Tribal Land Rights: A Situational Analysis in the Context of West Bengal

Abstract

Tribal communities in India are most deprived. Socio-economically, they are poor and marginalised. The root cause of socio-economic marginalisation can be attributed to alienation of tribal people from their land, territory and resources. The overall situation of the tribal population of West Bengal is not better than the national average, even more deprived than the tribal population of other states. Despite progressive land reform laws and political commitment to implement such laws, issues of tribal land rights have not been addressed adequately. There is no such exclusive study to understand the situation of tribal land rights in the state of West Bengal. This article analyses the status of tribal land rights in the state context and makes some suggestions for improving the situation. It is found that despite distribution of land titles, a large section of the tribal population remains landless. A sizable portion has not received received record-of-rights. Claims of many tribal people for forest patta remain pending or stand rejected. Tribal land alienation continues to be a matter of concern. The state has not taken any concrete steps for the restoration of unlawfully alienated tribal lands. A large section of the tribal sharecroppers in the state remain unrecorded.

Keywords

Landlessness land rights Scheduled Tribes tenure security West Bengal

Introduction

Around 40,000 farmers in Maharashtra embarked on a 180 km long march from Nashik to Mumbai from 6 March to 12 March 2018, and it drew the attention of the media houses nationally and internationally (Waydande, 2018). The issue which fuelled the farmers to participate in the long march was their distress condition and their demand for loan waiver, minimum support price and land rights. The most striking feature of the rally, which many of us might have overlooked, was a majority of the protesters were the landless poor tribals who have suffered decades of injustice in the absence of land titles, and the most important demands were related to land ownership (The Hindu, 2018). The issues of tribal land rights have already drawn attention in the development discourse internationally (Byrd & Heyer, 2008). Deprivation and alienation of indigenous people from their land and resources have become a global phenomenon. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) clearly spells out their rights over the lands, territory and resources they have been using through the years and envisage to protect their rights (United Nations, 2007; Champagne, 2013). This historic event of the long march once again reminds us—how much relevant the issue of tribal land rights is.

Tribal people constitute 8.6 per cent (104 million) of the total population of India (Government of India, 2011b). There is huge diversity in this numerically minority population in terms of geographical distribution, ethnicity and culture. There are 705 tribal ethnic groups throughout the country who have their own distinct culture and way of life (Government of India, 2011b). But almost all ethnic groups can be commonly characterised as socially and economically marginalised and deprived from accessing resources. As per an estimate of the World Bank (2011), one-fourth of the tribal population in India are living in the poorest wealth quintile. According to the latest national data, scheduled tribes (STs) are India’s poorest people, with 5 of 10 falling in the lowest wealth bracket. Percentage of ST members falling in the lowest wealth bracket is 45.9 per cent compared to 26.6 per cent of scheduled castes (SCs), 18.3 per cent of other backward classes (OBC), 9.7 per cent of other castes and 25.3 per cent of those whose caste is unknown (Government of India, 2016).

The root cause of the socio-economic marginalisation of the tribal groups in India can be attributed to alienation of tribal people from their land, territory and resources (Xaxa, 2012). This alienation of tribal people from their lands came into existence during the British regime. It uprooted a large section of tribal population from their own territory and pushed them in crisis of sustenance, and social and cultural identity. Post-independence development policies, in general, aggravated the situation further. Development-induced displacement made their land rights insecure and caused havoc in their life and livelihoods. Some legislations in the name of conservation have snatched their rights over the forest and resources. An estimated 8.54 million tribals are displaced by development projects such as dams, mines, industries and wildlife sanctuaries in India between 1950 and 1990, which account for 40 per cent of the total (21 million) displaced population (Xaxa, 2011).

Landlessness and poor landholding status of tribal communities in India, as revealed by several government reports, have come to the fore in the development discourse. As per the latest Agricultural Census report, in India, there are only 119,93,000 tribal households who have operational holdings of 182,94,000 ha of land, and 53.9 per cent of them are marginal holders (possessing less than 1 ha) (Government of India, 2015). The Socio-Economic Caste Census, 2011, indicates that there are 58,61,872 tribal households (3.27%) in the country who do not possess any land other than homestead plots (Government of India, 2011a). On the other hand, National Sample Survey Office’s latest (70th round) survey on landholding reflects that there are 9.41 per cent ST households in India who are landless (owning zero to less than 0.002 ha of land) (Government of India, 2013a).

