Institutional Exclusion and Tribal Interest

Abstract

The article investigates whether the political inclusion and representation of Scheduled Tribes through decentralization empower the tribal communities in India to counter the process of exclusion. It examines the capacity of decentralized government to represent the tribal interests and empower the tribal communities in the Scheduled Areas of Orissa, an eastern Indian province. The article concludes that there exists a systematic and strategic exclusion of tribal representatives, who were ready and capable to participate in local government and successfully represent tribal interests. It argues that exclusion and disempowerment of tribal representatives is not an outcome of their backward socioeconomic status or inability to participate in local government, but a result of a political–economic process strategically imposed on them. The article highlights a vicious circle of exclusion, where on the one hand, the tribal representatives performed low because of their exclusion, and on the other inability to effectively function as representatives further led to their exclusion from decentralized government. The empirical work for the article is based on case study of two Gram Panchayats, which were the center of tribal conflict against the Vedanta Alumunia Company in the state of Orissa in India.

Keywords

inclusion exclusion empowerment decentralization tribe Orissa

Introduction

India’s tryst with village self-governance dates back to centuries (see Joshi & Narwani, 2002; Kaushik, 2005). In the wake of independence, attempts to introduce local governance were made by the political elites of modern India through adoption of decentralization initiatives. However, these initiatives mostly remained subject to political will, and were confined to the Directive Principles of State Policy of the Indian Constitution, which were non-justiciable and just advisory in nature. It was only in 1993 that democratic decentralization got a constitutional status in India with the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act and establishment of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs). Under the provisions of this Constitutional Amendment, while Article 243G of the Indian Constitution empowered the State Legislatures to endow the Panchayats with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-government, the provision of reservation for backward and underclass sections of society like the Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and women (Article 243D) provided an opportunity to the hitherto neglected sections of society to raise their voice and, in turn, be a part of the decision-making process.

In its commitment to introduce the process of decentralization reforms in the tribal regions of the country, Government of India in December 1997 enacted the “The Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act” (PESA Act), which paved the way for inclusion and self-governance in the nine states of India that come under the fifth Schedule of the Indian Constitution.¹ The PESA Act made provisions for seat reservation for the STs, and vested legislative power in the Gram Sabha (the lowest level of decentralized government), especially in matters relating to development and planning, management of local natural resources, and adjudication of disputes in accordance with prevalent traditions and customs.

These efforts of tribal local self-governance in India have also, ironically, coexisted with neoliberal policies of development, which attempts to monopolize natural resources like land and forest for use as inputs in the industrialization process. There has been no dearth of evidence that this new development paradigm has, consequentially, displaced many tribal communities out of their land, and has been the root cause of conflicts over development in India. It is in this context of political– administrative measures of tribal self-governance and empowerment, on the one hand, and political–economic conditions of conflicts over development, on the other, the article intends to investigate whether the political inclusion and assured representation through reservation of seats for STs as per the recent decentralized reforms successfully empower the tribal communities to counter the process of exclusion. The article examines the potentials of decentralized reforms to include and empower tribal communities and establish local self-governance in the Scheduled Areas of Orissa, an eastern Indian province. In the process, the article attempts to explore the manifestations of inclusion/exclusion and empowerment/disempowerment in decentralized governance as well as in the process of development.

The establishment of Vedanta Alumina Project at Lanjigarh in the Kalahandi district of Orissa, and the subsequent tribal resistance against the project form the wider context, within which the present study is situated. The empirical work for the research is carried out in two Gram Panchayats, namely, Lanjigarh Panchayat and Batelima Panchayat of the Lanjigarh block in Kalahandi district, which were the hot bed of the resistance against the Vedanta project. Besides displacement and resistance to development due to Vedanta Project, the Lanjigarh block has also a political significance, which made it more appropriate for the present study, that is, its position within the Schedule V area of the Indian Constitution, with several protective laws including that of PESA for safeguarding the tribal interests.

A combination of caste study method, group discussion, and in-depth interviews were carried out to gather the empirical data for the article. We viewed the two Panchayats taken for study as socio-political organizations, within which tribal social organization is embedded rather than just as political units. To collect the field data, interviews were conducted with the present and past representatives of the two Panchayats and other key informants such as local tribal leaders, tribal youth, and few tribal women, who had participated actively in the anti-Vedanta struggle. Further, in-depth discussions were also carried out with the members of civil society groups such as Niyamgiri Surakshya Samiti and Green Kalahandi at Lanjigarh and Bhawanipatna (the district headquarters) to gain a wider perspective of the tribal resistance to Vedanta. Besides, the primary source, information from various reports, local newspapers and brochures used during the tribal mobilization were also gathered, which served the material for the present article.

The article is divided into five sections, including the above introduction. The second section provides a contextual background to the study by way of highlighting the issue of conflicts over development and attempts of tribal self-governance in India. The third section engages itself with a theoretical discussion on political inclusion, representation, and empowerment. The fourth section empirically examines the concept of representation and tribal self-rule and examines the process of inclusion and empowerment in decentralized governance. The fifth section discusses the empirical findings and concludes the article by way of explaining the manifestation of exclusion and disempowerment of tribal communities in the Panchayats of Lanjigarh.

Contextual Background

As pointed out in the introduction section, the research is situated in the context of two seemingly paradoxical, yet coexisting backgrounds, namely, political–administrative efforts toward inclusion and empowerment of STs through decentralized reforms, and the political–economic context of development, which generates exclusion and marginalization of the same communities through displacement and loss of livelihoods. It is, therefore, essential to contextualize the research by way of examining these two contradictory processes.

Politico-administrative Context: Decentralized Reforms and Tribal Empowerment

With an intention to provide institutional structure to local governments, Indian state had appointed several commissions in the post-independent period to give a shape to Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs), the most important among them being the Balwant Rai Mehta Commission of 1957, the Asoka Mehta Commission of 1978, and the G.V.K. Rao Committee of 1985. However, all of these commissions and several others instituted for the purpose opined that Panchayats have been undermined and weakened in India mainly on three counts: (a) unwillingness on the part of the states to devolve substantial power to Panchayats, (b) a resistant bureaucracy, and (c) the dominating power of local elites (Jha, 1999). Such realizations became later instrumental in giving Panchayats a Constitutional status in 1993 through the 73rd Amendment Act.²

The 73rd Constitutional Amendment Acts of 1993 made it incumbent upon the states to set up representative rural bodies, and devolve defined powers, responsibilities, and means of operation to them. The main features of the 73rd Amendment Act, with respect to democratic decentralization process in India, can be summarized as below (Johnson, 2003):

The establishment of a three-tier PRI structure, with elected bodies at village, block, and district levels (Article 243 B).

