|
| West Godavari |
 |
| |
| East Godavari | Khammam |
| |
Tribal, non-tribal ties worsen |
- By C.Lokeswar Rao
- Newstime-Hyderabad, 8th August, 1996 |
| |
Hyderabad: Gutting of the mandal revenue office (M.R.O) at Jangareddygudem by non-tribal farmers and an attack by tribals in Busarajupalli on a local leader, K.Rambabu, indicate that the administration in West Godavari district is hoist with a grave situation in the agency areas like Jangareddygudem, Jeelugumilli, Busarajupalli, Buttaigudem on a Polavaram where skirmishes have been fought over the last 16 months between tribals and non-tribals over the primordial issue of land.
Sporadic violence has been raging in the tribal areas of West Godavari even though police have been deployed in strength over the last two months and armed police were rushed to the area in recent weeks.
A raid on Manugopula village by non-tribal farmers which left ten people injured and several houses destroyed and the confinement of a party of non-tribals which included women for five hours at Darbhagudem by tribals until police rescued the non-tribals sometime in the middle of the night are among the other major incidents reported in recent weeks. The police deployed after these incidents were apparently ineffective while non-tribals were attacked at Busarajupalli and when MRO's office, the depository of land records which are at crux of the war of attrition over the last 16 months was gutted.
Direct Action:
Tribals armed with bows and arrows have been resorting to "direct action" in preventing non-tribals from entering the fields which they have been cultivating for several years to press demand for identifying and evicting people holding land in agency area in violation of Regulation one of 1970 which is meant to prevent alienation of tribal land. Non-tribal farmers affected by the agitation by Koya tribals, who include many small and marginal farmers and some Dalits who had been given assignment pattas in tribal villages, have been resorting to 'rasta-roko' campaigns to bring pressure on the state government.
Women have been in the forefront of the war for survival in both camps. While Koya women are lining up with bows and arrows to prevent non-tribals from entering the fields for sowing or harvesting, women from non-tribal families are taking the initiative in rasta-roko campaigns. Though they can muster vehicles like tractors, non-tribals are at a disadvantage as most of them do not live in the tribal hamlets where they have been cultivating land.
Some non-tribals from Darbhagudem who set out to harvest paddy from their fields in Panduvarigudem and Seemalavarigudem were surrounded by armed tribals and were confined till they were rescued by a police party around midnight. Mango and cashew apples worth about Rs.one crore were picked by tribals from the 600-acre estate of the Hukampet Zamindar this summer and 49 tribals were arrested in connection with the incident recently. The fact that the arrests took place more than two month after the incident only served to aggravate tensions.
Ambivalence, Not Apathy:
Shockingly it is a case of ambivalence, not apathy. The administration has been aware of socio-economic-cultural dimensions of the war being fought in the tribal tract of West Godavari since the summer of 1995.
Thanks to the efforts of Sakthi, a voluntary agency which has been collecting and disseminating information on land records, tribals woke up to the fact that non-tribals seemed to hold most of the uplands (termed assessed waste dry in revenue jargon) which bore rich crops of cotton, chillies and tobacco. It is not that all the non-tribals farming land in agency areas were assigned pattas by bending rules. Many of them had bought land cheap from other, non-tribals who anticipated the day tribals would assert their rights under Regulation one of 1970 and sold off their holdings. Since land in non-tribal areas costs about Rs.1.5 lakh an acre and even annual lease to a cotton farmer fetches Rs.8,000 or so, The buyers thought they were securing a bargain paying about Rs.20,000 for an acre of land.
The major dimensions of the problem are that 70 per cent of the people in agency areas, who are non-tribals, may lose land since Regulation one of 1970 makes no exception. About 1,400 acres of land may have to be handed over by non-tribals under land transfer regulation.
Due process fails to deliver:
The administration has been aware of the problem but has been proceeding at a snail's pace with key measures like identifying people who encroached land, evicting encroachers and distributing land among tribals. The present conflict was ignited last year when tribals felt that the "due process" of government did not deliver justice.
A man holding 29 acres of land was identified as an encroacher and evicted but the land could not be secured for distribution to tribals. After a campaign of hunger strikes and dharnas a Section 145 order was passed restraining both parties from entering the disputed fields. Later, the same sub-collector who passed eviction orders passed an order that while the non-tribals in possession had violated Regulation one of 1970, they could continue in possession until appropriate procedure for restoring tribal land is completed. (Newstime October 19, 1995)
This exercise in ambivalence is being played out, over and over again. Sakthi is being allowed access to information. Land records are being read out a village meetings (the complaint by Girijans of Busarajupalli was that only banjar list was read out and the list of pattas was not called out). The MROs who read out records never took action on the basis of history of ownership. All the time tribals are subjected to pep talks about peace and asked to give assurance that they would wait "till due process is completed." And senior officials do not seem to be interested in questions such as the number of land holders who are descendants of patta holders or the result of an LTR enquiry.
