The Forest Rights Act and Adivasi Landlessness in Kerala

Introduction

This paper aims to understand the role of the State with regard to Adivasi land rights in the context of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006. The FRA is recognized as instrumental in ensuring land rights as well in the form of land reclamation for forest-dwelling communities. It is essentially an attempt to undo the historical injustice of generations faced by forest-dwelling communities. The State though has on the other hand taken up a path of neoliberalism for economic growth. This refers to the use of commons and natural resources for mass production and the generation of wealth. Commons are seen as capital and source for economic regeneration in a neoliberal trajectory.

Lands have several different interpretations and uses across geographical boundaries, culture, space, and time. But most importantly, land has distinguished value and meaning when it comes to accumulation of wealth and power. The use of land varies across different economies and societies. Land does not only imply livelihood, but it should also be perceived through a cultural, political, and social framework as well to understand the true relevance on it (Sauer, 2012). Over the years, the change in global order has also led to a change in the use and meaning of land as well (Sathe, 2011). Land has been commodified and has become an important aspect when it comes to traversing the path to modernity (Bagchi, 2005). The commodification of land has made it prone to become the center of debates, crises, and conflicts. This commodification of land is a result of the neoliberal policies and forces (Sigamany, 2017). Land has taken a new meaning and place in India’s economic debates which are characterized by neoliberal reforms (D’Costa and Chakraborty, 2017).

The developmental efforts that were carried out in most South Asian countries after emerging as independent nations were largely based on industrialization and the introduction of neoliberal policies that facilitated it (Larner, 2000). Neoliberal policies gave rise to unequal distribution of wealth and alienation of resources (Gooptu, 2013). “Land grabs” was one of the essential inventions of neoliberalism as it provided the opportunity for well-built economies to base their production in “land abundant” societies that did not possess the technology or skill (Krieger and Leroch, 2016). Neoliberal policies also led to budget cuts on welfare institutions giving more opportunities to private entities to take up and run institutions such as education, healthcare, and other social sector establishments. As the State began privatizing educational and healthcare institutions, the communities that had leaned on state-sponsored establishments for the basic rights became affected (Bowles and Harris, 2010). The indigenous communities or the Adivasis were the most oppressed and marginalized communities of Kerala who became largely impacted (Kjosavik and Shanmugaratnam, 2015). The Adivasis were always the focus of welfare schemes. The state disregarded any form of rights-based approach and land ownership among Adivasis was a farfetched mission (Madhavan, 2020).

Kerala Land Reforms Act

Kerala has been the epitome of development and land reformation with remarkable achievements regarding health, education, quality of life, livelihood, and so on. The developmental path taken by Kerala has been termed as the “Kerala Model” that has been known to most as considerably progressive (Kurien, 1995). Kerala has similarly been known for progressive and landmark legislations that have been made to attain social justice. The Kerala Land Reforms Act 1969 was one of the most revolutionary legislatures passed by any state in India (Radhakrishnan, 1981). It allowed for land distribution among peasants and certain marginalized communities in an attempt to forgo land accumulation. This was not in any way courtesy or a handout from the state to the people, rather it was the result of the incessant peasant uprisings that took place against dispossession (Radhakrishnan, 1981). The communist party agenda that comprised the state then wanted to end evictions that create mass retaliation, poverty, and malnutrition. The Kerala Land Reforms Act 1969 was a much diluted version of the original legislation that had initially posed a threat to feudal landlords in terms of a large-scale loss of capital and hierarchy. However, this legislation has definitely not provided justice to the Dalits and Adivasis of Kerala (Yadu, 2015). With regard to the Adivasis of Kerala, they have been excluded from all developmental narratives in the past. Adivasis faced the brunt of every initiative sponsored by the state, colonial forces, and landlords. They have been subjected to the dispossession of their resources, common property, and mass displacement with plantations taking over their natural resources (Raman, 2010). Even today, one could find that most Adivasis are engaged in daily wage labor as plantation workers.

