Multi-Functional Approach to Tribal Welfare: Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

Multi-Functional Approach to Tribal Welfare

Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao

Published in AP Times on 21^st December 1996

Twenty five years ago gentle and modest late P. Kamala Manohar Rao, in his report to the AP State Government on streamlining Tribal Development Administration, strongly recommended a “Single-Line Administration”. Though number of schemes for the welfare of tribals in the State as elsewhere in the country has been drawn up and scores of them are being implemented, most of the key suggestions made by Rao were not considered by Government. Still miles and miles to go to tackle this delicate issue! Kamala Manohar Rao was the first Director of Tribal Welfare when it was created in 1966 and continued for a decade until he retired in 1975

The Government of Andhra Pradesh in 1985 appointed Rusthomjee and Associates as Management Consultants to advise the State Government on Administrative Reforms in the state for simplifying and quickening the work in administration. Kamala Manohar Rao was entrusted with the task of Tribal Development Administration as part of that.

In his report titled “Streamlining of Tribal Development Administration in Andhra Pradesh” Rao recommended a “Single-Window Approach” and a decentralised multi-functional organisation for tribal development administration. His report was a comprehensive document and for all those who wish to look at problems of tribals in perspective, the report reads very interesting.

The then Principal of Administrative Staff College of India Dharani P. Sinha commending the report wrote: “if one wants to get results in tribal areas there is no alternative other than creating a decentralised administration with integrated multi-functional approach, where executives from different departments are accountable to the tribal development administrator”.

Kamala Manohar Rao with Kasu Brahmanada Reddy

Late Prof. C. Von Fuer Haimendorf, whose service to the tribals of the State lives for ever in the minds of one and all, in his letter in December 1985 from London to Kamala Manohar Rao, in his capacity of Emeritus Professor, London School of African and Asian Studies had all praise for the efforts of Rao. He Congratulating Rao for his brilliant analysis Haimendorf agreed with Rao and wrote that, there was an urgent need for a thorough revision of the administrative machinery in the tribal areas. Haimendorf said: “I am particularly impressed by the soundness of Rao’s recommendation to introduce in the tribal areas a single-line administration and to concentrate for this purpose power in the hands of project officer, who should act as agent to the government, with revenue and judicial powers comparable to the powers of the collector as agent exercised in the system which was established by the Hyderabad Tribal Areas Regulation Act of 1949. Prof. Haimendorf expressed the hope that Rao’s realistic proposals would be accepted by the State Government, the implementation of which would greatly benefit the tribal population of the State.

Kamala Manohar Rao recommended that the Girijan Cooperative Corporation to be combined in itself credit, commercial and welfare functions as a central bank as well as to function as a marketing organisation. He wanted it to have a project review and control mechanism and an independent status as Tribal Cultural Research and Training Institute. Another suggestion made by him refers to changes in the administrative structure at the secretariat level which included constitution of a State level high power committee with the Chief Minister as Chairman, constitution of committee of experts to advise the Chief Minister on tribal affairs and constitution of another committee of direction to assess and review development. At the directorate level and district level also, Rao made many outstanding suggestions.

Kamala Manohar Rao, born on December 20, 1919 as a postgraduate student in 1947 was identified by Haimendorf to work among the tribals. He joined service in the Social Welfare Department of Nizam’s Government. Rao evolved an integrated programme of development for weaning away tribals from the extremist movement launched by the Communists in the Telangana tribal belt, in collaboration with Haimendorf, who was then adviser to the government to Hyderabad on tribals in 1949. They were successful in restoring peace in that area.

Haimendorf was responsible for starting the social service department for the welfare of Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and at that time Rao was appointed as trainee organiser. Rao was instrumental in implementing the Hyderabad Tribal Areas Regulation Act, 1949 in Warangal district. It was Kamala Manohar Rao, who worked out a strategy for bifurcation of the tribal welfare and social welfare departments. He was Director of the Tribal Cultural Research and Training Institute for three years before assuming as the first director of the newly created Tribal Welfare Department in 1966.

Tribals also known as “Adivasis” are the people who have been living in India from the beginning-Adi meaning the first. In English they are referred as aboriginal tribes, hill tribes and forest tribes and so on.

