New Delhi : Madhya Pradesh has notified its PESA Rules on the occasion of Janjatiya Gaurav Divas on 15th November, 2022. At the State Level Janjatiya Gaurav Divas Sammelan at Shahdol in Madhya Pradesh, Governor of Madhya Pradesh Shri Mangubhai Patel handed over the first copy of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA Act) Manual to the President of India Smt. Droupadi Murmu.

The PESA Act, now under implementation in Madhya Pradesh, will empower the Gram Sabhas to take decision on the rules and regulations with regard to all natural resources in the forest areas. The PESA Act will give more constitutional rights to the tribal people to reap the benefits of natural resources from the forest areas where they live.

“The new PESA Rules made for the scheduled areas in Madhya Pradesh will be effective in empowering the lives of tribal communities and giving the tribals their rights”, said the President of India Smt. Droupadi Murmu while addressing the above Sammelan.

Other dignitaries present at the Sammelan included Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh Shri Shivraj Singh Chouhan, Union Tribal Affairs Minister Shri Arjun Munda, Union Minister of State for Rural Development & Steel Shri Faggan Singh Kulaste, other dignitaries and public representatives and a large number of tribal community representatives and local citizens, including women and youth, who had assembled from different parts of the State to celebrate the Janjatiya Gaurav Divas.

With the objective of effective implementation of PESA, Ministry of Panchayati Raj circulated Draft Model PESA Rules in 2009. Based on continuous advocacy and persuasion by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj eight States namely; Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Telangana have notified their State PESA Rules under their respective State Panchayati Raj Acts. Recently, State of Chhattisgarh has notified their PESA Rules on 8th August, 2022. In the States of Jharkhand and Odisha the process of inter-Departmental consultation is still in progress.

Nine PESA States, except Rajasthan, have incorporated the provisions of PESA 1996 in their respective State Panchayati Raj Acts. The tenth State, Rajasthan, has notified “The Rajasthan Panchayat Raj (Modification of Provisions in their Application to the Scheduled Areas) Act 1999”.

Presently, 10 States viz. Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan and Telangana, have Fifth Schedule Areas in their respective States.

Background

To bring the people residing in Fifth Schedule Areas in the mainstream, the Parliament, in terms of Article 243M(4)(b) of the Constitution, has enacted “the Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996” (PESA) to extend Part IX of the Constitution, relating to Panchayats, to the Fifth Schedule areas, with certain modifications and exceptions. States, having Fifth Schedule Areas, have been empowered to make Panchayat Laws for these areas.

Under “The Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas), Act 1996” (PESA), State Legislatures have been empowered to frame all laws concerning the extension of the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution relating to the Panchayats in Fifth Scheduled Areas, subject to such exceptions and modifications as are provided in section 4 of the Act.

PESA is an Act to provide for the extension of the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution relating to the Panchayats to the Scheduled Areas. In terms of section 2 of this Act, “Scheduled Areas” means the Scheduled Areas as referred to in clause (1) of article 244 of the Constitution. Out of the ten PESA States, eight States namely; Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Telangana have framed and notified their State PESA Rules under their respective State Panchayati Raj Acts.

To celebrate 75 years of progressive India and commemorate 25th year of enactment of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), the Ministry of Panchayati Raj in collaboration with Ministry of Tribal Affairs and National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, had organized a one-day National Conference on the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act 1996 (PESA) as a part of Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav on 18th November, 2021 at Vigyan Bhavan, New Delhi. This one-day National Conference was organized by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj to commemorate 25th year of promulgation of the PESA Act, with an objective to evaluate the progress of States in implementation of PESA as well as fostering a shared outlook on its impact at the grassroots level. This National Conference not only marked the 25th year enactment of PESA in the country, it also laid down a way forward to address the challenges and gaps in effective implementation of PESA in Scheduled Areas.

The post Madhya Pradesh Notifies PESA Rules On The Occasion Of Janjatiya Gaurav Divas appeared first on SAMATA.

The draft notification pushed during the lockdown, in more ways than one, tries to minimise public participation in determining impacts of any particular industrial project on livelihoods and environment.