Land Reforms Act of 1969 excluded Adivasis who were not identified as tenants as the Kerala Land Reforms Act essentially focused on distributing land for the peasant community who were mainly tenants (Madhavan, 2020). Adivasis were being discounted by the State and throughout history.

Adivasi land and development have always been a subject of debate only in electoral politics and are nothing more than a source for generating votes (Saravanan, 2009). There is a need for transparency and engagement with the Adivasis by the State agencies (Satpathy, 2017). While there have been a few Adivasi land rights struggles that have been documented, several of the uprisings have failed to reach the public attention. Muthanga Samaram was Kerala’s first Adivasi land struggle that gained significant attention from the media, public as well as the state. This is due to the fact that the protesters were the most neglected sections of the society who came forward to let the state know that the indigenous people of Kerala are landless and face malnutrition and death. The struggle was met with police brutality that ended with casualties (Bijoy and Raman, 2003). Similarly, there has been the Chengara Samaram ¹ , Arippa Samaram, ² and the very recent Araikap Samaram which has though failed to get much recognition as the others. These uprisings have helped in forming groups and collectives by the forest-dwelling communities to address land and livelihood-based issues.

“The undoing of historical injustice”

The FRA 2006 was enacted when the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) ministry formed the government. It was the culmination of generations of indigenous uprisings in India and around the globe for the reclamation of land rights. It was an attempt to give justice and opportunity to the forest-dependent communities to have ownership over their common resources and land (Münster and Vishnudas, 2012). FRA gives Adivasis the provision to acquire the constitutional and fundamental rights they deserve as citizens and also works toward decolonization and equal distribution of resources (Das, 2019). Despite this, it has not served to benefit the Adivasis and other forest-dwelling communities of India. There are thousands of landless forest-dwelling communities in India that are fighting for land reclamation. Land is more than a source of livelihood for the Adivasis. It is a matter of social justice and equal distribution of wealth (Oskarsson, 2018). To acquire this social justice, the downtrodden have always resorted to mass mobilization.

It should be noted that the Adivasis have not been included in any policy or decision-making process with regard to the welfare of the state. Land alienation has always been a matter of concern for Adivasis in Kerala. They are perceived as trespassers who illegally occupy and utilize the forest and its resources by the forest bureaucracy (Kumar and Kerr, 2012). Adivasi land issues have been used as a tool for promoting election manifestos and agendas and do not go beyond that (Ameerudheen, 2016). The state has always shown apathy and more interest in capital accumulation. This study examines the State’s role with regard to Adivasi landlessness. This would address the following question:

What is the state’s role in eliminating or generating Adivasi landlessness in the context of FRA? The state of Kerala over the past few years has taken great initiative in bringing about wide infrastructure development in the form of ports, hydroelectric projects, metros, gas pipelines, and so on. These developmental initiatives discount the interests of people whose lives are dependent on commons. While the forest areas are great resources for biofuels, tourism, timber, and other projects, a great number of people are dependent on it. Therefore, the question lies in whether the State caters to the needs of the indigenous people or does it generate landlessness by means of forced evictions and delays in the implementation of FRA.

Materials and methods

The study is based on secondary data collected from journals and newspaper reports and primary data obtained from interviews. These interviews comprise oral narratives from Adivasis across eight districts of Kerala which are Wayanad, Pathanamthitta, Thrissur, Idukki, Malappuram, Palakad, Kasargode, and Ernakulam. Interviewees also comprise activists and journalists. In total, around 75 individuals have been interviewed. The objective of the interview was to understand the status of landholding, ownership, and access to commons. The interview would also reflect on the livelihood conditions and displacement which can be voluntary or not. Newspapers and online news portals have made remarkable reporting of the Adivasi narratives. These reports have been used to understand land ownership among Adivasis and have attributed significantly to the study.

