Peace through Justice: a game changing conjecture?
By B.K. Manish
The very idea that a breakthrough is possible in the ongoing civil war in tribal pockets of south-central India through a decisive shift to tribal autonomy as proposed in approach note of national consultations of Sarv Adivasi Samaj in Raipur has startled a lot of people who had monopolized the discourse so far. The event themed ‘Peace through Justice’, scheduled for 16-17 Feb. is enthusing tribal activist across states but the human rights community is yet to respond positively to it. A review of the scenario may help one realize the structural contradictions of the tribal rights movement of last 30 years.
Approach to Peace through Justice
Peace as perceived by policymakers/defense analysts/human rights activists and the common tribals is rather different from each other. Proposed consultations are aimed at improving the appreciation for these subtle differences so that various segments of the ideological spectrum can arrive at a common plank for the sake of tribal welfare.
Plight of tribals can be gauged by the simple fact that quantum of analyses and the understanding thereon on the Tribal Question are even poorer than that of other disadvantaged classes like Dalits or Women. Erosion of indigenous culture and land-holding in scheduled areas are clear indicators that even the shift from colonial view on tribal’s protectionist segregation to the freedom movement’s line of assimilation into mainstream has failed to serve the tribal interests as promised. Clubbing the tribals permanently with scheduled castes in our constitution has further confounded the question by reducing tribals as merely a backward community. It is in continuation of this flawed understanding that various wings of Union Government have approached the LWE scenario and have professed the ‘peace through development’ plank. Public posturing over security-first versus development-first wrangle has trivialized the scenario since then. Cacophony of ideologies and vested interests manage the continuity of this spectacle because no party is willing to accept tribals as the central theme and principal stakeholder.
Slow but definite emergence of late of a grand alliance of tribals in the largest Fifth Schedule state of Chhattisgarh has provided impetus to the efforts towards breaking not just the impasse in LWE scenario but the continuous chain of injustice itself. A corollary to this development is the campaign of rationalizing the constitutional-legal provisions for tribal welfare, propelled by the radical re-reading of Fifth Schedule which in turn constitutes, along with other strands of cultural-political justice, the “Peace Through Justice” plank. Evolution of this plank was stimulated by among the handful of historical twists certain pronouncements of honourable Supreme Court like Samata Judgment and Salwa Judum Judgment; yet, essentially it is culmination of the marginalized stream of struggle for cultural rights.
Proposed consultations would be a platform to debate the poser, “Peace Through Justice”, and a practical opportunity for the emerging, broad-based, local, tribal intelligentsia/leadership to grapple with intricacies of Peace Negotiations so that they can play their rightful role when the need arises later on. Southern half of the SAS-100, a community-chosen group of tribals with adequate-proportionate representation of gender, age, education, PTGs, industrial displacement, immediate victim of civil war and traditional community panchayats, has invited various proponents of this discourse like Gandhians, conflict resolution scholars, radical thinkers and pro-autonomy anthrophiles to Raipur for own capacity building. It expresses the clear intent of the victims to coax all the primary, secondary and tertiary oppressors to come to the table for talks. More importantly the intent is not just to demand the peace talks but also to partake and navigate it.
As a pragmatic roadmap to tribal autonomy, considering its compatibility with UN-Line on indigenous people and on sustainable development, this plank also offers New Delhi the chance to get over its strong, inherent, unitary urge and to redeem the oft-repeated pledge enshrined in Nehru’s Panchsheel Policy.
What does Justice mean to tribals?
It’s general consensus that tribal suffering has been inversely proportional to national growth since independence. Cultural debasement and dispossession is the constant theme of the tribal narrative in these decades. While most Prime Ministers have been passionate about tribal plight adding to the quantum of policy directives, the situation on ground continued worsening especially in south-central India. Most popular explanation to this ironical state of affairs has been the civil society’ pet grouse of inadequate application of existing constitutional-legal provisions for tribal welfare. In last 15 years this explanation has become increasingly fashionable due to added dimensions of left wing extremism and concurrent endorsements by revered institutions like Lok Sabha, Planning Commission of India & the Supreme Court. This scenario then obviates a basic query as to what impediments are mighty enough to flummox the common concerns of three pillars of Indian State? The query indeed turns the abovementioned explanation on its head and endeavours to ascertain afresh the very soundness of the provisions (constitutional-legal) for tribal welfare and the policy-intent thereof.
