Chameleon Schüler GmbH . Chameleon TeeTee / PlantagePlantage Adivasi Projekte ATP.
Political Economy of Hunger in Adivasi Areas - A survey research by the Centre for Environment and...
-
Upload
peoples-archive-of-rural-india -
Category
Documents
-
view
1.313 -
download
0
Transcript of Political Economy of Hunger in Adivasi Areas - A survey research by the Centre for Environment and...
Political Economy of Hunger in
Adivasi Areas
Centre for Environment and Food Security
New Delhi, 2005
1
Political Economy of Hunger in
Adivasi Areas A Survey Research on Hunger in Adivasi Areas of Rajasthan & Jharkhand
Supported by:
HIVOS
Centre for Environment and Food Security
New Delhi, 2005
2
Contents
Preface 3-5
Part – I 6-77
Executive Summary of Survey Report 6-18
Background information about Sample States and Districts 19-27
Key findings of Survey 28-77
Part – II 78-122
Political Economy of Hunger in Adivasi areas of India 78-122
Annexure - Tabulated data of Survey i-xix
3
Preface
Political economy of hunger in Adivasi areas is inextricably linked to the political
ecology of development in post-Independence India. While the benefits of economic
growth and industrial development have substantially gone to the rich sections of the
society living in cities and towns, the ecological price of that progress has been
largely borne by poor communities of rural India, especially Adivasis. The 28th and
29th Reports of the Commissioner for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes in
1989 and 1990 reported that ‘colonization of tribals’ has been carried out in the
name of development, which has pushed the tribal people to the brink of survival.
A quick review of the major ‘hunger-events’ hogging the limelight in cosmopolitan
media in the last 25 years suggests that almost all the ‘hunger hot-spots’ of India lie
in the Adivasi areas and almost every starvation-victim is an Adivasi. What makes
Adivasis so vulnerable to starvation and endemic hunger? This survey research on
the “Political economy of hunger in Adivasi areas of Rajasthan and Jharkhand” is a
very tiny but sincere effort to get an answer to this vexed question.
The governments would like us to believe that hunger in tribal areas is because of
occasional droughts and “collapsed” PDS (Public Distribution System) in these areas.
But ‘collapsed’ PDS or drought are not even the tip of ‘hunger-iceberg’ in the Adivasi
areas. The germs of the malady lie much deeper. The core of this problem lies in the
structural changes in Adivasi economy in the last five and a half decades that have
depleted and destroyed the traditional livelihoods and food systems of these
communities.
Immediately after Independence, the Nehruvian development paradigm embarked
on building “temples of modern India”. The social and ecological costs of this
development have been largely borne by country’s Adivasi communities in terms of
physical displacement, destruction of subsistence base and gradual alienation from
4
natural resources. It is these starving, hungry and poor Adivasis who have been
made to pay the “price of progress”. It is the same Adivasis whose survival base has
been sacrificed at the altar of “national interest” and “greater common good”.
These are the same people whose sources of livelihood have been appropriated by
invoking the “colonial Brahmastra” (ultimate weapon) of “eminent domain" of the
State. Whether it is mining or construction of big dams and mega power projects,
protection of forest or conservation of wildlife, Adivasis’ lives and livelihoods bore the
biggest brunt. The crisis has been further aggravated by the policies of globalization
and economic liberalization. Not only the promised “trickle – downs" dried up midway
but it is the same Adivasis, Dalits and poor who have been asked to pay the price of
Structural Adjustment Programmes, reduction in fiscal deficit, financial prudence, a
steep reduction in food subsidy and other social sector allocations etc.
This Report on the “Political economy of hunger in Adivasi areas of Rajasthan and
Jharkhand” is the outcome of both primary and secondary research on the issue
carried out during last two years by the Centre for Environment and Food security
(CEFS). This study is broadly divided into two parts. Part-I consists of the key
findings of the field survey on “hunger in Adivasi areas of Rajasthan and Jharkhand”
carried out among one thousand Adivasi households of these two states. Part-II of
this report is the outcome of our secondary research on the “Political economy of
hunger in Adivasi areas of India”.
This research report would not have been possible but for the generous help, kind
cooperation and unstinted support of innumerable activists, academics, experts,
NGOs and research institutes during this study. It is difficult to mention here names
of all those individuals and institutes who have helped us during this research study.
First and foremost, I must acknowledge that this study owes a lot to Prof. Ashis
Nandy and Dr. Prodipto Roy, not only for their expert advice and guidance for this
research, but also for the immense generosity and great dignity shown during all
5
their support. Secondly, we are grateful to all the researchers and field investigators
who worked very hard to make this study possible. I must thank Mr. Saji M Kadvil,
Ms. Swati Baijal, Ms. Richa Bansal and Ms. Satya Singh for their sincerity in
research and research assistance for this study. I am so grateful to Dr. Shruti
Kshirsagar and Dr. Archana Sharma for their hard work during the field survey in
Udaipur and Dungarpur districts of Rajasthan. The field survey in Udaipur and
Dungarpur owes a lot to ASTHA (Udaipur) and Shri. Bhanwar Singh for helping us in
organizing the logistics for the field survey. I am also greatful to many activists of
Udaipur like, Shri. Kishore Saint, Shri. Mohan Singh Danghi and many others for all
their help.
The field survey in Jharkhand owes a lot to Mr. Shekhar from Ranchi. We are
grateful to him for all the help and support he provided us in organizing the logistics
for field survey in West Singhbhum and Gumla districts. Ms. Jyotsna Tirkey, Mr. Amit
Paty, Ms. Laxmi, Mr Jyoti Kumar and Mr. Suraj Kumar worked very hard during field
survey in West Singhbhum & Gumla districts. We are also grateful to Dr. Ramesh
Sharan and all those people from Jharkhand who helped us during our field research.
Last but not the least, this study would not have been possible but for the generous
grant provided by Hivos. Ms. Jamuna Ramakrishna from Hivos deserves special
thanks for her promptness, patience and utmost dignity shown during all her
dealings with CEFS.
Parshuram Rai
October 12th 2005
(Vijayadashmi)
6
Part- I
Executive summary of survey research on hunger and poverty in
Adivasi areas of Rajasthan and Jharkhand
Out of a total 1000 sample Adivasi households from 40 sample villages in Rajasthan
and Jharkhand surveyed for this study, a staggering 99 per cent were facing chronic
hunger. The data gathered during this survey suggests that 25.2 percent of surveyed
Adivasi households had faced semi-starvation during the previous week of the
survey. This survey found that 24.1 percent of the surveyed Adivasi households had
lived in semi-starvation condition throughout the previous month of the survey. Over
99 per cent of the Adivasi households had lived with one or another level of endemic
hunger and food insecurity during the whole previous year. Moreover, out of 500
sample Adivasi households surveyed in Rajasthan, not a single one had secured
two square meals for the whole previous year.
Daily hunger Profile
Amongst total 1000 households asked as to whether they had eaten two square
meals on the previous day of the survey, only four respondents (0.4 per cent), two
each from Rajasthan & Jharkhand said that they had eaten two square meals on the
previous day. When they were asked whether they could get one square meal plus
one poor/partial meal on the previous day, only five households (0.5 per cent)
replied yes. Out of the remaining households, 47.9 per cent had eaten two
poor/partial meals, 34.7 per cent got one poor/partial meal plus one distress meal,
11.3 per cent could get just one poor/partial meal, 0.2 per cent had eaten only one
distress meal and 5 per cent of the surveyed Adivasis could eat only jungle food on
the previous day of the survey.
7
This data suggests that at least 16.5 percent of the surveyed Adivasi households
had eaten either just one poor/partial meal or one distress meal or only jungle food
on the previous day of the survey. In other words, at least 16.5 per cent of sample
Adivasi households were facing either starvation or semi-starvation on the previous
day of the survey. While only nine families (1.8 per cent) in Rajasthan had survived
on Jungle food, 41 Adivasi households (8.2 per cent) in Jharkhand had to make do
with only jungle food on the previous day of the survey.
Proportion of Jungle food in total food intake on previous day
A staggering 62.4 per cent of sample Adivasi households said that the proportion of
jungle food in their previous day’s diet was zero, 16.9 per cent samples said that
one-fourth of their diet on the previous day consisted of jungle food, 9.9 per cent
families said that half of their diet on the previous day consisted of jungle food, 5.8
per cent said that it was three-fourth and 5 per cent Adivasi households said that
their full diet on the previous day consisted of only Jungle food. This data again
reinforces the previous finding that 5 per cent of Adivasis had eaten nothing but
jungle food on the previous day of survey. The use, access and availability of jungle
food and Minor Forest Produce (MFP) in Jharkhand (especially in West Singhbhum
district) is very high in comparison to that in Rajasthan. In the West Singhbhum
district of Jharkhand, MFP is still a major source of livelihood for many Adivasi
households.
Protein (Pulses & animal products) eaten on previous day
An alarming proportion of 76.6 per cent Adivasi households said that they could not
afford any pulse or animal product on the previous day of the survey. Only 23.4 per
cent of the samples had eaten some pulses or animal products on the previous day.
While 112 (22.4 per cent) samples from Rajasthan had eaten some pulses or animal
products, 122 (24.4 per cent) samples from Jharkhand were able to secure some
pulses or animal products on the previous day. While 388 (77.6 per cent) samples
8
from Rajasthan could not afford any pulse or animal product on the previous day of
survey, the corresponding figure for Jharkhand was 378 (75.6 per cent).
Weekly Hunger Profile
To assess and ascertain the weekly state of hunger and food insecurity among
Adivasi households, they were asked as to what category of food was secured by
them for how many days of the previous week. When they were asked as to whether
they had eaten two square meals on all 7 days of the previous week, only one
respondent (0.01 per cent) replied yes. The remaining 999 (99.9 per cent)
households said that they could not get two square meals even on a single day of
the previous week. When asked as to how many of them for how many days of the
previous week could secure one square meal plus one poor/partial meal, 98.9 per
cent said that they could not afford this kind of food even for a single day of the
previous week. This weekly data on hunger again confirms that about 99 per cent of
Adivasi households in Rajasthan and Jharkhand were facing chronic hunger.
Only 216 (21.6 percent) out of 1000 surveyed households were able to secure even
two poor/partial meals on all seven days of the previous week.57 sample families
(5.7 per cent) had secured two poor/partial meals for 6 days of the previous week,
103 families (10.3 per cent) for 5 days of the week, 70 families (7 per cent) for 4
days, 59 families (5.9 per cent) for 3 days, 62 families (6.2 per cent) for only 2 days
of the week and 18 sample families (1.8 per cent) for just 1 day of the previous week.
Another 214 (21.4 percent) of the households had survived throughout the week on
just one poor/partial meal plus one distress meal per day. 99 sample Adivasi
households (9.9 per cent) had eaten one poor/partial meal plus one distress meal for
5 days of the previous week, 66 families (6.6 per cent) for four days of the week, 76
households (7.6 per cent) for 3 days of the week, 112 families (11.2 per cent) for 2
days and 71 families (7.1 per cent) for only one day of the previous week.
9
2.8 percent of the households had survived by eating just one poor/partial meal a
day throughout the previous week. 30 sample families (3 per cent) had eaten just
one poor/partial meal for 5 days of the previous week, 40 samples (4 per cent) for
four days of the week, 58 families (5.8 per cent) for 3 days of the week and 96
families (9.6 per cent) for 2 days of the week. This data suggests that 25.2 percent
of surveyed Adivasi households in Rajasthan and Jharkhand had eaten only one
poor/partial meal for 2-7 days of the previous week.
Ten Adivasi households (1 per cent) could barely secure one distress meal- a-day
throughout the previous week. Another three families had eaten only distress food
for 6 days of the week, 7 families for 3 days of the week and 11 families for 2 days of
the previous week. This data suggests that 31 (3.1 per cent) Adivasi families had
eaten either for the whole previous week or for a significant part of it only one
distress meal-a-day.
The data on weekly hunger clearly suggests that 28.3 per cent of sample Adivasi
households had survived for the whole or significant part of the previous week by
eating just one distress meal-a-day or one poor/ partial meal- a- day. In other words,
28.3 per cent of sample households had lived in semi-starvation condition during the
previous week of survey.
Jungle food consumption during previous week
Among the total sample Adivasi households, 62 per cent said that they did not eat
any jungle food during the previous week of survey, 15.2 per cent said that
approximately one-fourth of their diet consisted of jungle food during previous one
week, 8.2 per cent samples said that half of their diet during the week consisted of
jungle food, 6.7 per cent said that it was up to three-fourth and 7.9 per cent samples
said that 75-100 per cent of their previous week’s diet consisted of jungle food only.
10
Protein (pulses & animal products) consumption during previous week
40.2 per cent of sample Adivasi households could not afford any pulse or animal
product even for a single day of the previous week. 20.8 per cent samples could
afford these items for just one day of the week, 22 per cent for 2 days in the week,
8.3 per cent for 3 days, 4.6 per cent for 4 days, 2.1 per cent for 5 days, 0.4 per cent
for 6 days and only 1.6 per cent of samples had eaten some source of protein on all
7 days of the previous week.
Monthly Hunger Profile
998 households (99.8 per cent) said that they could not secure two square meals
even for a single day of the previous month. Out of the remaining two households,
one had got two square meals on just one day of the previous month and only one
household (0.01 per cent) had taken two square meals for the whole month. Not a
single of the 500 households surveyed in Rajasthan had eaten two square meals
even on a single day of the previous month. When asked as to how many of them
for how many days of the previous month could afford one square meal plus one
poor/partial meal a day, the answer was no less shocking. A staggering 98.4 per
cent of the households said that they could not secure for a single day of the
previous month even this kind of food. The data on monthly hunger profile suggests
that since only one family had secured two square meals and another two families
had secured one square meal plus one poor/partial meal for the full month, the
remaining 997 Adivasi households (99.7 percent) were facing chronic hunger during
the previous month of the survey.
When asked as for how many days of the previous month they had secured two
poor/partial meals a day, 36 per cent said that they could not get this kind of food
even for a single day of the previous month and only 15.2 per cent said that they had
eaten this kind of food for the whole month. 13.7 per cent of the sample households
had eaten this category of food for 25-30 days, 11.3 per cent for 20-25 days, 7.4 per
11
cent for 15-20 days, 11.4 per cent for 10-15 days and 3 per cent of households had
eaten this kind of food for 5 days of the previous month.
When asked as for how many days of the previous month they had eaten one
poor/partial meal plus one distress meal a day, 14.5 per cent of total samples said
that for the whole month they had eaten only this kind of food, 11.8 per cent for 10-
15 days of the month, 10.9 per cent for 15-20 days, 14 per cent had eaten for 20-25
days and 3.6 per cent for 25-30 days of the previous month. While 12.4 per cent
Adivasi households from Rajasthan had eaten only this category of food on all days
of the previous month, 16.6 per cent samples from Jharkhand had eaten this kind of
food on all days of the previous month. 5 per cent of samples from Rajasthan had
eaten this kind of food for 25-30 days, 11.2 per cent for 20-25 days, 10.6 per cent for
15-20 days and 11.2 per cent for 10-15 days. The respecti ve figures for Jharkhand
are 2.2 per cent, 16.8 per cent, 11.2 per cent and 12.4 per cent.
When asked as for how many days of the previous month they had survived only on
one poor/partial meal, 1.9 per cent among total samples said that for the whole
previous month they could secure only this kind of food, 1.1 per cent for 25-30 days
of the month, 3.2 per cent for 20-25 days of the month, 3.9 per cent for 15-20 days
of the month and 14 per cent of the Adivasi households had survived on this kind of
food for 10-15 days of the previous month. This data suggests that 24.1 percent of
the surveyed Adivasi households had eaten only one poor/ partial meal-a-day for 10-
30 days of the previous month.
Two Adivasi households among total samples had survived the full previous month
by eating only one distress meal-a-day, one sample for 25-30 days, two samples for
20-25 days, 5 samples for 15-20 days, 20 samples for 10-15 days, 3 samples for 8
days and another 20 samples for 5 days of the previous month. The data on this
count suggests that 5.4 per cent of Adivasi households had survived for more than 5
days of the previous month only eating this category of food. The proportion of
12
samples surviving only on this category of food for more than 10 days of the month
is 3.4 per cent.
Three families from the total samples had no food at all for 10 days of the previous
month, 1 sample for 8 days of the month, 5 samples for 5 days, 7 samples for 4 days,
another 5 samples for 3 days, another 7 samples for 2 days and 3 samples for one
day had no food at all. It is interesting to note that all except one of these samples
are from Rajasthan. While only one family from Jharkhand could not secure any food
for 5 days of the previous month, there were 30 families from Rajasthan who could
not eat any food for 1-10 days of the previous month. This variation is most probably
because of higher availability of jungle food and minor forest produce in Jharkhand
in comparison to Rajasthan. Rajasthan sample villages had very scarce jungle food.
The monthly hunger profile of the sample Adivasi households clearly shows that
24.1 percent of the households had eaten only one poor/ partial meal-a-day for 10-
30 days of the previous month, 3.4 per cent of the households had survived by
eating only one distress meal-a-day for more than 10 days and 2.8 per cent samples
had not eaten any food for 2-10 days of the previous month. This data suggests that
30.3 per cent of Adivasi households were facing semi-starvation during the previous
month of survey.
Jungle food consumption during previous month
59.9 per cent of sample households said that they did not eat any jungle food during
the previous one month of survey. 18.3 per cent said that approximately one-fourth
of their diet consisted of jungle food during previous one month, 7 per cent samples
said that half of their diet during the month consisted of jungle food, 7.9 per cent said
that it was up to three-fourth and 6.9 per cent samples said that about 75-100 per
cent of their previous month’s diet consisted of jungle food only.
13
Protein (pulses& animal products) consumption during previous month
33.3 per cent of samples could not get any pulse or animal product even on a single
day of the previous month. 3.7 per cent could get it on just one day, 10.7 per cent for
two days of the month, 6.5 per cent for three days, 8 per cent for four days, 10.4 per
cent for five days, 2.8 per cent for six days, 2.5 per cent for seven days, 5.7 per cent
for eight days, 0.2 per cent for nine days, another 5.7 per cent for ten days, 6 per
cent for 12-15 days, and remaining 4.5 per cent samples for 16-30 days of the
month. These figures suggest that only 10.5 per cent of Adivasi households could
eat some pulses or animal products for 12-30 days of the previous month. The
remaining 89.5 per cent of samples either did not get these items at all or did not get
for more than ten days of the month.
Annual Hunger Profile
A staggering 99.8 per cent of Adivasi households said that they could not get two
square meals even for a single month of the previous year. Of the remaining two
samples, one had secured two square meals only for one month and just one (0.1
per cent) had eaten two square meals for the whole previous year. Therefore, it is
clear that 99.9 per cent of surveyed households were facing one or another level of
hunger and food insecurity throughout the previous year. Moreover, out of 500
sample Adivasi households surveyed in Rajasthan, not a single had secured two
square meals for the whole previous year. Therefore, it is extremely distressing to
note that 100 per cent of sample Adivasi households in Rajasthan were facing
chronic hunger throughout the previous year. When asked as for how many months
of the previous year they could secure one square meal plus one poor/partial meal a
day, 99 per cent of the samples said that they did not get this kind of food even for a
single month of the previous year. Two samples had secured this category of food
for 11-12 months, one for 10 months, one for 8 months, one for 6 months, one for 5
months, one for 4 months and three samples had secured this kind of food for just 1
month of the previous year.
14
When asked as for how many months of the previous year they did manage to get
two poor/partial meals -a-day, only 8.1 per cent of total samples said that they could
afford this kind of food for all months of the previous year. 27 per cent of the
respondents said that they did not get this kind of food even for a single month of the
previous year. 2.2 per cent of the respondents had secured this kind of food just for
1 month of the year, 8.7 per cent for 2 months, 4.2 per cent for 3 months , 19.2 per
cent for 4 months, 7.7 per cent for 6 months, 7.4 per cent for 8 months, 6.1 per cent
for 10 months and just 8.1 per cent of the Adivasi households had secured this kind
of food for 12 months of the previous year.
When asked as for how many months of the previous year they did get one poor/
partial meal plus one distress meal-a-day, only 2.7 per cent said that they had
secured this kind of food throughout the year, 21.7 per cent of the samples could not
get this kind of food even for a single month of the year. 7.7 per cent of the
households had eaten this kind of food for 2 months of the previous year, 15.7 per
cent for 4 months, 17.9 per cent for 6 months, 14.1 per cent for 8 months and 3.1
per cent had eaten this kind of food for 10 months of the previous year.
When asked as for how many months of the previous year they had to survive on
just one poor/partial meal–a-day, 1.3 per cent said that they could get only this kind
of food for the whole year, 3 per cent had to survive on this kind of food for 8 months
of the previous year, 2.7 per cent for 6 months of the year, 15.6 per cent for 4
months, 23.8 per cent for 2 months and 10.8 per cent of Adivasis had to make do
only with this kind of food for 1 month of the previous year. This data implies that
22.6 per cent of Adivasi households in these sample states had to survive only on
this kind of food for 4-12 months of the previous year.
There were 11 (1.1 per cent) Adivasi households who had survived by eating only
distress food for 5-11 months of the previous year. Another 39 (3.9 per cent) families
could eat only this kind of food for 4 months, 50 (5 per cent) families for 3 months,
102 (10.2 per cent) families for 2 months and 77 (7.7 per cent) families for 1 month
15
of the previous year. This data implies that 10 per cent of sample Adivasi
households had to survive only on distress food for 3-11 months of the
previous year. If this figure is combined with 22.6 per cent of samples who had
survived for 4-12 months only on one poor/ partial meal, we get a very
disturbing figure of 32.6 per cent of sample Adivasi households living in semi-
starvation during the previous one year of survey.
There were 3 (0.3 per cent) Adivasi households who had survived on only jungle
food for 2 months and 26 (2.6 per cent) samples for 1 month of the previous year. All
3 samples who had survived on jungle food for 2 months were from Rajasthan. Out
of the 26 samples who could get only jungle food for 1 month of the previous year, 9
(0.9 per cent) were from Rajasthan and 17 (1.7 per cent) were from Jharkhand.
There were 57 (5.7 per cent) Adivasi households who had not eaten any food
whatsoever for one month of the previous year. However, this state of hunger was
not suffered at a single stretch but was spread over the whole year. Therefore, it
does not necessarily cause “starvation deaths”. But this is definitely a firm indicator
of the state of semi-starvation prevailing in this group of Adivasi households. Out of
these 57 samples, 42 (4.2 per cent) were from Rajasthan and only 15 (1.5 per cent)
from Jharkhand.
Jungle food consumption during previous one year
51.4 per cent of households said that they did not eat any jungle food during the
previous one year of survey. 23.2 per cent said that approximately one-fourth of their
diet consisted of jungle food during previous one year, 7.9 per cent samples said
that half of their diet during the year consisted of jungle food, 9.1 per cent said that it
was up to three-fourth and 8.4 per cent samples said that 75-100 per cent of their
previous year’s diet consisted of jungle food.
16
Protein (pulses & animal products) consumption during previous year
30.8 per cent of sample households in Rajasthan and Jharkhand could not secure
any pulse or animal product even for one month of the previous year. Less than 1
per cent of sample households were able to eat some pulses or animal products
during the whole previous year. 3.8 per cent could secure these items for 7-11
months, 8 per cent of samples had eaten these protein sources between 4-6 months ,
7.3 per cent for three months, 19.4 per cent households had eaten these items for
two months and 29.2 per cent households were able to eat these sources of protein
hardly for one month in the previous year. To put these figures differently, 86.7 per
cent of Adivasi households in Rajasthan and Jharkhand either could not eat any
pulse & animal product or did eat for hardly three months during the year. Therefore,
these figures clearly suggest that at least 86.7 per cent of Adivasi households were
suffering from severe protein deficiency and were vulnerable to many opportunistic
diseases. Severe protein deficiency among Adivasi children is responsible for very
high infant mortality rate in these areas and this problem has now assumed alarming
proportions in Adivasi areas of India.
Food Stocks at Home
To assess and understand the immediate level of hunger and food security of the
Adivasi households, they were asked as to how much of food stock they had at
home. 4.7 per cent of the households had no food stock at all on the day of survey,
18.7 per cent had less than 10 kg of food grains at home, 45.9 per cent of them had
less than 50 kg, 15.9 per cent had less than 100 kg, 13 per cent had between 100-
150kg, 3.4 per cent 150-200 kg, 6.5 per cent had 200-250 kg, 1.3 per cent between
250-300 kg, 4 per cent between 300-350 kg, 0.4 per cent had between 350-400 kg
and there were only 9.7 per cent of households who had more than 400 kg of food
grains at their home on the day of survey.
17
Adivasis’ own perception about their state of food security
To get Adivasis’ own perception about their current state of food security in
comparison to that 2-3 decades ago, they were asked as to whether their household
food security had improved or weakened in last 25 years. A staggering 90.6 percent
of total samples said that their food security had weakened.
Reasons for decline in food security
To know Adivasis’ views about the processes and main reasons behind the decline
in their household food security in recent past, they were asked to identify three
main reasons for the same out of a list of 9 probable reasons (1. Land alienation;
2.Decline in MFP/deforestation/degradation; 3.Decline in livestock; 4.Decline in
actual wages; 5.Decline in work availability; 6. Growth in family size; 7. Development
projects; 8.Conservation of forests/wildlife; 9.Others) given to them. 54.9 per cent of
the respondents identified decline in availability of minor forest produce (MFP) due
to deforestation and degradation of forests as the most important reason for
weakening of their food security.
Access & availability of PDS
While Rajasthan and Jharkhand had a combined proportion of 74 per cent of sample
households possessing ration cards and only 26 per cent without ration cards, the
segregated data of both these sample states gives a strikingly different picture.
While only 6.2 per cent of Rajasthan households were without ration cards, 45.8 per
cent of Jharkhand Adivasi households did not possess any ration card.
Out of the combined proportion of 74 per cent of households in possession of ration
cards in two sample States, 40.5 per cent of households possessed APL (above
poverty line) cards, 50.1 per cent had got BPL (below poverty line) cards, 9.2 per
cent had Antyodaya cards and only 0.1 per cent possessed Annapoorna cards. Out
18
of 50.1 per cent card holding samples who had BPL cards, only a tiny 9.2 per cent
households said that they were getting their regular quota of ration. Remaining 90.8
per cent samples were taking either partial or no ration at all. While 13.1 per cent of
BPL samples from Rajasthan said that they were availing their regular quota of
ration, only 3.8 per cent of Jharkhand samples could say so.
PDS supplier’s refusal to give full quota was the biggest reason for Adivasis’ inability
to avail their full ration entitlement; because the highest proportion of samples (28.2
per cent) identified this as reason for the same. An overwhelming 80.9 percent of
Adivasi households were not satisfied with the functioning of PDS shops and
behaviour of PDS dealers. Our data has revealed slightly better functioning of PDS
shops in Rajasthan in comparison to Jharkhand. While the proportion of dissatisfied
households was 75.7 per cent in Rajasthan, that proportion in Jharkhand was as
high as 87.9 percent.
19
Background information about sample states and districts
Adivasis constitute 8% (83,580,63 in the Census, 2001) of the total population of
India, consisting of 461 groups. Among them about eighty percent live in the ‘central
belt’, extending from Gujarat and Rajasthan in the west to West Bengal and Tripura
in the east, and across the states of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh,
Bihar, Jharkhand and Orissa. Most of the remaining twenty percent live in the North
Eastern States of Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim
and in the Island Union territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Andaman and Nicobar,
and Lakshadweep. A few of them live in the southern states of Kerala, Tamil Nadu
and Karnataka. Andhra Pradesh has the largest concentration of tribal population
among the southern states of India. About 95% of Adivasis live in rural areas, less
than 10% are itinerant hunter-gatherers but more than half depend upon forest
produce for their livelihood.
