The small victory for the 47 families with solid title to their land in Nadodewadi rekindled the inquiry's sense of purpose and inspired the Katkari to take up once again the goal of acquiring gaothan for their hamlets. Over a period of several months, the various gaothan action committees once again began to contact the research team and ask for meetings. The threat of eviction was as tangible as ever. People said that they wanted to do something, but were not sure what. The research team was not sure either. We agreed, however, to explore the many issues that people were raising about why people in some hamlets were not willing to take a public stand on the gaothan issue, and to use this understanding to plan future actions. Fear of the landholders was very much at the forefront during these discussions and became a key question the Katkari wanted to explore further.

This chapter discusses crucial results from the efforts to make sense of the Katkari's fear of landholders immediately following the gram sabha process. While for many Katkari, overcoming their fear initially seemed like an impossible task, their own interpretations of the threats they faced launched several new lines of action and inquiry. These unfolded in unexpected ways and at different rates. We needed new participatory inquiry and planning methods to take us beyond the simple chain of cause and effect revealed through the problem tree.

The origins of the gaothan problem are embedded in a complex historical process involving three main threads: Katkari migration from forested hills to the outskirts of caste villages on the coastal plain, integration into rural and migratory livelihoods where the Katkari could be easily bonded and systematic exclusion from the caste communities where Katkari hamlets are now located. The dual process of integration and exclusion (Kela 2006) sheds light on how and why the Katkari came to be so vulnerable to enclosure and eviction from their homes. This chapter traces the intermingling of these historical forces and concludes with a description of the Katkari's living conditions observed by the research team at the launch of the inquiry.

Our historical reconstruction of the gaothan problem also illustrates the evolving relationship between the Katkari and the caste-based agrarian societies of the coastal districts of Maharashtra. We argue, as Heredia and Srivastava do in their 1994 study of the Katkari, that their vulnerability to external exploitation is not due to some inherent characteristics of their culture and communities. The Katkari, and for that matter other tribes of India (Béteille, 2008), do not have a fixed cultural identity linked to an unchanging past that can be labelled as primitive and backward.

The bonds of migratory livelihoods weigh heavily on Katkari efforts to improve their lives. They are like chains keeping the Katkari tied to highly exploitative work during part of the year and dependent on local patrons to bridge meagre earnings during the rest of the year. They are also a significant barrier to Katkari engagement in the political and social life of the broader community and an enduring source of vulnerability to eviction. They isolate the vast majority of the Katkari from mainstream employment and sources of power and integrate only the youngest and the strongest into the lowest rungs of the industrial labour pool. Breaking these bonds is a vital challenge with significant implications for virtually all aspects of their lives.

The persistent gap between the lived experience of the Adivasis as a class of citizens and the equality provisions in the Constitution of India continues to trouble people and organizations concerned about justice for marginalized communities in India. Large disparities in living standards, displacement from traditional lands and territorial resources, exploitation in the workplace and humiliation in day-to-day transactions mark the Adivasis as a population apart. As such, they are far from realizing the country's constitutional ideals of equality, justice and freedom.

While there is a well-recognized need to address these urgent problems, solutions tend to focus on the constitutional and administrative mechanisms alone. Special laws and policies have been put in place to ‘uplift’ the Adivasis through a combination of political will and an effective bureaucracy (Béteille, 1992). Caste-based voting patterns have lent support to the formation of a political elite among some Adivasi communities and the emergence of new forms of tribal politics (Devalle 1992; Ghosh 2006; Oommen 2010; Radhakrishnan 2003; Shah 2010; Sinha 2010). Affirmative action (reservation policies) with respect to access to education and government jobs has also led to concrete improvements for some individuals, although they are mainly the upwardly mobile and dominant sections of particular groups. The vast majority of Adivasi communities have not benefited directly from these policies (Kijima 2006), despite the expenditure of considerable financial and human resources over the years.

Until recently, the Katkari gaothan problem was largely invisible to activist and development organizations working in Maharashtra, including ourselves. In the absence of pressure from the Katkari themselves, government officials also neglected the issue. Interviews by the research team with the gram sevak and other local government officials indicated that when the inquiry started, they were largely unaware of the scope and impact of the gaothan problem on the Katkari. Nor had they thought about the emerging risk of widespread evictions in the rapidly changing economic context and real-estate frenzy. Officials were unacquainted with the history of the previous gaothan extension schemes, and unclear about the bureaucratic procedures and relevant laws, regulations and policies. Their failure to implement policies from the past was not evident to them. Nor was it of any real concern or priority. The Katkari had exerted no demands on officials, so the problem was out of sight and out of mind.