Among the 33 different tribes of Andhra Pradesh known as pre Dravidian notable are: Kondu or Kandha, Koya or Kuyi, Kondadora or Kondakapu or Oza, Poraja, Gadaba, Savara, Chenchu, Yenadi, Irula or Villavan, Yerukala or Koracha or Korava, Lambadi or Banjara, Sugali, Jatapu, Bagata Gondu and so on.

The Kondus live in the Ganjam area of erstwhile Vizag district now in Orissa and also in Telangana districts. Porjas, Saravas, and Gadabas live in Vizag district where as Chenchus live in Mahaboobnagar, Kurnool and Vizag districts. Yenadis live in Nellore, Guntur and Chittoor districts, Irulas in Chittoor district, Jatapu, Bagata tribes in Vizag district and Yerukala and Lambadas in all the districts.

The original tribals used to live on hill tops, forests, caves and under the shade of trees. They were scared on seeing the civilized people from outside and used to literally run to their hide outs. They develop their villages also along the river side, which, however, are very small in size. Rarely 10 to 15 huts will make one village. The huts will have no windows or doors. The walls are made up of mud and bamboo.

Among the tribals the names of the sect sound very peculiar. Normally, they are derived from an animal or a tree. For example some of the first names are Nakkala (fox), Mamidi (mango), Gurram (Horse), Pamula (snake) and so on. Simplicity, honesty, frankness and contented happiness are the qualities of Adivasis. A bow with arrows of an iron rod or an axe is the weapons which normally a tribal carries with him for protection from animals and enemies.

Their routine starts with their going into the forest early in the morning in search of food. They normally reach home at the end of the day but occasionally may stay out for two or three days. They lived on mostly podu cultivation but as the days passed, they are also getting used to modern agriculture methods.

The tribals of AP live both in plains as well as in the hills and jungles. Many tribes of the plains are nomadic, lend-lease, primitive. Tribes in the agency areas have their lands alienated, whatever little property they have, mortgaged.

The British rule in Madras State, including Andhra, integrated tribals within the orbit of direct administration with some reservation. It was based on the concept of protection of the tribes as ethnic communities, the colonial tribal administration set up the agency system under the India Act, 24 of 1839. The system was strengthened by Scheduled District Act of 1874 and the Agency Rules of 1879. It continued under the Montague Chelmsford Reforms of 1919 and GOI Act of 1935. This kept tribal areas out of the operations of ordinary laws and regulations. By formulating simple laws and rules for the settlement of disputes and also by regulating the entry of aliens into tribal areas and similar other gestures, by and large the colonial rule sought the support of tribal institutions and through it tribal leadership as far as possible.

The agency system, however, brought the market economy into tribal areas and facilitated the emergence of private rights in land. Non-tribals began settling down in tribal areas as traders, money lenders and land grabbers. The collection of minor forest produce pushed tribals into the hands of forest contractors. Gradually the tribals were subjected to forced labour in the form of “vetti” (bonded) and “gothi”.

The Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfers Act of 1917, the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act of 1938 which was extended to agencies, Abolition of Bonded Labour through a Regulation in February 1938, the Agency Debt Bondage Abolition Regulation Act of 1940 etc., were some of the protection measures taken up by the provincial government in Madras. However, the implementation of the above measures was far from satisfactory. While the Constitution of Independent India was being drafted, a sub-committee headed by Thakkar Bapa recommended various solutions to tribal problems. These were incorporated in various articles and schedules of the Constitution.

Articles 46, 275, 330, 334, 335 and 339 of our Constitution relate explicitly safeguarding the tribal interests. The 5^th schedule of the Constitution envisages a division of responsibility between the State and Central Governments for administering the scheduled areas. The responsibility of the Stat Government in regard to tribal administration has to be submitted to the President of India and annual report and periodical reports to the GOI regarding the scheduled areas administration. In effect there were and have been obvious failures and anticipated results did not materialise. This fact was observed even by the Dhebar Commission.

