Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1997, Publication: 85th ILC session (1997)

A Government representative emphasized that India was a welfare State committed to the welfare and development of its people in general, and of vulnerable categories in particular, such as tribal peoples. The Constitution of India, and particularly its articles 38, 39 and 46, bore witness to this commitment. In this context, he noted that the population of the scheduled tribes in India amounted to 67.8 million, or over 8 per cent of the total population. Progress in the development of these people had been set out as a major objective of national policy in successive five-year plans. This commitment had also been shown at a very early stage by the ratification of the Convention in 1958.

With regard to the comments of the Committee of Experts on the working conditions in the ash area of the Gujarat Electricity Board, he drew attention to the sharing of powers and responsibilities under the terms of the Indian Constitution between the central and provincial Governments. Responsibility was also shared in this manner for labour legislation and labour administration. In this particular case, the responsibility was that of the provincial government of Gujarat, which had supplied most of the information that he would now provide to the Committee. The Gujarat Electricity Board owned the thermal power station at Ukai, which employed over 2,000 regular employees. There were also nine annual contractors employing some 300 workers and 12 casual contractors employing another 300 workers. All of these contractors possessed valid licences issued under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act of 1970. These workers worked according to shift hours fixed by the authorities and were entitled to overtime payments, and free medical benefits. Rest rooms and crèches had also been supplied, as well as uniforms and shoes. The workers were entitled to casual leave, earned leave, sick leave and public and optional holidays. The contractors also provided uniforms and shoes for their workers. The communication sent by the Bijli Mazdoor Panchayat trade union to the Committee of Experts concerned the people working outside the factory premises who separated burnt coal ash from water. These workers were not covered by any settlement and did not work under any registered contractor. The Gujarat Electricity Board had given this work out to a firm, which in turn gave the work to 200 persons known as "Mukadams", who were paid on the basis of the burnt coal ash removed from the premises. The Mukadams employed members of their families and outsiders. The Mukadams were paid on a monthly basis, but had not been registered under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. He informed the Committee that two criminal cases had been filed against the enterprise concerned, as well as a case filed on the same matter by the Bijli Mazdoor Panchayat. The Ukai Thermal Power Station and the Gujarat Electricity Board had not accepted liability for providing facilities under the terms of the Factories Act to the workers in the ash area and had challenged the claim that the Factories Act applied to that area. However, the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Gujarat Government Labour Officer had carried out inspections and taken a number of measures concerning the tribal workers. On humanitarian grounds, the Gujarat Electricity Board had agreed before the High Court to provide basic facilities to these workers, and had in practice provided drinking water, toilets, sheds, a crèche and first-aid facilities. The Mukadams were paid at a rate of 155 to 165 rupees per ton for separating the burnt coal ash from the flowing water, sieving and drying it. Their activity had not been covered under any scheduled employment under the Minimum Wages Act. The provisions of the Act had not therefore been fully implemented in that area, even though the Gujarat Government had proposed that the work should be covered by the Act and action in this respect was expected in the near future. Moreover, legal action under the Equal Remuneration Act against the employer of these workers had been sanctioned by the Commissioner of Labour. It could therefore be seen that the appropriate government had taken action against all those concerned in the exploitation of tribal workers. The results of this action would further improve their conditions of work.

With reference to the comments by the Committee of Experts on the question of the Sardar Sarovar Dam and Power Project, he explained that the differences noted in the progress of resettlement and rehabilitation between the various states were only natural, because the necessary measures were only taken as the project advanced every year. Indeed, the construction of the dam was linked to the implementation of resettlement and rehabilitation measures in order to ensure successful rehabilitation well before the lands in question were submerged. The construction of the various blocks of the dam was planned on an annual basis after reviewing the progress made in rehabilitation. This progress was reviewed by a rehabilitation committee, under the chairmanship of the Ministry of Welfare and reported to the Supreme Court of India. The families that were affected by the project were given priority, which accounted for the substantial differences between the states.

He then proceeded to provide information on the number of families affected in each state and the progress made in their resettlement. The total number of families affected in Gujarat was 4,600 and land was being made available for their resettlement from government lands and the purchase of private land. Of these families, 4,392 had been allocated agricultural land and 4,331 had been allotted house plots on 116 developed relocation sites. In Maharashtra, of the 3,113 families affected, some 2,114 had stated a preference for rehabilitation in Maharashtra and 999 in Gujarat. So far, of the latter, 662 families had been allocated agricultural land and 639 had been allocated house plots. The number of families affected in Madhya Pradesh was estimated at 33,014, of which 14,124 had preferred to settle in Gujarat. Of the latter, so far 2,652 families had been allocated agricultural land and 2,449 had been allotted house plots. Of the 18,890 families from Madhya Pradesh which wished to remain in this state, some 733 had been allocated house plots. He noted in this respect that for this latter category of families, either only their houses or less than 25 per cent of their agricultural land would be submerged. They would therefore be relocated near the submerged villages at a higher level. Some 2,000 hectares of agricultural land would be allocated to families who were willing to resettle in Madhya Pradesh. In Maharashtra, five resettlement and rehabilitation sites had been established. Civic amenities had been constructed on two of these sites, and were at an advanced state of completion on the remainder. In view of all the above information, he believed that the Committee should have no grounds for concern about the ability of the states in acquiring land to meet the challenges of resettlement.

With regard to the observation by the Committee of Experts that there were other cases in which tribal people were displaced for development purposes, he stated that the Government could provide information on specific cases from the data supplied by the provincial governments. He noted in this context that many of the areas in which mineral resources were mined and other developmental activities undertaken were populated by tribal people. However, the exploitation of natural resources was unavoidable for the economic and industrial development of the country. He emphasized that the rules and regulations that were in force provided adequate compensation for the affected people, including tribal people. Moreover, the Government did not follow any discriminatory policy in addressing the needs and problems of the persons affected. He hoped that he had been able to provide adequate information in response to the observations made by the Committee of Experts.

The Employers' members thanked the Government representative for the comprehensive information that he had provided. They recalled that the Committee had been examining the application of the Convention in India since the mid-1980s and that the most recent discussion of the case had been in 1993. However, at that time the Committee had only covered the question of the application of the Convention in the case of the Sardar Sarovar Dam and Power Project. The points raised by the Committee of Experts now also covered the working conditions of scheduled tribal workers in the ash area of a thermal power station in the state of Gujarat. In its report, the Committee of Experts described the very difficult working conditions of these people, who were mostly of tribal origin. In this context, the Government representative had said that the situation did not come under the authority of the central Government, but of the relevant provincial governments. The information provided by the Government representative had therefore largely been supplied by the provincial governments. He had stated in this respect that these workers were not covered by the normal labour legislation, which meant that, for example, the minimum wage was not complied with. It was clear that the Factories Act did not apply to work carried out in the so-called "ash area". The Committee of Experts had referred to many aspects of the working conditions of workers in this area that were not satisfactory. It was very unclear in practice which labour and social legislation should be applied to these workers. However, since they were all stated to be tribal persons, they clearly came under the special protection provided by the Convention. It was evident that much needed to be done to ensure compliance with the Convention in their regard and that, in view of the split responsibilities in the country in this respect, the central Government would face great difficulties in trying to impose its will to ensure that the inadmissible and inadequate working conditions in question were improved. The Employers' members therefore called upon the Government to provide as much information as possible in a written report on the labour situation of these people and to provide suggestions as to how their situation could be improved.

The Employers' members then referred to the matter discussed by the Committee in 1993, which related to the impact of the construction of a dam and power project and the major resettlement of tribal people caused by the project. The questions that arose concerned the manner in which the persons affected were being resettled, the compensation that was applicable to them and the extent to which these measures were being applied in practice. The Government representative had referred to the establishment of a five-member group to control these matters, as well as the relevant regional bodies. However, the procedures for the compensation and resettlement of the tribal peoples concerned were very complex and the Committee of Experts had noted broad differences in their treatment in the various states concerned. Although the Government representative had explained that the compensation and resettlement measures adopted were linked to the progress made in the project, the very detailed figures provided were difficult to place in context. Nevertheless, the general picture provided was that the compensation measures of all kinds had improved to a certain extent and were in practice higher than the claims granted by a court. Any such improvement was to be welcomed, although it was a matter of concern that substantial differences continued to exist between the measures taken in the various states. The Government should therefore be requested to provide all the relevant information in a comprehensive report containing detailed figures that were placed in the context of the general problem.

The Employers' members emphasized that efforts would be needed to give effect to the commitments undertaken by the country under the terms of the Convention, particularly in view of the large tribal population and the need to resettle many tribal peoples as a result of development and industrialization projects. Although these projects were clearly to the advantage of the country, it was necessary to ensure that the disadvantages of such projects were minimized for the traditionally weakest categories of the population, namely tribal peoples. The Employers' members also noted the inference by the Government representative that such cases of the displacement of tribal people occurred frequently. It was therefore necessary for the Government to keep the ILO informed as precisely as possible of the global situation of tribal populations so that the Committee of Experts, and if appropriate the Conference Committee, could examine whether the treatment of these matters in the country was in conformity with the Convention.

The Workers' members emphasized the magnitude of the case since, according to 1991 data, tribal peoples in India numbered around 68 million. The case related to several issues as regards the application of the Convention in law and practice. However, the matters before the Committee today were just the tip of the iceberg. The Committee of Experts had been monitoring the case for a number of years. On this occasion three main points had been brought to the attention of the Conference Committee. Article 15 of the Convention required ratifying States to adopt special measures for workers belonging to tribal populations, provided that they were not in a position to enjoy the protection guaranteed by law to workers in general. However, the Committee of Experts considered that these workers appeared to be dealt with in accordance with the general labour legislation. The Workers' members questioned this since, according to the information provided by the Government itself, it was quite clear that the workers in question were not being dealt with under the general labour legislation. Indeed, the evidence provided by the Bijli Mazdoor Panchayat trade union concerning the ash area pointed to appalling abuses, including 12-hour days, inhuman working conditions, safety and health problems, pollution by coal, dust and flying ash and the absence of access to the most basic facilities, such as toilets and canteens. The wages of these workers were so low that it was extremely difficult to imagine how they could survive. It was therefore clear that the Government regarded and treated these workers in a different manner to other workers who worked inside the factory gates. The Government representative had stated that, without conceding its legal position, the Gujarat Electricity Board had provided some basic facilities to these workers and that certain action had been taken as a result of labour inspections. Nevertheless, the Workers' members emphasized that the situation constituted a serious violation of Article 15 of the Convention.

The evidence obtained from the Centre of Indian Trade Unions had drawn attention to what was happening to tribal peoples, who were being evicted from areas in which mining, the construction of dams and other development projects were being undertaken. These projects had a direct impact on the peoples affected in terms of agricultural development, health, education and employment. The socio-economic development of tribal peoples fell far behind the national average and, as a result, rehabilitation and resettlement threatened their very survival. Indeed, rather than rehabilitation and resettlement, what was happening was eviction, the word used in the Experts' report. Instead of benefiting from the protection required by the Convention, most of the people affected were being treated in a brutal manner and were ending up homeless and landless. Greater energy and political will was required to deal with these issues.

The Committee of Experts had noted, in particular, huge differences between the progress made in the various states in resettling tribal people. In Gujarat, the resettlement rate was encouraging at 93 per cent. In Maharashtra, it was poor at 42 per cent, while in Madhya Pradesh, it was appalling at only 9 per cent. The fact that something could be done to help them was shown by the developments in Gujarat. However, the Workers' members expressed deep concern that, rather than an exceptional measure, as specified in Article 12 of the Convention, the removal of tribal people and their resettlement seemed to be a matter of routine. They noted from previous reports of the Committee of Experts that the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs had decided in 1990 that it would discontinue financing the project in Sardar Sarovar because of the inadequacy of the resettlement plans for displaced families. In early 1992, the World Bank had published an independent review which had concluded that there had been many problems in the planning and execution of the project, which had particularly affected the people displaced by it. The World Bank had subsequently withdrawn from the project on the advice that it would contravene the Convention. The Workers' members considered that provision for resettlement needed to be made before these people were thrown off their land. They wished to be provided with further information on the levels of compensation that were being provided and how the resettled workers were faring in the long term. They also requested information on the recommendations made by the five-member group, particularly as regards the establishment of grievance and redress machinery and the assistance of voluntary agencies.

The Workers' members referred to the comment by the Committee of Experts that there were other cases in which tribal people were being displaced for development purposes. Further information was required from the Government on this matter, including the criteria used to determine what made the removal of these people necessary as an "exceptional measure" under Article 12 of the Convention. Information should also be provided on the programmes established by the Government to support these peoples during their upheaval, in the transitional phase of resettlement and during rehabilitation. With reference to the comment by the Government representative that the central Government did not possess data on other cases of the removal of tribal peoples, the Workers' members wanted to know why not. They warned that if the Government did not monitor these situations and obtain the relevant evidence, it could not claim to be complying with the requirements of the Convention because it would not have the information to justify this claim.

In conclusion, the Workers' members emphasized that it was the tribal people and the most vulnerable categories of society who often paid the price of economic development. The Government of India had a responsibility to ensure that any removals of tribal people were necessary as an exceptional measure. Assertive and focused action was required by the Government at the national level to protect a precious and irreplaceable part of the international community.

The Workers' member of India referred to the statement by the Government representative that the situation of the workers in the ash area of the power station at Ukai came under the responsibility of the provincial Government. In this respect, he emphasized that when the central Government ratified a Convention, the instrument also applied to the provincial governments. All provincial governments therefore needed to comply with its provisions. He also noted that India had a very high population of tribal people, who were subject to systematic eviction from the land that they occupied. The cases referred to by the Committee of Experts were only symbolic of the many instances in which this occurred. The Government of India needed to pay more attention to the problems of tribal people. In the case of the workers in question, the Gujarat Electricity Board was their principal employer and therefore had a responsibility with regard to contract employees. Unfortunately, the information provided by the Government representative had not been very clear. The ILO would need to look into the details and verify the real situation. In particular, the situation of resettled tribal people was very precarious. They were often removed from fertile land and allocated barren land. Another important consideration was the distance between the dispossessed land and the land which was allocated to the families concerned.

He emphasized that it was the duty of the central Government to monitor the application of the Convention and to collect the necessary information to do so. All too frequently, new development projects, such as mining developments, were located in areas occupied by tribal peoples and resulted in their removal. The Government should review all such projects with great care and should establish a proper monitoring unit to cover the situation of tribal people. Many laws had been adopted in India respecting tribal people. However, very few of them were implemented and the Government needed to make proper efforts to fully implement all the relevant legislation.

The Workers' member of Swaziland stressed that this case raised issues related to human rights, social responsibilities and obligations expected of governments towards tribal populations. The Convention required governments to promote social, economic and cultural development of tribal populations within their territories. Governments were expected to raise their living standards and foster individual dignity as well as advancement of individual usefulness and initiatives. The Convention required that tribal populations enjoyed the protection of national laws.

The Government of India was in serious default of the dictates of the Convention which it ratified in 1958. The tribals, largely women, were forced to work in local dust without protective clothing, sanitation, appropriate food or drink, child-care facilities, and so on. In addition, these workers were poorly paid and put in a state of exploitation. When these conditions were brought to the attention of labour inspectors, deliberate indifference and inaction were displayed. He insisted on the fact that this type of behaviour was a gross violation of the provisions of the Convention and unacceptable discrimination exercised towards tribal populations. Tribal people were displaced and evicted in view of development projects, but they were not adequately relocated. In cases where they were relocated, the land provided was not equivalent in value to the land they had lost through displacement. He concluded by fully concurring with the recommendation of the Worker spokesperson and the Committee of Experts.

The Employers' member of India supported the comments made by the Employer and Workers' members concerning the working conditions in the ash area of the power station at Ukai. There could be no doubt concerning the social responsibility of the central and provincial Governments to ensure that the workers concerned were properly looked after and enjoyed safe working conditions. However, on the question of the time taken to apply legislation including minimum wage provisions, he recalled that India was a democratic country which needed to abide by due process. Moreover, with regard to the time that elapsed in the implementation of development projects, he noted that all the persons involved were entitled to defend their rights and that the legal procedures involved, particularly for the purchase of land, could take years. Such cases could involve considerable hardship for displaced workers and their families, who sometimes had to wait many years to receive their entitlements. The Government therefore needed to develop systems that responded to their needs more rapidly. He added that, although it appeared easy to say that the central Government should take action in many fields related to tribal peoples, the provincial governments were jealous of their powers and were reluctant to give up their rights. Nevertheless, measures needed to be taken throughout the country to improve the standard of living of tribal people. On the question of development projects, he noted that they were often located in rural areas to avoid adversely affecting more densely populated zones. Moreover, in rural areas they had the advantage of giving employment to tribal populations. These projects therefore needed to be considered with a view to the benefits that they brought to all concerned.

The Government representative thanked the Employers' and Workers' members for their contribution to a meaningful discussion. In response to the remarks made concerning the division of responsibility for the application of the Convention between the central and provincial Governments, he noted that in his intervention he had merely provided a summary of the situation under the various provisions of the Indian Constitution and noted that the state governments concerned were the appropriate authorities with regard to the main points raised by the Committee of Experts in this case. He clarified that he did not say that the national Government was not responsible to meet the obligations under Convention No. 107. On the issue of the workers in the ash area of the power station at Ukai, he had clarified in his intervention that it was the company's claim that the area did not constitute part of a factory. He had added that the state Government did not share that view and that the matter was now before the courts.

In general terms, he emphasized that the economic and social backwardness of tribal peoples in his country was the result of their exploitation over several centuries. Much effort had been expended to enable them to catch up with other categories of the population, including the safeguards established in the Indian Constitution. As a result of all these efforts, tribal peoples now benefited from more jobs, economic and social progress and improved education and literacy. However, the 50 years of independence had not been sufficient to make up for the centuries of exploitation.

He noted that the Employers' and Workers' members had called for a determined effort on the part of the Government to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of the Convention. He reaffirmed his Government's awareness of these obligations and recalled that the provisions of the Indian Constitution and its legislation had been found adequate in this respect. The inadequacy was only in the area of enforcement of the laws. If any of the protection provided were to be found inadequate, an effort would be made, as in the past, to adopt the necessary changes. He stated in this respect that his country was in the process of adopting the necessary legal measures to eliminate problems related to contract labour. In this context, his Government had given its support to the discussion of this subject by the International Labour Conference. Indian laws on contract labour were more stringent and detailed than the provisions of the proposed instrument. Moreover, the courts in India had played an important role in the application of the relevant legislation. In a recent case, the responsibility of the principal employer for labour and social security rights of contract workers had been upheld. The implications of this decision were still being examined and he would be pleased to provide information on this matter to the Committee of Experts.

On the subject of the displacement and relocation of tribal people as a result of development projects, he emphasized that it was necessary to use the country's natural resources for the purposes of development and industry. It just so happened that many tribal people lived in the areas where such resources were to be found. This was the case of many mining and hydroelectric projects. When considering these questions, the Committee should give due consideration to the national context, including the energy shortage and the danger of famine in an agricultural economy that depended on an unreliable monsoon season. The Government was very conscious of the need to avoid injustice and had adopted adequate laws for the compensation of the families affected. With regard to the Sardar Sarovar Dam and Power Project, he reassured the Committee that the resettlement of all the families concerned would be completed before their lands were submerged. He also undertook to provide a very detailed reply to the direct request on this Convention by the Committee of Experts. He reaffirmed the commitment of his Government to the cause of tribal people and its readiness to take any step that was required in law or practice to give effect to the Convention. However, he called on the Committee to place the issue in its proper context and not to adopt an overly legalistic attitude. Finally, he confirmed that he would provide all the information that was required in writing to the Committee of Experts, thereby emphasizing his Government's total commitment to give effect to the Convention in India.

The Committee took note of the detailed information provided by the Government and the discussion which followed. It also noted that indigenous workers were not protected in the manner required under Article 15 of the Convention and asked the Government to supply additional information on efforts made to improve the situation. The Committee observed in particular the advances in the resettlement and rehabilitation of tribal populations displaced as a consequence of the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam and that the most recent information communicated by the Government indicated progress in the resettlement of these populations. But the Committee awaited more information, in particular on the rehabilitation of the indigenous populations. The Committee equally noted the Government's assurances that no area would be flooded before the conclusion of the resettlement and compensation, but it shared the Committee of Expert's concern at the lack of information on other cases of displacement of indigenous populations due to development projects, and the conditions under which they took place. The Committee asked the Government to continue to provide detailed information on the progress made in solving this problem, which had been addressed by the Committee for many years.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1993, Publication: 80th ILC session (1993)

A Government representative indicated that his Government had just supplied a detailed report to the Office on the questions raised by the Committee of Experts concerning: the list of Scheduled Tribes; the reports of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; the reservation of seats for tribal populations in local administration; the rehabilitation of displaced tribal people; the National Forest Policy of 1988; the carrying-out of a survey on the extent of alienation of tribal land; and the health and education programmes for the welfare and development of tribal people. As concerned the Sardar Sarova dam and power project, he noted that the World Bank had prescribed certain benchmarks on resettlement and rehabilitation and on environmental aspects of the project, taking into account the issues raised by the independent review. These benchmarks were substantially fulfilled by the Government before the prescribed date. However, in order to avoid further vitiation of the atmosphere, the Government had decided to disengage from the World Bank and not seek any further disbursement out of the outstanding portion of the credit for the project. With respect to rehabilitation, the state Government of Gujarat had exhibited its capability to resettle project-affected persons, depending on their willingness. 5,058 project-affected persons in Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra and Gujarat States, more than 90 per cent of whom were tribal people, had already been resettled by July 1992. The Government of Gujarat had so far allotted 10,107 hectares of land to these project-affected people. Furthermore, resettlement grants had been given to 1,645 families and subsistence allowance to 3,659 families. Development assistance of Rs. 5,000 per family had been given to 2,645 families. Thirteen rehabilitation sites out of a total of 86 had already been provided with electricity. Employment had been provided to 349 people. A health survey had also been conducted for the preparation of a detailed health programme for the displaced. Details of the steps taken by individual states were included in the report provided to the Office.

The Workers' members stated that they had in the past commented on the problems raised by the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam, and generally on World Bank projects throughout the world which often had catastrophic consequences as far as indigenous and tribal populations were concerned. The World Bank and the IMF should consult the ILO before they embarked upon such projects. In this case, this was especially true because although the World Bank had made its decision on technical not political grounds, it nevertheless had the consequence of disturbing thousands, perhaps a million, tribals. Although there was a need for the dam, adequate preparation had not been made to deal with the consequences of the large-scale disturbance of people and the amount of resettlement compensation that was likely to be paid. There was still a gap between the resettlement needs of the tribal populations being displaced and the amount of land available. Thus, the Government was invited to continue to give detailed reports on all aspects of tribal indigenous populations in India since it had one of the largest of these groups in the whole world. Moreover, continual reports were requested on the developments as far as the dam was concerned and on whether the displaced people were receiving adequate compensation.

The Employers' members pointed out that this case had been discussed four times since 1986, and in 1991 the Committee had addressed an urgent request to the Government for detailed replies to its questions. However, regular reporting over the last few years had been extremely inadequate. The dam project was only one example of a general problem that tribal peoples required special protection as stated in the Convention. This protection was necessary since tribes had a different status and should be able to live differently. Up to now adequate responses had not been received from the Government on this subject. Since hundreds of thousands of people had been resettled it was particularly important to know whether compensation was adequate, whether there was enough substitute land for these tribals and where this land was. Much greater clarification was required than had been the case in the past on the resettlement measures. The Employers' members hoped that the report that had been referred to by the Government representative would answer many of these questions so that the Experts could take note of positive changes.

The Committee took note with interest of the detailed information supplied by the Government representative. The Committee regretted that the Government had not sent a report to the Committee of Experts in time for it to be examined during the 1993 meeting of that Committee. The Committee noted that, notwithstanding the earlier discussions on this subject and the repeated examination by the Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee, it still did not appear that the resettlement and rehabilitation measures for the displaced tribal peoples were in conformity with the Convention. It expressed its deep concern at the fact that the measures for the resettlement of tribal populations displaced in future might give rise to greater difficulties with regard in particular to the Sardar Sarovar Dam and Power Project, the Committee was of the opinion that the Government could examine with the ILO the question of the social impact of this project on the tribal peoples concerned. Consequently, the Committee requested the Government to take urgent measures to bring its resettlement and rehabilitation policies into line with the Convention. In this connection, the Committee recalled that the Government could seek technical assistance from the Office, if it so wished. The Committee expressed the wish to be able to examine this case again next year and hoped to be able to note concrete progress in the harmonization of national law and practice with the provisions of the Convention.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1991, Publication: 78th ILC session (1991)

The Government has communicated the following information:

Some basic facts about the Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) with updated information on the issues raised in the comments of the International Federation of Plantation, Agricultural and Allied Workers (IFPAAW) are enumerated below: The total population affected by SSP as per 1981 census is 66,675 comprising 245 villages; 19 in Gujarat, 33 in Maharashtra and 193 in Madhya Pradesh (including the population affected for very short duration due to back water effect). The Narmada Sagar Project (NSP) on the other hand would displace 86,572 people as per the 1981 census and in this case also only 69 villages out of a total of 249 villages would be completely submerged. The rest of the villages will be only partially submerged. In 25 villages of SSP only government land will be affected requiring no displacement while in 91 villages submergence would be only 10 per cent.