The interview questions were designed to address the following objective which is to probe into the State’s interest and role with regard to Adivasi land ownership, especially in the context of FRA. The study had met with several hurdles with regard to accessing public information, speaking to Adivasis, and accessing regions of protest and demonstration carried out by the landless Adivasis which is of relevance and will be discussed in the study.

The study was done with the help and in association with Adivasi Aikya Vedi (AAV), which is a collective formed to address Adivasi land-based and rights-based issues. The collective has been focusing on mobilizing various tribal organizations and indigenous leaders in the movement toward implementing FRA throughout the state of Kerala. The data were obtained with the help of the AAV members as access to the forests was not sanctioned by the Forest Department officials. Recordings of oral narratives were carried out at the site of protests and during AAV meetings organized outside the forests.

The respondents for this study are Adivasis from eight districts of Kerala which are Wayanad, Pathanamthitta, Thrissur, Idukki, Malappuram, Palakad, Kasargode, and Ernakulam. They are forest-dependent communities who are engaged in the process of collective forest produce for livelihood purposes. A majority of the respondents live within the forests, while a few live in the periphery and are into daily wage labor. They are people who have less or no access to welfare institutions such as primary health centers, Anganwadis, and schools. The respondents belong to the lowest section of the society and face discrimination on a daily basis. The rationale for the study is to understand if they have been considered in the development plans of the state. The study is an attempt to clarify the State’s role when it comes to minimizing or being responsible for landlessness among Adivasis in Kerala. This is inferred from the oral narratives that describe the changes that have taken place among the Adivasis with regard to land rights over the years.

Land distribution and its fallacies

The land distribution made by the Kerala government for the Adivasis is quite problematic in nature. While Adivasis require acres of forest land for cultivation, animal rearing, and collecting forest produce, the State provides a land title for as much as 25 cents or less for each family. For example, around 17 Dalit and Adivasi families of Chengara Samaram were allotted 25 cents of land each (The Hindu, 2022). This is not sufficient for any kind of livelihood means of the Adivasis. In many other places, the land distribution among Adivasis has proved unfair and unjust as the land turned out to be uncultivable. On February 13, 2019, the Supreme Court of India ordered the eviction of around 10 lakh forest-dwelling communities whose FRA claims have been turned down from the forests (Kalathingal, 2019).

Most of the issues that the Adivasis of Kerala are centered on the lack of resources and capital for their sustenance. Also being one of the marginalized communities without resources, they have been constantly discriminated and ostracized from the society. To understand more about the State’s endeavors toward the Adivasis, I interviewed individuals and groups who are in the process of reclaiming land titles through the means of nonviolent protests. These protests do not garner the support of any political party. They are supported by social action groups, Adivasi human rights organizations, and environmentalists.

Case 1

Araikap Bhoosamaram: I met with the Adivasis from Araikap hamlet in Thrissur district who have been leading nonviolent protests to reclaim land rights. Speaking to the people protesting, the following was observed. Since July 2021, the Adivasis of Araikap have been put up in the Idamalayar tribal hostel. They had set up tents at the Vaishali caves after relocating from the Araikap colony, a place where they were being constantly threatened by wild animals and the forest department officials. They are currently living in a tribal hostel at Idamalayar, awaiting land and rehabilitation in the Panthapra hamlet at Kuttampuzha Panchayat in Ernakulam district. Around 538 acres of land have been demarcated in this region under FRA for the landless Adivasis. Their plea for land titles in this safe and secure forest area has been met with callousness from the State. The people from Araikap are forest-dwelling communities who believe that they do not have the skill to survive anywhere outside the forests. They have been demanding a safe and sustainable region for residence within the forests. While Panthapra is demarcated for Adivasi settlement under FRA, the state has reservations in allocating this tribe as a region for rehabilitation and resettlement. This has placed the 23 families in a predicament where their livelihoods and lives are at stake. They face every form of threat induced by landlessness. Currently, they are protesting in front of the Ernakulam Collectorate in tents with women and children. They were asked to leave their shelter at the tribal hostel by the state as the schools were about to reopen (Joseph, 2021).