The recognition that the Gram Sabha constitutes a deliberative body at the village level (Article 243 A).

Direct elections to 5-year terms for all members at all levels (Article 243 E).

Reservation of one-third of all seats for women, and reservations for SCs and STs in proportional to their populations (Article 243 D).

Subsequent to the 73rd Amendment Act, the Indian state enacted the PESA Act, 1997 to extend the provisions of the decentralization reforms to the tribal regions of the country with necessary modifications. The most significant aspect of this piece of legislation is that it devolved most of the power to the Gram Sabha or Village Council to function as units of self-governance. To be specific, the PESA Act has provided that the Gram Sabha or Panchayats at the appropriate level shall have the following powers:

to be consulted on matters of land acquisition and resettlement;

grant prospecting license for mining lease for minor minerals and concessions for such activities;

planning and management of minor water bodies;

ownership of minor forest produces;

power to prevent alienation of land and to restore any unlawfully alienated land;

power to exercise controls over institutions and functionaries in all social sectors;

power to control local plans and resources.

Along with these provisions, PESA Act also made it mandatory that at least half of the members of the Panchayat should be belong to STs, elected through seats reserved for them at all the three tiers of PRIs. Further, the post of president of all the Gram Panchayats in the Schedule V areas is also reserved for ST population. To put it precisely, the PESA Act attempted toward political inclusion of STs through assured representation in institutions of local government, and empowered the communities through devolution of several powers and responsibilities.

Political–Economic Context: Development, Development Conflict, and Tribal Marginalization

Development, in its various avatars, has surely been the most powerful influence structuring the social and economic transformation in the non-Western world in this century, especially after decolonization and post-World War II. The new face of development, starting from mid-1980s under broader framework of neoliberalism and globalization, however, has drawn attention to the other side of this transformation, i.e., its consequences for the poor, marginalized, and excluded sections of society. The greater demand for natural resources by the process of development has led to monopolization of the resource by the state, and narrowing down of natural resource base for survival of economically poor and powerless, either by direct transfer of resources away from their basic needs or by destruction of the essential ecological processes that ensure renewability of the life supporting natural resources (Bandyopadhyay & Shiva, 1988). In such a context of resource capture by the state to continue its project of rapid economic growth and deprivation of local communities from these resources, the state has often been successful in using the ideology of development as an effective instrument to legitimize exploitation.

The pattern of development that the Indian state has followed ever since independence, and more intensively with its neoliberal agendas of 1980s and 1990s has resulted in fundamentally altering two crucial bases of production: land and water, upon with survival of majority of economically poor, powerless, and marginalized groups depend (Baviskar, 1995). The most significant life support systems, beyond clean air, are the commons resources, such as, water, forest, and land, on which majority of the tribal and economically poor people of India depend upon for their survival. The response of tribal communities to this new threat to survival, which is being created by the very process of development, has often manifested through virulent economic conflicts between the tribal communities, whose resources and livelihoods are now threatened by rapid economic growth agenda, and the state and its allies who are actively pursuing these.

The current practice of development not only excludes and alienates the tribal and other marginalized communities by way of threatening them of losing the resources on which their survival depends but also through an unequal sharing of the fruits of development. The Indian national development ever since independence has been a process where the tribal and other marginalized communities have borne the cost of development and sacrificed their life and livelihood, whereas the benefits of development have been cornered by the elites. The bulk of development policies, justified in the national interest, actually diminished the poor’s ability to control and gainfully use the natural resource base, and safeguarded the interests of capitalists, merchants, industrialists, and rich farmers (Baviskar, 1995). Madhav Gadgil and Ramchandra Guha from their excellent analysis of use and abuse of nature for the purpose of development mention that “the strategy of development, willingly or unwillingly sacrificed the interests of bulk of the rural population – landless labour, small and marginal farmers, artisans, nomads and various aboriginal communities – whose dependence on nature was a far more direct one” (Gadgil & Guha, 1995, p. 185).

These conflicts, however, should not be understood just as who captures the resources, rather they are conflicts involving issues of how and for what purpose they are captured. Developmental conflicts may therefore be understood as continuing struggles over the process of production and extraction of resources, and issues concerning resource capture, mode of resource use, and technology adopted for its extraction (Gadgil & Guha, 1995). To agree with Baviskar, these conflicts have been contestations between two version of economy – “political-economy of profit” pursed by the state and its allies and “moral economy of need” practiced by the tribal and marginalized communities for their survival (Baviskar, 1995). To put it precisely, these conflicts over the process of development had its origin in “lopsided, iniquitous and environmentally destructive process of development” (Guha & Martinez Allier, 1997, p. 17). Development conflicts may therefore be approached as a response of the tribal and marginalized groups against the process of marginalization, exclusion, and alienation of these communities from the very process of development.

Theoretical Backdrop of the Study

Empowerment has been a contested concept and used in different contexts to denote different kinds of social and psychological changes (Batliwala, 1993; Bystydziensky, 1992; Chandra, 1997; Rowlands, 1998; UNDP, 1997). In its much wider connotation, the concept has been defined as “the expansion of people’s capabilities and choices, the ability to exercise choice based on freedom from hunger, want and deprivation; and the opportunity to participate in, or endorse, decisions that affect their lives” (UNDP, 1997). Empowerment involves two important aspects: developing the capabilities, negotiating skills, and the ability of people, on the one hand, and obtaining authority to make decisions or participate in decision-making on affairs that affect their lives, on the other. Beresford and Coft, therefore, define empowerment as “making it possible for people to exercise power and have more control over their lives. That means having a greater voice in institutions, agencies and situations which affect them” (Beresford & Croft, 1993).

