Abstract
Infectious diseases have exposed the tribes (scheduled tribes, Adivasis, indigenous people) to more critical risks than other communities in India. Considering their disparate possession of power, privileges and resources, and the available data, the article situates tribes in the context of coronavirus pandemic in India by using the vulnerability framework. It reflects upon the strengths, weaknesses and uncertainties of tribes and the lack of structural support for them in the emergent crisis of pandemic. It argues that compounded vulnerabilities of tribal communities due to Covid-19 are attributed to their historical location in the socio-economic, cultural and political realms and the lack of access to resources and opportunities in the post-colonial Indian society.
*****
Introduction
Crisis, challenges, contentions, conflicts and risks have become the recurring themes in tribal studies. Such dimensions are more pronounced due to increasing negligence of the state towards protecting the rights of one of the most marginalised ethnic communities in India, the tribes (scheduled tribes, Adivasis, indigenous people), 1 over natural resources and lack of health infrastructure and adequate human resources in tribal areas. The state does not seem to be proactive in addressing tribal issues even during the crisis and disaster, as evident from the severity of Covid-19 in tribal areas during the second wave. Such negligence would further show that tribal communities may protest and resist the state and its agencies without bothering about the risks of the crisis. The failure of the state to protect tribal rights would deepen the crisis further and lead to the emergence of myriad risks. The crisis and challenges also emerge when a state creates a regime of ethnic deprivation due to its indifferent attitude towards the issues and concerns of various ethnic groups. Tribal communities located at the margins of society are more prone to such risks and vulnerabilities.
Tribes in India have experienced the impact of Covid-19 unequally and differently due to their unequal location in the society, emanating from unequal possession of power, privileges and resources. Due to the marginalised position of tribal communities, infectious diseases have exposed them to more critical risks than other communities in contemporary India. Within this backdrop, this article situates the tribes in the context of Covid-19 pandemic by using Martha Fineman’s vulnerability theoretical framework. While doing so, it briefly discusses the Covid situation in tribal areas. Then it moves to explore various arenas of tribal life that the virus has unprecedentedly affected. It also critically examines the role of the state in addressing the Covid crisis in tribal areas, followed by the conclusion. The article argues that compounded vulnerabilities of tribal communities due to Covid-19 are attributed to their historical location in the socio-economic, cultural and political realms and the lack of access to resources and opportunities in the post-colonial Indian society. The article focuses on the impacts of Covid-19 on tribes in India. However, the issues and contexts discussed here are relevant to the indigenous population worldwide.
Contextualising vulnerability
Martha Albertson Fineman developed the vulnerability framework/theory to understand the human condition, which is universal and susceptible to vulnerability (Fineman, 2008). Although Fineman initially discussed the vulnerability framework in the context of ‘gendered society’, she expanded the framework to understand the diverse perspective of vulnerability and, more recently, to capture the nuances of the ‘pandemic body’ (Fineman, 2021: 185). Consequently, She edited a special issue of the Journal, International Journal of Discrimination and Law, to capture the essence of the vulnerability due to Covid-19 across different communities and regions and to have an understanding of the re-imagination of a ‘responsive state’. 2
The vulnerability framework enables us to understand the interface between groups and the existing institutional and societal structures within the larger framework of vulnerability and the outcome thereof. The framework considers that the human condition is universally vulnerable, as opposed to a categorical position (Kiwanuka, 2021: 5), but the vulnerability ‘must be simultaneously understood as particular, varied, and unique on the individual level’ (Fineman, 2013: 21). The degree of vulnerability differs from person to person and community to community. Some of these differences are social and constructed, arising from the communities’ day-to-day interaction with social and political institutions. The vulnerability framework locates vulnerability as the centre of discussion, and the concept can be used to make public policy interventions (Kohn, 2014: 23). Within this backdrop, any attempt to address the vulnerabilities of human society uniformly would be short of an integrated approach to do so. Hence, the framework calls for a more responsive state, where the nature of responses shall correspond to the nature of vulnerabilities of a specific group. The distinct socio-economic, cultural, political, demographic and geographical characteristics of tribal communities rationalise the application of the vulnerable theory to the communities.