Resettlement and rehabilitation (R&R) measures

Gujarat. The policy drawn up in December 1987 has been modified from time to time to provide maximum benefit to the project-affected people (PAP). A subcommittee has been constituted to make an in-depth study of the socio-economic status of canal-affected people for their proper rehabilitation. Up to 15 April 1991, 2,624 families out of 4,500 families of Gujarat had been resettled and the rest would be resettled by 1991-92. A resettlement grant has been given to 697 families and an allowance of 5,000 rupees per family, besides subsistence allowance, has been given to 1,141 families. In the matter of resettlement, the oustees have been moved to sites of their choice.

Maharashtra. The displaced people have the option of resettling in Maharashtra itself or moving to Gujarat. 425 families have opted for settling in Gujarat out of which 200 have been already settled at Parveta in Gujarat. Parveta has now been developed as a model village where all civil amenities, social cultivable land and house plots have been provided. Temporary houses have also been made available, though according to the policy the oustees have to construct their own houses on the allotted land. Hence, the claim of Survival International that the residents of Parveta face severe R&R problems is not correct. More over, the inference drawn by the study made by the Tata Institute of Social Studies regarding infant mortality rate has also not been found to be correct. To accommodate the oustees who had shown preference for settling in Maharashtra itself, the Government of India has, as a special case, given clearance for use of 2,700 hectares of forest land in Taloda in Dhule District, for this purpose. Already about 20 families have been resettled there and by June 1992 all other families would be covered. Construction of civil amenities is also in progress.

Madhya Pradesh. The claim of SI that oustees of Madhya Pradesh have been given unfair treatment and have been forced to go to Gujarat is not substantiated by facts. As already mentioned, the Madhya Pradesh oustees have also the option of staying back in Madhya Pradesh, if they so desire, or move to Gujarat. As already conveyed in the information provided to the Committee earlier, in the State of Madhya Pradesh 193 villages regrouping 14,994 families would be affected: 8,854 families would be completely affected and 6,149 only partially. For the purpose of resettling 15,080 hectares of land of which 2,083 hectares was required in Madhya Pradesh itself and 13,000 hectares in Gujarat. As is already known there is no problem of land in Gujarat: 218 families have already been moved to Gujarat and 1,342 families will be resettled there by June 1992. The schedule to acquire 2,500 hectares of land annually from Gujarat for Madhya Pradesh oustees has been drawn up. In Madhya Pradesh itself, as already mentioned last year, the state government had identified 1,489 hectares of land. Requirement of an additional 594 hectares of land would be no problem. In this connection it may be mentioned that as per the submergence schedule the first village of Madhya Pradesh will go under submergence in 1994 and 16 in 1995. According to the Narmada Water Dispute Tribunal (NWDT) Award the rehabilitation should be completed one year prior to the submergence. Although there is enough time to design appropriate R&R strategies, the government of Madhya Pradesh has already initiated action as indicated above. It has been stated that many oustees have been living in miserable temporary shelters for the last few years and have not received title to land. This is because, as per the policy, the oustees are entitled to cultivate their land at both places viz. original land as well as new sites allotted to them. The main reason for their staying in temporary shelters is their desire to continue to cultivate their original land as well. As regards the coverage of people under the term "oustee" for R&R purposes, all the people who would be affected by submergence have been identified as PAPs as defined in the Award. Not only the owners but also the encroachers and landless labourers have been given benefits under the R&R package of SSP.

Social costs

The main aim of developing projects like SSP is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the people including tribal people of these areas. Hence the statement that these projects will cause human and social catastrophe has no basis. The plan for resettlement and rehabilitaiton of the oustees has been carefully formulated to ensure that the oustees shall: (a)be promptly reallocated as village units in accordance with their preference; (b)be fully integrated in the community in which they are resettled; (c)be provided with appropriate compensation and adequate infrastructure including community services and facilities; (d)improve or at least regain the standard of living they had enjoyed before their displacement; and (e)the oustees shall fully participate in their rehabilitation process.

Environmental impact

The assessment of environmental impact of the project was made at the initial stage of the project formulation itself. The establishment of the Environmental Development Centre (EDC) is in progress to monitor the environmental impact of the projects and to design suitable strategies to combat any problems that might arise.

Loss of forests and wildlife

To counter the anticipated loss of forest cover, compensatory afforestation has been taken up by the three state governments in a big way. The government of Madhya Pradesh has prepared a plan for afforestation of 8,737 hectares, Maharashtra for 19,000 hectares and Gujarat for 4,650 hectares. In addition, another plan for afforestation of 3,000 hectares in Maharashtra and 4,650 hectares in Gujarat is under preparation. So far, afforestation has been carried out in about 7,525 hectares of land in three States. Budgetary provision has already been made for this purpose. The project has fulfilled the requirements of the World Bank who have been monitoring the progress periodically. The Bank's mission has satisfied itself with the measures being taken by the State to take care of R&R and environmental aspects. As far as the Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund (OECF) by the Government of Japan is concerned, it is granted on a year-to-year basis. Extension of the same for this year is under negotiation with the OECF authorities. The protests by NGOs and other organisations is due to their lack of knowledge about the positive aspects of the project, which clearly outweigh the negative impact. It cannot be denied that any developmental project would have both a positive and a negative impact. It is also not correct to say, as mentioned in the complaint, that only 10 per cent of the dam has been built. The maximum civil work has already been completed. Further, there is no substance in the statement that government officials resorted to force and violence dealing with oustees. Hence, these organisations should leave a confrontationist approach and assist in the completion of the project which would result in socio-economic development of the country in general and particularly the States concerned.

In addition a Government representative recalled that the various aspects of the Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) were discussed a number of times by this Committee and that a detailed statement had also been made by the Government delegate during the Committee's 1990 session. In addition to the information provided in writing by the Government, she gave some other basic facts. The speaker assured the present Committee that her Government was fully committed to complying with the provisions of the Convention and that it had been taking all necessary measures in connection with the social, economic and environmental problems that were arising out of the SSP.

In regard to paragraph 2 of the Committee of Experts observations, the speaker indicated that her Government intended to take all measures to comply with the Committee's comments. Concerning the matter of basic human rights and land rights, as well as the right to maintain the traditional way of life, adequate social upliftment programmes were launched, and rehabilitation of the project-affected persons was directed towards a multidisciplinary approach, to ensure a better quality of life for these persons. The steps taken by the Government on the provision of adequate compensation for displaced persons had already been dealt with in detail in the resettlement and rehabilitation policy of the state governments of Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. In regard to identification of land, the speaker mentioned that the decision was taken only after consultation with the project-affected people. Basically the oustees were to make their own choice of relocation site out of the options given to them. In regard to the resettlement programme, the speaker drew the attention of the Committee to the guidelines incorporated in the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award. She stated that there was no substance in the allegation that the Project authorities and government officials have been resorting to force and violence in this connection, and referred to the information in writing concerning the position in regard to the World Bank assistance and the assistance from the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Government representative pointed out that it was clearly stipulated in the Award that the rehabilitation should be completed one year prior to submergence schedule, and that filling up of the reservoir would not be done until and unless the rehabilitation work of the affected persons was fully and satisfactorily committed.

The Workers' members stated that very important human rights questions were at issue in this discussion. In reference to the Committee of Experts' comments, they noted from the information provided that it was evident efforts continued to be made; but it was less evident that these efforts had yet been successful. They also recalled that the Project was being financed by the World Bank and that there had been some criticism of the latter concerning its involvement in this particular Project. The Workers' members referred to the point made during the general discussion when it was indicated that it would be helpful if the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund added a social dimension to the money they lent to the countries. In this connection they pointed out that if the ILO had been involved at an earlier stage of the project, it would have been possible to advise the Government of the preparations necessary to ensure that no infringements of the Convention had taken place. As regards the environmental aspects, the Workers' members pointed out that it was very difficult to make assessments, judgements and evaluations about them on this Committee, but expressed the opinion that there should be some more information on the subject for examination by the Committee of Experts than had been provided by the Government in writing. Concerning the Government's attitude to the position of NGOs, the Workers' members indicated that the information provided by these organisations, and examined by the Committee of Experts, was subsequently passed to the Government, which in turn made a response; this created a helpful dialogue and provided the present Committee with information which it was not able to obtain otherwise. They also expressed the hope that the Government would study the report of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes referred to in the Committee of Experts' report, and would provide information on the points raised therein for examination by the Committee of Experts. The Workers' members expressed some doubt as to whether there was sufficient land available to resettle all the people affected by the Project. As only the start of the Project had been seen, the Government needed to provide up-to-date and timely information so that the Committee of Experts could consider it. Though the Workers' members did not underestimate the good will of the Government, they did not consider it appropriate to convey any sense of complacency.

The Employers' members recalled that it was the fourth time that this difficult case was being discussed since 1987. Stating that the problem the Committee was dealing with was that of the resettlement of large numbers of people (100,000, including 60,000 tribals), they though this number may come up to 1 million people at future stages of the Project, and expressed some doubt as to whether the resettlement plans were adequate, and whether there were sufficient resettlement lands available to relocate all these people. With regard to the problem of property and ownership rights, the Employers' members stated that the situation was not at all clear as between traditional occupation and encroachment on government land, and the circumstances in which compensation was appropriate. Comprehensive long-term measures were needed and, in addition to equivalency of replacement lands, health issues must also be taken into account.

The Government representative indicated that a monitoring committee headed by the Secretary of the Welfare Department had been set up at the national level to look into the aspect of rehabilitation and resettlement. As far as environmental issues were concerned, they are monitored by another subgroup headed by the Secretary of the Environment Department. She stated that the number of families affected was indicated on the basis of 1981 census figures and the information on the exact number of families who would be affected by the Project might be communicated as soon as a detailed survey in the matter was completed. She expressed the hope that it would perhaps be done before the next meeting of the Committee in 1992. Concerning the World Bank, the Government representative pointed out that it provided its assistance only after having studied every aspect in depth, so one would assume that it would keep the social dimension in mind before considering the matter. On the environmental issues, she also added that the Government had a more detailed plan of action which would be submitted to the Committee in due course. Concerning the land rights, and the clarification of what was meant by encroachment and by the traditional land, the speaker referred to the statement of a Government representative during the Committee's session in 1990. She also assured the Committee that the quantum of land that was needed for the number of people affected was adequate, and that there was no problem whatsoever in making the suitable land available to these people.

The Workers' members, with reference to the point about the World Bank, pointed out that the World Bank was not capable of assessing the social dimensions of its projects since it was not equipped to do that any more than the ILO would be equipped to advise the World Bank on the financial aspects of its loans. The ILO was the body that could have advised the World Bank on the social dimensions of the projects.

The Committee took note of the information, verbal and in writing, provided by the Government. It noted with interest the measures taken to ensure the application of the Convention. It regretted, however, that all the information requested was not provided by the Government in its last report. Recalling the concern that it always expressed with respect to the situation with the tribal populations, the Committee hoped that the Government would continue to take all necessary measures for the benefit of these populations so as to ensure the full application of the Convention in law and in practice. It urged the Government to supply a detailed report as requested by the Committee of Experts.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1990, Publication: 77th ILC session (1990)

A Government representative stated that this was the third time this Committee had discussed this case. As regarded paragraph 3 of the Committee of Experts observation referring to the statement of the International Federatin of Plantation, Agricultural and Allied Workers (IFPAAW) that there was a series of development projects already undertaken in India which would involve the displacement of between 2 and 3 million tribal people altogether, and that inadequate provision had been made for their relocation and rehabilitation, the Government representative maintained that the IFPAAW's statement was too general. Even the estimation of the member or persons likely to be displaced did not seem to be based on authentic information. If the IFPAAW could provide full details for all projects and state precisely how the Convention had been violated, the Government would furnish the corresponding information in its next report.

Concerning paragraph 9 of the observation, where the Committee of Experts stated that the costs of the project were apparently particularly heavily on the tribal people and suggested that the costs needed to be reduced or compensated in the proper application of the relevant provisions of the Convention, the speaker said that the Government was committed to bear all the costs of rehabilitation and to compensate the loss of land and other property. Therefore no cost should ultimately fall on the tribal people. Moreover, the Government had offered to rehabilitate the affected tribal people in the command area of the project so that they could share the benefits of the project to the maximum extent. Furthermore, the development and inprovement of tribals was given a high priority in the central and state development plans. For the country as a whole, seven per cent of the total plan allocation was earmarked exclusively for the tribals every year. Similarly, state governments were required to earmark, exclusively for the tribal populations, a percentage of funds which was equal to the percentage of tribal populations in that state. Also, tribals were not excluded from the benefit of remaining plan funds. Thus it could never happen that non-tribals benefited in Indian development plans and projects, to the detriment of tribals.

In paragraphs 11 to 16 of the observation (interpretation of the term "traditional occupation" as used in Article 11 of the Convention), the Committee of Experts stated that traditional occupation, whether or not it had been recognised as authorised, did create rights under the Convention. The speaker stated in that respect that his Government was fully committed to honour the rights of tribals arising out of traditional occupation. However, the question remained: what was a "traditional occupation"? The Committee of Experts itself stated that this was an imprecise term, but considered that it clearly conveyed the idea that the lands over which these groups' land rights should be recognised were those whose use had become part of their way of life. The question still remained: since when? That was why the Committee of Experts had been unable to give any categorical opinion as to how much time would have to elapse before occupation could be called "traditional". This term, and also the general question of land rights, had generated much debate during the discussions on the revision of this Convention. Even when the Convention had been adopted, it had been recognised that there would be wide variance in the characteristics of the countries. Hence, Article 28 laid down that "the nature and the scope of the measures to be taken to give effect to this Convention shall be determined in a flexible manner, having regard to the conditions characteristic of each country". The fact that such a provision had been retained in the revised 1989 Convention indicated that difficulties of the type discussed still existed. The speaker assured this Committee that, notwithstanding the differing interpretations of the term "traditional occupation", the letter and the spirit in Article 11 of the Convention were being followed. Most Indian states which had substantial tribal populations had enacted laws recognising rights of ownership and possession of tribals over the lands they traditionally occupied. These laws also restrained transfer of land from tribals to non-tribals; lands involved in illegal transfers from tribals to non-tribals were restored to their original holders. Land records not only mention de facto possession but also land use. Customary rights, like grazing and hunting, were also protected. Hence, it was not correct to say that tribals who had traditionally occupied lands were being displaced. If specific instances were given of cases where tribals who had traditionally occupied land had been displaced, the state governments concerned would no doubt investigate them; and if the complaints were substantiated, remedial action would certainly be taken. A line had to be drawn somewhere between traditional occupation and unauthorised occupation following identification of lands as government lands.

In paragraphs 17 to 24 of the observation dealing with Article 12 of the Convention, the Committee of Experts concluded that "it is evident that the Government has made considerable efforts to resolve an extremely difficult situation". However, the Committee of Experts went on to state that it was not evident from the information available whether the Government had fully succeeded in providing appropriate compensation in accordance with Article 12 of the Convention. The Committee of Experts had also stated that it was not apparent from the information available how much land was required for resettlement as compared with the amount already available. The speaker stated in these respects that the resettlement and rehabilitation policy of the state governments, particularly that of the government of Gujarat, had generally been accepted as one of the most liberal and innovative policies in the world. The policies of the three state governments concerned had been handed over to the Office, in case any member of the present Committee wanted to see them. Referring to the extent of the problem and how it was addressed in the three states, the speaker submitted the following figures: in Gujarat 19 villages regrouping 3,222 families were affected; 7,000 hectares of land were required. In addition, Gujarat had ageed to resettle the willing oustees from the states of Maharastra and Madhya Pradesh. There was no problem of availability of land in this case. In the state of Maharastra: 33 villages regrouping 1,665 families were affected; 2,700 hectares of land were required for 1,369 families which had opted to resettle in Maharastra only. Efforts were being made to utilise forest land for their resettlement. The remaining 296 families had agreed to resettle in Gujarat and in fact 179 families had already resettled there; the land for the remaining 117 families had been identified. In the state of Madhya Pradesh: 193 villages regrouping 14, 994 families were affected; 8,854 families would be completely affected and 6, 140 partially affected; 15,080 hectares of land were required, of which 2,083 hectares were required in Madhya Pradesh itself and 13,000 hectares in Gujarat. As already mentioned, there was no problem of land in Gujarat and, in fact, the officials of the Madhya Pradesh government had already approved 222 hectares of arable land and another 2,904 hectares of private land. Another 549 hectares had also been seen and accepted by Madhya Pradesh oustees. In addition, joint inspection of lands in Gujarat was in progress. In Madhya Pradesh itself, the state government had identified 1,489 hectares of land of resettlement. The requirement of an additional 594 hectares would be no problem. Moreover, as many as 118 villages would not be submerged before 1998.

As regards paragraphs 26 to 28 of the observation (mortality of displaced tribals; environmental questions), the speaker stated that the Government of India would keep the Committee of Experts informed about the action taken by state governments concerning health care of the resettled; it was his understanding that the information on general questions raised by the Committee of Experts in paragraph 28 of the observation would be incorporated in the periodic reports ont the Convention.

The speaker concluded that his Government was fully committed to the welfare of tribal people and that there were ample constitutional safeguards to protect and further their interests. The Indian Government would welcome any constructive suggestion and if complaints were found to be substantiated, remedial action would indeed be taken. The World Bank, which was closely monitoring the project in question, considered that the benefits of the Sardar Sarovar project were so large that they substantially outweighed the social and other costs involved: there were no reasons why the World Bank's assessment should be doubted in any way.

The Workers' members noted the goodwill and good intentions shown by the Government in its comprehensive report concerning this complex case. They noted, however that the Committee of Experts considered that the Government had not taken all the steps necessary to resettle the tribals, as required by Articles 11 and 12 of the Convention called for recognition of the right of ownership of traditionally occupied lands, the Government had taken the position that Government-owned lands which had been "encroached upon" were not traditionally occupied and therefore there was no obligation to resettle or compensate. Partial measures had been taken in the state of Gujarat but much less had been done by the states of Maharastra and Madhya Pradesh. On this basis the Committee of Experts had expressed concern at the situation of the some 60,000 tribals who were to be immediately displaced in the short term and some 1 million who were to follow. A solution still had to be found to this situation. A second issue involved the adequacy of lands available for resettlement: only one state had taken positive action in an effort to resettle the affected tribals. The magnitude of the problem was shown by the large number of persons involved. Based upon the well documented comments of the IFPAAW, the Workers' members expressed deep concern at the situation, despite the fact that some progress had occurred. The Workers' members called for continued intensive action by the Government.

The Employers' members considered that the sheer size of the population affected by the development scheme required the Government to make a massive effort to resolve the issues which had arisen. Although the Government had to assess the value of the project on an overall basis, the present Committee was required to seek, through dialogue, full information on what had bee done to apply the Convention. The Government had co-operated this year, as it had in the past, by providing complete information and the Employers' members hoped this would continue. The problems of ownership had met with different responses in different states: while a distinction could be made between traditional occupation and encroachment, the question was where should the line be drawn. Even the Committee of Experts had been ambiguous in this regard; and the present Committee could not give a definitive answer. Even if this question were answered, there was a doubt that sufficient resettlement lands existed. The Employers' members joined the Committee of Experts in asking the Government to continue to make all possible efforts to resolve these issues. Comprehensive, long-term measures needed to be considered. In addition to the equivalency of replacement lands, these solutions would need to take health issues into account. These measures would have to develop over time as the number of people to be displaced increased. The Committee would have to continue its review of developments in this case.

The Government representative noted the observations made by the Employers' and Workers' members. The Government had given full consideration to the costs and benefits of the development project and it was fully committed to ensuring that costs were fairly distributed and that both tribals and non-tribals were adequately compensated. The speaker explained that the controversy relating to traditional occupation versus the encroachers arose out of the Gujarat Government's commitment to rehabilitate even the encroachers. The Committee of Experts then expressed its concern that traditional occupants should not be called encroachers. The speaker explained that there was no question of the traditional occupants being called encroachers. However, a distinction had to be drawn between the former and the latter. Those who occupied the lands traditionally would be compensated; only those who recently occupied clearly demarcated government lands would be designated "encroachers" but would still be rehabilitated within the announced policy. Where issues arose on a case by case basis - if for instance, there was bona fide encroachment on clearly designated dormant lands - the Government was committed to settling them fairly, within the requirements of the Convention applying the traditional occupation test. With respect to the availability of resettlement lands, the speaker stressed that, as far as possible, lands would be provided for rehabilitation, also taking health care into account. The Government was aware that the progress of rehabilitation measures had been more in Gujarat than in the other States. The matter was being reviewed constantly.

The Workers' members stressed the need for uniformity in measures taken by the states affected by the project.

The Committee took due note of the detailed information supplied by the Government representative. It welcomed the Government's good intentions to achieve full conformity with the Convention and to give all the information requested. Recalling the concern it had always shown towards the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples, it hoped that the Government would do whatever was in its power on their behalf.

Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1988, Publication: 75th ILC session (1988)

A Government representative stated that the Government was keen to see that tribals displaced as a result of the Sardar Sarover Dam and Power Project were, as far as possible, being properly rehabilitated according to their wishes. In regard to Article 6 of the Convention, the Committee of Experts had observed that it was too early to judge whether or not arrangements met with requirements of the Article. No comment was therefore required at this time. In regard to the observations based on Articles 11, 12(1), and 14 the Government did not agree with the view expressed by the Committee of Experts that recent occupation of government-owned lands did not mean that tribals had no land rights. The Government considered that traditional occupation of lands was different to the unauthorised occupation of clearly defined government or forest lands. Encroachment could not be considered either as "traditional occupation" in the meaning of Article 11, or as "habitual territories" in the meaning of Article 12(1) of the Convention. Ownership rights of the tribal populations for lands which they had traditionally occupied were recognised, but tribals who have illegally encroached upon government or forest lands could not now claim ownership rights under the Convention. As far as Article 14 was concerned the Government was fully committed to the provisions of the Convention and did not believe that there was any ground for complaint. Nevertheless the Government of Gujarat had been generous in regard to compensation. Under the Liberalised Rehabilitation Policy (dated 14 December, 1987) tribals who were illegally cultivating government or forest lands have been given substantial concessions. This policy has been well received by non-governmental organisations. The Governments of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh have updated their rehabilitation policies along similar lines. In reply to the points raised by the letters sent by the International Federation of Plantation, Agricultural and Allied Workers (IFPAAW) to the ILO, and by Survival International to the World Bank, he stated that all tribals willing to settle in Gujarat would be treated on par. The standard of living of oustees would be improved until they were integrated with the host population. Compensation for assets lost would be based on fair evidence and in accordance to current laws and individual grievances arising from resettlement would be looked into by the Narmada Control Authority. Efforts were being made by the three state governments to buy large tracts of land of acceptable quality so that resettlement of the oustees would not be fragmentary and that their communities would not be dispersed. Relocation to Gujarat had been proposed as it was there that new lands were to be brought under irrigation, but oustees would be resettled in their own state if they preferred. Encumbered land had not been sold to oustees except in one case which was now resolved. Land transfer to oustees was transferred to them in full and legal documents were only retained to safeguard them from further transfers.

The Workers' members stated that it was difficult to give an immediate response to the wealth of information which had been given by the Government representative. This information should be examined by the Committee of Experts. The various projects should be discussed with the interested organisations and with the representatives of the people directly affected by resettlement. They stated that it was of concern that those who were occupying land illegally had been excluded from making claims for the land being offered in compensation. They were also concerned that the three states were offering different solutions to the problem. The Government should ensure that treatment of the oustees by the three governments was uniform.

The Employers' members stated that a final evaluation could not yet be made on this issue. The dialogue on these numerous and complex problems should continue, especially in regard to the ownership of land and to compensation. It was not clear whether the provisions of the Convention were being respected or what concrete measures were being taken to ensure that adequate levels of protection and compensation were being offered. They emphasised that more detailed information and further discussion were needed.

The Government representative replied that the distinction between occupation over a long period and recent occupation must be maintained. Nevertheless, in Gujarat, oustees who were unauthorisedly cultivating land would be paid compensation and offered land, for which the cost would be recovered from the compensation paid. Landless oustees would also be entitled to land free of cost. The details of these measures would be given to the Office.

The Committee notes the detailed information supplied by the Government representative. It notes the very important human issues raised in the observation of the Committee of Experts which referred to comments received from the International Federation of Plantation, Agricultural and Allied Workers, and also to the real and considerable efforts made by the Government to alleviate the effects of displacement and settlement on the tribal populations affected by the dam project. It hopes that the Government will continue to supply information on measures taken with a view to ensuring the full application of the Convention in respect of all the points raised, taking into account the views and needs of the populations concerned and the comments received from the International Federation of Plantation, Agricultural and Allied Workers.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2020, published 109th ILC session (2021)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2015, published 105th ILC session (2016)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2013, published 103rd ILC session (2014)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Articles 2 and 5 of the Convention. Promotion of social, economic and cultural development. Collaboration with tribal groups and their representatives. The Committee notes the Government’s statement that it adopts the necessary safeguards to protect the interests of tribal populations while undertaking water projects. State Governments are required to submit such projects to the central Government for clearance and where projects are located in tribal areas, their appraisal includes scrutiny and clearance of the resettlement and rehabilitation plans by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. With respect to development more generally, the report states that environmental clearance is required as well as proper resettlement and rehabilitation plans. The Committee considers that standards and procedures for the protection of the environment may indeed benefit the tribal population, as they aim at protecting the habitat on which tribal peoples traditionally base their livelihood and which is inseparably linked to their cultural, religious and spiritual values and traditions. However, on the basis of the information at its disposal, the Committee is not in position to appreciate how, in the context of elaborating and authorizing development projects, including large‑scale projects, the collaboration of the indigenous populations is sought and whether such projects are consistent with the Government’s obligation to provide opportunities to the indigenous populations for the full development of their own initiative, as envisaged in Article 5(b).

The Committee emphasizes that the Convention does not only require the Government to mitigate the effects of development projects involving, as an exceptional measures, relocation of tribal population through their resettlement and compensation (Article 12), but more generally to seek their collaboration when establishing and implementing their programmes and projects promoting their social, economic and cultural development (Articles 2 and 5). On this basis, the Committee requests the Government to provide more detailed information on how it seeks the collaboration of tribal groups and their representatives in applying the provisions of the Convention, particularly as regards the design and implementation of action to promote social, economic and cultural development. The Committee also asks the Government to provide additional information illustrating how environmental standards and approval procedures for development projects have furthered the rights and interests of tribal communities in practice.

Article 27. National Commission for the Scheduled Tribes. The Committee notes the National Commission for the Scheduled Tribes as established under section 338A of the Constitution has the duty, inter alia, to monitor the safeguards provided for scheduled tribes under the Constitution or any other law, to investigate complaints into deprivation of rights of the scheduled tribes and to participate and advise on the planning process of socio-economic development of the scheduled tribes and to evaluate progress made in this regard. The Committee requests the Government to provide the most recent reports of the National Commission for the Scheduled Tribes and to indicate the main findings and recommendations made with regard to issues relating to the application of the Convention, including regarding the recognition of land rights and their involvement and participation in the development process.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2009, published 99th ILC session (2010)

Communication dated 27 August 2009 from the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC). The Committee notes that the ITUC’s communication was forwarded to the Government on 3 September 2009 for its comment and that the Government has not yet provided any comments in reply. In their communication, the ITUC draws the Committee’s attention to the situation of the Dongria Kondh indigenous community, a group of about 8,000 people living in 90 settlements scattered over and at the base of the Niyamgiri Hills, Lanjigarh, in the State of Orissa. The Dongria Kondh practice shifting cultivation in the hills, and also rely on them as a source of water, wood and traditional plants. The communication also describes the sacred nature of the hills for this indigenous community. According to the ITUC, India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests gave environmental clearance on 28 April 2009 for operating a bauxite mine at the top of the Niyamgiri Hills, occupying close to 700 hectares of the traditional lands of the Dongria Kondh. Bauxite from the mine is to be processed at a refinery plant at Lanjigarh, which is at the foot of the hills. The ITUC cites reports attesting to a negative environmental and health impact of the mining project threatening the very basis of the community’s existence. The ITUC states that neither the Government of India nor the Government of the State Orissa have ever consulted with the community as regards leasing of the lands or any other aspect of the mining project. While some public hearings regarding the project were held, the ITUC submits that these were inappropriate to ensure that the interests of the Dongria Kondh could be taken into account. The Committee also notes that the Supreme Court of India ordered the establishment of a “Special Purposes Vehicle (SPV)” with the State of Orissa and the companies pursuing the mining project as stakeholders, which is to provide a rehabilitation package involving, inter alia, an obligation by the companies to contribute to the development of the affected tribal areas. However, according to the ITUC, no development plans have been disclosed to the local communities nor has their participation been sought. The ITUC submits that the Government has failed to give effect to Articles 2, 5, 11, 12, 20 and 27 of the Convention.

The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information in reply to all the issues raised by the ITUC. While awaiting a reply from the Government, the Committee, given the seriousness of the situation, nevertheless wishes to express concern over the reported adverse impact on the Dongria Kondh of the bauxite mining and processing activities on the lands which they traditionally occupy and which appear to be central to their very existence. The Committee expresses serious concern at the apparent lack of involvement of the tribal communities affected in matters relating to the project which affects them directly. The Committee urges the Government to take the measures necessary to ensure their rights and interests are fully respected and guaranteed, and to indicate the measures it has taken. In this regard, the Committee also requests the Government to report on the implementation of the rehabilitation and development measures ordered by the Supreme Court, and the measures the Government has taken to ensure the involvement of the communities themselves in the design and implementation of such measures.

Articles 2, 5 and 27 of the Convention. Coordinated and systematic action. The Committee notes from the Government’s report that a National Tribal Policy is still under consideration, but not yet finalized. The Government indicates that the policy would aim at strengthening the legal protection and empowerment of the tribal communities, raising levels of human development, and at encouraging and protecting tribal traditions. The policy would also focus on particularly vulnerable tribal groups. The Prime Minister of India, when addressing the Chief Ministers’ Conference on the Implementation of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, on 4 November 2009, welcomed the efforts made by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs towards achieving consensus on the National Tribal Policy. The Committee considers that the elaboration and implementation of such a policy would indeed provide an important opportunity to strengthen the Government’s action to protect the rights and interests of India’s tribal population in accordance with international standards. The Committee takes this opportunity to encourage the Government to draw on and consider ratifying the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), which revises Convention No. 107, which is also encouraged by the Governing Body of the ILO and would be consistent with the recognition of the need for new approaches in dealing with tribal affairs as highlighted by the Prime Minster on 4 November 2009. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on the progress made in adopting the National Tribal Policy, including information on how the collaboration with and consultation of tribal groups and their representatives in the process of developing the policy is sought. Noting that the Government in its report, and through a request made to the ILO in May 2009, expressed interest in sharing experiences with other countries regarding strategies for the improvement of the situation of tribal groups, including through workshops and training programmes to be organized in cooperation with the ILO, the Committee looks forward to receiving information on the holding of such activities and their outcomes.

Articles 11–13. Land rights. Legislative developments. The Committee notes the enactment of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (“Forest Rights Act, 2006”). The Act recognizes individual and collective rights of tribal and other forest dwellers with regard to land they have traditionally occupied or used, as defined in section 3 of the Act. The Gram Sabha (assembly of all men and women in the village above 18 years of age) is the authority mandated to receive rights claims, to consolidate and verify them and to prepare a map delineating the area of each claim that it recommends to be accepted. A subdivisional-level committee set up by the state Government is responsible for examining resolutions passed by the Gram Sabha and for preparing a record of forest rights for final decision by a district-level committee. In addition, a state-level monitoring committee is to be established to oversee the process, which reports to the ministry of the central Government dealing with tribal affairs. The functions and procedures of these various committees are laid down in the Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Rules, 2007. The Committee notes that special provision is made to ensure representation of women, scheduled tribes and other tribal groups in the Gram Sabha and the committees at the different levels.

The Committee notes that under the Forest Rights Act no member of a forest-dwelling tribe or other traditional forest dweller shall be evicted until the recognition and verification procedure is complete (section 4(5)). Once the process of recognition and vesting of rights is complete, the Act allows under certain conditions the relocation of forest dwellers from their land to create protected areas for wildlife conservation. Among the specified preconditions for such relocation, there must be no other reasonable options to avoid irreversible damage or threat to the existence of a species in its habitat. Further, a resettlement package providing for a secure livelihood must be prepared, communicated to rights holders, and receive the free and informed consent of the Gram Sabha concerned. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the implementation of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, including information on the number of claims processed and title deeds issued, as well as any grievances brought against decisions made under the Act and their outcomes. The Committee also asks the Government to indicate whether any relocation has taken place and, in such cases, provide information indicating that resettlement has complied with Article 12(2) and (3) of the Convention. In addition, the Committee asks the Government to indicate whether any further legislative initiatives are envisaged to ensure that the rights of the tribal population to the land they have traditionally occupied are identified and protected to give effect to Article 11 of the Convention.

The Sardar Sarovar Dam Project. In its previous observation, the Committee requested the Government to provide information regarding the number of persons displaced by the Sardar Sarovar Dam Project and their resettlement and compensation. In its report, the Government states that a total of 244 villages will be affected by the dam project either by total or partial submergence or otherwise, which are home to 46,606 families comprised of 127,446 persons (based on the 1991 Census). Recalling its comments over many years on this project, the Committee notes that the number of affected persons, a majority of them being belonging to the tribal population, has continued to increase. The Government, in its report, reiterates the requirements for resettlement and rehabilitation that had been established by the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal in 1979. However, the Government states that the three states involved in the project introduced more favourable conditions since then and provides detailed information regarding the amount of land allocated and other assistance provided. According to the Government’s report, as of 31 July 2008, all 32,434 affected families at this date had been resettled. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide updated information on the number of persons belonging to the tribal population displaced from the land they traditionally occupy as a result of the Sardar Sarovar Dam Project and the measures taken to guarantee their resettlement and compensation in conformity with Articles 12(2) and (3) of the Convention.

Parts III–VI of the Convention. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government on measures taken in the areas of education and training, including vocational training, and employment and social security. It also notes that, according to the comments made by the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) in their communication dated 25 August 2009, the members of the tribal population are not able to benefit from the job reservations made for them in government employment and state-owned enterprises due to the lack of education and training made available to them. The CITU suggests that the Government provide more detailed statistics on the employment situation of tribal population. The Committee requests the Government to continue to provide updated information on the various measures taken in the areas of education, training and employment and other areas covered in Parts III–VI of the Convention to the benefit of the tribal population, including statistical information of the participation of men and women belonging to tribal groups in education and employment.

The Committee is raising other points in a request addressed directly to the Government.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2010.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

1. The Committee refers to its observation.

2. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes that, according to the 2001 census, the tribal population of the country has grown to 8.1 per cent of the population.

3. The Committee notes with interest that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act (No. 10 of 2003) has added 42 communities to the list of scheduled tribes, removed 14 and enacted other modifications with regard to 86 communities in 22 states. Please keep the Committee informed of any further amendments of this kind.

4. Article 2. The Committee notes that consideration has been given to a possible National Policy on Tribals, by a Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes Commission. It notes also the creation of a National Commission for Scheduled Tribes. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed of progress made in regard to the National Policy on Tribals, and to indicate whether the National Commission on Scheduled Tribes replaces the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Tribes. Please provide a copy of the legislation creating the new Commission and forward its reports as they are issued.

5. The Committee notes with interest the information provided on the initiatives taken by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. It notes, in particular, measures taken to improve the management and transfer of centrally allocated funds for improving the situation of tribals, the adoption of a new Central Sector Scheme targeting the development of the Primitive Tribal Groups and the promotion of voluntary efforts in the field of tribal development, resulting in the tripling of the number of NGOs associated with this since 1997-98.

6. The Committee notes also from the report that financial support for the improvement of the standards of the Primitive Tribal Groups in several states has not improved the situation much and that the Ministry might seek international cooperation in this regard.

7. Article 6. The Committee noted previously that some measures had been taken to protect the rights of tribals to forests and forest produce. It notes from the latest report that the Government has issued guidelines to state/UT governments on this question, but that their operation has been stayed by the Supreme Court. Recalling the very high importance to tribal economies and cultures of being able to benefit from resources of the forests in which many tribals live, the Committee requests the Government to indicate whether this obstacle has now been overcome and to continue to provide information on such measures in future reports.

8. Articles 7 and 8. The Committee notes with interest the information provided on how tribal customary laws are respected in various states. It notes that, while in some states tribal customary laws have been compiled and are respected by courts, in others the compilations are either not completed or have not been undertaken. The Committee hopes that the Government will continue to provide information on this subject in future reports, as it becomes available.

9. Article 12. In its previous comments, the Committee reviewed some of its concerns over the large-scale displacement of tribals from their lands because of development projects and, in particular, the damage caused to the lives and cultures of these groups when inadequate resettlement and rehabilitation is provided. Aware that only some of the development projects which have displaced tribals in large numbers have been brought to its attention, the Committee asked the Government to provide in its report a comprehensive overview of the situation in this regard around the country. In reply, the Government has simply referred to its previous reports.

10. The Committee notes that both the 10th Five-Year Plan (2002-07) and the latest report of the National Commission on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, to which the Committee has also referred in preparing its comments, reinforce the position that, while development projects are both necessary and useful for the country’s economic well-being, the tribal populations of the country suffer many of the costs of the implementation of such projects due to inadequate provision for their welfare in the context of these projects. The Committee therefore reiterates its earlier request for the Government to provide a comprehensive overview of the situation throughout the country.

11. Article 20. In its previous comments, the Committee took particular note of Chapter V of the Fourth Report of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, entitled "Economic Development of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes". Noting the limited access of tribals to employment and work, it noted in particular the recommendation in paragraph 5.109 of this report that "The Ministry of Labour should undertake a comprehensive survey of the impact of economic reforms on the job opportunities as a whole and particularly in the case of SCs and STs", and asked the Government what steps may have been taken to follow up this recommendation. As the report contained no reply to this point, the Committee again asks the Government to provide this information.

12. Articles 21 to 26. The Committee notes with interest a significant increase in the literacy rates of tribals, among both men and women, compared to the statistics from the 1981 and 1991 censuses that it cited in its previous report. Please continue to update these figures whenever possible.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2005, published 95th ILC session (2006)

1. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in reply to its previous comments. It also notes the 10th Five-Year Plan (2002-07) and the latest report of the National Commission on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which contain a great deal of information on the situation of tribal people in the country and on the Government's measures in this respect.

2. In this regard, the Committee notes the significant progress made in some respects in improving the situation of tribals, as reflected in the report and accompanying documents. These include allocation of significant sums for the benefit of tribals, improvements in monitoring of the disbursement of these sums, and improved outcomes, such as increases in the literacy rates and increased vocational training of tribals.

3. The Committee also notes the Government’s comments on the observations received from the Chemical Mazdoor Sabha, a workers’ organization, in 2003, concerning the treatment of tribals displaced as a consequence of the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam and Power Project. In its reply, it indicated that the Supreme Court had found that the measures taken were adequate and that construction of the dam should be continued, and that the observations in question simply raised the same questions again. The Committee takes note of the Supreme Court’s decision, and recalls that it has requested on numerous occasions information available to indicate that all the persons displaced had been compensated or resettled in conformity with the Convention.

4. It also notes, however, that the progress achieved lags behind that of other citizens of the country. For instance, though tribal literacy rates are rising, the literacy gap between tribals and others has continued to widen. The Committee also notes from the 10th Five-Year Plan that between 1951 and 1990, 21.3 million persons were displaced from their traditional lands in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Maharastra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Orissa, including 8.54 million tribals. The Committee notes that only 2.12 million tribals had been resettled. According to the Plan, the consequences have been "loss of assets, unemployment, debt bondage and destitution".

5. The Committee therefore requests the Government to continue providing information in its reports on the progress achieved and the obstacles encountered in implementing the Convention, and its own policies, for the improvement of the situation of tribals in India including the 6.42 million tribals who have not yet been resettled.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

The Committee refers to its observation, and is again communicating its previous request which was drafted in the following terms:

1. The Committee notes the extensive documentation and explanations transmitted by the Government in its last two reports. It notes in particular that the Government has supplied a copy of the Fourth Report of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Tribes (1996-97 and 1997-98), and requests it to continue furnishing such reports with its reports on the application of the Convention.

2. The Committee notes that the subject of the protection and development of the scheduled tribes in India is a vast one, and that it can raise only some of the aspects of this question in its comments. It therefore requests the Government to provide a general assessment of the situation in its next report, concentrating on areas where development and focused governmental action could have the most profound effect on the tribal communities, and indicating if possible where international development assistance could be of help.

3. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government on the location and numbers of members of scheduled tribes, amounting to 8.08 per cent of the total population of India, according to the 1991 census. Please indicate what results have been obtained in the 2001 census in this regard.

4. The Committee recalls that there are tribal communities not included in the schedules to the Constitution, which therefore do not receive the benefits and protections provided in law for the scheduled tribes. It notes from the reply to its previous request that the Government has decided on the modalities for inclusion of communities in the list of scheduled tribes, and that proposals for inclusion are now being processed. Please indicate in the next report the progress achieved in this respect, and what measures are being taken in the meantime to extend the protection of the Convention and of national law to the tribes that remain excluded.

5. Article 2. The Committee notes from the last report that the erstwhile Ministry of Welfare responsible for the development of scheduled castes and other backward classes was renamed the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment on 25 May 1998; it is responsible for the overall policy, planning and coordination of programmes of development for scheduled castes and other backward classes. In addition, a new Ministry of Tribal Affairs was established in October 1999 to deal with social security and social insurance for the scheduled tribes. The Government indicates that these two ministries are "the nodal agencies to look into the welfare of the tribal communities. Please forward with the next report a description of the work of these ministries with regard to the situation of the tribals, including any reports they may have issued or transmitted to Parliament describing their work in this area. Please also forward corresponding information on the bodies responsible for tribal affairs in the various states.

6. Article 6. The Committee notes the existence of Tribal Sub-Plans since 1974-75 in the states and union territories, as it has in its previous comments. It notes the information in this regard contained in the Fourth Report of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Tribes, indicating that only two states (Bihar and Orissa) have been allocating funding for the Tribal Sub-Plans at the recommended levels, though Orissa is reported as having spent only 44 per cent of the amounts allocated. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide in its next report an assessment of the progress achieved in raising the productivity and skills level, development of education, elimination of exploitation, protection of their interests in trade, forest land, credit and marketing arrangements and medical and health amenities, which are listed as the objectives of the Tribal Sub-Plans.

7. The Committee notes also the further information provided on the forests policy, and the intimate link between the lives of tribals and the forest areas that many of them inhabit. The 1927 Indian Forest Act has not yet been amended, and the consultation process continues. The Committee notes, however, that the Ministry of Environment and Forests launched the centrally sponsored scheme on "Association of Scheduled Tribes and Rural Poor in Regeneration of Forests on Usufruct Sharing Basis" on a pilot basis in nine states, and that it has subsequently been extended to six other states. In addition, the Committee notes the targets and the financial outlays involved, as well as the expectation that the implementation of the project will generate employment opportunities for up to 7,500 tribal families while upgrading the condition of the forests.

8. The Committee notes the recognition in the report of the needs of the tribal peoples in relation to the forests, and of the list of measures that need to be taken to ensure the protection of the rights of tribal communities in these areas, and the difficulties of progressing. It hopes the Government will continue to keep it informed in this respect in future reports, including both the results of the scheme referred to in the previous paragraph and the implementation of the measures that the Government has indicated should be taken.

9. Articles 7 and 8. The Committee notes from the report that in general the tribal communities largely follow their own traditions in social conduct, and that tribal customs in regard to marriage, divorce and inheritance, administration of justice concerning minor offences, etc. are respected. It notes that compilations of tribal customs and customary laws are being made by the Anthropological Survey of India and some state governments, but that it will take some time to complete this work. Please keep the Committee informed of progress in this area, and indicate whether courts are empowered to recognize or to apply tribal customary laws and, if so, on what subjects.

10. Article 12. The Committee notes the statement in the report that "displacement due to development projects, though unfortunate, is inevitable", and that the areas inhabited by scheduled tribes have more potential for projects related to irrigation, mining and industry. It notes also the statement that the Government is very particular on the aspect of rehabilitation and resettlement of the tribals displaced due to these projects and has accepted the principle that these should form part of the project itself.

11. It also notes the statement in the Fourth Report of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Tribes that "Large-scale displacement of tribals due to the setting-up of various projects has aggravated the miseries of many tribal communities. The Commission reiterates its recommendations made in the last report that tribals should be made partners in the large development projects located in these areas" (paragraph 5.35(viii)).

12. For some years the Committee has been raising the question of the Narmada Valley hydroelectric project, that has displaced many thousands of people already, and that will displace many more in the future. It notes in this regard a decision by the Supreme Court of India in October 2000 that construction of the dam could proceed, in spite of widespread concern over its effects. The Court’s order stated, inter alia:

2. As the Relief and Rehabilitation Sub-Group has cleared the construction up to 90 metres, the same can be undertaken immediately. Further raising of the height will be only pari passu with the implementation of the relief and rehabilitation and on the clearance by the Relief and Rehabilitation Sub-Group. The Relief and Rehabilitation Sub-Group will give clearance of further construction after consulting the three Grievances Redressal Authorities.

…

5. The reports of the Grievances Redressal Authorities, and of Madhya Pradesh in particular, show that there is a considerable slackness in the work of identification of land, acquisition of suitable land and the consequent steps necessary to be taken to rehabilitate the project oustees. We direct the States of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat to implement the award and give relief and rehabilitation to the oustees in terms of the packages offered by them and these states shall comply with any direction in this regard which is given either by the NCA or the Review Committee or the Grievances Redressal Authorities.

13. The Government has provided details in its report indicating that a majority of the more than 40,000 "project-affected families" has now been resettled, or that provision has been made for their resettlement, as the number of people displaced by rising water levels continues to rise. Concern continues to be expressed, however, that resettlement has resulted in breaking up communities, and in compensation in amounts of land lower than the amounts previously available for use by many of these communities, and that the availability of suitable land is more limited than the need. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the progress of resettlement in its next report.

14. In addition, as earlier noted, this hydroelectric project is only one of many development projects in India resulting in the displacement of tribal communities from their lands, and the information available to the Committee indicates that not all such projects have been subject to the same kind of rehabilitation plans as the Narmada Valley project. It notes the information provided in the report with respect to two specific projects, and requests the Government to provide in its next report a comprehensive overview of the situation in this regard around the country.

15. The Committee notes the additional information provided on the Large-Sized Agricultural Multipurpose Cooperative Societies (LAMPS), including the increase in their number. It notes in this regard the statement in the Fourth Report of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Tribes (paragraph 5.14) that "the effectiveness of these organizations in ensuring a better remuneration and a better market for the various tribal and forest produce is limited. These institutes need to be reorganized and strengthened". The Committee therefore requests the Government to keep it informed of further developments in this regard.

16. Article 20. The Committee has taken particular note of chapter V of the Fourth Report of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Tribes, entitled "Economic Development of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes". Noting the limited access of tribals to employment and work, it has taken particular note of the recommendation in paragraph 5.109 of this report that "The Ministry of Labour should undertake a comprehensive survey of the impact of economic reforms on the job opportunities as a whole and particularly in the case of SCs and STs". Please indicate what steps may have been taken to follow up this recommendation.

17. Articles 21 to 26. The Committee notes from the report that new statistics on the literacy rate among tribal communities will be furnished after the report of the 2001 census becomes available. It recalls that it previously raised this question in response to allegations by the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) pointing out that the literacy rate among scheduled tribes was 16.5 per cent, and of women only 8.4 per cent, according to the 1981 census. The CITU cited figures for dropping out of school at 77 per cent, contributing to the massive levels of child labour in the country. The 1997-98 Report of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Tribes indicates that by 1991 the overall literacy rate for members of scheduled tribes had risen to 29.60 per cent, and for women to 18.19 per cent, a very rapid increase though still very low. This report also indicated a slower rate of dropouts from school at different levels, but noted that the rate of improvement was very slow. The Committee requests the Government to furnish updated information on this situation in its next report.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2005.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2004, published 93rd ILC session (2005)

The Committee notes with regret that the Government’s report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation, which read as follows:

1. The Committee notes that the Government has submitted a very brief report in reply to the previous direct request, and that in several respects has indicated that gathering the information requested would take some time and that the information would be submitted when available. The Committee recalls that at its previous session it requested a detailed report for the present session, and hopes the Government will provide such a report for its next session. It is therefore repeating the previous direct request.

2. In addition, the Government has provided no comments on the observations communicated by the Chemical Mazdoor Sabha, a workers’ organization, on the situation of tribal people in Narmada Valley, which was sent to the Government on 11 June 2003. The Committee requests the Government to make any comments it may have on this communication, in time for the next session.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2005.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

The Committee refers to its observation, and is again communicating its previous request which was drafted in the following terms:

1. The Committee notes the extensive documentation and explanations transmitted by the Government in its last two reports. It notes in particular that the Government has supplied a copy of the Fourth Report of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Tribes (1996-97 and 1997-98), and requests it to continue furnishing such reports with its reports on the application of the Convention.

2. The Committee notes that the subject of the protection and development of the scheduled tribes in India is a vast one, and that it can raise only some of the aspects of this question in its comments. It therefore requests the Government to provide a general assessment of the situation in its next report, concentrating on areas where development and focused governmental action could have the most profound effect on the tribal communities, and indicating if possible where international development assistance could be of help.

3. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government on the location and numbers of members of scheduled tribes, amounting to 8.08 per cent of the total population of India, according to the 1991 census. Please indicate what results have been obtained in the 2001 census in this regard.

4. The Committee recalls that there are tribal communities not included in the schedules to the Constitution, which therefore do not receive the benefits and protections provided in law for the scheduled tribes. It notes from the reply to its previous request that the Government has decided on the modalities for inclusion of communities in the list of scheduled tribes, and that proposals for inclusion are now being processed. Please indicate in the next report the progress achieved in this respect, and what measures are being taken in the meantime to extend the protection of the Convention and of national law to the tribes that remain excluded.

5. Article 2. The Committee notes from the last report that the erstwhile Ministry of Welfare responsible for the development of scheduled castes and other backward classes was renamed the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment on 25 May 1998; it is responsible for the overall policy, planning and coordination of programmes of development for scheduled castes and other backward classes. In addition, a new Ministry of Tribal Affairs was established in October 1999 to deal with social security and social insurance for the scheduled tribes. The Government indicates that these two ministries are "the nodal agencies to look into the welfare of the tribal communities. Please forward with the next report a description of the work of these ministries with regard to the situation of the tribals, including any reports they may have issued or transmitted to Parliament describing their work in this area. Please also forward corresponding information on the bodies responsible for tribal affairs in the various states.

6. Article 6. The Committee notes the existence of Tribal Sub-Plans since 1974-75 in the states and union territories, as it has in its previous comments. It notes the information in this regard contained in the Fourth Report of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Tribes, indicating that only two states (Bihar and Orissa) have been allocating funding for the Tribal Sub-Plans at the recommended levels, though Orissa is reported as having spent only 44 per cent of the amounts allocated. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide in its next report an assessment of the progress achieved in raising the productivity and skills level, development of education, elimination of exploitation, protection of their interests in trade, forest land, credit and marketing arrangements and medical and health amenities, which are listed as the objectives of the Tribal Sub-Plans.

7. The Committee notes also the further information provided on the forests policy, and the intimate link between the lives of tribals and the forest areas that many of them inhabit. The 1927 Indian Forest Act has not yet been amended, and the consultation process continues. The Committee notes, however, that the Ministry of Environment and Forests launched the centrally sponsored scheme on "Association of Scheduled Tribes and Rural Poor in Regeneration of Forests on Usufruct Sharing Basis" on a pilot basis in nine states, and that it has subsequently been extended to six other states. In addition, the Committee notes the targets and the financial outlays involved, as well as the expectation that the implementation of the project will generate employment opportunities for up to 7,500 tribal families while upgrading the condition of the forests.

8. The Committee notes the recognition in the report of the needs of the tribal peoples in relation to the forests, and of the list of measures that need to be taken to ensure the protection of the rights of tribal communities in these areas, and the difficulties of progressing. It hopes the Government will continue to keep it informed in this respect in future reports, including both the results of the scheme referred to in the previous paragraph and the implementation of the measures that the Government has indicated should be taken.

9. Articles 7 and 8. The Committee notes from the report that in general the tribal communities largely follow their own traditions in social conduct, and that tribal customs in regard to marriage, divorce and inheritance, administration of justice concerning minor offences, etc. are respected. It notes that compilations of tribal customs and customary laws are being made by the Anthropological Survey of India and some state governments, but that it will take some time to complete this work. Please keep the Committee informed of progress in this area, and indicate whether courts are empowered to recognize or to apply tribal customary laws and, if so, on what subjects.

10. Article 12. The Committee notes the statement in the report that "displacement due to development projects, though unfortunate, is inevitable", and that the areas inhabited by scheduled tribes have more potential for projects related to irrigation, mining and industry. It notes also the statement that the Government is very particular on the aspect of rehabilitation and resettlement of the tribals displaced due to these projects and has accepted the principle that these should form part of the project itself.

11. It also notes the statement in the Fourth Report of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Tribes that "Large-scale displacement of tribals due to the setting-up of various projects has aggravated the miseries of many tribal communities. The Commission reiterates its recommendations made in the last report that tribals should be made partners in the large development projects located in these areas" (paragraph 5.35(viii)).

12. For some years the Committee has been raising the question of the Narmada Valley hydroelectric project, that has displaced many thousands of people already, and that will displace many more in the future. It notes in this regard a decision by the Supreme Court of India in October 2000 that construction of the dam could proceed, in spite of widespread concern over its effects. The Court’s order stated, inter alia:

2.  As the Relief and Rehabilitation Sub-Group has cleared the construction up to 90 metres, the same can be undertaken immediately. Further raising of the height will be only pari passu with the implementation of the relief and rehabilitation and on the clearance by the Relief and Rehabilitation Sub-Group. The Relief and Rehabilitation Sub-Group will give clearance of further construction after consulting the three Grievances Redressal Authorities.

…

5.  The reports of the Grievances Redressal Authorities, and of Madhya Pradesh in particular, show that there is a considerable slackness in the work of identification of land, acquisition of suitable land and the consequent steps necessary to be taken to rehabilitate the project oustees. We direct the States of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat to implement the award and give relief and rehabilitation to the oustees in terms of the packages offered by them and these states shall comply with any direction in this regard which is given either by the NCA or the Review Committee or the Grievances Redressal Authorities.

13. The Government has provided details in its report indicating that a majority of the more than 40,000 "project-affected families" has now been resettled, or that provision has been made for their resettlement, as the number of people displaced by rising water levels continues to rise. Concern continues to be expressed, however, that resettlement has resulted in breaking up communities, and in compensation in amounts of land lower than the amounts previously available for use by many of these communities, and that the availability of suitable land is more limited than the need. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the progress of resettlement in its next report.

14. In addition, as earlier noted, this hydroelectric project is only one of many development projects in India resulting in the displacement of tribal communities from their lands, and the information available to the Committee indicates that not all such projects have been subject to the same kind of rehabilitation plans as the Narmada Valley project. It notes the information provided in the report with respect to two specific projects, and requests the Government to provide in its next report a comprehensive overview of the situation in this regard around the country.

15. The Committee notes the additional information provided on the Large-Sized Agricultural Multipurpose Cooperative Societies (LAMPS), including the increase in their number. It notes in this regard the statement in the Fourth Report of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Tribes (paragraph 5.14) that "the effectiveness of these organizations in ensuring a better remuneration and a better market for the various tribal and forest produce is limited. These institutes need to be reorganized and strengthened". The Committee therefore requests the Government to keep it informed of further developments in this regard.

16. Article 20. The Committee has taken particular note of chapter V of the Fourth Report of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Tribes, entitled "Economic Development of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes". Noting the limited access of tribals to employment and work, it has taken particular note of the recommendation in paragraph 5.109 of this report that "The Ministry of Labour should undertake a comprehensive survey of the impact of economic reforms on the job opportunities as a whole and particularly in the case of SCs and STs". Please indicate what steps may have been taken to follow up this recommendation.

17. Articles 21 to 26. The Committee notes from the report that new statistics on the literacy rate among tribal communities will be furnished after the report of the 2001 census becomes available. It recalls that it previously raised this question in response to allegations by the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) pointing out that the literacy rate among scheduled tribes was 16.5 per cent, and of women only 8.4 per cent, according to the 1981 census. The CITU cited figures for dropping out of school at 77 per cent, contributing to the massive levels of child labour in the country. The 1997-98 Report of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Tribes indicates that by 1991 the overall literacy rate for members of scheduled tribes had risen to 29.60 per cent, and for women to 18.19 per cent, a very rapid increase though still very low. This report also indicated a slower rate of dropouts from school at different levels, but noted that the rate of improvement was very slow. The Committee requests the Government to furnish updated information on this situation in its next report.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2004.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2003, published 92nd ILC session (2004)

1. The Committee notes that the Government has submitted a very brief report in reply to the previous direct request, and that in several respects has indicated that gathering the information requested would take some time and that the information would be submitted when available. The Committee recalls that at its previous session it requested a detailed report for the present session, and hopes the Government will provide such a report for its next session. It is therefore repeating the previous direct request.

2. In addition, the Government has provided no comments on the observations communicated by the Chemical Mazdoor Sabha, a workers’ organization, on the situation of tribal people in Narmada Valley, which was sent to the Government on 11 June 2003. The Committee requests the Government to make any comments it may have on this communication, in time for the next session.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2004.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2002, published 91st ILC session (2003)

1. The Committee notes the extensive documentation and explanations transmitted by the Government in its last two reports. It notes in particular that the Government has supplied a copy of the Fourth Report of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Tribes (1996-97 and 1997-98), and requests it to continue furnishing such reports with its reports on the application of the Convention.

2. The Committee notes that the subject of the protection and development of the scheduled tribes in India is a vast one, and that it can raise only some of the aspects of this question in its comments. It therefore requests the Government to provide a general assessment of the situation in its next report, concentrating on areas where development and focused governmental action could have the most profound effect on the tribal communities, and indicating if possible where international development assistance could be of help.

3. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes the detailed information provided by the Government on the location and numbers of members of scheduled tribes, amounting to 8.08 per cent of the total population of India, according to the 1991 census. Please indicate what results have been obtained in the 2001 census in this regard.

4. The Committee recalls that there are tribal communities not included in the schedules to the Constitution, which therefore do not receive the benefits and protections provided in law for the scheduled tribes. It notes from the reply to its previous request that the Government has decided on the modalities for inclusion of communities in the list of scheduled tribes, and that proposals for inclusion are now being processed. Please indicate in the next report the progress achieved in this respect, and what measures are being taken in the meantime to extend the protection of the Convention and of national law to the tribes that remain excluded.

5. Article 2. The Committee notes from the last report that the erstwhile Ministry of Welfare responsible for the development of scheduled castes and other backward classes was renamed the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment on 25 May 1998; it is responsible for the overall policy, planning and coordination of programmes of development for scheduled castes and other backward classes. In addition, a new Ministry of Tribal Affairs was established in October 1999 to deal with social security and social insurance for the scheduled tribes. The Government indicates that these two ministries are "the nodal agencies to look into the welfare of the tribal communities". Please forward with the next report a description of the work of these ministries with regard to the situation of the tribals, including any reports they may have issued or transmitted to Parliament describing their work in this area. Please also forward corresponding information on the bodies responsible for tribal affairs in the various states.

6. Article 6. The Committee notes the existence of Tribal Sub-Plans since 1974-75 in the states and union territories, as it has in its previous comments. It notes the information in this regard contained in the Fourth Report of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Tribes, indicating that only two states (Bihar and Orissa) have been allocating funding for the Tribal Sub-Plans at the recommended levels, though Orissa is reported as having spent only 44 per cent of the amounts allocated. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide in its next report an assessment of the progress achieved in raising the productivity and skills level, development of education, elimination of exploitation, protection of their interests in trade, forest land, credit and marketing arrangements and medical and health amenities, which are listed as the objectives of the Tribal Sub-Plans.

7. The Committee notes also the further information provided on the forests policy, and the intimate link between the lives of tribals and the forest areas that many of them inhabit. The 1927 Indian Forest Act has not yet been amended, and the consultation process continues. The Committee notes, however, that the Ministry of Environment and Forests launched the centrally sponsored scheme on "Association of Scheduled Tribes and Rural Poor in Regeneration of Forests on Usufruct Sharing Basis" on a pilot basis in nine states, and that it has subsequently been extended to six other states. In addition, the Committee notes the targets and the financial outlays involved, as well as the expectation that the implementation of the project will generate employment opportunities for up to 7,500 tribal families while upgrading the condition of the forests.

8. The Committee notes the recognition in the report of the needs of the tribal peoples in relation to the forests, and of the list of measures that need to be taken to ensure the protection of the rights of tribal communities in these areas, and the difficulties of progressing. It hopes the Government will continue to keep it informed in this respect in future reports, including both the results of the scheme referred to in the previous paragraph and the implementation of the measures that the Government has indicated should be taken.

9. Articles 7 and 8. The Committee notes from the report that in general the tribal communities largely follow their own traditions in social conduct, and that tribal customs in regard to marriage, divorce and inheritance, administration of justice concerning minor offences, etc. are respected. It notes that compilations of tribal customs and customary laws are being made by the Anthropological Survey of India and some state governments, but that it will take some time to complete this work. Please keep the Committee informed of progress in this area, and indicate whether courts are empowered to recognize or to apply tribal customary laws and, if so, on what subjects.

10. Article 12. The Committee notes the statement in the report that "displacement due to development projects, though unfortunate, is inevitable", and that the areas inhabited by scheduled tribes have more potential for projects related to irrigation, mining and industry. It notes also the statement that the Government is very particular on the aspect of rehabilitation and resettlement of the tribals displaced due to these projects and has accepted the principle that these should form part of the project itself.

11. It also notes the statement in the Fourth Report of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Tribes that "Large-scale displacement of tribals due to the setting-up of various projects has aggravated the miseries of many tribal communities. The Commission reiterates its recommendations made in the last report that tribals should be made partners in the large development projects located in these areas" (paragraph 5.35(viii)).

12. For some years the Committee has been raising the question of the Narmada Valley hydroelectric project, that has displaced many thousands of people already, and that will displace many more in the future. It notes in this regard a decision by the Supreme Court of India in October 2000 that construction of the dam could proceed, in spite of widespread concern over its effects. The Court’s order stated, inter alia:

2. As the Relief and Rehabilitation Sub-Group has cleared the construction up to 90 metres, the same can be undertaken immediately. Further raising of the height will be only pari passu with the implementation of the relief and rehabilitation and on the clearance by the Relief and Rehabilitation Sub-Group. The Relief and Rehabilitation Sub-Group will give clearance of further construction after consulting the three Grievances Redressal Authorities.

…

5. The reports of the Grievances Redressal Authorities, and of Madhya Pradesh in particular, show that there is a considerable slackness in the work of identification of land, acquisition of suitable land and the consequent steps necessary to be taken to rehabilitate the project oustees. We direct the States of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat to implement the award and give relief and rehabilitation to the oustees in terms of the packages offered by them and these states shall comply with any direction in this regard which is given either by the NCA or the Review Committee or the Grievances Redressal Authorities.

13. The Government has provided details in its report indicating that a majority of the more than 40,000 "project-affected families" has now been resettled, or that provision has been made for their resettlement, as the number of people displaced by rising water levels continues to rise. Concern continues to be expressed, however, that resettlement has resulted in breaking up communities, and in compensation in amounts of land lower than the amounts previously available for use by many of these communities, and that the availability of suitable land is more limited than the need. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on the progress of resettlement in its next report.

14. In addition, as earlier noted, this hydroelectric project is only one of many development projects in India resulting in the displacement of tribal communities from their lands, and the information available to the Committee indicates that not all such projects have been subject to the same kind of rehabilitation plans as the Narmada Valley project. It notes the information provided in the report with respect to two specific projects, and requests the Government to provide in its next report a comprehensive overview of the situation in this regard around the country.

15. The Committee notes the additional information provided on the Large-Sized Agricultural Multipurpose Cooperative Societies (LAMPS), including the increase in their number. It notes in this regard the statement in the Fourth Report of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Tribes (paragraph 5.14) that "the effectiveness of these organizations in ensuring a better remuneration and a better market for the various tribal and forest produce is limited. These institutes need to be reorganized and strengthened". The Committee therefore requests the Government to keep it informed of further developments in this regard.

16. Article 20. The Committee has taken particular note of chapter V of the Fourth Report of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Tribes, entitled "Economic Development of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes". Noting the limited access of tribals to employment and work, it has taken particular note of the recommendation in paragraph 5.109 of this report that "The Ministry of Labour should undertake a comprehensive survey of the impact of economic reforms on the job opportunities as a whole and particularly in the case of SCs and STs". Please indicate what steps may have been taken to follow up this recommendation.

17. Articles 21 to 26. The Committee notes from the report that new statistics on the literacy rate among tribal communities will be furnished after the report of the 2001 census becomes available. It recalls that it previously raised this question in response to allegations by the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) pointing out that the literacy rate among scheduled tribes was 16.5 per cent, and of women only 8.4 per cent, according to the 1981 census. The CITU cited figures for dropping out of school at 77 per cent, contributing to the massive levels of child labour in the country. The 1997-98 Report of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Tribes indicates that by 1991 the overall literacy rate for members of scheduled tribes had risen to 29.60 per cent, and for women to 18.19 per cent, a very rapid increase though still very low. This report also indicated a slower rate of dropouts from school at different levels, but noted that the rate of improvement was very slow. The Committee requests the Government to furnish updated information on this situation in its next report.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2003.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes that the Government’s report on the application of the Convention arrived after its present session had begun, too late to allow the Committee to examine the report in the detail it requires. Accordingly, the Committee must defer consideration of the report until its next session. Noting that the situation of the tribal populations in India is subject to change, the Committee requests the Government to submit information in time for its next session with regard to the points raised in its 1997 observation and direct request, on any matters for which there may have been further developments.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 2001.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

1. The Committee notes with interest the detailed report sent by the Government. It also notes with interest the detailed information sent in reply to the allegations of the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU), especially with regard to employment discrimination against tribal people, particularly women.

2. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee noted previously that the Advisory Committee created in 1993 to review the lists of scheduled castes and tribes was no longer in existence, and recalled that it had previously expressed concern about the approximately 6 million tribal people excluded from the lists of scheduled tribes. The Committee notes the Government's statement that the modalities for inclusion of various communities in the list of scheduled tribes are under consideration by the Government. The Committee expresses the hope that the Government will reach a decision on this question in the near future, and will inform it of the result.

3. Articles 2 and 27. The Committee notes with interest the detailed information provided on the measures taken with regard to three areas covered in the 28th and 29th reports of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It requests the Government to keep it informed in future reports as concerns efforts to prevent atrocities against tribal peoples. It also notes the further information supplied on positive action for tribal people in employment and education. The Committee notes in particular the various measures for socio-economic development put into place and the results achieved.

4. The Committee noted previously that the report of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (NCSCST) would be made available after passing the two houses of Parliament. The Committee notes with regret that this report has not yet been presented to Parliament. It urges the Government to provide a copy of the report after it has been discussed.

5. Article 5. The Committee had noted with interest the information regarding reservation of seats and offices of chairpersons for scheduled tribes in the Panchayats (local administration bodies) which have been implemented in all states and union territories where these provisions apply. The Committee had requested the Government to continue providing information on the implementation of these provisions through local elections whenever they are held, and requests it to communicate this information with its next report as it was not received with the present one.

6. The Committee had requested information on the number of Tribes Advisory Councils (TACs) which have been convened and on the implementation of any recommendations they may have made. The Committee had requested information on several occasions on any measures taken as a result of their recommendations. It notes that the Government is still awaiting information on the measures taken and hopes it will receive this information shortly.

7. Article 6. The Committee had taken note of information regarding the National Forest Policy (NFP), 1988, and requested information on the number of tribal communities which have benefitted from the programme of regeneration of degraded forest land on a usufruct-sharing basis, as well as on any measures contemplated to increase the participation of tribal populations in these programmes. The Committee also requested the Government to keep it informed on the adoption of draft legislation which would replace the India Forest Act of 1927. The Committee notes with interest that 3,675 families have benefited from the programme of regeneration of degraded forest land in six States, and that the draft legislation which would replace the India Forest Act of 1927 is under consideration and its adoption may take considerable time. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any developments in this regard.

8. Articles 11 to 14. The Committee had requested the Government to keep it informed of developments regarding the final approval of the mining project and to provide information on any measures taken or contemplated to mitigate the difficulties faced by the affected tribal population in the Noamundi village, Singhbum district, Bihar, as a result of the Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO) activities, should this project go ahead, in particular with regard to its impact on their traditional economic activities. The Committee had noted also that final approval would be issued by the Government on the fulfilment of certain conditions and that the State Forest Department had lodged a legal procedure against TISCO.

9. The Committee notes with interest that the proposal was approved in 1992 with certain conditions which have not been fulfilled so far. The Committee also notes that the user agency, the State Forest Department, had not agreed to pay for the cost of non-forest land and the matter was taken to the High Court. The Government's report further indicates that temporary permission, pending final approval, has been granted to TISCO. The Committee once again requests information on any measures taken or contemplated to mitigate the difficulties faced by the affected tribal population in the Noamundi village, Singhbum district, Bihar, as a result of the TISCO activities which are now under way.

10. The Committee had noted in its previous request that there were 2,646 large sized agricultural multi-purpose cooperative societies (LAMPS) providing credit, marketing and agricultural assistance to tribal communities, and had requested further information on the work of the LAMPS, including the number of tribal people who have benefited from these facilities. The Government has stated again that the information is being collected and is not currently available. The Committee hopes to receive this information in the near future.

11. Articles 21 to 26. The Committee had noted the comments of the CITU to the effect that the literacy rate amongst the scheduled tribes was 16.35 per cent and that of women was 8.4 per cent, based on a 1981 census. The general drop-out rate has been stated recently as being 77 per cent. The CITU stated that this high rate of drop-outs, together with the scheduled castes drop-outs and other rural poor, account for the world's largest army of child labour. The Committee had requested the Government to provide further information on the progress achieved in providing educational opportunities and facilities to tribal people. It points out that one of the most effective methods to prevent, diminish and avoid child labour is through education, particularly through programmes adapted to the social and cultural needs of the communities concerned which may help to diminish the drop-out rates experienced in certain cases by the tribal people. The Committee had also requested the Government to supply recent statistics on the rate of enrolment, the average years of study and the drop-out rates of tribal populations covered by the programmes and campaigns mentioned in its report. The Committee notes with interest the information submitted by the Government indicating that efforts made in the field of socio-economic development have resulted in considerable improvement in the education conditions of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. It notes that in the case of scheduled castes literacy rates increased from 21.3 per cent in 1981 to 37.4 per cent in 1991 and in the case of scheduled tribes, literacy rates have gone from 16.35 per cent in 1981 to 29.6 per cent in 1991. The percentage of scheduled tribes below the poverty line also declined from 53 per cent in 1983-84 to 44 per cent in 1987-88. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any new statistics in this area.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1997, published 86th ILC session (1998)

1. The Committee notes the additional oral and written information submitted by a Government representative to the Committee on the Application of Standards at the 85th Session of the International Labour Conference (1997).

2. The Committee had taken note of the communication sent by the Bijli Mazdoor Panchayat (BMP), a trade union, dated 2 May 1996 regarding alleged practices of "inhuman working conditions" by the Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB), affecting a large number of scheduled tribe workers which it stated should be considered as working under the Factories Act and thus entitled to receive benefits from the GEB.

3. The Committee notes that the Government repeated its previous reply that the regular workers in the Thermal Power Station, many of whom are contract labourers, enjoy normal working conditions, and that the BMP's comments relate only to workers outside the plant premises who are covered by no settlement and do not work for a registered contractor. It also notes that these workers are not protected by the labour legislation in general or by the Factories Act, but that the GEB has provided some basic facilities for the workers in the ash area. In this connection, the Committee recalls that under Article 15 of the Convention, ratifying States must adopt special measures for workers belonging to these populations "so long as they are not in a position to enjoy the protection granted by law to workers in general". It urges the Government to take the necessary measures to improve further the working conditions of these tribal workers and to keep it informed of the result of the criminal cases brought against the enterprise concerned. Further, it echoes the general concern expressed during the Conference Committee discussion over the situation of the 68 million tribal people in the country in relation to protection under the labour laws. While noting the practical difficulties arising from the division of responsibilities between national and other authorities, it hopes that the Government will make every effort to ensure it meets its obligations under Article 15 of the Convention with regard to these most disadvantaged workers in the country, and that it will report in detail on its efforts in this regard in its future reports.

4. On the question of the Sardar Sarovar Dam and Power Project, the Committee recalls that thousands of tribal people are being displaced from their homes by this very large project. Over a number of years, the Conference Committee and the present Committee have requested the Government to take urgent measures to bring its resettlement and rehabilitation policies for tribal people into line with the Convention. The Committee had noted that the information provided by the Government on the progress of the resettlement and rehabilitation of the tribal populations affected by this project up to April 1996 indicated that substantial differences continue to exist among the States of Gujarat, Maharastra and Madhya Pradesh.

5. The Committee requested information on the progress of rehabilitation and resettlement policies of the three above-mentioned States and on the manner in which the allocation of resettlement land takes into account the amount of land previously occupied by the displaced tribal population (the legal concept of "traditional occupation"), including any measures taken or envisaged to compensate for different kinds of land use. The Committee remains concerned by the difficulty encountered in acquiring land for resettlement and providing compensation, in particular in Maharastra and Madhya Pradesh. It requests the Government to keep it fully informed of the progress achieved in this case.

6. The Committee takes note of the explanations provided by the Government representative in the Conference Committee, in particular that the differences in the progress of resettlement and rehabilitation between the various States were explained by the fact that measures were only taken as the project advanced every year, and the construction of the dam was linked to the implementation of resettlement and rehabilitation measures in order to ensure successful rehabilitation before the lands in question were submerged. The Committee also notes that the progress of rehabilitation is evaluated by a rehabilitation committee, under the chairmanship of the Ministry of Welfare and reporting to the Supreme Court of India. Families affected by the project are given priority which accounts for the substantial differences between States. The Committee requests the Government to keep it fully informed of the development of this project and the resettlement and rehabilitation of the people concerned, as well as of the progress achieved by the States in acquiring land for these purposes. It also requests the Government to provide a detailed report on the compensation measures taken in each State and on the number of people who have already been settled and rehabilitated. Please also provide information on the number of people which the Government expects are to be still displaced.

7. Other development projects. The Committee also noted in its previous comments that there are other cases in which tribal people are displaced for development purposes, and requested the Government to provide information on the compensation offered in these other cases. The Committee notes that no information has been received in this regard. It also notes the response given by the Government representative in the Conference Committee that many areas in which mineral resources were mined and other developmental activities undertaken were inhabited by tribal populations and that development was unavoidable for the economic and industrial development of the country. The Committee notes also that the Government representative stated that the Government did not follow a discriminatory policy in applying the rules and regulations in force to provide adequate compensation for the affected people, including tribal people.

8. The Committee takes due note of these points. It reiterates that it does not question either the need to undertake development projects or the benefits they generate for the national population, including, in some cases, employment generation for tribal peoples. Its only concern under this Convention is that the burden of these projects should not fall disproportionately on the tribal people who often inhabit the regions where these projects take place, and that measures compatible with the Convention be taken to provide them with adequate protection, including compensation and resettlement when appropriate. The Committee looks forward to receiving information in the Government's next report about the number and kind of development projects, aside from the Sardar Sarovar Project, which have displaced tribal populations, and on the measures taken in each case to meet the requirements of the Convention.

9. The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government on other points.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

1. The Committee notes with interest the detailed report sent by the Government, both in reply to its previous comments and in reply to comments made by the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU). The CITU alleges in general terms a number of violations of the Convention, principally due to lack of development in tribal communities as well as to lack of respect for their rights. The points raised will be taken up below under the various Articles of the Convention.

2. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes with interest that the Advisory Committee created in 1993 to review the lists of scheduled castes and tribes did not submit a final report and is no longer in existence. The Government indicates that other modalities for deciding the claims of various communities for inclusion in the lists of scheduled tribes are under consideration. Any new inclusion can only be done through an Act of Parliament under article 343(3) of the Constitution. The Committee recalls that it has previously expressed concern about the approximately 6 million tribal people excluded from the lists of scheduled tribes, and who therefore do not benefit from the development programmes designed for tribal populations. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any new mechanism decided upon to examine the claims of communities not included in the lists of the scheduled tribes and the procedure it will follow.

3. Articles 2 and 27. The Committee had asked for information on the results of the discussions in Parliament, during 1994-95, of the recommendations contained in the 28th and 29th reports of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Tribes. The Committee takes note of the government response which indicates that the recommendations of the Commissioner were broadly related to the economical and educational development of scheduled castes and tribes. The Government indicates that it has developed a three-pronged strategy for development of these populations, taking into account the factors responsible for their backwardness: (1) protective measures through the effective implementation of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes Act, 1989 (Prevention of Atrocities), and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955; (2) positive discrimination, providing a reserved quota in government services and in admission to educational institutions, apart from provisions regarding reserved positions in the state legislatures and the Lok Sabba; and (3) socio-economic measures for the advancement of the scheduled castes and tribes. The Committee requests the Government to furnish information and data on the implementation of these strategies and their impact on the populations concerned.

4. The Committee notes that the report of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (NCSCST) will be made available after passing the two houses of Parliament. The Committee requests the Government to provide a copy of this report after its approval and recalls that it has previously asked the Government to communicate copies of the reports on a regular basis with the Government's reports on the Convention.

5. Article 5. The Committee takes note with interest of the information submitted by the Government regarding the implementation of the 73rd Amendment to the Constitution (24 April 1993). The Government indicates that the provision regarding reservation of seats and offices of chairpersons for scheduled tribes in the Panchayats (local administration bodies) have been implemented in all states and union territories where these provisions apply. The Government submits a list of the scheduled tribes represented in the Panchayats from which it has received information. The Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on the implementation of these provisions through local elections whenever they are held.

6. The Committee had requested information on the number of Tribes Advisory Councils (TACs) which have been convened and on the implementation of any recommendations they may have made. In this regard the Committee notes that according to paragraph 5 of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution eight states having scheduled areas have constituted TACs. The TACs should meet at least twice a year with adequate preparation. The Committee once again requests information on any measures taken as a result of their recommendations.

7. Article 6. The Committee had requested information on the involvement of tribal communities in usufruct-sharing schemes and on the measures taken or contemplated by the Ministry of Environment and Forests to increase the participation of tribal populations in its programmes. In this regard the Committee notes the information supplied by the Government which states that the National Forest Policy (NFP), 1988, responds to the needs of tribal communities which constitute the dominant segment. It envisages the involvement of local people in the management and sharing of forest profits. Access to forest land and usufructuary benefits will accrue only to the beneficiaries who get involved in the village institutions. The policy prescribes that the local community will have the first call on forest products to meet their needs for fuel wood, fodder and small timber. The Government stated that the guidelines issued in 1990 to the states, village communities and voluntary agencies prescribed that these bodies should be involved actively for regeneration of degraded forest land on a usufruct-sharing basis, but no ownership or lease will be given to the beneficiaries. The Committee takes note of this information and once again requests information on the number of tribal communities which have benefitted from the programme of regeneration of degraded forest land on a usufruct-sharing basis, and on any measures contemplated to increase the participation of tribal populations in these programmes. The Committee also requests the Government to keep it informed on the adoption of draft legislation which would replace the India Forest Act of 1927.

8. The Committee notes also that in reply to the communication by CITU, the report indicates that tribals are considered an inalienable part of forest areas since they are mostly forest dwellers. They have the right to extraction of timber and minor forest produce, and the exploitation of forest areas by outsiders is restricted. The Government notes that due to the lack of communications, there is difficulty in marketing the produce of tribal areas, but efforts are being made to improve communications and infrastructure so that agricultural produce can be marketed properly and where possible agro-processing units set up. A Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India has been created to promote marketing of tribal produce and the Indian Council of Agricultural Research has opened research centres in tribal areas to tackle effectively the problem of development of agriculture suited to local conditions.

9. Articles 11 to 14. The Committee had noted previously that the Government had approved in principle a project for mining of iron ore on 404 hectares of forest land in Noamundi village, Singhbum district, Bihar, by the Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO) under the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It had noted also that final approval would be issued by the Government on the fulfilment of certain conditions. The Committee notes that the results of the legal proceedings instituted by the State Forest Department against TISCO in the Ranchi High Court are still awaited and will be made available when the final outcome is known. The Committee once again requests the Government to keep it informed of further developments regarding the final approval of the mining project and to provide information on any measures taken or contemplated to mitigate the difficulties faced by the affected tribal population as a result of TISCO's activities, should this project go ahead, in particular with regard to its impact on their traditional economic activities.

10. The Committee recalls the comments it has made for some years concerning the resettlement and rehabilitation of tribals displaced from their lands by the Sardar Sarovar project, and refers to its observation in this connection. The CITU also alleges that tribal peoples are evicted from mining areas that frequently are found in their traditional lands, or while setting up steel projects or multi-purpose dams and barrages, and that these populations are never properly resettled or rehabilitated. The Government states that it is a fact that many areas where mining activities are carried out for mineral resources are often populated by tribal people. In addition the construction of dams usually occurs in forest and mountainous areas where tribal people live, but the exploitation of natural resources is unavoidable for the development of the country. It states that the laws and regulations of the country provide for adequate compensation to the affected people, including the tribals, and the Government has not followed a discriminatory policy in this respect.

11. The Committee notes these allegations and the Government's reply. It notes that while the Government has not followed a discriminatory policy, it is often, in India as well as in other countries, tribal populations who are most vulnerable both to displacement and the damaging effect of displacement. It draws the Government's attention to Article 12 of the Convention, and asks it to provide information on any cases in which tribal populations are displaced from their territories and on the measures taken to obtain their consent and to compensate them as required by the Convention.

12. Regarding the updating of land records, the Committee notes with interest the detailed information submitted by the Government on this matter.

13. The Committee had noted that a survey on the prevention of alienation of tribal land by the Ministry of Rural Development had been carried out, and that as a result a number of recommendations were made. The Committee requested the Government to provide information on any measures taken or contemplated on the basis of these recommendations. The Committee notes that based on these recommendations the state governments have been requested to take appropriate action wherever necessary in the matter. In addition, the monitoring of the alienation of tribal lands has been initiated. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any actions taken by the state governments to implement the recommendations of the survey.

14. The Committee had noted in its previous request that there were 2,646 Large Sized Agricultural Multi-Purpose Cooperative Societies (LAMPS) providing credit, marketing and agricultural assistance to tribal communities, and had requested further information on the work of the LAMPS including the number of tribal people who have benefited from these facilities. The Government has stated that the information is not ready and that it will furnish it shortly.

15. Article 15. The Committee notes the allegations of CITU according to which when tribal people are employed they get low-paid, low-technology unskilled jobs. In case of temporary stoppage of operations or closure, they are the first to be fired. In coal mines tribal women once constituted a significant proportion of the unskilled workers, but now their number is declining steadily. In the steel industry most of the contract labour are tribals. It also states that despite clear cut provisions of job reservations for people from scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, particularly in government jobs, they have not received their due share in employment, which in recent years has declined in absolute terms. The Government has sent information in reply on the Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY), a programme launched in 1989 whose primary objective is generation of additional gainful employment for the unemployed and under-employed persons, both men and women, in the rural areas. The target group is people below the poverty line, but preference is given to scheduled castes and tribes and freed bonded workers, and 30 per cent of employment opportunities under the JRY are reserved for women.

16. The Committee notes that it has had the occasion in the past to recall the requirements of this Article, and refers also to its observation. In the absence of specific allegations from CITU, the Committee requests the Government to continue to keep it informed of measures taken to ensure that tribal workers are treated on a basis of equality with other workers.

17. Articles 19 and 20. The Committee notes that the CITU has stated that medical services are scanty in the isolated regions where they are most needed. Contagious diseases are widespread and iron deficiency makes goitre a common disease among tribal people. The Government has stated that the National Health Policy (1983) assigns a high priority to provide health services to those residing in tribal, hilly or backward areas, as well as vulnerable sectors of society and population affected by endemic diseases. In order to remove the imbalance and provide health care and family welfare services to scheduled tribes, the population coverage norms of establishment of rural health infrastructure have been relaxed. Keeping in view the concentration of tribal populations in isolated areas, forest lands, hilly and remote villages, one Primary Health Centre (PHC) for every 20,000 inhabitants and one subcentre for every 3,000 inhabitants are established as against one PHC for 30,000 inhabitants and one subcentre for every 5,000 inhabitants in other rural areas. Under the Minimum Needs Programme a network of rural health infrastructure has been established to coordinate and monitor the policy, planning and implementation of programmes and priorities for the welfare and development of the scheduled tribes in the central, state and Union Territory sectors. A separate Tribal Development Planning Cell has been set up in the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health, since 1981. The Committee also notes the detailed information provided on the number of health-care establishments on tribal areas. It requests the Government to continue furnishing information in future reports on progress achieved in health care for tribal populations.

18. Articles 21 to 26. The Committee notes the comments of the CITU to the effect that the literacy rate amongst the scheduled tribes was 16.35 per cent and that of women was 8.4 per cent, based on a 1981 census. The drop-out rate has been stated recently as being 77 per cent. This high rate of drop-outs, together with the schedule castes drop-outs and other rural poor, account for the world's largest army of child labour. The Committee also notes the information supplied by the Government on the measures taken to provide education to the tribal people. The Government lists a series of programmes being implemented by the Department of Education of the Ministry of Human Resources, some of which are directly aimed at the tribal people and others at the population in general. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information in its future reports on the progress achieved in providing educational opportunities and facilities to tribal people. It points out that one of the most effective methods to prevent, diminish and avoid child labour is through education, particularly through programmes adapted to the social and cultural needs of the communities concerned which may help to diminish the drop-out rates experienced in certain cases by the tribal people. The Committee requests the Government to supply recent statistics on the rate of enrolment, the average years of study and the drop-out rates of tribal populations covered by the programmes and campaigns mentioned in its report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1996, published 85th ILC session (1997)

1. The Committee takes note of the communication sent by the Bijli Mazdoor Panchayat (BMP), a trade union, dated 2 May 1996 regarding alleged practices of "inhuman working conditions" by the Gujarat Electricity Board, affecting a large number of scheduled tribe workers. This communication states that the Board has a large thermal power station at Ukai, Taluka Songadh, District of Surat in the State of Gujarat, which discharges the ash and unburnt coal dust produced by the boilers in an area established by the Board called the "Ash Area" where 4000 workers, a majority of them women, are employed. All of them are stated to be adivasis or tribals. These workers are required to separate coal dust from the flowing water with which the boilers are cleaned. The recovered coal dust from the effluent is then sold by the Board.

2. The BMP states that the said "Ash Area" is considered to be a factory under the Factories Act. The workers are thus entitled to receive benefits under the Factories Act, but do not. It is stated that no drinking water is provided in the work area; there are no toilets, canteen or lunch room, and no creche. Workers employed in the "Ash Area" do not have identity cards as required by law, and do not get leave. They are said to be made to work 12 hours a day without any overtime wages, and the whole "Ash Area" is polluted with coal dust and flying ash. Workers do not have any protective or safety equipment. There is no salary registry and a total of Rs.20.00 (approximately 0.72 Swiss francs at the November 1996 exchange rate) is the daily wage of a worker.The communication concludes by stating that the Labour Inspectorate and other government agencies are silent spectators to this exploitation of labour.

3. The Committee notes that the Government has stated in reply - under this Convention and others - that the regular workers in the Thermal Power Station, many of whom are contracted labourers, enjoy normal working conditions, and that the BMP's comments relate only to workers outside the plant premises who are covered by no settlement and do not work for a registered contractor. These workers, known as "Mukadams", are paid on a piece-work basis. It indicates that several actions have been brought concerning the workers by the BMP, and that without conceding its legal responsibility to do so the Gujarat Electricity Board has provided basic facilities to these workers, and certain actions are under way as the result of labour inspections. As concerns Convention No. 107 in particular, the Government has stated that there is no special labour legislation for tribal workers, so no remarks are offered. The Committee recalls in this respect that under Article 15 of the Convention, ratifying States should adopt special measures for workers belonging to these populations "so long as they are not in a position to enjoy the protection granted by law to workers in general." As it appears at this stage that the situation of these workers is being dealt with in accordance with the general labour legislation, the Committee will take up the question under the other Conventions concerned, and requests the Government to keep it informed of how the situation of these tribal workers is resolved.

4. The Committee also notes a communication sent by the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) on 16 May 1996, which states that the socio-economic development of tribal populations falls far behind the national average. These comments explore in some detail questions of agricultural and industrial development, health, education, labour, and eviction of tribal populations from areas in which mining, the construction of dams or other development projects are taking place. In reply to this communication the Government has provided detailed information on its efforts in favour of tribal populations. As this communication and the Government's reply in fact concern the implementation in practice of many of the Convention's provisions, the Committee examines both of them further in the request which is being addressed directly to the Government.

5. In its previous observation the Committee had noted that a Five-Member Group had been appointed to continue to review discussions initiated in June 1993 on the question of the Sardar Sarovar Dam and Power Project, concerning which the Conference Committee requested the Government to take urgent measures to bring its resettlement and rehabilitation policies for tribal people into line with the Convention. It requested the Government to provide information on the work of the Five-Member Group, including a copy of any findings it may have adopted. The Committee notes that the Government stated in its report that in July 1994 the Five-Member Group presented its findings which addressed, among other points, the question of resettlement and rehabilitation. The Group recommended that a plan for the resettlement and rehabilitation of project-affected people should be prepared immediately, if not available already. Grievances and redress mechanisms should be established, and assistance of voluntary agencies should be used. The Government, in response to the findings of the Group, indicates that the implementation of the resettlement and rehabilitation measures are being monitored closely by the Narmada Control Authority and Resettlement and Rehabilitation Sub-Group of Narmada Control Authority. Field visits are undertaken by the Sub-Group and reports are submitted quarterly to the Supreme Court of India as per its directives.

6. The Committee notes that the information provided by the Government on the progress of the resettlement and rehabilitation of the tribal populations affected by the Sardar Sarova Dam and Power Project up to April 1996 indicates that substantial differences continue to exist among the states. In Gujarat, over 4,300 of the 4,600 affected families have been resettled. In Maharastra more than 1,300 of the 3,113 affected families have not been resettled; while in Madhya Pradesh a little over 3,000 of the 33,000 affected families have been resettled. The Committee therefore once again requests the Government to ensure that the tribal people who have been displaced, or will be, are treated in accordance with the Convention and receive compensation in accordance with its requirements.

7. In addition to information on the actual progress of resettlement, the Committee had requested information on the rehabilitation and resettlement policies of the three above-mentioned states and on the manner in which the allocation of resettlement land takes into account the amount of land previously occupied by the displaced tribal population (the legal concept of "traditional occupation") including any measures taken or envisaged to compensate for different kinds of land use. In this regard the Committee notes with interest the copy submitted by the Government of the comparative table on the "Entitlement of Rehabilitation Benefits as per the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT) Award and State-Wide Comparative Provisions" (15 September 1992), which compares the arrangements decided upon by those states concerned. In this regard, the Committee notes that the policies in the three states are, on most points, more favourable to the "oustees" (displaced persons) than the NWDT award, including as regards "encroachers" and "landless" oustees, though in the latter case there are fixed limits on the compensation offered. The Committee notes further the statements according to which resettlement and rehabilitation are designed to improve or at least regain the previous standard of living, guarantee relocation as village units, village sections or families, and other points. Finally, it notes the statement that in no event will any areas be submerged as a consequence of this project until all arrangements have been made for resettlement and appropriate compensation.

8. Thus, it appears that efforts have been made to provide for some compensation for lands occupied by tribal populations, even if the compensation offered is not in all cases fully in accordance with that provided for in Article 12 of the Convention. The Committee nevertheless remains concerned by the difficulty encountered in acquiring land and providing compensation, in particular in Maharastra and Madhya Pradesh. It therefore requests the Government to keep it fully informed of the progress achieved in this case.

9. The Committee notes also that there are other cases in which tribal people are displaced for development purposes, and hopes that the Government will provide information on the compensation offered in these other cases.

10. The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government on other points.

[The Government is asked to supply full particulars to the Conference at its 85th Session and to report in detail in 1997.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. The Committee notes that the Government's report, for the period ending 30 June 1992, was submitted in June 1993. It hopes that in future the Government will be able to send its reports by the date due so that the Committee may examine them in a timely fashion.

2. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes from the Government's report that, during 1990-91, a few tribal groups in Jammu and Kashmir were Scheduled. The Committee continues to express its concern regarding the approximately 6 million tribal people excluded from the Scheduled Lists who might consequently be barred from participating in development programmes specifically designed for tribal people. Please provide further information on the inclusion or deletion of other tribal populations from the lists.

3. Articles 2 and 27. The Committee notes from the Government's report that reports of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, with recommendations, were submitted for consideration to Parliament. Please provide detailed information in the next report on the Commissioner's recommendations and any effect given to them, including, as requested earlier, an impact assessment of the Commissioner's activities on the protection and development of the tribal population of the country.

4. The Committee also notes that the Office of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes has been abolished and that it has been replaced by the Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as of 12 March 1992. The Committee would appreciate the Government's regularly forwarding copies of the reports of the Commission with its future reports.

5. Article 5. The Committee notes that an Act was passed by the Lok Sobha (Parliament) in December 1992 reserving seats for Scheduled Tribes in Panchayat Raj bodies (local administration). Please provide further information on its implementation.

6. Noting that Tribes Advisory Councils are functioning in 11 states and that the Councils are required to meet at least twice a year, please provide further information on the workings of the Councils including an assessment of the extent to which their recommendations are taken into account by governmental authorities.

7. Article 6. The Committee recalls that it has previously expressed concern over continued deforestation and its effects on tribal people whose economic activity is based on the forests. It repeats its request to the Government for information on the deforestation or any efforts undertaken in this regard by the newly-created Ministry of the Environment.

8. It also notes from the report that various afforestation programmes have been undertaken by state governments, particularly on degraded forest land. The Committee notes further that the National Forest Policy, 1988, recognizes the symbiotic relationship between the tribals and the forests and recommends that tribal people be closely associated in the protection, regeneration and development of forests. Please provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to implement this recommendation, including any legislation that may have been adopted.

9. The Committee recalls its previous comment on the views expressed in the Report of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, 1987-89 (especially pages 96 to 107) concerning what the Commissioner terms the "criminalization" of tribal people. He stated that the system of reservation of forests for exclusive government use denies tribal people their traditional rights to the use of forest resources, and makes the continuation of their traditional practices a criminal activity; and that the increase in deforestation is making this situation worse. The Committee would be grateful for the Government's comments in this connection, and refers it also to the comments made below under Articles 11 to 14.

10. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the mining activities of the Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO) in the village of Noamundi, Singhbhum District, Bihar, in particular as concerns the compatibility of these activities with the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 as amended in 1988, which prohibits the utilization of forest land for non-forestry purposes without prior authorization from the Government. The Committee also notes that the State Forest Department instituted proceedings against TISCO in the Ranchi High Court. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on this matter in the next report, including any judicial decisions which may have been issued.

11. Article 9. The Committee notes the information communicated on efforts for the abolition of bonded labour, which corresponds to the information received under the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29). The Committee refers to its observation of 1993 under that Convention, noting that a very high proportion of bonded labourers are tribals, and the detailed discussions on this question during the 1993 Conference Committee. The Committee refers the Government to the comments it is making under Convention No. 29.

12. Articles 11 to 14. The Committee recalls its previous comment regretting that the Government had provided no further information on progress in updating land records for tribals, and again requests it to provide such information in its next report.

13. The Committee notes the Government's statement that the Group of Ministers on Tribal Unrest has directed the Ministry of Rural Development to carry out a survey in 12 states, including Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Orissa and Tripura to verify the extent of alienation of tribal land, and the adequacy of the existing legal provisions and administrative machinery, and to make recommendations on how to check further alienation. The report also states that results have been received from five states. Please indicate in the next report the results of the survey, any recommendations made to prevent further alienation of tribal lands, and the measures contemplated for the effective implementation of existing and future legal and administrative standards. Please also include information on any measures taken or contemplated for the restoration of tribal lands.

14. The Committee notes the Government's statement that 16 states/union territories have taken legal and administrative measures regulating money lending and providing immediate debt relief to the tribal population, and that cooperative societies and commercial banks provide credit facilities to the tribals. Please provide information on the number of tribal people who have benefited from these measures, and any steps taken or envisaged to expand such facilities to other states with tribal populations.

15. With reference to the displacement of tribal people, the Committee notes the Government's statement that it has directed particular attention to the rehabilitation of displaced tribals and has provided them with alternative residential sites, land for cultivation, financial assistance and employment. The Committee also notes that the Government is considering a National Policy on Rehabilitation. The Committee refers to its observation as concerns tribal populations displaced by the Sardar Sarovar project, and requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the situation in this connection of other tribal populations displaced by development projects.

16. Article 15. The Committee recalls the recent government decision that some "backward communities" not included in the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are eligible for reserved employment. In this connection, the Committee notes with interest the Government's announcement on 8 September 1993 to implement the Supreme Court judgement in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 930 of 1990) upholding the Mandal Commission recommendation to reserve 27 per cent of public sector employment for the "other backward classes", with immediate effect. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of further developments in the implementation of this decision, as relates to tribal communities not included in the lists of Scheduled Tribes, under this Convention and under the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111).

17. The Committee draws the attention of the Government to its previous reference to the Report of the Working Group on Development and Welfare which states that there is a considerable problem of exploitation of tribal migrant workers by labour contractors, including the non-payment of minimum wages, deductions from wages on various grounds, inferior working conditions, and the sexual exploitation of women. The Committee had noted from the Government's earlier report that although there is existing central government legislation on the subject, this has not been implemented by state governments, and there are loopholes in the enforcement of this legislation. Noting the Government's statement in its latest report that the migration of tribal workers would be reduced substantively by increasing access to employment opportunities close by, and that the "Jawahar Rozgar Yojana" programme is an effort in this direction, the Committee repeats its previous request for detailed information on this problem in the next report, including further measures taken or contemplated to overcome it. The Committee also refers to the comment in its observation concerning technical cooperation from the ILO.

18. Article 20. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government regarding primary health-care facilities for the tribal population. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of further progress in achieving the goal of "Health for All by the Year 2000".

19. The Committee notes the information providing the rationale for the decision to replace male village health guides by female workers which was a direct result of difficulties in communication with the primary beneficiaries, i.e. women in the reproductive age group. The Committee notes also that this decision was challenged by a number of organizations in various High Courts, and that the High Courts issued stay orders whereby male guides continue to serve. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in the next report on the final outcome of the question.

20. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government on the progress of the Centrally Sponsored Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme, among others, to provide safe drinking water to tribal areas. Noting that many tribal areas lack potable water facilities, the Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on this matter in future reports.

21. Articles 21 to 24. The Committee notes the information in the report on the measures taken to provide tribal people with opportunities for access to educational facilities. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on the progress achieved, including promoting literacy among tribal girls.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

1. The Committee notes the Government's reports, and the attached documentation.

2. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes with interest that on 13 October 1993 the Government created an Advisory Committee to review the lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes with a view to their revision and/or modification. In this connection, it recalls its concern, expressed over a number of years, regarding the approximately 6 million tribal people who had been excluded from the Scheduled Lists, and therefore cannot participate in the development programmes designed specifically for tribal people, and hopes the Advisory Committee will take this into account. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report of the work of the Advisory Committee, including copies of its reports and any measures taken or contemplated as a result.

3. Articles 2 and 27. The Committee notes that Parliament discussed the 28th and 29th reports, with recommendations, of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, during the course of 1994-95. It notes that the Government is considering the implementation of the suggestions and observations made by Parliament, and requests the Government to keep it informed of any measures taken as a result. In this connection, the Committee again requests the Government to provide information on an impact assessment of the Commissioner's activities on the protection and development of the tribal population of the country.

4. The Committee notes that the first report of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (NCSCST) has been submitted to the Government, and that it will also be considered by Parliament. It requests the Government to provide a copy of the National Commission's report with its next report, and recalls that it would appreciate receiving copies of the reports on a regular basis with the Government's reports.

5. Article 5. The Committee notes that the 73rd Amendment to the Constitution reserving seats, and offices of the Chairperson, for Scheduled Tribes in the Panchayat Raj bodies (local administration) came into effect on 24 April 1993. It notes also that the legislation of states and union territories where this is applicable has been amended accordingly. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on the implementation of this legislative provision, including the number of persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribes represented at the Panchayat level with its next report.

6. With reference to the Tribes Advisory Councils (TACs), the Committee notes that guidelines have been issued to the state governments to convene meetings of the Councils regularly, and to take into consideration any recommendations they may make. It requests the Government to provide information on the number of TACs which have been convened, and on any measures taken as a result of their recommendations, in particular with respect to the TACs which are already functioning in 11 states.

7. Article 6. The Committee notes the various programmes, including forest protection and conservation, plantation, farm forestry and agro-forestry schemes, to develop and expand the existing forest resources which are funded through centrally sponsored schemes and state plan allocations. It notes that as a result the country's forest area has increased by 582 sq. kms during 1987-91. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of any further developments in this regard, including information on the involvement of tribal people.

8. The Committee notes with interest the efforts of the Ministry of Environment and Forests to involve the tribal communities in the regeneration of forests in accordance to the directives of the National Forest Policy, 1988. In particular, it notes that an interministerial committee on issues related to tribal people and forests has recommended that the village communities and voluntary agencies be involved in any afforestation schemes, and that the Ministry of Environment and Forests has issued this as a guideline to the state governments. In this respect, the Committee notes with interest the centrally sponsored scheme entitled "Association of Scheduled Tribes and Rural Poor in the Regeneration of Degraded Forests on Usufruct Sharing Basis", launched during 1992-93 to improve the bio-mass resource base in degraded forests. It requests the Government to provide information on the implementation of the usufruct-sharing scheme, whether it is still in operation, and the number of tribal communities which have benefited from this programme. Please also continue to provide information on the measures taken or contemplated by the Ministry of Environment and Forests to increase the participation of the tribal population in afforestation, regeneration and conservation schemes and programmes. The Committee also notes information indicating that there is a draft law on the conservation of forests and eco-systems to replace the India Forest Act of 1927, and requests the Government to keep it informed of whether it is adopted.

9. The Committee notes that the Government has approved in principle a project for mining of iron ore within 404 hectares of forest land in Noamundi village, Singhbum district, Bihar, by the Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO) under the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It notes that final approval will be issued by the Government on the fulfilment of certain conditions. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of further developments in this regard, and to provide information on any measures taken or contemplated to mitigate the difficulties faced by the affected tribal population as a result of TISCO's activities, in particular its impact on their traditional economic activities. Please also provide information on the final outcome of the legal proceedings instituted by the State Forest Department against TISCO in the Ranchi High Court.

10. Article 9. The Committee notes the information in the report regarding the reports of bonded labourers in 12 states, many of which have a large number of tribal populations, and the information regarding the rehabilitation of bonded labourers, in particular the special component plan for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It refers to its comments under the Forced Labour Convention (No. 29) made at its February-March 1995 Session.

11. Articles 11 to 14. The Committee notes the information provided regarding the updating of land records and requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard.

12. The Committee notes that the survey for the prevention of alienation of tribal land by the Ministry of Rural Development has been carried out, and that as a result of the survey a number of recommendations were made, a copy of which was provided with the Government's report. It notes in particular the recommendation to formulate detailed rules and guidelines to prevent the alienation of tribal land within the framework of existing national legislation, and the recommendation to examine and modify any procedures of survey, settlement and land records which are detrimental to tribal interests. The Committee requests the Government to provide information on any measures taken or contemplated on the basis of these recommendations.

13. The Committee notes that there are presently 2,646 LAMPS (Large Sized Agricultural Multi-Purpose Cooperative Societies) providing credit, marketing and agricultural assistance to tribal communities, and requests further information on the work of the LAMPS including the number of tribal people who have benefited from these facilities. It recalls that 16 states/union territories had taken legal and administrative measures regulating money lending and providing debt relief to the tribal population, and requests the Government to provide further information on any measures taken or contemplated to expand these measures to other states with tribal populations, as the present report is silent on this matter.

14. With reference to the displacement of tribal people by the Sardar Sarovar project the Committee refers to its observation. It notes that some of the states have their own policies on resettlement and rehabilitation, and recalls that the Government was considering a National Policy on Rehabilitation. In this respect the Committee notes that the Ministry of Rural Development is engaged in a consultation process regarding a draft policy on rehabilitation, and that a draft law to provide the implementing framework is also envisaged. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this regard. In this connection, it notes that it has received information regarding a proposal to expand an army test-firing range in the Netrahat area, which it is said will displace thousands of tribal people in Bihar. The Committee asks the Government for its comments on this matter.

15. Article 15. The Committee notes the information in the report regarding the measures taken to implement the reservation of 27 per cent of posts in public service employment for "other backward classes", including the establishment of a national commission to examine applications for inclusion within this category. It requests the Government for any measures taken or contemplated to include those tribal communities who are not included in the Scheduled Lists within this category.

16. The Committee recalls its previous comments on the considerable problem of exploitation of tribal migrant workers by labour contractors, including non-payment of wages, deductions from wages on various grounds, inferior working conditions, and the sexual exploitation of women. In this context the Committee notes the information regarding the "Jawahar Rozgar Yojana" programme, in particular the 1993-94 innovative scheme aimed at preventing migration of labour and enhancing women's employment. It requests the Government to keep it informed of measures taken or contemplated to overcome this problem, and for information on the practical implementation of this programme, including how many persons have been involved in this project.

17. Article 20. The Committee notes the information regarding the "Health for All by the Year 2000" programme provided with the report. It requests the Government to keep it informed of further progress in this field.

18. With reference to the cases brought in various high courts against the decision to replace male health guides by female workers, the Committee notes that male health guides continue to serve on a voluntary basis in some states/union territories. Noting that the final decision of the court case remains pending, the Committee requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the outcome of the question.

19. The Committee notes that 87.40 per cent of the Scheduled Tribes have been provided with potable drinking-water and requests the Government to continue providing information in this respect in future reports, including measures to provide safe drinking-water to tribal communities not included in the list of Scheduled Tribes.

20. Articles 21 to 24. The Committee notes the information regarding the educational facilities provided to tribal communities, including women and children. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on the progress achieved in promoting literacy among the tribal people.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 83rd ILC session (1996)

1. The Committee notes that a Five-Member Group has been appointed to continue to review discussions initiated in June 1993 on the question of the Sardar Sarovar Dam and Power Project, concerning which the Conference Committee requested the Government to take urgent measures to bring its resettlement and rehabilitation policies for tribal people into line with the Convention. It requests the Government to provide information on the work of the Five-Member Group with its next report, including a copy of any findings it may have adopted. In this connection it also notes that the independent commission which was to have been appointed in 1993 has not been established.

2. Sardar Sarovar. The Committee notes the detailed information in the report regarding the continuing efforts of the Government to rehabilitate and resettle the displaced tribal people in Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. It notes also that the relevant state governments have finalized their policies for rehabilitation and resettlement - which according to the Government are more generous than the provisions adopted by the Narmada Water Dispute Tribunal (NWDT) - and that there is a subgroup on resettlement and rehabilitation of the Narmada Control Authority. The Committee notes further that as of March 1994, a large number of affected families had been resettled, with allocations of agricultural and homestead land, but that many families remain to be resettled and rehabilitated, including 34 "Project Affected People" who do not wish to be moved from their original homes. It requests the Government to keep it informed of any further developments in the resettlement and rehabilitation project, including the amount of compensation paid to the affected families, and any measures taken or contemplated to assist the affected families in adjusting to their new habitat. Please also provide information on the rehabilitation and resettlement policies of the state governments, and on the work of the subgroup on resettlement and rehabilitation in the ongoing process of resettlement and rehabilitation.

3. The Committee recalls its earlier comments regarding the legal concept of "traditional occupation" which included the kinds of land use for which no compensation was being given, and the Government's recognition of the traditional occupation of land. Noting from the information provided that each resettled family has been allotted between 2 and 8 hectares of irrigated land, in addition to financial aid for irrigation purposes, the Committee requests information on the manner in which the allocation of resettlement land takes into account the amount of land previously occupied by the displaced tribal population, including any measures taken or envisaged to compensate for different kinds of land use.

4. Technical cooperation for tribal populations. The Committee notes that the ILO Inter-Regional Programme to Support Self-Reliance of Indigenous and Tribal Communities through Cooperatives and other Self-Help Organizations (INDISCO), with funding from the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), has initiated a number of employment and income-generating pilot projects for the benefit of indigenous and tribal communities in the countries in which it works and that these projects are designed in close cooperation with the concerned communities. The INDISCO projects aim to protect their traditional values and culture through the promotion of grass-roots cooperatives and other self-help organizations. The Committee notes with interest the INDISCO pilot project involving the tribal women of Durgapur village in Orissa. It notes also that other technical cooperation projects have been undertaken in India by the ILO for the benefit of indigenous and tribal communities. The Committee hopes the Government will continue to work together with the ILO in this manner, and that it will contact the Office for any further assistance in order to meet more fully the needs of its indigenous and tribal population as required under the Convention.

5. The Committee is addressing a request directly to the Government on other points.

[The Government is asked to report in detail in 1996.]

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1995, published 82nd ILC session (1995)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It must therefore repeat its previous observation which read as follows:

The Committee notes the Government's report for the period ending 30 June 1992, which was received in June 1993, as well as the information provided to the Conference Committee in 1993. It notes the detailed discussions on the question of the Sardar Sarovar Dam and Power Project in the 1993 Conference Committee, during which the Conference Committee requested the Government to take urgent measures to bring its resettlement and rehabilitation policies for tribal people into line with the Convention. Sardar Sarovar. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report regarding this project. It recalls that this concerns the construction of a large hydroelectric dam and the consequent removal from their lands of some 100,000 people, including some 60,000 tribal people. The project was, until recently, being funded by the World Bank. The Committee also notes the statement that "in order to avoid further vitiation of the atmosphere, the Government of India decided to disengage from the World Bank and not to seek any further disbursement out of the outstanding portion of the credit/loan for the Sardar Sarovar project", and that it will complete construction work on its own. It notes further that in October 1992 the World Bank had agreed to continue support for the project contingent on the fulfilment of key criteria involving improvements in policies, organization, management, and the implementation of resettlement and rehabilitation programmes; tighter linkage between progress on resettlement and rehabilitation and dam construction; and strengthened environmental planning and monitoring of potential environmental impacts. The World Bank has indicated in a communiqué that many of the steps called for had been undertaken before the Government's decision, which the Government has also affirmed. The Committee notes the Government's continuing efforts to rehabilitate and resettle the displaced tribal people, and that an independent commission was appointed in August 1993 to review the project. It notes the detailed statistical information in the report, also communicated to the Conference Committee, on the situation as at July 1992, according to which some persons had been resettled and certain lands had at that point been acquired and designated for resettlement purposes. The Government has also communicated detailed information on spending on rehabilitation. While this indicates that attention is being paid to the resettlement of displaced tribal communities, it is not clear from that information what proportion of displaced families have now been resettled, how many remain to be resettled, and under what conditions. The Committee hopes that the resettlement and rehabilitation measures implemented, or to be implemented in further stages of planned construction, will be done in a manner which complies with the requirements of the Convention. Please continue to supply information on the progress achieved, including future plans for resettlement of the "oustees". Please also include information on any reports the independent commission may have made. The Committee recalls its previous observation concerning the recognition of rights to land which is "traditionally occupied" by tribal populations (Article 11 of the Convention). In referring to the legal position of the tribal population who have long occupied land to which the Government has asserted title, the Committee concluded that the term "traditional occupation" would appear to include the kinds of land use for which no compensation was being given. In its latest report, the Government states that the rights of the traditional occupation of land have been fully acknowledged, but it has also indicated that standard amounts of land are being allocated to relocated tribals. The Committee hopes that the allocation of resettlement land will be based on that previously occupied by the displaced tribals, and requests the Government to continue to provide information in this regard. Technical cooperation for tribal populations. The Committee notes with interest the establishment of the ILO's Inter-Regional Programme to Support Self-Reliance of Indigenous and Tribal Communities through Cooperatives and other Self-Help Organizations (INDISCO), with funding from the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA). This programme, which operates in India and in the Philippines, is intended to develop pilot projects aimed at creating employment and income opportunities in close cooperation with the indigenous and tribal communities concerned. The Committee welcomes this initiative and notes also that other technical cooperation in India has been undertaken by the ILO for the benefit of tribal communities. It hopes that the Government will contact the Office for any further assistance that might be helpful in meeting the requirements of the Convention in relation to the comments the Committee has made.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

1. The Committee notes that the Government's report, for the period ending 30 June 1992, was submitted in June 1993. It hopes that in future the Government will be able to send its reports by the date due so that the Committee may examine them in a timely fashion.

2. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee notes from the Government's report that, during 1990-91, a few tribal groups in Jammu and Kashmir were Scheduled. The Committee continues to express its concern regarding the approximately 6 million tribal people excluded from the Scheduled Lists who might consequently be barred from participating in development programmes specifically designed for tribal people. Please provide further information on the inclusion or deletion of other tribal populations from the lists.

3. Articles 2 and 27. The Committee notes from the Government's report that reports of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, with recommendations, were submitted for consideration to Parliament. Please provide detailed information in the next report on the Commissioner's recommendations and any effect given to them, including, as requested earlier, an impact assessment of the Commissioner's activities on the protection and development of the tribal population of the country.

4. The Committee also notes that the Office of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes has been abolished and that it has been replaced by the Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as of 12 March 1992. The Committee would appreciate the Government's regularly forwarding copies of the reports of the Commission with its future reports.

5. Article 5. The Committee notes that an Act was passed by the Lok Sobha (Parliament) in December 1992 reserving seats for Scheduled Tribes in Panchayat Raj bodies (local administration). Please provide further information on its implementation.

6. Noting that Tribes Advisory Councils are functioning in 11 states and that the Councils are required to meet at least twice a year, please provide further information on the workings of the Councils including an assessment of the extent to which their recommendations are taken into account by governmental authorities.

7. Article 6. The Committee recalls that it has previously expressed concern over continued deforestation and its effects on tribal people whose economic activity is based on the forests. It repeats its request to the Government for information on the deforestation or any efforts undertaken in this regard by the newly-created Ministry of the Environment.

8. It also notes from the report that various afforestation programmes have been undertaken by state governments, particularly on degraded forest land. The Committee notes further that the National Forest Policy, 1988, recognizes the symbiotic relationship between the tribals and the forests and recommends that tribal people be closely associated in the protection, regeneration and development of forests. Please provide information on the measures taken or envisaged to implement this recommendation, including any legislation that may have been adopted.

9. The Committee recalls its previous comment on the views expressed in the Report of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, 1987-89 (especially pages 96 to 107) concerning what the Commissioner terms the "criminalization" of tribal people. He stated that the system of reservation of forests for exclusive government use denies tribal people their traditional rights to the use of forest resources, and makes the continuation of their traditional practices a criminal activity; and that the increase in deforestation is making this situation worse. The Committee would be grateful for the Government's comments in this connection, and refers it also to the comments made below under Articles 11 to 14.

10. The Committee would be grateful if the Government would provide information on the mining activities of the Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO) in the village of Noamundi, Singhbhum District, Bihar, in particular as concerns the compatibility of these activities with the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 as amended in 1988, which prohibits the utilization of forest land for non-forestry purposes without prior authorization from the Government. The Committee also notes that the State Forest Department instituted proceedings against TISCO in the Ranchi High Court. The Committee requests the Government to provide further information on this matter in the next report, including any judicial decisions which may have been issued.

11. Article 9. The Committee notes the information communicated on efforts for the abolition of bonded labour, which corresponds to the information received under the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29). The Committee refers to its observation of 1993 under that Convention, noting that a very high proportion of bonded labourers are tribals, and the detailed discussions on this question during the 1993 Conference Committee. The Committee refers the Government to the comments it is making under Convention No. 29.

12. Articles 11 to 14. The Committee recalls its previous comment regretting that the Government had provided no further information on progress in updating land records for tribals, and again requests it to provide such information in its next report.

13. The Committee notes the Government's statement that the Group of Ministers on Tribal Unrest has directed the Ministry of Rural Development to carry out a survey in 12 states, including Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Orissa and Tripura to verify the extent of alienation of tribal land, and the adequacy of the existing legal provisions and administrative machinery, and to make recommendations on how to check further alienation. The report also states that results have been received from five states. Please indicate in the next report the results of the survey, any recommendations made to prevent further alienation of tribal lands, and the measures contemplated for the effective implementation of existing and future legal and administrative standards. Please also include information on any measures taken or contemplated for the restoration of tribal lands.

14. The Committee notes the Government's statement that 16 states/union territories have taken legal and administrative measures regulating money lending and providing immediate debt relief to the tribal population, and that cooperative societies and commercial banks provide credit facilities to the tribals. Please provide information on the number of tribal people who have benefited from these measures, and any steps taken or envisaged to expand such facilities to other states with tribal populations.

15. With reference to the displacement of tribal people, the Committee notes the Government's statement that it has directed particular attention to the rehabilitation of displaced tribals and has provided them with alternative residential sites, land for cultivation, financial assistance and employment. The Committee also notes that the Government is considering a National Policy on Rehabilitation. The Committee refers to its observation as concerns tribal populations displaced by the Sardar Sarovar project, and requests the Government to provide information in its next report on the situation in this connection of other tribal populations displaced by development projects.

16. Article 15. The Committee recalls the recent Government decision that some "backward communities" not included in the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are eligible for reserved employment. In this connection, the Committee notes with interest the Government's announcement on 8 September 1993 to implement the Supreme Court judgement in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 930 of 1990) upholding the Mandal Commission recommendation to reserve 27 per cent of public sector employment for the "other backward classes", with immediate effect. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of further developments in the implementation of this decision, as relates to tribal communities not included in the lists of Scheduled Tribes, under this Convention and under the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111).

17. The Committee draws the attention of the Government to its previous reference to the Report of the Working Group on Development and Welfare which states that there is a considerable problem of exploitation of tribal migrant workers by labour contractors, including the non-payment of minimum wages, deductions from wages on various grounds, inferior working conditions, and the sexual exploitation of women. The Committee had noted from the Government's earlier report that although there is existing central government legislation on the subject, this has not been implemented by state governments, and there are loopholes in the enforcement of this legislation. Noting the Government's statement in its latest report that the migration of tribal workers would be reduced substantively by increasing access to employment opportunities close by, and that the "Jawahar Rozgar Yojana" programme is an effort in this direction, the Committee repeats its previous request for detailed information on this problem in the next report, including further measures taken or contemplated to overcome it. The Committee also refers to the comment in its observation concerning technical cooperation from the ILO.

18. Article 20. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government regarding primary health-care facilities for the tribal population. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of further progress in achieving the goal of "Health for All by the Year 2000".

19. The Committee notes the information providing the rationale for the decision to replace male village health guides by female workers which was a direct result of difficulties in communication with the primary beneficiaries, i.e. women in the reproductive age group. The Committee notes also that this decision was challenged by a number of organizations in various High Courts, and that the High Courts issued stay orders whereby male guides continue to serve. The Committee requests the Government to provide information in the next report on the final outcome of the question.

20. The Committee notes the information supplied by the Government on the progress of the Centrally Sponsored Accelerated Rural Water Supply Programme, among others, to provide safe drinking water to tribal areas. Noting that many tribal areas lack potable water facilities, the Committee requests the Government to continue providing information on this matter in future reports.

21. Articles 21 to 24. The Committee notes the information in the report on the measures taken to provide tribal people with opportunities for access to educational facilities. It requests the Government to continue to provide information on the progress achieved, including promoting literacy among tribal girls.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1994, published 81st ILC session (1994)

The Committee notes the Government's report for the period ending 30 June 1992, which was received in June 1993, as well as the information provided to the Conference Committee in 1993.

It notes the detailed discussions on the question of the Sardar Sarovar Dam and Power Project in the 1993 Conference Committee, during which the Conference Committee requested the Government to take urgent measures to bring its resettlement and rehabilitation policies for tribal people into line with the Convention.

Sardar Sarovar. The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report regarding this project. It recalls that this concerns the construction of a large hydroelectric dam and the consequent removal from their lands of some 100,000 people, including some 60,000 tribal people. The project was, until recently, being funded by the World Bank. The Committee also notes the statement that "in order to avoid further vitiation of the atmosphere, the Government of India decided to disengage from the World Bank and not to seek any further disbursement out of the outstanding portion of the credit/loan for the Sardar Sarovar project", and that it will complete construction work on its own. It notes further that in October 1992 the World Bank had agreed to continue support for the project contingent on the fulfilment of key criteria involving improvements in policies, organization, management, and the implementation of resettlement and rehabilitation programmes; tighter linkage between progress on resettlement and rehabilitation and dam construction; and strengthened environmental planning and monitoring of potential environmental impacts. The World Bank has indicated in a communiqué that many of the steps called for had been undertaken before the Government's decision, which the Government has also affirmed.

The Committee notes the Government's continuing efforts to rehabilitate and resettle the displaced tribal people, and that an independent commission was appointed in August 1993 to review the project. It notes the detailed statistical information in the report, also communicated to the Conference Committee, on the situation as at July 1992, according to which some persons had been resettled and certain lands had at that point been acquired and designated for resettlement purposes. The Government has also communicated detailed information on spending on rehabilitation. While this indicates that attention is being paid to the resettlement of displaced tribal communities, it is not clear from that information what proportion of displaced families have now been resettled, how many remain to be resettled, and under what conditions. The Committee hopes that the resettlement and rehabilitation measures implemented, or to be implemented in further stages of planned construction, will be done in a manner which complies with the requirements of the Convention. Please continue to supply information on the progress achieved, including future plans for resettlement of the "oustees". Please also include information on any reports the independent commission may have made.

The Committee recalls its previous observation concerning the recognition of rights to land which is "traditionally occupied" by tribal populations (Article 11 of the Convention). In referring to the legal position of the tribal population who have long occupied land to which the Government has asserted title, the Committee concluded that the term "traditional occupation" would appear to include the kinds of land use for which no compensation was being given. In its latest report, the Government states that the rights of the traditional occupation of land have been fully acknowledged, but it has also indicated that standard amounts of land are being allocated to relocated tribals. The Committee hopes that the allocation of resettlement land will be based on that previously occupied by the displaced tribals, and requests the Government to continue to provide information in this regard.

Technical cooperation for tribal populations. The Committee notes with interest the establishment of the ILO's Inter-Regional Programme to Support Self-Reliance of Indigenous and Tribal Communities through Cooperatives and other Self-Help Organizations (INDISCO), with funding from the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA). This programme, which operates in India and in the Philippines, is intended to develop pilot projects aimed at creating employment and income opportunities in close cooperation with the indigenous and tribal communities concerned. The Committee welcomes this initiative and notes also that other technical cooperation in India has been undertaken by the ILO for the benefit of tribal communities. It hopes that the Government will contact the Office for any further assistance that might be helpful in meeting the requirements of the Convention in relation to the comments the Committee has made.

[The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1996.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It hopes that a report will be supplied for examination by the Committee at its next session and that it will contain full information on the matters raised in its previous direct request, which read as follows:

1. The Committee had indicated previously that the Government's report on this Convention had arrived too late to be taken into consideration at the previous session, and that it hoped the Government would be able in the future to send them in time to allow the Committee to examine them in a timely fashion. The Government has indicated that some delay was unavoidable due to the need to gather the information from many sources, but that the suggestion was noted. The Committee notes that the report this year has again arrived only very shortly before its session, and that it therefore again renders it difficult to consider the information it contains while it is still fresh. It hopes the Government will be able in future to furnish reports by 15 October of the year in which they are due.

2. The Committee noted in its previous direct request that the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes had stated that none of the recommendations made in the five reports prior to his 1982-83 report had been accepted. It notes the Government's statement in its report that the Commissioner's recommendations are reviewed regularly by a number of different bodies, at both the Central and State government levels, and that their implementation by the States and Union Territories is a continuing process. The Committee would be grateful for an assessment of the impact that the Commissioner's activities have had on the protection and development of the tribal population of the country, and for any actions it may be considering to increase this impact.

3. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee noted in its previous comments that some 6 million of the 51 million tribal people in the country were not included in the list of tribes specified in the special legislation on the subject, and expressed the concern that they might therefore be excluded from development programmes designed specifically for the needs of tribal people. At the same time it noted the Government's statement that the revision of the list was under active consideration. The Committee notes the statement in the most recent report that the list has been revised twice in the last decade, most recently in 1989. It also notes with interest that a number of States provide benefits, such as reserving services and places in educational institutions, to both Scheduled Tribes and to other "backward communities" (which appears to cover tribal communities not included in the list). It notes further a recent Government decision that a number of backward communities not included in the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes will be eligible for reserved employment, and that further action is under consideration. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of future developments.

4. Articles 2 and 27. The Committee notes the 1990 revision of the Constitution rationalizing the functioning of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes so that the Work of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and that of the Commission do not overlap. It also notes the description of the Commission's functions, which include dealing with complaints, participating in planning and evaluating the progress of the development of tribals, and others. The Committee notes that the Commission is to present an annual report to the President on its functioning. It would therefore be glad if the Government would forward copies of these reports with its future reports. It also requests the Government to describe the relationship between the work of the Commission and that of the Commissioner. Finally, while the Committee has received a copy of the 1988-89 Commissioner's report, it has seen no others for several years; and the copy of the report it examined was not provided with the Government's report on the Convention. It would therefore be grateful if the Government would regularly communicate the reports of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

5. Article 5. The Committee notes that a proposal to amend the Constitution to ensure reservation of seats for tribal populations in the Panchayati Raj (legislatures) of the States, is under consideration. Please indicate the results of these deliberations.

6. The Committee notes that Tribes Advisory Councils are functioning in nine States, and that in Tamil Nadu State notification of the Council's establishment is expected shortly. It also notes the establishment of autonomous District Councils in 2 other States. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the work of these Councils in future reports.

7. Article 6. The Committee notes with interest the Report of the Working Group on Development and Welfare of Scheduled Tribes during Eighth Five-Year Plan, 1990-95. It regrets, however, that neither the report nor the Plan was referred to in the Government's report, and that it received the report from other sources.

8. In its previous request the Committee repeated the concerns it had expressed earlier about the effect of deforestation on tribal populations who rely on the forests for their living, and requested the Government to continue providing information in this connection. The Government has replied in its report that with the creation of a separate Ministry of the Environment, these efforts are being more concerted attention, but has provided no information on the progress of deforestation or on any efforts that may have been undertaken.

9. The Committee notes in this connection the views expressed in the Report of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, 1987-89 (especially pp. 96 to 107) concerning what the Commissioner terms the "criminalization" of tribal people. He states that the system of reservation of the forests for exclusive Government use denies tribal people their traditional rights to the use of forest resources, and makes the continuation of their traditional practices a criminal activity; and that the increase in deforestation is making this situation worse. The Committee would be glad of the Government's comments in this connection, and refers it also to the comments made below under Articles 11 to 14.

10. Article 9. The Committee previously requested detailed information on the progress achieved towards the abolition of bonded labour. The Government has replied that "All the issues are kept under review and legislative/administrative steps are evolved as required." The Committee requests the Government to supply information in the next report on what steps are being taken, what results achieved and how serious the problem remains.

11. The Committee notes in this connection the long discussion of this subject in the Report of the Commissioner referred to above, as well as in the Report of the Working Group on Development and Welfare to which reference has also been made above. Both reports note the continued existence of large numbers of tribal bonded labourers, in particular in plantations and agriculture and in mines, quarries and brick kilns. The Committee notes also the recommendation made in both reports that punishment of the "employers" involved be instituted as a deterrent. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information in this connection, under the present Convention and under the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), as it has requested previously.

12. Article 10. The Committee notes with interest the information provided on legal aid to the poor, in particular tribal people, and requests the Government to continue to provide such information in future reports.

13. Articles 11 to 14. The Committee regrets that the Government has provided no further information on progress in updating land records, as requested previously, and requests it to provide such information in its next report.

14. On the question of alienation and restoration of tribal lands, the Government has furnished some information on the existence of State legislation on the subject, in reply to the previous request. It has, however, provided no information on the practical side of the problem. This information may, however, be found in the Report of the Working Group on Development and Welfare to which reference has been made above (see especially Chapter 7 and Annex XXIV), as well as in the Report of the Commissioner for 1987-89 (Chapter 5). It appears from this information that all the concerned States except Tamil Nadu have laws to protect tribals from land alienation, and that Tamil Nadu had prepared draft legislation on the subject. It also appears, however, that the amount of land restored to tribals remains relatively small, and both reports refer to serious difficulties in the implementation of the legislation on the subject. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide detailed information in its next report on the extent of the problem, the efforts made to overcome it at both the State and Central Government levels, and the results achieved.

15. As the Government has provided no information in reply to the Committee's previous request concerning measures for debt relief, except to say that efforts are continuing, the Committee would be grateful if this information were included in the next report.

16. As concerns displacement of tribal people, the Committee refers to its observation. It regrets that the Government has not provided the information previously requested on this subject, and requests it to do so.

17. Article 15. The Committee notes from the Report of the Working Group on Development and Welfare, pages 38 and 39, that there is a considerable problem of exploitation of tribal migrant workers in the country. The report states that these migrant workers are subject to exploitation by labour contractors, that minimum wages are not paid and that deductions are made from wages on various grounds, that working conditions are far inferior to legal norms, and that sexual exploitation of women has been reported. The report states also that although there is Central Government legislation on the subject, some States have yet to adopt rules for the implementation of this legislation, and that there are loopholes in the enforcement of the legislation. The Committee notes also the recommendations for action made in the Report of the Working Group on Development and Welfare. It requests the Government to provide detailed information on this problem in its next report, and to indicate what measures have been taken or are contemplated to overcome it.

18. Article 20. The Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government on primary health care for tribal people. In addition, it notes from the Report of the Working Group on Development and Welfare, page 57, that "the major constraint to realization of the goal of 'Health for All' in (tribal sub-plan) areas is the inadequacy of the network of health institutions, lack of medical/paramedical staff and lack of medicines." The Committee requests the Government to continue to furnish information on the progress made in these connections.

19. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that orders were issued in 1986 under which only female Health Guides were to retrained, paid and issued medicines, and stated that this action might be incompatible with the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) which India has also ratified. As no information was provided in this connection, the Committee again requests the Government to indicate the circumstances in which this decision was taken, and to provide further information on developments in the question.

20. The Committee notes the information in the report on the progress of the programme for providing safe drinking water to tribal areas, and requests the Government to continue to provide such information in its future reports.

21. Articles 21 to 24. The Committee notes the information provided in the report on the problems encountered in providing educational facilities for tribal people, and on the measures taken in this connection. It hopes that the Government will be able to indicate in the next report what progress has been made, and that it will continue to provide information on this subject.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1993, published 80th ILC session (1993)

The Committee notes that the Government's report has not been received. It recalls the detailed discussion whch took place on this question in the Conference Committee in 1991, during which the Government provided considerable information, and the Conference Committee urged the Government to supply a detailed report as requested by the Committee of Experts.

The Committee notes also the developments which have taken place since the application of the Convention by India was last considered. It welcomes the discussions between the Office and the Government concerning the possibility of technical cooperation to benefit the tribal people of the country, which should also improve the application of the Convention, and asks to be kept informed of further developments.

It also notes, however, the publication in early 1992 of Sardar Sarovar: Report of the independent review, a report commissioned by the World Bank to examine the execution of the Sardar Sarovar dam and power project to which the Committee has referred on many occasions. The independent review has concluded that there have been many problems in the planning and execution of the project, with effects particularly on the people displaced by it, many of which coincide with the concerns which have been expressed by the Committee in recent years. The independent review cites Convention No. 107 extensively as a standard which has been ratified by India and which has not been respected. The Committee therefore hopes that the Government will provide information in its report on the effect given to the findings and recommendations in this report, as well as on the questions raised in its previous comments, which read as follows:

1. The Committee notes the discussion of the application of this Convention in the Conference Committee in 1990, and the information provided by the Government on that occasion concerning the questions raised in the Committee's previous observation. A brief further report on this question was also received during the week the Committee's session opened, and a report on the issues raised in the request addressed directly to the Government in 1990 was also received only very shortly before the Committee's session began.

2. The Committee has referred in comments addressed directly to the Government to a number of important questions affecting the 51 million tribal people in the country. It notes in that request that on a number of issues the Government has not provided information on the situation in practice, but has restricted itself to a reference to earlier reports. It hopes that in its next report the Government will make every effort to provide detailed information, and that it will submit a report in time for the Committee to examine it fully before its session begins.

3. The Sardar Sarovar Dam and Power Project. The Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee have had a dialogue about this subject for several years. The situation at issue is the construction of a large hydroelectric dam project, and the consequent removal from their lands of some 100,000 people, including some 60,000 tribals. The project is being financed in part by the World Bank. The Committee has on several occasions examined information received from the International Federation of Plantation, Agricultural and Allied Workers (IFPAAW), forwarding studies carried out on the subject by the non-governmental organization Survival International. This information has alleged that the displacement of these tribal people is not in conformity with the Convention - in particular its Article 12 - and that the situation will become worse in the future with the planned displacement of up to 1 million more people at future stages of construction.

4. A further communication from the IFPAAW and Survival International was forwarded to the Government on 17 December 1990. In its reply received on 4 March 1991, the Government referred to the information it provided to the Conference Committee in 1990, and provided some additional information. Some additional information was also received from the World Bank, to whom the IFPAAW communication had also been sent.

5. The communication from the IFPAAW states that despite the recommendations made by the Committee of Experts in 1990, the Government has not taken any positive action to guarantee appropriate compensation for displaced persons in accordance with Article 12 of the Convention. It states also that project authorities and Government officials have increasingly been resorting to force and violence in this connection. It notes that the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs decided during 1990 that it would discontinue financing of the project, because the resettlement plans for those being displaced remain inadequate. The World Bank had renewed funding until July 1991 on the finding that progress on the conditions laid down was satisfactory, and this decision was said to be a political one taken despite violations of conditions and disregard for deadlines set. The IFPAAW also alleged that the Government has not yet been able to identify sufficient and adequate resettlement land, especially for people wanting to stay in their own State of Madhya Pradesh, and that people are being moved to inadequate resettlement sites in Gujarat. Finally, the IFPAAW states that the villages that have been resettled face acute health problems and land and water shortages.

6. A communication from the World Bank in reply to the IFPAAW communication stated that the decision to extend financing was made only after an exhaustive investigation of the project performance by the Bank staff, who visited the project site and concluded that overall implementation continued to be satisfactory. It also stated that the decision was made on technical, not political, grounds. The Bank was working with the Government and project authorities to help ensure that resettlement and rehabilitation policies and programmes are properly carried out.

7. The Government stated in its communication received on 4 March 1991 that the Union Cabinet has approved the release of forest land for rehabilitation and resettlement of tribals displaced in Maharastra, subject to compensatory afforestation by the State Government, and that the Narmada Control Authority is taking steps to prepare an action plan for this purpose.

8. In the information provided to the Conference Committee the Government stated that the allegations made by the IFPAAW were too general. It also provided a considerable amount of information on the number of families in each of the three States affected and the amount of land required for their resettlement.

9. The continuing efforts being made in this connection are evident from the information received. It is less evident, however, that these efforts have yet been successful. The Committee understands from the information provided that there is still a gap between the resettlement needs of the tribal populations being displaced and the amount of land available. It has no conclusive information on whether these lands are appropriate to the needs of these tribal populations, and whether the populations are fully compensated for the damages incurred by their displacement, but notes that non-governmental organizations both inside the country and outside have expressed very serious reservations in this regard. It hopes that information will continue to be provided on the progress achieved. It also again expresses concern, in view of the problems involved in resettling these "oustees", over the possibility of resettling some hundreds of thousands of others in future years as further stages of planned construction are implemented, in a manner which complies with the Convention's requirements.

10. The Committee recalls that the Convention recognizes rights to land which is "traditionally occupied" by tribal populations (Article 11), and that the meaning of this term in the present context has been the subject of discussion for some time. The IFPAAW has alleged that the Government is not fully compensating tribals who have traditionally occupied land to which the Government has title, especially when those tribals practice various forms of shared use, gathering of forest products and herding on these lands instead of settled cultivation. The Government has stated that the concept of traditional occupation does not apply to "encroachment" on government-owned lands, and particularly to recent encroachment; but that it has provided for compensation for displaced tribals even in cases where they have no clear traditional rights. The Committee has noted that the term "traditional occupation" is imprecise, but that the kinds of land use for which no compensation is given would appear to fall within the meaning of the term. However, the information before the Committee is not sufficiently clear to enable it to decide that traditional occupation has - or has not - been established in particular cases. In the information provided to the Conference Committee, the Government again raised the question, particularly in relation to the length of time lands would have to be occupied before the occupation could be considered traditional, but provided no additional information in this respect. The Committee therefore sees no reason to change its previous conclusions. It refers, however, to the concerns expressed in the Report of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (1987-89), over the denial of land rights to tribals who have long occupied land to which the Government has asserted title; these concerns correspond to the position expressed by Survival International and the IFPAAW, and to the concerns expressed by the Committee.

11. As concerns the health of the tribal populations that have been resettled, the Committee noted previously that steps were being taken to provide health care to displaced tribals in Gujarat, and the Committee requested information on steps taken in Madhya Pradesh and Maharastra, the other two States affected. As the Government has provided no additional information in this connection, the Committee requests it to do so. It would also appreciate receiving information on the environmental concerns raised previously.

The Committee hopes that the Government will make every effort to take the necessary action in the very near future.

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

1. The Committee had indicated previously that the Government's report on this Convention had arrived too late to be taken into consideration at the previous session, and that it hoped the Government would be able in the future to send them in time to allow the Committee to examine them in a timely fashion. The Government has indicated that some delay was unavoidable due to the need to gather the information from many sources, but that the suggestion was noted. The Committee notes that the report this year has again arrived only very shortly before its session, and that it therefore again renders it difficult to consider the information it contains while it is still fresh. It hopes the Government will be able in future to furnish reports by 15 October of the year in which they are due.

2. The Committee noted in its previous direct request that the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes had stated that none of the recommendations made in the five reports prior to his 1982-83 report had been accepted. It notes the Government's statement in its report that the Commissioner's recommendations are reviewed regularly by a number of different bodies, at both the Central and State government levels, and that their implementation by the States and Union Territories is a continuing process. The Committee would be grateful for an assessment of the impact that the Commissioner's activities have had on the protection and development of the tribal population of the country, and for any actions it may be considering to increase this impact.

3. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee noted in its previous comments that some 6 million of the 51 million tribal people in the country were not included in the list of tribes specified in the special legislation on the subject, and expressed the concern that they might therefore be excluded from development programmes designed specifically for the needs of tribal people. At the same time it noted the Government's statement that the revision of the list was under active consideration. The Committee notes the statement in the most recent report that the list has been revised twice in the last decade, most recently in 1989. It also notes with interest that a number of States provide benefits, such as reserving services and places in educational institutions, to both Scheduled Tribes and to other "backward communities" (which appears to cover tribal communities not included in the list). It notes further a recent Government decision that a number of backward communities not included in the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes will be eligible for reserved employment, and that further action is under consideration. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of future developments.

4. Articles 2 and 27. The Committee notes the 1990 revision of the Constitution rationalising the functioning of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes so that the Work of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and that of the Commission do not overlap. It also notes the description of the Commission's functions, which include dealing with complaints, participating in planning and evaluating the progress of the development of tribals, and others. The Committee notes that the Commission is to present an annual report to the President on its functioning. It would therefore be glad if the Government would forward copies of these reports with its future reports. It also requests the Government to describe the relationship between the work of the Commission and that of the Commissioner. Finally, while the Committee has received a copy of the 1988-89 Commissioner's report, it has seen no others for several years; and the copy of the report it examined was not provided with the Government's report on the Convention. It would therefore be grateful if the Government would regularly communicate the reports of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

5. Article 5. The Committee notes that a proposal to amend the Constitution to ensure reservation of seats for tribal populations in the Panchayati Raj (legislatures) of the States, is under consideration. Please indicate the results of these deliberations.

6. The Committee notes that Tribes Advisory Councils are functioning in nine States, and that in Tamil Nadu State notification of the Council's establishment is expected shortly. It also notes the establishment of autonomous District Councils in 2 other States. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the work of these Councils in future reports.

7. Article 6. The Committee notes with interest the Report of the Working Group on Development and Welfare of Scheduled Tribes during Eighth Five-Year Plan, 1990-95. It regrets, however, that neither the report nor the Plan was referred to in the Government's report, and that it received the report from other sources.

8. In its previous request the Committee repeated the concerns it had expressed earlier about the effect of deforestation on tribal populations who rely on the forests for their living, and requested the Government to continue providing information in this connection. The Government has replied in its report that with the creation of a separate Ministry of the Environment, these efforts are being more concerted attention, but has provided no information on the progress of deforestation or on any efforts that may have been undertaken.

9. The Committee notes in this connection the views expressed in the Report of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, 1987-89 (especially pp. 96 to 107) concerning what the Commissioner terms the "criminalisation" of tribal people. He states that the system of reservation of the forests for exclusive Government use denies tribal people their traditional rights to the use of forest resources, and makes the continuation of their traditional practices a criminal activity; and that the increase in deforestation is making this situation worse. The Committee would be glad of the Government's comments in this connection, and refers it also to the comments made below under Articles 11 to 14.

10. Article 9. The Committee previously requested detailed information on the progress achieved towards the abolition of bonded labour. The Government has replied that "All the issues are kept under review and legislative/administrative steps are evolved as required." The Committee requests the Government to supply information in the next report on what steps are being taken, what results achieved and how serious the problem remains.

11. The Committee notes in this connection the long discussion of this subject in the Report of the Commissioner referred to above, as well as in the Report of the Working Group on Development and Welfare to which reference has also been made above. Both reports note the continued existence of large numbers of tribal bonded labourers, in particular in plantations and agriculture and in mines, quarries and brick kilns. The Committee notes also the recommendation made in both reports that punishment of the "employers" involved be instituted as a deterrent. The Committee requests the Government to provide detailed information in this connection, under the present Convention and under the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29), as it has requested previously.

12. Article 10. The Committee notes with interest the information provided on legal aid to the poor, in particular tribal people, and requests the Government to continue to provide such information in future reports.

13. Articles 11 to 14. The Committee regrets that the Government has provided no further information on progress in updating land records, as requested previously, and requests it to provide such information in its next report.

14. On the question of alienation and restoration of tribal lands, the Government has furnished some information on the existence of State legislation on the subject, in reply to the previous request. It has, however, provided no information on the practical side of the problem. This information may, however, be found in the Report of the Working Group on Development and Welfare to which reference has been made above (see especially Chapter 7 and Annex XXIV), as well as in the Report of the Commissioner for 1987-89 (Chapter 5). It appears from this information that all the concerned States except Tamil Nadu have laws to protect tribals from land alienation, and that Tamil Nadu had prepared draft legislation on the subject. It also appears, however, that the amount of land restored to tribals remains relatively small, and both reports refer to serious difficulties in the implementation of the legislation on the subject. The Committee therefore requests the Government to provide detailed information in its next report on the extent of the problem, the efforts made to overcome it at both the State and Central Government levels, and the results achieved.

15. As the Government has provided no information in reply to the Committee's previous request concerning measures for debt relief, except to say that efforts are continuing, the Committee would be grateful if this information were included in the next report.

16. As concerns displacement of tribal people, the Committee refers to its observation. It regrets that the Government has not provided the information previously requested on this subject, and requests it to do so.

17. Article 15. The Committee notes from the Report of the Working Group on Development and Welfare, pages 38 and 39, that there is a considerable problem of exploitation of tribal migrant workers in the country. The report states that these migrant workers are subject to exploitation by labour contractors, that minimum wages are not paid and that deductions are made from wages on various grounds, that working conditions are far inferior to legal norms, and that sexual exploitation of women has been reported. The report states also that although there is Central Government legislation on the subject, some States have yet to adopt rules for the implementation of this legislation, and that there are loopholes in the enforcement of the legislation. The Committee notes also the recommendations for action made in the Report of the Working Group on Development and Welfare. It requests the Government to provide detailed information on this problem in its next report, and to indicate what measures have been taken or are contemplated to overcome it.

18. Article 20. The Committee notes with interest the information provided by the Government on primary health care for tribal people. In addition, it notes from the Report of the Working Group on Development and Welfare, page 57, that "the major constraint to realisation of the goal of 'Health for All' in (tribal sub-plan) areas is the inadequacy of the network of health institutions, lack of medical/paramedical staff and lack of medicines." The Committee requests the Government to continue to furnish information on the progress made in these connections.

19. In its previous comments, the Committee noted that orders were issued in 1986 under which only female Health Guides were to retrained, paid and issued medicines, and stated that this action might be incompatible with the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) which India has also ratified. As no information was provided in this connection, the Committee again requests the Government to indicate the circumstances in which this decision was taken, and to provide further information on developments in the question.

20. The Committee notes the information in the report on the progress of the programme for providing safe drinking water to tribal areas, and requests the Government to continue to provide such information in its future reports.

21. Articles 21 to 24. The Committee notes the information provided in the report on the problems encountered in providing educational facilities for tribal people, and on the measures taken in this connection. It hopes that the Government will be able to indicate in the next report what progress has been made, and that it will continue to provide information on this subject.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1991, published 78th ILC session (1991)

1. The Committee notes the discussion of the application of this Convention in the Conference Committee in 1990, and the information provided by the Government on that occasion concerning the questions raised in the Committee's previous observation. A brief further report on this question was also received during the week the Committee's session opened, and a report on the issues raised in the request addressed directly to the Government in 1990 was also received only very shortly before the Committee's session began.

2. The Committee has referred in comments addressed directly to the Government to a number of important questions affecting the 51 million tribal people in the country. It notes in that request that on a number of issues the Government has not provided information on the situation in practice, but has restricted itself to a reference to earlier reports. It hopes that in its next report the Government will make every effort to provide detailed information, and that it will submit a report in time for the Committee to examine it fully before its session begins.

3. The Sardar Sarovar Dam and Power Project. The Committee of Experts and the Conference Committee have had a dialogue about this subject for several years. The situation at issue is the construction of a large hydroelectric dam project, and the consequent removal from their lands of some 100,000 people, including some 60,000 tribals. The project is being financed in part by the World Bank. The Committee has on several occasions examined information received from the International Federation of Plantation, Agricultural and Allied Workers (IFPAAW), forwarding studies carried out on the subject by the non-governmental organisation Survival International. This information has alleged that the displacement of these tribal people is not in conformity with the Convention - in particular its Article 12 - and that the situation will become worse in the future with the planned displacement of up to 1 million more people at future stages of construction.

4. A further communication from the IFPAAW and Survival International was forwarded to the Government on 17 December 1990. In its reply received on 4 March 1991, the Government referred to the information it provided to the Conference Committee in 1990, and provided some additional information. Some additional information was also received from the World Bank, to whom the IFPAAW communication had also been sent.

5. The communication from the IFPAAW states that despite the recommendations made by the Committee of Experts in 1990, the Government has not taken any positive action to guarantee appropriate compensation for displaced persons in accordance with Article 12 of the Convention. It states also that project authorities and Government officials have increasingly been resorting to force and violence in this connection. It notes that the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs decided during 1990 that it would discontinue financing of the project, because the resettlement plans for those being displaced remain inadequate. The World Bank had renewed funding until July 1991 on the finding that progress on the conditions laid down was satisfactory, and this decision was said to be a political one taken despite violations of conditions and disregard for deadlines set. The IFPAAW also alleged that the Government has not yet been able to identify sufficient and adequate resettlement land, especially for people wanting to stay in their own State of Madhya Pradesh, and that people are being moved to inadequate resettlement sites in Gujarat. Finally, the IFPAAW states that the villages that have been resettled face acute health problems and land and water shortages.

6. A communication from the World Bank in reply to the IFPAAW communication stated that the decision to extend financing was made only after an exhaustive investigation of the project performance by the Bank staff, who visited the project site and concluded that overall implementation continued to be satisfactory. It also stated that the decision was made on technical, not political, grounds. The Bank was working with the Government and project authorities to help ensure that resettlement and rehabilitation policies and programmes are properly carried out.

7. The Government stated in its communication received on 4 March 1991 that the Union Cabinet has approved the release of forest land for rehabilitation and resettlement of tribals displaced in Maharastra, subject to compensatory afforestation by the State Government, and that the Narmada Control Authority is taking steps to prepare an action plan for this purpose.

8. In the information provided to the Conference Committee the Government stated that the allegations made by the IFPAAW were too general. It also provided a considerable amount of information on the number of families in each of the three States affected and the amount of land required for their resettlement.

9. The continuing efforts being made in this connection are evident from the information received. It is less evident, however, that these efforts have yet been successful. The Committee understands from the information provided that there is still a gap between the resettlement needs of the tribal populations being displaced and the amount of land available. It has no conclusive information on whether these lands are appropriate to the needs of these tribal populations, and whether the populations are fully compensated for the damages incurred by their displacement, but notes that non-governmental organisations both inside the country and outside have expressed very serious reservations in this regard. It hopes that information will continue to be provided on the progress achieved. It also again expresses concern, in view of the problems involved in resettling these "oustees", over the possibility of resettling some hundreds of thousands of others in future years as further stages of planned construction are implemented, in a manner which complies with the Convention's requirements.

10. The Committee recalls that the Convention recognises rights to land which is "traditionally occupied" by tribal populations (Article 11), and that the meaning of this term in the present context has been the subject of discussion for some time. The IFPAAW has alleged that the Government is not fully compensating tribals who have traditionally occupied land to which the Government has title, especially when those tribals practice various forms of shared use, gathering of forest products and herding on these lands instead of settled cultivation. The Government has stated that the concept of traditional occupation does not apply to "encroachment" on government-owned lands, and particularly to recent encroachment; but that it has provided for compensation for displaced tribals even in cases where they have no clear traditional rights. The Committee has noted that the term "traditional occupation" is imprecise, but that the kinds of land use for which no compensation is given would appear to fall within the meaning of the term. However, the information before the Committee is not sufficiently clear to enable it to decide that traditional occupation has - or has not - been established in particular cases. In the information provided to the Conference Committee, the Government again raised the question, particularly in relation to the length of time lands would have to be occupied before the occupation could be considered traditional, but provided no additional information in this respect. The Committee therefore sees no reason to change its previous conclusions. It refers, however, to the concerns expressed in the Report of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (1987-89), over the denial of land rights to tribals who have long occupied land to which the Government has asserted title; these concerns correspond to the position expressed by Survival International and the IFPAAW, and to the concerns expressed by the Committee.

11. As concerns the health of the tribal populations that have been resettled, the Committee noted previously that steps were being taken to provide health care to displaced tribals in Gujarat, and the Committee requested information on steps taken in Madhya Pradesh and Maharastra, the other two States affected. As the Government has provided no additional information in this connection, the Committee requests it to do so. It would also appreciate receiving information on the environmental concerns raised previously.

[The Government is asked to report in detail for the period ending 30 June 1992.]

Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

The Committee refers to its observation. As the Government's report contains no information on the points raised in its previous request, the Committee asks the Government to provide detailed information on the following points:

1. The Committee notes the information communicated by the Government in its report, which arrived too late to be examined at its previous session. It hopes that the Government will be able in future to send reports on the application of the Convention in time to permit the Committee to examine them in a timely fashion.

2. The Committee notes in general that the Government's report does not respond to many of the questions raised in its previous request, though a significant amount of information has been forwarded. It hopes that the Government will be able to reply in its next report to the questions raised in the present request, so that the Committee will be able to form a clearer idea of the situation than is possible from the most recent report. This is especially important in view of the very large numbers of tribals in the country (now estimated at over 51 million, or more than 7 per cent of the population), and the important efforts being made in the country to deal with their problems.

3. The Committee notes that the Report of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for 1982-1983 was also communicated. The Committee hopes that the Government will continue to communicate the Commissioner's reports with its future reports, as it is indispensable to an understanding of the situation. The Committee notes, however, that in Chapter 9 of the Commissioner's report, it is stated that none of the recommendations the Commissioner had made in his five earlier reports have been accepted, but that the Government has said that it is considering them. Please indicate what action, if any, is being taken on the Commissioner's recommendations, and what are the mechanisms for considering such recommendations.

4. Article 1 of the Convention. The Committee recalls that in its previous request it asked what action was being taken to revise the lists of tribes specified in the special legislation on the subject, and recalled the Commissioner's recommendations in this regard. It noted that the number of tribal peoples not included in the schedules amounts to some 6 million people, and expressed the hope that the Government would make every effort to identify and include among the scheduled tribes all groups of tribal people who should be included.

5. In this regard the Committee notes the statement in the Government's report that the revision of the lists is under active consideration, but notes also that no action appears to have been taken following such consideration in the twelve years since the adoption of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Act in 1976. It notes also the statement in the report that non-inclusion of a particular group does not deprive them of the economic development programmes which are meant for all sectors of the population. The Committee hopes, however, that the Government will take the necessary measures in the near future to ensure that all tribal groups are specified in the relevant national legislation and thus included in development programmes designed specifically for their needs.

6. Articles 2 and 27. The Committee notes that no information has been forwarded since that contained in the report for the period ending in 1982 on the establishment of legislative committees on the welfare of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the various States. The Committee hopes that the Government will be able to indicate in its next report what action, if any, is being taken in this connection at the State level.

7. In its previous request the Committee noted that the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes had recommended a revision of the functions assigned to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission, so that the functions of the two would not overlap. The Committee also asked for information about the procedure for the examination of complaints by the Commission and information on the number of complaints examined and their disposition, and for other information on the functioning of the Commission. It notes that, although the Government stated that it was enclosing a copy of a report issued by the Commission, no report was received. It notes also that the Government has not replied to the question concerning the revision of the responsibilities of the Commission. It therefore hopes that the Government will furnish this information with its next report.

8. Article 5. Please forward the information previously requested on whether the President has issued instructions to all States having tribal populations to constitute Tribal Advisory Councils, as recommended by the Commissioner, under Clause 4 of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution.

9. The Committee recalls that it previously expressed the hope that the Government would take the necessary steps to ensure that the existing Tribal Advisory Councils were made active again. It notes that the Government has stated in reply that the working of these Councils is reviewed periodically and that State Governments have been advised to hold meetings regularly and to make the deliberations in these Councils effective. The Committee hopes that the Government will provide information in its next report on whether these recommendations have been taken up by the State Governments, and whether any results have been obtained.

10. The Committee notes the information contained in the report on the recommendations of a committee in 1979 concerning tribal participation in the Panchayati Raj and other local government institutions. It notes that the recommendations made by this committee were discussed, but were not adopted, though another committee was established and has also made recommendations. It hopes that the Government will provide information in its next report on the further recommendations made and the action, if any, taken on them.

11. Article 6. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it noted that there were increasing problems due to deforestation affecting tribal populations who rely on the forests for their living. It notes the information provided in the Government's report, as well as in the Commissioner's latest report, on the various measures taken in this regard. It notes that the problem remains a serious one, though efforts are being made to diminish deforestation and to replant deforested areas. It hopes that the Government will continue to provide information on both the problems which arise and on the measures which are taken in this connection.

12. The Committee notes the information contained in the report on the strategy for the development of tribals and tribal areas under the VIIth Five-Year Plan (1985-1990). It hopes that the Government will continue to provide information in its future reports on the results achieved in this respect.

13. Article 9. The Committee notes the information provided in the report concerning the continuing efforts being made to abolish bonded labour, and the rehabilitation of freed bonded labourers. It notes that measures in this regard have been included in the 20-Point Programme, 1986, and that progress is thus reviewed periodicaly at the highest levels of government. At the same time, the Committee notes the further recommendations made by the Commissioner, as well as the information in his report about the related form of labour known as "attached labour". The Committee hopes that the Government will continue to supply information in this connection both under the present Convention and under Convention No. 29.

14. Article 10. The Committee notes the additional information furnished in the Government's report on the programmes to provide legal aid to the poor, and in particular to tribals. It notes with interest the measures being taken at the State and more local levels, and the Lok Adalat approach under which conflicts are settled by mutual consent through persuasive and conciliatory methods. Finally, it notes that the training of para-legals has continued. The Committee hopes that the Government will continue to provide information in this respect in future reports.

15. Articles 11 to 14. The Committee notes the information supplied in the Government's report on the measures being taken for the updating of tribal land records, as well as the information in the Commissioner's report on this question, in paragraphs 4.100 to 4.103 in particular. The Committee notes from the Government's report that emphasis has been given to this question in two conferences of Revenue Ministers held in 1985 and 1986, and that various measures were recommended in this respect. The Committee notes also from the Commissioner's report that, although detailed information is often lacking, the process of updating these records appears to be going on. The Committee hopes that the Government will continue to include information on this subject in its future reports.

16. As concerns the alienation and restoration of tribal lands, the Committee also notes the information in the Government's report and in the Commissioner's report, in particular in paragraphs 4.95 to 4.98. While the Government has indicated the measures which are being recommended, it has supplied little information on the measures actually taken. The Commissioner's report indicates that some State Governments supply adequate information and are taking effective measures, but that others are not. The Committee notes in particular the recommendations made by the Commissioner in paragraphs 4.97 and 4.98 of his report. It hopes that the Government will provide further information in its next report on the measures taken and the results achieved in this respect.

17. The Committee notes the information in the report on the measures taken to promote debt relief among the tribal populations, and hopes that the Government will continue to provide information in this respect in its future reports.

18. With regard to the displacement and rehabilitation of tribal families, the Committee refers to its observation. More generally, it recalls that in its previous comments it requested information on the measures adopted by the various State governments in this connection. In its report the Government has stated that a committee has been set up to review rehabilitation measures for displaced tribals, and that it has been decided as part of the 20-Point Programme to ensure the rehabilitation of displaced tribals. The Committee hopes that the Government will be able to indicate in its next report that effective measures have been taken in this connection. The Committee requests the Government to indicate in particular how many tribals have been displaced from their lands, for economic development programmes or otherwise, and what procedures have been used in this connection. Please indicate how the provisions of Article 12 of the Convention concerning compensation when tribals are displaced, have been applied.

19. Article 15. The Committee notes the information contained in the report concerning measures taken in some States to enforce the payment of minimum wages in rural areas, and in particular to tribals. It notes also the discussion of this issue in the Commissioner's report (paras. 4.106 to 4.109), which states that the measures taken in the States have been very uneven. The Committee requests the Government to continue to supply information in this connection in its future reports.

20. Article 20. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it noted with interest that a high-level committee had been established in 1982 by the Central Government to examine the health situation of the scheduled tribes and to evolve recommendations in this connection. The Committee notes from the report that this committee has still not finalised its report. On the other hand, it notes that the Ninth and Tenth Joint Conferences of Councils of Health and Family Welfare have made recommendations for accelerating health care facilities for Scheduled Tribes.

21. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments it also noted certain proposals at the State level in connection with health care of tribal populations. The Government has indicated that some measures have been taken in this connection. It has also stated that it has been decided as a part of the 20-Point Programme to improve the quality of primary health care in all areas of the country. Please indicate what concrete measures have been taken in this connection.

22. In its previous report the Committee requested further information on the Community Health Workers Scheme, under which people have been trained to provide primary health care at the local level. The Committee notes from the report that this scheme has been renamed the Health Guide Scheme, and that up to June 1986 some 390,000 people had been trained. It notes, however, that orders were issued in 1986 under which only female Health Guides were to be retrained, paid and issued medicines; this order was later suspended by court order, but some States have informed the Government that they have already discontinued male Health Guides and are taking action to select female Health Guides in their places. The Committee notes that this action may be incompatible with the requirements of the Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111), also ratified by India. It hopes that the Government will indicate in its next report the circumstances under which these decisions were taken, and that it will communicate detailed information on any further developments.

23. The Committee notes the information in the Government's report according to which the 20-Point Programme includes measures for the provision of safe drinking water to all villages, and for special attention to be paid to the water supply for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Please provide information in the next report on the measures taken and the results achieved in this respect.

24. The Committee notes the information furnished on the Special Nutrition Programme, and hopes that the Government will continue to supply such information in its future reports.

25. Articles 21 to 24. The Committee notes the information supplied in the report on the efforts made to increase educational facilities for tribal children. It hopes that the Government will include more detailed information in its next report on this issue, including both the size of the problem and the results so far achieved, so that the Committee may consider the question in more depth following the next report.

Observation (CEACR) - adopted 1990, published 77th ILC session (1990)

1. The Committee recalls that in its previous comments over several years - most recently at its 1988 session - it has examined the planned displacement of some 60,000 tribals from the lands they occupy because of the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam and Power Project (SSP). This is the first stage of a much larger project which will, it is said, involve the eventual displacement of over 1 million tribals. The Project is financed by the World Bank. The Committee has had before it on several occasions observations from the International Federation of Plantation, Agricultural and Allied Workers (IFPAAW), forwarding material received from the non-governmental human rights organisation Survival International for the Rights of Threatened Tribal Peoples.

2. The Committee notes with interest the detailed information provided by the Government to the Conference Committee in 1988. It has received from IFPAAW and forwarded to the Government further communications dated 27 February, 23 October and 20 December 1989; and has received the Government's observations on them in a letter dated 24 January 1990. The Committee has also received information from the World Bank, in a letter dated 2 February 1990.

3. The Committee takes special note of a statement in the IFPAAW communication of 31 October 1989, according to which there is a series of development projects already undertaken or planned in India which would involve the displacement of between 2 and 3 million tribal people altogether; and that inadequate provision has been made for their relocation and rehabilitation. The Committee requests the Government to provide any comments it may wish to make on this statement in its next report.

4. The Committee recalls that the SSP will displace tribal people in three Indian states: Gujarat, Maharastra and Madhya Pradesh. Each state has made separate arrangements, under agreements with the World Bank, for dealing with the displaced tribals and for the other consequences of the Project.

5. The Committee thanks the Government for the comprehensive information it has provided at each stage of the examination of this question.

6. Article 6 of the Convention. IFPAAW has stated that the arrangements in place do not satisfy this Article of the Convention, which provides that:

The improvement of the conditions of life and work and level of education of the populations concerned shall be given high priority in plans for the overall development of areas inhabited by these populations. Special projects for economic development of the areas in question shall also be so designed as to promote such improvement.

7. In its 1988 observation the Committee stated that "the question of whether these arrangements meet the requirements of Article 6, is still not ripe for a final evaluation, as it depends largely on what is concluded with respect to the other issues raised." In its January 1989 comments, IFPAAW stated that the Project is "designed to provide power and water for more settled populations; its benefits are not oriented at all towards the tribal people being displaced, which appears in itself to violate ... Article 6". IFPAAW refers also to the experience of tribal populations displaced by similar projects (e.g., the Tawa and Bargi dams) and the limited resources made available for compensation. It also states that the kind of forced development likely to result from the tribal peoples' displacement is of a kind least likely to lead to an improvement in their conditions of life and work.

8. The Government states in its comments that when completed, the SSP will benefit tribal and non-tribal persons equally, and that the central and state governments are fully committed to the overall socio-economic development of the tribal people. The Government states that this Article does not preclude economic development efforts affecting both tribals and non-tribals, and outlines the benefits expected to result, including relief of drought-prone areas, irrigation, water supply to industries, electricity supply, and employment through new industrial and agricultural undertakings.

9. The Committee notes the points made, and agrees that this Article does not preclude economic development efforts which assist both tribals and non-tribals. It appears in this case, however, that while both tribals and non-tribals are likely to enjoy some of the benefits of the SSP, the costs of the project are falling particularly heavily on the tribal people of these three States. Whether these costs can be reduced or compensated depends on how the other Articles concerned are applied.

10. Article 11. In its previous comments, the Committee noted the contention of IFPAAW that the arrangements made for compensation for displaced tribals did not fully apply this Article, which reads:

The right of ownership, collective or individual, of the members of the populations concerned over the lands which these populations traditionally occupy shall be recognised.

11. IFPAAW stated that compensation was being paid only for lands to which the displaced tribals had title, or another recognised right, and not for all those which they occupied. It recalled that many of the tribals use - for cultivation, grazing or gathering of forest products - lands to which they have no recognised title. The Government indicated that the State of Gujarat had decided to grant title to those tribals who "encroached" on government-owned land for cultivation, so that they would be compensated for this land when they are displaced (with this compensation in turn to be applied to paying for the acquisition of land in their place of settlement). IFPAAW stated in turn that 80 per cent of the affected tribals live in the other two States covered by the projects, and that no such arrangements had been made there; that the kind of ex gratia payments made by the Government of Gujarat avoided recognising that the tribals had any prior rights; and that no provision had been made for the hunter/gatherer elements of the tribals' economic life, but only for settled cultivation. The Government indicated in turn that a distinction had to be made between the traditional occupation covered by this Article, and unauthorised occupation of government lands; to require such special measures for encroaching persons would be to misconstrue Article 11.

12. The Committee noted in its 1988 observation that traditional occupation conferred land rights under the Convention, whether or not title had been recognised; and that even if occupation was recent, this did not mean that no land rights existed, especially in view of Articles 12 and 14 of the Convention. It also did not mean that the tribals affected should be excluded from the protections offered to those being displaced by the SSP. It asked for additional information on the measures being taken in Maharastra and Madhya Pradesh, and expressed the hope that all those being displaced could be provided for.

13. The Government informed the Conference Committee in 1988 that it did not agree that recent occupation of government-owned lands conferred any land rights at all on tribals. Encroachment could not be considered as "traditional occupation" in the sense of Article 11, or as "habitual occupation" in the sense of Article 12. The Governments of Maharastra and Madhya Pradesh had recently updated their rehabilitation policies along lines similar to those of Gujarat, and the Government of Gujarat had decided that all those who wished to resettle in that state would be given equal treatment, with full land titles.

14. In its communication of 24 January 1989, IFPAAW stated that the distinction between traditional occupation and encroachment on state-owned lands is arbitrary, since even when the tribals came under British rule in the nineteenth century, some of the lands they occupied were titled and some were not. Many of the tribals had been occupying these lands for a very long time without recognition, and this applied especially to the Reserved Forest in the Narmada Valley. In addition, most of the tribals have a mixed economy that extends well beyond any lands to which they might have title. IFPAAW states that Article 11 therefore applies to forest and waste lands as well as to settled lands.

15. In its communication of 24 January 1990, the Government states that the allegation concerning those who occupied land even before British rule is too general to warrant comment. The Government repeats its understanding that Article 11 of the Convention "in no way permits unauthorised occupation of Government lands, as such occupation cannot ... be deemed to be traditional occupation." The Government refers to its commitment to recognising title to lands traditionally held by tribals, and to legislation enacted to control alienation of tribal lands and to restore alienated tribal lands. The National Forest Policy of 1988 recognises that a primary task of all responsible for forest management should be to associate the tribal people closely in the protection, regeneration and development of forests as well as to provide gainful employment to people living in and around them, and the customary rights and interests of such people are to be fully safeguarded. Finally, the Rehabilitation and Resettlement policies of all three State governments provide for allotment of land to families which have been cultivating Government waste and forest lands without authorisation, and Maharastra has regularised all unauthorised occupation occurring before 31 March 1978. Both Maharastra and Madhya Pradesh now provide that encroachers and families having legal title will be treated on the same footing for the purpose of entitlement to compensation and for rehabilitation. As concerns Maharastra, the Committee notes Resolution No. RPA-3188/CR-130/88/R-5 of 29 June 1989, containing the Policy concerning Rehabilitation and Resettlement of Oustees. The Policy lays down rules for compensating oustees for their land holdings, their resettlement and the acquisition of alternative lands in Maharastra or Gujarat, compensation of "encroachers" for the lands they occupied, and other elements of compensation and rehabilitation. It also provides for the financing of the scheme. The Government has forwarded a similar document, dated November 1987, adopted by the Government of Madhya Pradesh (which however includes no provisions on financing the arrangements specified).

16. The Committee notes with interest the detailed information provided by IFPAAW and by the Government. It cannot fully accept the distinction drawn by the Government between traditional occupation and encroachment. Traditional occupation, whether or not it has been recognised as authorised, does create rights under the Convention. In addition, use of forest or waste lands, title of which is held by the Government for hunting and gathering - again, whether or not this has been authorised - satisfies the use of the term "occupation", and if it is traditional it meets the requirement of this Article. The term "traditional occupation" is imprecise, but it clearly conveys that the lands over which these groups' land rights should be recognised are those whose use has become part of their way of life. The Committee is not prepared to judge, in the context of the present discussion, how much time would have to elapse before occupation would become "traditional"; nor does the Committee have available to it information which would allow it to decide that traditional use has not been recognised in any particular situations. However, to the extent that the indications provided by IFPAAW are accurate, they would create a presumption of land rights under the Convention. The Committee notes that, as IFPAAW has indicated, no compensation has been allocated for tribals who carry out hunting and gathering, as opposed to settled cultivation. The Committee hopes that, in deciding on the land rights giving rise to compensation, the Government will ensure that the cost of the project does not fall heavily on these helpless and already impoverished tribals, and that they are not deprived of the means of subsistence which they have had for many years. The Committee hopes that the Government will adopt an interpretation consistent with the spirit of this Article of the Convention as well as with its letter.

17. Article 12. The issue here relates to Article 12, paragraph 2:

When in such cases removal of these populations is necessary as an exceptional measure, they shall be provided with lands of quality at least equal to that of the lands previously occupied by them, suitable to provide for their present needs and future development. In cases where chances of alternative employment exist and where the populations concerned prefer to have compensation in money or in kind, they shall be so compensated under appropriate guarantees.

18. The issue of the land rights which these groups already have, is important because under arrangements concluded with the World Bank by each of the State governments concerned, this will determine what lands or other compensation displaced tribals receive when resettled. The Committee has already considered the question, raised by IFPAAW in earlier comments, of whether there is sufficient land available of acceptable quality to allow the resettlement of all 60,000 tribals who are being displaced from their lands; and whether the other measures being taken are adequate to meet the requirements of the Convention and the objectives of the resettlement and rehabilitation components of the credit agreement with the World Bank. The Committee noted in its previous comments that the Government was making real and considerable efforts in this connection, but that problems persisted. It noted in particular that, while Gujarat State had made lands available and provided for rehabilitation efforts, the other two states had done much less although 80 per cent of the tribals to be displaced live in Madhya Pradesh and Maharastra. The Government informed the Conference Committee in 1988 that all the displaced tribals who were willing to settle in Gujarat would be treated equally. Efforts were being made by the three states to buy large tracts of land of acceptable quality so that resettlement of the "oustees" would not be fragmentary and their communities would not be dispersed. Relocation to Gujarat had been proposed as it was there that new lands were to be brought under irrigation, but oustees would be settled in their own states if they preferred.

19. In its comments of 24 January 1989, IFPAAW stated that the lands provided in compensation should be similar to those from which the tribals are being displaced, so the tribals should have proximity and access to forest lands. However, IFPAAW points out, a policy statement of 8 September 1987 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests states that "No forest land will be used for the rehabilitation of oustees," while the World Bank has stated in a letter of 28 June 1988 that "forest for forest" compensation is not always appropriate or realistic. In addition, says IFPAAW, there is already a problem finding enough agricultural land to compensate the oustees, and forest land is in even shorter supply. It indicates further that pressure is being put on oustees in Madhya Pradesh to accept compensation in money rather than in land if they do not choose to be resettled in Gujarat.

20. As concerns the situation in each state, IFPAAW notes that under the December 1987 Resolution, each oustee family from Gujarat is to be granted land and other rehabilitation benefits; and in June 1988 these provisions were extended to oustees from Maharastra and Madhya Pradesh who choose to settle in Gujarat. (IFPAAW also states that most of the tribal oustees do not wish to settle in Gujarat, and have the right not to do so under the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award of 1979.) However, it states that the Gujarat Government has acquired only 20 per cent of the land needed to resettle the oustees from Gujarat itself; prices are rising; and acquisition of further lands will in itself cause more evictions. In Maharastra, planning for resettlement is underdeveloped; finding land has proven difficult, and the Government has decided not to release Forest Department land. On the other hand, an August 1987 resolution followed the example of Gujurat in deciding to make ex gratia payments to "encroachers". In Madhya Pradesh, where the majority of the displaced tribals live, IFPAAW states that arrangements are very rudimentary and almost no action has been taken.

21. The Government has indicated in its comments that all the oustees are entitled to compensation for land owned or "encroached" by them for agricultural or non-agricultural purposes. It is the policy of the Government not to allot forest land for rehabilitation, but when oustees insist on resettlement in forest areas such requests are considered symapathetically. The tribals are being provided special facilities for rehabilitation not made available to other oustees. Availability of land in Gujarat is not a problem, and a good deal of land is already being acquired. As for Maharastra, 269 families of oustees are willing to accept settlement in Gujarat, and 179 already have their land. It is not correct to say that planning for resettlement is undeveloped in this state; as 1,358 families have decided to remain in Maharastra the Government is "duty bound" to provide them with alternative lands. In Madhya Pradesh, where the majority of those to be displaced live, an initial policy was adopted in 1986; and after consultations with the central Government and the World Bank a detailed policy was issued on 18 May 1989. Of the 193 villages in this state which will be affected in varying degrees by submergence, oustees from 92 of them will be resettled in Madhya Pradesh close to their present lands. In 77 villages, oustees are willing to go to Gujarat provided they are given appropriate land. Some land has already been approved by the oustees, and the Government of Gujarat is making every effort to find additional suitable land.

22. The letter of 2 February 1990 from the World Bank indicates that the situation with respect to resettlement and rehabilitation is improving, as a Bank mission found in December 1989. More than 1,000 oustees have been allotted land in Gujarat, the planning and implementation mechanisms seem to be working very well and additional land for resettlement, including relatively large quantities of irrigable land, is coming on to the market. In Madhya Pradesh, the Bank indicates that the situation is also improving, though much remains to be done. Although the "initial submergence date" has been set back to 1994-1995, detailed planning has taken place in the first villages to be affected, village leaders have visited Gujarat and some villages have decided to move there. The situation in Maharastra is troublesome in that forest land is needed for the initial resettlement. Government clearance is being sought for this. The Bank indicates that progress is being made, and that it continues to work closely with state and project authorities to try to ensure that it continues.

23. The Committee has examined the detailed information supplied by IFPAAW and by the Government on the compensation being offered to the displaced tribals, as well as the information supplied by the World Bank. It is evident that the Government has made considerable efforts to resolve an extremely difficult situation; it is not evident from the information available whether it has fully succeeded in providing appropriate compensation in accordance with Article 12 of the Convention, for all the families and villages which are losing their lands as a consequence of this project. The Committee would affirm that the words "lands of quality at least equal to that of the lands previously occupied by them, suitable to provide for their present needs and future development" would create a presumption that displaced tribals should receive agricultural lands for lost agricultural lands, and forest lands for lost forest lands. The Committee recalls that this provision goes on to provide for alternatives if the groups concerned prefer, so that there is room for discussion of the appropriate form of compensation.

24. The Committee therefore requests the Government to continue to communicate detailed information on the further progress achieved in providing land and other compensation to the displaced tribals. It notes the Government's statement, in its January 1990 communication, that "It is expected that by March 1991 the entire rehabilitation of total project-affected 3,322 families would be completed as per liberalised norms. The Government of India firmly believes that there has been no violation of Convention No. 107 and that the Project, when complete, would help the tribals to improve their standard of living." It is not apparent from the information available how much land is required for resettlement as compared with the amount already available, and the Committee would be grateful for information in this respect.

25. The Committee feels bound to repeat the concern which it expressed in its previous comments as to whether it will prove possible to provide the same kind of compensation in the future as is planned in the present case, when many times more tribals - up to 1 million according to the information it has received - are scheduled to be displaced from their homes. Given the problems encountered in this relatively small-scale project, the Committee considers that it may be very difficult to provide protection to the tribal populations in conformity with the Convention if the full-scale project is undertaken in the same conditions.

26. Mortality of displaced tribals. IFPAAW has stated in its communication of 23 October 1989 that "Studies in the few communities of tribals who have already been resettled show a four-fold increase in mortalities." The Government has stated in its communication of January 1990 that this report has been studied by the Government of Maharastra, and that the mortality rate is normal for poor tribals though higher than the national average. The Government has stated that the Government of Gujarat has taken steps to provide health care to resettled oustees. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed of the progress achieved in this respect, and in particular of the action taken by the Government of Madhya Pradesh and Maharastra.

27. Environmental questions. The Government has stated that minimising the adverse effect on the ecosystem due to the implementation of the Project has been one of the main objectives of the planning process; and that, among other things, afforestation projects have been planned. Please provide copies of any environmental arrangement studies which may have been carried out in this respect.

28. The Committee recalls that it had also raised a number of questions on the application of the Convention generally, in a request addressed directly to the Government in 1988. As the Government has communicated information only on the effects of the Sardar Sarovar Project in its most recent report, the Committee is repeating its previous direct request, and hopes that the Government will provide detailed information in this respect for its next session.