Until the beginning of the 20th century, most tribal areas ofAndhra Pradesh had remained virtually isolated. During thesecond-half of the 19th century, the British started an indirectrule in tribal tracts of the coastal districts through feudal intermediaries such as ‘zamindars’ and ‘muttadars’. In Telanganaregion, the Nizams had similar intermediaries like ‘jagirdars’,‘kokhasis’, ‘mahaldars’, etc. Intermediary systems of land tenuresuch as ‘muttadari’ and ‘mahaldari’ were in place inVisakhapatnam, West Godavari and Khammam districts. Theestate-holders divided their estates into groups of villages andentrusted their management to influential individuals calledmuttadars. The non-tribals, who migrated to tribal areas, advanced money, foodgrains and clothes to tribals. Later the nontribals employed various usurious methods of moneylending tooccupy tribal lands. The non-tribals who took control of triballand were: itinerant traders; merchants-cum-moneylenders; forest and other contractors from the plains; non-tribal farmerimmigrants; and village level officials.

In the wake of tribal revolts in coastal areas, the first safeguardpolicy, i e, ‘Ganjam’ and Visakhapatnam Districts Act waspromulgated in 1839 and the tribal areas were brought under theadministration of the collector. The act set the agency areas apartfor all administrative purposes. The British enacted the firstlandmark protective legislation, i e, the Agency Tracts Interestand Land Transfer Act, 1917 to protect the interests of tribalsin the agency areas. Its main objective was to protect the triballand from non-tribals. With the enactment of the Government of India Act 1935, the scheduled areas came under the discretionary powers of the governor.

The laissez-faire policy in Hyderabad state (now Telanganaregion) had also worked against the interests of aboriginal tribes.Forest officials used to harass tribals and extract bribes from them. Following instances of non-tribal encroachments and expansion ofreserve forest and the resultant violent incidents in Adilabad district, a protective statute Tribal Areas Regulation (Fasli 1356)was enacted in 1946. The regulation entrusted all tribal landdisputes to tribal panchayats. It prohibited sale or attachment oftribal land and empowered the officials to appoint tribal village officers. A campaign to assign land with pattas was initiated in1944 resulting in the distribution of 1,60,000 acres benefiting11,198 tribal households.

Andhra Pradesh was formed in 1956 by merging the erstwhileHyderabad and Andhra states. The new government enactedthe first comprehensive legislation, Andhra Pradesh ScheduledAreas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959 (APSALTR 1959 orRegulation 1 of 1959) for the protection of tribal land. It came intoeffect in Andhra region in the same year and was extended toTelangana region through Regulation 2 in 1963. The Regulation1 of 1959 provides that: (i) In the scheduled areas, transfer ofimmovable property by a member of scheduled tribe to non-tribalswithout permission from the competent authority shall be nulland void; (ii) Where a transfer of immovable property is effectedin favour of non-tribals, the designated official, on representationor suo motu may restore the property to the transferor.

However, this legislation did not bar land transfer by nontribals. Even in the case of transfer from tribal to non-tribal, it was only restrictive and not proscriptive. Moreover, the regulation remained largely unimplemented as the working rules werenot framed for almost 10 years after its passage. Land alienationin scheduled areas continued in spite of this legislation. Thegovernment began moving in this direction after the tribaluprising in Srikakulam district in the 1960s by initiating morestringent measures in the form of Regulation 1 of 1970.

The 1970 amendment prohibits transfer of immovable propertyin scheduled areas. It has a presumptive provision stating thatany immovable property in the agency areas in the possessionof non-tribals shall be deemed to have been acquired from ascheduled tribe. When this regulation was questioned, the highcourt of AP upheld the regulation with a directive that it wouldnot have retrospective effect. Following the passage of 1 of 1970,branches of the Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank had to suspendtheir operations in scheduled areas. With a view to removing thishurdle, the APSALTR was further amended by Regulation 1 of1971. Yet another amendment was effected to the above enactment in 1978 which prohibits registration of sale transactionsin favour of non-tribals.