The theory implies that one approach fits all is insufficient to address the vulnerabilities of the tribal communities due to their different social, economic and political locations in India. Any attempt to apply the one-response fits all model would even lead to unfairness while dealing with multiple disruptions that the vulnerable tribal communities endured during Covid-19 (Kohn, 2014: 3). Hence, Fineman’s vulnerability framework advocates adequate and differential responses to tribal vulnerabilities. It provides a platform to understand the effects of and response to Covid-19 in the context of tribal communities in India. The vulnerability framework captures the disadvantaged, discriminated against and subjugated position of the tribal communities in India.
Covid-19 situation in tribal areas
Due to globalisation and increased mobility, the initial spread of Covid-19 was in the urban areas. However, with the onset of inter- and intra-state movements, tribal areas also experienced the ruthlessness of the virus. The returnees to tribal areas were considered carriers of the virus.
An initial estimation of the first wave perhaps prompted the Secretary, Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA), Deepak Khandekar, to announce that only 25 tribal people were diagnosed with Covid-19 in early May 2020 (Mitra, 2020). During the Union Tribal Minister Arjun Munda’s video conference on 12 May 2020, 26 states reported 50 Covid-19 cases among the tribal returnees (Pandit, 2020). In September 2020, Munda mentioned that less than 3% population of 170 tribal districts’ were tested positive. The reported cases seem to be under-represented because, as per the Indian Council of Medical Research guidelines, only symptomatic persons were tested, which meant districts with no Covid-19 symptoms underwent no testing during the initial phase of the first wave. However, with rapid testing in tribal areas, the number of reported cases also increased. In April 2020, an independent researcher and expert on forest rights issues, Tushar Dash, mentioned that more than 15 tribal districts became part of the 170 Covid-19 hotspot districts (Mitra, 2020).
Although the community-specific data are unavailable, cases from the tribal populated districts/states unfolded the story of Covid-19 in tribal areas. The tribal areas that had escaped with little or no Covid-19 cases during the first wave were severely affected in the second wave. The second wave spread over tribal belts of several states, including Odisha, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. The Scheduled Tribe (ST) and Scheduled Caste (SC) Development Department, Government of Odisha, reported that Covid-19 infected 230 particularly vulnerable tribal groups (PVTGs) from 17 Micro Project Areas during the second wave (The New Indian Express, 2021). In addition, its impact on the tribal population of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu was more prominent (Pal, 2021). The infected cases among the tribes of Kerala increased from 3000 to 17,401 between January and May 2021. The death toll among the tribals of Kerala has been reported as 146 by the end of May 2021 (Philip, 2021).
During the first wave, entry restrictions to tribal areas were perhaps the reason behind fewer Covid cases in these regions. The sudden increase of Covid in tribal areas during the second wave has been attributed to the assembly elections of 2021, which exposed the tribes to the general population. For instance, Kerala reported that around 80% of the confirmed cases among the tribal communities occurred during the election period of April–May 2021 (Philip, 2021). In addition, opening of local markets placed the tribals in a more vulnerable situation. The former Union Minister of Tribal Affairs, Kishore Chandra Deo, underlined that the penetration of Covid to tribal areas, especially during the second wave, could have been averted by strictly regulating the entry of outsiders to tribal areas and putting the outsiders in quarantine. 3 Unrestricted entry into tribal areas with no Covid-appropriate behaviour and exposure of tribals to outsiders have made the PVTGs and tribal areas more vulnerable to Covid-19 during the second wave.
Covid-19 and tribal vulnerabilities
Covid-19 pandemic has created unprecedented risks across the globe with significant implications for tribal/indigenous communities. It has led to multiple ruptures in the socio-economic, cultural and political lives of tribal communities, few of which are outlined here.
Tribal health
The High-Level Committee on Socio-Economic, Health and Educational Status of Tribal Communities of India, commonly known as the Xaxa Committee, indicates that tribes lag behind other social groups regarding social, health, and development indicators (Government of India, 2014: 191–250). The fourth round of the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4) indicates that infant mortality, child mortality and under-five mortality rate for tribes are 44.4, 13.4 and 57.2 deaths per 1000 compared to 32.1, 6.6 and 38.5 for others (excludes SCs, STs and OBCs) (International Institute for Population Sciences, 2017: 193). The under-five mortality rate of the highly concentrated tribal populated states of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh is 78.5, 40.6, 65.6, 64 and 80 against 42.8, 24.3, 35.2, 36.4 and 27.6 for others, respectively (Government of India, 2018: 31). The Rapid Survey on Children, 2013–2014, indicates that 55.7% of tribal children aged between 12 and 23 months were fully immunised against 71.6% for others by April 2016 (Government of India, 2015b: 4). The state of tribal health indicates that a child born to a tribal family in India has a 19% higher risk of dying in the neonatal period and a 45% greater risk of dying in the post-neonatal period than other social groups (Narain, 2019: 313). The life expectancy at birth for tribes is 63.9 years against 67 years for the general population in India (Government of India, 2018: 24).
