Guest Post by KAMAL NAYAN CHOUBEY

Election manifestos of political parties have a distinct and vital role in the parliamentary elections. Parties present their policies on crucial issues of the country and their programmes to address the problems of the country. These elections, however, have seen minimal discussions on the contents of the manifestos of different parties because perhaps these elections are less policy centric and more individual centric. That is why the principal opposition party in the Parliament, BJP had not released its manifesto till the first day of polling. Election manifestos of all parties explain their policy and programme for the each and every section of society. It would be useful to consider that what kind of policies and programmes are promised for adivasis in the manifestos of prominent political parties. This is also necessary because these people have paid the price of the ‘development’ based on the extraction of natural resources and the use of corporate capital for this purpose. (Here I want to clarify that I will not focus on the issue of adivasis of North East India, because their problems are very different from the adivasis of the rest of India and one cannot do full justice by analyzing them as one unit).

In last twenty years this expropriation of resources has increased in the forest areas of the country. In each tribal dominated state, State Governments have signed hundreds of Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) with many national, international and multinational companies. These are the areas where Maoists have strong influence as the ‘biggest internal security threat’ of the country. So, it is important to ask what the policies of various political parties for adivasis are and is there any continuation in their policies and their actual performance as the ruling party in the Centre or in the States? Can adivasis expect, on the basis of these policies and programmes, that next government would follow more sensitive approach towards their problems?

In its manifesto Congress highlighted its work for the adivasis and it has promised the better implementation of laws like Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act 1996 (or PESA) and Forest Rights Act 2006. The commitment for the implementation of these laws means that the Party will work to ensure the rights of local communities in their day-to-day village life and over the resources of the village and the forests. Apart from this, it has promised to work for the development of basic infrastructure, education system and technological connectivity in these areas. The Party has assured that it would work for the wholesome development of tribal communities and try to make a consensus for the reservation in private sector for SCs and STs. BJP has focused on making Panchayati Raj system stronger and promised to give Gram Sabhas more power and connect tribal people with development processes. Though it has not mentioned the PESA, it assured to stop the tribal land alienation and create conducive market system of village Haat for the selling of Non Timber Forest Produces (NTFP) gathered by villagers. BJP has  also promised that it would establish a national research institute for the protection of tribal culture and create an integrated programme for the development of hundred most backward districts of the country and connect them with information technology based development. Incidentally we can find the issue of decentralization and adivasis rights over forest land and its resources in the 2004 and 2009 manifesto of both the parties. Due pressure of Left parties and peoples movement UPA –I Government took the initiative for the enactment of Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006. However, PESA and FRA have been partially implemented. I will return to these issues in a while. Aam Admi Parti (AAP) which has emerged as a strong and alternative force in the recent past has also promised to give adivasis rights over their land and resources. It has mentioned in it more clearly than Congress and BJP that the Party will implement PESA and FRA and focused on the development of infrastructure in Schedule V areas. Unlike Congress and BJP, it has promised to give a share of the benefits of mining to the local communities. The election manifestos of Left parties or regional parties like Jharkhand Mukti Morcha or Biju Janta Dal also express their commitment for making Gram Sabha stronger and the implementation of Constitutional provisions and the laws passed by the Parliament.

We know, however, that political parties write attractive things in their manifestos and one can easily find a wonderful consensus on certain issues. For instance, almost all major political parties express their commitment to implement those laws which give local communities rights over their land and resources. But if we focus on the practices of these parties we can find that there is a huge gap between electoral promises and the actual behavior of different political parties. Indeed, it has been an unbroken history of broken promises. In this context the record of two biggest national parties, Congress and BJP has been really dismal and contradictory to their election promises. On many occasions both these parties propagated and actively supported the illegal activities in the adivasi dominated areas. ‘Salwa Judum’ in the Datewada district of Chhatisgarh was started by a Congress leader and supported by BJP led State Government. Both these parties actively participated in making an armed militia of adivasis to fight against Maoists in this area, which resulted in the displacement of thousands of people from their villages to the camps and neighboring states. It was a clear violation of the Indian constitution and basic human rights norms and both Congress and BJP played important role in this crime.