According to the 1991 Census figures, 42.02 percent of the Scheduled Tribe
populations were main workers; of whom 54.50 percent were cultivators and 32.69
per cent agricultural laborers. Thus, about 87 percent of the main workers from
these communities were engaged in primary sector activities. The literacy rate of
Scheduled Tribes is around 29.60 percent, as against the national average of 52
percent. More than three-quarters of Scheduled Tribe women are illiterate. These
disparities are compounded by higher dropout rates in formal education resulting in
disproportionately low representation in higher education. Not surprisingly, the
cumulative effect has been that the proportion of Scheduled Tribes below the
poverty line is substantially higher than the national average. The estimate of
poverty made by Planning Commission for the year 1993-94 shows that 51.92
percent rural and 41.4 percent urban Scheduled Tribes were still living below the
poverty line.
20
Rajasthan
According to 1991 Census, Adivasis consititute 12.4 Per cent (31,25,506) of
Rajasthan’s total population. However, the southern districts of Udaipur, Banswara,
Dungarpur, Chittorgarh, Rajsamand and Sirohi have a tribal population which is over
70% of the total population. Two prominent scheduled Tribes of Rajasthan are the
Bhils and the Meenas. The Bhils are mostly concentrated in the hill-locked districts
of Udaipur, Dungarpur and Banswara while the Meenas are settled mainly in Jaipur,
Sawai- Madhopur and Udaipur districts. Other Scheduled Tribes of Rajasthan are
Garasias and the Sahrias. The Garasias are concentrated in Pali and Sirohi districts,
while Sahrias are limited to a pocket of two tehsils in Baran district. Bhils form the
most significant tribal group in the State. Saharias are the most undeveloped tribes
of Rajasthan.
Adivasi dominated southern Rajasthan is rich in forests, forest wealth, mines,
minerals and stone quarries, fertile lands and rivers, with a high average rainfall
which sets it apart from the rest of arid Rajasthan, used to be one of the most lush
and wealthy areas of Rajasthan. Fifty eight years of ‘independence’ and ‘freedom’
have left it naked and deforested, covered with the open sores of indiscriminate
mining. All its forest and mineral wealth have been drained to enrich the non-tribal
populations. The tribals, through a process of ‘internal colonisation’, have been
marginalised over the years and have yet to understand how centrally-made rules,
regulations and laws in faraway Delhi and Jaipur have deprived them of all their
natural resources and wealth.
Udaipur
Out of total 11 Panchayat Samittees in Udaipur district, 7 are in Tribal and 4 are in
general area. Because of this reason the Udaipur district is regarded as Tribal
dominated. Only 17% of the total geographical area of district is under cultivation.
The main Kharif crop of the district is Maize, which is staple food of the farmers of
this region. The average annual Rain-Fall of the district is 673 mm. The Adivasi
population in Udaipur district is 963712 (1991 census).
21
List of sample villages
Village Panchayat Tehsil
Samoli Samoli Kotra
Rajpur Gura Kotra
Sada Sada Kotra
Tibarni Ka Khet Dang Kotra
Sirval Malwa Ka Chaura Kotra
Varela Gudail Salumbar
Bicchri Bicchri Girwa
Parei Kharbar Sarada
Kharbar Kharbar Sarada
Kyari Kyari Sarada
Dungarpur
Dungarpur district is situated in southern most part of Rajasthan. In East and North it
borders on Banswara and Udaipur districts respectively while it adjoins the State of
Gujrat in South & West. Dungarpur is the smallest district of the state covering
385592 hacts only, which is 1.13% of the total area of Rajasthan. Most parts of the
district are hilly. The over all land productivity is rated to be low for the whole district
with somewhat better conditions found in its southern & western corners. The
average rainfall of the district is 710mm.According to 2001 census, the total
population of the district is 1107037, just 1.967% of the total population of State. The
percentage of ST population in the district as per 1991 census is 65.84.Most of the
district is inhabited by Bhil Adivasis who live in widely dispersed villages.
As per 2001 census, the percentage of working, marginal and non- working
population is 24.63, 23.75 and 51.62 respectively. The main occupation of working
population is agriculture. The total geographical area of district is 385592 hects as
per land records. Out of this 186784 hects is cultivable and 134786 hect. is
uncultivable. During 2001-2002 the gross cultivated area was 150904 hect. while net
22
area sown was 121005 hect. and 61241 hect. was forest land. The percentage of
area sown against total geographical area was 31.38 while percentage of net
irrigated area to net area sown was 14.15% only.
List of sample villages
Village Panchayat Tehsil
Palbada Palbada Bichhiwada
Bhovali Palbada Dungarpur
Talaiya Talaiya Bichhiwada
Bijuda Shishodh Bichhiwada
Ved Jhalukuan Bhichhiwada
Nareli Mewar Bhichhiwada
Rajpur Gadapattapeeth Seemalwada
Gudawada Seemalwada Seemalwada
Nanoda Dhambola Seemalwada
Gadabateshwar Nagariya seemalwada
23
Jharkhand
In the state of Jharkhand, the Adivasi population has dropped from around 60% in
1911 to 27.67% in 1991
District Wise Population Details of Jharkhand
Sl. No.
Name of District Area in Sq. km
Total Population
ST Population
SC Population
1 Ranchi 7573.68 2214088 964422 123239
2 Lohardagga 1490.80 288886 162964 10919
3 Gumla 5320.94 707555 493563 25608
4 Simdega 3756.19 446421 323425 35691
5 Palamu 4015.16 1182770 106254 324223
6 Latehar 3660.47 467071 211580 99507
7 Garhwa 4044.22 801350 125432 190830
8 West Singhbhum 5290.21 1080780 717708 49385
9 Saraikela
Kharsawan
2724.55 707175 260361 40111
10 East singhbhum 3533.35 1613088 466572 77194
11 Dumka 3716.36 950853 443285 52763
12 Jamtara 1801.98 544856 178199 51331
13 Sahebganj 1705.98 736835 228990 49304
14 Pakur 1805.59 564253 278331 21484
15 Godda 2110.45 861182 216047 72893
16 Hazaribagh 5965.35 1836068 223571 280700
17 Chatra 3706.22 612713 23487 198668
18 Koderma 1311.63 394763 3528 57789
19 Giridih 4887.05 1496189 148342 202084
20 Dhanbad 2074.68 1949526 171741 312467
21 Bokaro 2860.82 1454416 177123 197365
22 Deoghar 2478.61 933113 119085 115697
(Source: http://Jharkhand.nic.in)
24
Adivasis of Jharkhand
TRIBES POPULATION % in Tribal population
literacy within Tribe
Asur 7783 0.13 10.62 Baiga 3553 0.06 4.22 Banjara 412 Lowest 12.38 Bathaudi 1595 0.03 16.93 Bedia 60445 1.04 10.82 Bhumij 136110 2.35 16.45 Binjhia 10009 0.17 14.52 Birhor 4057 0.07 5.74 Birjia 4057 0.07 10.50 Chero 52210 0.09 17.30 Chick Baraik 40339 0.69 20.17 Gond 96574 1.66 20.00 Gorait 5206 0.09 16.61 Ho 536524 9.23 17.71 Karmali 38652 0.66 13.30 Kharia 141771 2.44 24.86 Kharwar 222758 3.83 17.22 Khond 1263 0.02 15.99 Kisan 23420 0.40 13.41 Kora 33951 0.58 9.28 Korba 21940 0.38 6.14 Lohar 169090 2.91 12.71 Mahli 91868 1.59 12.74 Mal Paharia 79322 1.37 7.58 Munda 845887 14.56 22.16 Oraon 1048064 18.05 23.28 Parhaiya 24012 0.41 15.30 Santhal 2060732 35.47 12.55 Sauria Paharia 30269 0.68 6.87 Savar 3014 0.05 9.55 Unspecified 6660 0.1 3.94 TOTAL 5810867 100.00 16.99 (Source: http://Jharkhand.nic.in)
West Singhbhum
West Singhbhum district came into existence when the old Singhbhum district
bifurcated in 1990. At present West Singhbhum has 15 blocks and two
administrative Sub-divisions. The district is full of hills alternating with valleys, steep
25
mountains, and deep forests on the mountain slopes. The district contains one of the
best Sal forests and its SARANDA (seven hundred hills) forest area is known world
over. West Singhbhum district forms the Southern part of the newly created
Jharkhand State and is the largest district in the State. The annual average rainfall in
the district is about 1422 mm. The greater part of West Singhbhum district is
covered by the iron-ore series. The minerals found in the district include: 1.
Chromites 2. Magnetite 3. Manganese 4. Kainite 5. Lime Stone 6. Iron Ore 7.
Asbestos 8. Soap-stone.
West Singhbhum district is rich in natural resources. With about 55 per cent of total
population of the district, Adivasis constitute majority of population in West
Singhbhum district. The tribes found in the district are -1. Asur 2. Baiga 3. Banjara 4.
Bathudi 5. Bedia 6. Binjhia 7. Birhor 8. Gond 9. Gorait 10. Ho 11. Kurmali 12. Kharia
13. Kharwar 14. Khond 15. Kisen 16. Chero 16. Chik Baraik 17. Lohara 18. Mahli 19.
Munda 20. Oraon 21. Parhaiya 22. Kora 23. Korwa 24. Santhal 25. Sawar 26.
Bhumij
List of sample villages
Village Panchayat Block
Otadiri Ikshakuti Sonua
Kupui Otadiri Chakradharpur
Aaita Dumardiha Sadar Block
Maudi Dumardiha Sadar Block
Baipe Otadiri Chakradharpur
Nungadi Kadamdiha Goelkera
Bamiabasa Bamiabasa Tonto
Mauda Bamiabasa Tonto
Ramsai Bara Jhinkpani Tonto
Saransia Bara Jhinkpani Tonto
26
Gumla District
Gumla district is covered by dense forests, hills and rivers. It is situated in the
southwest portion of the Jharkhand State. This district was carved out of Ranchi
district in 1983. Previously it was a sub-division of old Ranchi district. Till 30th April
2001, Gumla district consisted on 2 sub-divisions viz Gumla and Simdega. But after
the creation of Jharkhand State, a new district of Simdega was carved out of Gumla
district in 2001. Now, Gumla district consists of only one sub-division namely Gumla.
Total area of the district is about 5327 sq. km. The total population of district as per
1991 census is 706489. With 68 per cent of the total population of the district,
Adivasis constitute majority of Gumla’s population.
80% of the district population depends on agriculture. Farmers practise traditional
agriculture and are fully dependent on monsoon. They use traditional ploughs and
ox or buffaloes to plough their lands. In Gumla district the cultivable land is 329686
hectares. Irrigation facilities available (as per 1981 census) were only 2.62%, which
has now increased to 22056 hectare i.e. 6.69%. The remaining 307630 hectares of
land is un-irrigated. The main crop of this district is paddy. Beside this, maize, pulses
& oil seeds are also grown in different areas of Gumla district.
The forest cover of the district is 1.35 lakh hectares out of the total 5.21 lakh
hectares of land i.e. around 27% of the total area of the district. Important forest
products are Saal seeds, Kokun, Lac, Tendu leaves, Karanj, Chiraunji etc. The
major trees are Sal Bija, Gamhar, Kathal, Jamun, Mango, Bamboo, Neem etc.
Sisai, Bharno and Kamdara blocks have plain lands while other areas are mostly
undulating in nature. There is a hill range named as ‘Ghera-pahar’, which starts from
Palkot block area and continues up to Bishunpur block area. These elevated plateau
areas of Bishunpur and Ghaghra blocks are locally known as ‘PAT’ area. These PAT
areas are made-up of volcanic rocks. Earlier the average annual rainfall in the
district was 1400-1600 mm, but the recent statistics has shown a decline in the
average annual rainfall to about 1000-1100 mm.
27
Gumla district is a backward district as compared to other districts of the State. The
district has a total population of 706489 and total families of 133131. Out of 133131
families 99512 families live below poverty line i.e. they are BPL families, as per
survey conducted in the year 1997. It shows that the poverty ratio is 74.75%. There
are only 1929 skilled workers in the district.
List of sample villages
Village Panchayat Block
Ghaghara Redawa Seesai
Chailitoli Murgu Seesai
Supali Murgu Seesai
Birkera Redawa Seesai
Joriya Karanj Bharno
Omesera Karanj Bharno
Chatakpur Pandariya Seesai
Khartanga Turiamba Bharno
Marasilly Bharno Bharno
Muhgaon Bharno Bharno
28
Key Findings of the Survey Research on Hunger and Poverty
in Adivasi Areas of Rajasthan and Jharkhand
The findings of a survey research on hunger in Adivasi areas of Rajasthan and
Jharkhand carried out by New Delhi-based Centre for Environment and Food
Security (CEFS) are revealing but shocking. It is distressful to note that out of total
1000 Adivasi households from 40 sample villages in Rajasthan and Jharkhand
surveyed for this study, a staggering 99 per cent were facing chronic hunger. The
data gathered during this survey suggests that 25.2 percent of surveyed Adivasi
households had faced semi-starvation during the previous week of the survey. The
data also suggests that 24.1 percent of the surveyed Adivasi households had lived in
semi-starvation condition throughout the previous month of the survey. Over 99 per
cent of the Adivasi households had lived with one or another level of endemic
hunger and food insecurity during the whole previous year. Moreover, out of 500
sample Adivasi households surveyed in Rajasthan, not a single had secured two
square meals for the whole previous year.
Sample Size and Methodology
The Field survey for this research was carried out during March-June 2004 in forty
Adivasi villages of four Adivasi-dominated districts, two each from Rajasthan and
Jharkhand. Udaipur & Dungarpur districts of Rajasthan, and West Singhbhum &
Gumla districts from Jharkhand were purposively selected for a household survey
among 1000 Adivasi households. From every sample district 10 sample Adivasi
villages and from every sample village 25 Adivasi households were purposively
selected for the household survey. The total sample size of Adivasi households was
1000, 500 samples each from Rajasthan and Jharkhand. Only villages with over 75
per cent of Adivasi population were selected for sample survey. Another criteria
followed in the selection of sample villages was that it should not be located within a
distance of 20 kilometers from the district headquarters to avoid the urban bias in
29
those villages. In the selection of household samples, only one category of
households were excluded, i.e .- those with regular salaried income.
Socio-economic profile of sample Adivasi households
Out of the total sample size of 1000 Adivasi households surveyed, 60.1 per cent of
respondents were male and 39.9 per cent female, 68.75 percent of respondents
were illiterate, 95.1 per cent lived in thatched and mud houses, 96.4 per cent were
without electricity, 84.7 per cent without water availability within 1000 meters of their
house, 99.7 per cent were without toilet and a horrifying 99 per cent of Adivasis were
facing chronic hunger. On the basis of these socio-economic indicators, it
would be only logical to conclude that these Adivasis are living in appaling
conditions, grinding poverty and their depth of deprivation defies all
imaginations of a deprived human life.
Household Assets
To get an elementary assessment of the level of poverty and deprivation among
sample Adivasi households in Rajasthan and Jharkhand, they were asked as to how
many of ten listed household assets (1.Blanket, 2.Pair of shoes, 3.Bicycle, 4.cooker,
5.Kerosene stove, 6.Radio, 7. T.V, 8. Torch, 9. Clock/Watch, 10.Others) were
available in their homes. We were shocked to find that 10.4 per cent of Adivasi
households did not have any of these listed items in their homes. Moreover, there
was not even a single Adivasi household from the 1000 samples which possessed
more than 4 household items from this list. 32.2 per cent of samples possessed
blanket and pair of shoes. While 44 per cent of households from Rajasthan
possessed blanket and a pair of shoes, only 20.4 per cent of Jharkhand samples
possessed these two items. Only 8.8 per cent of the samples were in possession of
4 items from the given list. Proportion of samples possessing any 4 listed household
assets was only 4 per cent in Rajasthan and 13.6 per cent in Jharkhand.
30
Occupation of Adivasi Households
Out of the total 1000 sample Adivasi households, a staggering 82 per cent were
agriculturists, 14.8 per cent daily wagers, 1.8 per cent MFP (minor forest produce)
gatherers, 0.6 per cent were either handicaps or too old to earn and 2 per cent
belonged to other occupations. State-wise segregation of the data suggests that
87.2 per cent of samples from Rajasthan were agriculturists, 12 per cent daily
wagers, 0.2 per cent handicaps or too old and 0.6 per cent belonged to other
occupations. Among the Jharkhand samples, 76.8 per cent were agriculturists, 17.6
per cent daily wagers, 1.8 per cent MFP gatherers, 0.4 per cent handicaps & aged
and 3.4 per cent belonged to other occupations.
Nature of House
Amongst the total sample households, only a tiny 0.7 per cent had pucca houses,
4.2 per cent samples had semi-pucca houses, a staggering 90.5 per cent had mud-
houses and remaining 4.6 per cent were living under thatched roofs. In the state of
Rajasthan, 1 per cent samples were living in pucca houses, 5.2 per cent in semi-
pucca, 91.2 per cent in mud houses and 2.6 per cent were living under thatched
roofs. Among Jharkhand samples, 0.4 per cent had pucca house, 3.2 per cent semi-
pucca, 89.8 per cent had mud-houses and 6.6 per cent were living under thatched
roofs. It is interesting to note that while only 13 samples from Rajasthan were living
under thatched roofs, there were 33 samples from Jharkhand living under thatched
roofs. This data suggests that 95.1 per cent of sample Adivasis in Rajasthan and
Jharkhand were living in either thatched or mud houses.
96.4 per cent of the sample Adivasi households had no electricity connection. While
92.8 per cent of Rajasthan households were without electricity, not a single sample
Adivasi household in Jharkhand had any power connection whatsoever. It is one of
the most cruel ironies of Indian development process that native inhabitants of
Jharkhand which supplies coal to most thermal power plants of the country are still
31
condemned to live without any electricity in their homes. It seems to be the
proverbial case of darkness under the lamp. 84.7 per cent of sample households in
the two states had no source of water either in their house or within visible distance.
The proportion of households without water availability was 98.8 per cent in
Rajasthan and 70.6 per cent in Jharkhand. 99.7 per cent of sample households were
without toilet. All the 500 sample households from Rajasthan were without toilet. But
3 samples from Jharkhand had toilets in their house.
Gender of Respondents
Out of 1000 sample households surveyed, 60.1 per cent of the respondents were
male and 39.9 per cent female. In Rajasthan samples, 53.6 per cent of respondents
were male and 46.4 per cent female. In Jharkhand, 66.6 per cent respondents were
male and only 33.4 per cent female.
Education level of Respondents
Educational Level of respondents
Illiterate69%
Barely literate4%
Up to primary school9%
Up to middle school10%
Up to high school6%
Up to college2%
Illiterate
Barely literate
Up to primary school
Up to middle school
Up to high school
Up to college
32
Among the total sample Adivasi respondents, 68.7 per cent were illiterate, 4.4 per
cent barely-literate, 8.8 per cent had received primary schooling, 10.3 per cent had
middle schooling , 6.1 per cent had received education up to high school and only 1.7
per cent of Adivasi respondents had studied in college.
Among 500 Rajasthan respondents, 76.2 per cent were illiterate, 5 per cent barely-
literate, 9 per cent had received primary schooling, 7.4 per cent had middle
schooling, 2 per cent had received education up to high school and only 0.4 per cent
of Adivasi respondents had studied in college.
Among 500 Jharkhand respondents, 61.2 per cent were illiterate, 3.8 per cent
barely-literate, 8.6 per cent had received primary schooling, 13.2 per cent had
middle schooling, 10.2 per cent had received education up to high school and 3 per
cent of Jharkhand respondents had received college education.
It is interesting to note here that level of education among Jharkhand samples was
much higher than that in Rajasthan. While 76.2 per cent of Rajasthan respondents
were illiterate, only 61.2 per cent among Jharkhand respondents were illiterate.
While only 7.4 per cent of Rajasthan respondents had enjoyed schooling up to
middle school, 13.2 per cent of Jharkhand samples had this level of schooling. As
against a low 2 per cent of Rajasthan respondents who had received education up to
high school and 0.4 per cent up to college, among Jharkhand samples, 10.2 per cent
had studied up to high school and 3 per cent up to college level.
Migration
26.2 per cent of surveyed households
said that at least one member from
each family had migrated to some
town or city in search of livelihood.
73.8 per cent samples said that none
Proportion of Migration
No 74%
Yes 26%
Yes No
33
of their family members had gone anywhere in search of livelihood. While 27.4 per
cent of Rajasthan samples said that their family members had migrated to cities and
towns in search of work, 25 per cent among Jharkhand samples did say so.
Hunger among Adivasi Households
Daily hunger Profile
It is distressful to note that out of total 1000 Adivasi households from 40 sample
villages spread over four districts of Rajasthan and Jharkhand surveyed for this
study, a staggering and shocking over 99 per cent were facing chronic hunger.
Out of the total 1000 households asked as to whether they had eaten two
square meals1 on the previous day of the survey, only four respondents (0.4
per cent), two each from Rajasthan & Jharkhand said that they had eaten two
square meals on the previous day. When they were asked whether they could get
one square meal plus one poor/partial meal 2 on the previous day, only five
households (0.5 per cent) replied yes. Out of the remaining households, 47.9 per
cent had eaten two poor/partial meals, 34.7 per cent got one poor/partial meal plus
one distress meal3, 11.3 per cent could get just one poor/partial meal, 0.2 per cent
had eaten only one distress meal and 5 per cent of the surveyed Adivasis could eat
only jungle food on the previous day of the survey. It means that at least 5 per cent
of sample Adivasi families were unable to secure any of the above six
categories of food on the previous day of the survey and it would not be an
exaggeration to suggest that they were on the verge of starvation.
This data suggests that at least 16.5 percent of the surveyed Adivasi households
had eaten either just one poor/partial meal or one distress meal or only jungle food
on the previous day of the survey. In other words, at least 16.5 per cent of
1 Square meal : Meal consisting of adequate cereals + at least one source of protein (pulses or
animal products) + some vegetable. 2 Poor/partial meal : Inadequate cereals with hardly any vegetables or protein sources. 3 Distress meal : Hardly one-fourth quantity of required cereals. Broth (Rabari) made of water and
wheat flour is a typical distress/famine food in Adivasi area of Rajasthan and rice brew(Handiya) in Jharkhand.
34
sample Adivasi households were facing either starvation or semi-starvation on
the previous day of the survey. It is interesting to note here that while only nine
families (1.8 per cent) in Rajasthan had survived on Jungle food, 41 Adivasi
households (8.2 per cent) in Jharkhand had to make do with only jungle food on the
previous day of the survey.
Hunger profile of previous day
1.80.4 0.8
38.2
18.2
0
8.2
47.9
57.6
35.2
4.4 0.40.20.4
34.234.7
11.3
0.2 50.50.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Two squaremeals
One squaremeal+ onepoor/partial
meal
Twopoor/partial
meals
One poor/partialmeals
One poor/partial
meal+ onedistress
meal
Only onedistress
meal
Only junglefood
Category of foods
Per
cen
tag
e
Rajasthan
Jharkhand
Both
Rajasthan:
Out of 500 Adivasi households surveyed in Rajasthan, only two households (0.4
percent) had eaten two square meals on the previous day of the survey. There was
only one Adivasi household (0.2 percent) which had secured the second–best
category of food enlisted in survey schedule (one square meal plus one poor/partial
meal) on the previous day of survey. Out of 500 sample households surveyed in
Rajasthan, 288 households (57.6 per cent) had to make do with only two poor/partial
meals (third-best enlisted category of food). The fourth-best enlisted category of food
(one poor/partial meal plus one distress meal) was secured by 176 families (35.2
percent) of Adivasis on the previous day of the survey. Twenty two Adivasi
35
households (4.4 per cent) had eaten only one poor/partial meal on the previous day
and two families (0.4 per cent) had survived only on one distress meal. The
remaining 9 Adivasi households (1.8 per cent) from 500 Rajasthan samples were
unable to secure any of the above six categories of food on the previous day of the
survey and had to survive only on jungle food (wild roots, leaves, grass, fruits,
vegetables etc collected from forest).
Jharkhand:
Out of 500 Adivasi households surveyed in the state of Jharkhand, only two families
(0.4 per cent) had eaten two square meals on the previous day of the survey. Four
families (0.8 per cent) had secured one square meal plus one poor/partial meal. 191
samples (38.2 per cent) had eaten two poor/partial meals, 171 samples (34.2 per
cent) could eat only one poor/partial meal plus one distress meal and a staggering
91 households (18.2 per cent) had to make do with only one poor/partial meal on the
previous day of the survey. It is shocking to note that 41(8.2 per cent) Adivasi
households in Jharkhand had eaten only jungle food and nothing else on the
previous day of the survey. This data suggests that 26.4 per cent of Jharkhand
samples had eaten either only jungle food or just one poor/partial meal on the
previous day.
36
Proportion of Jungle food in total food intake on previous day
Proportion of Jungle food in total food intake on previous day
91.2
60.8 0.2 1.8
33.6
27.8
19
11.48.2
62.4
16.9
9.95.8 5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Zero One forth Half Three fourth Full
Proportion
Per
cen
tag
es
Rajasthan
Jharkhand
Both
To assess the proportion and understand the role of jungle food in Adivasis’ present
food basket, they were asked as to what was the proportion of jungle food in their
diet of the previous day. 62.4 per cent of sample Adivasi households said that the
proportion of jungle food in their previous day’s diet was zero, 16.9 per cent samples
said that one-fourth of their diet on the previous day consisted of jungle food, 9.9 per
cent families said that half of their diet on the previous day consisted of jungle food,
5.8 per cent said that it was three-fourth and 5 per cent Adivasi households said that
their full diet on the previous day consisted of only Jungle food. This data again
reinforces the previous finding that 5 per cent of Adivasis had eaten nothing but
jungle food on the previous day of survey.
The state-wise segregation of this data suggests that the role and proportion of
jungle food in the food security of Jharkhand Adivasis is much larger than in the
case of Rajasthan. While 456 (91.2 per cent) samples from Rajasthan said that
proportion of jungle food in their previous day’s diet was zero, only 168 (33.6 per
cent) samples from Jharkhand had not eaten any jungle food on the previous day of
37
survey. As against only 30(6 per cent) samples from Rajasthan whose previous
day’s one-fourth diet consisted of jungle food, 139 (27.8 per cent) households from
Jharkhand said that one-fourth of their diet on the previous day consisted of jungle
food. While only 4 (0.8 per cent) samples from Rajasthan said that half of their diet
on the previous day consisted of jungle food, this proportion for Jharkhand was 95
(19 per cent). Again, only 1 (0.2 per cent) sample from Rajasthan said that their
previous day’s three-fourth diet consisted of jungle food, 57 (11.4 per cent) Adivasi
households from Jharkhand said that three-fourth of their previous day’s diet
consisted of jungle food. While only 9 (1.8 per cent) of families from Rajasthan said
that their full diet on the previous day consisted of jungle food, 41 (8.2 per cent)
families from Jharkhand said that their full diet on the previous day of survey
consisted of only jungle food.
The use, access and availability of jungle food and Minor Forest Produce (MFP) in
Jharkhand (especially in West Singhbhum district) is very high in comparison to that
in Rajasthan. In the West Singhbhum district of Jharkhand, MFP is still a major
source of livelihood for many Adivasi households. Dozens of head-loads and cycle-
loads of fuelwood and other MFP being carried by groups of Adivasis is still a very
common sight on all the roads leading to Chaibasa (district headquarters of West
Singhbhum). It was interesting to find a young Graduate Adivasi in one village of
West Singhbhum district earning his livelihood by just cutting and selling fuelwood.
