There are no breaking news at the moment



Muthanga struggle was a milestone in the Adivasi land struggles in Kerala. Fourteen years have passed since ‘Muthanga’ became a lesson for people’s movements in Kerala. Today, the Adivasi land movement initiated under the Adivasi Gothra Maha Sabha (AGMS) is split between two factions, with C.K. Janu, the iconic leader of the Muthanga struggle in the 1990s joining hands with the BJP-led coalition of NDA and M. Geethanandan, another frontline leader challenging CK Janu’s ‘politics of desertion.’

However, the Adivasi land struggle has a long history of betrayals, by both the state and the settlers in the Adivasi lands. The most vital cause of such struggles is land alienation following the penetration of non Adivasis into the Adivasi land, besides the ‘developmental’ activities started by the state. Consequently, Adivasis, over years, were forced to organise themselves though they constituted only a small minority of 1.10 per cent of the State’s population. As a result of land encroachment, more than three-fourth of the Adivasis became landless and their social conditions are still far below the state average.

Muthanga Struggle

For the 3.64-lakh Adivasis of Kerala, what happened on 19 February 2003 in Muthanga, in the Wayanad district of Kerala, was nothing short of ‘state terrorism.’ With the violence being let loose on a large scale, the Adivasis became virtually ‘humans without human dignity’. Muthanga had even drawn the attention of the world on account of the violence perpetrated on the unarmed indigenous people – that too when only months were away for the finale of the International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People (1995-2004). For the Adivasis, the decade that was just passing over was a decade of empty promises and betrayals, and hopes and frustrations culminating in a witch-hunt assuming violent proportions. This was the first time in the history of Kerala that the Adivasis became the target of police firing and brutality which resulted in deaths and destruction. Questions were also raised as to why the media personnel were not allowed to enter the area when the operation was underway against the Adivasis. During the operation, which lasted for almost 18 hours, the police cordoned off the entire area creating a panicky situation. Many Adivasis and human rights activists believed that the police as they went berserk within the forest area would have buried all evidences of its brutality.

Hundreds of Adivasis belonging to the AGMS led by C.K. Janu and M. Geethanandan had occupied the forestland in Muthanga in early January 2003 in protest against the government inaction on the promises made to them in 2001. The AGMS had made it clear from the beginning that the tribals would leave the forest only after the government conceded their demands. The leaders also insisted that any further discussion on the land issue could be held only with the Chief Minister. The Adivasis had put up huts and other shelters in the area and announced that they would start cultivating the occupied area. However, even after weeks of their occupation of the forest land, the government chose to remain silent. In fact, the Adivasi leaders were expecting a call from the State capital to start talks on the land issue. But the State cabinet, which met a few days before the Muthanga operation, had decided “not to take any immediate steps to settle the issue” as “the time was not ripe for talks.” This was seen as a criminal negligence of a democratically elected government.

The circumstances that led to the police firing and subsequent brutal ‘follow-up’ operation need to be looked into against the background of the developments that commenced since 1975 when the State Assembly adopted legislation on land alienation of Adivasis.  The Adivasis had at their disposal large tracts of forests in the State, particularly in Palakkad, Wayanad, Idukki, Pathanamthitta, Kollam and Thiruvananthapuram districts. These lands were slowly but periodically taken over by non-Adivasi people, and successive governments were only passive spectators while the encroachment drive was steadily underway. As the pressure on land had increased in the plains, non-Adivasi settlers further went ahead with land grab. The 1975 Act had assured the Adivasis that their alienated land would be given back. However, the euphoria was short-lived. All governments that came to power in Kerala since 1975 were still reluctant to implement the provisions of the Act, obviously under pressure from the settlers. Meanwhile, the State government formulated rules for restoration of alienated lands half-heartedly. But nothing happened. Instead, the government went ahead with other measures to short circuit the provisions of the 1975 Act. This was actually the background of the Adivasi mobilisation.