The post independence government brought several land legislation measures to protect the tribals but when it came to implementation the results were poor. The Scheduled Areas Estates Land Reduction of Rent (Amendment) Regulation of 1951 The Andhra Scheduled Areas Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Rytwari) Regulation of 1951; the Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation of 1959; the Scheduled Areas Money Lenders Regulation of 1960 and the Scheduled Tribes Debt Relief Regulation of 1960 were all aimed at welfare of tribals. Despite the condemnation of the various evils of “Muttadari” or “Mustajari” system by the Malayappan Committee in its report of 1952, it persisted till 1969 to be abolished then. This system made the tribals ineligible to have proprietary rights on their own lands. From time to time various methods were invented and adopted by vested interests to circumvent the legislation.

The Andhra Pradesh Government in October 1956 set up the Andhra Scheduled Tribes Cooperative Finance Development Corporation to eliminate exploitation of the tribals by middlemen and money lenders. However, according to the report of a study team on tribal development programmes, this corporation also failed in its primary purpose of rescuing the tribals from the strangle hold of middlemen and moneylenders and promoting their welfare. Later Girijan Corporation in 1969 supported by Kamala Manohar Rao came in to existence to which even Naxalism cowed down.

In 1952, the Government of India brought out a new forest policy by classifying the forests into four categories wherein village forests were allotted for the use of tribal communities subject to certain rules. This only pushed the tribal to be turned as a subject placed under the forest department. It somehow caused lot of heart burning to the tribals.

It is mostly in the four districts of Srikakulam, East and West Godavari districts that almost all the tribal revolts occurred. In Adilabad the revolts of Gonds led by Bhimu was put down by the British rule. Some of the tribal revolts took place during the British East India rule. Tribal revolts in the State erupted on four occasions. The first of the revolts led by Rambhoopathi took place in 1802-03, known as the “Rampa Pituri” (rebellion) named after Rampa near Chodavaram. The second revolt broke out around 1879 led by Chandraiah, Sambayya, Thimmandora and Ambul Reddy; spread over 5000 Square Miles in Rampa under Chodavaram taluk.

The third revolt took place in 1922-24, the hero of which was Alluri Sitaramaraju, who was brutally killed by the British army in May, 1924 at Mampa in the erstwhile Vizag district (now in Srikakulam district). The fourth revolt was that of Naxalite armed struggle in Srikakulam between 1968-71 led by Vempatapu Satyam and Adibhatla Kailasam. Both the Rampa revolts, though did not bring any military victory to tribals, they nevertheless pointed out the seriousness of the problem, that led to evolving the new Agency Tribal Policies indicating special treatment and special facilities to safeguard tribal interests with special protection measures.

“Muttadari” system, oppressive in its operation and even more hated in its effect than the Zamindari system, that was one of the causes for Srikakulam tribal revolt, was abolished in 1970. The government passed APST Debt Relief Regulation, which took effect from 1.9.1970, gave tremendous relief to the tribal people. Land Transfer Regulation of 1959 was amended and the AP Scheduled Areas Land Transfer (amendment) Regulation-I of 1970 was brought in by the government. It prohibited transfer of lands in the scheduled Areas in favour of non-tribals and further non-tribals holding lands in the scheduled areas were prohibited from transferring lands to other non-tribals.

After reviewing this Regulation, an amendment was issued through Regulation-I of 1971. Again in 1978 another Regulation-I of 1978 was passed. The repeal of Regulation-I of 1970 by the State Government in February 1989 faced a lot of criticism from many corners. The repeal introduced the presumptive rule that land owned by non-tribal in a scheduled area will be deemed as acquired from a tribal until the contrary is proved. It made imperative that non-tribals holding land in the scheduled area shall not transfer it to any non-tribal. By another clause in the Act, the government was obliged to acquire the land, which the non-tribal or tribal could not sell to another tribal, on even payment of appropriate compensation.

In this backdrop the report submitted by Kamala Manohar Rao, whose long association with tribes and tribal development administration for about four decades could have been an answer to several problems. Kamala Manohar Rao was motivated by Haimendorf in the tradition of applying anthropological knowledge to field situations. As observed by Rao in his report, it requires a constant effort for creation of delivery system attuned to the ideals and objectives set forth in the constitution and the plans. Traditional administrative systems cannot adequately handle the new development tasks. It requires application of skills and technology in various fields and calls for rigorous coordination and integration of skills and technologies in various sectors.