The sorry state of tribal health is attributed to the lack of health infrastructure and human resources in tribal areas. As per population norms, 4 there are shortfalls of 6602 sub-centres, 1371 primary health centres (PHCs) and 375 community health centres (CHCs) in tribal areas as of 31 March 2020 (Government of India, 2020a: 214). In addition, the tribal areas are short of 27%–40% health institutions as per population norms (Government of India, 2018: 53). The tribal areas also experienced a shortage of 1669 and 599 female health workers in sub-centres and PHCs as of 31 March 2020 (Government of India, 2020a: 218–219). Similarly, there was a shortfall of 16,924 male health workers in sub-centres in tribal areas as on 31 March 2020 (Government of India, 2020a: 220). The March 2020 data also indicate a shortage of 380 allopathic doctors in PHCs located in tribal areas (Government of India, 2020a: 222). As of 31 March 2020, the CHCs of tribal areas needed 916, 863 and 3505 surgeons, physicians and total specialists, respectively (Government of India, 2020a: 225, 227, 229). The tribes’ unequal access to health facilities is the direct outcome of the institutional arrangement of health infrastructure for various communities. Compared to other social groups, the inherited powerlessness of tribal communities also supplements their restricted access to various state-sponsored facilities (Shah and Lerche, 2018: 17). Such an arrangement and position of tribal communities confirm the centrality of the vulnerability framework that their relative position concerning various facilities and entitlements is the product of the state arrangements and demonstrate the increasing negligence and unresponsiveness of the state towards their vulnerability and dependency (Fineman, 2019: 357).
As tribes have restricted and unequal access to healthcare facilities due to their distinct ethnic identities, they have been unprecedentedly exposed to critical health risks (Henning-Smith et al., 2020). The indifferent attitude of the state has resulted in the tribes’ unequal access to health facilities and thereby led to unequal experiences of health risks. The lack of resources 5 and high incidence of poverty among the tribes (40.6% against 20.5% non-tribes, 2011 Census) have severely handicapped their capacities to respond to Covid-19 at different levels. They endured difficulties following Covid-19 guidelines due to the lack of basic amenities, housing conditions, water facilities and sanitation (Government of India, 2013: 68). The self-quarantine at home for tribal returnees has become difficult due to insufficient rooms in tribal houses. Consequently, tribes have even self-quarantined on trees outside the village in the Purulia district of West Bengal (Mondal, 2020). The absence of a reliable water source further made it difficult for tribes to follow hand-washing procedures. In short, the fragile health services and the lack of other facilities in tribal areas have placed the vulnerable tribes in an alarming position in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic.
Disruption of livelihood
Due to increasing tribal land alienation, dispossession, deprivation and seasonal farming, tribal communities explore various survival and livelihood means. They practise multiple livelihood strategies, mixing farm work with hard manual labour in precarious conditions. They are involved in agriculture, work as daily wage labourers, migrate to other places in search of work, work in the informal sector, take on street vending, engage in sourcing minor forest produce (MFP) and undertake activities under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). However, the deadly virus outbreak severely hit their critical means of livelihood. Owing to lockdown, agricultural activities came to a standstill at the initial stage although later they were exempted from the scope of lockdown.
The forest rights groups claimed that 87% of tribal communities depend on the forest for various purposes. 6 They collect MFP for fuel, fodder, food, shelter, medicines and income, thereby ensuring household sufficiency, income generation, food security and the ability to minimise hardship in emergencies. Skillshare International India (2014: 47) shows that the tribal communities collect the MFP throughout the year. Tribal communities in India collect MFP worth Rs 2 trillion annually (Mohanty, 2020). Although the income from MFP differs from state to state, the existing studies indicate that the MFP generally contributes between 5.4% and 50% of their annual income (Rasul et al., 2008: 780). During summer, the peak season for the collection and sale of MFP, tribal communities, such as the Dongria Kandhas of Odisha, earn approximately Rs 4000–Rs 6000 per month from the MFP, contributing 60%–80% of their annual household income (Mohanty, 2020).