West Bengal, located in the eastern part of India, is the fourth largest state in terms of population. The tribal population of West Bengal (5,296,953) constitutes 5.8 per cent of the total population of the state and 5.1 per cent of the total tribal population of the country. Diversity speaks louder than the number of tribal populations in the state. There are around 40 tribal groups in the state that are distributed unevenly in geographically isolated areas (Government of India, 2011b). The overall situation of the tribal population in the state is not better than the national average, but it is even more deprived than the tribal population of other states, as mentioned by the High-Level Expert Committee on Socio-Economic, Health and Educational Status of Tribal Communities of India (Government of India, 2014). In rural West Bengal, in 2011–2012, 50.1 per cent of the tribal population is still living below poverty line, whereas the national figure is 45.3 per cent (Government of India, 2017). As per census data, the proportion of agricultural labourers among the main workers within the tribal population (49%) is much higher (26%) than that of whole population (23%) in the state as compared to the corresponding national figures (12%) (Government of India, 2011b). All these issues put a question mark on access to and ownership of land by the tribal population of the state.

This article reviews the land situation in West Bengal, in general, and status of land rights among the tribal population in West Bengal, and suggests some policy measures to strengthen tribal land rights in the state context. The study is based on review of literatures, existing acts, rules and notifications, and reports of government departments. It has taken into consideration the views of key officials of concerned departments. Necessary data were collected from concerned government departments.

Land Situation in West Bengal

Legal and Policy Framework

West Bengal adopted four important legislations post-independence—West Bengal Bargadar Act, 1950; West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953; West Bengal Land Reforms (WBLR) Act, 1955; and West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers, Artisans and Fishermen Act, 1975—which laid the foundation of a progressive era. These acts enabled the state to implement land ceiling laws and abolition of intermediaries; ensure quick distribution of land among the landless and poor; protect the tenancy rights of bargadars (permanent sharecroppers); and restrict transfer of land belonging to the STs. The WBLR Act, 1955, imposes a ceiling of holding maximum quantum of land by a particular household. Ceiling surplus land is considered to be vested to the government. The state policy envisages for pro-poor distribution of government-vested land, prioritising socially and economically marginalised communities. As per the provision of the land reform laws, the state considers a household as landless who has been holding less than 1 acre of land. In other words, the state can provide up to 1 acre of land to any landless household. State land reform laws also offer protection to the bargadars from any kind of eviction or threat, provide basis for determining share of produce and open channels for quick redressal of grievances by the revenue officials (Land and Land Reforms Department) at the appropriate level.

Additionally, there exists a most powerful central act—The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006—commonly referred to as Forest Rights Act (FRA), which plays an instrumental role in recognising the rights of the tribal population and other traditional forest dwellers over the land and forest resources they have been using through generations.

Affirmative Actions in West Bengal

The state made concrete progress in three areas—first, redistributing ceiling surplus agricultural lands to landless and land-poor; second, distributing homestead plots to landless and homesteadless; and, third, protecting the cultivation rights of the sharecroppers (tenancy reforms). The WBLR Act, 1955, facilitated redistribution of ceiling surplus vested land to the landless and land-poor. It comprised both agricultural and non-agricultural lands. The state provided homestead plots to those households who are landless as well as homesteadless. There were a large number of landless and homesteadless households who had occupied government-vested land or rayati (private) land since generations. The state settled with ownership rights to those households through the West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers, Artisans and Fishermen Act, 1975.

The state also designed homestead land allocation programmes for the landless and homesteadless households. In 2006, the state adopted land purchase and distribution scheme called, Chas-O-Basobaser-Janyo-Bhumidan-Prakalpo (Cultivation and Dwelling Plot Allotment Scheme), which provided landless and homesteadless households up to 16 decimals of plot for cultivation as well as making dwelling units. Most recently, when the new government came into power in 2011, they adopted a modified version of land purchase and distribution scheme, called Nijo-Griha-Nijo-Bhumi (My Home My Land). The scheme enumerated landless and homesteadless households through a survey and settled them with up to five decimals of plot either purchased from market or allocated from government-vested land (regularisation for encroachers and new settlement in vacant vested land). Apart from this, the state has distributed individual and community land titles and forest rights to STs and other traditional forest dwellers. Act- or Scheme-wise distribution of patta (land titles) is presented at a glance (see Table 1).

In addition to these progressive steps, the state initiated a special drive called ‘Operation Barga’ in 1978–1979 under the purview of the WBLR Act, 1955, for recording the names of the sharecroppers in the government record. Thus, the state accorded cultivation rights to 1.521 million landless and land-poor tenants by recording their names in government land records as bargadars (Landesa, 2014). West Bengal is one of the few states in India wherein rights of sharecroppers are legally recognised in the Record-of-Rights (RoR). The registration system made these tenancy rights heritable but not transferable. Eviction of bargadars by landlords has been made a punishable offence under the land laws.