Empowerment necessarily demands political inclusion in the institutions of decision-making and a change in the existing power relations, where certain sections of society remain outside the decision-making arena due to their specific historical socio-cultural experiences. In a democratic political structure, empowerment, therefore, entails proper and effective representation in the institutions of governance so that through these representatives, people can voice their concerns and participate in making decisions on matters that affect their lives (Spicker, 1994).

Empowerment and political inclusion through representation are essentially related. Notwithstanding the various approaches and meanings of empowerment, it can be commonly agreed that representation and political presence of marginalized and hitherto excluded groups in the institutions of governance will provide them with substantial power to change the rules of the game and also to negotiate the power relations with the privileged sections of society. Apparently, oppressed groups ranging from unorganized workers, poor peasants, tribal people, dalits, and women in their struggle for power, envisage empowerment as objectives of economic development and social justice in the democratic process (Mohanty, 1995). Further, political presence of excluded groups like STs is supposed to lead to a transformation of politics and challenge the structural barriers that have historically marginalized tribes in politics, society, and economy. Political empowerment is also regarded as political incorporation (inclusion), which means the extent to which a group has achieved significant representation and influence in political decision-making (see Bobo & Gilliam, 1990; Browning, Marshall, & Tabb, 1984; Mohanty, 1995; Singha Roy, 1995).

Understanding Representation

Representation is taken to mean “a relation between two persons, the representative and the represented or constituent, with the representative holding the authority to perform various actions that incorporate the agreements of the represented” (Grazia, 1968, p. 461). Viewed in this sense, the authority that the representatives enjoy is always derived from the agreement of the constituents, which they bestow upon the representatives to act or make decisions on their behalf. The literature concerning political representation points toward two central strands of representation theory: substantive representation and descriptive representation. The following paragraphs make an attempt to conceptually clarify these two strands.

Substantive Representation

Substantive representation emphasizes the issues, ideas, and programs to be represented, and the representative may not necessarily be one from the community which s/he is supposed to represent. Substantial representation is based on the premise that representatives are supposed to act on behalf of the constituents, and too much emphasis on who is present may divert the issue from the more urgent question of what the representatives do. For substantive representation, these are the activities of the representatives, rather than their characteristics, which matters. Delineating the true meaning of substantive representation, Pitkin (1976, p. 209) mentions, “representing means acting in the interests of the represented (constituents), in a manner responsive to them.” She further adds that, “representatives may and almost certainly will differ from those they act for, not only in their social and sexual characteristics, but also in their understanding of where the true interests of their constituents lie. Fair representation cannot be guaranteed in advance (by choosing one from the same group), but it is achieved in more continuous process, which depends on a level of responsiveness to the electorate” (ibid., 2009).

Substantive representation is highly valued in modern liberal representative democracy, where political parties and party ideologies provide the basis for such a form of representation. However, one can think of a reformist version of Pitkin’s conceptions of substantive representation, which allows too much of independence of judgment and action to the representatives. Anne Phillips argues that “the shift from direct to representative democracy has shifted the emphasis from who the politicians are to what policies, preferences and ideas they represent, and in doing so, has made accountability to the electorate a pre-eminent concern, which minimises the significance of individuals elected” (Phillips, 1998, p. 227). In this reformist version of substantive representation, the quality of representation depends upon tighter mechanisms of accountability that bind politicians more closely to the opinions they profess to represent. To argue in a broader framework, substantive representation in a democratic set up manifests itself in three dimensions: through activities or participation of representatives of taking real decision on their behalf, responsiveness of the representatives toward the interests of the constituents and the mechanism of accountability, which puts checks and balances on independent judgment, and action of representatives (Patnaik, 2005).

Descriptive Representation

In contrast to substantive representation, descriptive representation emphasizes “who represents” rather than “what policies or ideas the representative is representing.” In this form of representation, the representative is supposed to belong to the group s/he represents and should share the same life experiences.³ In descriptive representation, “representatives are in their own persons and lives in some sense typically of the larger class of persons whom they represent” (Birch, 1993, p. 72).

The wider acceptance and popularity of substantive representation in the modern liberal representative democracy notwithstanding, several scholars have pointed toward descriptive representation as a means for empowerment of disadvantaged, marginalized and otherwise excluded groups. Jane Mansbridge argues that at least in four contexts for four different reasons, the disadvantaged groups may want to be represented by descriptive representation: adequate communication in contexts of mistrust; innovative thinking in the context of un-crystallized, not fully articulated, interests; creating a social meaning of ability to rule for the members in a historical context, where that ability has been seriously question; and increasing the polity’s de facto legitimacy in the context of past discrimination (Mansbridge, 1999, p. 628). Scholars working on (political) empowerment suggest that descriptive representation has positive effects on minority citizens. They argue that visible political leadership by members of a minority group would enhance trust in government, efficacy, group pride, and participation (Gurin, Hatchett, & Jackson, 1989; Tete, 1991).

Perhaps the most influential argument in favor of descriptive representation is that of Anne Phillips’ (1995) seminal work Politics of Presence, which makes a strong case for political presence of women in institutions of decision-making. Phillips feels that even the reformist argument of substantive representation – where the emphasis on accountability mechanism minimizes the importance of who the representatives might be – “do not engage sufficiently with a widely felt sense of political exclusion by groups defined by their gender or ethnicity or race” (Phillips, 1995, p. 5). Phillips problematizes the current engagement with democracy as an argument revolving around what we might call demands for political presence: demand for equal representation of women with men, demand for more even handed balance between different ethnic groups that make up each society, demands for political inclusion of groups that have come to see themselves as marginalized or silenced or excluded.

Central to the thesis of “Politics of Presence” is notions of difference. Phillips’ Politics of Presence conceives difference in relation to experiences and identities based on gender, ethnicity, or race, which may accordingly constitute different and distinct groups. Once difference is conceived in this manner, it may not, therefore, be possible to meet the demands for political inclusion without also including members from these groups. As Phillips rightly points out, “… men may conceivably stand in for women when what is at issue is the representation of agreed policies or programmes or ideas. But how can men legitimately stand in for women when what is at issue is representation of women per se” (Phillips, 1995, p. 6).