Protein consumption on previous day
Most of the available literature on hunger in Adivasi areas of India suggests that
large number of Adivasis suffer from protein-energy-nutrition deficiency (PEN
syndrome). This PEN syndrome is believed to be responsible for very high infant
mortality rates among Adivasi communities. To assess and ascertain the level of
protein availability or protein deficiency in Adivasis’ diet, sample Adivasi households
were asked as to whether they had eaten any pulse or animal product on the
previous day of the survey. An alarming proportion of 76.6 per cent Adivasi
38
households said that they could not afford any pulse or animal product on the
previous day of the survey. Only 23.4 per cent of the samples had eaten some
pulses or animal products on the previous day of the survey. While 112 (22.4 per
cent) samples from Rajasthan had eaten some pulses or animal products, 122 (24.4
per cent) samples from Jharkhand were able to secure some pulses or animal
products on the previous day. While 388 (77.6 per cent) samples from Rajasthan
could not afford any pulse or animal product on the previous day of survey, the
corresponding figure for Jharkhand was 378 (75.6 per cent).
Pulses or animal products eaten on previous day
22.424.4 23.4
77.675.6 76.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Rajasthan Jharkhand Both
Per
cen
tag
es o
f Y
es/N
o
YesNo
Weekly Hunger Profile
To assess and ascertain the weekly state of hunger and food insecurity among
Adivasi households, they were asked as to what category of food was secured by
them for how many days of the previous week. When they were asked as to whether
they had eaten two square meals on all 7 days of the previous week, only one
respondent (0.01 per cent) replied yes. The remaining 999 (99.9 per cent)
households said that they could not get two square meals even on a single
day of the previous week. When asked as to how many of them for how many
39
days of the previous week could secure one square meal plus one poor/partial meal,
98.9 percent said that they could not afford this kind of food even for a single day of
the previous week. This weekly data on hunger again confirms that about 99 per
cent of Adivasi households in Rajasthan and Jharkhand were facing chronic hunger.
Only 216 (21.6 percent)out of 1000 surveyed households were able to secure even
two poor/partial meals on all seven days of the previous week.57 sample families
(5.7 per cent) had secured two poor/partial meals for 6 days of the previous week,
103 families (10.3 per cent) for 5 days of the week, 70 families (7 per cent) for 4
days, 59 families (5.9 per cent) for 3 days, 62 families (6.2 per cent) for only 2 days
of the week and 18 sample families (1.8 per cent) for just 1 day of the previous week.
Another 214 (21.4 percent) of the households had survived throughout the week on
just one poor/partial meal plus one distress meal per day. 99 sample Adivasi
households (9.9 per cent) had eaten one poor/partial meal plus one distress meal for
5 days of the previous week, 66 families (6.6 per cent) for 4 days of the week, 76
households (7.6 per cent) for 3 days of the week, 112 families (11.2 per cent) for 2
days and 71 families (7.1 per cent) for only one day of the previous week.
2.8 percent of the households had survived by eating just one poor/partial meal a
day throughout the previous week.30 sample families (3 per cent) had eaten just one
poor/partial meal for 5 days of the previous week, 40 samples (4 per cent) for four
days of the week, 58 families (5.8 per cent) for 3 days of the week and 96 families
(9.6 per cent) for 2 days of the week. This data suggests that 25.2 percent of
surveyed Adivasi households in Rajasthan and Jharkhand had eaten only one
poor/partial meal for 2-7 days of the previous week.
Ten Adivasi households (1 percent) out of the total samples could barely secure one
distress meal- a-day throughout the previous week. Another three families had eaten
only distress food for 6 days of the week, 7 families for 3 days of the week and 11
families for 2 days of the previous week. This data suggests that 31(3.1 per cent)
40
Adivasi families had eaten either for the whole previous week or for a significant part
of it only one distress meal -a-day.
The data on weekly hunger clearly suggests that 28.3 per cent of sample Adivasi
households had survived for the whole or significant part of the previous week by
eating just one distress meal-a-day or one poor/ partial meal- a- day. In other words,
28.3 per cent of sample households had lived in semi-starvation condition
during the previous week of survey.
Jungle food consumption during previous week
Among the total 1000 sample Adivasi households, 62 per cent said that they did not
eat any jungle food during the previous week of survey, 15.2 per cent said that
approximately one-fourth of their diet consisted of jungle food during previous one
week, 8.2 per cent samples said that half of their diet during the week consisted of
jungle food, 6.7 per cent said that it was up to three-fourth and 7.9 per cent samples
said that 75-100 per cent of their previous week’s diet consisted of jungle food only.
State-wise segregation of data about proportion of jungle food in the diet of previous
week clearly suggests that consumption of jungle food in Jharkhand was much
higher than that in Rajasthan. While only 32 per cent of Jharkhand samples had not
consumed any jungle food, a huge 92 per cent of Rajasthan households had not
eaten any jungle food during previous week. Against 23.4 per cent of Jharkhand
households whose one –fourth of diet consisted of jungle food, only 7 per cent of
Rajasthan samples said that one –fourth of their diet consisted of jungle food. While
only one sample (0.2 per cent) from Rajasthan could say that half of his family’s diet
consisted of jungle food, 81 samples (16.2 per cent) from Jharkhand said that about
half of their diet during the week consisted of jungle food. Again, while 13.4 per cent
of samples from Jharkhand said that three-fourth of their diet was made of jungle
food, not a single sample from Rajasthan did say so. While only 4 samples (0.8 per
cent) from Rajasthan said that 75-100 per cent of their diet during previous week
41
consisted of jungle food, 75 samples (15 per cent) in Jharkhand said that 75-100 per
cent of their diet during the week consisted of jungle food.
Protein (pulses & animal products) consumption during previous week
40.2 per cent of sample Adivasi households in Rajasthan and Jharkhand could
not afford any pulse or animal product even for a single day of the previous
week. 20.8 per cent samples could afford these items for just one day of the week,
22 per cent for 2 days in the week, 8.3 per cent for 3 days, 4.6 per cent for 4 days,
2.1 per cent for 5 days, 0.4 per cent for 6 days and only 1.6 per cent of samples
had eaten some source of protein on all 7 days of the previous week.
While 41 per cent among Rajasthan samples could not get any pulse or animal
product even for a single day during the week, 14.4 per cent had eaten some pulses
or animal products on just one day of the week,25 per cent for two days of the week,
9.8 per cent for three days, 5.2 per cent for four days, 2.4 per cent for five days, 0.2
per cent for six days and only 2 per cent throughout the week. In Jharkhand, 39.4
per cent of Adivasi households could not eat any source of protein during the
previous week, 27.2 per cent could get it only on one day of the week, 19 per cent
for just two days , 6.8 per cent for three days,4 per cent for four days, 1.8 per cent for
five days, 0.6 per cent for six days and only 1.2 per cent households on all seven
days of the previous week.
Monthly Hunger Profile
To understand the level of hunger and food insecurity among 1000 sample Adivasi
households during the previous one month of the survey, they were asked as to how
many days of the previous month they had eaten two square meals. 998
households (99.8 per cent) said that they could not secure two square meals
even for a single day of the previous month. Out of the remaining two
households, one had got two square meals on just one day of the previous month
42
and only one household (0.01 per cent) had taken two square meals for the whole
month. It is important to note here that not a single of the 500 households
surveyed in Rajasthan had eaten two square meals even on a single day of the
previous month. When asked as to how many of them for how many days of the
previous month could afford one square meal plus one poor/partial meal a day, the
answer was no less shocking. A staggering 98.4 per cent of the households said that
they could not secure for a single day of the previous month even this kind of food.
The data on monthly hunger profile suggests that since only one family had secured
two square meals and another two families had secured one square meal plus one
poor/partial meal for the full month, the remaining 997 Adivasi households (99.7
percent) were facing chronic hunger during the previous month of the survey.
When asked as for how many days of the previous month they had secured two
poor/partial meals a day, 36 per cent said that they could not get this kind of food
even for a single day of the previous month and only 15.2 per cent said that they had
eaten this kind of food for the whole month. 13.7 per cent of the sample households
had eaten this category of food for 25-30 days, 11.3 per cent for 20-25 days, 7.4 per
cent for 15-20 days, 11.4 per cent for 10-15 days and 3 per cent of households had
eaten this kind of food for 5 days of the previous month.
It is interesting to note here that there is striking variation between Rajasthan and
Jharkand data on this count. While 104 Adivasi families (20.8 per cent) from
Rajasthan had eaten two poor/partial meals on all days of the previous month, only
48 households (9.6 per cent) from Jharkhand had eaten two poor/partial meals on all
days of the previous month. While only 144 households (28.8 per cent) from
Rajasthan could not get this kind of food even for a single day of the previous month,
216 households (43.2 per cent) from Jharkhand could not secure this kind of food
even for a single day of the previous month. While 76(15.2 per cent) samples from
Rajasthan had eaten this kind of food for 25-30 days of the previous month, that
figure for Jharkhand is only 61(12.2 per cent) families. While 69 samples (13.8 per
cent) from Rajasthan had eaten this kind of food for 20-25 days, 49(9.8 per cent)
43
families for 15-20 days and 34(6.8 per cent) families for 10-15 days of the previous
month, these figures for Jharkhand are respectively 44(8.8 per cent), 25(5 per cent)
and 80 samples (16 per cent).
When asked as for how many days of the previous month they had eaten one
poor/partial meal plus one distress meal a day, 14.5 per cent of total samples said
that for the whole month they had eaten only this kind of food, 11.8 per cent for 10-
15 days of the month, 10.9 per cent for 15-20 days, 14 per cent had eaten for 20-25
days and 3.6 per cent for 25-30 days of the previous month. While 12.4 per cent
Adivasi households from Rajasthan had eaten only this category of food on all days
of the previous month, 16.6 per cent samples from Jharkhand had eaten this kind of
food on all days of the previous month. 5 per cent of samples from Rajasthan had
eaten this kind of food for 25-30 days, 11.2 per cent for 20-25 days, 10.6 per cent for
15-20 days and 11.2 per cent for 10-15 days. The respective figures for Jharkhand
are 2.2 per cent, 16.8 per cent, 11.2 per cent and 12.4 per cent
When asked as for how many days of the previous month they had survived only on
one poor/partial meal,1.9 per cent among total samples said that for the whole
previous month they could secure only this kind of food, 1.1 per cent for 25-30 days
of the month,3.2 per cent for 20-25 days of the month,3.9 per cent for 15-20 days of
the month and 14 per cent of the Adivasi households had survived on this kind of
food for 10-15 days of the previous month. This data suggests that 24.1 percent of
the surveyed Adivasi households had eaten only one poor/ partial meal-a-day for 10-
30 days of the previous month.
State-wise segregation of this data once again shows very striking difference
between Rajasthan and Jharkhand. While only 0.8 per cent of sample families from
Rajasthan had to survive on only this category of food for all 30 days of the previous
month, 3 per cent of Jharkhand samples had eaten only this kind of food for all 30
days of the previous month. 1.4 per cent of Rajasthan samples had survived only on
this kind of food for 20-25 days, 1.8 per cent for 15-20 days, 6.2 per cent for 10-15
44
days and 8.8 per cent for 5 days of the previous month. The corresponding figures
for the state of Jharkhand are 5 per cent, 6 per cent, 21.8 per cent and 4.4 per cent.
Two Adivasi households among total samples had survived the full previous month
by eating only one distress meal-a-day, one sample for 25-30 days, two samples for
20-25 days, 5 samples for 15-20 days, 20 samples for 10-15 days, 3 samples for 8
days and another 20 samples for 5 days of the previous month. The data on this
count suggests that 5.4 per cent of Adivasi households had survived for more than 5
days of the previous month eating only this category of food. The proportion of
samples surviving only on this category of food for more than 10 days of the month
is 3.4 per cent.
Three families from the total samples had no food at all for 10 days of the previous
month, 1 sample for 8 days of the month, 5 samples for 5 days, 7 samples for 4 days,
5 samples for 3 days, 7 samples for 2 days and 3 samples for one day had no food
at all. It is interesting to note that all except one of these samples are from Rajasthan.
While only one family from Jharkhand could not secure any food for 5 days of the
previous month, there were 30 families from Rajasthan who could not eat any food
for 1-10 days of the previous month. This variation is most probably because of
higher availability of jungle food and minor forest produce in Jharkhand in
comparison to Rajasthan. Rajasthan sample villages had very scarce jungle food.
This underscores the importance of forests in providing livelihood and food security
to tribals especially during distress and drought conditions. Forests used to function
as buffer between Adivasis and hunger. Forests used to provide insurance against
hunger and starvation in traditional tribal economy. With rampant destruction,
depletion, degradation and diversion of forests, that traditional cushion has
disappeared in most parts of Adivasi areas of India.
The monthly hunger profile of the sample Adivasi households clearly shows that
24.1 percent of the households had eaten only one poor/ partial meal-a-day for 10-
30 days of the previous month, 3.4 per cent of the households had survived by
45
eating only one distress meal-a-day for more than 10 days and 2.8 per cent samples
had not eaten any food for 2-10 days of the previous month. This data suggests
that 30.3per cent of Adivasi households were facing semi-starvation during
the previous month of survey.
Jungle food consumption during previous month
59.9 per cent of sample households in Rajasthan & Jharkhand said that they did not
eat any jungle food during the previous one month of survey. 18.3 per cent said that
approximately one-fourth of their diet consisted of jungle food during previous one
month, 7 per cent samples said that half of their diet during the month consisted of
jungle food, 7.9 per cent said that it was up to three-fourth and 6.9 per cent samples
said that about 75-100 per cent of their previous month’s diet consisted of jungle
food only.
State-wise segregation of data about proportion o f jungle food in the diet of previous
month again suggests that proportion of jungle food consumption in Jharkhand is
much higher than that in Rajasthan. While only 31.6 per cent of Jharkhand samples
had not consumed any jungle food during previous one month, a huge 88.2 per cent
of Rajasthan households had not eaten any jungle food during previous month.
Against 25.6 per cent of Jharkhand households whose one –fourth of diet consisted
of jungle food, only 11 per cent of Rajasthan samples said that one –fourth of their
diet consisted of jungle food. While only one sample (0.2 per cent) from Rajasthan
could say that half of his family’s diet consisted of jungle food, 69 samples (13.8 per
cent) from Jharkhand said that about half of their diet during the previous month
consisted of jungle food. Again, while 15.8 per cent of samples from Jharkhand said
that three-fourth of their diet consisted of jungle food, not a single sample from
Rajasthan did say so. While only 3 samples (0.6 per cent) from Rajasthan said that
75-100 per cent of their diet during previous month consisted of only jungle food, 66
samples (13.2 per cent) from Jharkhand said that 75-100 per cent of their diet during
the previous one month consisted of jungle food.
46
Protein (pulses& animal products) consumption during previous month
33.3 per cent of samples out of 1000 Adivasi households from Rajasthan and
Jharkhand could not get any pulse or animal product even on a single day of
the previous month. 3.7 per cent could get it on just one day, 10.7 per cent for two
days of the month, 6.5 per cent for three days, 8 per cent for four days, 10.4 per cent
for five days, 2.8 per cent for six days, 2.5 per cent for seven days, 5.7 per cent for
eight days, 0.2 per cent for nine days, another 5.7 per cent for ten days , 6 per cent
for 12-15 days, and remaining 4.5 per cent samples for 16-30 days of the month.
These figures suggest that only 10.5 per cent of Adivasi households could eat some
pulses or animal products for 12-30 days of the previous month. The remaining 89.5
per cent of samples either did not get these items at all or did not get for more than
ten days of the month.
In Rajasthan, 33.6 per cent households could not eat any pulse or animal product
during the previous month of the survey, 2.6 per cent could get it on just one
day,11.2 per cent for only two days, 4.6 per cent for three days, 7.4 per cent for four
days, 6.8 per cent for five days,1.8 per cent for six days, 2.8 per cent for seven days,
another 7.4 per cent for eight days, 0.2 per cent for 9 days and 6.6 per cent for ten
days of the month. 8.2 per cent of Rajasthan Adivasis did get it for 12-15 days and
remaining 6.8 per cent for 16-30 days of the month. To put these figures differently,
while only 15 per cent of Rajasthan samples could secure some pulses or animal
products for 12-30 days of the previous month, a huge 85 per cent of samples either
did not get it at all or did not get for more than ten days of the month.
33 per cent of Jharkhand households had not eaten any pulse or animal product
during previous month, 4.8 per cent had secured it for just one day, 10.2 per cent for
two days,8.4 per cent for three days, 8.6 per cent for four days, 14 per cent for five
days, 3.8 per cent for six days, 2.2 per cent for seven days, 4 per cent for eight days,
0.2 per cent for nine days, 4.8 per cent for ten days, 3.8 per cent for 12-15 days and
remaining 2.2 per cent for 16-30 days of the month. In other words, only a tiny 6 per
47
cent of Adivasis in Jharkhand had eaten some pulses or animal products for more
than 15 days of the previous month. The remaining 94 per cent either did not eat
these items on any day or did not eat for more than 15 days of the month.
It is interesting to note here that while 6.8 per cent of Rajasthan households had
secured these products for 16-30 days of the previous month, only an abysmal 2.2
per cent of Jharkhand samples could get these items for the same period. Moreover,
while 1.6 per cent of Rajasthan samples had secured these sources of protein for
the full month, only 0.6 per cent of Jharkhand households had secured some pulses
or animal products throughout previous month. These figures clearly suggest that
consumption of pulses and animal products was slightly better in Rajasthan in
comparison of Jharkhand. However, it must be remembered that consumption of
jungle food is much higher in the case of Jharkhand.
Annual Hunger Profile
To assess and understand the level of hunger and food insecurity among these
1000 Adivasi households of Rajasthan and Jharkhand during previous one year of
the survey, they were asked as for how many months of the previous year they
could secure two square meals-a-day. A staggering 99.8 per cent of Adivasi
households said that they could not get two square meals even for a single
month of the previous year. Of the remaining two samples, one had secured
two square meals only for one month and just one (0.1 per cent) had eaten two
square meals for the whole previous year. Therefore, it is clear that out of 1000
Adivasi households surveyed, 99.9 per cent of them were facing one or
another level of hunger and food insecurity throughout the previous year.
Moreover, out of 500 sample Adivasi households surveyed in Rajasthan, not a
single had secured two square meals for the whole previous year. Therefore, it
is extremely distressing to note that 100 per cent of sample Adivasi
households in Rajasthan were facing chronic hunger throughout the previous
year.
48
When asked as for how many months of the previous year they could secure one
square meal plus one poor/partial meal-a-day, 99 per cent of the samples said that
they did not get this kind of food even for a single month of the previous year. Two
samples had secured this category of food for 11-12 months, one for 10 months, one
for 8 months , one for 6 months, one for 5 months, one for 4 months and three
samples had secured this kind of food for just 1 month of the previous year.
While one sample from Rajasthan had secured for 11 months of the previous year
this kind of food, one could get for 8 months and one another did get just for 6
months of the year. In Jharkhand, one had secured this kind of food for 11months,
one for 10 months, 1 for 5 months, 1 for 4 months and 3 had secured this kind of
food for 1 month of the previous year.
When asked as for how many months of the previous year they did manage to get
two poor/partial meals -a-day, only 8.1 per cent of total samples said that they could
afford this kind of food for all months of the previous year. 27 per cent of the
respondents said that they did not get this kind of food even for a single month of the
previous year. 2.2 per cent of the respondents had secured this kind of food just for
1 month of the year, 8.7 per cent for 2 months,4.2 per cent for 3 months ,19.2 per
cent for 4 months, 7.7 per cent for 6 months, 7.4 per cent for 8 months, 6.1 per cent
for 10 months and just 8.1 per cent of the Adivasi households had secured this kind
of food for 12 months of the previous year.
While 116 (23.2 per cent) samples from Rajasthan did not get this kind of food even
for a single month of the previous year, that figure for Jharkhand is 154 (30.8 per
cent). 57 (11.4 per cent) samples from Rajasthan had secured this kind of food for
12 months,12 (2.4 per cent) for 11 months, 33 (6.6 per cent) for 10 months, 14 (2.8
per cent) for 9 months, 46 (9.2 per cent) for 8 months, 10(2 per cent) for 7 months,
45 (9 per cent) for 6 months, 17 (3.4 per cent) for 5 months, 68 (13.6 per cent) for 4
months, 33 (6.6 per cent) for 3 months, 35 (7 per cent) for 2 months and 14 (2.8 per
cent) samples for just 1 month. The corresponding figures for Jharkhand are 24 (4.8
49
per cent) samples for 12 months, 17 (3.4 per cent) for 11 months, 28(5.6 per cent)
for 10 months, 18(3.6 per cent) for 9 months, 28 (5.6 per cent) for 8 months, 4 (0.8
per cent) for 7 months, 32(6.4 per cent) for 6 months, 2 (0.4 per cent) for 5
months,124 (24.8 per cent) for 4 months, 9 (1.8 per cent) for 3 months, 52 (10.4 per
cent) for 2 months and 8 (1.6 per cent) samples for just 1 month.
When asked as for how many months of the previous year they did get one poor/
partial meal plus one distress meal-a-day, only 2.7 per cent said that they had
secured this kind of food throughout the year. 21.7 per cent of the samples could not
get this kind of food even for a single month of the year. 7.7 per cent of the
households had eaten this kind of food for 2 months of the previous year, 15.7 per
cent for 4 months, 17.9 per cent for 6 months, 14.1 per cent for 8 months and 3.1
per cent had eaten this kind of food for 10 months of the previous year.
While 131 (26.2 per cent) samples from Rajasthan could not secure this category of
food even for a single month, that figure for Jharkhand is 86 (17.2 per cent). 6 (1.2
per cent) samples from Rajasthan had eaten this kind of food for 1 month,35 (7 per
cent) for 2 months, 25(5 per cent) for 3 months,66 (13.2 per cent) for 4 months,36
(7.2 per cent) for 5 months,86 (17.2 per cent) for 6 months,22 (4.4 per cent) for 7
months, 51 (10.2 per cent) for 8 months, 1 (0.2 per cent) for 9 months, 20 (4 per cent)
for 10 months, 7 (1.4 per cent) for 11 months and only 14 (2.8 per cent) samples
from Rajasthan had eaten this kind of food for 12 months.
The corresponding figures for the state of Jharkhand are 27 (5.4 per cent) samples
for 1 month, 42 (8.4 per cent) for 2 months,17 (3.4 per cent) for 3 months,91 (18.2
per cent) for 4 months,14 (2.4 per cent) samples for 5 months,93 (18.6 per cent) for
6 months,8(1.6 per cent) for 7 months,90 (18 per cent) for 8 months,8(1.6 per cent)
for 9 months, 11 (2.2 per cent) for 10 months and only 13 (2.6 per cent) households
had secured this kind of food for 12 months.
50
When asked as for how many months of the previous year they had to survive on
just one poor/partial meal–a-day, 1.3 per cent said that they could get only this kind
of food for the whole year, 3 per cent had to survive on this kind of food for 8 months
of the previous year, 2.7 per cent for 6 months of the year, 15.6 per cent for 4
months, 23.8 per cent for 2 months and 10.8 per cent of Adivasis had to make do
only with this kind of food for 1 month of the previous year. This data implies that
22.6 per cent of Adivasi households in these sample states had to survive only on
this kind of food for 4-12 months of the previous year.
While 6 (1.2 per cent) samples from Rajasthan had survived only on one poor/partial
meal-a-day for all 12 months of the previous year, that figure for Jharkhand is 7 (1.4
per cent). 1 (0.2 per cent) sample from Rajasthan had eaten this kind of food for 11
months of the previous year, 3 (0.6 per cent) for 10 months, 2 (0.4 per cent) for 9
months, 6 (1.2 per cent) for 8 months,2 (0.4 per cent) for 7 months,10(2 per cent) for
6 months, 2 (0.4 per cent) for 5 months, 28 (5.6 per cent) for 4 months, 23 (4.6 per
cent) for 3 months, 106 (21.2 per cent) for 2 months and 66 (13.2 per cent) families
for 1 month. The corresponding figures for Jharkhand are 5 (1 per cent) families for
11 months, 3 (0.6 per cent) families for 10 month, 7 (1.4 per cent) families for 9
month, 24 (4.8 per cent) for 8 months, 2 (0.4 per cent) for 7 months, 17 (3.4 per cent)
for 6 months, 5 (1 per cent) for 5 months, 128 (25.6 per cent) for 4 months, 27 (5.4
per cent) for 3 months, 132 (26.4 per cent) for 2 months and 42 (8.4 per cent)
families for one month.
There were 11 (1.1 per cent) Adivasi households who had survived by eating only
distress food for 5-11 months of the previous year. Another 39 (3.9 per cent) families
could eat only this kind of food for 4 months, 50 (5 per cent) families for 3 months,
102 (10.2 per cent) families for 2 months and 77 (7.7 per cent) families for 1 month
of the previous year. This data implies that 10 per cent of sample Adivasi
households in Rajasthan and Jharkhand had to survive only on distress food
for 3-11 months of the previous year. If this figure is combined with 22.6 per
cent of samples who had survived for 4-12 months only on one poor/ partial
51
meal-a-day, we get a very disturbing figure of 32.6 per cent of sample Adivasi
households living in semi- starvation during the previous one year of survey.
9 (1.8 per cent) samples from Rajasthan could eat only distress food for 5-11
months, 34 (6.8 per cent) for 4 months, 50 (10 per cent) for 3 months, 56 (11.2 per
cent) for 2 months and 34 (6.8 per cent) for 1 month of the previous year. 2 (0.4 per
cent) samples from Jharkhand had eaten only distress food for 5-11 months, 5 (1
per cent) for 4 months, 46 (9.2 per cent) for 2 months and 43(8.6 per cent) samples
for 1 month of the year.
There were 3 (0.3 per cent) Adivasi households who had survived on only jungle
food for 2 months and 26 (2.6 per cent) samples for 1 month of the previous year. All
3 samples who had survived on jungle food for 2 months were from Rajasthan. Out
of the 26 samples who could get only jungle food for 1 month of the previous year, 9
(0.9 per cent) were from Rajasthan and 17 (1.7 per cent) were from Jharkhand.
There were 57 (5.7 per cent) Adivasi households who had not eaten any food
whatsoever for one month of the previous year. However, this state of hunger was
not suffered in continuation but was spread over the whole year. Therefore, it does
not necessarily cause “starvation deaths”. But this is definitely a firm indicator of the
state of semi-starvation prevailing in this group of Adivasi households. Out of these
57 samples, 42 (4.2 per cent) were from Rajasthan and only 15 (1.5 per cent) from
Jharkhand.
Jungle food consumption during previous one year
51.4 per cent of households in Rajasthan & Jharkhand said that they did not eat any
jungle food during the previous one year of survey. 23.2 per cent said that
approximately one-fourth of their diet consisted of jungle food during previous one
year, 7.9 per cent samples said that half of their diet during the year consisted of
52
jungle food, 9.1 per cent said that it was up to three-fourth and 8.4 per cent samples
said that 75-100 per cent of their previous year’s diet consisted of jungle food.
State-wise segregation of data about proportion of jungle food in Adivasis’ diet of
previous one year again confirms that proportion of jungle food consumption in
Jharkhand is much higher than in the case of Rajasthan. While only 25 per cent of
Jharkhand samples had not consumed any jungle food during previous one year, an
overwhelming 77.8 per cent of Rajasthan households had not eaten any jungle food
during previous year. Against 26.8 per cent of Jharkhand households whose one –
fourth of diet consisted of jungle food, only 19.6 per cent of Rajasthan samples said
that one –fourth of their diet consisted of jungle food. While only four samples (0.8
per cent) from Rajasthan could say that half of their families’ diet consisted of jungle
food,75 samples (15 per cent) from Jharkhand said that about half of their diet
during the previous year consisted of jungle food. Again, while 18.2 per cent of
samples from Jharkhand said that three-fourth of their diet consisted of jungle food,
none of the samples from Rajasthan could say so. While only 9 samples (1.8 per
cent) from Rajasthan said that their 75-100 per cent of diet during previous year
consisted of jungle food, 75 samples (15 per cent) from Jharkhand said that 75-
100 per cent of their diet during the previous one year consisted of jungle food.