Tribal Rights activists have for long lamented the weakening or inefficacy of FRA, PESA, various protective land laws, tribal sub-plan and the Fifth Schedule itself. Dr. B.D. Sharma even conjectured lately that The Constitution itself was a betrayal to tribal community and it in fact took away entitlements rather than providing them. But this theory remained fuzzy due to lack of compatibility with his other notable pronouncements and more importantly the lack of precise remedial plan. Tribal autonomy was always spoken about longingly but no suggestions on a coherent policy-framework to that end were forthcoming. Precise and pushy actionable inputs were never seen coming for tribal rights unlike other movements of identity politics. Bhuria Committee report which later helped formulating PESA spoke about borrowing the “pattern” of Sixth Schedule for application in mainland scheduled areas. This confusion led to several tribal organizations demanding replacement of Fifth Schedule with the Sixth Schedule, without even realizing beforehand or stating unequivocally about primacy & importance of Fifth Schedule in success of any other provision. Neither the British rationale of segregating tribal pockets in two separate categories as scheduled areas and partially scheduled areas is paid much attention to, nor the ‘bring tribals to mainstream’ philosophy of New Delhi, held consistently since Congress’ 1936 Ferozepur resolution, through the Constituent AssemblyDebates up to now, is challenged effectively in principle.
Global impetus on sustainable living has brought about a unique breakthrough for tribal rights movement in India insofar it has liberated the movement from its dependence on extremely muddled identity politics and provided a futuristic rationale for protective mechanism. That oldest inhabitants of earth are also the only practical examples of sustainable living and therefore deserve zealous conservation might be an antithesis for national executive at the moment but the eventual reconciliation to this fact is becoming increasingly imminent. In-depth structural analysis of the constitutional-legal provisions on tribal welfare and their rationalization through swift and appropriate legislative or executive action is in order. Tribal’s joint, indigenous vision document on livelihood, culture & education, updated National Tribal Policy, TAC Model Bylaws, prescription format for Governor’s annual report & restructuring of multiple tribal development projects are some such solutions.
Would the tribal autonomy plank command wider acceptance?
Harmonious acceptance by various stakeholders of the need to rework the abovementioned activation plan in light of emerging trends and desperation at grassroots does not seem a natural possibility. Interestingly, the greater resistance to the plank of tribal autonomy is coming not from the executive but the ultra left quarter. Notwithstanding the utterly insensitive comment of the Union Home Minister on tribals’ protests during the prolonged anti-rape agitation in Delhi last December, clear statement and decisive moves by the Union Minister of Tribal Affairs, backed by historical April-2010 opinion of Attorney General GE Vahanvati, the first ever formal endorsement by New Delhi of Governor’s powers being discretionary with respect to Fifth Schedule inspires hope. In fact the MoTA has taken positively to the ‘basic inputs on draft National Tribal Policy-2013’ which speaks of stating clearly that shift to tribl autonomy is the vision of NTP, submitted by this writer at minister’s own suggestion.
In contrast, pro-ultra individuals are dismissive of the idea because they reckon this might sever the ties between tribals and the Maoists by exposing the incompatibility of respective value systems. Most left-liberals themselves have a soft corner for the ultra-left despite clear and historical differences over ideology due to misconceived notion that strengthening LWE means a bargaining tool against the unyielding and strongly unitary Indian State. New tribal leaders were upset with such people and their rhetoric of opposing “all kinds of violence”, in the face of mounting tribal casualties. When Dr. B D Sharma declared after his return visit of Abujhmad soon after securing the release of Sukma District Collector in March 2012 that even the Maoists want proper implementation of Fifth Scheduled, most local analysts took with a pinch of salt. But by the end of last year the fresh interpretation emanating from the first direct case on Fifth Schedule, challenging ongoing unconstitutional functioning of the Tribes Advisory Council in the Chhattisgah High Court had shaken two major pillars of the dominant version given by the legendary campaigner. Large number of activists accepted the rationale that responsibility of non-implementation of Fifth Schedule lies with the Prime Minister and not the individual Governors. It also became clear that the TAC which was largely sneered at by the campaign in last 30 years indeed holds the key to effectively unlocking the Fifth Schedule.
Peace through Justice campaign is sure to experience a roller-coaster ride in the time left for next general elections but the very happening of a historical course correction readily endorsed by umbrella organizations of tribals in Chhattisgarh-Jharkhand promises some forward movement.