The basic arguments of the notion of Politics of Presence rest on three premises: that disadvantaged and excluded groups based on gender, ethnicity, and race have a distinct and separate interest, that this interest cannot be adequately represented by members other than their own group/community, and that the election of a members from their own group ensures their representation (Phillips, 1991). Further, the argument for political presence of excluded groups stress that it would unleash the true meaning of democracy by ensuring and enhancing wider participation and public deliberation. Phillips had a strong conviction that changing the composition of elected assemblies – through inclusion of excluded groups by means of assured representation – is a part of a wider project of increasing and enhancing democracy.

Anne Phillips developed her arguments of political presence within the broader framework of feminist politics, and was more concerned for gender equality and political inclusion of women in institutions of decision-making. However, the argument can equally be extended to other marginalized and disadvantaged ethnic and racial groups, where the pre-existing socioeconomic exclusion of these groups is reproduced and replicated in the form of political under-representation. In such a context of marginalization and exclusion, political presence turns out to be a deliberate intervention, which is necessary to break the link between social structure of inequality or exclusion and the political reflection of these in levels of participation and influence.

Representation, Inclusion, and Empowerment in Lanjigarh

The above theoretical review suggests us that political inclusion and assured representation (through the system of seat reservation) are two most important factors for empowerment of marginalized and excluded groups. We considered this theoretical assumption as a working hypothesis and attempted to assess the tribal empowerment through inclusive representation. Taking clue from the theoretical review, we tried to investigate both substantive and descriptive representations of the tribal community members of Lanjigarh, and then to examine the influence of this inclusive representation upon their empowerment. The issue of substantive representation and its impact on empowerment is judged through an investigation of the action of the representative or the way in which they participate in the functioning of the Panchayat, and their accountability and responsiveness toward their fellow tribal community members.

Substantive Representation in Lanjigarh: Participation, Accountability and Responsiveness in Local Governance

Participation of Representatives in the Panchayats

The presence of Vedanta Alumina Company in the region and the ongoing tribal resistance against it impacted the participation of representatives in the functioning of decentralized local government. Based upon the assessment of participation, voice and political activeness of the elected representatives, vis-à-vis their relationship with Vedanta, we categorized the elected representatives into four groups:

those who are vocal, politically active but opposed Vedanta;

those who are vocal, politically active but supported Vedanta;

those who are docile, voiceless, and politically inactive but opposed Vedanta;

those who are docile, voiceless, and politically inactive but supported Vedanta.

Table 1 depicts these categories by putting them into a matrix. We then make an attempt to elaborate upon each group in detail. Table 1 also highlights the characteristic features of each group.

Table 1.

Division of Representatives based on Opposition and Support to Vedanta and Political Activeness

	Opposed to Vedanta	Supported Vedanta
Vocal, politically active	Interested and participated in GP in the beginning Information was not provided by president In due course, GP excluded them and they lost hope and trust over GP and differentiated themselves from GP At present, no participation in GP Finds no reason to participate	Includes presidents and their supporters Close proximity with Vedanta officials Some also work in Vedanta and get direct benefits Close nexus with local elite and bureaucracy Participate actively, but participation is subject to the control of local elites
Docile, voiceless, politically inactive	Had no interest in GP Became members due to the persuasion of community members In most cases, they are there as members as it is mandatory to have a tribal as member Voiceless, politically disinterested, and inactive No participation in GP	Work as per the instructions of the elites or the so-called “agents of Vedanta” Some of them do not know that they are members of GP Do and act as instructed by the elites No participation in GP

Source: Field survey.

Category I: vocal, politically active but opposed to Vedanta: The first group of representatives out rightly opposed the presence of Vedanta and participated actively in the anti-Vedanta struggle in the region. These are the members, who have awareness, leadership qualities, and are quite vocal about their position vis-à-vis Vedanta. In fact, some of the representatives contested the Panchayat election based on their anti-Vedanta stand. Sri Majhi, a representative of Jagannathpur village of Lanjigarh Panchayat is one such case. Sri Majhi was very active in the anti-Vedanta struggle in the region before he was elected to the Panchayat. He mobilized people against Vedanta, and was soon recognized in the locality as people’s leader, even though he had no political family background and prior political experience. When the election approached, people projected him as their future representative, and convinced his family for his candidature. During the 2007 Panchayat election, he contested against a Vedanta supported candidate and won the election.

There were couple of more examples like Sri Majhi in both Lanjigarh and Batelima Panchayats, which was the geographical focus of our study. The representatives, whom we can put in this group, were quite vocal, politically aware, and active and quite interested in overall development of their locality. In the beginning, soon after their election, these representatives were quite enthusiastic and had great interest in taking an active role in the local affairs. They had the hope that they could do something for their people through their newly achieved position. These representatives due to their opposition to Vedanta also became opposed to the presidents of both Panchayats and their allies, who supported Vedanta and worked as per the instructions of the agents of Vedanta. This created a division among the representatives, and the presidents started ignoring these representatives, and did not provide any information regarding the Panchayat. Over a period of time, these representatives were systematically kept outside the functioning of the Panchayat, and the presidents tried to avoid them and exclude them from functioning of the Panchayats. It was also reported during the course of interview that some of the representatives belonging to these categories got threatening from the supporters of Vedanta and were asked not to interfere much in Panchayat-related matters.

Ignored and excluded from Panchayat activities, these representatives lost their hope and trust upon the Panchayat and slowly stopped participating in the Panchayat affairs. Since their participation was neither desired nor valued by the president of the Panchayat, they dissociated themselves from the Panchayat activities. The case of Nakula Majhi, a representative from Lanjigarh, belonging to Kutia Kondh tribal community, makes the point more explicit. Nakula reiterates during the course of interview:

… initially for more than a year, I was attending all the meetings of the Panchayat, and raising issues and problems of my village in the Panchayat. My village Bandhaguda is adjacent to the boundary of Vedanta Company, but the village has no electricity facility. However, electricity and several other facilities like anganwadi center has been provided to Lanjigarh village, since the Sarpanch comes from that village and she is a supporter of Vedanta. I requested the Sarpanch several times to provide electricity to my village through the Project Ujjala (a govt. scheme to provide free electricity to families Below the Poverty Line). However, the sarpanch never listened to me and provided me no information regarding why my village can’t be covered under the scheme. I was given no information about the beneficiaries of such scheme, even though I asked for it repeatedly. On several occasions, I was told, since we opposed Vedanta, now we have to stay in darkness. The sarpanch and her allies never considered me important in the Panchayat, and excluded me from Panchayat activities. Now I do not have any trust or interest in Panchayat activities. I have stopped participating in Panchayat activities for quite a long time.

