THE states of Jharkhand, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, which are home to a majority of the adivasis outside the northeast, have been categorised as ‘least developed states’ by an official report of the central government. At least three of these four states (excluding Jharkhand) have been governed for the last one decade by non-Congress regimes that have been marketing them as promoting an inclusive model of development. These regimes are also well known for promoting export led agriculture as well as corporate capital in natural resource based industries, especially mining. This has led to many instances of social conflicts which threaten the survival of the adivasis in these regions. The changing work patterns among the adivasis must be seen in this light.

RATES OF work participation

The long term impact of the forms and patterns of dispossession are reflected in the data presented in the recently released scheduled tribe tables of the Census of India, 2011. The data show that the adivasis are in the midst of some fundamental structural changes that have been brought about by multiple forms of land and other dispossession. The data in Table I alongside present the following picture with respect to these four states.

TABLE I

Decadal Changes in Adivasi Work Participation Rates, 2001-2011

Data Computed from Census of India, 2001 ST01 and ST02; Census of India, 2011, ST Tables Online data.

Table I shows a secular decline in the number of main workers or workers getting more than 180 day of regular work in one year, even though there is only a marginal decline or increase in the total work participation rates. What is more interesting to note is the fact that this decline is more drastic in the rural areas of all regions except Madhya Pradesh whose the decline in the main rural workforce is lower than that of workforce at the all-India level. This picture becomes especially significant when we consider the fact that the main work participation rate of women has increased in the state. This is in stark contrast to the decline in the work participation rates of the marginal female workforce in the state in the same period.

Overall, the secular increase in marginal adivasi rural workforce (the people working for less than six months a year) is reflective of the larger rural crisis that has fundamentally impacted adivasi livelihoods. In contrast, there is a generalised increase in the main female urban workforce in all cases except for Chhattisgarh, and the decline in the urban male workforce in the same period highlights the gendered nature of the changes in the occupational structure. Further, even though there is a general all-India increase in the total work participation rate for adivasis, it is largely a result of the increasing rates of marginal rural and urban work. But even here, the rate of increase in total and rural female marginal work is higher than that of males. Significantly, the decline in female marginal workers in urban areas is replaced by a corresponding increase in the main female urban workers. Once again this indicates that schedule tribe women are shouldering greater responsibility to meet the daily needs of survival in urban areas.

This picture contrasts with the decadal changes in the character of marginal work. The data show that though the number of other tribal marginal workers has gone up in both urban and rural areas, the increase is much higher in the case of male worker participation rates (7.33 percent) as compared with female marginal work participation rates (0.69 percent). The trend is more evident in rural areas where work participation rates of marginal work have increased by 4.02 percent overall; for male workers they have risen by 8.2 percent in rural and 1.97 percent in urban areas. In the four states under consideration, the rural marginal work for male workers has risen by almost 20 percent in Jharkhand and more than 10 percent in Odisha and Chhattisgarh. In Madhya Pradesh it has risen close to 10 percent, a figure higher than the all-India average. Almost all this increase is in category of ‘other workers’ in the case of Odisha and Jharkhand and agricultural labour in the case of Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh.

GENDERED NATURE OF REGULAR WORK PATTERNS

In this context a further probe into the nature of occupational changes reveals a rather interesting scenario of working class formation and consolidation amongst the adivasis. The decadal changes in the industrial classification of main workers reflect the land dispossession that is taking place among the tribals.

TABLE II

Decadal Changes in Industrial Classification of Main Adivasi Workers, 2001-2011

Source: Calculated from the Census of India 2001, ST01 and STO2 and Census of India, 2011

Given the figures for increasing landlessness in this social group, it is not surprising that the number of adivasi cultivators or peasants has declined by more than 10 percent in all least developed states except for Odisha where the rate of decline is less than the all-India average of 10.31 percent. As expected, most of this decline is among the tribal farmers of rural areas, but this decrease is also gendered in its character. The rate of decline in female cultivators is higher than that in male cultivators in rural areas, indicating that female farmers and female headed households face a greater degree of vulnerability. An interesting aspect of changes in work patterns relate to the category of ‘other workers.’ Here too the rate of increase in female work participation rate is higher than that for males. Significantly, though there is a secular decline in the category of “other workers” in urban areas, the female urban work participation rates in this period seem to be increasing at an all-India level and at least in two of the four least developed states. In states like Odisha the rate of its decline is small and much lower than the rate of decline in male work participation. This leads us to the conclusion that more women are being forced into the non-agricultural workforce as far as regular work is concerned.

The data presented above reveal the different methods of the integration of the ‘tribal worker’ into labour markets and the larger neo-liberal political economy. In the case of states like Odisha and Jharkhand the sharp rise in male and female rural ‘other workers’ is more a result of private mining and construction works in legally demarcated rural areas. But the changing economic geography of these regions indicates the development of a peri-urban workforce, especially with the setting up of industrial townships with the help of private corporate capital. In case of Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh the consolidation of landholdings under the control of relatively large farmers is inspired by a governmental push towards contract farming and export led agriculture through corporate support.

Further, the data also support the argument that the rate of increase in the entry of female adivasi workers into the regular labour market is higher than that for male adivasi workers in most cases. This clearly shows that the work patterns within the adivasis are incomparable and in contrast with the general decline in the female workforce participation within the Indian labour market.

In all cases, however, it is clear that the status of the adivasis as a rural or urban worker is getting consolidated. In this situation the slow implementation of the Unorganised Sector Workers Social Security Act 2008 and Forest Rights Act 2006 will only further hurt the adivasi interests in contemporary India. Thus there is an urgent need to monitor the implementation and intensify the struggle to press for the proper implementation of these measures.