Inclusive Growth And Development In Jharkhand
By Kiran Sharma
11 November, 2012
Countercurrents.org
Introduction
Development is generally understood as change plus desired growth, means it has both qualitative and quantitative dimensions. These two patterns of changes are termed as development. Development theory recognizes a chronological change in the meaning of ‘development’ from 1870 to 1990. In the 1870s, industrialization was at the centre of developmental discourse, this changed in later periods, following rearrangements in the realms of production, distribution and in many other forms of economic activities. Between 1940 and 1960, Verrier Elwin and Jawaharlal Nehru took recourse to respective approaches for tribal development. While Nehru was busy in formulating a broad-based, effective approach for the development of the entire nation, Elwin insisted on a separate approach for the development of tribals, the most vulnerable population of India. His approach was known as the ‘leave them alone’, National Park’ or ‘isolationist’ approach. Literally it meant letting tribes live in their own way, not infringing on their economic space and allowing them to grow in their self-created or self designed development paradigm. Development is ubiquitous, every society and individual now wants to be developed. But in the case of Jharkhand the development evolves as a complementary force to ethnocide and the culture of silence, which the people of this area have been facing for a long time. Here, the development projects have been implemented at the cost of the people, who are displaced and thrown out of the boundary of the development paradigm. So what is needed in this context is to induce development that will go with and for the people, serve their purpose and ensure their direct participation. Poverty as an existential reality is quite old, but its interpretation from a multi-dimensional perspective is something new. Specifically in the Indian context it is quite recent, after 1970nin fact. Prior to this, Nehru had a broad vision of Indian poverty, but that was primarily economic poverty. Since the 1950s, the Planning Commission, his brainchild engaged in the eradication of poverty by introducing the revolutionary change of an ‘agrarian economy of continental dimensions into a self-generating modern economy within two or three decades’. The planning process started by Nehru was engaged in devising mechanisms to end what he perceived as poverty. His poverty alleviation was, therefore, not simply an ideal proposition but rather emphasized a planned effort for its solution. Elwin only talked about poverty to draw the attention of civil society as well as the welfare state to the issue, his talk hardly led directly to policy making. Another important thing was that Nehruvian poverty addressed the concepts of caste, tribe and minority on a common platform, but Elwin’s concept of poverty was strictly confined to the tribe.
Development Challenges
As per Census 2011, the state of Jharkhand with an area of 79714 sq. km, has a population of 32,966,238. Out of a total population, males are 1,69,31,688 and females 1,60,34,550. According to the provisional population totals of Census of India 2011, Jharkhand occupies the 13th position by population among all states and UT’s of the country. There were 18 Districts in the state of Jharkhand at the time of 2001 census. The number of districts in the state has gone up to 24 by census 2011. The formation of the state of Jharkhand is the culmination of a 200-year old struggle by the people of the region. Statehood, however, may not ensure the development of the region’s original inhabitants, the tribals. In Jharkhand, the East India Company became the revenue collecting agent of the Mughal Emperor from the year 1765. Though invasion by aliens of indigenous people has been going on in the past, it is from this period a systematic and sinister plan was devised in the name of ‘tribal well-being and tribal development’ to loot, rob, rape and steal and subjugate the peace-loving and freedom- loving tribal population. As a separate state of the Indian union, Jharkhand was formed by bifurcating the state of Bihar in 2000, with the objective of emancipating tribal peoples from Hindu upper-caste oppression. Throughout much of the twentieth century, local politics within the Jharkhand region of India were strongly influenced by a movement demanding the creation of a separate Jharkhand State. At first, this movement was dominated by tribal people (adivasis) and called for a separate State for the region’s tribal population. From the 1960s onwards, the movement had to broaden its scope as adivasis declined as a proportion of the region’s population. Thereafter, support hinged around the grievances created by economic transformation, which united otherwise disparate groups in opposition to exploitative and locally insensitive ‘dikus’ (outsiders).
