extended to hill areas; therefore, hill area tribals are not covered.
Row 18. Column 1 reads. Meghalaya.
Column 2 reads. Meghalaya Transfer of Land Regulation Act 1971.
Column 3 reads. Prohibits alienation of tribal land.
Row 19. Column 1 reads. Nagaland.
Column 2 reads. Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation 1873 and Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1866, as amended vide Nagaland Land and Revenue Regulation, Amendment, Act 1978.
Column 3 reads. Prohibition of transfer of tribal lands.
Row 20. Column 1 reads. Odisha.
Column 2 reads. The Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property by Scheduled Tribes Regulation 1956. The Orissa Land Reforms Act 1960.
Column 3 reads. Prohibits transfer of tribal land and provides for its restoration, both in Scheduled Areas, 1956 Regulation, and non-Scheduled Areas, 1960 Act.
Row 21. Column 1 reads. Punjab.
Column 2 reads. The Punjab Land Alienation Act 1916.
Column 3 reads. Prevents alienation of tribal lands to non-tribals.
Row 22. Column 1 reads. Rajasthan.
Column 2 reads. The Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955. The Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956.
Column 3 reads. Sections 175 and 183 B specifically protect tribal interest in land and provide for restoration of alienated land to them.
Table 12.1 (Part D)Long description
The table has three columns for federal or state, legislative measures, and descriptions.
Row 23. Column 1 reads. Sikkim.
Column 2 reads. Revenue Order No. 1 of 1917. The Sikkim Agricultural Land Ceiling and Reform Act 1977.
Column 3 reads. Order of 1917 still in force. Chapter 7 of the 1977 Act restricts alienation of lands by S Ts but is not in force.
Row 24. Column 1 reads. Tamil Nadu.
Column 2 reads. Standing Orders of the Revenue Board B S O 15 to 40. Law against land alienation not enacted.
Column 3 reads. B S O 15 to 40 apply only to Malayali and Soliga tribes. Prohibit transfer of assigned land without approval of District Collector.
Row 25. Column 1 reads. Tripura.
Column 2 reads. Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reform Act 1960, as amended in 1974.
Column 3 reads. Act prohibits transfer of tribal land to others without permission of the Collector. Only lands transferred after January 1, 1969 are covered under restoration provision.
Row 26. Column 1 reads. Uttar Pradesh, U P or Uttarakhand.
Column 2 reads. Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950, as amended by U P. Land Laws Amendment Act 1981.
Column 3 reads. Provides protection of tribal land. However, amending Act stayed by Allahabad High Court in Swaran Singh v. State Govt, 1981.
Row 27. Column 1 reads. West Bengal.
Column 2 reads. West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955.
Column 3 reads. Chapter 2-A prohibits the alienation of tribal land and provides for restoration.
As Table 12.1 shows, the legal framework for Adivasi land rights is a complex mix of federal and state legislations. These legal measures grant land rights to Adivasis and promote and safeguard them from alienation by empowering the grassroots-level collective institutions (Gram Sabha). However, there are examples where the Gram Sabha has been misused and manipulated, and has enabled the alienation of Adivasi land.
Land Allotment to Adivasis
The most prominent legislative measures for providing land to Adivasi are the Central Land Ceiling ActFootnote 3 and state land ceiling laws, and the FRA.
Land Ceiling Act
The federal and state ceiling laws were enacted to impose a ceiling on agricultural holdings and prioritize Adivasi land tenure when distributing any surplus agricultural land. Implementing these laws across India resulted in the redistribution of 795,886 acres of surplus lands in 2007; 779,858 acres in 2008; and 789,288 acres in 2009.Footnote 4 In December 2007, the surplus land distributed to the Adivasis under land ceiling laws constituted 16 percent of the total area of land distributed, and 15 percent of the total number of beneficiaries (Government of India, 2009). The government informed the Lok SabhaFootnote 5 on September 6, 2012 that 7.96 lakh (0.796 million) acres had been distributed under the land ceiling laws to the Adivasi communities in India by March 31, 2012.Footnote 6 The Committee on State Agrarian Relations and the Unfinished Task in Land Reforms expressed its disenchantment with a lack of statewide data on landless Adivasi communities (Government of India, 2009); and that most Adivasi received less than the required 1.26 hectares of land.
Forest Rights Act
The Indian Parliament enacted the FRA to undo the historical injustices meted against Adivasi forest dwellers. The FRA recognizes and grants legal land rights to a maximum of four hectares of forest land. Section 6 of the FRA outlines the procedure for evaluating and recognizing Adivasi forest land tenure claims (Government of India, 2007; Nikolakis & Hotte, Reference Nikolakis and Hotte2020). To commence a claim, the Gram Sabha (village assembly) forms a Forest Rights Committee (FRC) consisting of 10–15 members, two-thirds of whom should be Adivasis. The FRC evaluates claims by employing criteria of (i) whether the claimant is an Adivasi and (ii) in case of a non-Adivasi claimant, whether the member has resided and depended on the forest for their livelihood for at least three generations prior to December 13, 2005. The FRC makes recommendations to the Gram Sabha, which evaluates these and makes recommendations to a Sub-Division Level Committee (SDLC), which, in turn, can accept or reject them and recommend them to the District Level Committee (DLC). An individual or community can appeal any SDLC or Gram Sabha decision within sixty days to the SDLC and the DLC. The decision of the DLC is final and binding.
