Sakti Padhi and Nilakantha Panigrahi (2011), Indian Institute of Public Administration and Chronic Poverty Research Centre, Working Paper No. 51

Critical review of major tribal policies and programmes of the state of Orissa shows that the various developmental policies of the state of Orissa have had negative impact on tribal people’s access to and structure of livelihood.

It is well known that access to forest land and forest produce plays a critical role in the livelihood of the tribal people. However, instead of nurturing tribal livelihood, developmental interventions in India have mainly resulted in curtailment of tribal people’s access to traditional sources of livelihood. The situation of tribal people in the state of Orissa, is no different from those in other states of the country. Recently the state has witnessed increasing tribal resistance and protests against state encroachment on their land rights.

In this paper Padhi and Panigrahi discuss the major tribal policies and programmes of the state of Orissa and assess the role and impact of development interventions of the state, in promoting and protecting tribal livelihoods.

Discussing the impact of state interventions on the livelihood of the tribal people, the authors note that because of faulty the land-reforms in the post-Independence era, tribal people have lost significant amount of land over which they had customary usufructuary rights. Regarding land use and tenure systems, the authors argue that over the decades, because of denial of rights over shifting lands, restrictive forest policies, loss of land etc., the practice of shifting cultivation – a major source of tribal people’s livelihood – has declined.

The forest related policies of the government too have severely curtailed the tribal people’s access to forest and forest produce. Instead of protecting the rights of the local people, declaration of several reserve and protected forests have been done without settlement of rights or providing adequate recognition of rights on land used for shifting cultivation. Further, deforestation associated with various development projects, such as mining, dams, etc., have adversely affected tribal people’s livelihood resources – the mainstay of their food and economic security. In addition, unfair trade practices of traders, middlemen and forest contractors have resulted in tribal people not getting remunerative prices for sale of non-timber forest produce (NTFP).

Despite adoption of policies to ensure optimal collection, fair-price fixation (through nationalisation of trade of kendu leaf etc.) and marketing of NTFPs, exploitation of tribal people continue unchecked. Non-responsive attitudes of the procurement agencies, the authors contend, is one of the factors responsible for this. These factors have adversely affected one of the most important sources of food and livelihood of the poor tribal population. Faced with dwindling sources of livelihood, many tribal people have become indebted to local non-tribal moneylenders. Policies formulated to provide tribal people with loans for seasonal agriculture and for the creation of farm assets, have not been successful in easing the problem of their indebtedness.  

The authors then extensively document the various programmes, laws and policies initiated by the government since the First Five Year Plan for the upliftment of the tribal communities. They argue that various policies adopted in the first three plans (e.g. Multipurpose Tribal Blocks in the First plan, establishment of 500 Tribal Development (TD) Blocks during the Third Plan) suffered from inherent deficiencies. A major shift in approach was initiated in the Fifth Five Year Plan. The Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP) approach initiated in this period, aimed to reduce tribal people’s exploitation due to land alienation, bonded labour, low payment for forest products and improve their overall socio-economic status. To this end, allocation of funds for tribal development was streamlined and demarcated from State and Central Outlays. In this context, the authors note that, while the growth rates of expenditure in TSP areas grew significantly in during the Fifth Plan, it has come down drastically since then.

Assessing the various livelihood enhancement programmes for tribal people, the authors argue that special projects initiated in the state, have not delivered the results expected of them. Because of inconsistencies in the use and the flow of funds, the special micro-projects for PGTs, for example, are yet to have much positive impact on these communities. Similarly, the Revised Long-Term Action Plan (RLTAP) for the backward Koraput-Bolangir and Kalahandi (KBK) Districts, aimed at increasing access to welfare services, have not delivered. Deficiencies in the primary health service delivery, poor delivery of basic life-support systems because of the inadequate growth of infrastructure, increase in starvation deaths etc. continue to plague the regions. A recent initiative of the government, Western Orissa Rural Livelihoods Project (WORLP), funded by various international development agencies, is however, showing some success. The project has built up several watersheds, encouraged better water management as well as helped transfer low-cost irrigation technologies, among other things.

On the whole, neglect of the concerns of the tribal people, inherent deficiencies in tribal policies and programmes have failed to improve socio-economic status of the tribal communities in Orissa. In addition, industrialisation policies and rampant exploitation of mining resources of the state, by both national and international companies, have added to the pathetic state of conditions. The authors point out that the various mining and industrial projects in the state have led to displacement of the tribal population, depletion of forest resources, destruction of natural vegetation. The number of protests and opposition to all major projects too has increased. In some cases, protests by the tribal people (for instance, in Kashipur, 1996) have helped to stop work of the companies and thereby protect their indigenous productive forces. These movements, the authors say, “have contributed to strengthening the sporadic articulations by tribal people to organised protests and have led to the recognition that there is need to review the approaches and strategies of development interventions of the state”.

The authors conclude on the note that the ‘mainstreaming’ of tribal people requires that in addition to ensuring access to and sustainable management of livelihood, policies for enhancement of capabilities are also brought in. Therefore policy approach should go beyond merely ensuring subsistence income and should strive to increase tribal communities’ “access to institutions and institutional resources in general and to social and economic services in particular”. Creating awareness about their rights to such services would help to “contribute to strengthening the organised articulation of the fundamental livelihood struggles of tribal people”.