Following the challenges by landholders to the local gram sabha process, the research team and the Katkari resolved to engage with government actors at the taluka level and higher, not only to pressurize them to act but also to provide them with relevant information and analysis showing the scope of the problem, the legal basis for resolution and the moral and ethical obligation to act.

To move beyond the limbo created by government neglect, the Katkari must engage with politicians who can reactivate the gaothan extension scheme. They must also apply sustained pressure on government officials to implement the scheme properly. Otherwise, the gaothan will remain out of reach and subject to the whims and personal interests of landholders. For many reasons, such actions are a major undertaking. Katkari communities today are highly fragmented, both socially and politically. Some form of new Katkari collective agency is needed to move beyond the ad hoc and patchy assistance provided by the research team and other activist organizations working with them.

This chapter reflects on efforts by the Katkari and the research team to strengthen Katkari collective organization (committees, youth groups, labour unions, associations) and capacities to bring specific interests and demands into the public sphere. We begin with a brief outline of the reasons why traditional leadership and organization in Katkari communities remains weak and of the systematic exclusion of Katkari from the mainstream political structures of representation normally available to people in rural communities. This is followed by an account of several Katkari initiatives to organize collectively, as supported and reinforced by the inquiry into the gaothan problem. The story provides insight into the opportunities being created by Katkari leadership and also highlights the ongoing constraints that undermine the Katkari's ability to make practical use of their numbers and potential political influence. These efforts can be seen as part of what Fuchs and Linkenbach (2004) have called ‘tribal resistance’ to attacks on the political bases of tribal existence.

The research process illustrated in this book has tried to change the situation of the Katkari by engaging them in the analysis and interpretation of the constraints they face. Over a period of six years, from March 2005 to August 2011, research-in-action sought to secure a gaothan for 212 Katkari hamlets in three talukas at risk of enclosure and eviction. While the results of this effort seem fragile and uneven from hamlet to hamlet, we believe readers will agree that what emerged was also meaningful and significant.

This chapter highlights some of the observed changes related to the Katkari's vulnerability and the persistent constraints that they continue to face. A separate section contains the research team's recommendations to governments and civil society organizations committed to resolving this longstanding problem. Legal activism is at the forefront of these recommendations and rests on recognition of public responsibility for the failure in the past to secure Katkari village sites. While the Katkari are not just passive victims of this circumstance, politicians and government officials should see the Katkari claims as an urgent demand and ethical obligation that requires a concerted and immediate response.

Observed Change

Overall, Katkari hamlets in the area where the inquiry was active are now moderately more secure than when enclosures and evictions went unnoticed and unchallenged. Landholders are more cautious, due to the tangible risk of prosecution under the Prevention of Atrocities Act. Enclosure and full-scale evictions are on hold, at least for the time being. This improvement is a relief from the tidal wave of misery being unleashed on the Katkari by a relentless and well-resourced real-estate boom.

Our engagement with the Katkari about village sites began in March 2005 when several Katkari women from Malegavwadi in Karjat taluka told a member of the research team that a barbed wire fence had been erected around their hamlet. A religious trust had recently purchased several properties to establish an ashram. The sale included title to land settled some 80 years earlier by about 20 Katkari families. The barbed wire fence was placed tightly around the irregular perimeter of the hamlet, within a few feet of each house. A single small gate was left for people to enter and leave the site. Inhabitants said they felt like prisoners in a space they considered the sacred home of their ancestors. Strife within the community grew as the new owner pressured some families to convince others to dismantle their houses and shift to another location. The trust offered the inhabitants an alternative site some 3 km away. Villagers were conflicted over what to do and some sought the advice and assistance of a member of the research team with whom they had a longstanding relationship.

This chapter describes initial Katkari responses to the threat of eviction, including efforts that our research team supported, such as developing and submitting petitions for assistance from village authorities and government officials. As this chapter will show, work on the various activities and objectives of the Katkari encountered many unexpected problems. These problems challenged our entire approach to planning the research and engaging with the Katkari. But before delving into these dilemmas, the following narrative, reconstructed from several conversations in the hamlet of Malegavwadi, reveals the strong emotions stirred up by the threat of eviction.