Representatives like Nakula and Sri find no reason to participate in the Panchayat activities. These representatives pose a fundamental question as to the benefit of participation in an otherwise context of exclusion and capture of Panchayat by the private interests. They see Panchayat as an non-performing institution, and the position of president as a matter of symbolic figure, whose real key lies with the hands of the agents of Vedanta. Participation by members belonging to these group is almost absent in the Panchayat, even though they have the potential to participate and represent the tribal community. Lack of action of these representatives is not a matter of innate characteristics, but a constructed situation, which is created because of their opposition to Vedanta and subsequent exclusion by the Panchayat.

Interestingly, this category also contain some of the tribal women representatives, who are quite vocal, have the awareness about the Panchayat-related matters and possess the potential to be effective representatives. Often their association with anti-Vedanta movement is sighted as a reason for their being active and vocal in political matter. Madhavi Majhi, a tribal women representative from Rasbundel village of Batelima Gram Panchayat can be sighted as a good case here. Madhavi Majhi is a housewife belonging to Kutia Kandh tribal community, aged about 40 years, and is functionally literate. Like many other tribal women, she was also ignorant, docile, and had never expressed herself in public. However, when people of her community started agitating against the Vedanta Company, she also joined with them and gradually became aware about the public affairs. Anti-Vedanta struggle unleashed the potentials of a community leader within her, and she became interested in community affairs. During the Panchayat elections in 2007, when the constituency (Rasbundel ward) became reserved for ST women, her community members encouraged and inspired her to contest the election. She also had a desire to do something for her fellow community members and participated actively in the initial years. However, she was never treated positively in the Panchayat by the president due to her anti-Vedanta stand, and gradually she stopped attending the Panchayat meetings and participating actively in Panchayat-related matters. During the interview, Madhavi recalled that:

…When I was elected as a member, I was very much optimistic of solving the problems of people, and carry out some developmental work for my village. However, I was always ignored and treated differently inside the Panchayat, because of my anti-Vedanta position. The sarpanch and naib-sarpanch are strong supporters of Vedanta. Since, I was considered as an anti-Vedanta candidate, no information is shared with me. Now I am no more interested in participating in the Panchayat.

Women representatives like Madhavi quite well understand the problems and concerns of their constituents and have equally strong interest to solve them. However, the dominance of supporters of Vedanta – both inside members of Panchayat and outside elites – and subsequent exclusion made her disinterested in Panchayat activities.

Category II: vocal, politically active, and supported Vedanta: This category constituted a very small but powerful group in both the studied Panchayats, including the presidents and a few elected members who got some sort of benefit from Vedanta. This category of representatives was politically active in the Panchayat and participated in all Panchayat-related affairs, even though their participation was always subject to the dominance of the local non-tribal Vedanta supported elites. The presidents of Lanjigarh and Batelima Panchayat are the primary members of this category. These two cases deserve a special mention here.

Saraswati Munda was the president of Lanjigarh Gram Panchayat during the fieldwork. She comes from the Munda tribe and educated up to 8th standard. She comes from a relatively well-off family and her father-in-law also served as the Sarpanch of the Lanjigarh Panchayat before. Her husband is politically aware and has good contact with local non-tribal elites and government officials. In the 2007 election, Saraswati contested the Panchayat election with Vedanta’s patronage. After her election to the Panchayat, Saraswati Munda acted under the control of agents of Vedanta and made them a part to Panchayat decision-making. Saraswati Munda actively participates in the Panchayat activities. However, her participation was not independent and free from the influences of her husband as well as the other local elites or agents of Vedanta. Saraswati Munda, her husband, couple of other representatives, who support Vedanta, and the local agents of Vedanta had formed an alliance, which manages the Panchayat affairs in Lanjigarh with close collaboration with local bureaucracy.

The following paragraph depicts the case of Jagadi Majhi, who is the president of Batelima Panchayat, and works in close collaboration with Vedanta.

Jagadi Majhi is the president of the Batelima Panchayat. She belongs to the Kutia Kandh community, educated up to 9th class, and relatively less vocal woman. She was the daughter-in-law of Mr Daising Majhi, who participated very actively and took leadership role in anti-Vedanta struggle. Vedanta did not provided any support to Jagadi during election as the opponent candidate had Vedanta’s patronage. However, Jagadi’s father-in-law’s popularity in the locality acted as a strong point for her candidature, and she won the election. After the election, Vedanta through its agents – the local elites – approached Jagadi for support in return of good favors. Jagadi Majhi initially denied the offer from Vedanta. By the time, Vedanta was successful in gaining the support of the Vice-president of Batelima Panchayat, who was relatively more active, vocal, and dominant in Panchayat affairs. Gradually, Jagadi also joined hand with him and became a part of the alliance with Vedanta.

Some of the representatives, whom we categorized in the second group are also employed in Vedanta, and used to get several direct and indirect benefits from the company. Instead of devoting time and energy for their constituencies as representatives of the people, these members instead worked for Vedanta. These are quite active members, who used to attend the Panchayat meetings and raise their voice during the meetings. These members had good contact with the local elites, government officials and worked in collaboration with the Panchayat president. A few cases of this category of representatives are depicted below:

Hari Majhi, originally a resident of Kinari village before establishment of Vedanta Alumina, and now stays in Vedanta Nagar (Rehabilitation and Resettlement Colony) after displacement. He is the Vice-president of Batelima Panchayat. He belonged to Kutia Kandh community, aged about 32 years and was educated up to high school level. Hari Majhi is quite active in the village and had close association with the higher leaders of the political party, which is in power in the state. During the time of land acquisition for Vedanta in 2003–2004, he actively worked with the then Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) to mobilize people to give away their land to Vedanta. Currently, Hari works in the safety department of Vedanta, and enjoys close proximity with higher officials besides receiving a moderate monthly salary. Hari Mahi is an active member of the Panchayat. Since the sarpanch is relatively inactive, he dominates in the Panchayat matters and works in close collaboration with the president.