It was estimated that there were 3.64 lakh Adivasi people in Kerala (or about 70,000 families). Evidently, as many as 45,000 families were landless. Under the provisions of the 1999 Act, there were only 4,500 applications, which meant a good majority of the landless Adivasis would not come under the purview of the new Act. In fact, the starvation deaths reported during this time were from these landless Adivasis. For example, when the Adivasis launched their agitation in August 2001, not less than 32 Adivasis had died of starvation in a few weeks time. The agitation was in the midst of that year’s Onam festival, when starvation deaths were reported in the State. Led by the Adivasi-Dalit Agitation Committee, hundreds of Adivasis started streaming into the State capital from the forests and mountain regions and had put up huts in front of the Chief Minister’s official house as well as the State Secretariat. Their major demand was that 45,000 landless Adivasi families be given five acres each of cultivable land. At this stage, the Adivasi leadership had come to the realisation that their attempts to recover alienated land from the settler farmers would result in a new set of contradictions given the fact that all political parties had a common stake in the ‘affairs’ of the settler-farmers. Adivasi leadership itself pointed out that all governments were playing hide and seek on this question by pointing to the issue of ‘tension’ between Adivasis and settler-farmers. Meanwhile, they were reported to have identified 11 lakh acres of land that could be easily available for distribution. It may be recalled that the government needed to distribute only less than 3 lakh acres to provide land to all landless Adivasis in the State.

Pointing to the bitter experiences in the past, many had argued that the Adivasi demand “land for all” might result in large-scale illegal transfer of Adivasi land to non-Adivasis. It was at this time that the Adivasis decided to form the Adivasi Dalit Samara Samithy to spearhead the movement. The Samithy set up a council of leaders representing the 34 tribal communities in Kerala that eventually led to the formation of the Adivasi Gothra Mahasabha (Adivasi parliament) on 3 October 2001 at Thiruvananthapuram. The AGMS sought to mobilise support not only from the Adivasi communities but also from broad sections of the civil society. The struggle went on for more than a month and a half. But the government did not show any interest in addressing the issues raised by them. This was the background of C.K. Janu’s declaration of a fast unto-death. Facing widespread public criticism, the government then decided to initiate talk with the leaders.

The 48-day-old struggle of the tribal people in Kerala ended on 16 October 2001 in the wake of a seven-point agreement between the State government and the Adivasi Dalit Action Council. The agreement assured, among other things, that wherever possible, the government would provide five acres of land to each landless Adivasi family; at other places, the offer is a minimum of one acre, which may go up to five acres depending on the availability of land; and a five-year livelihood programme would be implemented in the land thus provided until it becomes fully productive for Adivasis to sustain themselves.  Many called the conclusion of the agreement as a ‘historic triumph’ and ‘a morale booster’ for similar struggles across the country. It is true that the agitators’ main demand that all landless Adivasi families be provided with five acres each was not fully conceded. Yet, the agitation was seen as a near success given the fact that for the first time landless Adivasis in Kerala got a positive commitment from the government on, at least, one acre of land. They were also to get the protection of a new law preventing any further alienation of their land. The most significant aspect of the agitation was that the agenda of the five decades-old Adivasi struggle in Kerala had been changed from the “restoration of alienated land” to “land for the landless tribal people.”

The Chief Minister announced, after the agreement that the government would try to get lands in Wayanad where the number of landless Adivasis was the highest, besides the 42,000 acres of land already identified for this purpose in different parts of the State. For the fourteen months since October 2001, till the AGMS occupied lands in Muthanga, the government went on delaying the implementation of the agreement. Though the government had officially started land distribution, it turned out to be a farce. By April 2002, 568 families were provided with 1308 acres of land when the Chief Minister, along with C.K Janu of AGMS, began the first land distribution at Marayur in Idukki District. That means just 1.06 per cent of the families were provided 2.2 per cent of the identified land within the first four months of the period earmarked to complete the task. However, nothing much had happened after that, except the report appeared in the media that the land actually allotted was 1770 to 848 families, i.e., only 3 per cent of the promised land. The government continued its negligence by bringing in numerous legal and administrative hurdles. This was the background of the Muthanga struggle and the consequent violence unleashed by the State.