As Table 12.2 highlights, by March 31, 2022, a total of 4,429,065 claims have been made under the FRA, consisting of 4,260,247 individual claims (96.18 percent) and 168,818 community claims (3.81 percent). Table 12.2 also shows a total of 2,234,292 titles distributed to Adivasi communities and other traditional forest dwellers, and just over 95 percent of these were for individuals (or 2,132,217 titles), and the remainder were communal titles (or 102,075 titles). In total, just over 15.9 million acres of forestland were distributed to Adivasi, of which just over 11.36 million acres were communal lands (71.42 percent), and the remainder were for individuals. It is argued that the state has given undue importance to and expanded individual rather than collective rights (Nikolakis & Hotte, Reference Nikolakis and Hotte2020), and thus dilutes the constitutional and collective rights of Adivasi communities (Bose et al., Reference Bose, Arts and van Dijk2012). Also, it is important to note that for nomadic and pastoral communities, their rights are not recognized through the FRA. However, they access forest resources, collecting non-timber forest products and other traditional resources, and their stock can access grazing lands and water (Government of India, 2007).Footnote 7
Table 12.2Long description
The table gives the data of forest land given to the tribals in 4 columns namely, states, the number of claims received upto March 31 2022, the number of titles distributed upto Marcg 31, 2022, and the extent of forest land for which titles distributed in acres, from left to right in order. Columns 2 to 4 each are divided into three sub-columns namely, I or individual, C or community, and total. Below are the row-wise data for each state on the number of claims received up to March 31, 2022 by individual, community, and total values from left to right in order.
For Andhra Pradesh, the corresponding values are 274078, 3294, 277372.
For Assam, the corresponding values are 148965, 6046, 155011.
For Bihar, the corresponding values are 8022, Not applicable, 8022.
For Chhattisgarh, the corresponding values are 866955, 50806, 917761.
For Goa, the corresponding values are 9758, 378, 10136.
For Gujarat, the corresponding values are 182869, 7187, 190056.
For Himachal Pradesh, the corresponding values are 2746, 275, 3021.
For Jharkhand, the corresponding values are 107032, 3724, 110756.
For Karnataka, the corresponding values are 288357, 5938, 294295.
For Kerala, the corresponding values are 43466, 1109, 44575.
For Madhya Pradesh, the corresponding values are 585326, 42187, 627513.
For Maharashtra, the corresponding values are 362679, 12037, 374716.
For Odisha, the corresponding values are 627998, 15282, 643280.
For Rajasthan, the corresponding values are 85243, 2016, 87259.
For Tamil Nadu, the corresponding values are 33755, 1082, 34837.
For Telangana, the corresponding values are 204176, 2808, 206984.
For Tripura, the corresponding values are 200696, 277, 200973.
For Uttar Pradesh, the corresponding values are 92577, 1162, 93739.
For Uttarakhand, the corresponding values are 3587, 3091, 6678.
For West Bengal, the corresponding values are 131962, 10119, 142081.
For Andaman and Nicobar Island, the corresponding values are 0, 0, 0.
For Ladakh, the corresponding values are 0, 0, 0.
For total, the corresponding values are 4260247, 168818, 4429065.
Below are the row-wise data for each state on the number of titles distributed up to March 31, 2022 by individual, community, and total values, from left to right in order.
For Andhra Pradesh, the corresponding values are 210828, 1822, 212650.
For Assam, the corresponding values are 57325, 1477, 58802.
For Bihar, the corresponding values are 121, 0, 121.
For Chhattisgarh, the corresponding values are 445573, 45303, 490876.
For Goa, the corresponding values are 138, 11, 149.
For Gujarat, the corresponding values are 91686, 4597, 96283.
For Himachal Pradesh, the corresponding values are 129, 35, 164.
For Jharkhand, the corresponding values are 59866, 2104, 61970.
For Karnataka, the corresponding values are 14680, 1343, 16023.
For Kerala, the corresponding values are 26745, 183, 26928.
For Madhya Pradesh, the corresponding values are 266609, 27976, 294585.
For Maharashtra, the corresponding values are 165032, 7084, 172116.
For Odisha, the corresponding values are 452164, 7624, 459788.
For Rajasthan, the corresponding values are 45135, 361, 45496.
For Tamil Nadu, the corresponding values are 8144, 450, 8594.
For Telangana, the corresponding values are 97434, 102, 97536.
For Tripura, the corresponding values are 127931, 55, 127986.
For Uttar Pradesh, the corresponding values are 18049, 861, 18910.
For Uttarakhand, the corresponding values are 184, 1, 185.
For West Bengal, the corresponding values are 44444, 686, 45130.
For Andaman and Nicobar Island, the corresponding values are 0, 0, 0.
For Ladakh, the corresponding values are 0, 0, 0.
For total, the corresponding values are 2132217, 102075, 2234292.
Below are the row-wise data for each state on the extent of forest land for which titles are distributed, in acres, by individual, community, and total values, from left to tight, in order.
For Andhra Pradesh, the corresponding values are 436606, 526454, 963060.
For Assam, the corresponding values are not applicable.
For Bihar, the corresponding values are not applicable.
For Chhattisgarh, the corresponding values are 898010, 4783047, 5681057.
For Goa, the corresponding values are 299, 17, 316.
For Gujarat, the corresponding values are 156926, 1236490, 1393416.
For Himachal Pradesh, the corresponding values are 5.96, 4742, 4748.
For Jharkhand, the corresponding values are 153396, 103759, 257155.
For Karnataka, the corresponding values are 19989, 36340, 56329.
For Kerala, the corresponding values are 35449, 0, 35449.
For Madhya Pradesh, the corresponding values are 902750, 1463614, 2366365.
For Maharashtra, the corresponding values are 392929, 2736661, 3129589.
For Odisha, the corresponding values are 666089, 337043, 1003132.
For Rajasthan, the corresponding values are 63788, 12290, 76078.
For Tamil Nadu, the corresponding values are 9626, not applicable, 9626.
For Telangana, the corresponding values are 310916, 3631, 314547.
For Tripura, the corresponding values are 460182, 91, 460274.
For Uttar Pradesh, the corresponding values are 19190, 120776, 139966.
For Uttarakhand, the corresponding values are 0, 0, 0.
For West Bengal, the corresponding values are 21014, 572, 21586.
For Andaman and Nicobar island, the corresponding values are 0, 0, 0.
For Ladakh, the corresponding values are 0, 0, 0.
For total, the corresponding values are 4547166, 11365529, 15912694.
