PANCHAYAT (EXTENSION TO THE SCHEDULED AREAS) PESA AND LWE : CHHATTISGARH, JHARKHAND, AND ODISHA PEA & LWE: Dr. Nupur Tiwari Associate Professor Indian Institute of Public Administration
Why Schedule V Area safeguards • Schedule V areas marked by − Exploitation related to land, liquor, money lending, markets. − Deprivation: acute poverty, illiteracy, weak social/physical infrastructure − Govt. machinery seen as unresponsive & oppressive. − Large scale vacancies & absenteeism : leading to poor governance & services. − Loss of livelihood : Land alienation, MFP issues. − Dislocation of communities due to land acquisition - 8% ST population account for 40% of all, displaced by projects. − Environmental degradation extensive illegal/unscientific forest felling & mining. − Segmented planning & implementation : sub optimal outcome of plethora of schemes. • Deprivation→ Discontent→ Alienation→ Exploitation & Extremism
Overlap of Extremist Affected and Sch. V Districts Sch. V Sch. V Sch.V + Sch.V EAD BRGF Area Contiguous Contiguous MEADs 34 20 9 29 32 EADs 83 39 22 61 73 • If areas in vicinity included, Sch. V Areas & EAAs coincide well • Generally Naxalites operate in/from forests & hilly terrains • Some Sch. V Areas though not affected by extremism, are easy targets, being contiguous and forested and having the same problems.
Why PESA inspite of Sch. V safeguards Inspite of Sch. V provisions: people’s problems remained. Hence PESA Enacted Reviewing Committees . – Conceptualization of PESA
Planning Commission Report (2006) • The Planning Commission set up an Expert Group on “Development Issues to deal with the causes of Discontent, Unrest and Extremism” in May 2006. • Stressed…”Development which is insensitive to the needs of these communities has invariably caused displacement and reduced them to a sub-human existence. In the case of tribes, in particular, it has ended up in destroying their social organisation, cultural identity, and resource base and generated multiple conflicts, undermining their communal solidarity, which cumulatively makes them increasingly vulnerable to exploitation .” • PESA for the first time brings the State Legislature in the picture in matters concerning Panchayats located in SA. • Space has been created in the frame of PESA for this purpose. Section 4(m) specifically mentions this It begins with a mandate, making the features listed therein as non-violable by the State Legislatures.
various Expert Committees have recommended implementation of PESA in letter and spirit . Of particular importance are the following reports: Seventh Report of the second Administrative Reforms Commission: ‘ CapacityBuilding for Conflict Resolution: Friction to Fusion’ ‘Development Challenges in Extremist Affected Areas’: Report of an Expert Group ofthe Planning Commission. The Report of the MoRD on Priority Development Schemes for LWE districts has identified that weak governance structures persist in these districts, as PRIs have not been adequately strengthened via delegation of sufficient administrative and financial powers (Chapter III, page 13). Similarly, chapter IV suggests the long and medium term interventions, which includes the strengthening of Panchayati Raj Institutions by delegation of requisite administrative and financial powers.
PESA was also the subject matter of the Governors Conference called by Her Excellency, President of India (16.09.2008). “The provision of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act 1996 (PESA) has extended Panchayati Raj to the nine States namely, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and Rajasthan under the Fifth Schedule. However, they are yet to frame requisite Local enactment to comply with PESA Act.” Likewise, the second Administrative Reforms Commission too, had stressed the effective implementation of the PESA mentioning that “the Union and State legislations that impinge on provisions of PESA should be immediately modified so as to bring them in conformity with the Act.” According to the approach paper to Twelfth Five Year Plan, “There is a case for creating a special arrangement whereby in the first two years of the Twelfth Plan, funds can be unconditionally released for all these districts to facilitate the speedy implementation of PESA .”
