panchayati raj in scheduled areas of jharkhand …maharashtra, and rajasthan have facilitated the...

Jharkhand Journal of Development and Management StudiesXISS, Ranchi, Vol. 17, No.2, June 2019, pp. 8069-8086

PANCHAYATI RAJ IN SCHEDULED AREAS OFJHARKHAND AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Dipti Paridhi Kindo1 & Pradip Kumar Bhowmick2

People of scheduled areas are not only reliant upon Water, Forestand Land (Jal, Jangal and Jameen) but these are considered to betheir identity and source of livelihood. Sustainable DevelopmentGoal (SDG) 12 focuses on the requirement “to ensure SustainableConsumption and Production Pattern and by 2030, to achieve thesustainable management and efficient use of natural resources”.In Jharkhand state, 26.2 percent of its total population belongs tovarious tribes out of which 91.7% of the total tribal population residesin rural areas as per 2011 census. The paper has the objective tocritically examine the functioning of two important Acts, PanchayatExtension to Scheduled Areas (PESA), 1996 and Forest Rights Act(FRA), 2006 enacted by Government of India for ensuring tribalself-rule in schedule five areas of India and to protect the ownershipof land for tribals or forest dwellers with their right to life andlivelihood respectively. It also examines whether these acts areleading towards the achievement of Natural ResourceManagement? The paper is based on case studies, secondary data,discussions with government officials and perusal of governmentrecords. There is an imperative need to look into the PanchayatiRaj in Scheduled Areas of Jharkhand. The paper has also offeredcertain recommendations based on the findings of the study.

Keywords : Local Self-governance, Panchayat Extension toScheduled Areas (PESA), Forest Right Act (FRA), Natural ResourceManagement, Jharkhand

Introduction

Tribal people residing in the far-flung areas are a vulnerable andmarginalized group of people living in the communities in the on-goingprocess of the development. Tribals worship nature. In rural areas,tribal people are not only reliant upon Water, Forest, and Land (Jal,Jangal and Jameen) but these are considered to be their identityand source of livelihood. Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) setby the United Nations General Assembly in 2015 also focuses onthe requirement “to ensure Sustainable Consumption and ProductionPattern and by 2030, to achieve the sustainable managementand efficient use of natural resources”. In India, 104.3 million

8069

1 Doctoral Scholar (UGC-JRF), Rural Development Centre, Indian Institute ofTechnology (IIT) Kharagpur, West Bengal; Former Assistant Professor, StateInstitute of Rural Development (SIRD), Govt. of Jharkhand and Former PrimeMinister’s Rural Development Fellow (PMRDF). E-mail: [email protected]

2 Associate Professor, Rural Development Centre, Indian Institute of Technology(IIT), Kharagpu, West Bengal.

8070 Kindo & Bhowmick

population belongs to various tribes which comprise nine percent ofits total population as per the 2011 census and in Jharkhand state,26.2 percent of its total population belongs to 32 tribal groups out ofwhich 91.7 % of the total tribal population resides in rural areas(Census, 2011).Panchayati raj system under 73rd constitutional amendmentacts, 1992In 1992, Part IX was added to the constitution with a new scheduleeleven covering 29 Subjects under the functional items of thePanchayats. It specifies a three-tier system of Panchayati Raj at thevillage level, intermediate level and district level. Implementation ofthe 73rd Constitution Amendment Act introduced Panchayats as an“institution of self-government”. Gram Sabhas comprises of all the adultmembers of the village/hamlet registered as voters.

According to Aslam (2007), when a Government is run by itslocal people discussing the local issues and participation of all the peopleof that village/hamlet is assured, it is known as local-self-governance.The local self-governance advocates responsibility and competency tosolve the local issues. The importance of 73rd amendment is that itempowers the states to facilitate the Panchayats so that it can be aself-government whereas his study shows that the state PanchayatiRaj acts have not delegated any substantial powers to them and thereis an absence of clarity on the role of the PRIs with regard to functionsgiven to them. After the implementation of the Panchayat Extensionto Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act, it is found that in many states no suchPESA specific rules or guidelines exist (Upadhyay, 2002).Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act, 1996 andForest Rights Act (FRA), 2006Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act, 1996Although the 73rd Constitution Amendment Act incorporated manyimportant provisions concerning local self-governance in 1992, however,the application of Part IX provisions to the Scheduled and Tribal Areasunder Article 243 (M) was restricted.