Overall, the lands granted under the ceiling laws and the FRA have expanded Adivasis’ marginal and small-scale land holdings across India.Footnote 8
Landholding Patterns in Adivasi Areas
The data on Adivasi communities and land tenure, especially the number of operational holdings and area of operational holdings,Footnote 9 are largely drawn from different Agricultural Census reports. Though the Agricultural Census commenced in 1970–1971 with an interval of five years, and the most recent in 2015–2016,Footnote 10 the data on Adivasi land holdings were collected separately in the Third Agricultural Census (1981–1982) and continued since then. Tables 12.3 and 12.4 illustrate the statewide distribution and area of Adivasi operational holdings in last two Agricultural Census, and the percent changes over time (2005–6 to 2010–11, 2010–1, and 2015–6).
Note: #excluding Jharkhand; Neg, negligible; NA, not applicable.
Table 12.3Long description
The table gives the statewide distribution of the operational landholdings for S Ts during the agricultural census from 2005 to 2011. It has 6 columns namely, states, corresponding values for the year 2005 to 2006, 2010 to 2011, 2015 to 2016, percent of variation during 2010 to 2011 over 2005 to 2006, and percent of variation during 2015 to 2016 over 2010 to 2011, from left to right in order. Below are the row-wise details.
Andhra Pradesh, the corresponding values are 9267, 3871, 4056, negative 58.22%, negative 61.72%.
Arunachal Pradesh, the corresponding values are 1064, 1065, 1103, 0.09%, 3.57%.
Assam, the corresponding values are 4379, 4382, 4431, 0.07%, 1.12%.
Bihar, the corresponding values are 1906, 2121, 2030, 11.28%, negative 4.29%.
Chhattisgarh, the corresponding values are 11054, 11768, 12565, 6.46%, 6.77%.
Goa, the corresponding values are 118, 211, 215, 78.81%, 1.90%.
Gujarat, the corresponding values are 4875, 5043, 4981, 3.45%, negative 1.23%.
Haryana, the corresponding values are 0, 0, 0, 0%, 0%.
Himachal Pradesh, the corresponding values are 447, 560, 572, 25.28%, 2.14%.
Jammu and Kashmir, the corresponding values are 1844, 1813, 2087, negative 1.68%, 15.11%.
Jharkhand, the corresponding values are Not applicable, 9670, 9791, no data, 1.25%.
Karnataka, the corresponding values are 4391, 4726, 5213, 7.63%, 10.30%.
Kerala, the corresponding values are 873, 952, 1079, 9.05%, 13.34%.
Madhya Pradesh, the corresponding values are 16274, 17823, 20005, 9.52%, 12.24%.
Maharashtra, the corresponding values are 8798, 8635, 8560, negative 1.85%, negative 0.87%.
Manipur, the corresponding values are 642, 643, 645, 0.16%, 0.31%.
Meghalaya, the corresponding values are 2026, 2088, 2287, 3.06%, 9.53%.
Mizoram, the corresponding values are 897, 917, 896, 2.23%, negative 2.29%.
Nagaland, the corresponding values are 1687, 1778, 1959, 5.39%, 10.18%.
Odisha, the corresponding values are 14074, 14255, 14605, 1.29%, 2.46%.
Punjab, the corresponding values are 0, 0, 0, 0%, 0%.
Rajasthan, the corresponding values are 9673, 11198, 12281, 15.77%, 9.67%.
Sikkim, the corresponding values are 302, 365, 312, 20.86%, -14.52%.
Tamil Nadu, the corresponding values are 686, 744, 946, 8.45%, 27.15%.
Telangana, the corresponding values are Not applicable, 6724, 7125, no data, 5.96%.
Tripura, the corresponding values are 1558, 1635, 1641, 4.94%, 0.37%.
Uttarakhand, the corresponding values are 297, 297, 793, 0.00%, 167.00%.
Uttar Pradesh, the corresponding values are 556, 709, 281, 27.52%, negative 60.37%.
West Bengal, the corresponding values are 5516, 5823, 5996, 5.57%, 2.97%.
Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the corresponding values are 0, 0, 0, 0%, 0%.
Chandigarh, the corresponding values are 0, 0, 0, 0%, 0%.
Dadra and Nagar Haveli, the corresponding values are 127, 129, 132, 1.57%, 2.33%.
Daman and Diu, the corresponding values are 6, 7, 6, 16.67%, negative 14.29%.
Delhi, the corresponding values are 0, 0, 0, 0%, 0%.
Lakshadweep, the corresponding values are 93, 94, 95, 1.08%, 1.06%.
Puducherry, the corresponding values are 0, 0, 0, 0%, 0%.
For the states in total, the corresponding values are 103431, 113322, 126687, 9.57%, 5.53%.
Note: #excluding Jharkhand; Neg, negligible; NA, Not applicable
Table 12.4Long description
The tablegives the statewide distribution of operational landholdings for S Ts during the agricultural census between 2 periods between 2005 and 2006, and 2006 and 2015. It has 6 columns namely, states, the corresponding values for 2005 to 2006, 2010 to 2011, 2015 to 2016, percent of variation during 2010 to 2011 over 2005 to 2006, and percent of variation during 2015 to 2016 over 2010 to 2011, from left to right in order. The row-wise details are as follows.
Andhra Pradesh, the corresponding values are 12,120, 4,774, 4,321, negative 60.61, negative 9.49.
Arunachal Pradesh, the corresponding values are 3,516, 3,803, 3,763, 8.16, negative 1.05.
Assam, the corresponding values are 4,901, 5,166, 5,098, 5.41, negative 1.32.
Bihar, the corresponding values are 995, 1,055, 1,032, 6.03, negative 2.18.
Chhattisgarh, the corresponding values are 22,103, 21,587, 21,241, negative 2.33, negative 1.60.
Goa, the corresponding values are 79, 241, 224, 205.06, negative 7.05.