The tribal land policy took an interesting turn in 1979, following alull in tribal tracts, when the state government directed the officialsconcerned not to evict non-tribals occupying up to five acres ofwetland or 10 acres of dryland in scheduled areas. Predictably,the high court of AP declared the order bad in law and doubtedthe sagacity of the government which tried to dilute a legislativeenactment through an executive order. The policy towards triballand entered into another decisive phase in the 1990s. Attemptswere made in the late 1990s and early 2000s by the reformsoriented Telugu Desam Party regime – especially in the wakeof Samata Judgment – to amend Regulation 1 of 1970 to allowland transfers between non-tribals (see section on developmentprojects). Both state and central governments began initiativestowards amending the Fifth Schedule following the SupremeCourt verdict in Samata case. However, a new policy environmentbegan to unfold in 2004 with the Congress Party governmentscoming into power in the state as well as at the centre.

I A Typology of Tribal Land Alienation

shall be entitled to ryotwari patta only if he is in occupation fora continuous period of eight years and such occupation is notviolative of the APSALTR.

(ii) A P Muttas (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari),Regulation 2 of 1969: Apart from delineating the same provisionas the above with regard to tribal cultivator, this regulation statesthat no non-tribal ryot is entitled to ryotwari patta unless he isin a lawful possession of the said land for a continuous periodof eight years.

(iii) A P Scheduled Areas Ryotwari Settlement, Regulation 2 of1970: This applies to lands other than those comprised withinMuttas and Mahals. Regarding the non-tribals, this enactmentalso incorporates the same provision as the above.

Under the above regulations, thousands of non-tribals weregranted ryotwari pattas. Although the possession of land by anon-tribal for a period of eight years is subject to APSALTR,this proviso was not understood in proper spirit by the implementing authorities. Further, the influential non-tribals managedto produce records showing that the lands were under theiroccupation at the time of the settlement.

Haimendorf (1979), who studied the Gonds of Adilabad district, graphically chronicles the process of land alienation resulting from survey and settlement processes. The Gonds’ inabilityto retain their land was due to a system of land tenure far toocomplicated for a region with an illiterate population. The rightof ownership to land had to be formally recognised by theauthorities and the name of the owner (pattadar) entered in thevillage registers before the ownership was regarded as valid. MostGonds used to occupy land and pay revenue to the villageaccountant without insisting that they should be entered in theregister as pattadars. Such tenure was called ‘siwa-i-jamabandi’(without revenue settlement) and majority of Gonds cultivatedlands in this way. Yet, anyone whose name did not appear inthe register was liable to eviction. When pressure on the landgrew and Gonds had to compete with non-tribals, this systemwas very much to their disadvantage. Non-tribal settlers manoeuvered to get patta rights in siwa-i-jamabandi land held by Gondson payment of a nominal sum. The Gond habit of giving upcultivation on a piece of land and occupation of vacant land ofequal size on payment of the same revenue was also made useof by the immigrants. They turned the relinquished patta landsto government lands and got pattas in their own names. By the1940s, the Gonds had already been ousted from many villagesand large areas of land once held by their forefathers. The Nizamgovernment, pursuing a policy of opening up the district andraising its revenue, encouraged the influx of new settlers andgranted them pattas.

Laws governing forests have also contributed to large-scaleland alienation in the scheduled areas. The concept of stateownership of forests came into conflict with the traditional rightsand practices of tribals. In several locations, tribals lost accessto their agricultural land and commons following the demarcationof forest boundaries. In north coastal districts of AP, in particular,tribals have lost large chunks of land that they had used for ‘podu’(shifting cultivation). Around 65 per cent of Andhra Pradeshforest area is spread over eight tribal districts in the northern partof the state. Historically, the relationship between tribals and thestate agencies has been antagonistic which gave rise to severaluprisings. The widespread commercialisation of forests duringthe colonial era, following the adoption of forest acts, restrictedthe traditional rights of tribals.