Afterward, the Bhuria Committee submitted a report in 1995and based on its suggestions, the Panchayats (Extension to ScheduledAreas) Act, 1996 came into existence extending Part IX of theConstitution by modifying it and few exceptions to the Schedule V areasof the nine states (Telangana, newly formed State in 2014 is added inthe list as 10th State). A great political pledge is taken by initiatingPESA as an act for shifting the control for local communities. Atpresent, state-specific PESA Rule has been formulated by only fourStates out of ten PESA states. Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh,

Panchayati Raj in Scheduled Areas of Jharkhand 8071

Maharashtra, and Rajasthan have facilitated the implementation ofthe Act.

It’s more than two decades of formulation of the PESA Act andeighteen years of the formation of Jharkhand as a separate state butstill no state-specific rules for PESA has been formulated. Jharkhandis an important state where different acts of Tribal Land Rights exist,with an enormous forest area in which a very large tribal and non-tribal population depends for their livelihood and survival. Under thePESA Act, the Gram Sabhas have been bestowed with absolute powersand the state legislature has been given an advisory role to ensure theproper functioning of the Panchayats and Gram Sabhas. This systemof delegation of powers represents the principle of subsidiarity, whichcan be explained in a manner where Panchayats at higher levels shouldnot try to curtail powers in the subordinate levels and there shall beindependence throughout.

There are many powers and functions provided to the GramSabhas. These are as follows:(i) Protection of traditional belief, the culture of the tribal

communities;(ii) Resolution of the local disputes;(iii) Prevention of land alienation;(iv) Management and protection of the common properties based on

their traditions;(v) Management of village markets;(vi) Rights to control production, distillation, and prohibition of liquor;(vii) Exercise of control over money-lending;(viii) Any other rights involving the Scheduled Tribes.

As per the Act, the Governor and the State Tribal AdvisoryCouncil should follow the harmonious construction of laws and shouldwork towards the welfare and should give importance to tribal self-governance. Though PESA is considered to be one of the most powerfulActs being the backbone of tribal legislation, there are many issuesand limitations plaguing implementation of the provisions of the acteffectively.Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act (2006) famous as the Forest RightsAct (FRA), 2006 completed its twelve years of implementation butcreation of record of rights or FRA claims is still in slow pace in theJharkhand and amusing that it varies from time to time in the differentreports published by the same district administration. Tribal peopleare vulnerable, marginalized and isolated social groups that need specialattention during development. Notwithstanding there is an impressive

economic growth in recent years and special actions are taken for thetribal development since independence, still some socio-economicindicators show that there is a lot more which has not been done forthe development of these social groups. The government is planning toprotect the forests which are sources of livelihood and uphold thesecommunities through a holistic approach.

On the other hand, on February 13th, 2019, an exceptionallyimportant order has been issued by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition109 of 2008 for protecting the forests from ineligible/bogus claimantsunder the FRA because as prescribed they are harming the nature.This will lead to eviction of more than 2.26 lakh tribal families of thecountry from their homes which allows for a major dilution of theFRA. Henceforth, PESA and FRA both are two unique instrumentsfor the deprived and indigenous people in achieving management ofthe natural resources and strengthening their rights in the scheduledareas through participative democracy. But even after the enactmentof the PESA Act and FRA, these historical laws are unable to providethe tribals their rights for better livelihood and accessing the naturalresource management.Review of literaturePESA extended the mandates of local self-governance and decentralizedplanning that was implemented through the 73rd amendment in 1992in Scheduled Areas. PESA was enacted to preserve the ethnicity of theScheduled Areas residents and, therefore, empowered the Gram-Sabhasfor local self-governance maintaining their customs and traditions.The PESA Act not only provides autonomous powers to the Gram Sabhasto protect and preserve their traditions but also to manage thecommunity resources existing naturally. These include mandatoryconsultation in matters of land acquisition, ownership of forest produceand other natural resources, among others. Observing the detailed listof the executive power provided to the Gram Sabhas under PESA, itcan be confidently deduced that this Act guarantees the safeguard ofculture and traditions of the tribal ethnicities of India and therebypreserving the rich heritage of tribals. “The Gram Sabhas under PESAare deemed to be ‘competent’ to safeguard and preserve the traditionsof their people, community resources and customary mode of disputeresolution” (Sahota, 2014; Pal, 2000) states that neither most of thePESA states are concerned about its enactment nor to develop powersand authority to the lower body of the PRIs. Oskarsson and Nielsen(2014) state that, “a breakdown in communications seems to implythat contestations over mineral projects in central, tribal India aredestined to move towards paralyzing stand-offs where little productivemovement can be accomplished”. The industrialization, as well as thetribal social justice, don’t stand to gain in this process.