Gujarat, the corresponding values are 9,690, 9,685, 9,584, negative 0.05, negative 1.04.
Haryana, the corresponding values are 0, 0, 0, 0, 0.
Himachal Pradesh, the corresponding values are 427, 502, 490, 17.56, negative 2.39.
Jammu and Kashmir, the corresponding values are 1,435, 1,298, 1,347, negative 9.55, 3.78.
Jharkhand, the corresponding values are NA, 14,306, 13,879, no data, negative 2.98.
Karnataka, the corresponding values are 7,249, 7,052, 7,297, negative 2.72, 3.47.
Kerala, the corresponding values are 302, 344, 383, 13.91, 11.34.
Madhya Pradesh, the corresponding values are 32,333, 31,706, 31,379, negative 1.94, negative 1.03.
Maharashtra, the corresponding values are 15,288, 15,580, 15,099, 1.91, negative 3.09.
Manipur, the corresponding values are 789, 790, 792, 0.13, 0.25.
Meghalaya, the corresponding values are 2,377, 2,862, 2,974, 20.40, 3.91.
Mizoram, the corresponding values are 1,068, 1,045, 1,114, negative 2.15, 6.60.
Nagaland, the corresponding values are 11,696, 10,715, 9,535, negative 8.39, negative 11.01.
Odisha, the corresponding values are 17,483, 16,147, 15,380, negative 7.64, negative 4.75.
Punjab, the corresponding values are 0, 0, 0, 0, 0.
Rajasthan, the corresponding values are 17,658, 17,850, 17,511, 1.09, negative 1.90.
Sikkim, the corresponding values are 569, 568, 473, negative 0.18, negative 16.73.
Tamil Nadu, the corresponding values are 752, 747, 754, negative 0.66, 0.94.
Telangana, the corresponding values are Not applicable, 7,707, 7,406, no data, negative 3.91.
Tripura, the corresponding values are 1,126, 1,239, 1,246, 10.04, 0.56.
Uttarakhand, the corresponding values are 482, 799, 895, 65.77, 12.02.
Uttar Pradesh, the corresponding values are 703, 479, 464, negative 31.86, negative 3.13.
West Bengal, the corresponding values are 3,958, 3,966, 3,964, 0.20, negative 0.05.
Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the corresponding values are 0, 0, 0, 0, 0.
Chandigarh, the corresponding values are 0, 0, 0, 0, 0.
Dadra and Nagar Haveli, the corresponding values are 172, 169, 172, negative 1.74, 1.78.
Daman and Diu, the corresponding values are 2 (Neg), 3 (Neg), 2 (Neg), 0, 0.
Delhi, the corresponding values are 0, 0, 0, 0, 0.
Lakshadweep, the corresponding values are 14, 23, 23, 64.29, 0.
Puducherry, the corresponding values are 0, 0, 0, 0, 0.
For the states in total, the corresponding values are 163,949, 182,207, 177,841, 11.14, negative 2.40.
Table 12.3 shows that in 2005–2006 and 2010–2011, there was a decline in the number of Adivasi operational holdings in Andhra Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, and Maharashtra. Similarly, in 2010–2011 and 2015–2016, there was a decline in seven states: Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Mizoram, Sikkim, Uttar Pradesh, and one union territory, Daman and Diu. The number of operational holdings is significantly less in smaller states and union territories such as Sikkim and Daman and Diu.
Table 12.4 demonstrates a decline in operational holdings in twelve states and one union territory in 2005–2006 and 2010–2011. Similarly, there was a decline in eighteen states in 2010–2011 and 2015–2016.
The statistics show a general negative trend in Adivasi land holdings that accelerated during 2015–2016. The average area of holdings has declined from 1.76 hectares in 2000–2001 to 1.64 hectares in 2005–2006 (Government of India, 2012, p. 44) and 1.40 hectares in 2015–2016 (Government of India, 2020, p. 49). The socio-economic and caste census in 2011 shows that 5.47 percent of rural Adivasi households were landless in India.Footnote 11 In 2003, 35.5 percent of Adivasi households, against 41.6 percent of all households, did not own any land other than their homestead (Bakshi, Reference Bakshi2008, p. 101).Footnote 12 The unit-level data from various rounds of the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) shows that the Adivasi household that did not own any land, not even the homestead land, has increased from 16 percent in 1987–1988 to 24 percent in 2011–2012 (Karat & Rawal, Reference Karat and Rawal2014). The same data set indicates that Adivasi households that did not possess any land increased from 13 percent in 1987–1988 to 25 percent in 2011–2012. Similarly, landlessness among Adivasis has increased from 28 percent in 1987–1988 to 39 percent in 2011–2012 (Karat & Rawal, Reference Karat and Rawal2014). In short, landlessness among rural Adivasi households has increased over time, with alarming rates of tenure insecurity.
Dispossession and tenure insecurity were heightened during the COVID-19-imposed lockdown. In a report to the United Nation’s Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Housing and Land Rights Network, New Delhi, claimed that between March and June 2020, both the Indian federal and state governments engaged in at least twenty-two cases of forced eviction of Adivasis without due process. Incidents in Odisha, Manipur, Gujarat, and Madhya Pradesh involved activities ranging from setting fire to Adivasi houses, to forcible eviction, destroying Adivasi standing crops, and using police force to quell Adivasi protests (Housing and Land Rights Network, 2020). Several other dispossession activities occurred during COVID-19 that Ambagudia (Reference Ambagudia2022b) argues undermines Adivasi land rights further, including the extension of mining leases and the approvals of major projects, many of which are on Adivasi lands.
The number of marginal land holdings among Adivasi communities has increased from 2.728 million in 1981–1982 to 7.127 million in 2015–2016 (Figure 12.1). A similar increasing trend is also visible in small and semi-medium land holdings; however, there is a gradual decline in the number of medium and large-scale land holdings held by Adivasis across India.