Although India has a long history of forest policy, the livelihoods of forest-dwellers have not been recognised in policy until recently. Predominantly tribal lands have been declared as stateforests. The reservation of forests has been a historical processwhereby the indigenous communities are pushed deeper intoforests and tribal lands are appropriated by non-tribals. Thestate has appropriated large tracts of land without recognisingcustomary rights, particularly of shifting cultivation. Much ofthe land classified as “encroached land” in AP is actually landunder customary tribal podu forest fallows management[Reddy et al 2004].

The case of Adilabad illustrates the process of alienation byforest policies. Until about 1900, the tribals of Adilabad had notbeen subject to any restrictions in the forest. While Kolams andNaikpods practised shifting cultivation, Gonds cultivated mainlythe light soils of the hilltops, allowing long periods of fallowbetween periods of cultivation. When in the name of forestconservancy boundary lines were drawn round the villages wheremost of the land not actually under cultivation was notified asgovernment forest. When the land Gonds had cultivated at thetime of the demarcation became exhausted, and Gonds wanted to reoccupy the fallow lands, they came up against the claimsof the forest department. When the forest lines were demarcated,the peculiarities of the tribal area were not taken into account.For instance, lands held by tribals under siva-i-jamabandi wereincluded under reserve forest. Even in villages that were put inenclosures, the forest boundary ran so close to the villages thatthere was hardly any space left for future growth. And in violationof the principles of reservation, many fields held by Gonds onpatta were included in the reserved forest. Owing to land alienation and population pressure, tribals in many locations hadstarted cultivating land falling under the reserve forest. In severalvillages, there have been conflicts between tribals and forestofficials over such “encroachments”.

At the national level, tribals constitute at least 55 per cent ofthe persons displaced by development projects such as irrigationsystems, hydroelectric projects, mining operations, power generating units and mineral-based industries [Saxena 2006]. In thename of development, tribals are displaced from their traditionalhabitat and are deprived of their livelihoods. The track recordof governments on the resettlement and rehabilitation frontleaves a lot to be desired. Even according to the official estimates,only 29 per cent of the affected have been rehabilitated. In therecent past, some development projects in AP have becomehighly controversial due to their implications for tribal land andlivelihoods.

Mining is among the largest industries in India which hasbecome contentious in the context of enforcing the safeguardsenshrined in the Fifth Schedule. The recent pronouncements bythe Supreme Court, following the interventions of Samata, onmining operations in the scheduled areas have set off a nationwidedebate on tribal land issues. The discourse on mining activityshould be set against the backdrop of the legal initiatives takenby Samata on the basis of their work in Visakhapatnam district.Mining operations in Anantagiri area go back to the 1960s whenmining leases were granted to private entities while tribals weredenied title deeds to their lands.

Samata moved the high court of Andhra Pradesh in 1993against mining permissions arguing that the leases violated theland transfer regulations and the government was also a “person”(non-tribal) and hence does not have the power to grant leasesto non-tribals. The court issued a stay order; but in 1995, thestay order was vacated and the case was dismissed. After hearinga special appeal by Samata, the Supreme Court delivered itslandmark verdict in 1997. The judgment inter alia says:

(iii) It would be appropriate to bring about a national legislationon mineral wealth in tribal areas.

(iv) At least 20 per cent of the net profits from mining operationsshould be set aside for developing infrastructure in mining areas.

Following the verdict in Samata case, both the state and centralgovernments made several attempts to regain the powers vis-àvis the mining activity in tribal areas. The government of AndhraPradesh received a major setback when its appeal to the SupremeCourt for a revision of the order was struck down. Then both the state and central governments began lobbying for an amendment to the Fifth Schedule to undo the Samata judgment.