We observed couple of similar other representatives from both the studied Gram Panchayats, who are also working with the Vedanta. The representatives in this category were the first to grab the benefit from Vedanta and in return supported it in due course. These are also the representatives who have good nexus with outside politicians, government officials, and locally dominant individuals. They are quite active in participating in the Panchayat-related matters. However, their participation is not independent of outside influence, rather is controlled, directed, and guided by the locally dominant Vedanta supported individuals. This nexus proved to be mutually beneficial for both, namely, the representatives as well as the company. By gaining patronage from Vedanta and the locally dominant elites, these representatives enjoyed a better position both inside and outside the Panchayat. On the other hand, the Vedanta and its allies – the locally dominant individuals – also gained a control over the Panchayat, and in turn became successful in capturing the Panchayat.

Category III: docile, voiceless, politically inactive, but opposed to Vedanta: Members, whom we put in this category were politically inactive, voiceless, and had no interest in Panchayat-related matters. Many of the women representatives fall into this category. Neither these members had any interest in politics or Panchayat-related matter before contesting the election, nor had they developed any interest after their election. Reservation of seat in the Panchayat and persuasion of the community members were the main causes for their being in the Panchayat. Some of these representatives were also selected unopposed as there was no political contestation. However, such unopposed selection also did not come out of a public deliberation about who should be their representatives. Since the seats were reserved, and someone from the specific group has to be there as the member, some of the community members pushed their candidature.

These representatives also come from lower class background from within the ethnic tribal community. They never bother to attend the Gram Panchayat meetings nor did they raised or discussed any problem or concern of their village with the president. Being in the Panchayat and being a representative hardly meant anything for them. Ignorant about public affairs and unaware about their role and responsibilities as representatives, these members of the Panchayat never had the feeling that they are public representatives and should work for the interest of the people. Some of the representatives of this category participated in the anti-Vedanta struggle, where their participation was only limited to adding numbers in the protest marches and rallies. Even though these representatives were opposed to Vedanta, they never became vocal about it in the Panchayat.

Category IV: docile, voiceless, politically inactive, but supported Vedanta: The fourth category of representatives as per our classification included those members who were politically inactive, voiceless but supported the Vedanta Alumina Company. In fact, these are the members, who are just put by the local elite into the Panchayat. In some cases, the representatives had no idea about their status as representatives, and their candidature was filed in the election by the local elite. These members just follow the instructions of the local elite, and are ignorant about the Panchayat-related matters.

As the associates of the local elite, these members support the company and do not bother about Panchayat. The participation of this group is very minimal in the Panchayat. They only come to those Panchayat meetings, for which the elite sends the instruction. Their presence in the Panchayat meetings serves the purpose of increasing the number of supporters for the local elite. In return of their support to the company, they get some benefit for themselves and their family members. The members in this category of representatives are in fact imposters, who serve as pure proxies of the elites and just follow their instructions. By putting proxies like these, the elites strengthen their position in the Panchayat, consolidate their control over the institution of local democracy, and in the process make use of the institution for their own benefit and the benefit of the Vedanta.

Accountability and Responsiveness of the Representatives

Different categories of representative that we identified also differ with respect to their accountability in the Panchayat and responsiveness toward the needs and requirements of the constituent. Accountability and responsiveness of the representatives, who are clubbed under Category III and Category IV, were the least in the two Panchayats. It should also be mentioned here that participation in Panchayat-related affairs and working as representative were also minimal for these two categories of representatives. These representatives were neither interested in Panchayat-related matters nor did the president of the Gram Panchayats take any interest in involving them in Panchayats. These representatives never felt the responsibility of showing any concern about the problems of the locality.

Surprisingly, the Category II representatives, who actively participated in the Panchayat-related affairs and took the major decisions of the Panchayat, were less accountable and responsive toward the constituents. The discussions with the representatives and other key informants of the locality revealed that the presidents and their allies – the local elites – who supposedly managed the Panchayat never reported back to the people regarding the plans and programs of the Panchayat. The local elites were of the view that the tribal people of the locality were too ignorant to understand the plans, programs, and budget of the Panchayat. The presidents of both the Panchayats also agreed with this view of the local elites. Tribal people’s ignorance and their unawareness were taken for granted, and were sighted as a reason by the few active representatives along with the local elites who managed the Panchayat matters. However, our field observation and empirical data could not support such a conclusion. Even though many tribal are illiterate, they, however, were not ignorant and unaware about public affairs. The struggle against the Vedanta by the local community, the active presence of various civil society organizations, and the involvement of various activists have been successful in creating awareness among tribal community members about public affairs. Even during the course of group discussion with tribal community members, it was a common opinion that people on several occasions sought information from the Panchayat, but were denied of it.

The Category I representatives, who initially exhibited participation in the Panchayat but later excluded from it, were observed to be responsive to the needs and requirements of their constituents and replied to the queries of the people with whatever information they possessed. These representatives had clear idea about the needs and requirements of the constituents and were able to articulate them in the Panchayat meetings. Soon after their election, these members actively expressed the needs of their constituents before the president, and demanded to press Vedanta to provide additional benefits to the project affected people. We may site the case of Patnaik Naik, a representative from Lanjigarh Panchayat to substantiate this point. Patnaik Naik is a representative from Rengapali village of Lanjigarh Panchayat. During the course of interview he reiterated that:

… during last four years, I have given several action plans to the president for the development of my village. I have repeatedly insisted on three issues of developmental assistance to my village: road connectivity, water and electricity. The president has never taken any interest in my proposal, and every time has given the reason of lack of fund. To overcome the problem, I have suggested the president to approach Vedanta to provide developmental support to my village. But nothing has materialized for me.

These representatives also reported that they discuss with their community members regarding their needs and requirements. Being active and vocal, these members also were able to articulate the needs and requirements of the constituents in the Panchayat. However, these members were systematically excluded from the Panchayat matters and their articulation of peoples’ need and requirements did not yield any result for the tribal people.