Figure 12.1 Number of operational holdings in India by size groups for STs, 1980–1981 to 2015–2016 (in ’000 ha)
Source: Government of India (2020, p. 50)
Figure 12.1Long description
The x-axis represents the time period, with data points for 1980-81, 1985-86, 1990-91, 1995-96, 2000-01, 2005-06, 2010-11, and 2015-16. The y-axis represents the number of operational holdings in thousands, ranging from 0 to 8000. There are five distinct lines on the graph, each representing a different size group of operational holdings for scheduled tribes or S T, as indicated by the legend. The data for the lines from top to bottom are as follows:
Marginal holdings. The line rises steadily over the period. The corresponding data points are 2728, 3161, 3763, 4376, 4429, 5118, 6470, and 7127 thousand.
Small holdings. The group shows an increasing trend, but at a slower rate. The corresponding data points are 1551, 1795, 2087, 2336, 2411, 2650, 2877, and 2972 thousand.
Semi-medium holdings. The group has a relatively stable trend with some fluctuations. The corresponding data points are 1405, 1545, 1694, 1778, 1653, 1700, 1787, and 1771 thousand.
Medium holdings. The group exhibits a declining trend. The corresponding data points are 936, 936, 943, 898, 783, 763, 760, and 704 thousand.
Larger holdings. This group has the lowest number of operational holdings and shows a slight decline over time. The corresponding data points are 234, 212, 183, 135, 128, 112, 111, and 95 thousand.
Figure 12.2 examines the operational holdings of Adivasis in 1981–1982 and 2015–2016. It shows a sharp decline in medium and large-scale holdings, decreasing in size from 5.596 million hectares and 3.729 million hectares in 1980–1981 to 3.984 million hectares and 1.434 million hectares in 2015–2016, respectively. However, marginal, small, and semi-medium land holdings gradually increased, except for 2000–2001, 2005–2006, and 2015–2016 for semi-medium.
Figure 12.2 Area operated by holdings in India by size groups for STs, 1980–1981 to 2015–2016 (in ’000 ha)
Source: Government of India (2020: p. 51)
Figure 12.2Long description
The x-axis represents the time period, with data points for 1980-81, 1985-86, 1990-91, 1995-96, 2000-01, 2005-06, 2010-11, and 2015-16. The y-axis represents the area operated in thousands of hectares, ranging from 0 to 6000. Five distinct lines on the graph represent the area operated by different size groups of operational holdings for scheduled tribes, as indicated by the legend. The data for the lines from top to bottom are as follows:
Medium holdings. This group shows a declining trend over the period. The corresponding data points are 5596, 5570, 5550, 5202, 4804, 4452, 4397, 4110, and 3984 thousand hectares. 1309, 1512, 1839, 2058, 2131, 2468, 3144, and 3413 thousand hectares.
Semi-medium holdings. The trend is an overall increase with fluctuations. The corresponding data points are 3850, 4225, 4635, 4802, 4538, 4542, 4831, and 4752 thousand hectares.
Large holdings. This group shows a declining trend. The corresponding data points are 3729, 3365, 2888, 2058, 1955, 1831, 1763, and 1434 thousand hectares.
Small holdings. This group exhibits a steady increase. The corresponding data points are 2220, 2563, 2996, 3332, 3421, 3692, 4119, and 4202.
Marginal holdings. This group exhibits a steady increase. The corresponding data points are 1309, 1512, 1839, 2131, 2159, 2468, 3144, and 3413 thousand hectares.
The comparative land picture paints Adivasis as at the margin of society and lagging behind other social groups, such as SCs and others (non-Adivasis and non-SCs) regarding the number of operational holdings (Figure 12.3). However, they are above the SCs concerning the area of operational holdings in 1985–1986 and 2015–2016 (Figure 12.4).
Figure 12.3 Number of operational holdings in India by social groups 1980–1981 to 2015–2016 (in %)
Source: Government of India (1998, p. 68; 1995–1996, pp. 59–61; 2012, p. 38; 2015: p. 47; 2020: p. 40) * Excluding Jharkhand
Figure 12.3Long description
The y-axis represents the number of holdings, ranging from 0 to 14000, while the x-axis lists the years in intervals, 1985-86, 1990-91, 1995-96, 2000-01, 2005-06, 2010-11, and 2015-16. Each bar for a given year is divided into segments by category:
Scheduled castes, given by black bars, show a gradual increase across the given period.
Scheduled tribes, given by light grey bars, rise steadily across the given period.
Others, given by white bars, dominate in number across the given period.
Institutional, given by dark grey bars, with the smallest share across the given period.
A table is provided below the vertical bar, with four rows representing the social groups, including scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, others, and institutional, and seven columns with the time period 1985-86, 19990-91, 1995-96, 2000-01, 2005-06, 2010-11, and 2015-16. The data in the table, from left to right, is filled as follows:
For scheduled castes, the corresponding values are 12041, 13422, 14688, 15140, 16073, 17099, and 17341.
For scheduled tribes, the corresponding values are 7648, 8670, 9524, 9404, 10343, 12005, and 12669.
For others, the corresponding values are 77466, 84545, 91368, 95114, 102550, 109006, and 116180.
For institutional, the corresponding values are not available till the period 1995-96. The remaining values are 272, 256, 239, and 264.
Figure 12.4 Area operated by social groups 1980–1981 to 2015–2016 (in ’000 ha)
Figure 12.4Long description
The graph’s y-axis represents the land area in thousands of hectares, ranging from 0 to 160000, while the x-axis lists the years in intervals, 1985-86, 1990-91, 1995-96, 2000-01, 2005-06, 2010-11, and 2015-16. Each bar for a given year is divided into segments by category. The data are as follows.
Scheduled castes show a gradual increase across the given period.
Scheduled tribes rise steadily and then decline across the given period.
Others show a gradual, steady decline in number across the given period.
Institutional, with the smallest share, also has a decline across the given period.