Case 2

Maniyankinar bhoosamaram (Kannan, Chief of the hamlet): Maniyankinar hamlet is a very small region, situated in the Thrissur district of Kerala. This hamlet is placed within the dense forest and is home to several Adivasi families whose lives, culture, and livelihoods are interwoven with the forest and the resources it has to offer. Moreover, their knowledge about the forest and its various flora and fauna is immense. In the 1980s, the Adivasis of Maniyankinar hamlet faced the threat of eviction and landlessness. They were denied access to forest resources and the land on which they had been dwelling for generations. Dissent toward this forced displacement brewed in the late 1980s, although the state showed apathy and arrogance. The State failed to understand the knowledge system and the deep connection Adivasis have for the forests. This wrath of landlessness and ignorance from the state forced them to fight for their ancestral land and rights. They proceeded with a 3-month-long nonviolent protest in front of the Thrissur collector’s office. The Adivasis of Maniyankinar hamlet did not give up the fight for land titles and ownership. Finally, after a yearlong struggle and negotiation, they were successful in reclaiming land for the entire tribe. Despite receiving land for dwelling and sustenance, the state has not provided them with land titles that would ensure ownership. Due to this, they are threatened with eviction and issues of being landless any day. Despite this, the people of Maniyankinar hamlet are determined to protect their rights over the land they have resided for generations and the access to commons.

Case 3

Sudhakaran, an Adivasi from Allapey district: The Adivasis in Alleppey district are in sizable number and live amid the general population with essentially no land to their name. They are involved in activities such as collecting medicinal plants from the forests, daily wage labor, and Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), 2005 of the Government of India work as a means of livelihood. The forests are technically inaccessible for the Adivasis but remain crucial for their survival as their livelihoods are based on forest produce. Unfortunately, the state has been insistent on proving nonforest land for their survival. This land comes in nominal sizes and does not meet the essential requirements of the Adivasis which includes cultivation and rearing. As of now, most of the Adivasis of Allapey district live in rented homes with no account of land ownership. The Kerala state government through a tribal project had sanctioned houses and land for 24 Adivasi families. This though failed to be implemented by the State shunning any hopes of land ownership for the Adivasis. The Alleppey district collector has now promised the Adivasis of the district land title as well as houses again. Since 2016 the Left Democratic Party (LDF) led government has distributed over 2,34,567 land deeds across the state to obviate cases of landlessness among the marginalized communities (The News Minute, 2021). These efforts have not been fruitful for the Adivasis of Kerala. The implementation of FRA in Alleppey would mean that the Adivasis of the district would have security with regard to their livelihoods and housing. When they set out for informal jobs (as they are skilled only in collecting forest produce and hunting and gathering), they are treated with the least respect and very low wages that keep them in the lowest sections of the society.

Case 4

Manikuttan from Wayanad district: Wayanad district has the largest number of Adivasi population in the state of Kerala. Despite having a large forest cover and forest-dependent communities, the Adivasis of Wayanad have negligible or no land of their own. They live in precarious conditions with their lives and health at stake. Most of the Adivasis from the primitive tribes have no access to health care. Access to commons for collecting forest produce is also denied. The State has been making efforts to relocate the Adivasis from the forests into the city of Kalpetta. They have been allocated accommodation in flats and apartments in Kalpetta which is a semiurban space and accommodate them in apartments and flats. These apartments and flats have no running water and are not the ideal abode for the people who are dependent on forest produce. They are skilled in no other work besides collecting forest produce.

The Adivasis are largely uneducated and therefore fail to comprehend government documents in many cases. In Wayanad, in early 2022, the Forest department officials forced 150 families to sign blank documents. Later on, they were given INR 15,00,000 each and told to rehabilitate to assigned places outside the forest region. This forced displacement came with no adequate rehabilitation measures and was unnecessary as well. The displaced Adivasi families were given around 15 cents of land in the periphery of the forests. They were not allowed to cultivate or rear animals in these regions. Without any other livelihood skills, they were forced to take up menial jobs that pay way below what they need for survival.