Ethnic Identity
Jharkhand evolved as a multi-ethnic society where, like other multi ethnic societies, it is said to have an overlap between religious and regional identities and economic functions, issues of economic insecurity and class contradictions are very conveniently transformed into ethnic, caste and regional issues. In the past, four fundamental factors decisively contributed in the identity formation as tribals or Jharkhandis. First, the fact of being a tribal united all the various tribal groups. This further provided a common platform for political awakening and action. The slogans like ‘Jai Jharkhand’ (victory to Jharkhand), ‘Adivasi dishum’ (this is our land, adivasi land) that erupted in course of Jharkhand struggle led to political mobilisation which in turn built up political consciousness. Second, the sense of being adivasis or the original settlers of the Jharkhand region also brought in a sense of being part of a confederation than of an individual tribal group. The term ‘Jharkhand’ is derived from two different words – Jhar (a cluster of thick forests) and Khand (a tract of land). Thus, Jharkhand suggests a land mass quilted with forests. It is not just the geographical territory that determines the identity of a Jharkhandi but also the entire socio-cultural life. Hence, even those tribals who have moved over to Assam tea gardens or to the Andaman Islands continued to maintain the identity of a Jharkhandi. The term itself has gone through a historical evolution. In the beginning, exclusively tribal organisations Chhotanagpur Unnati Samaj (1915) and Adivasi Mahasabha (1938) were formed. The term Jharkhand also came to be used in 1938 giving a much broader platform for political assertions of the Jharkhandis. With the formation of the Jharkhand Party in 1950 the identity formation reached its zenith. Third, Christianity in a latent way contributed in tribal identity formation by providing education. ‘It also gave them a history, a myth about the ‘golden age’; it accentuated the notion of private rights in land; it also emphasised the sense of separateness from the rest. Here religious conversion also aided social mobility by opening up avenues. Those educated by the church played the leadership role in mobilising resources for tribal educational development in the beginning that slowly caught spread to other areas. Finally, the ethnic sense of ‘we’ tribals and ‘they’ ‘dikus’ or the outsiders united the entire tribal population for a protracted struggle. Whether it is the Tatas, the coal mafia of north Bihar or the Marwaris, all have exploited this region. The tribals with their traditional wish ‘Johar’ welcomed with open hands and hearts to everyone who entered Jharkhand. But the upper caste non-tribals engaged in depredation and plunder. Hence, the tribals coined the term ‘dikus’ and began to resist and revolt against their exploitation. In this process, the tribals established dialogue with backward caste groups like the dalits and the Momins, the downtrodden Muslims who had settled in Jharkhand for a long period of time. With the Jharkhand movement gaining ground, these non-tribal groups too became part of the struggle. Thus, ‘Jharkhandi’ came to be known as ‘the land of the destitutes’ comprising of all the deprived sections of Indian society. Hence, development of Jharkhand meant the development of the destitutes of this region. Thus, process of identity formation that has been going on unabated nearly for two centuries contributed immensely to the Jharkhand movement.
Livelihood Strategies
Jharkhand means the “Land of forests” and true to its name the state is endowed with vast forests and a rich assemblage of floral and faunal biodiversity. Few states of India can match the scenic landscapes and rich biodiversity of Jharkhand. The state is also home to a large tribal population who are heavily dependent upon forest resources for their livelihoods. Jharkhand has vast mineral reserves, with 33% of India’s Coal deposits, 47% of its mica and 34% of its copper. Creating a diverse and inclusive economic base calls for harnessing not just its comparative in mining, but also the untapped opportunities for growth provided by tourism. During the lean season, many people’s livelihood depends critically on forest products for subsistence or supplementary income. The most destitute gather wood for sale. A major part of the wood that head loaders and bicycle loaders carry is meant for the urban markets. The degree of dependence on forests for subsistence or cash income varies from place to place and depends on the state of forests, access and presence or absence of other income generation opportunities. Protect and Prosper’ this slogan should define the relationship of villagers with forests. This is particularly true of weaker sections with a low base of land ownership as non timber forest produce (NTFP) can play a very important role in protecting them from poverty and hunger. In Jharkhand dominant people and contractors did not allow Mundas Orason and Ho tribals to have such a protective relationship with forest. They forced Tribals to carry out illegal work for them in the forests – in any government action against this, it was the tribals who were caught and punished. It is because of the near bonded type conditions that tribals could not say no to such risky work. When they collected various kind of non timber forest produce, the traders and contractors got huge profits from this while tribals got minimal profit. In this overall exploitation and deprivation of tribals, their women had to collect fire wood and sell in nearby markets – a trade which involved a lot of drudgery and carried great risk but brought very little economic benefit. In addition this is very harmful for the forests. The tribals get edible roots, fruits, vegetables, flowers, honey, birds and animals (monkeys, hares, pigs etc.) from the forest. The “Mahua flower is a staple food for the poorer classes, a least for a part of the year. It is also used for making liquor. Mahua seed is used for making oil, both for cooking and lighting purposes. It has been estimated that access to three ‘Mahua’ trees is adequate for the survival of a tribal household for over a year. The tribals also eat the fruits of the Palas, Ber, Piar, Jamun, Imli, Sarifa and many other wild trees. It has been estimated that for eking out their livelihood, the Birhore tribes depend to the extent of five sixth and the sauria paharia – the hill cultivators of the santhal parganas – to the extent of three – fifth on what is available in the forest. Nearly half of the population among the agricultural tribes such as the Munda, Oraon and Ho depend on the forest to earn a livelihood. The basket markers – Mahlis, get their raw material (bamboo) from the forest.
Jharkhand suffers from political instability and unplanned exploitation of its mineral wealth without benefits accruing to the tribal population. The ruling elite in Jharkhand have a source of funds based on the state’s massive mineral resources and industrial potential. They can get a share of the rents or super-profits by using its powers to issue licences, etc. The well-known phenomenon ‘resource curse’, particularly observed in the case of Jharkhand where the ruling elite can earn large sums from leasing natural resources, whether for coal or mica and other favours to the corporate sector. Among the major challenges the ongoing Naxalite problem puts an obstacle on the path towards development. The weak institutional mechanism and lack of effective governance has led to the underdevelopment and concentration of high poverty in the state. Hence, sincere efforts need to be made at the policy level to promote tribal development and alleviate poverty in a sustainable manner.
Kiran Sharma is a Research Scholar at Centre for the Study of Social Systems, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.
Comments are moderated