However, tribal communities have endured challenges in collecting, processing and marketing the MFP due to the lockdown imposed during the first and second waves. It disrupted the access of the tribals to the local weekly haat (market) for selling the MFP. Since the pandemic severely affected the transactional economy, sometimes they sold the MPF, such as mahua flower, to private traders at a reduced price of about Rs 15 less than the market price per kilogramme (Mohanty, 2020). Meanwhile, tribals were subjected to numerous government advisories, which affected the collection of the MFP. It also became difficult for them to store MFP due to the lack of storage facilities at home. Some of the MFP, such as the mahua flower and kendu fruits, are highly perishable. The quality and price go down unless they are sold in time. As the lockdown coincided with the peak season for the collection and selling of MFP, one of the critical income sources of the forest-dependent tribal communities got dismantled substantially.
Tribal communities also enter the labour market for their livelihood, although it practices ethnic discrimination against the tribes (Papola, 2012: 3; Shah and Lerche, 2018). The 68th round unit-level data of the National Sample Survey (NSS) indicate that the tribal labour force participation rate (number of persons in the labour force per 1000 persons) was 46% as against 37.5% for others (Government of India, 2015a: 32). The existing data indicate 42.94 million tribal informal workers, out of which 40.08 million and 2.86 million were in rural and urban areas during 2004–2005 (Government of India, 2008: 132: Annex-4.9).
It has been reported that a large chunk of tribes migrates to cities to work in the informal sectors. The data on Madhya Pradesh indicated that 50.6% of returnees worked in the informal sectors (Ghatwai, 2020). The tribal migrants primarily worked in construction, brick/tile manufacturing, agricultural and service sectors. Due to the informal nature of work, they have no access to social security. Therefore, they are unprotected by labour laws, leading to job insecurity and non-payment of wages during the lockdown period. The International Labour Organisation contends that the relatively over-representation of tribal people in the informal sector with no social security further deepens their vulnerability, which helps us comprehend their exposure to Covid-19 (Fitzmaurice, 2022: 179). Meanwhile, the Covid-19-imposed lockdown and suspension of works compelled them to return to their native places. As of now, there is no compressive all-India segregated database on tribal returnees. Of late, Arjun Munda announced the intention of the MoTA to document pan-India returned tribals to map the economic needs of tribal returnees in districts with substantial tribal population. Some of the states initiated sporadic attempts to collate data on tribal returnees. For instance, Madhya Pradesh carried out skill mapping and basic details of returnees of about 7.3 lakh in 55,000 villages and 380 urban areas between 27 May and 6 June 2020 and found that 30.4% (2.22 lakh) constituted the tribes (Ghatwai, 2020). The greater risk of virus, loss of employment, livelihood crisis, insecurity and uncertainties compelled the tribals at the workplace to return to their home states or districts.
MSMEs
Based on the 73rd round NSSO, the 2020–2021 Annual Report of the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) indicates that out of 633.88 lakh MSMEs, 4.10% are owned by tribes. The tribes own 4.11%, 1.65% and 1.09% of the micro, small and medium enterprises, respectively (Government of India, 2021a: 26). Out of 14,02,735 Udyam online registration between July and December 2020, tribal owners of MSMEs constituted only 2% (approximately 28054) (Government of India, 2021a: 32). The pandemic has, however, considerably affected the functioning of MSMEs. Due to the dependence of MSMEs on the cash economy, the lockdown severely restricted the physical availability of workers and materials and travel facilities. Hence, the pandemic situation severely toppled the state of the financial health of MSMEs, where tribal owners succumbed to disproportionate adverse impacts because of their relatively less financial strength than their non-tribal counterparts.
Diversion of funds
Funds concerning tribal communities have been diverted from two sources: Members of Parliament Local Area Development Schemes (MPLADS) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) fund. In March 2020, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha appealed to all Members of the Parliament (MPs) to allocate one crore each from their MPLADS to fight Covid-19. In response to the appeal, until the first week of April 2020, 339 MPs contributed Rs 365 crore from their MPLADS funds to the Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations (PM CARES) fund (Chatterji, 2020). Meanwhile, the government suspended the MPLADS for 2 years (2020–2021 and 2021–2022) for using the fund to fight coronavirus, which has critically affected the tribal communities. The MPLADS guidelines mandated the MPs to recommend at least 7.5% (Rs 37.5 lakh) of their annual entitlement of Rs 5 crore for the infrastructure development of tribal areas and submit the audited certificate (Government of India, 2016: 2, 67). Considering the contributions of 543 Lok Sabha and 238 Rajya Sabha elected MPs, tribal areas experienced a financial loss of a minimum of Rs 585.75 crore due to Covid-19-induced temporary suspension of MPLADS, which would have otherwise been utilised for development works in tribal areas.