Venu from Noolpuzha Panchayat in Wayanad district: Vasu hails from the Chettiyalathur hamlet in Wayanad which comprises around over 30 Adivasi families who are entirely engaged in collecting forest produce, cultivation, and animal rearing. The Adivasis from this hamlet move around the forest for months to collect medicinal plants, honey, and other materials which play a major part as livelihood means. Among these families, only four of them have received land title under FRA. The other families have no possession certificate or land titles that ensure ownership over their land. Few families have been forced to leave their land in the forests by the forest department. The forest department officials made these families sign blank documents. They later filled up the content detailing that the family is willing to relocate outside the forest considering the risk from wild animals. These families are now facing the threat of eviction. They fear that if they relocate to the periphery of the forests, they would be unable to find means of livelihood. The Adivasis also fear that the new environment would pose the risk of discrimination.

Case 5

Nelliyampathy, Palakkad district: The Adivasis from Nelliyampathy region had worked toward land reclamation after learning about FRA from Adivasi Aikya Vedhi and other civil society organizations. Until then, they lived in forest lands with eviction threats and discrimination. They are primarily forest-dependent communities and their livelihoods are resource-based. After 5 years of continuous effort, the Adivasis of Nelliyampathy, Nenmara have been able to reclaim ownership of 750 acres of land. This land has been demarcated under FRA. Despite this, the Adivasi families have not received land titles. Meera, an Adivasi leader from Nelliampathy who spoke to us, mentioned that the process to obtain land rights was a difficult one. They had to constantly visit the Subdivisional Level Committee (SDLC) and District Level Committee (DLC) offices to get their application moved and approved. Most FRCs in this region have remained inactive for a very long time. The Adivasis being unaware of the existence of FRA and FRCs were incapable of doing anything. The question that lies here is who is responsible for creating awareness of FRA and implementing it among the citizens who have very low literacy level and are primitive in nature.

Case 6

Adimali, Idukki district: Adimali is home to several Adivasis who were completely unaware of FRA and its scope until recently. Through media and civil society organizations, they learned about this legislation and its profound positive effects on the landless Adivasis. Most of the Adivasis in this region are plantation workers and are involved in daily wage labor. Preindependence ³ Kerala had most of the forest areas in this region converted into plantations. Adivasis who belonged to these forests were forced to work in these plantations, and even after several decades, they continue to do so today. As they move outside the forest areas for work, they are subjected to violence, discrimination, and social exclusion. They are most likely to end up as landless people and find accommodation in a slum-like setting with huts built out of tarpaulins and bamboo. The Adivasis of the Idukki district have very little understanding of FRA. These forest regions have also been prone to landslides and floods since 2018. Amid all these threats, the State has made no attempts for land distribution that would bring about security with regard to livelihood and life. The lack of landholding prevents the Adivasis of this region from cultivating their own food and collecting forest produce causing malnutrition and extreme poverty.

Case 7

Kattathi a hamlet in the Pathanamthitta district, consists of 32 families with land titles obtained through FRA. While this might seem to be a major achievement the reality is far from it. The Adivasi families might have received land ownership. But the land titles they have received are for insignificant amounts of land. The Adivasis of this particular hamlet have received land titles for as much as 5 cents to 1 acre of land only. While most of the families have received less than 25 cents of land, this makes them unable to cultivate or rear animals. Moreover, they are poverty-stricken families who rely on Public Distribution System (PDS) for food and necessities. This means that most children, women, and adolescents have no access to nutritious food such as vegetables, pulses, meat, and so on. they also do not have access to forests so that they can hunt animals for food. The men are engaged in collecting wild honey for 3 months a year. For the rest of the year, they take up construction work as daily wage laborers. Their tribal identity causes discrimination in the form of a lack of job opportunities and wage gap.