Descriptive Representation: Justice, Interest, and Revitalized Democracy in Lanjigarh

The theoretical review carried out in the previous section suggests descriptive representation as an efficient tool for empowerment of excluded and marginalized groups. Scholars arguing for empowerment state that descriptive representation ensures justice for the disadvantaged groups, takes care of their interest, and revitalizes and legitimizes democracy with larger inclusion of hitherto unheard voices. Decentralization in the Scheduled Areas under the broader framework of PESA Act, with its provision for reservation of half of the seats of a Panchayat as well as the post of the president for STs fulfills the conditions of descriptive representation. The following paragraphs make an attempt to understand the descriptive representation and its impact on tribal empowerment taking into account the notion of interest and revitalized democracy.

Representation of Tribal “Group” Interest

The empirical work in the two Panchayats strengthens the point that tribes as an ethnic group do have a specific interest, which is different and distinct from that of the non-tribals in the region. Coming up of the Vedanta Alumina Project in the region has been understood as a detrimental to the life and livelihood of the tribal population. In the initial years, when Vedanta was being constructed, the main interest of the tribal community in Lanjigarh was to oppose the process of land acquisition of the project. Later, when the company was established despite resistance and struggle against it, the tribal people protested against bauxite mining in the Niyamgiri Hills, which has both symbolic as well as practical relevance to them.⁴ Again receiving a better bargain from the Vedanta was also another interest, for which many tribal people were vocal about. Even today, more than half a decade after, tribal people still continues to demand for a better deal from Vedanta in terms of employment benefits, communication and health facilities, provisions for better educational institutions, etc. However, the representatives in general failed to identify these interests. The different category of representatives that we identified performed differently with respect to represent the interests of their own community members.

So far as the tribal interest is concerned, the representatives, belonging to Category I, were very much concerned and interested to represent these in the Panchayats. They in fact, raised these issues several times after being elected to the Panchayat. Unfortunately, however, this category of representatives was always excluded from Panchayats, and the group which was active in taking decisions in the Panchayat (Category II) never heed to the demands of these representatives. The Category II representatives, who were the most powerful in the Panchayat and actively participated in decision-making, however, failed to represent these important interests of their fellow tribal community members. The representatives belonging to Category II systematically ignored the interests, which were specific to the tribes of that region, and instead, functioned against it, as a result of which the interests of tribal people never got priority. The tribal interests may have been successful in coming to the discussions of the Panchayat due to the Category I representatives, but they never became an issue on which some positive action was taken by the Panchayat because of their ignorance by the Category II representatives.

Revitalized Democracy through Descriptive Representation

The descriptive representation of the STs in the Panchayats, through reservation of seats for them, did not in any way ensure a more revitalized and legitimized democracy in Lanjigarh. Absence of deliberation of tribal interests and concerns in the Panchayat and arbitrary way of making decisions by the presidents and their allies came on the way of unleashing the potentials of local democracy. Participatory democracy suffered a setback in both the Panchayats when the Category I representatives stopped participating in the Panchayat affairs due to their systematic exclusion by the powerful group. The Category I representatives attempted to practice democracy in its true spirit by way of raising tribal interests and concerns in the Panchayats, but they were ignored, silenced, and excluded. In contrast, the Category II representatives never allowed the tribal interests and concerns to be a part of public deliberation in the Panchayat. The differences between the different categories of representatives and their differential functioning in the Panchayats are depicted in Table 2.

Discussion and Conclusion

Failure of Inclusion and Resulting Disempowerment

The case material depicting the representational aspect of the tribal population in the two studied Panchayats indicates toward a failure of the project of political inclusion and political presence in empowering the tribal community. It can be argued that the failure to establish genuine inclusive local governance, which the PESA Act aimed at, resulted in subsequent disempowerment of the local tribes. The stated aim of PESA Act has been to establish tribal self-rule by way of creating modern institutions of local governance. However, the failure of inclusion has halted the process of establishing local self-governance and has resulted in the process of “disempowerment.” We conceived empowerment as a situation of availability of wider choices to decide and gain control over matters that affect one’s life and livelihood. The democratic institution of the Panchayat and the democratic politics of practicing substantive as well as descriptive representation were expected to actually create such enabling environment for the tribal people, where they can come forward to gain control over their life and livelihood (Luckham, Goetz, & Kaldor, 2000). But in practice, both democratic institution and democratic politics paved the way for disempowerment of the tribal community. The manifestation of the practice of exclusion and the resulting disempowerment can be better understood with the help of the diagram depicted in Figure 1.

Table 2.

Representation Vis-à-vis Support/Opposition to Vedanta

Selected criteria	Category of Representatives
Selected criteria		Category I	Category II	Category III	Category IV
Basic characteristics	Vocal, politically active, and committed for the interests of the tribal	Vocal, politically active, but ignored the tribal interests.Allied with the local elites	Voiceless and politically inactive	Voiceless and politically inactive. Worked as proxies of the elites
Opinion on Vedanta	Opposed to Vedanta	Supported Vedanta	Opposed to Vedanta	Supported Vedanta
Numerical strength	Large	Small	Small	Small
Participation	Low (chose not to participate)	High	Low	Low
Accountability and responsiveness	High	Low	Low	Low
Representation of interest	High	Low	Low	Low
Role in revitalizing democracy	Positive	Negative	Neutral	Neutral
Power	Potentially powerful, but no actual exercise of power in Panchayats	Powerful in Panchayat matters. Took the decisions	Powerless	Powerless

Source: Field survey.

Figure 1.

Vicious Circle of Exclusion and Disempowerment

We observed a vicious circle of disempowerment and exclusion, where different factors are at work to generate and sustain exclusion and disempowerment of the tribal communities. These factors are not only inter-related with each other but also produce and being produced by one another. Incidentally, the different categories of representatives that we identified are entangled at different points of this circle. For the Category I representatives, low participation is a direct consequence of their exclusion from the Panchayat by the presidents and the locally powerful elite. Even though these representatives were very much enthusiastic about the Panchayat and development of their constituency, but they were not made a part of the decision-making. Their voices were suppressed, and they were discouraged to attend and involve in Panchayat affairs.

For the Category III and IV representatives, exclusion may not have been the direct and immediate cause of their low participation, but limited participation definitely further created condition for their exclusion from the Panchayats. The limited participation of representatives, whether intentional or unintentional, came on the way of their effective functioning as representatives, even though some of them had the potential and the desire to function and work upon the interests of their constituents.