New Delhi: In what could spell catastrophe for the lives and livelihoods of millions of citizens across the country, the Central government has sought to introduce new rules whereby environmental clearances can be granted to industrial projects on a post facto basis. That is, projects that have commenced operations – by way of construction, installation, excavation, production, etc – without obtaining necessary clearances can be legalised as per provisions of the Draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2020 when it comes into effect.The notification has been, at present, put up in the public domain by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government, inviting objections and recommendations to it, for which the last date is May 5.

The provision in the notification, which allows granting of post facto environmental clearances, is being seen as a tool that could be used by business interests to easily bypass environmental concerns affecting millions of people in order to maximise their own profits. The provision, once it is in place, will allow industries to circumvent the process of EIA which has so far been mandatorily conducted beforehand in order to ascertain the scale of setbacks that are likely to be suffered by natural settings owing to the construction of a project.

The post facto clearance can be granted against payment of a penalty, which as per further provisions of the notification, will be fixed at 1.5 times of the “ecological damage assessed and economic benefit derived due to the violation” if the application for it is made suo motu by the project proponent.

The penalty will, however, be fixed at two times the extent of damages and benefits if the violation is reported by any government agency. The sole prerogative of determining the extent of the “ecological damage assessed and economic benefit derived due to the violation” will be that of an Appraisal Committee appointed for the purpose.
The committee, however, will be empowered to scrap a project altogether only if it has been constructed at a site where it is not permissible to be set up as per provisions of the law.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the United Nations defines the purpose of EIA as alerting decision makers, regulatory agencies and the public of environmental consequences of projects “so that those projects can be modified, if need be, to prevent environmental deterioration, to avoid construction errors and to forestall economic losses caused by negative side effects.” A post facto assessment defeats the very purpose of EIA as has been described by the FAO because irreversible ecological damage will already have been committed with the commencement of operations.

“The provision is likely to encourage industries to commence operations without bothering for clearance and eventually get regularised by paying the penalty amount. It is likely to open a floodgate of violations and give rise to a situation of fait accompli, where damage to the environment is irreversible. The provision goes against the precautionary principle which is the sole basis of Environmental Impact Assessments,” said New Delhi-based environmental lawyer Parul Gupta.

The provision also circumvents various judgements of the Supreme Court of India which have held post facto clearances as going against the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Right to Life guaranteed to citizens as a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

However, this is not the only attempt by the NDA government to grant post facto environmental clearances to industrial projects. “Three years ago, in March 2017, the Central government had introduced a one-time amnesty scheme, opened for a period of six months, whereby industries that had not procured prior environmental clearances were invited to fill in applications to procure them on a post facto basis. It is worrisome for environmental conservationists to see that this amnesty scheme is now being attempted to be made a permanent feature in environmental laws in the country,” said independent environmental researcher, Meenakshi Kapoor.

The amnesty scheme for post facto environmental clearances had been introduced in March 2017 after the National Green Tribunal quashed procedures laid in place by the erstwhile Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government to grant post facto environmental clearances to violators. The Union Ministry of Environment & Forests (as it was called under the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance regime) had issued the two memoranda in quick succession – in December 2012 and June 2013. The green court quashed these memoranda, in an order issued by it in July 2015, on the grounds that they cannot subvert a central government notification.

The NDA government thereafter brought out the amnesty scheme justifying it with the argument that existing operational units are more polluting if they are not brought under the environment compliance regime. Apparently, the idea behind the scheme, as per the own words of the central government, was “to take away the economic benefit (if any) derived by the company due to violation and pay for the remediation of damage caused due to violation” as per the own words of the government. Only the central government, however, was empowered to examine all cases of violations under this amnesty scheme.
The central government had promulgated an EIA notification for the first time, under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, in the year 1994. A new notification was again brought out in the year 2006 which empowered state governments too with the responsibility of clearing certain projects depending on the size and capacity.

Environmental clearances were made mandatory, not only for new projects but also for “expansion or modernisation” of existing projects.

The draft notification of 2020 attempts to blur the difference between expansion and modernisation.