Landholding Pattern of the State

Because of all these progressive steps, the state has been able to bring the disparity in size of landholding to a very minimum. The Agricultural Census 2015–2016 report shows that 82.81 per cent marginal individual holders in West Bengal hold 53.38 per cent of the area; 16.94 per cent of individual holdings in small and semi-medium-size class hold around 41.06 per cent of the area; on the other hand, very little medium size class (0.25%) hold around 1.53 per cent of the area and in large size class figure is absolutely negligible (Government of India, 2019).

Table 1.

Land Title Distribution in West Bengal at a Glance

Source (act/scheme)	No. of Patta Distributed (households coverage)	Type of Land and Size
West Bengal Land Reforms (WBLR) Act, 1955	3.255 million	Agricultural and homestead land up to 1 acre
West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers, Artisans and Fisherman Act, 1975	0.327 million	Homestead land up to eight decimals
Chas-O-Basobaser-Janyo-Bhumidan-Prakalpo (CBBP) (from 2006 to October 2011)	6,954	Homestead land up to 16 decimals (partly for cultivation)
Nijo-Griha-Nijo-Bhumi (NGNB) (from November 2011 onwards)	0.23 million	Homestead land up to five decimals
Forest Rights Act, 2006	46,410 individual and 738 community	Homestead land, and agricultural and forest land

Source: Land and Land Reforms Department and Backward Class Welfare Department, Government of West Bengal (2018).

Note: Land distributed under WBLR Act (3.255 million) includes the homestead land distributed under CBBP (6,954) and NGNB (0.23 million).

Table 2.

Land Holding Pattern in West Bengal

Particulars	Landless	Marginal	Small	Semi-medium	Medium	Large
Estimated no. of HH (00)	8,198	12,4728	5,989	1,644	76	0.0
Estimated area owned (000) ha	0.048	2,140.605	813.165	424.107	35.643	0.0
% of area of land owned	0.001	62.709	23.822	12.424	1.044	0.0
% of HHs	5.829	88.689	4.259	1.169	0.054	0.0
Average area owned (0.00 ha) per HH	0.002	0.951	1.358	5.783	9.879	0.0

Source: Bureau of Applied Economics and Statistics, Government of West Bengal (2013).

Analysis of the latest round of Land and Livestock Holding Survey of National Sample Survey Office (NSSO, 70th round survey), based on state sample of West Bengal, reveals that average area owned per household in West Bengal is 0.243 ha, while that of India is 0.592 ha (Government of West Bengal, 2013). For ‘medium’ land holdings, the estimated average area owned per household is the highest at 9.879 ha, which is concentrated in the hands of only 0.054 per cent of the total households, while 88.68 per cent of the households belonged to ‘marginal’ landholding class and estimated average area of land owned per marginal household was 0.951 ha of land (Government of West Bengal, 2013). So, it can be said that in case of West Bengal, because of progressive land laws coupled with strong political will to implement it has resulted into more equitable distribution of land compared to the country average (see Table 2).

Tribal Land Rights in West Bengal: Theory and Reality

Theoretical, Legal and Policy Framework

Rights are defined as claims that are legally and socially recognised and enforceable by an external legitimised authority, be it village-level institution or some higher-level judicial or executive body of the state. Right in land can be in the form of ownership or of usufruct (i.e., rights of use), associated with differing degrees of freedom to lease, mortgage, bequeath or sell (Agarwal, 1994). Land rights can be broadly understood as a variety of legitimate claims to land and the benefit and products produced on that land (Meinzen-Dick et al., 1997; Schlager & Ostrom, 1992). Sometimes, it is also referred to as ‘land tenure security’. Prosterman et al. (2009) adapted a more comprehensive definition from Place et al. (1994) which says, ‘“land tenure security” exists when an individual or group is confident that they have rights to a piece of land on a long term basis, protected from dispossession by outside sources, and with the ability to reap the benefits of labour and capital invested in the land, whether through direct use or upon transfer to another holder’.

Secure land rights are foundational building blocks for agricultural productivity and the social and economic empowerment of households. It can lead to increased agricultural productivity through several ways. First, secure land tenure provides incentives for the landowner to make short- and long-term investment for the improvements of the land by removing the constant risk of losing the land (Besley, 1995; Deininger, 2003; Deininger et al., 2006; Field et al., 2006). Even this change in perception of the landowner will help to maintain soil health, which has a far-reaching impact to cope with climate change. Second, it will increase opportunities to access institutional credit facilities and benefit from government schemes (Agarwal, 1994; Landesa, 2012). Third, it can allow for the creation of space needed for more optimal land use (Mason & Karlson, 2005). Apart from all these economic aspects, social dimension of land ownership implies a lot—identity, social status and participation in the decision-making process related to distribution of resource and services.

Access to land is essentially important for livelihood of the rural population of any agriculture-based economy like India. This land means much more than merely a means of livelihood to the tribal people. It is fundamental to their economic survival, cultural identity and spiritual well-being. The concept of indigenous or tribal land rights include forest, water, mountain, sub-surface and natural resources along with lands they use (Yates, 2004).