Protein (pulses& animal products) consumption during previous year
It is shocking to note that 30.8 per cent of sample households in Rajasthan and
Jharkhand could not secure any pulse or animal product even for one month
of the previous year. Less than 1 per cent of sample households were able to
eat some pulses or animal products during the whole previous year. 3.8 per
cent could secure these items for 7-11 months, 8 per cent of samples had eaten
these protein sources between 4-6 months, 7.3 per cent for three months , 19.4 per
cent households had eaten these items for two months and 29.2 per cent
households were able to eat these sources of protein hardly for one month in the
previous year. To put these figures differently, 86.7 per cent of Adivasi households in
53
Rajasthan and Jharkhand either could not eat any pulse & animal product or did eat
for hardly three months during the year. Therefore, these figures clearly suggest that
at least 86.7 per cent of Adivasi households were suffering from severe
protein deficiency and were vulnerable to many opportunistic diseases. Severe
protein deficiency among Adivasi children is responsible for very high infant mortality
rate in these areas and this problem has now assumed alarming proportions in
Adivasi areas of the country.
Among Rajasthan samples, only 1.4 per cent had secured some protein source
throughout previous year, 29.2 per cent could not eat any pulse or animal product
during the whole previous year, 25 per cent could get it for just one month, 17.4 per
cent for two months, 9.4 per cent for three months, 4.6 per cent for four months, 2.8
per cent for five months, 3.4 per cent for six months and 5.4 per cent for 7-12
months. These figures clearly suggest that 81 per cent of households in
Rajasthan either did not eat any pulse or animal product or did eat only for 1-3
months during the previous one year.
In Jharkhand, only two sample households (0.4 per cent) had eaten some pulse or
animal product throughout previous year. 32.4 per cent of households did not get
any pulse or animal product to eat during the previous one year, 33.4 per cent
samples had eaten it for just one month, 21.4 per cent for two months , 5.2 per cent
for 3 months and only 7.4 per cent for 4-12 months of previous year. To put these
figures differently, an alarming 92.4 per cent of Adivasi households in
Jharkhand either did not eat any pulse or animal product or did eat only for 1-3
months of the previous one year.
Food Stocks at Home
To assess and understand the immediate level of hunger and food security of the
Adivasi households, they were asked as to how much of food stock they had at
home. 4.7 per cent of the households had no food stock at all on the day of
54
survey, 18.7 per cent had less than 10 kg of food grains at home, 45.9 per cent
of them had less than 50 kg,15.9 per cent had less than 100 kg,13 per cent had
between 100-150kg, 3.4 per cent 150-200 kg,6.5 per cent had 200-250 kg,1.3 per
cent between 250-300 kg, 4 per cent between 300-350 kg, 0.4 per cent had between
350-400 kg and there were only 9.7 per cent of households who had more than 400
kg of food grains at their home on the day of survey.
Food stocks at home - Both States
6.5
3.4
13
15.9 45.9
18.7
4.70.6
1.90.6
0
1.3
40.4
0.51.7
3.20.2
0.50.10.10.2 No stock
Less than 100-5050-100100-150150-200200-250250-300300-350350-400400-450450-500500-550550-600600-650650-700700-750750-800800-850850-900900-950950-1000
In Rajasthan, 4.6 per cent of Adivasi households had no food stock, 17.4 per cent
had less than 10 kg of food grains, 54.6 per cent had less than 50 kg, 14.4 per cent
50-100 kg, 15.6 per cent had 100-150 kg, 3 per cent 150-200 kg, 5.8 per cent 200-
250 kg, 0.8 per cent 250-300 kg and only 5.8 per cent had more than 300 kg of food
grains in their homes on the day of survey. In Jharkhand, 4.8 per cent households
had no food grains in their homes, 20 per cent had less than 10 kg, 37.2 per cent
less than 50 kg, 17.4 per cent 50-100 kg, 10.4 per cent 100-150 kg, 3.8 per cent
150-200 kg, 7.2 per cent 200-250 kg, 1.8 per cent 250-300 kg and 22.2 per cent
households had more than 300 kg of food grains in their homes. It is striking to note
here that while only 5.8 per cent of Rajasthan households had more than 300 kg of
55
food grains in their homes, 22.2 per cent of Adivasi households in Jharkhand had
over 300 kg of food grains in their homes.
Adivasis’ own perception about their state of food security
Proportion of households with declined food security
13.4
94.686.6
5.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Rajasthan Jharkhand
States
Per
cen
tag
es o
f Y
es/N
o
Yes No
To get Adivasis’ own perception about their current state of food security in
comparison to that 2-3 decades ago, they were asked as to whether their household
food security had improved or weakened in last 25 years. A staggering 90.6
percent of total samples said that their food security had weakened. Only 9.4
per cent of Adivasis said that their household food security had improved in
comparison to 25 years ago. State-wise segregation of the response to this question
suggests that while 94.6 per cent of Rajasthan Adivasis think that their food security
has weakened in last 25 years, only 86.6 per cent of Jharkhand Adivasis perceived a
decline in their household food security.
Reasons for decline in food security
To know Adivasis’ perception about the main reasons for the decline in their
household food security in recent past, they were asked to identify three main
56
reasons for the same out of a list of 9 probable reasons given to them, (1. Land
alienation; 2.Decline in MFP/deforestation/degradation; 3.Decline in livestock;
4.Decline in actual wages; 5.Decline in work availability; 6. Growth in family size ;
7.Development projects; 8.Conservation of forests/wildlife; 9.Others). 54.9 per cent
of the respondents identified decline in availability of minor forest produce
(MFP) due to deforestation and degradation of forests as the most important
reason for weakening of their food security. Decline in work availability was
identified as the second most important reason for their chronic hunger. They
identified decline in livestock as the third important reason for their plight. Growth in
family size was identified as the fourth reason, land alienation as fifth, decline in
actual wages as the sixth, other factors as seventh, conservation of forests and
wildlife as eighth and development projects as the ninth most important reason for
their weakened food security.
State-wise segregation of data gives some interesting variations in the perception of
state samples. While highest proportion of samples from Rajasthan identified decline
in MFP/deforestation and degradation of forests as the most important reason for the
weakening of their food security, decline in work availability was identified by highest
proportion of Jharkhand respondents as the most important reason for their
deteriorating food security. While decline in livestock was identified as the second
most important reason by Rajasthan Adivasis, Jharkhand Adivasis identified decline
in MFP due to deforestation as the second most important reason for their plight.
Rajasthan Adivasis said that decline in work availability was the third important
reason for their poor food security and those from Jharkhand felt that decline in
actual wages was the third biggest factor behind their chronic hunger.
It is interesting to note here that while Rajasthan samples think that growth in family
size is the fifth biggest factor for their deprivation, those from Jharkhand hold it as
the fourth biggest factor for their weakened food security. It was striking to find that
land alienation was not identified by any of the sample states as one of the top three
factors involved in the decline in Adivasis’ household food security. Land alienation
57
was identified as the fourth important reason by Rajasthan samples while Jharkhand
samples gave it the fifth rank in the list of nine factors. There is a striking similarity in
the perception of Rajasthan and Jharkhand respondents about the two least
important reasons for their persistent hunger. It is interesting to note that
respondents from both these states identified conservation of forests/ wildlife, and
development projects as the two least responsible factors for the steady decline in
their food security
Availability of MFP
When asked as to whether availability of minor forest produce (MFP) has declined in
last 25 years, 93.1 per cent of the respondents replied yes and only 6.9 per cent said
no. While 450 samples (90 per cent) from Rajasthan said that availability of MFP has
declined, 96.2 per cent of Jharkhand samples believed so. 10 percent of Adivasis
from Rajasthan did not perceive any decline in MFP in last 25 years, but only 3.2
percent Jharkhand Adivasis perceived so. However, it must be clarified here that
those samples who did not perceive any decline in the availability of MFP during last
25 years do not suggest that they are currently getting as much MFP as 2-3 decades
ago. In fact, they are suggesting a totally different condition. Actually, 6.9 per cent of
samples who did not perceive any decline in MFP availability are the ones who did
not have any forest around their villages even 2-3 decades ago, and therefore they
did not get any MFP either 25 years ago or at present. It is because of this grim truth
that only 3.2 per cent of Jharkhand samples did not perceive any decline in MFP
availability, while 10 per cent of Rajasthan samples did not perceive any decline in
MFP. Since the proportion of samples without forest cover and MFP availability is
comparatively much higher in the case of Rajasthan, a higher percentage of them
did not perceive any decline in MFP availability.
58
Proportion of decline in MFP in last 25 years
64.2
32.4
1
10.7
31
57.357.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Up to 25 % Up to 50 % Up to 75 % Up to 100 %
Per
cen
tag
es
RajasthanJharkhand
37.7 per cent samples out of a total 1000 Adivasi households surveyed in Rajasthan
and Jharkhand believed that the proportion of decline in MFP in last 25 years had
been up to 100 per cent, 36.6 per cent believed it had been up to 75 per cent, 6 per
cent said it is up to 50 per cent and 3.1 per cent felt that the decline in MFP had
been only up to 25 per cent in comparison to its availability 25 years ago. While 57.3
per cent of Adivasis in Rajasthan said that the proportion of decline in MFP in last 25
years had been up to 100 per cent, 32.4 per cent said it had been up to 75 per cent,
4.2 per cent said it is up to 50 per cent and 6 per cent felt that the decline in MFP
had been only up to 25 per cent in comparison to its availability 25 years ago. While
31 per cent of Adivasis in Jharkhand thought that the decline in MFP had been up to
100 per cent, 57.3 per cent said that it had been up to 75 per cent, 10.7 per cent felt
it had been up to 50 per cent and only 1 per cent said that decline was only up to
one-fourth.
To get Adivasis’ own views about the main reasons behind the decline of MFP
availability, they were asked to identify 3 main reasons for the same out of a list of
six probable reasons given to them (1.deforestation, 2.forest depletion, 3.legal
59
prohibition on entry/gathering for the sake of forest& wildlife conservation, 4.decline
in forest cover due to development projects, 5.population pressure, 6.others). Forest
depletion was identified as the most important reason for decline in MFP,
population pressure as the second most important reason, legal prohibition on MFP
gathering for forest/wildlife conservation as the third important reason, decline in
forest cover due to development projects as fourth, other factors as fifth and
deforestation was identified as the sixth most important reason for the decline in
MFP availability.
Reasons for decline in MFP
35%
28%
26%
6% 3% 2%Forest Depletion
Population pressure
Legal prohibition/ conservation/Wild life conservationDue to development projects
Others
Deforestation
In the case of Rajasthan, forest depletion was identified as the most important
reason behind decline in MFP availability, legal prohibition on MFP gathering for the
sake of forest/wildlife conservation as the second important reason, population
pressure as third, reduced forest cover due to development projects as fourth
important reason, deforestation as fifth and other factors as the last and least
important reason behind the decline in MFP availability. There is a striking similarity
in Rajasthan and Jharkhand samples’ perception about the most important factor
behind the decline in MFP. Because Jharkhand samples also hold forest depletion
as the biggest culprit for reduced MFP. While population pressure was identified as
the second big factor, legal prohibition on MFP gathering for the sake of
60
forest/wildlife conservation as the third important reason, others as fourth reason,
reduced forest cover due to development projects as fifth important reason and
deforestation as the sixth important factor behind the decline in MFP availability in
the state of Jharkhand.
Indebtedness
Most of the available literature on hunger and poverty in Adivasi areas of India
suggests that indebtedness is a very serious problem among Adivasis. However, our
survey research among 1000 sample Adivasi households in Rajasthan and
Jharkhand found this problem not so serious . Out of 1000 sample households, 933
(93.3 per cent) had not taken any loan whatsoever. Only 67 (6.7 per cent)
households had taken some loans. While 8.8 per cent Rajasthan samples had taken
loan, only 4.6 per cent samples in Jharkhand had taken loan. Therefore, the number
of indebted households in Jharkhand was only about half of that in Rajasthan.
56.7 per cent of the loans were taken for agricultural investments and inputs, 10.4
per cent for buying food, 9 per cent for health reasons, 1.5 per cent for marriage
expenses and 22.4 per cent were taken due to other reasons. The largest number of
samples in both the states had incurred loans on account of agricultural investments
and farm inputs. 13.3 per cent of loans by Rajasthan samples were taken for buying
food, 11.1 per cent for meeting medical expenses, 51.1 per cent for agricultural
investments / inputs and remaining 24.4 per cent were taken on account of other
reasons. 4.5 per cent of loans in Jharkhand were taken to buy food, another 4.5 per
cent for marriage expenses and again another 4.5 per cent for health reasons, 68.2
per cent for agricultural investment/inputs and remaining 18.2 per cent loans were
taken for other purpose.
61
Reasons for loans
10%
2%
9%
57%
22%
Food
Marriage
Health
Agriculture/Irrigation
Others
Land Use Pattern
While 91.2 per cent of surveyed Adivasis possessed lands, 8.8 per cent were
landless. The proportion of landless Adivasis in Rajasthan was marginally higher
than those in Jharkhand. While 12.6 per cent of Rajasthan Adivasis were landless,
only 5 per cent of samples in Jharkhand had no land.
Out of those Adivasis who possessed land, 77.9 percent were marginal farmers (up
to 2.5 acres), 16.9 per cent were small farmers (up to 5 acres) and only a tiny 5.3
percent were medium size (5-10 acres) farmers. While 82.2 per cent land owning
households in Rajasthan were marginal farmers, 13.5 per cent small farmers and
only 4.3 per cent medium farmers, this proportion in Jharkhand was 73.9 per cent
marginal farmers, 20 per cent small farmers and only 6.1 per cent were medium
farmers.
A huge 81 percent of land holders had no irrigation facility. While 395 (79 per cent)
Rajasthan samples had no source of irrigation, that number for Jharkhand was 415
(83 per cent). While only 42 samples from Rajasthan had irrigated land, 60 samples
62
from Jharkhand had irrigated land.6 samples from Rajasthan had only one-fourth of
their land under irrigation, 30 samples had half of their land under irrigation, 2
samples had three-fourth of their land as irrigated and only a tiny 4 Adivasi
households had their full land under irrigation. 4 Adivasi households from Jharkhand
had only one-fourth of their land under irrigation, 18 samples had half of their land
under irrigation, 35 had three-fourth land as irrigated and only 3 households had
their full land under irrigation.
Out of a total 102 households having irrigated land, 10 households had only one-
fourth of their land under irrigation, 48 samples had half of their land under irrigation,
37 samples had three-fourth of their land under irrigation and only 7 households had
their lands fully irrigated.
While canal was source of irrigation for 12 Adivasi households, tube-well/borewell
provided irrigation to 12, open- well to 58 and other sources of irrigation were
available to 19 Adivasi farmers. In Rajasthan, canal was source of irrigation for 9
samples, tube-well/bore-well for 8 samples, open well for 19 samples and 6 samples
had other sources of irrigation. In Jharkhand, canal provided irrigation to 4 samples,
tube-well/ bore-well to another 4, open well to 39 and 13 samples used other
sources of irrigation.
Cropping Pattern
Coarse cereals
Among total samples, 44.4 per cent said that they grow coarse cereals like jowar,
bajra and maize. The proportion of Adivasi households who grow coarse cereals is
much larger in the state of Rajasthan compared to Jharkhand. While only 9.4 per
cent of Jharkhand households grow these crops, an overwhelming 79.4 of Rajasthan
Adivasis said that they grow course cereals.
63
Wheat
Only 15.7 per cent of total sample households grow wheat in their lands. Again, the
number of wheat growing households was very high in Rajasthan compared to
Jharkhand. While only 3.4 per cent households in Jharkhand said that they grow
wheat, 28 per cent households from Rajasthan said so.
Rice
46.4 per cent of surveyed Adivasi households cultivate rice in their fields. As against
the proportion in the case of coarse cereals and wheat, a very high proportion of
Jharkhand households compared to Rajasthan do rice cultivation. While only 5.2 per
cent of Rajasthan Adivasis grow rice, an overwhelming 87.6 per cent of Jharkhand
Adivasis cultivate rice.
Pulses
24.6 per cent of total households in Rajasthan and Jharkhand cultivate pulses in
their lands. Again in comparison to Rajasthan, a very large number of Adivasis in
Jharkhand cultivate pulses. While only 7.2 per cent of Rajasthan Adivasis grow
pulse crops, 42 per cent of Adivasi farmers in Jharkhand cultivate these crops.
Vegetables
Only 54 samples (5.4 per cent) among the total samples said that they cultivate
vegetables in their agricultural land. While 7 per cent of Rajasthan households grow
vegetables, only 3.8 per cent of Jharkhand Adivasi households cultivate vegetables
in their fields.
Fruits
Fruit cultivation in the sample Adivasi villages of Rajasthan and Jharkhand was
almost non-existent. Only 2 households, both from Jharkhand, said that they
cultivate some fruits in their agricultural land.
64
Other crops
Only 5.8 per cent from the total sample households said that they grow other crops
too. While only 1 per cent households from Rajasthan cultivate other crops, 10.6 per
cent from Jharkhand samples do cultivate other crops too.
Livestock Profile
It is very difficult to imagine a tribal economy without livestock. Till 2-3 decades ago,
livestock played a very prominent role in Adivasis’ livelihood systems. However, with
the steep decline in forest cover and communal pastureland, there has been a
corresponding decline in the livestock population in Adivasi areas. Now, livestocks
like buffalo, cow, bullock, goat, hen and pig play a very marginal role in Adivasis’
livelihood security. Still, most of the Adivasi households own some or the other
livestock. To ascertain and understand the nature and extent of livestock owned by
Adivasis, we decided to prepare a livestock profile of the sample Adivasi households.
Buffalo
Only 17.9 per cent of sample households in Rajasthan and Jharkhand owned
buffalos and 82.1 per cent households had no buffalo. While 21.6 per cent of
Rajasthan households had buffalos, only 14.2 per cent of Jharkhand households
had buffalos at their homes.
Cow
30.8 per cent of Adivasi households owned cows and 69.2 per cent had no cow.
While 36.8 per cent of households in Rajasthan had cows, only 24.8 per cent of
sample households in Jharkhand owned cows.
Bullock
Since most of Adivasis still practice traditional farming and land-tilling is done by
conventional ploughs, bullock is still very important for agriculture in Adivasi areas of
Rajasthan and Jharkhand. Therefore, the number of bullocks in these Adivasi areas
was much higher compared to buffalos and cows. 47.2 per cent of total households
65
owned a pair of bullocks to till their land. While 48.8 per cent households in
Rajasthan had a pair of bullocks, this proportion in Jharkhand was 45.6 per cent.
Goat
46.4 per cent of total Adivasi households in Rajasthan and Jharkhand owned goats
and 53.6 per cent had no goat. While 47.8 per cent of Rajasthan samples had goats,
45 per cent of Jharkhand households owned this livestock.
Hen
36.9 per cent of total sample households in these two states had hens in their
homes. The number of hens in the state of Jharkhand was much larger compared to
Rajasthan. While only 13 per cent of Rajasthan households owned hens, 60.8 per
cent of Jharkhand households had hens in their homes.
Other cattle
Only 13 (1.3 per cent) samples of Adivasi households out of total 1000 had other
livestocks like pig and donkey. While 8 (1.6 per cent) samples from Rajasthan had
other livestocks, only 5(1 per cent) households in Jharkhand owned livestocks other
than buffalo, cow, bull, goat and hen.
It is interesting to note here that despite less forest cover, higher proportion of
Rajasthan households have livestock. This is most likely because of the fact that the
area under communal pasturelands in the state of Rajasthan, especially in
Dungarpur district is much larger than that in Jharkhand.
Income from agriculture
92.1 per cent of land owning Adivasis did not get any income from their agricultural
land, 3.3 per cent had yearly income from agriculture below Rs 500, 2.2 per cent
between Rs 500-1000, 0.5 per cent between 1000-1500, 0.7 per cent between 1500-
2000, 1 per cent about 2000-3000 and only 0.2 percent (just 2 households out of
66
1000 samples) of the Adivasis got an annual income from agriculture between Rs
10,000-15,000. 94.7 per cent of land owning samples from Rajasthan did not get any
income from agriculture, 4.1 per cent did get yearly income from agriculture below
Rs 500, 0.5 per cent had Rs 500-1000, 0.2 per cent got Rs. 1500-2000 and another
0.5 per cent got Rs. 2000-3000 as agricultural income. In Jharkhand, 89.7 per cent
of landed households had no income from agriculture, 2.5 per cent got below Rs.500,
3.8 per cent had Rs. 500-1000, 1.1 per cent got Rs.1000-1500, another 1.1 per cent
did get Rs 1500-2000, 1.5 per cent had Rs.2000-3000 and a tiny 0.4 per cent had
farm income of Rs. 10000-15000.
Land Alienation
While land alienation is cited as one of the most important reasons for deprivation,
chronic hunger and grinding poverty in Adivasi areas of India, our sample Adivasi
villages in Udaipur & Dungarpur districts of Rajasthan and West Singhbhum &
Gumla districts of Jharkhand did not find this as a widespread phenomenon. Only
9.9 percent of surveyed Adivasis have lost some of their lands in last 25 years.
Remaining 90.1 percent have not lost any land whatsoever. Our data suggests a
higher proportion of land alienation in Jharkhand compared to Rajasthan. While only
7.8 per cent of Rajasthan households have suffered land alienation, that proportion
in the state of Jharkhand is 12 per cent. The proportion of households who have not
experienced any land alienation was 92.2 per cent in Rajasthan and 88 percent in
Jharkhand.
67
Percentage of Land loss in both the States
7.812
92.288
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Rajasthan Jharkhand
States
Per
cen
tag
e
Lost land
No loss
Out of the 9.9 percent of Adivasis who have suffered land alienation, 19.2 percent
have lost up to one-fourth, 3.3 percent up to half of their land, 26.3 percent up to
three-fourth of their land and only 21.2 percent have lost their entire land. Out of 7.8
per cent samples from Rajasthan who have suffered land loss, 17.9 per cent have
lost up to one-fourth of their land, 20.5 per cent up to half of land, 38.5 per cent up to
three-fourth of land and 23.1 per cent have lost their entire land. Out of the 12 per
cent Jharkhand samples who have suffered land alienation in the last 25 years, 20
per cent have lost up to one-fourth of land, 41.7 per cent about half of their land,18.3
per cent approximately three-fourth of the land and another 20 per cent had lost their
total land.
Out of total 99 (9.9 percent) Adivasi households who have experienced land loss, a
sizable 49 (50.7 per cent) was on account of sell, 5 (4.15 per cent) due to acquisition
by government for development projects, 23 (23.65 per cent) on account of
encroachment by powerful people and 22 (21.45 per cent) Adivasi households had
other reasons behind their land alienation. 22 samples (56.4 per cent) in Rajasthan
had lost their land on account of sell, 10 Adivasi households (25.6 per cent) said that
their lands were encroached by powerful people and 7 samples (17.9 per cent) had
68
lost their lands due to other factors.27 Adivasi households (45 per cent) in the state
of Jharkhand said that they had sold out their lands, 5(8.3 per cent) samples said
that their lands were acquired by government for development projects, 13
households (21.7 per cent) said that their lands were encroached by powerful people
and 15 (25 per cent) Adivasi households had lost their lands on account of other
factors.
Out of 49 (4.9 per cent) Adivasi households who had lost their land on account of
sell, 28.6 per cent sold out their land to buy food, 16.3 per cent to meet marriage
expenses, 18.4 per cent for health reasons, 22.4 per cent for agriculture/irrigation
investment, 2 per cent for meeting education expenses of their children and
remaining 12.2 per cent of Adivasis had sold their lands for other reasons.
While 36.4 per cent of land sell in Rajasthan was on account of food, 13.6 per cent
for marriage, 22.7 per cent for health expenses, another 22.7 per cent for agricultural
inputs/investments and 4.5 per cent was because of other reasons. In Jharkhand,
22.2 per cent of land sell was for buying food, 18.5 per cent for marriage expenses,
14.8 per cent for paying medical bills, another 22.2 per cent for farm
inputs/investments, 3.7 per cent to meet education expenses and remaining 18.5 per
cent of land sell was due to other reasons.
Thus, it is clear that buying food was the most important (28.6 per cent) reason for
sell of land in Adivasi households, agriculture/irrigation investment the second
important reason (22.4 per cent), health expenses as third (18.4 per cent) and
marriage expenses (16.3 per cent) as fourth main reason for sell of Adivasi lands.
This data suggests that hunger is the first and foremost problem faced by Adivasis in
both the sample states. It is also interesting to note here that while buying food
accounted for less than one-fourth (22.2 per cent) of land sell in Jharkhand, more
than one-third (36.4 per cent) of Rajasthan land sell was for buying food.
69
Social Security/Welfare Scheme Beneficiaries
APL:
Among 1000 Adivasi households surveyed in Rajasthan and Jharkhand, 30.2 per
cent were APL beneficiaries. While 44.8 per cent samples from Rajasthan had
benefited from APL, only 15.6 per cent of Jharkhand samples had enjoyed APL
benefits.
BPL:
38.8 per cent of total households were BPL beneficiaries. While 44.6 per cent of
Rajasthan samples had benefited from this welfare scheme, corresponding figure in
Jharkhand was 33 per cent.
Antyodaya:
8.3 per cent samples were enjoying Antyodaya benefits. 8.6 per cent of Rajasthan
samples and 8 per cent of Jharkhand samples had benefited from this scheme.
ICDS:
A mere 9.5 per cent of total households had enjoyed ICDS (Integrated Child
Development Scheme) benefits. 9.4 per cent of Rajasthan and 9.6 per cent of
Jharkhand samples had benefited from this welfare scheme. A huge 90.5 per cent
of total samples had not received any benefit from ICDS.
Mid-day Meals:
Only 21.3 per cent of total households had benefited from Mid-day meal scheme.
While 37.8 per cent of Rajasthan samples had benefited from this scheme, only a
tiny 4.8 per cent of Jharkhand households had enjoyed Mid-day meal benefits. 78.7
per cent of total households in Rajasthan & Jharkhand had not derived any
benefit from Mid-day meal scheme
70
Old Age Pension:
Just 1.2 per cent of total households had enjoyed Old Age pension benefits. Only 9
households (1.8 per cent) in Rajasthan and 3(0.6 per cent) from Jharkhand had
benefited from this scheme.
Annapoorna:
Among 1000 sample households, only 2 samples, one from Rajasthan and one
from Jharkhand had benefited from Annapoorna scheme.
SGRY:
It is shocking to note that 99.3 per cent of sample households had not enjoyed
any benefit from SGRY (Sampoorna Gramin Rojgar Yojana). Only 7(0.7 per cent)
samples, all from Jharkhand only had benefited from this welfare scheme.
Food for Work Programme:
Only 23.5 per cent of total sample households had enjoyed the benefits of
Food for Work programme. While 46.6 per cent of Rajasthan samples had
benefited from this welfare scheme, only 2 samples (0.4 per cent) from Jharkhand
had benefited from this rural employment scheme. A staggering 76.5 per cent of
total samples had not received any benefit from Food for Work programme.
NFBS:
Out of 1000 total samples from Rajasthan and Jharkhand, there was not even a
single sample who had benefited from National Family Benefit Scheme (NFBS).
Access & availability of PDS
While Rajasthan and Jharkhand had a combined proportion of 74 per cent sample
households possessing ration cards and only 26 per cent without ration cards, the
segregated data of both these sample states gives a strikingly different picture.