In January 2020 the central government had amended the EIA rules of 2006 – without public consultations or hearings – whereby the need for a prior environmental clearance was ruled out for changing the raw material or product mix of a project where it wanted to increase its production capacity by as much as 50 per cent. In the new draft notification, the central government has gone further to include changes in raw material or product mix under the definition of ‘modernisation’ itself in contrast to the notification of 2006 which made a clear differentiation between ‘modernisation’ and ‘change in product mix’.
Besides, the draft notification has also done away with the need to apply for a new environmental clearance for existing projects when it intends to go for an increase in its production capacity by as much as 25%. The need for public consultations is intended to be totally done away with for projects that go for increase in production capacity by as much as 50%.

In fact, the draft notification, in more ways than one, tries to minimise public participation in determining impacts of any particular industrial project on livelihoods and environment. The new notification seeks to reduce the minimum period offered to the public to notify their responses to the Environment Impact Assessment report of any project from the existing 30 days to 20 days.

As per experts, provisions in the notification are lenient on mining leaseholders too as far as environment protection norms are concerned. In accordance with Section 19 (1) (I) (d) of the notification, the period of validity of a prior environmental clearance of a mining project, for the purposes of construction and installation of machinery, can stretch over the entire life of the project provided mining activities commence within 10 years from the date of grant of the clearance.

“A mining leaseholder can begin construction and installation of machinery as much as ten years after obtaining an environmental clearance. The environmental conditions under which the clearance would have been granted must have changed by the time mining activities commence after a decade. In any case, the new notification is being pushed during the period of the Covid 19 pandemic. There is no tearing hurry for the government to push through the legislation when the entire country is under lockdown,” said R Ravi, Chairperson of mines, minerals and PEOPLE, an alliance of individuals and communities concerned and affected by mining.

News link

The post ‘Post Facto’ Environmental Clearance Set to be New Normal in India appeared first on SAMATA.

VIJAYAWADA: The disquiet among the Adivasi community in the tribal regions of Visakhapatnam has been rising in recent months as the state government appears to be turning a blind eye to critical rulings by the courts, including the Supreme Court, on the rights of Adivasis to their land.<!–more–>

One important ruling on the rights of the Adivasis was given by the Supreme Court in July 1997. In its judgment filed in the lawsuit brought by Samata, a non-governmental organisation, the apex court declared null and void the transfer of land in the scheduled areas and also upheld the Forest Protection Act of 1980.

“The Supreme Court decision, which has since been called the Samata judgment, is by far the most progressive of rulings, but unfortunately its efficacy has been steadily diluted in AP and other states,” says Ravi Rebbapragada, who is the executive director of Samata, which had brought the lawsuit against the AP government. The Samata ruling had allocated 20% of the net profit to the local area development councils in the states, but somehow that order has been followed more in the breach than in practice, Rebbapragada claimed.

The AP government has also been tardy in enforcing laws pertaining to the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, which governs the laws in Adivasi land. “While the AP government has not given any licence for mining of bauxite in the Agency areas of Visakhapatnam, it has allowed the mining of laterite, which is also illegal. More importantly, the government has been allowing plains people to illegally set up so-called tourism projects in Agency areas like Lambasingi, Paderu and Anantagiri,” Rebbapragada alleged.

“The Adivasis are even not paid minimum wages. They are treated like slaves by owners of guest houses and hotels and other attractions in these places,” Rebbapragada said.

Apart from over-exploiting the fragile ecology of the Agency areas, tourists have made a mess of the region with rampant littering. “Dallapalli has been almost drowned in single-use plastic bags and other litter, which has not been removed by the administration, making it clear that it wants to exploit the Agency areas at the expense of the Adivasis who have been living in the region for generations, eking a living out of the forests,” he added.

The alleged continuing onslaught on Adivasi rights has prompted them to get together to launch an agitation for the protection of the Fifth Schedule rights. The community held a massive show of strength in Paderu on February 12 which was attended by over one lakh people. A joint action committee of the Adivasis has also requested the AP government to resolve their issues at the earliest.

According to EAS Sarma, a former Union expenditure secretary, Adivasis’ land was being commandeered illegally by plains people on the pretext of setting up hotels in Anantagiri, Paderu and Lambasingi .

The post Vijayawada: Disquiet in Agency areas over violation of SC orders appeared first on SAMATA.

