Save the land, save lives

Rajkaran, Udaipur, Rajasthan

25 km south east of Udaipur city is the backward village of Taunk in Malmihas Panchayat, Mindar Panchayat Samiti. There are about 260 families in this village, of which 170 are bhil adivasis (gometis). The remainder families are a mixed group with 50 rajputs, 10 meghwal, 10 gairi, and twenty others. Categorising the land in the village, about 160 bighas are irrigated, while 327 bighas are un-irrigated. There are 1168 individual enclosures. 410 bighas are forestland, while 610 bighas are pastureland.

On average a rajput family has 1.5 bighas of irrigated land, while a gometi family has on average half a bigha of irrigated land. By this calculation, there are very few families having large land holdings. Roughly 100 hectares of land in this village is pastureland, of which there are unauthorised encroachments and unauthorised mining in about10-15 hectares. There is talk of starting mining in an additional five hectares. A few people in the village were worried that if this trend continued, all the land will gradually be taken over by encroachments.

About 30 families of the village have illegal encroachments on the pastureland, from which they were able to take grass alone. Then there was one person from the neighbouring village, Sakarvada, who mined soap stone from the pastureland in which about 5-6 workers from Taunk village were engaged everyday. The mine owner got about Rs.75,000 annually, while the labourers for Rs.25-30,000 annually. A third aspect to this was the ongoing negotiations between the villagers of Sakarvada and leaders of Taunk, who wanted to start one or two mines to take out stone for building houses. The rent from this would benefit the mine-owner villagers from Sakarvada, rather than the villagers of Taunk.

Concerned by these developments, a few villagers from Taunk contacted HVVS to take steps to protect the pastureland. When asked what support they wanted, they said they needed resources to build boundary walls and undertake afforestation on the pastureland. We advised them to organise meetings in the village and generate a larger consensus on these actions. Also to access the legal records of these lands, to ascertain its ownership status, etc.

Thereafter villagers had a meeting in the village hamlets about undertaking afforestation. The benefits would be shared among all villagers. It took about 3-4 months to reach consensus on this. An important factor for consensus was that the pastureland was not cultivable. The villagers then went to the patwari and asked for the land records. This was not easy and they were unable to get the records for over six months. Then a group of villagers met the Sub-Collector, and submitted a petition. The patwari was instructed to release the landholding records and ownership demarcation within a week. This perseverance reflected the interest and commitment of the villagers.

Subsequently however there was a dispute between the villagers and the villagers divided into two groups. One group which wanted to enclose 50ha of land, while the other group wanted to enclose 25ha and leave the remaining 25ha open. Since it was not easy for animals to climb the hillside, the gometis were concerned that this was a ploy to start mining on the land at a later date. Eventually there was agreement to enclose all 50ha. The question now was who would come forward to stop the mines. A few gometis started work on the boundary wall to close access, while with HVVS support soil conservation and tree plantation was also started. On the issue of protection of this area, the villagers decided to take guard in turns. This commitment was seen for three years, before it gradually collapsed as a few families not needing the grass dropped out and stopped proving guard.

One of the gometis was concerned that if this trend continued, the land would go back to its old condition, and even the mines may be renewed. He motivated other gometis to rebuild parts of the boundary wall that had broken. They then thought that instead of guarding by turn, it might be better to appoint a guard and give him a stipend. For this they sought support from HVVS. In a meeting of all villagers it was decided that for three years HVVS would provide 50% of the salary for the guard and villagers would contribute the rest. For the collection of grass from the enclosed pastureland, villagers had decided to collect an amount of Rs.5/ load, which was later revised to Rs.7, and later Rs.10, and last year was revised to Rs.14. After HVVS stopped contributing to the guard’s salary after three years, villagers used this collection to pay the guard Rs.500/ month.

Logarba is the chief of the gometis in the village. He is respected in the adivasi community, and is active in decisions made in the village as well. He thinks very clearly and is broad minded. In Taunk, like in most other villages of the area, a few men, rajputs and gometis, are usually active in decision making, whether it be political decisions or routine decisions regarding the village. Adivasis of the region have their own caste network known as the ‘chaukhala’. Logarba was active in the chaukhala as well and had a key role in it.

Logarba came in contact with HVVS in 1990. He was about 55 years old then, and believed in maintaining old customs and traditions. Though he was conservative, there was a significant change in him after he started associating with HVVS, participating in meetings and visiting other areas. Gradually his value systems were influenced. At one time Logarba participated in a women’s sammelan organised in the Lasthadia area of Udaipur by another organisation, Sahayog. Here, for the first time, he saw women speak about their problems on stage, on a public platform. He was struck by the thought that men alone cannot solve problems and bring about change. Back in his village, he started encouraging women to organise and attend meetings. In earlier days he would have said ‘what is the need to involve women?’ but not anymore. Soon after women’s self help groups were formed in the village.