The Constitution of India treats all its citizens equally irrespective of their caste, creed, gender, etc., and prohibits any kind of discrimination. Article 46 of the Constitution assigns the responsibility on the state to protect the STs from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. Post-independence development policies of the nation placed due priority for the development of the tribal population, made special budgetary allocation (e.g., Tribal Sub-Plan) and directed the states to prioritise tribal population along with other marginalised groups, while preparing plans for economic development and social justice. Pro-poor distribution of land, following the principle of distributive justice, received high priority in the development agenda of the national government in the 1950s. Land being the state subject, most Indian states, including West Bengal, enacted land reform laws and adopted policies towards implementation of such laws.

Land reform policies of West Bengal placed high priority on the tribes, as they were considered as socially and economically marginalised. Section 49(1) of the WBLR Act, 1955, provides for redistribution of ceiling surplus vested land to the landless, as per the priority, based on the criteria of social category. Rule 194 of the West Bengal Land and Land Reforms Manual, 1991, provides principles for making a priority list. Hence, STs are always in the top priority, followed by SCs, OBCs, including minority, and then others in respective order. Section 7(i) of the West Bengal Acquisition of Homestead Land for Agricultural Labourers, Artisans and Fishermen Act, 1975, provides for recognising the ownership rights of landless occupants, prioritising tribals along with other marginal groups. NGNB Scheme in its guideline clearly delineates the process of prioritising landless households and keeps tribal households at the top of the priority. In addition to this, the Forest Rights Act, 2006, adopted by the central government, makes provision for recognising the legitimate claims of the forest dwellers, including tribes, by granting land and forest rights. Section 3(1) of the FRA declares right of ownership and access to collect, use and dispose of minor non-timber forest produce (NTFPs) that has been customarily collected by the forest-dwelling STs and other traditional forest dwellers as their forest rights.

Section 14A – 14I of the WBLR Act, 1955, imposes restrictions on transfer of tribal land to non-tribal population, except with the permission of Revenue Officer and except on certain purposes like improvement of land and investment. Section 14C of the act deals with the process of approval by the competent authority for transfer of such lands, and Section 14E empowers the state to restore unlawfully alienated lands. Section 49(1A) of the WBLR Act, 1955, and Section 10(1) of the Homestead Act, 1975, prohibit transfer of patta land of all patta holders, including tribals, thus giving them protection from land alienation.

Chapter III of the WBLR Act, 1955, deals with the provisions for the sharecroppers. Several sections of the act allow the state to record the name of the sharecroppers and protect them from any sort of threat from eviction. The state policy prioritises the STs along with other marginalised groups while recording the name of the tillers as recorded bargadars.

Tribal Land Rights in West Bengal: Some Initiatives

West Bengal is widely recognised as one of the progressive states in terms of implementation of vested ceiling surplus lands, redistribution of land to the landless and protecting the cultivation rights of the sharecroppers. These land reform initiatives have always prioritised socially and economically weaker sections like SCs and STs. The steps taken by the state, recent or continuation of earlier efforts, for strengthening tribal land rights may be discussed under the following four aspects.

Distribution of land to the landless tribal

As a continuation of earlier land redistribution programme, the state has been distributing patta to the landless and land-poor households with priority towards tribal groups. The state has distributed 1,132,003.86 acres of ceiling surplus vested land to 3,254,896 landless rural poor, including 578,315 tribal households, which is 17.76 per cent of the total land reform beneficiaries (see Table 3). The figures include 220,992 patta of homestead plots distributed to landless and homesteadless households (among which 12.4% are STs) under the state flagship homestead plot allocation programme, NGNB (Government of West Bengal, 2018b).

Table 3.

