Tribals evicted by the Mahi and Kadna dam projects had to give up their land at dirt cheap rates — for just a few hundred rupees per bigha. They were asked to somehow resettle on land whose legal entitlement was not clear. On some of this land, other tribal families were already living and cultivating. Hence, a situation of conflicts arose among the tribals. With the passage of time, the number of such evictees has grown along with the neglect and deprivation suffered by them.
The story of displacement is similar in various projects concerning mines, highways, industrial projects, urbanisation and national parks. The Kumbhalgarh National Park Project alone can lead to the displacement in 128 villages in three districts of Rajasthan — Rajsamand, Pali and Udaipur.
Such instances of loss of land by tribal communities were narrated by representatives of victims at a public hearing on land-alienation among tribals held recently in Jaipur. Organised jointly by the Rajasthan Adivasi Adhikar Sangathan (RAAS) and Jungle Jameen Jan Andolan, the event witnessed a gathering of tribals from all parts of Rajasthan.
The victims and the activists together pointed out that often the acquisition of land is in excess of real needs. Powerful land mafias, having very high-level political connections, allegedly grabbed land briskly whenever they see a possibility of steep rise in land price in the near future. So, the actual loss of land by tribals is much more than that is essential for 'development' need.
But haven't the tribals benefited from the implementation of the recent Forest Rights Act, 2006? The activists pointed out the grim reality through specific examples that the letter and spirit of this law is being violated widely. The officials who were present in the public hearing's panel did not challenge this view.
Statistics were presented from various parts of Rajasthan which revealed that a very large number of claims made by tribals and 'other forest dwellers' had been rejected. Particularly in the case of claims made by the second group of 'other traditional forest dwellers', almost all claims had been rejected. In some districts, the proportion of accepted claims was negligible. In the case of claims made for collective or community rights, mostly there have been rejections only.
Activist Mangey Lal said that contrary to the law's specifications, the role of gram sabhas in the entire process has been devalued while the role of forest officials has been enhanced. He said that when land claims are rejected, the concerned families are not informed about this, so they cannot even appeal. Hence they lose land without even coming to know about this.
Activist and lawyer Ramesh Nandwana said that the percentage of properly accepted claims is lower than what appears in official figures. If a tribal was cultivating five bighas of land earlier but his claim for only two bighas is accepted, it is generally being treated as an accepted claim while actually the tribal family has lost more than half of the land cultivated earlier.
RAAS activists argued that if the Panchayat Raj Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act, 1996, had been properly implemented, this would have strengthened the gram sabhas and contributed to better implementation of laws like FRA. Unfortunately, the rules of this law were not prepared for several years. Now that these have been prepared, some of these rules are in contradiction with the protective provision of PESA Act.