A table is provided below the vertical bar, with four rows representing the social groups, including scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, others, and institutional, and seven columns with the time period 1985-86, 19990-91, 1995-96, 2000-01, 2005-06, 2010-11, and 2015-16. The data in the table, from left to right, is as follows:
For scheduled castes, the corresponding values are 12639, 13173, 13407, 13077, 13300, 13721, and 13481.
For scheduled tribes, the corresponding values are 17234, 17909, 17524, 16525, 16929, 18221, and 17784.
For others, the corresponding values are 134689, 134425, 132424, 128027, 126399, 126108, and 125012.
For institutional, the corresponding values are not available till the period 1995-96. The remaining values are 1807, 1694, 1542, and 1540.
Five Dispossession Pathways
Figure 12.5 shows the nature and scale of Adivasi land dispossession and alienation in post-independence India, which occurs broadly in five different ways.
Figure 12.5 Process of Adivasi land alienation
Source: Kumar and Choudhary (Reference Kumar and Choudhary2005, p. 38)
Figure 12.5Long description
The flowchart begins with the text, typologies of process, which have constrained and reduced access to land for Adivasis, at the top, inside a box. The main categories of these processes are presented in five rectangular boxes at the top, from left to right.
1. The box on the left labeled, loss of land through private transactions, is connected to a box with an arrow. The box contains the following data, numbered 1 to 5.
Land mortgaging
Sale of land after permission
Illegal sale of land
Encroachment by non-Adivasis
Loss of land before survey and settlement
2. The box labeled, land alienation through displacement is connected by an arrow to a box below. This includes the data numbered 6 to 7.
Loss of land patta through land acquisition
Loss of government land cultivated by the displaced
3. The box in the middle, labeled, loss of land through survey and settlements, is connected to a box below through an arrow. The data are numbered 1 to 3 and are as follows:
Permanent cultivation land categorised as government land
Shifting cultivation land categorised as state-owned land
Un-surveyed areas
4. The text, landlessness, is labeled inside the fourth box. This is connected to a box below which include the following data:
Poor distribution of government wastelands
5. The box on the right is labeled, notification of forests. An arrow connects to a box filled with data given below.
Encroachments eligible for regularization but not regularized
Forest land where proper settlement has not taken place
Poor settlements of rights during reservation
Shifting cultivation areas categorized as forests
First, land is alienated in private transactions, such as Adivasis mortgaging their lands to non-Adivasis to meet their basic needs, perform rituals and religious ceremonies, celebrate festivals, or meet the expenditure of a daughter’s marriage (among other reasons), which sometimes leads to the illegal transfer of land. Until the 1950s and 1960s, non-Adivasis could purchase Adivasi lands with permission from relevant authorities. In some cases, records and permissions were manipulated to acquire Adivasi lands (Government of India, 2014). In some states, Adivasi communities also seek permission to sell land to non-Adivasi communities. For instance, in Tripura, seventy-four cases were submitted to and approved by the Tribes Advisory Council (TAC) in 2006–2007 and 2015–2016, transferring 52.2956 acres of Adivasi lands (Centre for Equity Studies, 2016). Adivasi communities also suffer land loss due to encroachment of their land by non-Adivasis (Ambagudia, Reference Ambagudia2019; Buckles et al., Reference Buckles, Khedkar, Ghevde and Patil2013; Viegas, Reference Viegas1991).
Second, the state acquires land for public purposes (such as development projects, highways, railways, and even conservation) through the “eminent domain principle” under the Land Acquisition Act 1895 (Levien, Reference Levien2015). On March 19, 2015, the government informed the Lok Sabha that 15,363 hectares of Adivasi lands were acquired for power plants, affecting 2,133 Adivasi families.Footnote 13 Similarly, Coal India Limited acquired 691 hectares of Adivasi lands in 2014–5; 990 hectares in 2015–6; 1,332 acres in 2016–7; and 884 acres in 2017–8 (till February 2018).Footnote 14 The state also acquires Adivasi lands to rehabilitate migrants in various parts of Adivasi territories in India (Ambagudia, Reference Ambagudia2019; Government of India, 2014; Singh, Reference Singh2010).
Third, surveys and settlements of Adivasi areas in eastern India were delayed until the 1960s, allowing lands to be transferred to non-Adivasis. Sometimes, due to flawed surveys, most of the land in Adivasi areas was registered as government land, and correspondingly, the privately owned land was significantly less (Ambagudia, Reference Ambagudia2019; Government of India, 2014).
Fourth, the continuation of landlessness among the Adivasi communities is due to the poor distribution of government wastelands, land acquired through land ceilings, and the FRA (among others).
Fifth, the Adivasi communities’ access to land also gets reduced due to areas being designated forests or protected areas, which limits access for traditional uses.
As Figure 12.5 outlines, the state not only dispossesses Adivasis in the name of “national development” but also facilitates the transfer of land and forest resources to non-Adivasis and multinational corporations (MNCs). While the government does not assess the socio-economic outcomes of Adivasis following land acquisition,Footnote 15 it is clear that dispossession is a major driver of poverty and inequality among Adivasis. This issue, in turn, has mobilized Adivasi resistance and social movements.
Strategies for Protecting Adivasi Land Rights
Adivasis have employed various strategies to advance and protect their land rights across India. These strategies range from working with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to launching social movements and pursuing land justice through the courts. The Adivasi educated class has been meeting and putting pressure on their political representatives to raise questions on Adivasi land rights in decision-making bodies such as the Parliament and state assemblies. However, the two most prominent strategies are Adivasi social movements and litigation.
Adivasi Social Movements
Land alienation in Adivasi areas, Mohanty (Reference Mohanty2001) argues, was driven by the colonial state’s land revenue policy and exploitative policies. A new land tenure system and the British introduction of non-Adivasi intermediaries and administrators accelerated Adivasi land dispossession (Xaxa, Reference Xaxa, Ambagudia and Xaxa2021). The colonial state also diluted the Adivasis’ relationship with forest resources by introducing various forest policies, thereby restricting their access. Subsequently, it commercialized and extracted the forest resources in Adivasi areas. Adivasis were compelled to work as laborers in the land they once possessed. Nevertheless, the Adivasis launched a series of rebellions against resource alienation, albeit with little or no success.