Behera (2009) shares in the experience from the field that manyJoint Forest Management (JFM) communities which are at the top ofthe list for the implementation are chosen by the Forest Departmentbut these are not chosen after assessing this prospective of the JFMcommunities which can work collectively. Consequently, most of theJFM communities were unable to establish themselves as aninstitution. This resulted in the loss of huge money offered by the donoragencies and public funds for ineffective forest management andprotection. It was also noticed that the JFM communities which wereformed by themselves or non-governmental organizations were moreeffective and flourishing. Hence, there are more chances of theeffectiveness of such programs meant for locals of scheduled areas ifthese are based on demand-driven attitude by them.

It is unfortunate to be found that the development approachfollowed for PESA and FRA are not directly linked to the traditions ofthe tribal people in Jharkhand. Consequently, the tribals are not gettingthe adequate advantage of these laws (Kindo & Bhowmick, 2018). Rao(2014) mentions that no steps are taken by the concerned departmentsto facilitate the functioning of Gram Sabha and play a constitutionalrole in the local governance. Some of the development, as well asrevenue/land acquisition authorities, are bypassing the provisionsunder PESA Act and undermining the role of other Panchayat RajInstitutions and Gram Sabhas in Andhra Pradesh. Choubey (2015)analyzes that the true spirit of PESA has not been followed during itsimplementation. Additionally, violation of PESA is taking place, asthe panchayat is a subject in the state list, all ten states are supposedto amend the Panchayat Acts accordingly. Only a few states have takeninitiative for these Schedule V areas whereas others are still in thedormant stage.

Shirsath (2014) mentions that 50% of the reservation has beendone for fifth scheduled Panchayats as per the Indian Constitution butonly less than 50% of the tribal are aware of such reservation policy.In these areas, there is no noticeable difference in the poverty rate,illiteracy, and undernourishment. The tribals representing theircommunity in Panchayati Raj are also not having information aboutsuch initiatives for them taken by the government.

Ananth and Kalaivanan (2017) mentions that PESA has notsucceeded in delivering due to the lack of clarity, legal infirmity,bureaucratic apathy, absence of a political will, resistance to changein the hierarchy of power and so on. Due to the lack of political will,tribal rights have been disregarded strategically.

The PESA Act suggests that the Governor and the Tribes AdvisoryCouncil should follow the harmonious construction of laws and shouldwork towards the welfare and should give importance to tribal self-


governance. Though PESA is considered to be one of the most powerfulActs being the backbone of tribal legislation, many issues and limitationsare plaguing the effective implementation of the provisions of the PESAAct. At present, ten States have Fifth Schedule Areas to which thePESA applies viz. Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Jharkhand,Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan,and Telangana. PESA was enacted to make the Fifth Schedule Areasself-sufficient by empowering the Gram Sabhas as centers par excellence.The main object was to decentralize the power of the central and stategovernments and vest it in the hands of local governments forindependent and self-sufficient governance. But PESA failed to achieveits objectives as four states have prepared their state rules forimplementation of PESA. The Gram Sabha Resolutions have beenignored in Jharkhand at different phases during planning as well asthe implementation of the various programs (Sharan, 2005).

In Jharkhand, PESA is not keeping the spirit of self-governancedue to political apathy, the internal conflict of Maoism and unawarenessamong people (Bara, 2017). The status of tribal has not changed in thepositive directions with development which was expected after theimplementation of PESA especially for the conservation of naturalresources in Jharkhand. In Jharkhand, 16 districts out of 24 comeunder PESA provision as shown in Table 1.Table–1. Districts, blocks and gram panchayats under PESA

in JharkhandS.No Districts Total No. of Blocks Total Gram Panchayats1. Ranchi 18 3032. Khunti 6 863. Gumla 12 1594. Lohardaga 7 665. Simdega 10 946. West Sighbhum 18 2167. East Sighbhum 11 2318. Saraikela Kharsawan 9 1369. Dumka 10 206

10. Jamtara 6 11811. Pakur 6 12812. Latehar 9 11513. Sahebganj 9 166

Total 131 20243 Districts partially comes under Schedule V Area

S.No Districts Total No. of Blocks Total Gram Panchayats14. Godda 2 3515. Garwha 1 1016. Palamu 1 2

Total 4 47Grand Total 135 2071

Source: Panchayati Raj Department, Jharkhand accessed on 10.10.2018


In 2010, Mr. B D Sharma (former civil-servant and formerCommissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) wrote aletter to the President of India that the “ruling elite are not preparedto go by the spirit of PESA” (Sharma, 2010).

Bijoy (2012) of a non-profit organization in Delhi, mentions thatthere were 167 urban local bodies in Schedule Five areas according tothe 1991 Census which is increasing with years. Chhattisgarh andMadhya Pradesh have upgraded 26 and 8 tribal rural areas intomunicipalities respectively between 2007 to 2009. Most of these areaswhich have been upgraded are having the huge land with the proposalsfor enormous industries. In the Conference of Governors held in 2013,the then Prime Minister of India had advised the Governors of FifthScheduled States to use effectively their Fifth Schedule powers andimplement PESA accordingly.