Administration's Modest Achievements:
Considering that Skirmishes have been fought for 16 months, atleast 1,400 acres has to be taken over for distribution and loss of agricultural production due to standstill caused by confrontation runs into crores (cashew and mango 'looted' in one incident were estimated to be worth Rs.one crore), the tangible achievements of the administration are exasperatingly modest. While 95 per cent patta lands have changed hands, government has looked into only five per cent cases under Land Transfer Regulation (LTR) and there have been no enquiries into encroachments. In isolated instances, the Collector got 24 acres of land distributed in Jillellagudem and a joint collector visited Lankalapalli and had notices served to non-tribals of Jilugumilli to report history of land ownership. The Tribals who picked cashew from groves of non-tribals in Barrinkalapadu, Lankalapalli and Panduvarigudem were incensed by the fact that possession of 27 acres of land supposedly distributed in Vankavarigudem was delayed. Though a monitoring cell was formed after these incidents, all that was achieved was that 47 acres was taken over for distribution in Manugopula and 24 acres in Kamayyapalem, incidentally a village free of disputes.
Tracing Records:
Tribals are now demanding that records of 1902, 1932 and 1995 be read out together to trace the process of alienation of land, making public the history of ownership, supply of Photostat copies of land records, guidance on process of filing complaints, a separate cell in collector's office functioning under collector's supervision and a time-bound schedule for identifying and evicting encroachers and for distributing land. Why should it take ages since there are only some 200 survey numbers in tribal villages, is the question.
|
| |
Saying boo to the babus |
- By C.Lokeswara Rao.
- Newstime, Wednesday 9th April, 1997. |
| |
Recent goings on in the tribal tract of West Godavari district can be viewed as a classic case of the lower rungs of administration at the grassroots level doing things their way in handling the confrontation between tribals and non-tribals over land, saying boo to the thinking of the Andhra Pradesh government as expressed in important documents like a note prepared by the chief secretary for an all-party meeting.
Officials and non-officials at various levels in the power structure had a hand in the process of alienation and encroachment of land in scheduled areas which took place over several decades and the current round of confrontation was triggered nearly two years ago, when tribals were convinced of bias in functioning of bureaucracy and felt the need to supplement legal campaigns with a show of militancy. That led to actions like preventing non-tribals from cultivating fields or harvesting crops in encroached lands in scheduled areas.
When non-tribals protested against distribution of land to tribals in Jillelagudem village of Jeelugumilli village of Jeelugumilli mandal in May, 1995, Section 145 was imposed and the SDM observed in his order that while non-tribals were unable to establish ownership of land, they could continue in the land till the appropriate authorities cancelled their title deeds. The order was passed by the very same bureaucracy which was supposed by the very same bureaucracy which was supposed to initiate such proceedings and they still have not carried out their duty in this regard.
The gravity of the problems caused by the ongoing confrontation can be assessed from the fact that cultivation has been abandoned for the last two years in about 10,000 acres of land in areas beyond Kovvada canal.
A note prepared by M.S.Rajajee, chief secretary, for a meeting in the chief minister's chamber on February 17 gives ample indications of the government's thinking, though the all-party meeting called on February 17 did not take place for some reasons. The decisions made by the government with the approval of chief minister Chandrabau Naidu reflect keenness to help tribals who have suffered due to apathy and bias on the part of the administration.
The government was to initiate measures like verification of claims of tribals pertaining to lands held by non-tribals, identification of government lands which could be assigned in favour of tribals, action to keep tribals in possession of (government, cases decided under LTR and ceiling surplus) where ownership has been given to tribals and identification of poromboke lands where ek-sala(one year) lease can be granted to tribals.
The chief secretary's note also mentioned that the West Godavari collector was to identify all the criminal cases booked against, tribals and non-tribals (except serious cases relating to murder, grievous hurt and rape) in consultation with public prosecutor, peace monitoring committees headed by Revenue Divisional Officers and the SP, and send details to government for a decision to withdraw the cases as per legal provisions. The collector had informed the government that 146 cases booked against tribals and 176 cases booked against non-tribals were under examination by the public prosecutor and that those would be finalised and sent to government for withdrawal.
While making up its mind to withdraw cases filed in connection with the West Godavari confrontation, the government was aware of three major incidents which were listed in the note the chief secretary prepared: trespass by about 300 tribals nto the lands of non-tribals in Buttayagudem and Reddiganapavaram mandal (14-12-96) tension in Reddyganapavaram and neighboring villages leading to promulgating of Section 144 (28-12-96) and tension in Dharbagudem and Panduvarigudem villages of Jeelugumilli mandal which was brought under control after the intervention of RDO, Kovvuru. These clashes formed the backdrop for a high level meeting called in Hyderabad on December 30, 1996 and the various decisions listed by the chief secretary, including the decision to ask collector to send details for initiation of the legal process for withdrawal of criminal cases, were taken at that meeting on 30-12-96.