Dispossession accelerated in the post-colonial period (Murdia, Reference Murdia1975). Adivasi territories have abundant natural resources, which have been an easy target for the state and its treasury. The Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012–2017) document acknowledged that the proportion of displaced Adivasis was at least 55 percent of the total displaced people in India, and it was around 76 percent in Gujarat (cited in Government of India, n.d., p. 60). In the post-colonial period, the Adivasi movements mounted against land alienation demanded restoration of alienated land and advocated for recognizing Adivasi land rights within the country’s constitutional framework. Adivasi movements have focused their attention on the state and MNCs extracting mining and forest resources from Adivasi lands, especially since the 1990s (Ambagudia, Reference Ambagudia, Devere, Maiharoa and Synott2017).Footnote 16 Adivasi movements, involving direct action, lobbying, and advocacy, were critical for developing two of India’s most progressive land rights statutes: the PESA and the FRA (Nikolakis & Hotte, Reference Nikolakis and Hotte2020). Both of these laws seek to secure and safeguard Adivasi lands, a response to the unprecedented dispossession experienced across the country.
Litigation
The Adivasis of India also resort to litigation to advance and safeguard their land rights. Sometimes they take individual initiatives to file cases in the court, and other times various organizations mobilize and file cases on behalf of Adivasis in the courts for restoring the alienated land. The Adivasis usually arrange financial resources required for fighting cases in cash or in-kind (crops) if the organizations are involved. Table 12.5 shows 437,173 cases covering 661,806 acres of unlawfully alienated land were filed in the courts; of these, 360,590 cases were decided, and 217,396 (60.28 percent) cases were decided in favor of Adivasi communities (covering 412,865 acres). However, all decided lands were not restored.
Table 12.5Long description
A table gives the statewide information on the alienation and restoration of tribal lands. It has 5 main columns namely, state, cases filed in court, cases disposed of by the court, cases decided in favor of Adivasi, and cases in which land was restored to Adivasis, from left to right in order. Columns 2 to 5 have 2 sub-columns each namely, the number and area in acres of tribal lands for each of the case categories. Below are the state-wise data
1. Below are the state-wise data for the cases filed in court by number and area, in order.
For Andhra Pradesh, the corresponding values are 65875, 287776.
For Assam, the corresponding values are 2042, 4211.
For Bihar, the corresponding values are 86291, 104893.
For Chhattisgarh, the corresponding values are 49138, Not applicable.
For Gujarat, the corresponding values are 20847, 76612.
For Himachal Pradesh, the corresponding values are 2, 21.
For Jharkhand, the corresponding values are 5382, 4002.
For Karnataka, the corresponding values are 10686, 40189.
For Madhya Pradesh, the corresponding values are 13440, 8997.
For Maharashtra, the corresponding values are 45634, Not applicable.
For Odisha, the corresponding values are 107798, 106530.
For Rajasthan, the corresponding values are 886, 3099.
For Tripura, the corresponding values are 29152, 25476.
For Total, the corresponding values are 437173, 661806.
2. Below are the state-wise date for the cases disposed of by the court by number and area in order.
For Andhra Pradesh, the corresponding values are 58212, 256452.
For Assam, the corresponding values are 50, 19.
For Bihar, the corresponding values are 76518, 95151.
For Chhattisgarh, the corresponding values are 21290, 13440.
For Gujarat, the corresponding values are 20044, 74053.
For Himachal Pradesh, the corresponding values are 0, 0.
For Jharkhand, the corresponding values are 1362, Not applicable.
For Karnataka, the corresponding values are 10222, 37457.
For Madhya Pradesh, the corresponding values are 11705, 8429.
For Maharashtra, the corresponding values are 44624, 99486.
For Odisha, the corresponding values are 107190, 105840.
For Rajasthan, the corresponding values are 285, 176.
For Tripura, the corresponding values are 9088, 7368.
For Total, the corresponding values are 360590, 697871.
3. Below are the state-wise data of the cases decided in favor of Adivasis by number and area in order.
For Andhra Pradesh, the corresponding values are 26475, 106225.
For Assam, the corresponding values are 50, 19.
For Bihar, the corresponding values are 44634, 45421.
For Chhattisgarh, the corresponding values are 21202, Not applicable.
For Gujarat, the corresponding values are 19522, 72666.
For Himachal Pradesh, the corresponding values are 0, 0.
For Jharkhand, the corresponding values are 1079, 860.
For Karnataka, the corresponding values are 4544, 16234.
For Madhya Pradesh, the corresponding values are 7721, 6277.
For Maharashtra, the corresponding values are 19943, 99486.
For Odisha, the corresponding values are 62943, 57891.
For Rajasthan, the corresponding values are 195, 418.
For Tripura, the corresponding values are 9088, 7368.
For Total, the corresponding values are 217396, 412865.
4. Below are the state-wise data on cases in which land was restored to Adivasis by number and area in order.
For Andhra Pradesh, the corresponding values are 23383, 94312.
For Assam, the corresponding values are 50, 19.
For Bihar, the corresponding values are 44634, 45421.
For Chhattisgarh, the corresponding values are 13364, NA.
For Gujarat, the corresponding values are 363, 1919.
For Himachal Pradesh, the corresponding values are 0, 0.
For Jharkhand, the corresponding values are 1079, 860.
For Karnataka, the corresponding values are 4490, 16127.
For Madhya Pradesh, the corresponding values are 8738, 8300.
For Maharashtra, the corresponding values are 19943, 99486.
For Odisha, the corresponding values are 61257, 57013.
For Rajasthan, the corresponding values are 195, 417.
For Tripura, the corresponding values are 8994, 7318.
For Total, the corresponding values are 186490, 331192.