While only 6.2 per cent of Rajasthan households were without ration cards, a
71
staggering 45.8 per cent of Jharkhand Adivasi households did not possess
any ration card.
Proportion of households having various kinds of ration cards
45.6
0
29.5
12.2
0.4
46.9
7.5
57.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
APL BPL Antyodaya Annapoorna
Category of ration card
Per
cen
tag
e
Rajasthan
Jharkhand
Out of the combined proportion of 74 per cent of households in possession of ration
cards in two sample States, 40.5 per cent of households possessed APL (above
poverty line) cards, 50.1 per cent had got BPL(below poverty line) cards, 9.2 per
cent had Antyodaya cards and only 0.1 per cent possessed Annapoorna cards. Out
of 93.8 per cent card holding samples in Rajasthan, 46.9 per cent had APL cards,
45.6 per cent had BPL cards, 7.5 per cent possessed Antyodaya cards and no one
had Annapoorna card. In the card holding samples of Jharkhand, 29.5 per cent had
APL cards, 57.9 per cent BPL cards, 12.2 per cent had Antyodaya cards, and a
miniscule 0.4 per cent had got Annapoorna cards. It is interesting to note that in our
sampling universe of 1000 Adivasi households in Rajasthan and Jharkhand, only
one household had got Annapoorna card. It is also interesting to note that while 214
samples from Rajasthan had BPL cards, only 157 samples in Jharkhand had BPL
cards, but number of Antyodaya card holders was almost same in both the states,
with 35 cards in Rajasthan and 33 cards in Jharkhand.
72
Out of 50.1 per cent card holding samples who had BPL cards, only a tiny 9.2
per cent households said that they were getting their regular quota of ration.
Remaining 90.8 per cent samples were taking either partial or no ration at all.
While 13.1 per cent of BPL samples from Rajasthan said that they were availing
their regular quota of ration, only 3.8 per cent of Jharkhand samples could say so.
Proportion of BPL card holders taking/geting their regular quota
13.1
3.8
86.9
96.2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Rajasthan Jharkhand
States
Per
cen
tag
e
Yes
No
Out of 90.8 per cent BPL card holders who did not get their regular quota of ration,
35 per cent used to take up to only 25 per cent of their ration quota, 33.5 per cent up
to 50 per cent of quota, 23.7 per cent up to 75 per cent and only 7.7 per cent of them
used to take between 75-100 per cent of their ration. Out of 86.9 per cent BPL card
holders in Rajasthan who did not get their regular ration, 31.7 per cent samples got
only up to one-fourth of the quota, 41.9 per cent used to get up to half, 20.4 per cent
up to three-fourth and 5.9 per cent up to 75-100 per cent of the quota. Among 96.2
per cent of BPL samples in Jharkhand who did not get their full quota of ration, 39.1
per cent used to get only up to one –fourth, 23.2 per cent did get up to half of their
ration quota, 27.8 per cent up to three-fourth and only 9.9 per cent did get up to 75-
100 per cent of their ration entitlement.
73
When sample Adivasi households were asked to identify main reasons for not
availing full quota of ration from PDS (public distribution system) shops, 28.2 percent
said that PDS supplier did not give full quota,17.8 percent did not buy it due to lack
of money, 16.9 percent because of unavailability of ration supply when money was
available with them, 14.5 percent because they were unable to buy full quota at a
single time, 10.4 percent did not buy it because PDS supplier charged higher rates
than fixed price, 6.8 percent said that PDS supplier did not give any ration at all and
remaining 5.3 percent did not buy their quota of ration because PDS rates were
higher than prevailing market price.
Reasons for not getting full quota of BPL ration
18%
17%
15%28%
10%
7% 5%Lack of money
unavailability of supply whenmoney is available
Unable to take full quota at singetime
PDS supplier does not give fullquota
PDS supplier charges higherrates than the fixed price
PDS supplier does not give theration
PDS rates are higher thanmarket rates
To put the same figures in other words, PDS supplier’s refusal to give full quota
was the biggest reason for Adivasis’ inability to avail their full ration
entitlement; because the highest proportion of samples (28.2 per cent)
identified this as reason for the same. Lack of money to buy the ration (17.8 per
cent) was the second biggest reason, unavailability of supply when money is
available(16.9 per cent) has been identified as the third most important reason and
inability to buy full quota at a single time because of lack of money (14.5 per cent)
was the fourth reason. The next reason in order of importance was over-pricing by
dealer (10.4 per cent), denial of ration by PDS dealer (6.8 per cent) as the sixth
74
reason and the last and least important factor behind Adivasis’ inability to avail their
full quota of ration was the higher price of PDS ration than prevailing market rates.
In Rajasthan, denial of full quota by PDS dealer was identified by highest proportion
of samples (28.5 per cent) as the reason for their inability to avail this entitlement,
unavailability of supply when money was available was identified as the second big
factor (18.3 per cent), lack of money as the third important reason (17.2 per cent),
inability to take full quota at a single time as fourth reason in order of importance
(16.7 per cent), over-pricing by ration dealer as fifth important reason (8.6 per cent),
denial of ration by PDS supplier as sixth important reason (5.9 per cent), and higher
rates of PDS ration than prevailing market rates was identified by least number of
Rajasthan Adivasis (4.8 per cent) as reason for denial of their full PDS entitlement.
In the case of Jharkhand, again denial of full quota by PDS dealer was identified by
highest proportion of samples (27.8 per cent) as the reason for their inability to avail
this entitlement, lack of money as the second important reason (18.5 per cent),
unavailability of supply when money was available was identified as the third big
factor (15.2 per cent), over-pricing by ration dealer as fourth important reason (12.6
per cent), inability to take full quota at a single time as fifth reason in order of
importance(11.9 per cent), denial of ration by PDS supplier as sixth important reason
(7.9 per cent), and higher rates of PDS ration than prevailing market rates was
identified by least proportion of Jharkhand households (4.8 per cent) as reason for
denial of their full quota of PDS ration.
It is interesting to note here that there is a striking similarity in the perception
of Rajasthan and Jharkhand samples about the most important and least
important reasons for Adivasis’ failure to enjoy full PDS benefits. In both these
sample states, the highest proportion of households identified denial of full
quota of ration by PDS dealer as the main reason for their inability to avail the
same. Interestingly, again in both Rajasthan and Jharkhand, higher PDS rates
75
than prevailing market rates was identified as the last and least important
factor behind Adivasis’ failure to avail full quota of PDS ration.
An overwhelming 80.9 percent of Adivasi households were not satisfied with
the functioning of PDS shops and behaviour of PDS dealers. Our data has
revealed slightly better functioning of PDS shops in Rajasthan in comparison
to Jharkhand. While the proportion of dissatisfied households was 75.7
percent in Rajasthan, that proportion in Jharkhand was as high as 87.9
percent.
76
Conclusion and Suggestions
This survey research on hunger in Adivasi areas of Rajasthan and Jharkhand clearly
suggests that chronic hunger in these areas does persist on a mass scale and has
now assumed dehumanizing proportions .
Food Security of Adivasis is inextricably linked to the ecological security and health
of their subsistence base; and sustainability, access and availability of that natural
resource base is critical to Adivasis’ food security. Therefore, any policy or strategy
for removal of hunger and poverty from Adivasi areas is bound to fail unless the
superstructure of food security is built on the foundation of ecological security.
Forests are the life-blood of Adivasis’ livelihood systems and alienating them from
forests is like taking away their life blood. Therefore, the proposed bill to recognize
and protect the rights of Adivasis living in so-called “forests” is a right step in the
right direction. This bill must be passed by Parliament at the earliest without any
dilution of Adivasis’ rights enshrined therein.
There is no substitute to self-reliant, sustainable and local livelihood systems of
Adivasis that had stood the test of time from time immemorial but are sought to be
sacrificed, discarded and buried for the sake of industrial growth and short-term
monetary returns.
A certain percentage of royalty earned by mining and other industrial activities in
Adivasi areas must be given back to local Adivasis, not only as a compensation for
the destruction and damage caused by the concerned project, but also because
traditionally Adivasis had the first charge on those resources and they must be
treated as the legitimate share-holders in any commercial enterprise based on these
resources. It is surprising that even after 58 years of independence, there is hardly
any thinking or effort by peoples’ movements, NGOs and activists to raise the
demand for royalty to local Adivasis.
77
PDS in Adivasi areas is in complete shambles and it is as good as non-existent.
Since around 99 percent of Adivasis are facing chronic hunger and grinding poverty,
targeted PDS is a cruel joke on hungry Adivasis. All the Adivasi households (except
the ones who are getting salaried income) should be given BPL cards and there
should be universal PDS in Adivasi areas.
The depth and dimensions of hunger in Adivasi areas is one of the least understood
and most misunderstood issues in India. There is very little quality research and
most of the available literature is outdated and unable to factor-in the emerging
threats to Adivasis’ livelihoods and food security. Other than occasional stories of
“spectacular hunger-deaths” written as “pornography of hunger and poverty” by
newspapers and magazines, there is very little information and poor analysis of the
institutional, systemic and structural issues involved in the making of hunger and
poverty in Adivasi areas of the country.
78
Part-II
Political economy of hunger and poverty in Adivasi areas of India
“The 28th and 29th Reports of the Commissioner for Scheduled Tribes and
Scheduled Castes in 1989 and 1990 reported on the ‘colonization of tribals’ carried
out in the name of development, which has pushed the tribal people to the brink of
survival; to the effect that their conditions come to the close of ethnocide. ”(Crisis in
Adivasi Areas: Indigenous survival and the modern world.- www.globalplatform.fi.)
“The data from NNMB (National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau) 'Diet and Nutritional
Status of Tribal Population Report on First Repeat Survey' shows extremely high
prevalence of malnutrition (92 per cent), and significant numbers of severely
undernourished (20 per cent).” (Jan Swasthya Abhiyan, Hunger Watch Meet report,
22nd-23rd February 2003).
During the last 58 years of Independence, the plight of Adivasi people has actually
worsened. Their lands being snatched away; their access to forests obstructed and
villages displaced to make way for developmental and industrial projects; Adivasi
areas are now the most backward and deprived of the fruits of development. With
the policies of liberalization and free market, hunger stalks the tribal areas with the
collapse of the public distribution system. Tribals have been pauperised and
uprooted from their habitats. A major section of the tribal people is now comprised of
the landless rural poor and the most exploited cheap labour in mines, plantations,
brick kilns and construction work. (Declaration adopted at the All India Tribal
Convention, held in Ranchi on November 18-19, 2002.)
Large-scale transfers and illegal occupation of tribal lands have taken place through
fraudulent means and taking advantage of the loopholes in the laws in various parts
of the country. Such transfers and occupations have taken place, and are continuing,
despite the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of the Constitution, the Scheduled Areas
79
Regulation and several land acts like Chotanagpur and Santhal Pargana Tenancy
Acts. The commonly used methods to usurp tribal lands include mortgages, lease
agreements, benami transfers, false title deeds in collusion with revenue officials,
marriage to tribal women, holding land in the name of (bonded) tribal agricultural
labourers, etc. (ibid)
Old communal forms of tribal life with egalitarian features have now broken down in
face of feudal and capitalist onslaughts. Today tribals are the most economically
deprived and socially oppressed section of India. They are at the lowest rung in
human development. They are under ruthless exploitation of landlords and land
mafias, money-lenders, contractors, corrupt police and officials, and ruling class
politicians. Large numbers of adivasis with their entire families migrate out of homes
to other areas of the country to eke out a meagre livelihood. They are deprived of
minimum wages and protection of labour laws and various SC/ST measures as they
remain unorganised and at some places remain as bonded labourers. (Ibid)
Under the liberalisation and globalization policies of the government, adivasis are hit
hardest due to curtailment of public distribution system and cut in State funds in
social sector. Reports of hunger deaths and malnutrition among tribals have been
frequently reported from Orissa, Maharashtra, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and
Rajasthan in the recent period. Both foreign and Indian monopolies are penetrating
the mineral-rich tribal areas following large-scale privatisation and dismantling of the
public sector. Displacement of tribals accompanied by police repression and non-
adherence to Samata judgement in the Fifth Schedule areas are some of the
features of tribal exploitation due to the liberalisation policies. Further, the cuts in
State’s funding in health and education and their privatisation have deprived large
number of tribals of health and education services. Forced realisation of bank loans
have wreaked havoc on the land, properties and livelihoods of many Adivasis. (ibid)
According to the People of India Project, Adivasis constitute 8per cent (83,580,63 in
the Census, 2001) of the total population of India, consisting of 461 groups. Among
80
them about eighty percent live in the ‘central belt’, extending from Gujarat and
Rajasthan in the west to West Bengal and Tripura in the east, and across the states
of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Bihar, Jharkhand and Orissa. Most
of the remaining twenty percent live in the North Eastern States of Meghalaya,
Mizoram, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim and in the Island Union
territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Andaman and Nicobar, and Lakshadweep. A
few of them live in the southern states of Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. Andhra
Pradesh has the largest concentration of tribal population among the southern states
of India. About 95per cent of Adivasis live in rural areas, less than 10per cent are
itinerant hunter-gatherers but more than half depend upon forest produce. Very
commonly, police, forest guards and officials bully and intimidate Adivasis and large
numbers are routinely arrested and jailed, often for petty offences. Only a few
Adivasi communities which are forest dwellers have not been displaced and
continue to live in forests, away from the mainstream development activities, such as
in parts of Bastar in Madhya Pradesh, Koraput, Phulbani and Mayurbanj in Orissa
and of Andaman Islands. (C.R. Bijoy, February 2003, The Adivasis of India - A
History of Discrimination Conflict and Resistance, PUCL Bulletin)
After Independence, over 10 million Adivasis have been displaced to make way for
development projects such as dams, mining, industries, roads, protected areas etc.
Though most of the dams (over 3000) are located in Adivasi areas, only 19.9per
cent (1980-81) of Adivasi land holdings are irrigated as compared to 45.9 per cent of
all holdings of the general population. India produces as many as 52 principal, 3 fuel,
11 metallic, 38 non-metallic and a number of minor minerals. Of these 45 major
minerals (coal, iron ore, magnetite, manganese, bauxite, graphite, limestone,
dolomite, uranium etc) are found in Adivasi areas contributing some 56per cent of
the national total mineral earnings in terms of value. Of the 4,175 working mines
reported by the Indian Bureau of Mines in 1991-92, approximately 3500 could be
assumed to be in Adivasi areas. Income to the government from forests rose from
Rs.5.6 million in 1869-70 to more than Rs.13 billions in the 1970s. The bulk of the
nation’s productive wealth lay in the Adivasi territories. Yet, the Adivasis have been
81
driven out, marginalised and robbed of dignity by the very process of ‘national
development’. The systematic opening up of Adivasi territories, the development
projects and the ‘tribal development projects’ make them conducive for waves of
immigrants. (Ibid).
In the rich mineral belt of Jharkhand, the Adivasi population has dropped from
around 60per cent in 1911 to 27.67per cent in 1991. These developments have in
turn driven out vast numbers of Adivasis to eke out a living in the urban areas and in
far-flung places in slums. According to a rough estimate, there are more than 40,000
tribal domestic working women in Delhi alone. In some places, development induced
migration of Adivasis to other Adivasi areas has also led to fierce conflicts as
between the Santhali and the Bodo in Assam. Internal colonialism, Constitutional
privileges and welfare measures benefit only a small minority of the Adivasis. These
privileges and welfare measures are denied to the majority of the Adivasis and they
are appropriated by more powerful groups in the caste order. The steep increase of
STs in Maharashtra in real terms by 148per cent in the two decade since 1971 is
mainly due to questionable inclusion, for political gains, of a number of economically
advanced groups among the backwards in the list of STs. The increase in numbers,
while it distorts the demographic picture, has more disastrous effects. The real tribes
are irretrievably pushed down in the ‘access or claim ladder’ with these new entrants
cornering the lion’s share of both resources and opportunities for education, social
and economic advancement. (Ibid)
Despite the Bonded Labour Abolition Act of 1976, Adivasis still form a substantial
percentage of bonded labour in the country. Despite positive political, institutional
and financial commitment to tribal development, there is presently a large scale
displacement and biological decline of Adivasi communities, a growing loss of
genetic and cultural diversity and destruction of a rich resource base leading to rising
trends of shrinking forests, crumbling fisheries, increasing unemployment, hunger
and conflict. Excessive and indiscriminate demands of the urban market have
reduced Adivasis to raw material collectors and providers. It is a cruel joke that
82
people who can produce some of India’s most exquisite handicrafts, who can
distinguish hundreds of species of plants and animals, who can survive off the
forests, the lands and the streams sustainably with no need to go to the market to
buy food, are labeled as ‘unskilled’. Equally critical are the paths of resistance that
many Adivasi areas are displaying: Koel Karo, Bodh Ghat, Inchampalli,
Bhopalpatnam, Rathong Chu... big dams that were proposed by the enlightened
planners and which were halted by the mass movements. Such a situation has
arisen because of the discriminatory and predatory approach of the mains tream
society on Adivasis and their territories. The moral legitimacy for the process of
internal colonisation of Adivasi territories and the deliberate disregard and violations
of constitutional protection of STs has its basis in the culturally ingrained hierarchical
caste social order and consciousness that pervades the entire politico-administrative
and judicial system. This pervasive mindset is also a historical construct that got
reinforced during colonial and post-colonial India. (ibid)
Adivasis and Forests
In a long interview to India together news portal, P V Ra jgopal of Ekata Parishad
says “many people now think that Adivasi people are fast becoming an endangered
species. Adivasi people in India have been an integral part of the forests. What is
happening to the forests and wildlife is happening to them. Because there is
tremendous interest at the international level in forests and wildlife protection, there
is a chance that forests and wildlife in this world will get protected, because of the
environmental and pro-wildlife lobbies. But there is little being discussed at the
international level about protecting the indigenous peoples of the forests. Coupled
with this is the systematic approach of the state in India which presumes that control
over forests and wildlife can be best attained by getting the adivasis out of the
forests. The state supported vested interests feel that adivasis are an impediment to
the free operations of the forest and mining mafia… The question of land and forests
seems to be central to the existence and travails of the adivasi people… On the one
hand we want to kick the adivasis out and take their forest land, because we are
83
very committed to protecting the forest. But at the same time we are not committed
to implementing the land ceiling act and take some land from the rich people and
give it as resettlement land to the adivasis”.
(P V Rajagopal, December, 2001, www. indiatogether.org)
Tribals are forest dwellers, 90 percent of them still live in or in close proximity to the
forests…Forests are the habitat of the tribal people and are considered to be the
very basis of their development…Traditionally the forest has been the very life
support system of the tribals… The socio-economic life of the tribals is so intimately
inter-related and inter-mingled with the forest that by now tribals and forests have
become inseparable words… Forests, therefore, are still the major means of survival
for tribals. (Pradip Prabhu, January 2004, Tribal Forest Interface-Logic of Survival
Combat Law)
Majority of the tribals of this country live on the edge of survival, the insecurity of
their lives worsening with each passing year. Fifty years after independence, the
survival of her ancient people is still framed by colonial laws, the Forest Act and the
Land Acquisition Act in the main and a host of other laws that assisted colonial loot
of the nation’s resources. Independent India has had little to offer her adivasis
(original inhabitants) other than the ever present threat of being subsumed under the
juggernaut of development. Internal colonialism has taken the place of overseas
colonialism but the effects are the same.…. Ironically, the people who preserved the
forest are being punished precisely for having preserved them by those who made
their millions by clearing the forest… It’s a strange world in which humans, who lived
with animals and worshipped them as the spirits of their ancestors are being evicted
by elites who spent their leisure shooting at them from their elephants in their gory
sport of establishing virility. (Pradip Prabhu, January 2004, Internal Colonialism,
Combat Law.)
The British had begun a process of ruthless exploitation of forests and cutting for
commercial purposes in the name of ‘scientific forestry’. The destruction of forests
84
for commercial and industrial purposes continued unabated even after
independence due to shortsighted policies of the government and the unhealthy
nexus between the forest officials and contractors. As Indian states were merged
into the Union and their forests merged into the Reserved forests, no modicum of
decency or rule of law was followed, traditional rights were neither respected nor
recorded, age old arrangements were dismissed, the tribal forest dweller became a
timber thief and an encroacher, a criminal in his own home. The Debar Committee
noted that full control of tribal communities over forest resources was changed into
merely some rights and concessions by the 1894 Forest Policy. To make matters
worse, the National Forest Policy of independent India not only was just an
extension of the old policy followed during the colonial period, but it went a step
further. Viewing the rights of the tribals in the forests as a burden on the forests and
an impediment in the scientific and economic exploitation of the forest resources; the
rights and privileges of the tribal forest dwellers were converted into concessions.
Hence rigid restrictions were also imposed on the forest dwellers and others on
exploiting the forest resources on which their economy and culture largely depend.
The regulations were imposed on the ground that the forest dwellers (adivasis) were
solely responsible for the destruction of forest and forest resources. These
restrictions on the adivasis created several problems. The commercial orientation of
the colonial forest policy was continued in independent India and created massive
destruction of the forest and forest resources … More tribal habitat fell victim to the
contractors’ axe.
(Pradip Prabhu,January 2004, Tribal Forest Interface-Logic of Survival, Combat Law)
For production forestry, the Forest Development Corporation was established in
different states in India. These corporations mainly depend on industrial finance as
well as ploughing back a substantial portion of profits from the felling of standing
trees and in their place planting a monoculture of quick growing species such as
ucalyptus, tropical pine and others. This would seem that ultimately natural forests
would be replaced by a monoculture of man-made plantations. This was doomed to
failure from the very beginning because mere simple conservation or economic
85
exploitation of forests is not enough without proper scientific understanding or insight
into a complex and delicate ecological balance of the natural forests. The results
have indeed been catastrophic. (ibid).
Freedom from colonial rule in independent India only resulted in a new form of
slavery of the tribal people - ‘Criminalization and Slavery in their own homelands’.
These began with the alarm over the loss of forest cover, degradation of forestlands
and the expansion of wastelands following unscientific ‘scientific forestry’;
uncontrolled illegal felling; increasing population pressure on forests following
urbanization and in-migration and breakdown in stewardship of tribal communities
due to alienation and the subjugation of nature to development… A growing
environmental movement drew attention to the impending environmental
catastrophe. As the environmental lobby gathered strength, unfortunately their elitist
formulations emphasized conservation albeit without a human face. Forest became
the locus of contestation and conflict, in the jungles, in the corridors of power and the
halls of justice. Unwittingly and inevitably, the tribals were caught in the vortex of the
clash of contrasting ideologies of conservation with vexatious implications… In many
areas their economy has been greatly damaged through measures, which are not
legal. (Ibid)
Hunger in Adivasi Areas
According to the Planning Commission of India, nearly 41 districts with significant
Adivasi populations are prone to deaths due to starvation, which are not normally
reported as such.
(C.R. Bijoy, February 2003, The Adivasis of India - A History of Discrimination,
Conflict and Resistance, PUCL Bulletin)
The closure of the forests as a source of food has already pushed the weak and
already malnourished to the brink of starvation while the majority linger on the brink
of malnutrition. Now, Adivasis depend more on a monotonous cereal diet, the
86
nutritive balance being tilted as a result of the lack of the various wild foods in their
diet ….
(Pradip Prabhu,January 2004, Tribal Forest Interface-Logic of Survival, Combat Law)
Looking back at the food situation in India during the last ten years, one lesson
stands out: the poor do not count for much in public policy. The problem is not new,
but if anything, it has intensified in this period of growing inequality and elitism. Ten
years ago, the first National Family Health Survey (1992-’93) established that India
is one of the most undernourished countries in the world. According to standard
anthropometric indicators such as “weight for age”, about half of all Indian children
are undernourished. Only one or two countries, such as Bangladesh, are doing
worse than India in this respect. Under-nutrition levels in India are about twice as
high as in sub-Saharan Africa, a continent ravaged by internal wars, periodic
famines, and the spread of AIDS.
(Jean Drèze, December 2003, www.indiatogether.org)
The most startling aspect of the nutrition situation in India is that it is not much of an
issue in public debates and electoral politics. To illustrate, consider the coverage of
nutrition issues in the mainstream media. The Hindu, one of the finest English-
medium newspapers, publishes two opinion articles every day on its editorial page.
In a recent count of these opinion articles over a period of six months (January to
June 2000), it was found that health, nutrition, education, poverty, gender, human
rights and related social issues combined accounted for barely 30 out of 300 articles.
Among these 300 articles, not one dealt with health or nutrition. In 1993-94, the 50th
round of the National Sample Survey highlighted another disturbing aspect of the
nutrition situation in India: there is no food security system worth the name. (ibid)
Food is the most basic need of a human being. The inability of a person to get
enough to eat comes under the purview of food insecurity. The causes of food
insecurity are deep-rooted. The full story of food insecurity is related to poverty,
illiteracy, discrimination and neglect. Ultimately it is a story of failed governance –
87
global, national and local. (M.S.Swaminathan Research Foundation and World Food
Programme, 2002, Food Insecurity Atlas of Rural India, P.1.) In India, the proportion
of people facing food insecurity is higher than the proportion defined as being
income-poor or below the official poverty line. While around 37 percent of rural
households were below the poverty line in 1993-94, 80 percent of households
showed a calorie-deficit. Evidence on the consumption of food, on calorie- intake
and on nutritional outcomes clearly prove that chronic hunger persists on a mass
scale in India. (Swaminathan, Madhura(2000), Weakening Welfare : The Public
Distribution of Food in India, P.32.)
Almost every year large parts of India suffer from devastating droughts, which
remain quite capable of causing large-scale starvation. Famines in India have been
rather famines of work than of food. (Dreze, Jean (1999), ‘Famine Prevention in
India’, in Dreze, Jean, Sen, Amartya and Hussain, Athar (eds), The Political
Economy of Hunger, P.73.)
Prof. Amarty sen’s theory of “entitlement failure” is by far the most comprehensive
and precise analytical tool to study the “causal mechanism” of hunger facing
different sections of the population. Prof. Sen argues “a person has to starve if his
entitlement set doesn’t include any commodity bundle with enough food. A person is
reduced to starvation if some change either in his endowments (e.g. alienation of
land or loss of labour power due to ill health) or in his exchange entitlement mapping
(e.g. fall in wages, rise in food prices, loss of employment, drop in the price of the
goods he produces and sells) makes it no longer possible for him to acquire any
commodity bundle with enough food. Famines can be usefully analyzed in terms of
failures of entitlement relations”. (Sen, Amartya (1999), ‘Food, Economics and
Entitlements’, in Dreze, Jean, Sen, Amartya and Hussain, Athar (eds.), The Political
Economy of Hunger, P. 53)
Endemic hunger and chronic poverty is arguably the most serious challenge facing a
country like India. More than 320 million of Indians go to bed without food every
88
night and over 10,000 die of hunger every day. These are figures for normal years
with good rainfalls. The scale and intensity of the food deprivation would be any
body’s guess during drought-years. During 2002, more than 14 states were severely
hit by drought. Large parts of rural India experienced famine like situations. A series
of starvation-deaths were reported from Adivasi areas of the country in 2002.
Despite the wide scale and severe intensity of the problem of endemic hunger in
India, it remains at best, on the margins of policy planning, public action and
intellectual discourse. It is partly because hunger is far more complex in India. To
quote P. Sainath, “It is more low level, less visible and does not make for the
dramatic television footage that a Somalia and Ethiopia do. That makes studying the
process far more challenging and more important”. (Sainath P. (1996), Everybody
Loves A Good Drought, P. IX.)
A quick review of the major ‘hunger-events’ hogging the limelight in cosmopolitan
media in the last 20 years suggests that almost all the ‘hunger hot-spots’ of India lie
in the Adivasi areas and almost every starvation-victim is an Adivasi. Droughts are
not limited to Adivasi areas alone. Then what makes Adivasis so vulnerable to
starvation and endemic hunger? The governments would like us to believe that it is
because of drought and “collapsed” PDS (Public Distribution System) in the tribal
areas of India.