Objectives of the study

To critically examine the functioning of two important Acts; PanchayatExtension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) and Forest Rights Act (FRA) inJharkhand and to evaluate whether these different acts are leadingtowards the achievement of Natural Resource Management throughTribal Self-rule.

Data and methods

The paper uses the Status report on the implementation of theScheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognitionof Forest Rights) Act, 2006 by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. It alsoanalyzes the secondary data of the guidelines, government records,reports on PESA and FRA and the other papers. A case study has alsobeen used to analyze the implementation of the FRA.

Findings and analysis

Functioning of the PESA Act

Fifth Schedule Areas are rich in natural resources, cultural traditions,and a preponderance of the tribal population. Jharkhand state isflourished with natural resources; ‘Jharkhand’ means ‘Bushland’ or‘The Land of the Forest’. About 29.61% of the total area of the Jharkhandis forest area and 40% of total minerals of the country are available ina tribal-dominated Jharkhand. PESA was enacted to make theScheduled Areas in the Fifth Schedule self-sufficient by empoweringthe Gram Sabhas as centers par excellence.


Table–2. Status of scheduled tribes in Jharkhand in contextto other PESA States

Country/ % of Tribal Rank of PESA % of Tribal TribalState Population to State in Tribal Population to Population

Total Population Population of total Population residing inof Country Jharkhand of Jharkhand Rural Areas

(Jharkhand)

India 8.6% - -Jharkhand 8.3% 6th 26.2% (2nd Rank in 91.7 %

PESA States)Source: Census Data, 2011

The main object was to decentralize the power of the central andstate governments and vest it in the hands of the local governmentsfor independent and self-sufficient governance. As shown in Table 2,the Status of Scheduled Tribe in Jharkhand in context to the otherPESA States that Jharkhand consists of 8.3 % of the total tribalpopulation of the country and ranks sixth as per the total tribalpopulation among ten PESA states.

Out of the total population of Jharkhand 26.2 % belongs to thetribal population out of which 91.7% tribals reside in Rural Areas, as aresult, the tribals are dependent for livelihood in forest wealth. Table 3depicts how many states have fully complied with the provisions ofPESA in the context of the natural resources viz. Land Acquisition,Forest Produce, Mines and Minerals, and Agri-produce Market byamending their state laws under the Central Act. Some states representbetter compliance rates such as the states of Himachal Pradesh andMadhya Pradesh whereas on the other hand there are states such asJharkhand and Telegana which are not at all complying with theprovisions of PESA Act.Table–3. State government laws in compliance with PESAStates Land Forest Mines and Agri-produce

Acquisition Produce Minerals marketAndhra Pradesh N N N NChhattisgarh Y N Y YGujarat N N Y YHimachal Pradesh Y Y Y NJharkhand N Y N NMadhya Pradesh Y N Y YMaharashtra N Y N NRajasthan N N Y NOdisha N Y Y NTelangana N N N NSource: http://www.panchayat.gov.in/ accessed on 10.10.2018Note: ‘Y’ denotes the provision has been made PESA compliant. ‘N’ denotesaction is yet to be completed.


Prior consultation before acquisition of landPrior consultation is required with the Gram Sabha or the Panchayatbefore acquiring land for development projects and before resettlementor rehabilitation of the affected persons in the scheduled areas.Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, and Madhya Pradesh have giventhis function to the different tiers of PRI but in Jharkhand, it has notbeen assigned to the Gram Sabha. In Jharkhand, there are few casesof land acquisition in different PESA districts. In 2018, the most recentand highlighted case is of the Pathalgadi-movement in the birthplaceof the tribal freedom fighter Bhagwan Birsa Munda. People supportingPathalgadi-movement rejected the government’s rights over theirnatural resources like forests and rivers promoting tribal self-rule.Ownership of minor forest produceIncluding Jharkhand, other states viz. Himachal Pradesh,Maharashtra, and Odisha have given this power to Gram Sabha orGram Panchayat. In Jharkhand, the provision has been mentioned inthe Jharkhand Panchayati Raj Act but still, there is a lack of clarityabout the items to be included under Minor Forest Produce.Prior recommendation before mining lease for minor mineralsAs per the PESA Act, prior recommendation by the Gram Sabha or bythe Panchayat at the appropriate level is required for granting ofprospecting license or mining lease for minor minerals in the scheduledareas and granting a concession for the exploitation of minor mineralsby auction. No identical pattern has emerged among the six states viz.Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh,Rajasthan, and Odisha but they have provided this provision whereasthe Jharkhand state with 40% of the total minerals of the countrywith a tribal-dominated population is lying behind in providing thisprovision to the tribals through local self-governance.Power to manage agri-produce marketPESA Act provides the power to manage village markets by whatevername they called but except Chhattisgarh, Gujarat and MadhyaPradesh other states have not provided such power to Gram Sabha orGram Panchayat. In Jharkhand, most of the villages have their localvillage markets popularly known as ‘hats’ but with no such power tomanage the specifically agri-produce market has been provided.Power to prevent alienation of landIn Jharkhand, “no power has been provided to prevent alienation ofland in the Scheduled Areas neither to take appropriate action to restoreany unlawfully alienated land of a Scheduled Tribe as per the PESAAct”. Thus, the main purpose of the PESA Act gets defeated if there is


no proper compliance made by the State Government for the welfare ofthe Scheduled Area as mentioned in the Fifth Schedule. In Jharkhand,only Forest Produces State Law has been made PESA compliant;particularly, with the ownership of minor forest produce as well as theplanning and management of minor water bodies in the ScheduledAreas.Table–4. Notified state-wise fifth schedule areasStates PESA District PESA Blocks PESA PESA

(Both Partly (Both Partly Panchayats Villagesand Fully and Fully (Both Partly (Both Partlycovered) covered) and Fully and Fully

covered) covered)

Andhra Pradesh 5 36 588 1586Madhya Pradesh 20 89 5211 2835Chhattisgarh 19 85 5050 9977Maharashtra 12 59 2835 5905Gujarat 11 40 2388 4503Odisha 13 119 1921 Not AvailableHimachal Pradesh 3 7 151 806Rajasthan 5 26 4544 Not AvailableJharkhand 16 131 2074 16022Telangana 4 72 631 Not AvailableSource: http://www.panchayat.gov.in/ accessed on 10.10.2018

In Table 4, the details of districts under each state that havecomplied with PESA. The table as mentioned earlier depicts similarinformation as the first where PESA has not been even implementedin some of the districts of the mentioned states. This shows the gapbetween enactment and implementation of the Act. Even states likeOdisha, Rajasthan, and Telangana are not having an accurate list ofthe PESA villages.

Functioning of the forest rights act

Status of claims in Jharkhand [for the period ending 28.02.2017]Jharkhand is an important state where different acts of Tribal LandRights exist, with a huge forest area and a large tribal and non-tribalpopulation depending on the forest. Though, till 30 April 2010, onlyaround 30,000 individual FRA claims have been received in whicharound 6,800 claims have been granted. It’s a surprisingly low figureand alarming for the process of implementation in Jharkhand.Furthermore, Community Forest Rights claims are also less innumbers. Those listed as CFR claims are generally for diversion fromforest activities towards the formation of cemeteries and threshinggrounds. The main objective of giving community rights to forestresources has not been achieved (Lele, Kiro, Roma & Meena, 2010).


In Table 5, the decadal increase scheduled tribe’s landlessness ishighest in Madhya Pradesh between 2000-2011. Whereas the increasein landlessness is lower than the all India average in all states exceptJharkhand percentage of marginal holdings below 1 hectare hasregistered a significant rise in all the four states. The landfragmentation has reached the lands of the Scheduled tribes. A majorportion of land has been divided and a small portion of land is still withthem due to which they are not categorized as landless.Table–6. Ranking in terms of percentage of titles distributed

over number of claims received as on 28.02.2017

Table–5. Percentage Changes in Access to Cultivated Land byScheduled Tribes, 1999-2010

Source: Status report on implementation of the Scheduled Tribes and OtherTraditional Forest Dwellers Act, 2006 [for the period ending 28.02.2017], Ministryof Tribal Affairs (GoI)


As shown in Table 6 only 42.99 percentages of claims have beendistributed over the number of claims received. Jharkhand ranks fourthwhen compared to all the districts of India and Odisha ranks first byaddressing the maximum number of claims received with 65.63percentages (https://tribal.nic.in/MPRnAddit.aspx).

All over India, only 42.99 % of claims have been distributedover the number of claims received.

In Jharkhand, out of 1,02,510 total claims received, 56,151claims proved and 27,652 rejected whereas the remaining18% of the pending claims are not reflected in the data.

Out of 24 districts, 17 are LWE affected districts. Villagesidentified in the LWE districts number are 8,723. GramSabhas and FRCs (Forest Rights Committees) have beenconstituted in 12,157 habitations/villages (GoI, 2013).