A civil rights organization, Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha (JJM) suspects that “growing influence” of Satipati cult, started in Gujarat, exhorting people to boycott government schemes and elections, on one hand, and religious practices of Adivasis, on the other, may be behind the recent killing of seven persons in Burugulikera village, West Singhbhum district, Jharkahnd.

Members of the cult believe that Kunwar Keshri Singh (and now his son) is the owner of India and the actual “Bharat Sarkaar”, as agreed upon with the colonial rulers. It asks Adivasis to join the cult to save their jal, jangal, zameen (water, woods, land) and their community from exploitation, says JJM in a note prepared on the basis of a fact-finding investigation, carried by representatives of several Adivasi organizations following the gruesome killing.

Organized by the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM), the team, says a JJM note, released at a press conference, also seeks to deny those claiming that the Pathalgadi movement is behind the killings.

It says, Pathalgadi is a “traditional practice of Munda Adivasis of erecting stone slabs (pathals) in honour of their ancestors, to announce important decisions of their families and villages or to simply mark the village boundary”, even as asserting their Constitutional rights over natural resources in the sixth schedule areas.

Asserting that the movement and the cult “are primarily driven by the continuing alienation of Adivasis, attack on their natural resources, weakening of the traditional Adivasi governance system and lack of development based the Adivasis’ needs and worldview”, the note, however , says that the Pathalgarhi movement, unlike the Satipati cult, is “a non-violent response to specific policies of the government.”

Text

On January 22-23, 2020, local media reported the beheading of seven people in Burugulikera village (Gudri block, West Singhbhum district, Jharkhand). Most of the reports held the Pathalgadi movement responsible for the killings. To understand the role of Pathalgadi in the killings, a fact-finding team comprising of activists, writers and journalists visited Burugulikera.

The team had representatives of Adivasi Buddhijivi Manch, Adivasi Adhikar Manch (Adivasi Women’s Network, National Alliance of People’s Movement (NAPM), Johar, Marxist Coordination Committee, Ulgulan Sena and other organisations, Many organisations are associated with Jharkhand Janadhikar Mahasabha . The visit was facilitated by NAPM and Mahasabha.

Initial media reports indicated that the pro-Pathalgadi faction of the village had murdered members of the anti-Pathalgadi faction for opposing their movement. The fact-finding team found that more than half of the total number of families of the village was followers of the AC (Ante-Christ) Kutumb Pariwar (also known as Satipati) cult.

The cult was led by Ranasi Budh and a few others, accused of killing James Budh and six others of the village. The cult, active since the past year in the village, asked people to submit their ration card, aadhaar card, voter card and stop use of all government schemes such Public Distribution System, social security pension, the Prime Minister’s Awas Yojana and so on.

More than half of the families submitted the documents, while James and many others did not. The documents were not forcefully taken but people were sometimes told that they would not be considered Adivasis or be expelled from the village if they did not submit. People were asked to submit their Khatiyan (land documents) too which many did not.

James Budh, Up-Mikhiya (vice-president) of the Gram Panchayat, used to get government schemes implemented and objected to the call for giving up schemes. Ranasi Budh’s wife Mukta Horo was the ex-Mukhiya and they also used to get schemes implemented earlier. The Satipati cult supporters also asked others not to go to Church or celebrate Sarna (Adivasi) festivals. These were also the causes of constant friction between the two factions.

On January 16, a day after local Maghe Parv (an Adivasi festival), James Budh and his friends attacked the houses of Ranasi Budh and four others. They broke their cycles, motorbikes, television and ransacked their houses. They also allegedly took away two persons, Lodro Budh and Roshan Barjo with them.

According to the families whose houses were attacked, the attackers were also accompanied by armed members of the People’s Liberation Front of India (PLFI), a Maoist splinter group, known to have initially received state support). Some villagers shared that James Budh was close to a local PLFI leader, Mangra Lugun.

On 19 January, Ranasi Budh and other Satipati cult supporters brought the attackers from their homes to a meeting to allegedly discuss the attack on their houses. The meeting was mainly attended by Satipati supporters. From the testimonies of Satipati supporters and family members of the victims, it emerged that the seven people were beaten to death in the meeting and then beheaded.