Findings of the study

The FRA status and the impediments involved:

Of the 72 Adivasis interviewed from different panchayats across the eight districts mentioned above, only five people had a land title. The rest 62 individuals had only possession certificate and nine people had absolutely no land and lived in rented houses or huts. Seventy individuals found FRA as an important tool for reclaiming land rights, while two individuals were concerned that would not allow Adivasis to come into the forefront of development as they would be forced to continue traditional livelihood methods. According to the latter, living within the forests would mean no access to education, the general society, and the “modern world.”

Allapuzha, Idukki, and Thrissur districts had respondents who confirmed that the FRCs in their hamlets were inactive and that the State made no efforts to carry out meetings or implement FRCs. The State has been more interested in giving nominal amounts of land by means of welfare schemes. But the rehabilitation measures have been poor. The State has always been careful in reducing the Adivasis to an inferior level by means of providing innumerable welfare programs and schemes. There is hardly any effort made by the State in carrying out a rights-based approach that would make the Adivasis self-reliant and most important place them in par with the rest of the society.

Adivasi Aikya Vedhi is a collective formed by Adivasi leaders across the state who have been keeping a track of the landless Adivasis and the FRA applications filed and rejected. We met with the Adivasi Aikya Vedhi Joint Secretary Devi from the Kollam district. According to her, Adivasis are threatened in most scenarios by forest department officials while trying to reclaim their land. They also constantly face the threat of eviction from the State. They are deprived of basic amenities in most hamlets. These include running water supply, roads, anganwadis, primary health centers, schools, and electricity. The respondents believe that FRA has a crucial role in bringing about development. FRA gives hope for the Adivasis in ensuring a secure life and livelihood according to Devi. It can be concluded from the case studies that the State has not been genuine in the process of land distribution. It can also be deduced from these narratives that the State does not take up the responsibility for the implementation of FRA in Kerala.

Conclusion

It is possible to conclude from these narratives that the role of the state in ensuring land for the Adivasis in Kerala has been very restricted. There have been in fact attempts to forcefully displace Adivasis from their natural habitat allowing no room for progress. The developmental activities have no space for traditional resource-dependent communities who are the major stakeholders. Adivasis in Kerala are still fighting for land and livelihood rights which creates a debate on the path of development adopted by the state. The state has also worked toward rehabilitating various Adivasi tribes together in a large space as a form of community in the form of Aralam Farms. In an article by Sreerekha (2010), she writes about how Aralam Farms was a result of the Muthanga Struggle which led the State to rehabilitate landless Adivasis. The farm is located in the Kannur district and comprises 3060 ha of land where the Adivasis are meant to reside and use half of the land for cultivation and livelihood means. Though this may seem a win for Adivasis, the truth is far from it. The media as well as academicians have worked on bringing out the truth. There have been several disputes regarding ownership, eviction, livelihood, and threat to lives in the Aralam farms. Aralam farms have forced Adivasis to demand 5 acres of land each and also to include Adivasi lands under the fifth schedule.

The State has also taken up land distribution seriously with the LDF government claiming to provide 13,500 families with land titles in 2021. This was to be done by means of Pattaya Melas which are events that comprise mass distribution of land deeds (The Hindu, 2021). This attempt was made in response to the protests for land rights taken up by the Adivasis of Kerala. The effectiveness of these land distributions needs to be examined. Factors such as size, quality, and location of land are very important factors when it comes to providing justice through land reclamation for the Adivasi community. Moreover, the existence of the binaries, one which serves capitalism and the other that overthrows the State, is impractical and needs to find a common ground. Economic growth that can accommodate the people’s interest needs to be delivered. What is the ideal process of development? Can justice or equitable land distribution only be carried when state is out of the picture? Is State the only hope and entity with authority to carry out justice? Are we expecting too much from the State? Does serving the interests of marginalized mean that we have to give up on development as a whole? These are a few questions that have been generated in this study since it is already established that the State has not performed its assigned role effectively. More debates and criticisms are required to obtain a favorable position for all.