The highest number of cases were filed in Odisha (107,798), followed by Bihar (86,291) (Table 12.5). Similarly, Andhra Pradesh witnessed the highest amount of Adivasi land alienation (287,776 acres), followed by Odisha (106,530 acres). On September 6, 2012, the government informed the Lok Sabha that 4.37 lakh cases, covering 6.61 lakh acres of Adivasi land alienation had been registered, out of which 2.17 lakh cases have been legally disposed of in favor of the Adivasis that covered 4.12 lakh acres.Footnote 17 However, the overall progress of the restoration of alienated Adivasi land was unsatisfactory, with the Committee on State Agrarian Relations and the Unfinished Task in Land Reforms arguing the dismal progress was because the “Courts, bureaucrats and mostly public men, are often formidably interlocked against the Adivasis” (Government of India, 2009, p. 37).
Examining the various interim orders and judgements of Samatha vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors (Samatha Judgment), Narmada Bachao Andolon vs Union of India & Ors (Narmada Bachao Andolan case), T. N. Godavaraman Thirumulpad vs Union of India and Ors (Niyamgiri Judgment) and February 2019 judicial Order on the FRA (FRA case), Ambagudia (Reference Ambagudia, Linkenbach and Verma2022a) contends that the judiciary has maintained an inconsistency around Adivasi land rights. In the Samatha case, the Supreme Court considered whether the state is a “person” under Section 3(1)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation 1959 (Regulation 1 of 1959) and whether it could lease out land in Scheduled Areas to mining companies. Samata, an NGO, challenged the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision to reject the state “as a person” and uphold the mining lease in the Visakhapatnam district Scheduled Areas.Footnote 18 On appeal, the Supreme Court considered the state a person and ruled that the mining lease to non-Adivasi in Scheduled Areas was invalid. The federal and state governments attempted to dilute this judgment and tried to amend the Fifth Schedule to ease the legal blockade created by the Samatha judgment for leasing Scheduled Area lands to non-tribal entities (Ambagudia, Reference Ambagudia, Linkenbach and Verma2022a).
Similarly, when the Supreme Court delivered the Niyamgiri judgement in favor of Adivasi communities on April 18, 2013, the Odisha Mining Corporation Limited again approached the Supreme Court in 2016 to reopen the case and reconvene the twelve Gram Sabhas that had rejected the bauxite mining in Niyamgiri in 2013 (Ambagudia, Reference Ambagudia, Linkenbach and Verma2022a).
In the Narmada Bachao Andolan case, the Narmada Bacho Andolan launched a social movement (consisting of native Adivasis, farmers, environmentalists and social activists) against the Sardar Sarovar Dam Project on the Narmada River in western India, which would displace the Adivasis living in the region. The Supreme Court has delivered mixed judgments, with the end result being project approval and Adivasi displacement. In the FRA case, when the Supreme Court further heard the matter on February 13, 2019, the executive (central government) did not send its law officer to defend the central law, FRA, and the Supreme Court ordered the eviction of the rejected claimants of Adivasis and other forest dwellers from the forest land by July 24, 2019 (Ambagudia, Reference Ambagudia, Linkenbach and Verma2022a). However, the judicial order has been put on hold due to pressure from the Adivasis and Adivasi rights activists, as due process was not followed while rejecting the claims. In short, while these institutions are expected to protect and promote Adivasi land rights, they have often worked to undermine Adivasi land rights.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Due to an implementation gap – where the executive, legislature, and courts work at odds to Adivasi land justice – the comprehensive constitutional and statutory measures for Adivasi land rights, at federal and state levels, have neither advanced nor safeguarded these rights. Indeed, what this chapter shows is that over the last decades, the Adivasi land base has been eroded, and landlessness and the poverty that comes with it is now a persistent problem for Adivasis across India.
The dispossession and deprivation of Adivasis have led to conflicts over land and natural resources between the Adivasis and other actors such as the state, MNCs, and non-Adivasi communities in different parts of the country. The need of the day is to take a series of robust measures to strengthen and advance Adivasi land rights. Six steps are critical to strengthening Adivasi land rights.
First, the existing legislative frameworks for Adivasi land rights must be implemented with sincerity and commitment across the country. In addition, existing land laws must also be independently assessed, based on their effectiveness, and any changes must be made if necessary.
Second, institutions such as the legislature, executive, and judiciary should be sensitive while dealing with the Adivasi land issues. Any oversight would lead to the dispossession of Adivasi lands. Any attempt to dilute the relationship between the Adivasis and land would only incite resistance on an unprecedented scale.
Third, as outlined in Table 12.5, several Adivasi land cases are yet to be disposed of. In this context, special courts must be set up to dispose Adivasi land rights cases in a timely manner.
Fourth, Sixth Schedule Areas are relatively less prone to Adivasi land alienation due to the legislative power of the Autonomous District Councils of Adivasis to make laws on land relations. On the contrary, state governments enact laws governing the Adivasi land in Fifth Schedule Areas with, of course, less sensitivity towards Adivasi land rights. In this context, enacting similar provisions of Sixth Schedule Areas in Fifth Schedule Areas would advance and safeguard the Adivasi land rights in India.
Fifth, building on the Adivasi land-based data, institutional mechanisms should be established such as independent monitoring agencies to regulate the Adivasi land relations with the federal and state governments and their sub-units. The monitoring agencies could collect data on various dynamics of Adivasi land. They could examine and (dis)approve the acquisition of Adivasi land. They could also examine the state governments’ move to dilute the legislation to protect and promote Adivasi land rights.Footnote 19
Sixth, support for Adivasi leaders must be enabled to build a robust Adivasi land movement, collaborating with civil society organizations in ways that strengthen and advance Adivasi land rights. The involvement of civil society organizations in the past has proved beneficial for Adivasis, especially in reference to PESA and FRA.
Looking ahead, further research could examine the success stories and the failures for Adivasi land rights – it is important to share what is working, and what is not, to guide land justice across India.
Open access