Distribution of Patta Among Scheduled Tribes in West Bengal

District	Total Rural ST Households (Census of India 2011)	Distribution of Total Patta		Scheduled Tribe
District	Total Rural ST Households (Census of India 2011)	No. of Beneficiaries	Area (in acre)	No. of Beneficiaries (%)	Area(in acre) (%)	Coverage (% of tribal households)
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Bankura	79,165	195,480	51,260.11	39,559 (6.84)	11,912.39 (4.88)	49.97
Burdwan (including East and West)	90,078	249,553	56,879.20	50,764 (8.77)	19,548.71 (8.01)	56.36
Birbhum	53,646	184,612	43,730.88	40,934 (7.08)	11,454.22 (4.70)	76.30
Dakshin Dinajpur	65,095	129,755	52,064.20	38,771 (6.70)	17,383.86 (7.13)	59.56
Darjeeling (including Kalimpong)	71,429	60,469	32,231.75	17,897 (3.09)	9,392.14 (3.85)	25.06
Haora	1,868	28,828	4,428.13	586 (0.10)	126.41 (0.05)	31.37
Hooghly	52,853	90,987	14,415.67	16,355 (2.83)	2,619.86 (1.07)	30.94
Jalpaiguri (including Alipurduar)	158,276	189,634	128,770.67	33,554 (5.80)	27,906.10 (11.44)	21.20
Koch Bihar	6,006	159,182	69,806.98	5,001 (0.86)	3,082.32 (1.26)	83.27
Malda	75,184	68,825	76,129.43	6,042 (1.04)	24,270.68 (9.95)	8.04
Murshidabad	24,678	181,183	46,824.12	9,756 (1.69)	2,727.21 (1.12)	39.53
Nadia	29,101	127,848	53,149.61	8,100 (1.40)	1,480.58 (0.61)	27.83
North 24 Parganas	45,223	160,602	29,443.08	26,130 (4.52)	5,481.08 (2.25)	57.78
Paschim Medinipur (including Jhargram)	184,709	684,574	216,889.06	199,112 (34.43)	62,708.99 (25.71)	107.80
Purba Medinipur	9,035	242,960	47,737.53	5,645 (0.98)	1,091.13 (0.45)	62.48
Purulia	108,320	112,393	61,765.50	37,297 (6.45)	22,972.42 (9.42)	34.43
South 24 Parganas	26,780	216,711	73,628.26	19,392 (3.35)	7,546.06 (3.09)	72.41
Uttar Dinajpur	34,874	171,300	72,849.68	23,420 (4.05)	12,199.21 (5.00)	67.16
TOTAL	1,116,320	3,254,896	1,132,003.86	578,315 (17.76)	243,903.37 (21.55)	51.81

Source: Government of India (2011b) and Land & Land Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal (as on 15 April 2018).

Note: Number of beneficiaries may not always be synonymous with number of households defined by Census of India. A household may receive more than one patta (separate patta for each land parcel) until it touches one acre. So, number of beneficiaries in Paschim Medinipur is more than number of rural tribal households.

Table 4.

Distribution of FRA Patta in West Bengal

District	Claim Received				Patta Distributed		Land Involved in Cases of Distributed Pattas (in acre)		RoR Issued
	ST		Non-ST		Individual	Community	Individual	Community
	Individual	Community	Individual	Community			Individual	Community
Bankura	27,227	2,293	6,908	140	11,815	210	6,030.98	378.50	1,695
Birbhum	656	32	0	0	505	13	73.81	16.30	498
Burdwan (including East & West)	3,998	305	0	0	3,165	117	453.99	58.68	0
Darjeeling (including Kalimpong)	7,944	1,925	178	4,662	449	0	76.12	0	0
Hooghly	8	1	5	0	8	0	0.34	0	8
Jalpaiguri (including Alipurduar)	7,313	2,769	2,446	2,032	7,182	190	7,646.57	310.83	3,879
Koch Bihar	140	7	0	0	140	0	176.60	0	140
Murshidabad	34	0	0	0	22	0	142.90	0	22
Paschim Medinipur (including Jhargram)	34,572	953	14,829	305	14,594	72	3,508.36	42.62	2,747
Purulia	21,921	648	11,638	619	8530	76	3,921.28	58.87	6,000
Total	103,843	8,933	36,004	7,758	46,410	738	22,030.95	856.80	13,769

Source: Backward Classes Welfare Department, Government of West Bengal (as on 31 October 2018).

Conferring ‘patta’ under Forest Rights Act 2006

ST households in forest fringe areas in the state, especially in Jalpaiguri, Alipurduar, Bankura, Purulia, Jhargram and Paschim Medinipur districts, were deprived of their rights to land and forest resources. The state conducted cadastral survey in 126 non-revenue forest mouzas, that is, revenue villages (Landesa, 2014). As per the administrative order issued by the government, 94 forest villages have been converted into revenue villages (Gazette Notification No. 2699-LP dated 29 September 2014 and No. 2802-LP dated 17 October 2014). The government has distributed patta of Individual Forest Rights (IFR) to 46,410 households involving 22,030.95 acres of land and accorded 738 Community Forest Rights (CFR) involving 856.80 acres of land as on 31 October 2018. The state has also ensured issuing 13,769 Record-of-Rights, which is around 30 per cent of the total patta holders (see Table 4) (Government of West Bengal, 2018a). 3.

Protection against tribal land alienation and restoration of alienated lands

Around 1.4 million tribals in West Bengal are displaced or affected due to several development projects that have occurred in the state from 1947 to 2000 (Fernandes, 2007). Barring development-induced displacement, there is no actual data of tribal land alienation caused by encroachment of non-tribals. But field evidence suggests that it is a reality in several districts such as, Bankura, Birbhum, Purulia and Paschim Medinipur (Landesa, 2014). The state has recently issued a notification (Memo No. 09/275/C/14 dated 2 February 2015) for noting the RoR of the tribal land as non-transferable unless permitted by appropriate authority. This is likely to help restrict illegal land transfer. 4.