Similarly, the Companies Act, 2013, mandates the corporate sectors to spend at least 2% of their average net profit earned in the preceding 3 years on CSR. The Act also underlines that the companies give preference to areas where they operate. Schedule VII of the Act also identifies certain core areas, including contribution to the fund set up by the central and state government to develop the marginalised communities such as the tribes. However, in the wake of Covid-19, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, issued an Office Memorandum on 28 March 2020, disqualifying contributions made to funds other than the PM CARES fund and the State Disaster Management Authority to combat Covid-19 as CSR expenditure.
The available statistics indicate that out of about Rs 15,000 crore annual average CSR budget of public and private sectors, Rs 5324 crore have been contributed to the PM CARES fund, and about Rs 2529 crore have been donated to other Covid-19 measures. Furthermore, out of about Rs 3000 crore annual CSR fund of public sector units, Rs 2507 crore and Rs 18 crore have been contributed to the PM CARES fund and other Covid-19 relief measures. Similarly, out of Rs 12,000 crore annual average CSR budget of the private sector units, they have contributed Rs 2817 crore and Rs 2511 crore to the PM CARES fund and other Covid-19 relief measures, respectively (Marfatia, 2020). Such contributions left only Rs 475 crore and Rs 6673 crore annual CSR budget of the public and the private sector units to be spent on core CSR activities, including the welfare of tribal communities. Due to Covid-19, the CSR funds for tribal and local area development have been diverted to fight the virus. Hence, the diversion of CSR funds has invariably affected the tribes as many industries are located in tribal areas of India (Government of India, 2014: 266–272).
PVTGs and the existential threat
Covid-19 has posed an existential threat to the PVTGs. The PVTGs are determined based on pre-agricultural technology, stagnant or declining population, low literacy and subsistence level of the economy. It has exposed the PVTGs, such as the Great Andamanese, Onges, Shompens, Jarawas and Sentinelese of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 60, 124, 200, 500 and 60 in number, respectively, to an existential threat (News18, 2020). Ten Great Andamanese tested Covid-19 positive in the third week of August 2020 (Ellis-Petersen, 2020). By 2 June 2021, 230 PVTGs of Odisha were tested positive during the second wave (The New Indian Express, 2021). Bonda, Dongria Kondh and Khardia PVTGs of Malkangiri, Rayagada and Mayurbhanj districts of Odisha have been affected by Covid-19. Since they live in close proximity and as a close-knit group, there was a potential spread to their other community members in no time. The MoTA has allocated Rs 250 crore for the development of PVTGs during 2021–2022. However, it had not sanctioned any money till 13 July 2021 despite the entry of Covid-19 among the PVTGs. 7 The low immunity level of PVTGs has compounded their vulnerabilities to Covid-19. Their exposure to Covid-19 may dwindle their numerical strength and lead to complete extinction if proper measures are not taken in time of crisis.
Disruption of tribal values and intensification of conflict
Collective celebrations of various social, religious and cultural festivals have been the markers of tribal society in India. However, the Covid-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented disruptions to the social life, cultural values and religious practices of tribal communities. It has empirically proven that social and cultural determinants of health have positive impacts on the health of tribal communities (Power et al., 2020). The apprehension that Covid-19 has raised of contracting an infection through interaction with others goes against the ethos and ideals of the collective life of tribal society. As celebrations of festivals are deeply entrenched in tribal culture, the virus has created an unparalleled fear psychosis among the tribes, leading to an unsettled struggle between community life and maintaining a reasonable physical distance. For instance, the tribal communities of south Odisha skipped many routine rituals and traditional dances that required physical contact while celebrating Chaitra Parva (annual tribal festival) during April due to Covid-19. 8 Hence, the pandemic has primarily put a question mark on the ‘collective’ feature of community life for which the tribal society is widely known.