The progress of community rights and community resourcerights is very slow. In the case of community forest resourcerights, only 3,286 claims have been received, of which 1,723have been approved which is just 52.47 percent of the totalclaim. It means almost half of the community claims havebeen rejected.

Recognition of rights in Protected Areas is a non- starter inthe state. Recognition of habitat rights of ParticularlyVulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) also has not been initiateddue to a lack of clarity amongst officials on the habitat rightsof PVTGs (ibid).

Chart 1: Status of FRA Claims in Jharkhand[for the period ending 28.02.2017]

Claims distributed Claims Rejected Claims Pending

55%27%

18%

Source: Analyzed by the researcher on the basis of Status report onimplementation of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers(Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 [for the period ending 28.02.2017],Ministry of Tribal Affairs (Government of India)


Case Study: 1Inappropriate Data of FRA in Saranda Forest Area of WestSinghbhum (Jharkhand) issued by District AdministrationAfter the FRA was regulated, within four years of time span no FRAPatta was provided to anyone in the LWE Area Saranda of the DistrictWest Singhbhum. ‘Saranda Action Plan’ was formulated in betweenJuly-August of 2011 to cope up with the Maoism. In December 2013, atthe end of Saranda Action Plan, District Administration issued a reportmentioning that 905 individual claims and 3738 community claimhas been distributed after approval whereas in the Status report ofMinistry of Tribal Affairs, Govt. of India not even a single CommunityClaim has been issued in Jharkhand till 31st of Dec. 2014.

In between in a reply to a Right to Information (RTI), it wasmentioned by the District Administration that 635 individual claimsand 13 community claims of FRA has been distributed. On 17th of May,2016 the same District Administration issued a new report with thestatus of FRA with altogether new statistics i.e. 394 individual claimsand nine villages have received the Patta in the Saranda Forest Area.Hence, the Case Study reveals that how the different numbers of FRAClaims are issued in different Reports by the same DistrictAdministration in the same Saranda Forest Area.(Source: Case Study was translated from Hindi to English from Bookby George, F. M. (2016).DiscussionThere is an imperative need to look into the Panchayati Raj inScheduled Areas of Jharkhand. An official order no. 181 dated 24th ofAugust 2016 was issued by Panchayati Raj Department for theformation of a PESA Working Committee with seven members fromdistinct expertise on subject matter to submit a report with their viewsand suggestions for the formation of a state-specific PESA Guidelines.In the recent visit of the researcher in the Panchayati Raj Department(May 2019), it was informed by the officials that the state is workingon the Draft of State-specific Guidelines of the PESA based on theModel PESA Rules.

The formation of records of rights is still in the process of thestate. It also varies from time to time in the reports published by thedistrict administration. Proper documents and maps are alsounavailable in the district and field offices. There is also a dearth ofclarity amid the line department on the evidence required for OTFDsand shreds of evidence for both residence and occupation for threegenerations are required with claims from OTFDs. In spite of


clarifications provided by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs that onlyevidence for three generations residential is needed and not occupancyof land due to which the claims of OTFDs are also getting rejected. InJharkhand, claims filing process is quite less the Left Wing Extremism(LWE) affected areas because these regions are not only difficult toaccess but unawareness regarding the procedure of FRA and properguidance to them. At times claims are also not filed due to less numberof villagers attending the Gram Sabha meetings in these areas notfulfilling the quorum.

“Global Investors’ Summit” was held in Ranchi on 16th -17thFebruary 2017 by the Government of Jharkhand. It is being claimedthat 210 MOUs worth Rs.310, 287 crores have been signed with Indianand foreign corporations with job opportunities of more than two lakhjobs but no data has been released as to how much land will be seizedfrom tribals and how many of them will be deprived of their agriculturalland, forests and livelihood. Furthermore, the existing Constitutionalprovisions are also required to be operationalized and re-examined toensure tribal welfares.

In the State Land Acts, Chotanagpur Tenancy (CNT) Act andSanthal Pargana Tenancy (SPT) Act, the essential amendments aredone by the Govt (Dey, 2017). have accorded itself the absolute powerto change the land use from agricultural to non-agricultural viz. “Powerto regulate non-agricultural use : Notwithstanding anything containedin the Act for the time being in force, State Government shall framerules to regulate the non-agriculture use of land in such geographicalareas and for such uses as notified from time to time by the StateGovernment.” and the power to expand the permissibility for “transferof occupancy holding…” to include “Road, Canal, Railway, Cable,Transmission, Water Pipes and other service utility as pipelines,schools, colleges, University, Panchayat Building, Hospital, Anganwadior any public purposes/project or activity which the State Governmentmay add”. This can easily incorporate under “public purpose” bygovernments to include any and every activity of Corporate. The Govt.has empowered itself to frame Rules and issue Executive orders asrequired for the benefit of Corporate which is indirectly supportingland alienation.