Protecting the rights of tribal sharecroppers

As per the latest available data, 1.521 million sharecroppers have been recorded as bargadars in West Bengal, involving 0.453 million ha of land. Almost 12 per cent of the sharecroppers of the state belong to the ST community (Landesa, 2014). 5.

Present Situation in West Bengal: An Analysis

The steps taken by the state of West Bengal so far towards strengthening tribal land rights have helped tribal communities in three ways—gaining land ownership including rights to homestead land, securing cultivation rights and getting protection from land alienation to a great extent. Marginalised communities including STs of the state have benefitted most from the land reform programmes (Chakraborti, 2002; Bakshi, 2008). A joint study of the World Bank and Michigan State University in West Bengal reveals that 73 per cent of patta beneficiaries and 56 per cent of sharecroppers are from marginalised SC and ST communities (Deininger et al., 2011). There is no doubt that the state has been able to address tribal landlessness to a certain extent through all these progressive steps, but, at the same time, the fact remains that a sizable portion of the tribal population of the state are still deprived from securing their land rights (see Table 3). A very recent survey among 16 tribal groups spread across the state reflects that 23 per cent of the households were landless (owning less than 0.002 ha of land) and 70 per cent of the households fall under marginal (owning between 0.002 and 1 ha of land) category. The incidence of landlessness was higher in Jalpaiguri and Darjeeling districts (over 50%) and lowest in Purulia and Malda (1%) (Rana et al., 2020). Moreover, an estimated 0.68 million patta holders do not have RoR (Landesa, 2014). Both the documents—patta and RoR—are necessary for proving their rights and availing of benefits under various kinds of development schemes.

Though the state has ensured RoR for 30 per cent of FRA patta holders, lack of coordination among Forest, Revenue and Backward Class Welfare departments has caused unnecessary delays in covering rest of the patta holders. Moreover, 87,333 claims for IFR and 9,254 claims for CFR are rejected by the state (Government of India, 2018). This has resulted in large number of households feeling insecure about their rights over the land and forest resources they have been using and makes their life vulnerable.

The tribal land alienation continues to be a cause for concern (Landesa, 2014). The recent introduction of flagging the RoR of the tribal lands by the state has hopefully helped in curbing illegal land transfer from tribals to non-tribals. A large number of tribal populations have already lost their land rights in the past. This situation has pushed them to work on their own land either as agricultural labourers or as daily wage workers in the illegal mining sector. The state has not taken any substantial initiatives to restore the alienated tribal lands by enforcing 14E of the WBLR Act, 1955.

There is no comprehensive database on sharecroppers in general, and tribal sharecroppers in particular. In this situation, it is very difficult to ascertain the number of ST cultivator households who do not have RoRs over the lands under their occupation. However, empirical evidence indicates that the names of a large number of sharecroppers remain unrecorded (Bhaumik, 1993). Several studies suggest a mixed impact of tenancy reforms, in general, such as increased tenure security among the sharecroppers (Chakraborti, 2002), below expectation increase in productivity of land (Deininger et al., 2011; Ghatak & Roy, 2007), eviction of a section of bargadars (Chakraborti, 2002; Hanstad & Brown, 2001), etc. On the other hand, despite legal provision to encourage sharecroppers to purchase the land by providing financial assistance through formation of land corporation (Section 21C of the WBLR Act, 1955), the state has remained almost silent in enforcing the same (Landesa, 2014).

The present tribal land situation of the state may be characterised by landlessness, holding fragmented lands, marginal or small holdings, holding inferior quality of land and land alienation. Though the majority of the tribal population of the state (70%) depends on land for their livelihoods, either as cultivator or as agricultural labourers, the share of cultivators (12%) among the tribal working population in West Bengal is much lower than the national average (35%) (Government of India, 2011b). It reflects that the overwhelming majority of the tribal population of the state depends on land as agricultural labourers. This poor status of landholding can be attributed to two prominent features—a large number of non-cultivating, ‘captive’ tribal population in tea garden areas of North Bengal and fragmentation of land due to increasing tribal population. Otherwise, the tribal population of the state has been holding less quantum of land traditionally as a large number of them are migrants from parts of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and other states and have settled down to work as agricultural labourers and tea plantation workers. Some original tribal populations have been living in forest areas in the western (Jhargram, Paschim Medinipur, Bankura, Purulia), southern (Sunderbans) and northern (Alipurduar, Jalpaiguri, Darjeeling) parts of Bengal (Government of India, 2011b). In most of the cases, land held by the tribes in forest fringe areas, especially in the western parts, are either barren or non-fertile. Thus, the land quantum is not enough to meet the bare household needs for the entire year (Rana et al., 2020).

