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