As the public opinion gathered momentum in favour of the Adivasis after Muthanga violence, particularly with the intervention of different agencies such as National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the government of Kerala had to order an independent inquiry. Thus, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) stepped in for an comprehensive inquiry into the police firing and the circumstances leading to violence. But the Adivasis, having been disappointed subsequently, alleged that it was a sham investigation because the CBI report concluded that the Adivasis were “trespassers.” Later, the CBI even justified the forcible eviction of Adivasis, saying that the police had taken action following untoward incidents.

The Muthanga episode, however, enhanced the political consciousness of the Adivasis in the state. After that, even mainstream political parties began capitalising the Adivasi sentiments. The Muthanga struggle had also strengthened the Dalit political consciousness in the state. Aralam and Chengara land struggles need to be viewed in this background.  C.K. Janu and others argued that as a result of the mobilisation, hundreds of landless families benefitted. They said that the dominant parties in the state who wielded political power from time never did nothing to provide land to Adivasis. During the post-Muthanga period, however, they were compelled to talk about land rights of Adivasis. AGMS believed that they acted as a catalyst for setting an agenda of ‘land for landless.’

Almost a decade and a half has gone since Muthanga, and the leaders like C.K. Janu acknowledged that they could not do much to carry forward the struggle though it could evoke substantial sympathy from the wider public that continued to influence the decisions of the government on questions related to Dalits and Adivasis. The most lasting contribution of the Muthanga struggle was that the Adivasis began asserting as a collective social entity with increasing consciousness about their right to live in the society.  The Adivasi leaders, however, admitted later that there were also symptoms of disintegration of Adivasi solidarity. This was mainly due to the continuing apathy of the state and their existential struggle for survival and livelihood. The Adivasis found themselves difficult to survive if they did not go for their daily work. For some sections, the Muthanga struggle also offered some bitter lessons. Notwithstanding all these compelling factors, Adivasis leaders believed that they became critically conscious of their rights, dignity and distinctiveness. Yet, even after several years of the Muthanga struggle, the restoration of land to the Adivasis continued to be a major pending question. Before Muthanga a mere 1.06 per cent of the families were provided with land within the first four months of the stipulated 12 months period. There has not been any major change in these figures in spite of the efforts underway. This was projected to be major reasons why a leader like C.K. Janu opted to be a part of the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA). Janu even contested with the BJP support. For the NDA, the State Assembly Election 2016 was a litmus test of its capability to break the bipolar coalition dispensation. Hence it sought to bring in a rainbow coalition of various caste-communal groups in the state. Thus, the Adivasis again became another object of exploitation in the hands of the Sangh Parivar in the state. The Adivasi movement today faces the most critical existential crisis in spite of the limited achievements, following their mobilisation though the framework of identity politics. However, the Muthanga episode will be remembered in history as yet another case of a collective betrayal – of the successive state governments, political parties and other forces in the state.

The author is Professor, School of International Relations and Politics, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala. He can be reached  at

One Comment

  1. K SHESHU BABU says:

    The adivasi struggles of Muthanga in Kerala or Srikakulam in Andhra or karimnagar and adilabad in telengana represent the government’s apathy towards land reforms and allocation of lands to the landless. These struggles also remind the evil designs of corporates in their attempts to grab the forest lands and displace adivasi settlements. These struggles being waged all over the country and brutally suppressed are manifestations of failure of political system. The opportunist politicians from right to left mainstream parties are the prime cause of sufferings of adivasi. The struggles will continue till they are liberated from imperialist yoke. Land to the tiller, the issue of ‘ JAL, jangal, jameen’ will remain alive till the fundamental rights are granted to the adivasi section of society .