But ‘collapsed’ PDS or drought is not even the tip of ‘hunger-iceberg’ in the Adivasi
areas. The germs of the malady lie much deeper. The core of this problem lies in the
structural changes in Adivasi economy in the last five decades that have depleted
and destroyed the traditional livelihoods and food system of these communities.
Immediately after independence the Nehruvian development paradigm embarked on
building “temples of modern India”. The social and ecological costs of this
development were largely borne by country’s Adivasi communities in terms of
physical displacement, destruction of sustenance base and gradual alienation from
natural resources. It is these starving, hungry and poor Adivasis who were made to
pay the “price of progress”. It is the same Adivasis whose survival base has been
89
sacrificed at the altar of “national interest” and “greater common good”. These are
the same people whose sources of livelihood have been appropriated by invoking
the “colonial Brahmastra” (ultimate weapon) of “eminent domain" of the State.
Whether it is mining or construction of big dams and mega power projects,
protection of forest or conservation of wildlife, Adivasis’ lives and livelihoods bore the
biggest brunt. The crisis has been further aggravated by the policies of globalization
and economic liberalization. Not only the promised “ trickle – downs" dried up
midways but it is the same Adivasis, Dalits and poor who have been asked to pay
the price of Structural Adjustment Programmes, reduction in fiscal deficit, financial
prudence, a steep reduction in food subsidy and other social sector allocations etc.
In the public memory hunger hot-spots like Kalahandi, Kashipur , Baran and Melghat
carry the stark images of starving people, subhuman poverty, perennial drought,
parched lands and chronic shortage of food grains. While images of poverty and
hunger are a fact of life in these Adivasi areas, the accompanying images of
perennial drought and chronic shortage of food grains is a classic example of the
“manufactured truth” of Chomskyian variety. How many of us know that in the last 2
decades Kalahandi had more than national average of rainfall and it has been
producing surplus food grains too.
So we have found a scapegoat for hunger in the forms of drought and food shortage.
But the truth is that hunger and poverty in Adivasi areas like Kalahandi, Baran and
Udaipur is man-made and policy-driven. In the last 5 decades the skewed polices of
development and recent economic liberalization have destroyed the self-reliant, local,
ecologically sound and equitous food and livelihood systems that characterised and
sustained Adivasis of India for millennia. Every Adivasi area of the country is now
a Kalahandi in making.
According to the Planning Commission of India, Adivasis had alienated 9,17,590
acres of lands till January 1999 and the cases of restoration was 5,37,610 acres
during the same period. Out of the total displaced population of 213 lakh between
90
1951 and 1990 in the country, the number of tribals is 85.4 lakh comprising around
40 per cent of the total displaced population while they constitute only about 8
percent of the country’s population. (Crisis in Adivasi Areas: Indigenous survival and
the modern world.- www.globalplatform.fi.)
The rising spectre of hunger in the Adivasi areas has its roots in the rising
inequalities within the agrarian regime and Adivasis’ growing alienation from their
survival base. Take the case of Chattisgarh. In the post-liberalization period,
Chattisgarh which had over 10,000 varieties of rice, has been aggressively
promoting cash crops like soyabean. The growing hunger for cash crops is inevitably
leading to a contraction of the area under subsistence and food crops. The former
state chief minister Ajit Jogi during his tenure tried his best to dissuade the farmers
from growing food crops like wheat and paddy. The peasants were being asked to
switch over to cash crops in the name of diversification. The shift to cash crops
implies that the mechanics of commercial farming would lead to a shift of land
ownership from small and marginal farmers to big farmers who come from outside,
buy tribal land and make Adivasis work on their farms as cheap labour. Tribal areas
provide cheap land and labour. For example, there was an influx of Punjabi
landlords into the heavily forested areas of Shivpuri in western M.P. Some of these
farms (owned by prominent bureaucrats and freedom fighters) were built on land
bought from the Adivasis at the throw away prices in the late 1960s, who then put
the same Adivasis to work as landless labourers. No wonder that Saharia tribals
from Shivpuri have been dying of hunger in recent years. (Archana Prasad, Sept. 29
- Oct. 12, 2001, Frontline)
Tribals’ growing alienation from land is also evident in the Kalahandi –Bolangir-
Koraput (KBK) area where there was a sharp increase in the number of landless
labourers and small and marginal farmers. During 1971 and 1991 the number of
marginal farmers with landholdings less than one acre increased from approximately
17 percent to 39 percent of the total agricultural workforce where as the number of
large farmers (owning above 10 acres or four hectares) declined in the same period
91
from 4.7 percent to 0.9 percent. It is striking to note that during the same period the
number of middle – peasants (4 to 10 acres of land) declined from 30.4 to 9.9
percent. Since the percentage of small peasants (1 to 4 acres of land) did not
increase in the same proportion as the decline of the large and middle peasantry, it
can be safely assumed that most of the medium farmers may have been reduced to
landless peasants or marginal farmers. Many social scientists like Bob Currie and
Gail Omvedt have shown that most Adivasis have been divested of good and fertile
lands and have become marginal farmers or labourers. In contrast, the fertile lands
are controlled by less than 10 percent of the people, most of whom are non-Adivasi
absentee landlords. (ibid)
This silent pauperization of tribal peasants has irreparably breached the traditional
livelihood security in tribal areas. Now most Adivasis survive on a combination of
forest gathering and farm labour. They also form a major part of the labour force in
the mines. But most of this work is seasonal in character, and migration out of the
area has become common. During times of distress and drought the rate of
migration increases manifold. During 2002, more than 3 lakh Adivasis had migrated
out of Chattisgarh in search of work. In 2001, more than 1 lakh people had migrated
from Orissa’s tribal areas. But drought is not limited to tribal areas alone. Then why
are Adivasis so vulnerable to acute hunger and distress migration?
The answer to this vexing question lies in understanding Adivasis’ precarious
livelihood strategies that are critically dependent on seasonal work. Most Adivasis
collect Tendu leaves for 40 to 60 days a year and work on the lands of the big
farmers during sowing and harvesting time. For the remaining part of the year, they
work in the mines or go off with the contractors for construction work, or simply send
one member of the family to the nearby town to find work. After the regular Tendu
work is over, tribals walk a distance of 350 km from Mandla in Madhya Pradesh all
the way to the mines in Bastar to get seasonal employment that may bring them
between Rs. 2000 and Rs. 5000 over a three or four month period. From Kalahandi
young Adivasis go to Raipur and pull rickshaws. The people of Chattisgarh make up
92
a large portion of the manual labour force of the big cities. If they stayed back and
remained dependent on seasonal work, they would earn a pittance, barely enough to
make both ends meet, leave alone save for distress times. On an average a woman
worker in Kalahandi gets Rs. 5 a day for weeding.
(Archana Prasad, Sept. 29 - Oct. 12, 2001, Frontline)
In Orissa’s Adivasi areas, small and marginal farmers are forced to do distress sell
of their paddy at as low a price as Rs. 1 to Rs.2 a Kg in order to buy essentials and
repay debts taken from local money-lenders. The lack of purchasing power to buy
food grains even at BPL rates and the distress sale of whatever food surplus exists
finally pushes these Adivasis to the “gallows” of starvation deaths. The trader
government nexus determines the entire network of grain procurement and
distribution in these Adivasi areas. For instance, in KBK (Kalahandi-Bolangir-Koraput)
region the peasant sells his rice to the merchant who sells it to FCI at the minimum
support price that is much higher. When they need to buy food in times of scarcity,
Adivasi peasants buy rice at double the price…Adivasis have now no rights in
forestlands that used to provide them food and shelter during distress periods.
Adivasi oral traditions from many areas in eastern and central India recount how
Mahua trees or ripe fruits, seeds and leaves from other plants were an essential
dietary supplement, especially in times of famine. The denial of rights in the colonial
and subsequently post-independence period was motivated not only by the need to
maximize revenues from forest timber, but also to harness forest produce for
industrial purposes. Of these Mahua and mango kernel were some of the most
valuable species in the KBK area and were therefore appropriated by traders and
the state. The Adivasis were only included in the system as labourers who had no
rights over the produce and would be paid less than the minimum wage for the
collection of the Mahua seed or the mango kernel. In the KBK area the “legal
traders” buy Mahua seeds for Rs. 2 to Rs. 3 a Kg whereas the actual market rate is
Rs. 6.50 a Kg. Some cases have also been reported where women labourers barter
Mahua and mango kernels for a small amount of salt. Given this desperate situation,
93
it is not surprising that Adivasis survive on poisonous mango kernels and roots
(Kanda) during distress periods. (ibid)
THE problem of hunger and malnutrition in Adivasi areas is clearly linked to the
inequalities and threats to livelihood security in these regions. They are also
accentuated by the lack of proper infrastructure and services, most of the benefits of
these being appropriated by richer farmers and traders. In this context, the solution
of providing food for work or free food would only take care of the immediate needs
of the Adivasis, but will not provide a long-term solution. The prevention of starvation
deaths in the Adivasi belt requires the integrated development of the region. Jagdish
Pradhan, of the Paschim Orissa Krushijeevi Sangh, voices the same sentiment
when he argues that the main issue in the KBK belt is the lack of attention to local
systems and conditions by the government. If this problem is to be tackled, then we
need to look seriously at the government policies and programmes that define the
people’s access to their local resources. So far few steps have been taken in this
direction. The enormously funded Orissa Hunger Project is mainly using the oft-
failed but popular official strategy of distributing high-yielding seeds and “educating
the people” in “improved technology” for better agricultural production. It is promoting
potatoes and giving credit to farmers for growing vegetables in the area. There is
rich irony inherent in the effort to teach methods of agriculture to a people who have
for decades produced surplus food grains. New crops are being promoted under the
garb of people’s welfare (through self-help groups and other such methods) without
looking at the totality of their possible impact on the ecology and economy of the
region. (ibid)
Hunger and Poverty in Adivasi areas of Rajasthan
"Why is everyone asking if our people have died of hunger or disease? It is the
bhookh ki bimaari (disease of hunger) that afflicts us," Raghunath, a Saharia Adivasi
in Baran.
94
“The porridge called ghooghri, which is the mid-day meal served by the Anganwaadi
and the now-defunct government school, looked so unappetising that most of the
children preferred to eat mud instead,” T K Rajalakshmi in Frontline.
An investigation into the death of 48 persons due to hunger and disease in 40
villages in Baran district of Rajasthan during the past two months has attributed the
fatalities to the chronic energy deficiency leading to weakness of the body
constitution and decline in the immunity levels of the local population. Most of the
victims belong to Saharia Adivasi. A six-member team, led by the State Advisor to
the Commissioners appointed by the Supreme Court in the right to food matter,
visited Baran district from September 9 to 11,2005 and witnessed gross under-
nourishment in the poor households. However, the immediate cause of the deaths
was found to be different kinds of ailments, which were not treated in time. The State
Advisor, Pradeep Bhargava -- who is also Professor in the Institute of Development
Studies (IDS) -- told reporters in Jaipur that though there was no epidemic in the
district, a large number of deaths reported in a small period was a cause of concern.
Prof Bhargava said that the under-nourishment reflects the lack of people's
purchasing power to buy enough nutrients for a balanced diet. Prof. Bhargava, while
affirming that the fatalities could not be termed "starvation deaths'', pointed out that
the combination of a number of factors, such as poor sanitation, unhygienic
conditions, chronic hunger, extreme poverty and the complete collapse of the health
delivery system had seemingly led to the deaths. (The Hindu, Sep 22, 2005)
The Saharias, a tribal community inhabiting Baran district of Rajasthan, are fighting
to stave off hunger and death. Saharias-the one-time hunter-gatherers have known
only poverty, hunger, exploitation, disease and death in the life. Saharias are
concentrated in the Kishanganj and Shahbad blocks in Baran district of Rajasthan. A
baseline survey done in 2003 by the Udaipur-based Tribal Research Institute put
their population in the two blocks at around 75,000. They inhabit areas in
neighbouring Madhya Pradesh as well. Primarily hunter-gatherers, the land they
occupy is arid and rocky, located at the tail-end of the Chambal canal and
95
dependent on rainfall. In contrast, land owned by the other tribal groups and a good
number of non-tribals is tubewell-irrigated, tractor-ploughed and also benefits from
the Chambal canal. At one time most of the Saharias apparently owned forest land,
which was then converted into arable land. A lot of this land, particularly the canal-
irrigated land, was mortgaged at ridiculously low rates to settlers and the Saharias
were largely left with infertile land. Even where they owned arable land, they could
not cultivate it because they did not know how to and the high cost of production
prevented them from experimenting. In the name of development the Saharias found
themselves at the receiving end of civilisation... The landlords exploited them as
labourers, did not pay them the minimum daily wage and even discriminated against
the women. All conceivable forms of exploitation take place in Saharia villages.
During drought the Saharias even sold their daughters to escape death from
starvation. When the rains come they are forced to stay indoors and confront the
diseases of the season. (T K Rajalakshmi, Oct.23-Nov.05, 2004), Frontline)
Between July and September 2004, 15 members of the Saharia community, most of
them children and young adults, died of complications arising from high fever. The
youngest victim was a two-day-old infant and the oldest a 70-year-old man. In most
cases medical treatment was not sought, and even those who were treated could
not be saved. “It was a losing battle all along for the Saharias, but one that political
parties were quick to exploit with an eye on the Assembly byelections that were
round the corner in Merta and Behror. Ashq Ali Tak, a Youth Congress leader in
charge of Kota division, under which Baran falls, first revealed the deaths to the
media. He also sent a report on the deaths since July - in Brahmapura, Maytha,
Jaitpura, Asnawar and Fatehpura villages in Kishaganj block and Gora, Deori,
Kishanpura Colony, and Mundla in Shahbad block - to the All India Congress
Committee in Delhi... At Brahmapura village, where nine persons died, Saharia
women and children in the shade facing an uncertain future. While this show of one-
upmanship earned him a rebuke from State Congres president Narain Singh, what
followed was a `great debate' on the deaths. Did they die of hunger, as the Congress
maintained, or did they die of disease, as the BJP said? Did more die in 2002 when
96
the Congress was in power or in 2004 when the BJP was at the helm? Congress
and BJP activists are said to have even attacked each other in Baran as they
competed to provide relief to the Saharias,” reported T K Rajalakshmi in Frontline
(Oct.23-Nov.05, 2004)
The government response to hunger and starvation in Saharia villages is always
outlandish and full of tokenism. These schemes hardly help in ameliorating the plight
of these hungry Adivasis. Commenting on the futility and ineffectiveness of
government schemes, T K Rajalakshmi wrote, “The Anganwaadi worker said the
children did not like the soyabean kurkure (a salty, dried preparation) that was given
as part of the nutrition package. If it were sweet, the children would eat it.
Incidenta lly, kurkure signifies something tasty and crispy. Similarly, the porridge
called ghooghri, which is the mid-day meal served by the Anganwaadi and the now
defunct government school, looked so unappetising that most of the children
preferred to eat mud instead. There was not a single Saharia child whose stomach
was not bloated by malnutrition. The Saharia men and women work in the fields
during the harvest season and women get preference because they can be paid less.
At other times they sell the wood they collect from the forest, a space that was
historically theirs but is now increasingly getting out of bounds for them. They are, in
fact, penalised often for entering the forest. The demand for wood is predictably
more in winter than in summer but jobs are difficult to find in either season…There
are many non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Baran, but collectively they
seem to have made little impact on the life of the Saharias.”(ibid)
“THE hamlets in Uni village in Kishanganj block of Baran district could be said to
personify hunger. The men, women and children, even the cattle, look famished
here. These people are the Saharias, members of the only tribe in Rajasthan that is
known to depend solely on farming for a living. They seldom take up construction-
related work. They work on the land, do harvesting and other farming tasks and earn
wages. Some of them used to own land, but following deforestation and
encroachment by non-tribal persons over the last 40 years, the Saharias were
97
pushed back in life. Baran district reported more than 40 malnourishment-related
deaths in 2002, most of them in Shahbad block. People there were surviving on
sama, a variety of wild grass used mainly as fodder. The grass had, it seemed,
turned poisonous in the hot weather. They knew about the risks posed by dried
sama, which they would make into balls and eat with chilli powder. But they had no
option... The Saharias were traditionally dependent on forest produce, but at least in
Kishanganj there seemed hardly any forest left anymore. Huge tracts of land on
either side of the national highway were thick with the stumps of tendu and other
trees. Where the land had been levelled people had fenced in huge plots, installed
tube wells and raised green fodder. But Uni had no electricity: the only light came
from the cooking fires and the moon. Kishanganj is in the command area of the
Chambal. Tube wells irrigate some of the land, though only the rich farmers can
afford them, T K Rajalakshmi reported in Frontline (April 26 - May 09, 2003).
The Saharias have been malnourished for long … During 2002 the Baran district
reported 40 malnourishment-related deaths. When the maize and jowar did not grow,
the Saharias had no work. Their being a submissive lot, organising them politically
was difficult. On their own they did not demand any drought relief work. For many
years they worked as bonded labourers on the lands of the non-tribal people. The
agricultural crisis hit them hard. Their cattle suffered as fodder became scarce. The
Saharias comprise nearly 40 per cent of the population of Baran but they do not
have any control over land resources. After Ganganagar district, Baran has some of
the most fertile lands in the State. Even those Saharia people who had little plots of
land could not cultivate them... They used to collect tendu leaves and mahua, but
most of the trees had been cut down... (ibid)
Widespread hunger and hunger deaths -- story of absolute poverty and
neglect of the Saharias in Baran district
The People's Union for Civil Liberties, Rajasthan along with representative
organisations working in the Baran district of Rajasthan, Sankalp and the Bharat
98
Gyan Vigyan Samiti, Rajasthan undertook a fact finding mission on Oct 14-15, 2002
to study the hunger situation in the district and probe into the cause of the deaths
that had been widely reported by local newspapers in the Shahbad and Kishanganj
tehsils of Baran district. The fact finding mission found shocking level of hunger,
deprivation and poverty in the villages and hamlets inhabited by Saharia Adivasis.
Following are the excerpts from this Report (This report is based on a letter dated
Oct 20, 2002 written by PUCL,SANKALP and BGVS Rajasthan to Mr Ashok Gehlot,
the then Chief Minister, Rajasthan).
“It was brought to our notice that the Saharia tribe is the most vulnerable group in
Rajasthan and the Government has not focussed on there plight. They live in a
situation of chronic hunger and deprivation. Their food security is tied to the agri-
forest economy. With the rainfall being less than 30 per cent of the annual average
there has been a severe breakdown of their livelihood support base. They have
been left to fend for themselves with hardly any State intervention coming to their
rescue, hardly any employment and hardly any free grain. We visited the villages of
Mamoni (Khanda Sehrol panchayat), Gangapur Sheharana (Mundiar Panchayat),
Rajpura (Rajpura panchayat), Betha (Betha panchayat), Lal Kankri (Ganeshpura
panchayat) all in Shahbad tehsil, and the villages of Bhanwargarh, Karwari kalan,
Hatiyadeh and Swaans in Kishaganj tehsil. We discovered a death toll of about 18
people including 12 children in these villages. Except for two, all the deaths had
happened in one month's period. On our return we were informed of two more
deaths and the local groups are investigating a few others. According to us the
aspect of death is only the tip of the iceberg as far as the situation of hunger is
concerned.”
How are people surviving in Shahbad and Kishenganj?
Instead of talking of death we wish to share with you how people survive. In all these
places we found nothing to eat in the homes of Saharias except for a few hundred
gram grains. In only one place in all these villages we found 15 kg of grain where the
99
daughter had come visiting her parents after the death of her sister and had bought
grain for them. We found people consuming rotis made of sama (wild grass seeds).
That produce is also now finished as the grass has dried up. In Gangapur
Sheharana, every household had about 20 kg sama left. People don't eat grass as it
is tasty but because there is nothing to eat. Murari Saharia had lost his father
Ganpat, his wife Bordi and their child after eating sama on the 28-29 September
(2002). Murari's mother fell seriously ill and went into unconsciousness after
consuming sama. She died on the 18th after being ill for three weeks. The
administration gave no support except for a visit by the doctor.
We also found people boiling 'phang', a wild green vegetation. People boil its leaves
and eat. They do this as they have nothing else to eat. People were also eating meat
of dead sheep and in some instances they reported that after eating putrefied meat
people had fallen ill. Later we also learnt that several people fell ill after eating
putrefied meat in Mamoni on the 17th and one person died. If people are lucky, they
get two chapatis each to eat every two days. Earlier, they would eat 6 to 8 rotis on
an average for every meal each day. We found that a family of five usually did not
have more than half a kg of flour. Hence they would boil it in water to make 'lapti'
(lapsi) and eat. Each family member would get one 'vatki' (bowl) of cooked/boiled
water. In Lal Kankri, children, feeding mothers and older and infirm people waited
with hope that the able bodied in their homes who had gone looking for work would
bring either money and flour and they would get to eat. Some children had not eaten
the whole day and begged us to give them rotis. Little boys and girls were left behind
while mothers went to dig. In every village there was a pall of gloom. The only silver
lining in all this was the fact that the school going children availed of the mid day
meal in their school. But Anganwadis were hardly working.
What were the able bodied doing
The able bodied went to the forests and commons to dig roots of a herb called
'shalavri '. These roots were brought home, peeled, dried and then sold at the rate of
100
Rs. 5 to Rs. 6 per kg. People would thus earn a meagre amount of Rs. 5 to Rs. 6
every 2-3 days. People were also boiling and drying 'amla' and bartering it for wheat.
No Government Works
Now let us look at government works in the month of October. In this connection, let
us analyse the government works at Ganeshpura panchayat. That there were very
few works, the Government data itself speaks. In Lal Kankri, the women told us that
government works employing 60 people had been started at Ganeshpura, 7 Kms
away from Lal Kankri. The women told us that every time they went for work at the
site the labourers from Ganeshpura shooed them away. Jakori is the twin village of
Ganeshpura and Kheria another village of the panchayat is two kms away from
Ganeshpura. In these three villages 250 Saharia families are already living in hunger
and not all of them are able to find employment at the Ganeshpura site due to the
insufficient works. Then it is beyond imagination that people from Lal Kankri, a
village 7 Km away can get work at Ganeshpura, as the government press note
claims. The government press note also incorrectly claims that the children of Lal
Kankri went to the Anganwadi at Ganeshpura which was 2 kms away. The actual
distance is 7 kms and none of the children were going there. According to the
Supreme Court order the Anganwadis should be in the same settlement as the
children's residence.
On the 14th of October evening after our visit to Lal Kankri we went and met the
SDM BL Verma. It was after we communicated the situation of emergency that the
old or the children would die that the SDM agreed to send a medical team and some
food grains to Lal Kankri. The team went the next day on the 15th and according to
the government press note 8 people were put on drip and 30 people were given
grain. We would like to ask that if the people were not on the verge of collapse then
why was the drip needed. Moreover, Lal Kankri has 30 houses in all. If the
administration thought that all of them should get 5 kgs of grain on Oct. 15th then it
is obvious that there was no grain in these households. Next, let us take the village
101
Swaans. No works were opened in Swaans village in Sept./Oct. The people told us
that they expected works to be opened from the 16th of Oct. The fact that no works
were opened here even after the Gram Sabha passed a resolution to this effect on
Oct. 2, when the first time an "official" body took cognisance of the matter testifies
the apathy of the panchayat, local officials and the government. Moreover, Navjyoti
reported the matter on the 10th of Oct. and Sh. Vipin Chand Sharma (the secretary
in charge of the district), visited the place on the 12th.Yet, when we went there on
the 15th, we saw no government works in existence. We would like to ask the
government who were these hundred people who got work on the relief sites, as
claimed by it? The Sarpanch himself said that there were hardly any works in the
month of September in Swaans. He also went on to call the Saharias ‘pashu’
(animal). He said Saharias were ‘pashu samaan’... ‘na samajhte hai na poori baat
batatey’. When we asked him as to when did he learn of the deaths, he told us that it
was on the 2nd of Oct., 2002 in the gram sabha. If the wheat had been distributed
earlier (as claimed by the district administration that the patwari had distributed
wheat on the 16th and 27th Sept.) then the Sarpanch would have known. The local
MLA, Hira Lal Sahariys's report also claims that no wheat was distributed earlier. It
instead states that the patwari scolded them that they were lying that the deaths had
happened due to hunger.
Let us also take a look at the public distribution system (PDS). Many people had
ration cards since March, but the first entry shows the date of 3rd Oct, 2002, wherein
the ration dealer had made a entry of 35 Kg each for the months of July, August and
Sept. 2002. Actually, they should have got 105 Kgs of grain in three months. Bur
they got only 35 kg (on payment of Rs. 150) and the rest of the wheat was definitely
pocketed by the dealer. This was the case in all 'above poverty line' and 'below
poverty line' cards. The women in the village said that it was only after the Gram
Sabha on Oct. 2, when the death of 9 children was discussed, they were asked to
come and take rations. They confirmed that they had paid only Rs. 250, the price of
35 Kgs. The ration dealer is the Sarpanch's nephew and the shop is in his house.
The women told us that after the death of children, the Sarpanch and Patwari
102
distributed 5 kg of wheat, but not on 16th and 27th Sept. That records were filled by
the patwari post facto is clear. The Food Inspector from the District Supply Office
told us that he had discovered fraudulent ration cards which had no numbers and
the BDO's signature was merely a stamp. It is clear that the Sarpanch was issuing
cards on his own and diverting the quota. The manner in which the government
press note argues that all is well in Swaans village is tantamount to protecting the
corrupt.
Let us now come to the issue of death and malnourishment. In Lal Kankri, we found
visible malnourishment. In Swaans too we found children smaller in size for their age,
taking into account the average height of Saharia children. These children had
hunger written on their face. No child looked happy. We found children mostly lying
around and not moving. All the mothers in Swaans told us that the children had died
of acute stomach pain and vomiting. Stomach pain (abdominal pain) could be due to
either eating poisonous, stale, wrong food items resulting in colics, indigestion and
release of toxins. Malnutrition causes electrolyte imbalance which can cause
abdominal spasm and vomiting. Usually, the first stage of malnourishment is not
visible and it can deteriorate very fast if subjected to an illness and constant hunger.
Children require double dose of protein. To make a statement that the children did
not die of malnourishment and hunger would require monitoring of children before
they died. Since the Government statement itself says that the children were not
taken to hospital then how can they claim that the children did not suffer from
malnourishment or that they did not die due to eating poisonous wild greens. Without
medically examining the dead bodies of the children how can the doctor's team claim
that children died out of pyrexia (fever) or pneumonia. If the doctors do claim that the
children died of these illnesses then they ought to know that malnutrition decreases
the immune system which results in the patients being open to ailments like TB,
pneumonia, kidney infection which could be fatal.
We would like to bring to your notice that one third children in Rajasthan are born
malnourished and by age of 5 years another one third become malnourished. This
103
adds the total to two thirds children being malnourished by age of 5 years (UNICEF
data). The Government of Rajasthan, Directorate of women and child data shows
only 1 per cent malnutrition amongst children at anganwadi centres while NFHS II
(national family health survey) says that 21 per cent of the children are severely
malnourished and 82 per cent children under age five are anaemic. This raises
doubts about the Government of Rajasthan data on the children. The CDPO and
Lady Supervisor and RDDs who are supposed to be monitoring the growth of the
children need to be cross examined. We are particularly shocked that UNICEF which
is working in Baran district and DPIP being run by Government of Rajasthan and
special tribal programmes could not prevent the children from illnesses. It is time
these were reviewed and recast to address this situation.