On November 23, 2016; the amendment power of the governmentwas used for using agricultural land for non-agricultural purposesthrough a voice vote in the assembly to facilitate infrastructurebuilding. Initially, it was brought as Ordinances on May 21, 2016, andlater the Bill was at a fast pace pushed through the Assembly. Butafter continuous rejections in June 2017, Governor Droupadi Murmuhas returned the bills seeking amendments in decades-old twin tenancy


Acts asking the state government about its benefits to the tribal people.The Governor House had reportedly received 192 objections againstthe amendment bills.

Undoubtedly, both PESA and FRA are leading towards theachievement of Natural Resource Management through Tribal Self-rule but only in the paper until it’s been implemented accurately asper the prescribed guidelines maintaining the true spirit of theseregulations.ConclusionPanchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) focuses on ensuringtribal self-rule for people living in scheduled areas of India and ForestRights Act (FRA) protects the ownership of land for tribals or forestdwellers with their right to life and livelihood. Once the PESA will beimplemented in its true temperament, it will allow the local self-governance among the tribals. In other words, the tribal self-rule willallow them to effectively manage the forest produce and planning andmanagement of the natural resources existing in their GramPanchayats. It will lead to not only the management of NaturalResources but agriculture and land with control over mines andminerals will also come under the control of tribals. The managementof minor forest produces as well as the management of markets willcome under their jurisdiction. Consequently, Jharkhand can reinforcethe instruments of natural resource management that are participatory,consonance with the traditions of locals and sustainable bringinglivelihood security. These crucial steps will ensure social and economicstability. Ultimately, these local governance institutions should bestrengthened. The powers provided to the Gram Sabhas under PESAand FRA should be appropriately implemented in spite of just remainingin the blueprint papers. At present, the alarming situation is tosafeguard the available livelihood options through natural resourcesand support the overall development of the tribals.

PESA, which can be an unmatched weapon for the tribals is justan illusion of local self-governance. The condition of the tribals has notchanged much after the implementation of FRA and PESA inJharkhand. For these goals to be achieved and tribal rights to besecured, the chief mechanism is to ensure that effective structuresand policies of participation of the tribal population in the decision-making apparatus. While the creation of the Jharkhand State hascertainly brought decision-making closer in the scheduled areas,effective decentralization mechanisms with due space for traditionalsocial structures need to be streamlined to ensure that tribal rightsover land, forests and local resources are guaranteed. Forest RightsAct has not been implemented properly in the State; the district officials


of the state should be encouraged for better implementation of the Act.Unfortunately, to date, the development approach is not organicallylinked to the roots and not benefiting the people for whom thedevelopment is meant. The State can ensure that the tribals of itsstate are participants of the development process and not mererecipients; hence in recent years there has been a shift in thedevelopment strategy to “Rights-Based Development Approach” withthe enactment of various rights-based and pro-poor laws as Right toFood, Right to Education and the Forest Rights Act.

Conferring to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 12, there isa requirement to ensure Sustainable Consumption and Production.By 2030, achieve sustainable management and efficient use of naturalresources viz. water, mountains, forests, etc. Panchayati Raj can assurethis in Scheduled areas through the policies as mentioned earlier.Recommendations1. Altogether, for the capacity building of the Gram Sabha specific

funds, should be allocated as they play a major role in the planning,approval, and implementation of all the major schemes for naturalresources.

2. To strengthen the participation of tribals, building awareness aboutrights and contributing to their socio-economic development.Advocacy at the policy level is also required so that the presentpolicies can be brought in line with the tribal rights, not againstthem. Amendment of all the relevant laws of the differentdepartments should be made to comply with PESA.

3. The Gram Sabha in the scheduled areas should be under theprovisions of PESA and promote developmental activities relatedto the management of natural resources through sustainablemanagement practices.

4. A transparent and definite provision should be made in the RevenueLaw through a notification under Para 5(1) of the Fifth Schedulefor empowering the Gram Sabha to restore the unlawfully alienatedland to the authorized legal person.

5. There should be an appropriate synchronization between the districtand block departments for better convergence and linkage of FRAright holders which is poor in the state.

6. Despite earlier clarifications by the Ministry, JFM areas arecontinued to be converted into CFR (Community Forest Resource)though it is envisaged determination of CFR by the Gram Sabhathrough a demand-driven approach securing their livelihoods.

7. The numbers of FRA Claim issued should be maintained Panchayat-wise for all the districts so that it should not differ in differentReports by the same District Administration.