Meanwhile, the existing literature demonstrates that tribal areas succumb to myriad conflicts over resources and cultural values between tribal and non-tribal communities (Ambagudia, 2019). As Covid-19 has stripped off jobs and the livelihood of thousands of workers who worked in cities before Covid-19 lockdown was imposed, the competition to access locally available scarce economic resources in tribal areas was intensified. For instance, the income-generating scheme – MGNREGA – under which the state provides work to semi-skilled workers on a demand basis has experienced more registration for work in rural India. Even the skilled workers have registered under the scheme, which was unusual before the lockdown. Some of the states, such as Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha, with a higher concentration of tribal population, registered 7.14 lakh, 4.97 lakh and 3.11 lakh, respectively, higher demand for work under the MGNREGA during May 2020 in comparison to May 2019 (Sharma, 2020). Meanwhile, the survey data of the non-governmental organisation (NGO), Vikas Samvad, on Madhya Pradesh indicated that 54% of returned migrants do not want to re-migrate. Due to their economic constraints, it has become a challenge for the states to offer work under the MGNREGA. Such scenario, in turn, would cause tremendous pressure on the locally available infrastructure and socio-economic and civic facilities, which may lead to conflicts.
Meanwhile, (frequent) visits of doctors to a particular tribal village in Odisha created suspicion of Covid-19 infected people among the neighbouring tribal villages. Such suspicion resulted in a precautionary measure of blocking the routes that passed through their villages. In retaliation, the suspected villagers also blocked the entry of the tribal villagers who were suspicious of them. 9 Consequently, the pandemic situation created the condition for conflicts among tribal communities, which disrupts their collective life.
Community resilience
Tribal communities developed their own mechanisms at the micro-level to deal with the pandemic situation during the first wave of Covid-19. Some of these strategies are intrinsically embedded in traditional tribal practices, and others have evolved during Covid-19. For example, the tribes of Arunachal Pradesh revived the indigenous methods of quarantine that were reported to have been last practised 30–40 years back. The Galo tribes practised the customary lockdown, known as Ali-Ternam or Arr-Rinam, to contain the spread of Covid-19. Other tribes of the state, such as Adis and Nyishis, practised Motor and Arrue, which revolved around quarantine, sealing the exit and entry of the districts/villages. As part of these customary rituals, the priest chants the prayers, the community takes a pledge to avoid stepping out of houses unless absolute necessary. Due to communities’ strong religious and customary practices, they have ensured self-imposed quarantine, which considerably contained the spread of Covid-19 at least at the initial stage where the only Covid-19 patient of the state was released on 17 April 2020.
In a survey, the Patna-based NGO, Society for Empowerment, found that traditional herbs and medicines and the cultural practice of leaving shoes outside the door kept the tribes unaffected by the virus. For example, until 31 May 2020, no Covid-19 case was reported from the tribal areas of Jharkhand or Bastar in Chhattisgarh (cited in Anand, 2020). In other parts of India, tribes blocked the entry and exit of tribal villages to contain the virus. 10 If the villagers came from the hotspot areas, tribal communities ensured that they met the quarantine requirements by staying on the outskirts of the villages.
Response of the state 11
The vulnerability framework concerns the nature of institutions, their functions and their relationships. The social nature of those institutions and relationships form the basis for state responsibility (Fineman, 2019: 359). The framework calls for a state ‘that is responsive to universal human needs and for the reorganisation of many existing structures’ (Fineman, 2019: 342). The vulnerability framework advocates for a more expansive responsibility of the state towards addressing vulnerabilities (Kohn, 2014: 23). The Indian state also made some attempts to address vulnerabilities during the pandemic. The state machinery has addressed various issues that directly or indirectly impacted tribal communities amid pandemic situation. Amid the spread of Covid-19 among the PVTGs, the National Human Rights Commission issued an advisory to Secretaries of MoTA and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and Chief Secretaries of states with PVTGs and Union Territories of Andaman and Nicobar Island on 3 June 2021 concerning the protection of human rights of PVTGs amid Covid-19. 12
The response of the government to Covid-19 and the migrant crisis began with a grimy picture at the initial stage. However, with the rapid spread of the virus and the Supreme Court’s direction to the union and state governments to address the problems of migrant workers, they announced several general and community-specific measures to deal with the challenges that Covid-19 posed. On 6 April 2020, Arjun Munda wrote a letter to 15 Chief Ministers to sensitise State Nodal Agencies for undertaking procurement of MFP at minimum support price (MSP) in the right earnest. He suggested that the states act via Pradhan Mantri Van Dhan Yojana, a plan for the socio-economic development of tribes at the national level, to provide tribal people safety and livelihood.