The story of five 'quintal' grains at the Panchayat
The story of gratuitous relief was no different. The order of five quintal grains at
every panchayat being kept at all points in time was not observed at all. In Rajpura
panchayats, the up-sarpanch told us that since 15 days he was awaiting the 5
quintals of grain at his panchayat. In Munidar, the Sarpanch said that the first 5
quintals (500 kgs) he had distributed and after a week two sacks had reached him
the previous day. In Karvari Kalan the sarpanch had also run out of grain. The order
very clearly was not being adhered to. People also told us that they were informed
that this grain they could take only once in a month. In Hathiyadeh (a kherwa basti)
several old people who were ill told us that they were told to come after fifteen days.
However they also told us that they were being given only 3 Kgs. When we
complained about this to the Sarpanch, he told us that after all it was free grain and
what if somebody got only three kgs. "muft cheez ka bhi koi hisaab hota hai" (who is
worried about keeping record of something that comes free). We have shared with
you time and again the situation of neglect of the tribals. Saharias are the most
neglected people among the tribals of Rajasthan. The TADA (Tribal areas
development agency) also neglects them. The Tribal Research and Training Institute
(TRI) in Udaipur has not generated any fresh data on the sahriyas.
104
(Source: Rajasthan: Widespread hunger and hunger deaths -- story of absolute
poverty and neglect of the Saharias in Baran district- Report by People's Union for
Civil Liberties, Sankalp and the Bharat Gyan Vigyan Samiti, Rajasthan.
http://www.mindfully.org/Food/Hunger-Deaths-Amid-Plenty).
Similarly, the Bhil Adivasis of Udaipur experienced severe hunger during 2002
drought and were forced to eat leaves, roots, stems, wild flowers, the bark and gum,
dead animals and touristry leftovers. As if four years of consecutive droughts had
pushed these Adivasis back to their past. “Not long ago” wrote Amit Sengupta in the
Hindustan Times, “the fiercely proud Bhils were kings of the forests. Not even the
Rajput kings would enter their dominion. Now they seem a caricature of the past. For
the food gatherers, the tragic patches of a depleted forest cover do not hide honey
or wild fruits anymore, nor the animals and birds they could earlier hunt. Clearly this
back to nature syndrome is scarcity-driven…..Green leaves of the Puar are boiled
for several hours, rolled into balls and eaten with salt. The flowers of the banyan tree,
which has survived the timber mafia, and roots are boiled into a thin gruel called
Rabri… For months now the people are surviving on half-a-meal, sometimes not
even that. Malnutrition is rampant. Children with bloated stomachs and jaundiced
eyes do not ask for food anymore. Their intestines have clogged. There is no fodder
for the dying cattle… Hunger stalks the thirsty homes of 37 lakh Bhils in Udaipur
district. In the Kotada block of 20 lakh people, only one lakh have been covered by
the food for work programme… but both food and work are rare. So it is back to
roots”.
(Sengupta, Amit, June 28,2002,The Hindustan Times, N. Delhi)
During 2001, some 30,585 villages in Rajasthan were hit by drought. Many hunger-
deaths were reported from western and southern Rajasthan. Narrating the plight of
Bhil Adivasis of Udaipur, T. K. Rajlakshmi reported in the Frontline, “the tribal areas
have been hardest hit. The grim situation in these tribal areas has been created by
years of neglect, indifference and sheer callousness on the part of successive
governments, both at the Centre and in the State… The plight of the tribal people is
105
particularly sad. In times of acute shortage they are known to have eaten chapattis,
made from a grass called Godra. Today, even this grass is not available. There is
very little ground where the Garasias and the Bhils of Udaipur can settle down. The
land is mostly rocky… These tribal people are completely dependent on rain… A
natural calamity is often a great leveler. However, in the case of drought, the most
affected are tribal people who have small, unproductive plots of land in the hills.
They are also deprived of the Charnot or the common grazing land, as upper-caste
people usurp them without facing any resistance... People say that unemployment
and hunger-driven deaths have become common in the villages of Udaipur…
According to ASTHA, an NGO based in Udaipur, many tribal persons owing to
starvation and ill-health were not fit to work… The tribal people in Udaipur have been
surviving on a Broth (Rabadi) made from water and wheat, with chilies as
supplements. These people consider it lucky if they get to eat rotis once a week and
that too with chilies… As more and more forest land comes under the protected
category, the tribal’s livelihood is the last thing on the minds of planners. They have
only small, unproductive plots of land and forest produce are out of their reach. The
only thing abundantly available is liquor, which comes through private and
government sources. Women trudge long distances to collect dry wood in the dead
of night to avoid being caught by forest department staff. They sell it to upper-caste
people for a potful of Chaanch (Whey) to give their children. They further dilute it, so
that it would last them a week. Some forest officials harass the women who go to
collect wood”.
(Rajlakshmi, T.K., March 30, 2001, Frontline)
Hunger and poverty in Adivasi areas of Jharkhand
Jharkhand, which is considered as one of the resource-rich states in terms of its
natural resources, land, forest; hillocks, natural streams and minerals, is also one of
the states where incidence of poverty is very high. People in many rural areas live in
extreme poverty, hunger and destitution. Judged from all accepted indicators of
development which includes Literacy, Mortality rate, Infant Mortality rate,
Unemployment and Nutritional status, level of poverty, hunger etc., it is at the bottom
106
of the ladder in the country. Both micro and macro studies and continuous reports of
hunger deaths from the marginal areas like Palamu, Santhal Pargana and Kolhan
region confirms the lower status of state in terms of availability, access and
consumption of food items by the rural mass of the state. The reports of hunger
deaths are clear indication of the fact that a considerable number of population is
suffering from malnutrition, hunger and destitution.
(Status of implementation of food security schemes in Jharkhand, by Ramesh
Sharan and Neel Kanth, Gram Swaraj Abhiyan, Ranchi, December 2002.)
Poverty and Unemployment
According to government estimates, around 23.22 lakh families in the rural areas of
Jharkhand live below the poverty line, out of which 3.91 lakhs belong to SCs and
8.79 lakhs to STs. In Dumka, Sahebganj, Ranchi, Gumla, W. Singhbhum, Palamau,
Garhwa and Chatra districts, 70per cent of the rural families are below poverty line.
It is estimated that almost 61.57per cent of the families living in the rural areas are
below poverty line. Out of the BPL families in rural areas, 75.83per cent of the
families belong to STs (Adivasis) and SCs (Dalits). (ibid)
According to the 55th round survey of NSSO (National Sample Survey Organisation),
the incidence of both rural and urban poverty is higher in Jharkhand as compared to
India as a whole, even higher than rural Bihar. It is also worth noting that the urban
poverty in Jharkhand has increased during 1993-2000. It is also quite interesting to
note that per capita GDP in Jharkhand is Rs. 11103 which is almost 3 times higher
than that of Bihar (Rs. 3669) and almost equal to all India figure of Rs. 11472. This
indicates a very skewed distribution of income and greater inequity in Jharkhand.
Among the Adivasis, rural poverty rate is 60.62per cent and urban poverty rate is
46.7per cent which is significantly higher than the all India figure. This shows acute
vulnerability of Adivasis.
107
The unemployment rates, based on usual status and daily status, are both higher in
Jharkhand when compared with all India figures and that of Bihar. During 1999-2000,
unemployment rate, based on usual status, was 32 per thousand in rural areas and
79 per thousand in urban areas as compared to 13 and 72 respectively for Bihar.
The corresponding all India figures were 15 and 47. Similarly, in terms of daily status,
the unemployment rate in Jharkhand was 82 per thousand in rural areas and 98 per
thousand in urban areas.Respective figures were 67 and 89 for Bihar and 71 and 77
for all India (ibid)
Poor Status of Health and Nutrition
The nutritional status of people in general and women and children in particular is
very low in Jharkhand. According to National Family Health Survey (NFHS-II), during
1998-99, amongst the under-3 age group children, 54.3per cent were under-weight,
49 per cent were stunted and 25per cent were wasted. The under-nutrition was
higher in rural areas, particularly among SCs and STs (Adivasi) (ibid)
Infant & Child Mortality
According to NFHS-II, infant and child mortality rates in Jharkhand are lower than
both the national average and that of Bihar. While infant mortality level in India has
been estimated to be 67.6 and that of Bihar to be 72.9, the same has been
estimated as 54 for Jharkhand. The same trend can be observed in regard to child
mortality. The incidence of anemia in adolescent girls was 72.5per cent, amongst
pregnant women was 63.9per cent and among the lactating women it was almost 76
per cent. (ibid)
High incidence of hunger and food insecurity
According to 55th round of NSSO, 10.46per cent of all households in Jharkhand
faced seasonal food insecurity. The data also revealed that around 2.5 per cent of
108
the households face chronic food shortages. Out of the families facing food
insecurity 64 per cent face food shortages for 2-3 months while as much as 28 per
cent do not have sufficient food for 4-5 months and almost 6 per cent of the food
deficient households have to go hungry for more than half the year. Incidence of
food insecurity is quite high among Adivasi families. Assured food supply exists for
only about three to four months of the year, i.e. in winter following the harvest in late
October-early November. Food supplies tend to run short by the end of winter, and
the starvation period begins by mid-summer (June) and in many cases, continues till
the end of October. There are many areas in Jharkhand where, during hunger
season, people reduce their consumption of cereals and switch to roots like gethi,
chakora saag, and other forest produce. Sometimes they find nothing and literally
spend their day and night hungry. Malnutrition and hunger continue primarily
because of poor resource base and low access to resources. The condition of SCs
and the primitive tribal groups is particularly pathetic because they are basically
landless and dependent on migration for income. In situations when they are unable
to migrate due to ill health or other reasons they face the threat of starvation. There
are other groups of people too whose food security remains very fragile. For
example, people living in degraded forest areas, drought prone areas, primitive tribal
groups, victims of displacement, etc. Recently, M. S. Swaminathan Foundation has
reported Jharkhand as a most food insecure region. Peoples’ access to food is very
minimal and unstable in Jharkhand. (ibid)
Hunger deaths in Jharkhand
Jharkhand is a high risk state for millions of poor people who have to work hard just
to make both ends meet. In the months of May- June 2002, hunger deaths were
reported from the Kusumatar and Majhauli villages of Manatu Block, Palamau district.
Within two- and- a- half months, nearly 25 hunger deaths were reported by social
activists and newspaper reporters. The issue of hunger death became a matter of
concern for all the social action groups, political parties, human right activists and
other NGOs. The district administration and the state government as usual declined
109
to accept them as hunger deaths. The incidents were initially reported in the Ranchi-
based Hindi Newspaper Prabhat Khabar on May 23. The next day, Madhu Singh,
Land Reforms and Revenue Minister, Jharkhand, visited Kusumatand with
government officials. Based on initial and prima facie enquiries, he publicly
dismissed the reports of hunger deaths as “baseless stories” that were spread as a
matter of “conspiracy” by Opposition parties, and added in passing that “prosperity
and poverty are gifts of God” (Prabhat Khabar, May 25,2002). From then on, the
Jharkhand government ignored the matter. When Prabhat Khabar persisted with
further reports of starvation deaths, the government attempted to muzzle the Editor
by threatening him with action if he did not print “authentic” news. (BELA BHATIA
and JEAN DREZE, August 3 - 16, 2002, Starving still in Jharkhand, Frontline)
A fact finding team of concerned persons which included the noted economist Prof
Jean Dreze, Dr. Bela Bhatia, members of the Gram Swaraj Abhiyan and the Right to
Food campaign visited Kusumatand on three occasions in late June and early
July(2002). The team conducted a survey of 21 randomly selected households in
Kusumatand, cross-examined neighbours and relatives of the victims, and
interviewed various people in Manatu, including the ration-shop dealers and the
Block Development Officer (BDO). What was witnessed at Kusumatand was
shocking.
Kusumatand is a hamlet of about 75 houses on the outskirts of Manatu panchayat. A
majority of the village residents are Bhuiyas and Chero Adivasi. They are all landless
or virtually landless. Most of them survive from seasonal labour migration, for
example, to Rohtas district in Bihar where they earn 3 kg to 4 kg of grain a day for
harvesting, transplanting and related tasks. This is supplemented with small
earnings from self-cultivation, collection of tendu leaves, and whatever casual labour
they find in the area. Local employment opportunities being extremely limited, most
households in Kusumatand face serious survival problems during the lean months.
110
(BELA BHATIA and JEAN DREZE, August 3 - 16, 2002, Starving still in Jharkhand,
Frontline)
Even though the team initially went there to investigate three “starvation deaths”, it
found that the entire hamlet lived in a state of semi-starvation. Most people survive
on small quantities of khudi (broken rice), supplemented with whatever wild food
may be available in the season, such as mahua, chakora (a local saag) or gethi (a
root). At the time of team’s visit, the mahua season was coming to an end and many
people were eating lumps of plain chakora. Some of them had nothing else to eat.
Out of 21 sample households, 20 reported that they had to skip meals regularly.(ibid)
Consumption of food items other than rice and wild food was virtually ni l in
Kusumatand. In this situation, it is not surprising that the people of Kusumatand
frequently perish from the combined burden of malnutrition, weakness and hunger-
related diseases. This is what happened to Sundar Bhuiya, Kunti Devi and Basanti
Devi - the three victims of hunger deaths. “These deaths, as related by the surviving
relatives, can be seen as the extreme manifestation of a much larger problem of
endemic hunger in the area. In each case, the tragedy began with chronic hunger
and exhaustion, fo llowed by a prolonged period of precarious survival on wild food,
culminating in a brief and fatal illness (for example, acute stomachache). Even today,
the surviving members of these families live in dreadful poverty and could die any
day of starvation-induced illnesses. Consider for instance the surviving members of
Kunti Devi’s family. Her husband, Bageshwar Bhuiya, suffers from TB and is unable
to work. His illness goes untreated because he has no money and the staff members
at the local health centre charge patients for TB drugs that are supposed to be made
available for free. The burden of looking after him and his six children falls on his
mother, a courageous 70-year-old widow who walks to Manatu from time to time to
glean broken rice at a rice mill. Aside from the little rice she brings from the mill,
which is barely fit for human consumption, the family survives exclusively on wild
food. The house collapsed a few months ago and the family had to take refuge in a
corner of Bageshwar’s brother’s house. Except for one cooking pot and a few rags,
111
the family owns absolutely nothing - not even a blanket or a single pair of footwear,”
wrote Bela Bhatia and Jean Dreze in rontline (August 3-16, 2002).
Kusumatand’s predicament was partly owing to the dismal failure of development
programmes and welfare schemes in the area. Even the most basic institutional
framework of development was missing. There were no functional panchayats in
Manatu (panchayat elections were yet to be held after the formation of Jharkhand
State), so village communities were rudderless. All development schemes were
being run directly from the block office. Government officers, for their part, had
stopped visiting the villages, allegedly because the area was under naxalite control.
There is no doubt that the Maoist Communist Centre (MCC) had a strong presence
in Manatu, and that a former BDO was killed a few years ago. But “naxal prabhavit
kshetr” (naxal-affected area) had also become a convenient all-purpose excuse for
government employees to desert this gloomy area and settle down in Daltonganj.
The new BDO used to visit Manatu twice a week for brief consultations with local
contractors, who were in charge of whatever development work was taking place.
(ibid)
“It is common knowledge that there is an understanding between the MCC and the
contractors, who are tolerated as long as they pay the mandatory ‘taxes’. After the
local players, including the contractors and the MCC have taken their due share of
development funds, little is left for work on the ground. The people of Kusumatand
are trapped in a vicious circle of poverty, hunger, illiteracy and powerlessness. Most
of them have no idea of their rights and entitlements. The sarkar (government) is an
abstract entity that has little bearing on their lives. They have not seen the face of
the panchayat sevak or the BDO.”(Bela Bhatia and Jean Dreze)
During the time of fact finding team’s visit in the areas, another starvation death had
occurred in Majholi village. When Activists of the Gram Swaraj Abhiyan went to the
place for an investigation, they found that the victim, 35 year-old Panchu Oraon
(Adivasi), had indeed died after a prolonged period of food deprivation culminating in
112
eight days of complete starvation. This Adivasi was survived by his wife and four
children, who were also severely malnourished. (ibid)
Alienation of Adivasi land
Jharkhand’s agriculture is almost completely dependent on the monsoon; only 8 per
cent of cultivable land is irrigated. Agricultural and forest lands are the sole sources
of sustenance for the Adivasis. When this land is forcibly taken away from them, the
Adivasis become virtual destitute. Development has brought only impoverishment for
the Jharkhandi people. According to human rights activist Stan Swamy, “the Land
Acquisition Act of 1896 passed by the British colonial rulers is still in vogue.
Acquisition of land for ‘public purpose’ has and is being used to deprive the
Jharkhandi People of their only source of sustenance. Added to that states like Bihar
have amended the Act in such a way that any industry or mining can legally take
over the land of the Jharkhandis with nominal effort”. (Stan Swamy, February-March
2004, Dignity and basic rights for Jharkandis, Communalism Combat)
Apart from the forced involuntary displacements caused by large projects, several
lakhs of Jharkhandis have migrated to the tea plantations in Darjeeling and Assam.
Several thousands, especially young women, are migrating to large cities and towns.
A recent report says that about two lakh Adivasi young women from Jharkhand,
Orissa and West Bengal are presently working as house-maids in middle-class
homes: 61,000 in Delhi, 42,000 in Kolkata, 36,000 in Mumbai, 13,000 in Bangalore,
26,000 in Goa. (Source: ‘Two lakh young adivasi women working as house-maids in
big cities’, by Manoj in Hindustan (Hindi), March 24, 2003)
The reasons are not far to seek.To quote Stan Swamy again, “for all practical
purposes, employment opportunities in Jharkhand are nil. During the last five
decades, it is estimated that as many as 40 to 45 lakh non-Tribals from north Bihar,
particularly from Arrah, Ballia (UP), Chapra, Dharbanga districts, have come and
occupied Jharkhand. They have not only set up permanent homes but have also
113
illegally usurped Adivasi land, taken over trade and commerce, and filled the
government bureaucracy from top to bottom. Consequently, the economy of
Jharkhand is not in the hands of the Jharkhandi Adivasis but under the control of
north Biharis. Young Jharkhandi men and women are lured by ‘good jobs’, taken out
of Jharkhand and sold like cattle to contractors and brick-kiln owners. Severe
exploitation, human degradation, sexual harassment are the order of the day.
Adivasi women who are held in honour and respect in their respective communities
are reduced to domestic servants in affluent homes in far away towns and cities.”
(Stan Swamy, February-March 2004, Dignity and basic rights for Jharkandis,
Communalism Combat)
Hunger and poverty in Adivasi areas of Maharashtra
Over 8000 children upto the age of six in a tribal belt across five Maharashtra
districts died of malnutrition during May-August 2001. All the five districts are part of
the Nasik division. Revenue records revealed that 2740 children had died in
Ahmednagar, 1919 in Dhule, 1525 in Jalgaon, 1257 in Nandurbar and 830 in Nasik.
Minister for tribal welfare Madhukarrao Pichad acknowledged that acute drought and
lack of employment brought about this disaster. But Government departments did
little except passing the buck to one another. (Pawar, Yogesh, April 15, 2002, The
Hindustan Times, New Delhi)
Not too far from the bright lights of Mumbai, the commercial capital of India, a silent
scourge is killing thousands of young children. Stalked by chronic hunger and
disease nearly 30,000 children below the age of six died during year 2000 alone in
the state’s rural belt. Their ill-fed bodies vulnerable to infection, most succumbed to
ailments as minor as diarrhea…. Bawala Chaman, a farmer from Ambarpathipada
village in Nadurbar’s Badgaon taluk reportedly lost three children in a single week.
Shankar Athya Pawra from the same village who had lost four children to fever and
gastroenteritis in the previous three years had reportedly said, “very often my family
114
has nothing to eat. We collect roots and leaves from the jungle.” (Kakodakar,
Priyanka,October 8,2001, Outlook.)
A survey carried out by the Maharashtra State Tribal Research Institute also
highlighted the alarming levels of hunger and deprivation in adivasi areas of the
state. It found that three out of every four infants in the predominantly tribal district of
Nandurbar were malnourished. The survey had also exposed the state’s failure to
record 57 percent of the malnutrition related infant-deaths in Nandurbar’s tribal
hamlets. The tale of malnutrition and child-deaths is also one of abject poverty and
exploitation in Maharastra’s tribal districts. Forests, the main source of livelihood for
Adivasis, have been denuded. Most tribal people are still considered encroachers in
the jungle, thanks to outdated forest laws. Ranshod Shera Tadvi, an adivasi from
Ambavari Village had reportedly told Frontline news magazine “Here in Nandurbar,
our forest was wiped out by logging contractors around 40 years back. Forest
guards watched as huge trees were hacked. The Satpura hills are bare now. Yet we
are not allowed to cultivate anything even on this vacant land. Forest officials keep
harassing us for bribes. In some places they have planted trees where people used
to grow crops.”
(Bunsha, Dionne, June 7,2002, Frontline)
Unemployment is so severe in Nandurbar that most families migrate to Gujarat to
work in the sugar industry and at construction sites for around six months in a year.
Essentially constituting landless or small tenants, most families are food-deficient
here. Of the 143 families surveyed by the government, 86 percent were food-
deficient and 78 percent did not have enough food for six months or more in a year.
A fourth of the families surveyed were landless and 72 percent were landless or
owned less than three acres of land. Even those who survive by gathering forest
produce are finding it harder to obtain. Since there is hardly any forest left, it is
difficult to find as many Tendu leaves as Adivasis once used to. Women collect
firewood also to earn a daily wage. But the trek is getting longer and tougher.
Narrating her plight an Adivasis woman reportedly told Frontline “we walk more than
115
6 km uphill and back again to collect wood. Then at 2:30 a.m. we leave for the
market, carrying bundles of 10-20 kg of wood. We return around 8 a.m., cook and
leave by 10 a.m. for the jungle again.”(ibid). At the end of the day, she earned
between Rs.15 and Rs 30,depending on how much the traders in the market would
pay.
65 percent of tribal children in Maharashtra are undernourished. 76 percent of
children are anaemic. Amongst the tribal children 83 percent are anaemic. In an
article in the Hindu, Kalpana Sharma wrote, “the relentless cycle of poverty,
deprivation and hunger had never been broken in all these years that India is
supposed to have progressed. Large swathes of our Adivasi population will vouch
for this. On the contrary this deadly combination has been consolidated overtime as
more Adivasis are alienated from land, have fewer sources of livelihood and no
money to by food even if it is available at subsidized rates. A good percentage of the
hungry people are also landless and almost certainly Adivasis.” (Sharma, Kalpana,
2002, The Hindu.)
If children die of malnutrition in Maharashtra it should not surprise us. According to
the Maharashtra Human Development Report 2002, the proportion of rural
population with a calorie-intake less than the normative minimum of 2400 calories
though declined from 86.56 percent in 1972-73 to 78 percent in 1983, increased to
89 percent in 1993-94.
(Human Development Report Maharashtra, 2002, P.50.)
Hunger deaths in Melghat region of Maharashtra
The government machinery has a number of explanations for the deaths of
numerous tribal children in Maharashtra’s Melghat region. But the adivasis
themselves do not identify any of these as the cause of their deaths. Instead they
point to the systematic destruction of their traditional livelihood in the name of law
and development. Reports of infant deaths due to malnutrition in the tribal-
116
dominated Melghat area of Maharashtra make front page news almost every year.
During 2004 too, the deaths were extensively reported in the local and national
media. According to the state government, 59 infants died of malnutrition. However,
local NGOs claim that the figure heavily under-represents the number of actual
deaths, and that the actual figure may be closer to 1,000 deaths during 2004
summer alone. NGOs say that the government attributes these deaths to other
causes - diseases, snake-bites, even road accidents. And after a few heart-rending
pictures and stories, and visits by a few high-profile politicians, the news is more or
less forgotten.
(Aparna Pallavi, September 2004, Nagpur, WFS, www.indiatogether.org)
Why do malnutrition deaths continue to occur in a place like Melghat, where
millions have been pumped in the last decade - both by the government and NGOs
- in health programmes and welfare schemes to avoid such deaths? The Melghat
forest area in Amravati district is dominated by the Korku tribals. Between 1992 and
1997, an estimated 5,000 children died due to malnutrition in the region. Most of
these children were in the 0 -6 age group. The government attributes several deaths
to low birth-weight, but local activists say that malnutrition in mothers is responsible
for low birth-weight. Several programmes were announced at that time to prevent
further deaths. But recent deaths indicate that the programmes have not been able
to achieve much. Government officials have standard replies - poverty, ignorance
and obstinacy (of the tribals) has led to this situation. They argue that the Korkus
have too many children; eat ‘unhealthy’ food; spend their money on drinking and
trust traditional healers more than doctors. The Korkus, spread in about 200
villages, are painted as self-destructive maniacs who cannot be rescued.
Government doctors, forest officials and anganwadi (child care centre) workers - all
sing the same tune - the Korkus will never change and thus, it is impossible to end
their misery. (ibid)
Forest laws have played a major role in destroying the Korku’s indigenous nutrition
and livelihood structure. In her book, Our children Are Gone, human rights activist
117
Sheela Barse mentions how forest laws have worked against the Korkus. Once
Melghat was declared a reserved forest under the Indian Forest Act 1927, the
Maharashtra government prohibited the Korku’s access to natural, nutritional and
medicinal plants. The Forest Working Plan for Melghat (1993-2003) required that all
creepers and so-called ‘inferior species’ were to be destroyed in the forest. This
instruction, the book says, was given despite previous information from officials in
Melghat that a number of the creepers were of ‘ethno-medical importance’ and were
used by the Korkus in treating a variety of ailments. While the authorities dispense
harsh punishment to Korkus found ‘stealing’ forest produce, they completely ignore
the illegal felling of trees which goes on in the forest. (ibid)
In 1974, Melghat was declared part of the Project Tiger Scheme. Dr Ravi Kolhe, an
independent researcher who has worked extensively in the forests of Amravati
district for the past 20 years, reportedly said, “There is a deep connection between
the tribal economy and minor forest produce. Access to products like mahua (butter
tree), tendu leaf and edible gum (dink) is a matter of life and death to the tribals.
Since the tiger project began, the government has been methodically snapping the
lifeline of the tribals. Today, they can’t collect forest produce in large quantities to
sell. They can’t hunt or fish without bribing the forest officials. This is a direct attack
on their self-reliance. The problem has precipitated in the last two years because the
forest department banned tendu leaf collection in the 47 villages coming under
Project Tiger in 2003”. (ibid)
The introduction of cash crops in recent years has further disrupted the tribal
economy. Crops like soybean and cotton have taken over from local crops like kodo,
kutki and savarya, which once formed the basis of the tribals’ year-long food security.
It is believed that both the government and non-tribal outsiders used the lure of
money to encourage tribals to shift to cash crops. This shift from nutritional self-
dependence to cash crop-dependence has important ramifications. The Integrated
Tribal Development Project (ITDP) is supposed to procure agricultural produce from
the tribals, but this mostly does not happen and tribals are forced to sell their
118
produce to local landlords at abysmal rates. The corrupt ITDP officials also do not
hesitate to exploit the tribals. The tribals are paid lower rates. When they are really
hard up, the tribals barter off their soyabean for food or even sell off standing crops,
which the buyer harvests later. While the authorities dispense harsh punishment to
Korkus found ‘stealing’ forest produce, they completely ignore the illegal felling of
trees which goes on in the forest. It seems to be the proverbial case of jungle –
Raj in Adivasi areas. (ibid)
Tens of thousands of children die every year in Maharashtra, mostly in the tribal
areas, because of malnutrition-related problems. The State government, relying on
incomplete data collected by its agencies, refuses to admit the reality and act. The
news reports said that between May and April 2004, as many as 234 children had
died in Nandurbar and Dhule districts, 2,000 in the five tribal-dominated districts of
Amravati, Yavatmal, Gadchiroli, Chandrapur and Bhandara in the Vidarbha region
and 72 in Dharni and Chikaldhara taluks in the Melghat region, and that 600 children
were afflicted with Grade 4 malnutrition, which is life-threatening.