Conclusion and Suggestions

Despite promulgation of progressive land reform laws and strong political commitment to implement it, the state has not been able to address the issues of tribal land rights effectively. Tribal land reform beneficiaries constitute a sizable proportion among all land reform beneficiaries in the state—in terms of receiving agricultural land, homestead plots and tenancy rights. But a sizable portion of landless tribal households are still deprived from securing their land rights. For those who gained land ownership through land reform programme, the land size and its quality are below their expectation. Increased population has resulted into fragmentation of land. Though government has taken some measures to check tribal land alienation of late, it has not shown the courage to restore alienated tribal lands. Landlessness as well as insecure and unclear land rights have forced them to depend on daily wage earnings. Based on the review of the present situation, following specific suggestions may be made to strengthen land rights of the tribal population of the state:

The state may consider creating a land pool in order to provide homestead land to uncovered landless and homesteadless households, first, and allocate vested agricultural land to land-poor tribals. For the creation of land pool, the state government may take appropriate action such as (a) identification and restoration of illegally occupied vested ceiling surplus land or agricultural wasteland; (b) speedy resolution of court cases to make government-vested land free from all encumbrances; (c) restoration of land acquired, purchased or leased out to industries or acquired for development projects but remaining unutilised; and (d) land being made available by correction of land records, following reconciliation of forest land and revenue land (Government of India, 2013b).

The state may consider a special drive to identify tribal patta holder households without RoR by conducting field surveys. Revenue offices may be directed accordingly to act upon the gap in securing tribal land rights by conferring RoR in hands.

More proactive action needs to be taken to cover the untouched areas and conferring forest rights to claim holders. The issues of rejection of claims need to be considered more seriously. RoR may be issued to uncovered patta holders, removing all administrative bottlenecks. There are around 4,000 Joint Forest Management Committees (JFMC) in the state that are protecting nearly 500,000 ha of degraded forest areas. But these JFMCs are not legally recognised (Landesa, 2014). Recognising legal status to those JFMCs and empowering them in selecting the claim holders may resolve the issues of pendency and rejection in a time-bound manner.

The state should act proactively by implementing Section 14 of the WBLR Act, 1955, and ensure protection to the tribal population from land alienation and restoration of alienated lands. The state may also consider developing a complete database on tribal land ownership and subsequent causes of alienation.

As there is data gap in ascertaining the number of tribal sharecroppers, it is very difficult to understand the magnitude of the problem. Field evidence suggests that cases of tribal sharecroppers without recorded rights still exist in numbers (Bhaumik, 1993). The government may consider conducting a field survey and identify such cases, prepare a complete database and take appropriate action to protect the cultivation rights of tribal sharecroppers by recording their rights on a priority basis.

The legislative and policy framework of the state of West Bengal provides a basis for making headway in addressing tribal landlessness, protecting and preserving the rights of tribal forest dwellers, protecting the tribals from land alienation and preserving the cultivation rights of tribal sharecroppers. The sluggish progress can be accelerated by acting upon the laws in true spirit and taking sharp action on the suggestions made.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Agarwal

(1994). A field of one’s own: Gender and land rights in South Asia . Cambridge University Press.

Bakshi

(2008). Social inequality in land ownership in India: A study with particular reference to West Bengal. Social Scientist , 36(9/10), 95–116.

Besley

(1995). Property rights and investment incentives: Theory and evidence from Ghana. Journal of Political Economy , 103(5), 903–937.

Bhaumik

S. K.

(1993). Tenancy relations and agrarian development: A study of West Bengal . SAGE Publications.

Byrd

T. A.

Heyer

K. C.

(2008). Disrupting states: International discourses of indigenous rights and responsibilities. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political , 33(1), 1–5.

Chakraborti

(2002). Beneficiaries of land reforms: The West Bengal scenario . State Institute of Panchayats and Rural Development and Spandan.

Champagne

(2013). UNDRIP (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples): Human, civil, and indigenous rights. Wicazo Sa Review , 28(1), 9–22.

Deininger

(2003). Land policies for growth and poverty reduction . The World Bank.

Deininger

Ali

Yamano

(2006, August 12–18). Legal knowledge and economic development: The case of land rights in Uganda . Paper presented at International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Gold Coast, Australia. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/25431/1/ip06de04.pdf

10.

Deininger

Jin

Yadav

(2011, July 24–26). Complete the incompleteness of land reforms household level evidence from West Bengal . Paper presented at Agricultural & Applied Economics Association’s 2011 AAEA & NAREA Joint Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254384680_Complete_the_Incompleteness_of_Land_Reform_Household_Level_Evidence_from_West_Bengal

11.