People’s problems remained. Provisions of PESA Enacted in 1996 - PESA extends provisions relating to PRIs to Scheduled Areas - with certain exceptions & modification (e.g. 29 functions of PRIs are optional, whereas, functions of GS in PESA are mandatory). • PESA is about self governance through traditional GS. - A separate GS for a/group of habitations, comprising a community, and managing its affairs in accordance with traditions & customs. • PESA prohibits state legislature from making any law inconsistent with PESA. • Incidentally, FRA, 2006 & LARR, 2013 are complementary to PESA.
PESA for Self Governance through • Gram Sabhas are central to PESA and have specific functions : GS (A)Regulatory : - Resolve dispute through customary mode; - Prevent land alienation and restore alienated land; - Regulate sale/consumption of intoxicants; - Manage village markets; - Control money lending to STs. (B) Control over natural resources : - Right to consultation in LA, R&R, etc. - Recommend prospecting licenses and mining leases for MMs; - Own & manage MFP (issues of bamboo & tendu apart). - Minor water bodies (C) Developmental : - Control local institutions and functionaries. - Control local plans and resources for such plans in TSP. - Approve GP plans, identify beneficiaries, issue UCs.
Why is PESA not effective • While no systematic study of implementation/impact of PESA done, a visit to such areas would suggest that largely - Pre-PESA Status quo remains - with some sporadic & episodic efforts LS1 • Reasons are - (i) Administrative, - (ii) Legal, and - (iii) Political anpsinha9999@gmail.com
The Study :Methodology
Rationale of the Study • The states viz Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Odisha are selected based on two correlated criteria- (i) the substantial presence of Adivasi population and (ii) the high occurrence of Naxal violence. • The 2011 census, the percentage of the tribal population in Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Odisha constitute 30.6%, 26.2%, and 22.8% respectively out of the total tribal population in India. • Regarding Naxal violence, these three states have recorded high level consistently over the last 5-6 years.
Districts Selected • The first set of districts was selected on the basis of the relatively successful implementation of PESA Act and the decreasing trend of Naxal violence. • While the second set of districts exhibited a near absence of PESA implementation and the occurrence of a high level of Naxal violence. • i) Highest number of civilian deaths • ii) Highest number of terrorist deaths • iii) Highest number of security forces deaths • iv) Highest number of total deaths
• Two districts Bastar and Balrampur (Chhattisgarh) Gumla and Khunti (Jharkhand) Malkhangiri and Koraput (Odisha) • From these districts, two Janpad Panchayats were randomly selected, and from each of these two Janpad Panchayats, six Gram Panchayats was randomly selected for data collection. • Purposive sampling was adopted to identify Janpad Panchayats and Gram Panchayats. The proposed methodology was applied to a sample size of 500 households in each District. • The six Gram Panchayats selected from the two Janpad Panchayats, were in turn selected from each of the two districts which fell under the EAA (Extremely Affected Areas ).
Research Survey and Data Collection Method • The methodology adopted for this study was a combination of Quantitative and Qualitative approaches. • Qualitative tools were used for collecting and interpreting the data. For example, tools like Focus Group Discussion (FGD) and series of individual interviews were undertaken primarily to identify the civil society’s view on tribal discontent and PESA implementation in the selected states. • Also, for collecting fieldwork data in the states, ethnographic tools were adopted. The empirical tools helped in data interpretation as major part of the research composed of an extensive fieldwork.
Quantitative Data Analysis • On the basis of the data collected, structured questionnaires were analyzed by taking recourse to MS Excel and SPSS 16.0. • The data was interpreted through pie-charts and bar graphs to show inter-state as well as inter-district variations. • The extensive household survey provided a core quantitative database to understand the socio- economic profile and the ground realities faced by the tribal communities today.
Jharkhand
Chhattisgarh
Odisha
The Study Findings: Highlights Based on Empirical data
Hypothesis -1 PESA is a promising legal mechanism, but the success of its implementation process rests squarely on the State Governments who, in turn, have not shown the desired level of commitment in performing the same.
Recommend
More recommend