While in their election rallies both Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi are expressing their commitment for the security, welfare and development of tribal communities, the Central or State Governments of both the parties have regularly and actively supported the investment of the corporate capital in the forest areas. In their pursuit of facilitating corporate capital they openly violated the constitutional provisions and laws made by the Parliament. For instance, there is a provision in PESA that the Gram Sabha shall be consulted before making the acquisition of land in the Schedule Areas. However in states like Chhatisgarh, Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha there are hundreds of examples where this kind of consultation never took place or local administration took forced or fabricated concurrence of the Gram Sabhas. It is also amusing that in his rallies in tribal dominated areas of Odisha Congress leader Rahul Gandhi alleged that BJD Government of the Odisha had not implemented PESA and FRA in their true spirit. But the fact of the matter is that as far as the implementation of the basic provisions of this law is concerned the record of the Congress led state governments is also very poor. It is an open secret that though local communities have been opposing POSCO project in Odisha, the PMO has always tried to promote this project.

Indeed, for parties like Congress, BJP, JMM or Biju Janta Dal the provisions of the laws made by the Parliament and processes outlined by these laws are obstacles in the implementation of MoUs with national and multi-national companies. So, the main discourse is not centered on the implementation of the provisions of laws like PESA or FRA. For instance, in December 2013, then Minister of Environment and Forest Jayanti Natrajan resigned from the Cabinet and Veerppa Moily became new head of this portfolio. Within few days Mr. Moily cleared the 72 projects related to the diversion of forest land without considering the other relevant factors like implementation of different laws in these forest lands. Interestingly, BJP’s prime ministerial candidate Mr. Narendra Modi did not question the violation of these laws. He however, criticized the UPA government for the delay in the clearance of these projects. No prominent leader of BJP or Congress raised the issue that giving clearance in haste would clearly violate the many legal provisions and the rights of thousands of people who were residing on these lands. The silences on this basic issue by both these parties show a basic contradiction in their approach towards adivasis. They are simultaneously talking about the rights of adivasis and violating the laws related to their rights. Other parties like JMM, BJD, and CPM are also carrying this inherently contradictory ideological position.

The basic problem is that most political parties have faith on a specific conception of ‘development’, which is based on the extraction of natural resources by the corporate capital and establishment of big industries. Most non-violent movement based oppositions of this conception of development has also been termed as ‘anti-national’ or the threat for the ‘national security’. Central and State Governments have implemented the Acts passed by the parliament only in a partial manner. When constitutional provisions or the Acts became an obstacle to this conception of development, most Governments (both Central and States) violated them indiscriminately and at least two principal parties and regional parties (like JMM, BJD) have consensus on this issue. Though Left parties (CPI and CPM) are not unequivocal supporter of this stand and on many occasions they led struggle for the rights of adivasis, but the experiences of the previous West Bengal Government have showed that a Left Government can also be very repressive for the sake of industrial development. As far as AAP is concerned, it is a new party and full of ideological confusions and like BJP and Congress it is also simultaneously talking about the ‘development’ with the help of corporate capital and giving rights and benefits to local communities. Though many tribal activists like Medha Patekar, Dyamani Barla, Lingraj and Soni Sori etc. are fighting election on the ticket of AAp, only time will tell how far AAP would be able to carry both these inherently contradictory things together.

Obviously, there is a clear distinction between the manifesto promises of the political parties and their actual behavior. Adivasis can at least expect that parties should promise to follow constitutional provisions and procedure established by law before expropriating their resources for the ‘national’ development. The dual behavior of parliamentary parties, particularly Congress and BJP has given strength to the Maoist criticisms against parliamentary democracy. However, one cannot say that rejection of democratic procedures is a viable option. It is necessary to make the people of these areas politically conscious and many grassroots organizations are working with this aim. These organizations are giving their ‘Demand Charters’ to political parties and candidates and people are deciding about preferred parties or candidates on the basis of their views on these demands. Though this measure is not a panacea, but it can make people more aware about their rights and they can directly question their representatives about their promises. We can hope that it will minimize the gap between manifestos and actual behavior of the political parties.

Kamal Nayan Choubey is a Junior Fellow at Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi