Graduate School of Developmental Studies

Graduate School of Developmental Studies

Land Rights and Marginalized Communities in Rural India:a Case Study of Scheduled Caste in Orissa

A Research Paper presented by:

Rajesh Kumar Jena

(India)

in partial fulfilment of the requirements for obtaining the degree of

MASTERS OF ARTS IN DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

Specialization:

Human Rights Development & Social Justice
(HDS)

Members of the examining committee:

Dr. Rachel Kurian [Supervisor]

Dr. Arjan De. Haan [Reader]

The Hague, The Netherlands
November, 2011

Disclaimer:

This document represents part of the author’s study programme while at the Institute of Social Studies. The views stated therein are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Institute.

Inquiries:

Postal address:Institute of Social Studies
P.O. Box 29776
2502 LT The Hague
The Netherlands

Location: Kortenaerkade 12
2518 AX The Hague
The Netherlands

Telephone:+31 70 426 0460

Fax:+31 70 426 0799

Acknowledgment

This research paper is based on my individual interest in and overwhelming emotional attachment to the community as well as the issue. This task would not have been possible without the support and cooperation of academics, activists and the respondents of this study. It is very difficult to mention by name all of the people who supported me throughout the different phases of this research. I am indebted to all of them. However, I include special thanks to a few people who helped me during my research journey in The Netherlands, as well as during the data collection in Orissa, India.

First of all, I would like to acknowledge my supervisor Dr. Rachel Kurian for her guidance and continuous motivation during my research work. I am inspired by her commitment towards Dalit issues and by her academic excellence. During the research period she allowed me freedom to conceptualize, but provided guidance whenever I was losing the track. I am grateful to her for her continuous encouragement, affection and motivation in completing this piece of research.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to my second reader,Dr. Arjan De Haan, for his critical suggestionsregarding the theoretical issues at hand. He has always encouraged me to bring greater focusto my research.

I would like to acknowledge the guidance and encouragement of Dr. Jeff Handmaker, convener of the HDS course, and his assistance in helping me to finish the research within the allotted time frame.

Sincere thanks must also go to Farzana Akhi, my discussant, who always offered meaningful suggestions during research paper seminars. Also my sincere acknowledgement to the International Ford Foundation Programme (IFP), India office, without whose financial support it would not have been possible for me to complete the MA course here at ISS.

Last but not least, I give heartfelt thanks to all those people who supported me during my field study. I am thankful to Development Initiative (DI), an NGO based at Bhubaneswar, Orissa; without their support, this study would not have been possible. I would like to thank Orissa Dalit Adikar Manch (ODAM) and other organizations in Orissa for their generous support. My thanks go to Emmy, Pradyut, Bhai & Guru who havebeen so supportive in helping me with thetimely completion of this work.

Contents

List of Tables

List of Figures

List of Maps

List of Acronyms

Abstract

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Background

1.2 Indian Planning, Land Issues and Dalits: the Dynamics of Deprivation

1.3 The Fundamental Problem with Land Rights

1.4 Research Objective

1.5 Research Question

1.6 The Research Sub-Questions

1.7 Methodology

1.8 Source of Data

1.8.1 Primary Data

1.8.2 Secondary Data

1.8.3 Data Collection Tools

1.8.4 Case Study Methodology

1.8.5 In-depth Interview

1.9 Data Analysis

1.10 Scope and Limitation

1.11 Organization of the Paper

1.12 Personal Commitment

Chapter 2 Conceptual Framework of Analysis

2.1 Introduction

2.2 State versus Fundamental Rights of People

2.3 Human Development and Violation of Human Rights

2.4 Human Rights, Atrocities and Land Rights

Chapter 3 Overview of Orissa – Land Revenue Administration in Orissa.

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Residential Land Distribution Programme of the Government of Orissa

3.2.1 Distribution of HousingSites to Homestead-less Families

3.2.2 Mo Jami Mo Diha ( My land, My Homestead) Land programme

3.3 Agricultural Land Distribution Programme by Government of Orissa:

3.3.1 Bhoodan Land Distribution Programme for the Landless

3.3.2 Distribution of Wasteland to Landless families for Agricultural purposes

3.4 Revenue Profile in Orissa

3.5 Structure of Various Institutions in Orissa in Relation to the Revenue Department

3.6Structure of Land Revenue Administration in Orissa

Chapter 4 Discrimination and Deprivation in Access to Land

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Hereditary Transfer of Land

4.3 Market Transfer of Land

4.4 Government Transfer

4.5 Illegal occupancies

4.6 Exclusion with Regard to Residential Land

4.7 Discrimination in Terms of Agricultural Land

4.8 Discrimination with Regard to Communal Land

4.9 Conclusion

Chapter 5 Victim, Perpetrator and other Stakeholders: Understanding the Dynamics of Land Grabbing and the Role of the State

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 What is Land Grabbing?

5.1.2 Victim, Perpetratorand Land Grabbing

5.2 Violation of Human Rights while Ascertaining Land Rights

5.2.1 Verbal Abuse

5.2.2 Threats

5.2.3 Burning and Destruction of Houses

5.3.4 Not Allowing Access to Common Property and Forceful Eviction from land

5.3.5 Types and Extent of Land Related Atrocities

5.3.6 Area of Land under Conflict

5.4 Methods of Land Grabbing

5.5 Response to Atrocities against Dalits

5.5.1 NGO Help

5.5.2 Government Help

5.6 Conclusion

Chapter 6 Conclusion

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Caste & Untouchablity

6.3Constitutional Provision and Dalit Land

6.4 Vulnerability of Women and Children

6.5 Role of Civil Society

6.6 Law and Government institutions

6.7 Conclusion

Referencing

Appendices

List of Tables

Table-1: Land Status of the Cases

Table-2: Types of Victim and Perpetrator 33

Table 3 : Types Violence and Action by Dalit Victims

Table 4: Area of Grabbed Land and Duration for which Perpetrator has held it

Table 5: Different Methods of Land Grabbing

Table 6: Help Received from Different Agencies 41

Table 7: Problems Faced by Dalit Victims after Incidents

List of Figures

Figure 1: Bhuban Village of Dhenkanal District

Figure 2: Alasua Village House Burning

List of Maps

Map 1: Orissa Map and 6 District Study Areas

List of Acronyms

ASIAssistant Sub-Inspector Police

ADWOAdditional District Welfare Officer

ADMAdditional District Magistrate

BDO Block Development Officer

CSOCivil Society Organization

Cr.P.C.Criminal Procedure Code

DIDevelopment Initiative

DWODistrict Welfare Officer

FFTFact Finding Team

FFRFact Finding Report

FIRFirst Information Report

MNCMulti National Companies

NCSCNational Commission for Scheduled Caste

NCSTNational Commission for Scheduled Tribe

NHRCNational Human Rights Commission

NHNational Highway

NGONon-governmental Organization

OBCOther Backward Caste

OICOfficer-in-charge

OLR ActOrissa Land Reform Act

PPPublic Prosecutor

PHCPublic Health Centre

PSPolice Station

POPost Office

PCR ActProtection of Civil Rights Act

POA ActPrevention of Atrocity Act

R&RRehabilitation and Resettlement

RDCRevenue Divisional Commission

RTIRight to Information

SCScheduled Caste

ST Scheduled Tribe

SEZSpecial Economic Zone

SPSuperintendent of Police

SVMCState Vigilance and Monitoring Committee

SDPOSub-Divisional Police Officer

Abstract

The objective of the this study is to analyze the types, level and extent of caste-based deprivation and violence in terms of land rights in rural Orissa, and to ascertain the role played by judiciary, land revenue and civil administration in addressingthese problems. The study seeks to answer the question ‘Why, despite progressive legislation on land rights and promises of development and protection against human rights violations for Dalitcommunities in rural Orissa, are these violations continuing?’. To address these issues,four sub-questions through which to address the question are outlined.

The researchfocuses on deprivation and atrocities in land related cases and aims to prove that land is the major reason for the increasing number of atrocities committed against Dalits in rural Orissa. Reports show that even though violence against Dalits has been increasing, the conviction rate for perpetrators of this violence is very low in Orissa.

The cases of deprivation and discrimination range from denial of access to drinking water, village ponds, cremation ground, playgrounds, temples and many other resources. Another type of deprivation that has been reported is the forceful imposition of certain categories of work on Dalits, such as scavenging, sweeping, drum beating, washing and bonded labor. The range of land related atrocities varies from hate speech, rape of Dalit women, house burning, murder and mass attack on Dalits.

The researcher used frameworks of social exclusion, human development and human rights to analyze the issue. In order to establish a theoretical framework, the researcher tried to establish a link between these three concepts in the context of land rights.

The research employs case studies from various districts of Orissa (Ganjam, Jajpur, Kendrapara, Dhenkanal, Khurda and Puri) to analyze the issue. The research considers three different types of land atrocity cases: first, no access to community land; second, land grabbing and finally, non-implementation of the land distribution. Various methodologies are used to analyze these cases.

The research concludes that the judiciary and administration have failed to give proper time and justice to Dalits because of the institutionalization of caste prejudices. The law is not sufficient to address these types of land related atrocities. In addition, people should know their rights and the provisions in place to protect their interests and allow them to claim their rights.

Relevance to Development Studies

Land is related to power, position and prestige in rural Orissa, and is also the main source of livelihood. But historically,because of the caste system, Dalits have no access to resources like land. The Caste system in India traditionally did not allow Dalits to own land or any other resource. Presently, the majority of Dalits are landless, and they have neither homestead nor agricultural land. Dalit communities depend on land as agriculture laborers, daily laborers or share croppers, but do not legally and individually own land. This applies not only to agricultural land, but also to community land like playgrounds, grazing land, village roads, temples and cremation grounds. These facilities are all still on land occupied by upper caste people. The government is currently giving large sections of land to multinational companies in the name of development purposes, with the result that many Dalits have been displaced, receiving no compensation for lost common land. Land related violations again Dalits have been increasing day to day. The majority of atrocity cases in Orissa areland related. In this context, I believe the topic has relevance in development study.

Keywords

Dalit, Land, Human Rights, Law, Government Institution, Social Exclusion, Human Development, Land Grabbing, Poverty & Atrocity

1

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Land is not only important as a ‘factor of production’ but it also has immense social and cultural value in developing countries. That is why people do not want their small piece of land to be made part of a transaction process. Sarap mentions that land ownership is highly valued for economic and non-economic motives, which may be social, cultural or political (Sarap 1998: 104). Land provides shelter, food security[1], identity, social prestige and control over other economic and social institutions in rural areas. The increasing interest in ownership began with the evolution of individual property rights to land. Even the status of kings and other feudal lords during the medieval period were determined by their command over territory. Because of these multi-functional characteristics, land has been at the heart of development policy discourse. Besides this, ‘land ownership’ has been used as an identity proof for different purposes at different level in some developing countries[2]. This indicates that the importance of land has been observed, realized and admired at individual, social and state level. Therefore land has been an attraction at individual as well as institutional level. However, this creates ‘conflict of interests’ among aspirants, resulting in parties expanding their control over land in India through both legal and illegal means.

Throughout history, land ownership has not been equitably distributed. The problems relating to ‘access to’ and ‘ownership of’ a piece of land is different for Dalits compared to other caste groups. In India, this situation has been created and imposed by a group of people by virtue of their social positioning and economic power to exclude other groups from owning resources. The social structure created by the affluent group did not allow the so-called lower caste, ‘Dalit’ to own resources. Dalits in India have not only suffered from historical denial to resource ownership in general and land resources in particular, but have also had to struggle to protect the small pieces of land they owned or had access to. As a result of the historical denial to resources and continuous subjugation, their human development and social status remain low as compared to other caste communities. The historical deprivation faced by the Dalits has not only held them back in achieving a comparable level of human development, but has also reinforced the stereotypes upon which the upper castes rely for further exploitation (NCDHR).Therefore, the issues faced by Dalits differ from those faced by other segments of the population. This fact has encouraged me to undertake a study on land rights issue of Dalits in India and specifically in Orissa.

This research is devoted to understanding the range of difficulties faced by Dalit communities with regards to accessing or owning a piece of land. Although more than 60 percent of the scheduled caste households in rural India depend directly or indirectly on agriculture, landless cum near-landlessness among them is as high as 70 percent. The system of segregated housing is still prevalent in the village society. It reemphasizes and re-establishes the very presence of caste rigidity and hierarchy in contemporary Indian society. Having a proper house is uncommon among the Dalits, and the few that do exist are of poor quality. Even the agricultural land owned or accessed by the Dalits is of comparatively lower quality. They have been discriminated against in the use of the common land available in the vicinity of the villages. It has been observed that Dalits do not have equal access to land either for survival or to perform death rituals. This has a tremendous psychological impact on the mindset and identity of the Dalits (NCDHR). In addition to these issues, land grabbing by the state[3] in the name of development has a severe consequences on the human development of the Dalits. During the period of 1951 to 1990, as many as 21 million people were displaced for various development projects, such as the building of dams, canals, electric power stations, mining and industry, etc. The greatest suffers in this process were the Dalits and Adivasi. Among the displaced and project affected in the states studied, Tribals and Dalits have highly affected, as projects undertaken in the name of the development have caused them loss of livelihood (Action Aid 2008:2-6).

In summary, segregated housing systems, poor quality of houses, inaccessible residential localities, increasing landlessness, poor quality of land (affecting those few who own land), conflict in using common property land resources, lack of cremation ground for the community and increasing incidences of land grabbing are a few of the serious issues associated with the Dalit community of Orissa in India.

1.2Indian Planning, Land Issues and Dalits: The Dynamics of Deprivation

The deprivation of Dalits is not a single outcome of social discrimination. The historical denial of ownership of resources, absence of special attentions in the planning process, the changing ideology of the state, and the strengthening of oppressors (individual or institutional) by state support have been major reasons for the deprivation and discrimination experienced by the Dalits in India. The state’s relation to land resource has always different to that of the individual. For the state, land is a ‘factor of production’, ‘resource for exploitation’ and is ‘a goods for transaction’, nothing more. This approach is exactly what has been reflected in the Indian planning documents.

During pre-colonial regimes, the nature of the state was exploitative. The colonial regime strengthened the state’s control over its people. The nature of state before and after independence has not altered where its approach to land is concerned. Throughout history, land has been used as a source of revenue. To the pre-existing exploitative characteristics inherited by the post-independent state, some welfare elements were introduced in the form of ‘land reform’ (Clover 2011: 351). The Orissa Land Reform Act of 1960 and Rules of 1965, the Orissa Estate Abolition Act of 1952, and the Distribution of Ceiling Surplus Land Distribution Programme of 1970 are a few examples in this line.

In order to understand issues with development in land and agricultural, Indian planning in this regard can be divided into three periods: (1) 1950s to 1970s (implementation of land reforms), (2) 1970s to 1990s (period of Green Revolution or second phase of land reform), (3) 1991 onwards (after liberalization or third phase of land reform). The idea behind ‘land reform’ was to attempt a structural rearrangement through reorganization of ‘relations of production’ in order to put an end to the dominant exploitative relationship and bring about economic equality in society. It has often been claimed that by the 1960s, ‘abolition of intermediaries’ had been completed in India. These intermediaries[4]/absentee landlords were compensated well in cash and bonds for the land purchased by the government (Pattnaick 1986, Despande 2003:155). This gave rise to anew, urbanized class. Even though the abolition of intermediaries was is generally considered to have been relatively successful, tenancy reform and land redistribution met with much less success in India.

Similarly, the Green Revolution ‘cannot do any significant good’, as it has an adverse effect upon the livelihoods of the poor. Instead of reducing the inequality, it exacerbates it, generating and strengthening a new type of agrarian bourgeoisie who not only control the rural economy, but also have strong links with the urban sector. The Green Revolution accelerated and encouraged capitalist farming among landlords, richer peasants and other members of the intermediate classes. They continued to expand their holdings, invested in the industrial sector, and emerged as a new political power (Ratnam 2008: 10-14).