The main electoral plank of the present Congress governmentin the state was according high priority to the irrigation sector.On assuming office, the Rajashekhara Reddy government identified 26 irrigation projects with an estimated cost of Rs 460billion. Some of these projects, under various stages of implementation, have become more controversial as they will displacetribal villages and submerge forest areas. The Polavaram projectis the most contested of the ongoing projects as far as the triballivelihoods are concerned. This multipurpose mega project onthe Godavari at Polavaram in West Godavari district is expectedto irrigate 727,000 acres.

The project would displace 276 villages and uproot 44,574families in three districts and tribals comprise almost 50 per centof the population of these villages. Opposition to the projectfrom civil society organisations, political parties and tribalrights activists is mounting as the government is going aheadwith the project in haste without conducting any scientific studieson its impact and without securing the mandatory clearancesfrom the central government. The critics are sceptical about the

II Magnitude of Land Alienation to Non-Tribals

Alienation of tribal land to non-tribals has been the most widespread and visible process of dispossession in tribal tracts.Official data on the extent of tribal land alienation for different periods are available (see Tables 1-4); although the figures arenot totally comparable, the data demonstrate that land alienationis on the rise despite the protective laws.

It is widely held that the official statistics do not reflect theground reality because in many cases non-tribals are in occupation of tribal land through various means such as lease, mortgage,sharecropping and benami transactions. On top of that many nontribals are still holding tribal land even after the decree of evictionhad been passed. A closer look at Table 3 reveals that theproportion of land restored to tribals (row 12) is relatively lowcompared to the extent of land under the non-tribal occupation(row 2). Figures published by the ministry of rural development(GoI) show that Andhra Pradesh accounts for the highest incidence of land alienation in the country and the quantum of landin dispute in the state represents a third of the extent reportedfor the entire country. Studies commissioned by the ministry alsoreveal the massive scale of land alienation across the country.The Andhra Pradesh report reveals that non-tribals own morethan half of the land in scheduled areas. The extent is 52 percent in Khammam, 60 per cent in Adilabad and as high as 71per cent in Warangal.

III Impacts and Implications

Loss of land has led to major changes in the livelihood patternof tribal people. A major consequence is the growing numberof agricultural labourers, an indication of the “depeasantisation”process [Murali and Rao 1992]. The census data also shows thatthe proportion of agricultural labourers among the STs is on therise. Migration to both rural and urban locations has emergedas an important livelihood option in tribal areas. Many scheduledlocations are in a transition from subsistence farming to commercial cropping due to reduced plot size and growing cash needsowing to widespread indebtedness. Legal battles and violent

Table 2: Extent of Land Alienation and Restoration in 1997: District-wise

confrontations between tribals and non-tribals over land alienation have become intense in recent times. This is evidenced byrecent conflicts between the Koyas and the non-tribal occupiersin West Godavari district. In several parts of Adilabad district,the dispossessed Gonds have encroached upon the forest land.This has been a cause of tension between the tribals and forest officials. The traditional livelihood pattern of the Koyas ofKhammam district is changing as a result of loss of customaryrights. The incidence of landlessness has gone up and a majorityof the landless are working as wage labourers. The non-tribalinfiltration in some districts is changing the demographic composition where tribals are at risk of being reduced to a minority.

High level of indebtedness among tribals renders them vulnerable; exploitative practices by non-tribal moneylenders persistin spite of the legislations to curb these methods. The proceduresfollowed with regard to land alienation cases are tardy andcumbersome and land administration system is too complicatedfor the tribals. Deep-rooted fear of government agencies and thelack of faith in bureaucracy have discouraged tribals from seekingformal interventions. Article 226 of the Constitution has been invoked by non-tribals to secure stay orders in land restorationcases. Loopholes in the law have been exploited by non-tribals,the biggest one being the absence of retrospective effect to landalienation cases.

Many non-tribals have succeeded in producing sale deeds datedbefore 1970 to avoid eviction. In many cases where judgmentswere given in favour of tribals, land could not be restored. Manytribal-majority villages are still considered as non-scheduledvillages. A large number of cases were settled in favour of nontribals following the government’s controversial order in 1979.Mainstream political parties in Andhra Pradesh have had greatsuccess in co-opting tribal leadership. The STs are considered,given their low proportion in the state population, politicallyinsignificant. Moreover, they have not organised themselves intoan effective pressure group. This is evident from the relative easewith which the successive governments have managed to bringabout consensus among TAC members. And non-indigenoustribes such as the Lambadas have a dominant presence in politicaland administrative structures.

IV Emerging Policy Environment

The policy context prevailing during the previous governments

Table 3: Incidence of Tribal Land Alienation and Extent of Restoration under APSALTR: State Level*

(Area in acres)

filed in courts 19204 63004 66338 69119

were initiated 56544

Table 4: Extent of Land under Occupation of Non-Tribalsin Scheduled Areas in 1996

Forest Rights Bill 2005

Although the bill is a step in the right direction, it addressestribal land issues in isolation from the related legislations onwildlife protection and forest conservation. Another weaknessof the bill concerns the issue of displacement by developmentprojects; the bill should clearly delineate the role of the gramsabha vis-à-vis development-induced displacement. The rightsproposed to be conferred with regard to the lands occupiedbefore 1980 are essentially compensatory in nature. Becausethe bill tries to compensate the loss tribals suffered withoutlooking at the processes that have resulted in land dispossession; nor does it refer to the failure of the state in restoringthe alienated land and in providing adequate rehabilitation forthe displaced. Because loss of land to non-tribals is among themajor factors driving tribals to “encroach” on the forest land.The cut-off date of 1980 and the ceiling on the extent of landproposed to be regularised would drastically reduce the scopeof the bill. It also excludes from its purview a large number ofnon-ST forest dwellers. Although the proposed legislationpromises a great deal, the scepticism remains given the trackrecord of the state in enforcing the earlier laws and theconstitutional provisions.

V Conclusion and Policy Concerns

The overall situation prevailing in AP today is one where thealienated land cannot be restored because of legal loopholes, nonretrospective land regulations, powerful outsiders and a continuing lack of political commitment to protecting tribal rights. Mostnon-tribals manage to hold on to their land by obtaining stayorders or producing false documents. Added to this is rampantrent-seeking among officials. Development projects are emergingas new sources of land alienation. In this context, tribal areas are used to attract private capital for exploiting mineral resourcesand tribals are forced to pay a far higher price in the case ofirrigation projects as the lion’s share of expected benefits wouldaccrue to non-tribals. The track record of governments withrespect to the resettlement and rehabilitation programmes is aclassic case of too late and too little.

The tribal land problem in AP has assumed new dimensions inrelation to the traditional rights over ‘podu’ and access to naturalresources in general. The debate about shifting cultivation has beenrevived in the context of externally funded participatory forestmanagement programmes such as JFM and CFM (joint/community forest management). Traditional rights and livelihood patternof the forest-dependent tribals need to be respected while designing and implementing forest management programmes. The forestdepartment should not evict people practising shifting cultivationwithout creating real alternatives for them. At present the lawseems to be harder on poor tribals than it is on more powerfuland corrupt agents who are more damaging to forests than podu.

Tribal land issues are currently subjects of national debatethanks to the major policy initiatives taken by the centre. Withrespect to land alienation to non-tribals, the recommendationsmade by the NAC – particularly with regard to making the landadministration system more transparent, participatory, accountable and tribal-friendly – could make a positive impact on therestoration process. Lessons could be learnt from other experiments such as the work on the right to information of the MazdoorKisan Shakti Sanghatan (MKSS) in Rajasthan. Training andcapacity-building of tribals in land administration, survey andsettlement and land transfer regulations will go some way towardsempowering tribals. Imparting legal literacy to tribals should be

Economic and Political Weekly December 30, 2006

References