Though the all-party meeting convened by government in the chief minister's chamber was not held for some reasons which had for some reasons which had nothing to do with the West Godavari developments, the failure to hold meeting of legislators had no bearing on the decisions listed in the chief secretary's note. The government never said anything about reversing any of the decisions mentioned by the chief secretary.
And yet, the local administration unleashed repression in the agency areas in March, i.e. long after the circulation of the chief secretary's note spelling out the government's decisions and hundreds of arrests were made towards the end of march in connection with the clashes which took place in December last.
That is, arrests were made in relation to cases which were to be withdrawn after the government had initiated the process by getting collector to have details verified by collector in consultation with public prosecutor.
The chief secretary's note mentions that the chief minister and the chief secretary had held periodical and regular reviews to monitor the situation and the note concludes with the lines, "The situation is being monitored regularly at the highest level in the Government".
If the bureaucracy at mandal level can get away with actions contrary to the spirit of government's decisions, so much for monitoring.
The tragedy is that the charade of concern at the state government's level and repression at the grassroots level is being enacted in one tribal tract where Naxalites have not yet gained a foothold and the struggle for land is led by mainstream elements like voluntary agency Sakthi and CPM though a couple of splinter Naxal groups have a presence.
|
| |
Selective sloth |
| - News Time Tuesday September 19 2000 |
| |
The background to an order issued by the Andhra Pradesh High Court recently about a petition filed by a woman activist fighting for tribal land is typical of the tawdry progress in protecting the interests of indigenous people. Justice B Sudershan Reddy issued an interim directive to the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records of West Godavari district and the Mandal Revenue Officer of Jeelugumilli to provide the petitioner, T Krishnaveni, with the details of an enjoyment survey, title verification and details of patta lands as well as poramboku lands in occupation of non-tribals, and observed that the documents sought by the petitioner were public documents, not confidential or precluded information. The judge observed moreover that a district level committee where the petitioner first aired a demand for documents about lands in possession of non-tribals was constituted for the very purpose of ascertaining details of land in the occupation of non-tribals. The committee headed by the district collector had been formed on the basis of an earlier directive of the high court with the goal of resolving conflicts over tribal land, Krishnaveni complained in her petition that she was denied information essential for identifying land alienated in contravention of Agency regulations though the collector had directed the survey official and the MRO to provide her with such information. That is, the tribal woman had to secure an order from the high court to direct a couple of government officials to provide information they had collected in pursuit of the objective of settling disputes over land in Agency area after they failed to comply with similar instructions form the collector. Imagine what would happen if citizens had to move high court when officials did not comply with instruction given by the municipal commissioner, the police commissioner and so on. Or could it be that this is an instance of selective sloth, of things moving at a sluggish pace in matters concerning tribals who do not have clout. Krishnaveni also complained that activists were being advised not be impatient and threatened with police measures like Section 144 to suppress activities like holding meetings in pursuit of the land struggle.
Roc. N.69/2002 Revenue Divisional Office,
Kovvur, dt. 6-2-2002.
From: To
Sri K.Sridhar, The Special Commissioner and Revenue Divisional Officer, Director of Settlements,
Kovvur, Andhra Pradesh
West Godavari District. HYDERABAD
Respected Sir,
Sub: E.A.Act 1948 and A.P. Regulations 1/69, 2/69 and 2/70 details of disposal of RP/AP cases
for the period from 1990 to 2001 by Joint Collector/Settlement Officers and Sub Collector /
Revenue Divisional Officer cum Settlement Officers – report submitted – reg.
Ref: 1. Spl. Commissioner & Director of Settlements, A.P. Hyderabad Fax Message No.
A2/3465/2001. Dt.28-01-2002.
2. Spl. Commissioner & Director of Settlements, A.P. Hyderabad No. A2/3465/2001, dt. 31-1-2002.
* * *
I invite kind attention to the referred cited and submit herewith the details of cases disposed by Revenue Divisional Officer Cum-Settlement Officer, Kovvur, W.G.Dist., Under A.P. Regulation 1/69 and 2/70 during the period from 192 to 2001 (Year wise).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.No. Year No. of cases disposed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. A.P.Regulation 1/69
II. A.P.Regulation 2/69
-NIL-
III. A.P.Regulation 2/70
1. 1990 -Nil-
2. 1991 -Nil-
3. 1992 -Nil-
4. 1993 -Nil-
5. 1994 -Nil-
6. 1995 -Nil-
7. 1996 21 cases
8. 1997 190 cases
9. 1998 -Nil-
10. 1999 -Nil-
11. 2000 -Nil-
12. 2001 -Nil-
-------------------------
Total: 211 cases
-------------------------
Yours faithfully,
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Sub-Settlement Officer,
Kovvur
Copy submitted to the Chief Commissioner Land Administration A.P. Hyderabad for favour of information.
Copy submitted to the Joint Collector, W.G.Dist., Eluru for favour of information.
|
| |
| «« Previous | Next »» |
| |
| |
|