It may perhaps be desirable, that the report of Kamala Manohar Rao, which contains several proposals, based on the study of various commission reports, are afresh gone through once again to workout a new tribal development policy enabling tribals to reap full benefits from all the developmental studies. This is how we can remember that great soul on the occasion of his 78^th birth anniversary, falling on December 20, 1996. He remains to this day what Verrier Ellwyn called one of the greatest field-oriented philanthropists of this century, particularly in India the “rara avis” of sociologist-administrators, who are, indeed a vanishing tribe.

TO WHOM DOES THE SCHEDULED AREA BELONG?

IN THE CONTEXT OF TRIBAL LAND
IN ANDHRA PRADESH

(Carried by manamlagaru.com internet magazine in july-august, 2009)

AP Chief Minister Dr. YS Rajasekhara Reddy during his visit to Rampachodavaram in East Godavari district in Andhra Pradesh State distributed land pattas to tribal women and complemented the tribal population in helping the government in mitigating the extremist problem by making full use of development and welfare schemes in the Agency areas initiated and to be continued by his government. The AP State Government deserves full complements for its decision to distribute 12 Lakh acres of land in all to three Lakh beneficiaries under various tribal Welfare Acts. However to what extent this move of CM and his government would really benefit the tribal on the long run as the tribal land has always been under the threat of being taken over by non-tribal industrialists taking advantage of loopholes in the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer (Amendment) Regulation-I of 1970 Act.

The Land Transfer Regulation I of 1970 had positively attempted to restore the land owned by non-tribal to tribal in Scheduled Areas. It introduced the presumptive clause, that, Land owned by a non-tribal in a Scheduled Area will be deemed as acquired from a tribal until the contrary is proved. The Regulation made it imperative that any non-tribal holding land in the Scheduled Area shall not transfer it to even any non-tribal. It stipulates, that, any transfer of immovable property situated in the agency tracts by a ‘person’, whether or not such a ‘person’ is member of a Scheduled Tribe, was absolutely null and void, unless such transfer is made in favor of a ‘person’, who is member of a Scheduled Tribe or a society, registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 which is composed solely of members of Scheduled Tribes.

Another clause of the Regulation provided for the surrender of land in Scheduled Areas to the Government where the non-tribal or the tribal could not sell it to another tribal. The Government is obliged to acquire the land on payment of ‘appropriate compensation’. It also prohibited the transfer of land from a tribal to a non-tribal, and made it obligatory on the part of Government to eject the non-tribal and restore the land to the original tribal owner.

By virtue of legislative powers conferred on the Governor of the State under Article 244(I) read with Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India, among the various protective measures undertaken by the Andhra Pradesh Government for the tribal welfare, notable to mention, was, Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation Act of 1959. Regulation I of this Act is the primary law for the protection of the rights of the tribal over their lands. The Regulation as it stood originally, prohibited alienation of lands by tribal to non-tribal unless prior written permission on sanction of the competent authority was obtained. That Regulation also empowered the Agent (Collector) to decree an ejectment against any non-tribal in possession of any land the transfer of which was made in contravention of its provisions and to restore such lands to the transferors or their heirs. Regulation II of 1963 later extended the Regulation, which was originally for the Andhra Area, to Scheduled Areas of Telangana also.

In the 1959 Act, the scope of the word ‘transfer’ was clarified to include “any other dealing with immovable property” and the definition of ‘immovable property’ was also enhanced to include “standing crops, timber and trees”. The word “Scheduled Tribe” was introduced in the Act, to include any tribe or tribal community notified as such by the President under Article 342 of the Constitution. Under the provisions of 1959 Regulation, though, transfer of immovable property by a member of Scheduled Tribe to a non-tribal was made null and void; it did have an exception clause, inferring ‘imposing certain restrictions only’. Difficulties were encountered by the implementing agencies of Government in ejectment procedures, in as much it was, not always easy for the authority concerned to ascertain as to how the non-tribal got the lands in their possession. This resulted in amending the Regulation I of 1959, in the year 1970 which is now popularly known as “One of 1970” even to an illiterate tribal and to all those who do not even know English alphabets. Needless to say, that, it touched the hearts of whole tribal community.

After reviewing the Regulation I of 1970 and with a view to lessen the hardship of the Scheduled Tribes and probably to benefit them, an amendment was issued through Regulation I of 1971, enabling the tribal to mortgage without possession any immovable property to the cooperative society and other financial institutions for free flow of credit to them.

Further amendment was made through Regulation I of 1978, which prohibited, registration of documents of land transfers in favor of non-tribal, and provided for a year’s rigorous imprisonment as well as monetary fine for acquiring the land after ejectment decree was passed. In 1979, another Government Order was issued exempting small non-tribal farmers owning five acres of wetland and ten acres of dry land from the provisions of Regulation I of 1970. The courts, however, stood by the Regulation and the Andhra Pradesh High Court stuck down the 1979 Government Order in 1983. When the non-tribal agitated before the High Court and Supreme Court questioning the Constitutional validity of Regulation I of 1970, they were dismissed. The Judges of the Supreme Court observed, that, it was necessary to keep in view, the socio-economic context, in judging whether a Regulation was reasonable or not. They further observed, that, considering the fact, that, the tribal was cheated, exploited and outwitted by the unscrupulous non-tribal moneylenders, it was necessary that a ‘Regulation’ should exist to protect the tribal.

Yet another serious attempt was made in the year 1989, when the Government announced the decision to repeal Regulation I of 1970, but in vain. Several organizations and prominent personalities raised objections to the move. They told the Government that the implications of the repeal were far reaching. The attempts, as the news now reveal, would probably continue in some form or other as long as there is tribal land as long as non tribe’s eye is on that.

The passing of 1979 Government Order (with a Congress Government in office) and the move to repeal the Regulation in 1989 (with a Telugu Desam Government in office), was the result of consensus on the part of major if not all the then political parties. Unanimity marked the thinking of political parties with ‘agreed’ differences of ideology as that of Telugu Desam, Congress-I, both the Communists as well as the then Janata to go for repeal in 1989. Yet another significant fact during 1989 was absence of valid protest even from tribal leaders. As a matter of fact, the repeal was passed by the then ‘Tribal Advisory Council’ comprising tribal Legislators with a ‘Gond tribesman’ as its Chairman in his capacity as Minister for Tribal Welfare. The question that was frequently asked in many corners those days was how the vested interests could manage to get the support of the Communists too. The Communist Party of India-CPI, tried to justify its stand, on the ground to safeguard the interest of small landowners, many of whom belong to the weaker sections and have been occupying tribal areas for several generations. It all ended with Telugu Desam, Bharatiya Janata and Communist Party of India (Marxist) hastily convening a meeting and announcing that they had altered their stand and decided against repeal of the Regulation later.

The Regulation had generated considerable amount of land restoration activity in the tribal areas till 1979. According to the ‘Tribal Cultural Research and Training Institute’, the number of non tribal occupations in Scheduled Areas detected as prima-facie violating Land Transfer Regulation run in to several thousand and the extent of land in that was estimated to be several Lakhs of acres. A little over fourth of that extent could only be restored to tribal population. In fact the figures also revealed then, that, in couple of thousands of instances non-tribal could get favorable orders involving an extent of over a Lakh of acres.

Against this backdrop once again there were moves to circumvent Land Transfer Regulation again and again. Truth apart, it is time now, to look in to the various aspects of Supreme Court Judgment dated July 11, 1997 in the Public Interest Litigation on the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation Act 1959. The Division Bench consisted of Justice K. Ramaswamy, Justice S. Sagir Ahmed and Justice G.B. Patnaik. The Judgment made it very clear; that, the word ‘person’ would include the State government and as such transfer of land in Scheduled Area by way of lease, for mining purpose in favor of non-tribal stands prohibited. The Government also stands prohibited to transfer the mining leases to corporation aggregate etc except to its instrumentality says the Judgment. At one point of time the then President of India announced, that, a “Committee of Governors” would be formed to look into the serious inadequacies in the implementation of programs for the welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Supreme Court judgment also came out with several recommendations and what was the follow-up from the state and central governments subsequently is not known.

However, notwithstanding all this, the initiatives of the AP State Government and the Chief Minister are laudable with a caution that come what may, the land that is now assigned to tribal remains with them and their heirs. Government also deserves complements for taking steps to supply mineral water in addition to protected water in tribal areas.