While several questions regarding the killings remain unanswered, people’s testimonies indicate that there were two factions in the village – the Satipati cult supporters and non-supporters – and there was friction between the two because of the cult’s call to give up cultural practices and government schemes.

While the exact reason for the attack on houses of Satipati supporters and killing of non-supporters is difficult to ascertain, the testimonies, possible involvement of PLFI, randomness of the violence and history of scheme implementation by Ranasi and James also indicate that this friction may not be the only reason for the killing.

We hope that the Special Investigating Team (SIT) constituted for inquiring into the killings will be able to provide answers to these questions. The incident also brings to light the growing influence of the Satipati cult in the Munda-Kolhan area of Jharkhand.
There is a need to differentiate between the Pathalgadi movement and Satipati. Pathalgadi is a traditional practice of Munda Adivasis of erecting stone slabs (pathals) in honour of their ancestors, to announce important decisions of their families and villages or to simply mark the village boundary. Since 2017, Pathals painted with Constitutional provisions for Adivasis, judicial orders and their interpretations were erected in several villages of Jharkhand.

Several fact-finding inquires have found the Pathalgadi movement to be a non-violent response to specific policies of the government; primarily its attempts to dilute land laws, failure to respect the Adivasi worldview, implementation of schemes without the consent of the Gram Sabha, non-implementation of PESA and provisions for the fifth scheduled areas and rampant violations of human rights.

While the leadership of the Pathalgadi movement may have been influenced by Satipati from the beginning, Adivasis did Pathalgadi based on their grievances, as discussed above, and traditional practices.

Since a year, the influence of AC Lutumb Pariwar cult in the Pathalgadi movement has been growing. In October 2019, a large meeting called ‘Vishwa Adivasi Shanti Sammelan’ was convened in Gutigeda village of Khunti’s Murhu block, mainly by followers of the cult. Satipati supporters from Burugulikera also participated in this meeting.

The Hemant Soren government should investigate the influence of Gujarat’s Satipati cult’s influence on Jharkhand, even as redressing long-standing grievances of Adivasis

The cult, which started in Gujarat, believes that Kunwar Keshri Singh (and now his son) is the owner of India and the actual “Bharat Sarkaar”, as agreed upon with the colonial rulers. The cult followers are expected to boycott government schemes and also elections. For becoming part of the “family”, Adivasis are to follow a specific puritan life, as propagated by the cult.

The cult rejects religious practices of Adivasis (such as going to Church or celebrating Sarna festivals) and traditional practices (such as Pathalgadi). They ask Adivasis to join the cult to save their jal, jangal, zameen (water, woods, land) and their community from exploitation. In Burugulikera village also, some people (not directly associated with the accused) shared that they gave up ration card and other government services to save their land.

As exposed in the Pathalgadi movement and the recent indication of people’s support for the Satipati cult, the movement and cult are primarily driven by the continuing alienation of Adivasis, attack on their natural resources, weakening of the traditional Adivasi governance system and lack of development based the Adivasis’ needs and worldview.
For example, there is a massive dam (and lake formed by submerging a large area) in Pansua, a few kilometres away from Burugulikera. But the village does not get water from the lake.

The Burugulikera incident has again exposed the local media’s bias against Adivasis’ worldview, issues and demands. Without doing a ground report, several reports, initially, held Pathalgadi responsible for the killings and there was hardly any mention of the Satipati cult.

The earlier Raghubar Das government’s repression of people of Pathalgadi villages and silence on the growing influence of satipati in the state also raises questions.
While the Hemant Soren government needs to investigate the influence of Gujarat’s Satipati cult to expand to Jharkhand, it also needs to redress the long-standing grievances of the Adivasis. To address their alienation, the government should implement the provisions of the fifth schedule, PESA, Samata judgement and other pro-Adivasi laws in letter and spirit.

It should also ensure that its development vision is based on Adivasi worldview and needs. To begin with, it should initiate dialogue with representatives of Pathalgadi villages, satipati villages, Adivasi organisations and constitutional experts to better understand people’s grievances and their demands.

The post Growing influence of Gujarat’s Satipati cult ’caused’ Jharkhand Burugulikera killings appeared first on SAMATA.