On 1 May 2020, the union government announced a 16%–66% increase in the MSP for 49 MFP to relieve the daunting economic pressure of the forest-dependent tribal communities amid Covid-19. In response to a Rajya Sabha query, the Union Minister of State for Tribal Affairs, Renuka Singh, gave a written reply on 17 September 2020, indicating various government initiatives to support the tribal communities during the pandemic. The initiatives included the constitution of a team to draw a roadmap and take necessary measures for revitalising the post-pandemic economic growth, charting out a Tribal Health Action Plan and launching Swasthya e-portal (swasthya.tribal.gov.in) to collate the data on health infrastructure and manpower gaps in 177 tribal districts (Government of India, 2020b). As a part of the year-ending review 2020, the MoTA included additional 23 items in the MSP list, launched the Going Online as Leaders (GOAL) programme to improve the digital skill of tribal youth in partnership with Facebook and launched Swasthya e-portal to provide health and nutrition information of tribes (Government of India, 2021c).
The Tribal Co-operative Marketing Development Federation (TRIFED) also planned to buy unsold tribal products worth approximately Rs 23 crore from the tribal artisans. It has also launched the e-commerce portal, https://tribesindia.com, and made the tribal handicrafts available on major e-commerce portals, such as Amazon, Snapdeal, Flipkart, Paytm and GeM. Consequently, 12,760 tribal products were available on the e-commerce portal (Government of India, 2021b: 102). The government took these initiatives to boost the selling of tribal products and ease the financial constraints that the pandemic posed. When the second wave hit the tribal areas and the PVTGs, both the union and state governments seemed to have taken preventive measures. They distributed sanitisers and masks in tribal areas and arranged to supply essential services, especially to the PVTGs, besides convincing them for Covid testing. The state governments also prepared the standard operating procedures for care and managing PVTGs and tribal areas. 13
On the contrary, the state has also exploited the situation of Covid-19 and taken initiatives that are detrimental to tribal interests in the short and long run. For instance, the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) issued an advisory that restricted communities’ access to the protected areas to protect wildlife from any potential transmission of Covid-19. In its meeting on 30 March 2020 via video conferencing, the Forest Advisory Committee of the MoEF&CC recommended an automatic extension of the mining leases of government companies for 20 years, 14 violating the mandatory prior approval of the gram sabha (village council) for extension under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006. The extension of mining leases leads to forest diversion. The FRA 2006 mandates the completion of recognition and granting forest rights and obtaining a prior consent of gram sabha before diverting forest lands (Pinto, 2020). Hence, there will be no impact assessment of forest diversion on local areas and (tribal) communities for the next 20 years where the government mining companies are located.
An analysis of minutes of around 40 meetings of the Expert Appraisal Committee (Coal, Hydro and River Valley, Thermal, Non-Coal Mining, Infrastructure, coastal regulation zone (CRZ), Industrial) and Forest Advisory Committee via video conferencing during the lockdown on 24 March–30 June 2020 indicated that around 49.6% (120), 37.2% (90), 12.4% (30) and 0.8% (2) of projects were recommended, deferred, returned and rejected, respectively (Pinto, 2020). The fifth schedule districts have housed about a quarter of recommended projects. Ironically, the committees approved the projects in violation of Forest Conservation Rules (2016), FRA and the Supreme Court’s 2013 landmark Niyamgiri judgement (Ambagudia, 2022: 166–172). The MoEF&CC issued guidelines concerning forest diversion via letter no. F. No. 11-85/2016-FC, dated 30 November 2016, and stated that the provision of FRA must be complied while approving the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes, especially diversion of entire forest land located within a mining lease (point 2[1]). The projects were approved ‘without any field visits, basing their decisions only on the reports submitted by the project proponents’ (Pinto, 2020). It seems that the state was waiting for the pandemic crisis to take such a hasty decision (Klein, 2007). Furthermore, as a part of the Atma Nirbhar Bharat (self-reliant India), the government considered tribal belts of eastern and central India as pillars of development. It launched the auction process of 41 coal blocks on 18 June 2020. Out of 41, 11 are in Madhya Pradesh, nine each in Jharkhand, Odisha and Chhattisgarh and three in Maharashtra. These states constitute 49.62% of the total tribal population of the country (2011 census).
No doubt, the government announced some measures to contain the virus. However, the implementation has been lax. For instance, on 26 March 2020, the government announced a free ration for 80 crore poor people during April, May and June 2020 under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana. However, the official data show that around 20 crore and 14.45 crore beneficiaries did not receive their entitlements in April and May, respectively (The International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, 2020: 15). In addition, it seems the government has learned a little lesson from the first wave of the virus. It could not succeed in creating awareness among the tribal communities concerning Covid-19 and its appropriate behaviour. The tribals were reluctant to come forward for Covid tests and vaccination during the second wave. 15 Meanwhile, tribals developed an impression that they would have to be in the hospital during recovery if they tested positive. Hence, most of the tribals were reluctant to go for testing despite developing specific symptoms of Covid. 16
Conclusion
Covid-19 gave an opportunity to revive and demonstrate unique community-specific cultural practices and show solidarity among tribal communities in dealing with the crisis. However, the impact has been so devastating that the cultural practices containing Covid-19 could not sustain for longer. The vulnerable tribal communities experience a high incidence of poverty, poor physical and mental health, shorter life expectancy, and inadequate access to health care facilities in India. The state has seldom been successful in addressing the structural inequalities, dispossession, deprivation and lack of access to various opportunities, thereby placing the tribal communities in compounded vulnerabilities during the pandemic. Covid-19 has threatened the critical means of tribal livelihood, led to the erosion of cultural identities revolving around resources, put tribal cohesion in danger, fractured tribal collectiveness and compromised tribal rights.
The current state of affairs of tribal communities in the wake of Covid-19 is the outcome of the pre-existing institutional and social relationship between tribal communities and state institutions and social institutions, among others. The pre-existing barriers have seriously limited the capacity of tribal communities to deal with the crisis. In this context, analysing vulnerability is essential to achieve better functioning of an institution in building the resilience that the tribal communities need. The vulnerability theory argues that the centrality of the vulnerable subject helps understand the state’s increasing negligence and unresponsiveness towards the ‘universal and constant human condition of vulnerability and dependency’ (Fineman, 2019: 357). It advocates for a ‘responsive state’ to address the vulnerabilities of tribal communities. The Covid-19 crisis provides an opportunity for state institutions to review their approaches to deal with contemporary and future challenges of vulnerabilities concerning tribal communities. Policies developed through a vulnerable approach create an environment that has the potential to address vulnerabilities (Kiwanuka, 2021: 15).
Meanwhile, the pandemic has also exposed the pre-existing incapacity/limited capacity of the state institutions to deal with severe crises such as Covid-19. Such limited capacity has led to increasing negligence of state institutions in addressing the vulnerabilities of tribal communities. The state negligence indicates the institutional failure in providing resources to develop social resilience to the crisis (Kiwanuka, 2021: 15–16). In the wake of the state’s incapacity, it is proposed that Fineman’s framework of vulnerability would be helpful for all actors, including policymakers, to create resilient and inclusive institutions capable of achieving socially just outcomes. The vulnerability framework goes beyond the traditional response of the state and offers alternative ways of responding to the crisis based on empirical ground reality. Hence, the vulnerability approach focuses on revisiting (and restructuring, if required) institutional arrangements by providing resources needed for building social resilience for tribal communities. Such orientation would counter the position that the tribal communities experienced the unequal impact of Covid-19 due to the lack of ‘resources of resilience’ (Fineman, 2019: 363–364).
The location of tribes in social and institutional setups with limited institutional accessibility considerably reduces the timely response to the pandemic. As cultural differences and marginalisation have become the ground for accessing institutional assistance in Indian society, they can play a critical part in the vulnerability of the tribal communities (Fitzmaurice, 2022). Such vulnerability of tribal communities can considerably reduce their opportunities to mount adequate responses to the pandemic. In short, the precarious condition of tribal communities amid Covid-19 shall be read in the context of their location in the larger social and institutional setup and their access to health services and other facilities.
Since tribes bear the unequal brunt of Covid-19, there is a need to develop a tribe-specific approach to deal with the pandemic. The mechanisms shall give due consideration to marginalisation, dispossession, deprivation, social exclusion, health and livelihood crises of tribal communities in India. The vulnerability framework of Fineman would help us understand the relative differential experience of tribal communities of India. It would facilitate developing a more effective policy framework to take preventive and proactive measures to address the compounded vulnerabilities that Covid-19 has caused and mitigate the pervasive and long-standing structural inequalities.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