The government of Maharashtra has admitted that this year(2005) there were 1,600
deaths of children. However, this figure in no way gives the real picture as it only
gives the number of child deaths in the five tribal-dominated districts, recorded over
a period of five months. According to government statistics, the total number of child
deaths in the entire State between July 2004 and June 2005 is estimated to be
45,000. Interestingly, the estimate based on the Sample Registration Survey of the
Government of India for the same period is 1,20,000 deaths. (Lyla Bavadam, Sep 10
- 23, 2005, Dying Young, Frontline)
Although statistically child mortality is a Statewide problem, it is more acute in the
tribal areas. Deaths of tribal children account for about 1/8 th of the total child deaths
in the State. That tribal areas need special attention is apparent from their high IMR
of 80 as compared to 64 in the rural areas and 68 in the urban slums. Poverty is at
the root of the problem and only sensitive field workers understand the depth it has
119
reached. In order to counter malnutrition, the government gives a high-protein diet of
khichadi (consisting of lentils and vegetables) to tribal children in Thane district. Most
children take the khichadi home and share it with their large families. That a family of
five or more depends on food meant for one exposes a dimension to the poverty that
was clearly not anticipated when the government decided to give free food. When a
child is hospitalised, it automatically means that the mother cannot earn for that
period. This means a vital loss to the family’s already meagre income. In an effort to
counter this, the government gives Rs.40 a day to the family while the child
undergoes treatment. While the link between employment, livelihood and health has
been accepted, this has not been factored in appropriately in working out counter-
measures. (ibid)
According to Arun Bhatia, who retired as the Commissioner of the Tribal Research
and Training Institute in Pune, the problem is not a medical one but one of
economics. Bhatia had written a report on “Malnutrition-related deaths of tribal
children”. He believes in “increasing the purchasing power of tribals [to see] a
dramatic change in their health status”. This is only too apparent in areas such as
Thane where tribal people depend on agriculture for their livelihood. There is almost
a direct correlation between malnutrition-related deaths and the monsoon. If the
rains are timely and plentiful, there are fewer malnourished children. But, as
happened in 2002, when the monsoon was delayed there was a high incidence of
fatality among children. The majority of tribal families in Thane are landless. Those
that do own land hold less than 0.8 hectare. Food shortage is common and people
rely heavily on the Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) for work and money. (ibid)
But the existence of poverty and malnutrition is evidence that the existing EGS is not
effective in tribal areas.. Modifications to the EGS are desperately needed because
they can be the most effective measure to counter the exploitation of the agricultural
labourer, who is caught between a highly exploitative rent for tenanted land - he
hands over 50 per cent of the produce - and an EGS wage that is lower than the
agricultural wage. Furthermore, powerful landlords also contrive to prevent any EGS
120
works being implemented in their area so as to maintain their regular supply of
poorly paid labourers. A recent report of the Punarvasan Sangharsh Samiti (PSS), a
group that fights for tribal rights says that the root of malnutrition lies in tribal’s
deprivation from their natural resources. In a survey carried out in 22 villages and
two resettlement sites of the Sardar Sarovar Project in Nandurbar district, the PSS
found that more than 98 children died in April, May and June this year, and 71 of the
deaths were related to malnutrition. The survey also verified what the Committee to
Evaluate Child Mortality had said that the government only records 10 per cent of
the actual deaths and that malnourishment is rampant among tribal mothers as well.
(ibid)
121
Conclusion and Suggestions
In the end, I can do no better than to quote P V Rajagopal, Archana Prasad and
Pradip Prabhu to conclude this study. “Food security is the agenda of the world. But
food security will never come from the godowns of the government. You can have
godowns and godowns. You can have wheat and rice piling up. But it will never
reach the poorest section of the society. That will happen when you see production
for the family and not just for the markets. So give people enough land to produce
for their own families; that is what agriculture is all about. Help them (Adivasis)
produce what they want to produce. Why do we go all the way around, and make
people poor, starve, migrate. So our very development model is anti-people . So I
think, land is basic, and production on the land will solve many of our problems,
poverty, starvation, migration etc. And that is where the government’s focus must be.
(P V Rajagopal, December, 2001, www. indiatogether.org)
“To remove hunger we need true economic democracy : a strategy that promotes
redistribution of wealth through land reforms, rights of ownership in forest produce
and decent labour rates. We also need people’s institutions to monitor schemes and
programmes (as in the case of community-based PDS), creation of community
infrastructural assets (may be local watersheds through food-for-work programmes)
and mechanisms of value addition at the local level. In short, we need a structural
adjustment in favour of 90 per cent of the population, and especially in favour of the
Adivasis and Dalits.” (Archana Prasad, Sept. 29 - Oct. 12, 2001, Frontline)
It has now been well established that NTFP (non-timber forest produce) in the case
of the tribals is not MFP (minor forest produce), it provides substantial sustenance to
the tribals living on the fringe of standing forests… Minor forest produce provides
substantial sustenance to the tribal communities particularly in the backward regions.
In some cases they are the main source of cash income through which they can
meet other non-subsistence needs like health and education. NTFP should not be
treated as a source of revenue to the State but rather be seen as providing
122
maximum return to the tribal so that an economic interest is created in the
maintenance of the forests with the possibility of substantial accruing to the tribal
collectors.
(Pradip Prabhu,January 2004, Tribal Forest Interface-Logic of Survival, Combat Law)
We must stop the criminalization of tribal communities seeking survival through
subsistence cultivation on forest lands. Encroachments by tribal families on forest
lands are but the outcome of the failure of the nation’s welfare system and
development agenda. Regularization of pre- 1980 encroachments of tribals on forest
lands for subsistence based on equity should be taken on as a priority. This
regularization, however, requires to be more than a mechanical exercise and should
ensure future forest conservation by linking the conferred right with a condition to
preserve the forest environs. In situ rehabilitation of ineligible encroachers through
livelihoods, not only as wage labour but sustainable use of the forest resources is a
creative challenge that cannot be overlooked. In the absence of alternative
sustainable livelihoods, encroachment appears as the only survival opportunity for
the tribals. Finally, we need to dovetail development of tribals with conservation of
forests. The important challenge before the nation today, is to find a way in which
both the forest and its people can survive with dignity. (Pradip Prabhu, January 2004,
Tribal Forest Interface-Logic of Survival, Combat Law).
The End
i
Annexure
Tabulated Data of Survey on Hunger in Adivasi Areas of Rajasthan and Jharkhand
STATE WISE
Rajasthan Jharkhand Districts 1 2 3 4 Households 257 243 243 257 Total 500 500
Villages and Total households Rajasthan Jharkhand Villages 20 20 households 500 500
GENDER OF RESPONDENTS
STATE Total Rajasthan Jharkhand Male 268 333 601 Female 232 167 399 500 500 1000
Education level of respondents
Rajasthan Jharkhand Both Education
Number (%) Number (%) Number (%) Illiterate 381 76.2 306 61.2 687 68.7 barelyliterate 25 5 19 3.8 44 4.4 up to primary school 45 9 43 8.6 88 8.8 up to middle school 37 7.4 66 13.2 103 10.3 up to high school 10 2 51 10.2 61 6.1 up to college 2 0.4 15 3 17 1.7 Total 500 100 500 100 1000 100
ii
Household Assets
RJ JK No. of hhs % No. of hhs %
0 41 8.2 63 12.6 1 and 2 220 44 102 20.4 any 4 20 4 68 13.6 5 and above 0 0 0 0
Distribution of households by their occupation in both states
Rajasthan Jharkhand Both
Agriculturist 436 87.2 384 76.8 820 82
Daily wage 60 12 88 17.6 148 14.8
MFP gatherings 9 1.8 9 0.9 too old to earn/handicap 1 0.2 2 0.4 3 0.3
Others 3 0.6 17 3.4 20 2
Total 500 100 500 100 1000 100
Nature of House
Rajasthan Jharkhand Both
Nature of house No. of
households (%) No. of
households (%) No. of
households (%)
Thatched 13 2.6 33 6.6 46 4.6
Mud 456 91.2 449 89.8 905 90.5
Semi pucca 26 5.2 16 3.2 42 4.2
Pucca 5 1 2 0.4 7 0.7
Total 500 100 500 100 1000 100
iii
Distribution of Households by socio economic indicators in Rajasthan and Jharkhand.
Rajasthan Jharkhand Both
states Indicators Total households ( % of total)
Illiterate 381(76.2) 306(61.2) 687 (68.7)
Thatched and mud house 469 (93.8) 482 (96.4) 951
(95.1) Without electricity 464 (92.8) 500 (100) 964
(96.4) Without water availability 494 (98.8) 353 (70.66) 847
(84.7) Without toilet 500 (100) 497 (99.4) 997
(99.7) No assets 41 (8.2) 63 (12.6) 104
(10.4) 1 and 2 220 (44) 102 (20.4) 322
(32.2) Any 4 20 (4) 68 (13.6) 88 (8.8)
Assets
More than 4 0 0 0
Migration
Rajasthan Jharkhand Both Yes 137 27.4 125 25 262 26.2 No 363 72.6 375 75 738 73.8 Total 500 100 500 100 1000 100
Number and proportion of households regarding the decline of food security during past 25 years
Rajasthan Jharkhand Food
security worsened
No. of households
(%) No. of households
(%)
Yes 473 94.6 433 86.6 No 27 5.4 67 13.4 500 100 500 100
iv
Reasons for weakening of food security
Reasons Rajasthan Jharkhand Both states Land Alienation 168 (33.6) 92(18.4) 260 (26) Decline MFP/Deforestation/Degradation 360 (72) 189 (37.8) 549 (54.9) Decine in Livestock 252 (50.4) 102 (20.4) 354 (35.4) Decline in Actual Wages 53 (10.6) 158 (31.6) 211 (21.1) Decline in Work Availability 242 (48.4) 269 (53.8) 511 (51.1) Growth in Family size 132 (26.4) 139 (27.8) 271 (27.1) Development Projects 23 (4.6) 18 (3.6) 41 (4.1) Conservation of forests/wild life 20 (04) 38 (7.6) 58 (5.8) Others 26 (5.2) 69 (13.8) 95 (9.5)
Reasons for weakening of food security in Rajasthan
Reasons Rajasthan Rank
Decline MFP/Deforestation/Degradation 360 (72)
1
Decine in Livestock 252(50.4) 2
Decline in Work Availability 242(48.4) 3
Land Alienation 168(33.6) 4 Growth in Family size 13(26.4)2 5
Decline in Actual Wages 53(10.6) 6
Others 2(5.2)6 7 Development Projects 23(4.6) 8
Conservation of forests/wild life 20(04) 9
Reasons for weakening of food security in Jharkhand
Reasons Jharkhand Rank
Decline in Work Availability 269(53.8) 1 Decline MFP/Deforestation/Degradation 189(37.8)
2
Decline in Actual Wages 158(31.6) 3
Growth in Family size 139(27.8) 4 Decine in Livestock 102(20.4) 5
Land Alienation 92(18.4) 6
Others 69(13.8) 7 Conservation of forests/wild life 38(7.6) 8
Development Projects 18(3.6) 9
v
Reasons for weakening of food security-Both States
Reasons Both states Rank Decline MFP/Deforestation/Degradation 549(54.9)
1
Decline in Work Availability 511(51.1) 2
Decine in Livestock 354(35.4) 3
Growth in Family size 271(27.1) 4 Land Alienation 260(26) 5
Decline in Actual Wages 211(21.1) 6
Others 95(9.5) 7 Conservation of forests/wild life 58(5.8) 8
Development Projects 41(4.1) 9
vi
Hunger profile of the households
Food stocks at home
Rajasthan Jharkhand Both States food stock No. of
households % No. of
households % No. of
households % No stock 23 4.6 24 4.8 47 4.7
less than 10 87 17.4 100 20 187 18.7 0-50 273 54.6 186 37.2 459 45.9
50-100 72 14.4 87 17.4 159 15.9 100-150 78 15.6 52 10.4 130 13 150-200 15 3 19 3.8 34 3.4 200-250 29 5.8 36 7.2 65 6.5 250-300 4 0.8 9 1.8 13 1.3 300-350 16 3.2 24 4.8 40 4 350-400 0 0 4 0.8 4 0.4 400-450 4 0.8 13 2.6 17 1.7 450-500 0 0 5 1 5 0.5 500-550 6 1.2 26 5.2 32 3.2 550-600 0 0 2 0.4 2 0.2 600-650 2 0.4 17 3.4 19 1.9 650-700 0 0 2 0.4 2 0.2 700-750 0 0 1 0.2 1 0.1 750-800 0 0 1 0.2 1 0.1 800-850 0 0 5 1 5 0.5 850-900 0 0 0 0 0 0 900-950 0 0 6 1.2 6 0.6 950-1000 1 0.2 5 1 6 0.6
Total 500 100 500 100 1000 100
Hunger Profile of previous day
Kinds of food Rajasthan Jharkhand Both Two square meals 2 0.4 2 0.4 4 0.4 One square meal+ one poor/partial meal
1 0.2 4 0.8 5 0.5
two poor/partial meals 288 57.6 191 38.2 479 47.9 One poor partial meals 22 4.4 91 18.2 113 11.3 One poor/partial meal+ one distress meal
176 35.2 171 34.2 347 34.7
Only one distress meal 2 0.4 0 2 0.2 Only jungle food 9 1.8 41 8.2 50 5 Total 500 100 500 100 1000 100
vii
Proportion of Jungle food in total food intake on previous day
Proportion Rajasthan Jharkhand Total Zero 456 168 624 One forth 30 139 169 Half 4 95 99 Three fourth
1 57 58
Full 9 41 50 Total 500 500 1000
Pulses or animal products eaten on previous day
Yes/No Rajasthan Jharkhand Total Yes 112 122 234 No 388 378 766
Total 500 500 1000
viii
Hunger Profile of the previous week
Weekly hunger profile of households in Jharkhand and Rajasthan
Days in a Week Nature of meals
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Two square meals 999 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 One square meal+ one poor/partial meal 989 2 1 0 2 1 3 2 two poor/partial meals 415 18 62 59 70 103 57 216 One poor partial meals 695 47 96 58 40 30 6 28 One poor/partial meal+ one distress meal 352 71 112 76 66 99 10 214 Only one distress meal 962 5 11 7 1 1 3 10 Only jungle food 998 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 No food at all 993 3 3 1 0 0 0 0
Hunger profile of the previous month
Distribution of households by availability of two square meals a day in both states
States Full month One day None of the day
Total households
Rajasthan 0 0 500 500 Jharkhand 1 1 498 500
Total 1 1 998 1000
Distribution of households by availability of one square meal + one poor/partial meal- a- day in both states
Total Days State Full
month 0 days 1 2 3 4 5 10 15-20 20-25
Total Households
Rajasthan 2 495 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 500 Jharkhand 0 489 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 500 Total 2 984 2 3 1 1 2 2 1 2 1000
ix
Distribution of households by availability of two poor/ partial meals- a -day in both states
Total days
States Full month
None of the day
1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 Total
Rajasthan 104 144 2 2 16 1 4 1 34 49 69 76 500 Jharkhand 48 216 1 4 3 14 3 1 80 25 44 61 500 Total 152 360 1 4 5 30 3 2 4 1 114 74 113 137 1000
Distribution of households by availability of one poor/partial meal- a- day in both states
30 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 Rajasthan 4 372 6 3 3 44 3 2 8 1 31 9 7 7 500 Jharkhand 15 237 12 18 3 6 22 3 6 10 109 30 25 4 500 19 609 12 24 6 9 66 6 8 18 1 140 39 32 11 1000
Distribution of households by availability of one poor/partial meal + one distress meal-a -day in both states
Total days
30 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 Rajasthan 62 165 6 1 11 51 5 7 1 1 56 53 56 25 500 Jharkhand 83 118 4 17 20 16 13 5 2 8 1 62 56 84 11 500 Total 145 283 4 23 21 27 64 10 9 9 2 118 109 140 36 1000
Distribution of households by availability of only one distress meal-a-day in both states
Total Days
30
days None of the day 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30
Rajasthan 0 451 1 2 2 2 18 1 3 15 4 1 0 Jharkhand 2 488 2 5 1 1 1 Total 2 939 1 2 2 2 20 1 3 20 5 2 1
x
Proportion of households who had only jungle food during previous month
Total Days
States None of the days
5 10 Total
Rajasthan 496 3 1 500 Jharkhand 500 500
Total 996 3 1 1000
Distribution of households who had no food at all on a day in both states
Number of days
States No days
1 2 3 4 5 8 10 Total
Rajasthan 470 3 7 5 7 4 1 3 500 Jharkhand 499 1 500 969 3 7 5 7 5 1 3 1000
Hunger Profile of the previous year
Distribution of households by availability of two square meals in a month of previous year
Number of months
States Not even one month
One month
Full year
Total
Rajasthan 500 500 Jharkhand 498 1 1 500 Total 998 1 1 1000
istribution of households by availability of one square meal + one poor/partial meal in a month of previous year
Number of months
No
months 1 4 5 6 8 10 11-12 Total Rajasthan 497 1 1 1 500 Jharkhand 493 3 1 1 1 1 500 Total 990 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1000
xi
Distribution of households having two poor/partial meals in a month of previous year
Number of months
Zero
months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total
Rajasthan 116 14 35 33 68 17 45 10 46 14 33 12 57 500 Jharkhand 154 8 52 9 124 2 32 4 28 18 28 17 24 500 Total 270 22 87 42 192 19 77 14 74 32 61 29 81 1000
Distribution of households having one poor/partial meal in a month of previous year
Total number of Months States
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Rajasthan 245 66 106 23 28 2 10 2 6 2 3 1 6 500 Jharkhand 101 42 132 27 128 5 17 2 24 7 3 5 7 500 Total 346 108 238 50 156 7 27 4 30 9 6 6 13 1000
Distribution of households having one poor /partial meal + one distress meal in a month of last year
Total number of Months 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Rajasthan 131 6 35 25 66 36 86 22 51 1 20 7 14 500 Jharkhand 86 27 42 17 91 14 93 8 90 8 11 13 500 217 33 77 42 157 50 179 30 141 9 31 7 27 1000
Distribution of households having only distress meal in previous year
Total number of Months 0 1 2 3 4 5-11 Total Rajasthan 317 34 56 50 34 9 500 Jharkhand 404 43 46 5 2 500 721 77 102 50 39 11 1000
xii
Distribution of households getting only jungle food in a month of previous year
Total number of months
Not having any month
Only one
month
Only two
month Total
Rajasthan 488 9 3 500 Jharkhand 483 17 500 971 26 3 1000
Number of households who had no food at all during certain periods of last year
States Not any month
One month
Total
Rajasthan 458 42 500 Jharkhand 485 15 500
Total 943 57 1000
Accessability/Availability of MFP in both states
Perception of people about the decline of MFP in last 25 years
Perception Rajasthan Jharkhand Total MFP
declined 450 481 931 No 50 16 69
Proportion of decline in MFP in last 25 years
Rajasthan Jharkhand Proportion Total
households % Total
households %
Up to 25 % 27 6.0 4 1.0 Up to 50 % 19 4.2 41 10.7 Up to 75 % 146 32.4 220 57.3
Up to 100 % 258 57.3 119 31.0 Total households 450 100.0 384 100.0
xiii
Reasons for decline of MFP in Rajasthan
Reasons Frequency of population
% Rank
Forest Depletion 408 36.5 1 legal prohibition on MFP gathering for forest conservation/wild life conservation 308 27.6 2 Population pressure 276 24.7 3 Decline in forest cover due to development projects 90 8.1 4 Deforestation 27 2.4 5 Others 8 0.7 6 Total 1117 100.0 7
Reasons for decline of MFP in Jharkhand
Reasons Frequency
of population
% Rank
Forest Depletion 348 33.1 1 Population pressure 327 31.1 2 Legal prohibition 261 24.9 3 Others 56 5.3 4 Decline in forest cover 51 4.9 5 Deforestation 7 0.7 6
Reasons for decline of MFP in both states.
Reasons Frequency
of population
% Rank
Forest Depletion 756 34.9 1 Population pressure 603 27.8 2 legal prohibition on MFP gathering for forest conservation/wild life conservation 569 26.3 3 Decline in forest cover due to development projects 141 6.5 4 Others 64 3.0 5 Deforestation 34 1.6 6
xiv
Indebtedness
Proportion of households who had taken loans
Rajasthan Jharkhand Total Having loan 44 8.8 23 4.6 67 6.7 No loan 456 91.2 477 95.4 933 93.3 500 100 500 100 1000 100
Distribution of households by various reasons for the loan
Rajasthan Jharkhand total Food 6 13.3 1 4.5 7 10.4 Marriage 0.0 1 4.5 1 1.5 Health 5 11.1 1 4.5 6 9.0 Agriculture/Irrigation 23 51.1 15 68.2 38 56.7 Others 11 24.4 4 18.2 15 22.4 Total 45 100 22 100.0 67 100.0
Land use pattern
Distribution of households by the availability of cultivable land
States Land
owners (%)
No cultivable land (%) Total
Rajasthan 437 (87.4) 63 (12.6) 500 Jharkhand 475 (95) 25 (5) 500 Total 912 (91.2) 88 (8.8) 1000
Land size of the households in both states
Rajasthan Jharkhand Total Land size No. of
housholds (%) No. of
households (%) No. of
households (%)
Marginal up to 2.5 acres 359 82.2 351 73.9 710 77.9 Small up to 5 acres 59 13.5 95 20.0 154 16.9 Medium 5-10 acres 19 4.3 29 6.1 48 5.3 Total 437 100.0 475 100.0 912 100.0
xv
Proportion of irrigated land out of the total land
States Zero % Up to 25% Up to 50 % Up to 75 % Up to 100%
total households
having irrigated land
Rajasthan 395 6 30 2 4 42 Jharkhand 415 4 18 35 3 60 810 10 48 37 7 102
Source of irrigation
States Canal Tube well/
bore well Open well Others Total
Rajasthan 9 8 19 6 42 Jharkhand 4 4 39 13 60 Total 13 12 58 19 102
Proportion of households with different levels of income from Agricultural
land
Rajasthan Jharkhand Total Income groups No. of
households (%) No. of
households (%) No. of
households (%)
No income 414 94.7 426 89.7 840 92.1 below 500 18 4.1 12 2.5 30 3.3 500-1000 2 0.5 18 3.8 20 2.2 1000-1500 0 0.0 5 1.1 5 0.5 1500-2000 1 0.2 5 1.1 6 0.7 2000-3000 2 0.5 7 1.5 9 1.0 10000-15000 0 0.0 2 0.4 2 0.2 437 100.0 475 100.0 912 100.0
Proportion of households who have lost land in last 25 years
Rajasthan Jharkhand Both States Land No. of
households (%) No. of
households (%) No. of
households (%)
Lost land 39 7.8 60 12 99 9.9 No loss 461 92.2 440 88 901 90.1 Total 500 100 500 100 1000 100
xvi
Proportion of land loss of the households
Rajasthan Jharkhand Both States Loss of land No. of
households (%) No. of
households (%) No. of
households (%)
Up to 25 % 7 17.9 12 20.0 19 19.2 Up to 50 % 8 20.5 25 41.7 33 33.3 Up to 75 % 15 38.5 11 18.3 26 26.3
100 % lost 9 23.1 12 20.0 21 21.2
Total 39 100.0 60 100.0 99 100.0
Reasons for land loss of the households
States Sell Acquired by Govt for development projects
Encroached by powerful people
Others
No. of households
(%) No. of households
(%) No. of households
(%) No. of households
(%)
Rajasthan 22 56.4 0 0 10 25.6 7 17.9 Jharkhand 27 45.0 5 8.3 13 21.7 15 25.0
Reasons for sell of land
Rajasthan Jharkhand Both States
Reasons No. of households
(%) No. of households
(%) No. of households
(%)
Food 8 36.4 6 22.2 14 28.6 Marriage 3 13.6 5 18.5 8 16.3 Health 5 22.7 4 14.8 9 18.4 Agriculture/Irrigation investment 5 22.7 6 22.2 11 22.4 Education 0 0.0 1 3.7 1 2.0 Others 1 4.5 5 18.5 6 12.2 Total 22 100.0 27 100.0 49 100.0
Access to PDS
Number of households possessing Ration cards in both states
Card holders No ration cards States No. of
households (%) No. of
households (%)
Rajasthan 469 93.8 31 6.2 Jharkhand 271 54.2 229 45.8 Both states 740 74 260 26
xvii
Number/proportion of households possessing various kinds of ration cards
Rajasthan Jharkhand Both States Ration Cards No. of
households (%) No. of
households (%) No. of
households (%)
APL 220 46.9 80 29.5 300 40.5 BPL 214 45.6 157 57.9 371 50.1 Antyodaya 35 7.5 33 12.2 68 9.2 Annapoorna 0.0 1 0.4 1 0.1 Total 469 100.0 271 100 740 100.0
BPL card holder
Number/proportion of households taking their regular BPL ration
Rajasthan Jharkhand Both States Off take No. of
households (%) No. of
households (%) No. of
households (%)
Yes 28 13.1 6 3.8 34 9.2 No 186 86.9 151 96.2 337 90.8 Total 214 100 157 100 371 100
Proportion of BPL ration off-take from the PDS shop
Rajasthan Jharkhand Both States Proportion No. of
households (%) No. of
households (%) No. of
households (%)
Up to 25 % 59 31.7 59 39.1 118 35.0
Up to 50 % 78 41.9 35 23.2 113 33.5
Up to 75 % 38 20.4 42 27.8 80 23.7
Up to 100% 11 5.9 15 9.9 26 7.7
Total 186 151 337 100.0
xviii
Reasons for not getting the full quota of BPL from the PDS shop
Rajasthan Jharkhand Both States Reasons No. of
households (%) No. of
households (%) No. of
households (%)
Lack of money 32 17.2 28 18.5 60 17.8 unavailability of supply when money is available 34 18.3 23 15.2 57 16.9 Unable to take full quota at singe time 31 16.7 18 11.9 49 14.5 PDS supplier does not give full quota 53 28.5 42 27.8 95 28.2 PDS supplier charges higher rates than the fixed price 16 8.6 19 12.6 35 10.4 PDS supplier does not give the ration 11 5.9 12 7.9 23 6.8 PDS rates are higher than market rates 9 4.8 9 6.0 18 5.3 Total 186 100.0 151 100.0 337 100.0
Proportion of households satisfied with the functioning of PDS shop
Rajasthan Jharkhand Both States Satisfaction No. of
households (%) No. of
households (%) No. of
households (%)
Yes 52 24.3 19 12.1 71 19.1 No 162 75.7 138 87.9 300 80.9
Total 214 100 157 100 371 100
Antyodaya card holders
Proportion of households taking/gettng full quota of Antyodaya
Rajasthan Jharkhand Both States Taking full
quota No. of
households (%) No. of
households (%) No. of
households (%)
Yes 16 45.7 6 18.2 22 32.4 No 19 54.3 27 81.8 46 67.6
Total 35 100.0 33 100.0 68 100.0
xix
Reasons for not availing the full quota of Antyodaya
Rajasthan Jharkhand Both States Reasons No. of
households (%) No. of
households (%) No. of
households (%)
No money 13 68.4 7 25.9 20 43.5 Unavailability of supply when money is available 1 5.3 2 7.4 3 6.5 Unable to take full quota at a single time 3 15.8 9 33.3 12 26.1 PDS supplier does not give the ration 2 10.5 9 33.3 11 23.9 Total 19 100 27 100 46 100