REFERENCES

Ananth, P., & Kalaivanan, S. (2017). Grassroots governance in scheduled areasin India: The way forward of PESA act. International Journal of InnovativeResearch and Advanced Studies (IJIRAS), 4(1), 18-21.

Aslam, M. (2007). Panchayati raj in India. New Delhi: Natioanl Book Trust.Bara, A. H. (2017). A critical inquiry of the rule of PESA in Jharkhand. SRSC

Seminar Proceedings. Governance, resources and livelihoods of adivasisin India: Implementation of PESA and FRA. Hyderabad: S. R. SankaranChair (Rural Labour), National Institute of Rural Development andPanchayati Raj.

Behera, B. (2009). Explaining the performance of state-community joint forestmanagement in India. Ecological Economics, 177-185.

Bijoy, C. (2012). Policy brief on panchayat raj (extension to schedule areas) act of.Delhi: UNDP.

Choubey, K. N. (2015). Enhansing PESA: The unfinished agenda. Economic andPolitical Weekly, 21-23. Retrieved from https://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf/2015_50/8/Enhancing_PESA.pdf

Dey, S. (2017, June 26). Jharkhand Governor ‘Returns’ CNT/SPT AmendmentBill. Hindustan Times, Ranchi. Retrieved from http://www.hindustantimes.com/ranchi/jharkhand-governor-returns-cnt-spt-amendment-bills/story-HHcv6TmIQ4WC31hXHBsugJ.html

George, F. M. (2016). Vanadhikar kanoon ka ek dashak in Jharkhand promiseand performance achievements, issues, challenges and learnings. Ranchi:Jharkhand Press.

Government of India .(1996). The provisions of panchayats (extension to thescheduled areas) act, 1996, No 40 of 1996. Delhi: Ministry of RuralDevelopment.

Government of India .(2008). Development challenges in extremist affected areas:Report of an expert group to Planning Commission. New Delhi: PlanningCommission of India.

Government of India. (2013). Regional Consultation on Implementation of ForestRights Act in LWE Affected Areas. Ranchi, Jharkhand: Ministry of TribalAffairs, Government of India in collaboration with United NationsDevelopment Programme. Retreived from https://tribal.nic.in/FRA/data/ProceedingsofRegionalConsultationon30-31July2013.pdf

Kindo, D. P., & Bhowmick, P. (2018). Does different land rights acts in Jharkhandleading towards development of the tribal clan? Proceedings and PolicyBrief of the National Seminar on Land Market and the Rural Poor .Hyderabad, Telangana: NIRD&PR.

Lele, S., Kiro, V., Roma, & Meena, R. (2010, July). Implementation of ForestRights Act in JHARKHAND: Report of field visit, 15-19 July 2010. Retrievedfrom https://www.fra.org.in/Jharkhand%20trip%20report-corrected%208%20Oct.pdf

Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India. (2012). Scheduled Tribes andOther Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights)Amendment Rules. Retrieved from http://fra.org.in/document/FRA%20Rule_2012_complied%20version.pdf

Oskarsson, P., & Nielsen, K. B. (2014). Development deadlock: Abortedindustrialization and blocked land restitution in West Bengal and AndhraPradesh, India. Development Studies Research : An open Access Journal,1(1), 267-278.

Pal, M. (2000, May). Panchayats in fifth scheduled areas. Economic and PoliticalWeekly, 35(19), 1602-1606. Retrieved from https://www.epw.in/journal/2000/19/commentary/panchayats-fifth-scheduled-areas.html


Rao, P. T. (2014). Tribal and land alienation in Andhra Pradesh. Journal of RuralDevelopment, 33(3), 329-342. Retrieved from http://www.nirdprojms.in/index.php/jrd/article/viewFile/93279/69119

Sahota, A. V. (2014, March-April). PESA: A ray of hope. Panchayati Raj Newlsletterof MoPR , 2(4), 2-3.

Sharan, R. (2005). Fifth schedule and tribal development in Jharkhand: Issuesand challenges. Jharkhand Journal of Development and ManagementStudies, 3(3), 1461-1492.

Sharma, B. D. (2010). Unbroken history of broken promises: Indian state and thetribal people. . New Delhi: Freedom Press and Sahyog Pustak Kuteer. .

Shirsath, S.T. (2014). Reinventing Tribal Local Governance ThroughAdministrative Reforms in India: with special reference to Fifth ScheduleArea. IMPACT: International Journal of Research in Humanities, Artsand Literature, 2(4), 15-22.

Upadhyay, V. (2002). Panchayats and paper laws: Simmering discontent on 73rdamendment. Economic and Political Weekly, 37(29), 2988-2989.


panchayati raj in scheduled areas of jharkhand …maharashtra, and rajasthan have facilitated the...

Documents