Fernandes

(2007). Singur and the displacement scenario. Economic & Political Weekly , 42(03), 203–206.

12.

Field

A. J.

Field

Torero

(2006, November). Property rights and crop choice in rural Peru, 1994–2004 (MTID Discussion Paper No. 100). IFPRI.

13.

Ghatak

Roy

(2007). Land reform and agricultural productivity in India: A review of the evidence. Oxford Review of Economic Policy , 23(2), 251–269.

14.

Government of India. (2011a). Socio economic and caste census . Ministry of Rural Development.

15.

Government of India. (2011b). New Delhi: Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India . Ministry of Home Affairs.

16.

Government of India. (2013a). Household ownership and operational holding in India . Land and livestock holding Survey, NSSO 70th Round. National Sample Survey Organisation, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation.

17.

Government of India. (2013b). Draft national land reforms policy 2013 . Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development.

18.

Government of India. (2014). Report of the high level committee on socioeconomic, health and educational status of tribal communities of India . Ministry of Tribal Affairs.

19.

Government of India. (2015). All India report on agriculture census 2010–2011 . Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare.

20.

Government of India. (2016). National family health survey 4 (2015–2016) . Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

21.

Government of India. (2017). Percentage of population below poverty line by states—2011–2012 based on Tendulkar methodology . NITI Ayog. https://data.gov.in/catalog/below-poverty-line-india

22.

Government of India. (2018, April 30). Status report of FRA implementation . Ministry of Tribal Affairs. https://tribal.nic.in/FRA/data/MPRApr2018.pdf

23.

Government of West Bengal. (2013). A report on key indicators on land and livestock holding in West Bengal, 2013 . State sample results based on NSS 70th Round. Bureau of Applied Economics and Statistics, Department of Statistics and Programme Implementation.

24.

Government of West Bengal. (2018a). Data collected from the departments directly from their updated progress report . Backward Class Welfare Department, Government of West Bengal.

25.

Government of West Bengal. (2018b). Data collected from the departments directly from their updated progress report . Land and Land Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal.

26.

Government of India. (2019). Agriculture census 2015–2016 . Agriculture Census Division, Department of Agriculture, Co-Operation & Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare.

27.

Hanstad

Brown

(2001). Land reform law and implementation in West Bengal: Lessons and recommendations . Rural Development Institute.

28.

Landesa. (2012). Issue brief—Land rights and food security. Author.

29.

Landesa. (2014). State report on improving land governance in West Bengal . Land Governance Assessment Framework. Author.

30.

Mason

Karlson

(2005). The development impact of gender equality in land rights. In Alston

Robinson

(Eds.), Human rights and development: Towards mutual reinforcement . Oxford University Press.

31.

Meinzen-Dick

R. S.

Brown

L. R.

Fieldstein

H. S.

Quisumbing

A. R.

(1997). Gender, property rights, and natural resources. World Development , 25(8), 1303–1315.

32.

Place

Roth

Hazell

(1994). Land tenure security and agricultural performance in Africa—Overview of research methodology. In Bruce

Migot-Adholla

S. E.

(Eds.), Searching for land tenure security in Africa (pp. 15–40). Kendall/Hunt Publishers.

33.

Prosterman

Mitchell

Hanstad

(2009). One billion rising: Law, land and the alleviation of global poverty . Leiden University Press.

34.

Rana

Sarkar

Das

Gain

M. R.

(2020). Living world of the adivasis of West Bengal: An ethnographic exploration . The Asiatic Society and Pratichi Institute.

35.

Schlager

Ostrom

(1992). Property-rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analysis. Land Economics , 68(3), 249–262.

36.

The Hindu . (2018, March 13). Maharashtra CM bows to demands of farmers. The Hindu . https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/maharashtra-cm-bows-to-demands-of-farmers/article23165806.ece

37.

United Nations. (2007). United Nations declaration on the rights of the indigenous peoples—Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 13th September 2007. Author.

38.

Waydande

(2018, March 18). Farmers’ rally in Maharashtra: Maximum march, The Hindu . https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/farmers-rally-in-maharashtra-maximum-march/article23280967.ece

39.

World Bank. (2011, January). India’s adivasis—Indigenous peoples (India Country Brief No. 4). Author.

40.

Xaxa

(2011). Tribes and social exclusion (Occasional Paper, No. 02). CSSSC-UNICEF, Social Exclusion Cell.

41.

Xaxa

(2012). Tribes and development: Retrospect and prospect. In Nathan

Xaxa

(Eds.), Social exclusion and adverse inclusion: Development and deprivation of Adivasis in India (pp. 23–35). Institute for Human Development, Oxford University Press.

42.

Yates

(2004). Conceptualising indigenous land rights in the Commonwealth. Australian Indigenous Law Reporter , 8(4), 96–101.