To conclude, there seemed to exist a vicious circle of exclusion in Lanjigarh, where on the one hand, the representatives performed low because of their exclusion, and on the other inability to effectively function as representatives further led to their exclusion from the Panchayat. In the very process, it is the tribal community as a whole which got disempowered, because their needs, interests, and concerns could neither be represented effectively nor could be worked upon properly, even by the representatives belonging to their own communities. As a result, the community remained powerless and subjugated to exclusion and marginalization. Each of the factors explained above, such as lack of participation of representatives, lack of information, no sense of accountability and responsiveness, unsuccessful representation of interest and above all exclusion itself joined hands together to manifest and materialize tribal disempowerment, even in the context of presence of policies and programs for their inclusion and empowerment.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank and acknowledge the funding provided by Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC), Embassy of Switzerland, New Delhi, under its program “Local Governance Initiative (LoGin) in South Asia” for a broader project, from which the present paper is conceived.

Notes

References

Alsop

Krishna

Sjoblom

(2000). Are Gram Panchayats inclusive? Report of a Study Conducted in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. Background Paper No. 3, Overview of Rural Decentralisation in India. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Bandyopadhyay

Shiva

(1988). Political economy of ecology movements. Economic and Political Weekly, 23(24), 1223–1232.

Batliwala

(1993). Empowerment of women in South Asia: Concepts and practices. New Delhi: Asian South-Pacific Bureau of Adult Education and FAO’s Freedom from Hunger Campaign – Action for Development.

Baviskar

(1995). In the belly of the river: Tribal conflicts over development in the Narmada. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Beresford

Croft

(1993). Citizen involvement: A practical guide for change. London: Macmillan.

Birch

A. H.

(1964). Representative and responsible government. London: Routledge.

Birch

A. H.

(1993). The concept and theories of modern democracy. London: Routledge.

Bobo

Gilliam

F. D.

(1990). Race, socio-political participation, and Black empowerment. The American Political Science Review, 84(2), 377–394.

Browning

Marshall

D. R.

Tabb

D. H.

(1984). Protest is not enough: The struggle of Blacks and Hispanics for equality in urban politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

10.

Bystydziensky

(Ed.) (1992). Women transforming politics: Worldwide strategies for empowerment. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

11.

Chandra

S. K.

(1997). Women and empowerment. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 43(4), 395–399.

12.

Crook

Manor

(1998). Enhancing participation and institutional performance: Democratic decentralisation in South Asia and West Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Crook

Sverrisson

A. S.

(2001). Decentralisation and poverty alleviation in developing countries: A comparative analysis or, is West Bengal unique? IDS Working Paper 130. Sussex: Institute for Development Studies.

14.

Gadgil

Guha

(1995). This fissured land: An ecological history of India. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

15.

Grazia

De. (1968). Representation: theory. International encyclopaedia of social sciences. New York: Macmillan.

16.

Griffiths

Wollheim

(1960). How can one person represent another? Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary, 34, 187–224.

17.

Guha

Martinez-Allier

(1997). Varieties of environmentalism: Essays north and south. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

18.

Gurin

Hatchett

Jackson

J. S.

(1989). Hope and independence: Blacks’ response to electoral and party politics. New York: Russel Sage.

19.

Jha

S. N.

(1999). Introduction. In Jha

S. N.

Mathur

P. C.

(Eds), Decentralisation and local politics: Readings in Indian Government and politics (pp. 13–44). London: SAGE Publications.

20.

Johnson

(2003). Decentralisation in India: Poverty, politics and Panchayati Raj. ODI Working Paper No, 199. London: Overseas Development Institute.

21.

Joshi

R. P.

Narwani

G. S.

(2002). Panchayat Raj in India: Emerging trends across the states. Jaipur: Rawat Publications.

22.

Kaushik

P. D.

(2005). Panchayati Raj movement in India: Retrospect and present status. In Debroy

Kaushik

P. D.

(Eds), Energising rural development through Panchayats (pp. 77–149). New Delhi: Academic Foundation.

23.

Luckham

Goetz

A. M.

Kaldor

(2000). Democratic institutions and politics in the context of inequality, poverty and conflict. IDS Working Paper No. 104. Sussex: Institute for Development Studies.

24.

Mansbridge

(1999). Should Blacks represent Blacks and women represent women? A contingent yes. The Journal of Politics, 61(3), 628–657.

25.

Meenakshisundaram

S. S.

(1999). Decentralisation in developing countries. In Jha

S. N.

Mathur

P. C.

(Eds), Decentralisation and local politics: Readings in Indian government and politics (pp. 54–69). London: SAGE Publications.

26.

Mohanty

(1995). On the concept of empowerment. Economic and Political Weekly, 30(24), 1434–1436.

27.

Padel

Das

(2010). Out of this earth: East India adivasis and the aluminium cartel. New Delhi: Orient BlackSwan.

28.

Patnaik

(2005). Affirmative action and representation of weaker sections: Participation and accountability in Orissa’s Panchayats. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(44–45), 4753–4761.

29.

Phillips

(1991). Engendering democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

30.

Philips

(1995). The politics of presence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

31.

Philips

(1998). Democracy and representation: Or why should it matter who our representatives are? In Phillips

(Ed.), Feminism and politics (pp. 224–240). New York: Oxford University Press.

32.

Pitkin

(1976). The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

33.

Rowlands

(1998). A world of the times, but what does it mean? Empowerment in the discourses and practices of development. In Afshar

(Ed.), Women and empowerment: Illustrations for the third world (pp. 11–34). Houndmills, London: Macmillan.

34.

Singh

Gehlot

Start

Johnson

(2003). Out of reach: Local politics and the distribution of development fund in Madhya Pradesh. ODI Working Paper No. 200. London: Overseas Development Institute.

35.

Singha

Roy, D. K.

(1995). Peasant movement and empowerment of rural women. Economic and Political Weekly, 30(37), 2306–2311.

36.

Spicker

(1994). Social policy: Themes and approaches. London: Prentice Hall and Harvester Wheatsheaf.

37.

Tete

(1991). Black political participation in the 1984 and 1988 presidential election. American Political Science Review, 84(4), 1159–1176.

38.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (1997). Reconceptualising governance. Discussion Paper No. 2. New York: United Nations.