There were recurring problems in protection of the pastureland. The need to involve women was reinforced when Logarba once saw women from the neighbouring village cutting grass from the enclosed pastureland. Inspite of asking them to go away, the women did not budge. He then came back to the village and sent members of the self-help group to tackle the situation. There was an altercation and the women of Taunk disturbed the stacks of grass neatly piled by the women of the neighbouring village. The women from the neighbouring village eventually had to retreat. There were several other incidents which are reflective of Logarba’s astuteness, all of which cannot be mentioned, but one more needs to be mentioned here.

There were efforts to revive the soapstone mines which had been stopped over three years ago. There were indications of this for some time, as a few leaders of the village approached Logarba and said that since it was difficult to meet the salary of the guard, why not start the soap stone mining and earn some revenue for the village, part of which can be paid to the guard. Logarba said that the matter should be discussed in the village with the general body before any decision was made. A few days later, some men from the neighbouring village were found working in the enclosed area in reviving the mine. On being questioned, they named a person from the neighbouring village who had some political clout, as well as a person from Taunk village itself. Logarba shared this information with a few select people in his village. Around that time a JCV machine was also engaged to remove the soap stone. Inspite of repeated requests this did not stop. Logarba was convinced of the involvement of someone from the village, else this would not have continued for so long.

A general body meeting was held in the village and all agreed that the soap stone mining was wrong. The person who was supposed to be supporting this activity was called to the meeting, but he did not attend. The villagers decided to seek support of HVVS in tackling the issue. Another meeting was held 3-4 days later, which I participated in as well. The accused person did not come again, though he had been specifically asked to come. The villagers decided to submit a complaint letter to the Sub-Collector against the illegal activities, after two days. In the meantime, 10-15 men would block the access of the JCV machines to the mine areas. Happily, this put an end to the mining in the area.

At another time, 2-3 villagers from the neighbouring village let camels into the protected area for grazing. They too did not listen when asked to return and threatened the guard. When he reported this incident in the village, after a brief meeting, three gometi youth went and asked the camel grazers to go away, without success. Within a week, a larger meeting was held, in which the majority of those attending were gometis. It was decided again that if they did not go back now, villagers would take up a fight against the grazers. This time a few Rajputs went with the gometis to ask the people grazing camels to return. This time they turned back and the camels no longer grazed in the protected area.

Following these events there was a feeling among the gometis when the entire village took responsibility, it was possible to tackle problems, but on most occasions it was only the gometis who took the initiative. Was it because they benefited more directly from the pastureland? Each year about 50 tons of grass and 15 tons of dry wood were taken from the pastureland. The environmental benefits were less direct, but slowly visible.

In the course of meetings in the village it was evident that there were some sections who were very poor and whose resources were not adequate for their livelihoods. Also, the 32 families who had illegally encroached on the pasturelands were all gometis. There was therefore a demand from the community that HVVS also support land and water development activities to help in better cultivation. Activities were identified and undertaken, simultaneously trainings were organised, and people’s confidence gradually increased. Also with physical work being undertaken, some employment was also generated in the village.

HVVS also made efforts to promote social awareness by staging a drama titled “Ujaal dekh andhera bhagyo” (seeing light, the darkness ran away). This was staged 2-3 times in the village. I used the visit the village regularly and organise meetings and discussions, as a result of which I had close relationships with the villagers, and even began to identify myself with them, as one of their family, and came to understand them better. I would be closely involved in leadership development and training programmes.

Initially, self help groups of men were formed in the village, which had helped in building contacts with the village, as well as provided an idea about what could be done to improve livelihoods. The involvement and attachment with the villagers, as well as the generation of employment while undertaking physical works, gave me a lot of satisfaction. Over time, as my responsibilities increased, my association with the village was reducing. I was immersed more and more in administration of the organisation, and making contact with other organisations, government departments, etc. My colleagues continued to visit the village regularly, but I am not sure why, the poorest people perhaps feel a bit disillusioned and let down. Improvements in
livelihoods of the poorest takes a long time, and perhaps we are not succeeding in that.

There have been a lot of physical and environmental improvements in the village, but the organisation of local people and the evolution of leadership that is needed to sustain development activities is quite weak. There is much improvement from what it was in the past, and local issues are resolved in a more effective and democratic manner, but the organisation does not have the capacity to tackle larger issues outside the village.

As for the poorest people, they are so caught up in debt traps that it is hard to emerge from it. The women’s self help groups, when we found that the self-help groups of men were not that effective. We have had a fair bit of success with women’s self-help groups. Women have been very supportive. For women who always struggled for some resources to run the household, today have some definite resources and are less worried. As a result, the alienation from land and other household resources has been stemmed to a great extent. There are currently eight self-help groups of women.

I belong to Uttar Pradesh. I came to Rajasthan in 1977 for employment. There are stark differences between Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. Agriculture is the prime source of livelihoods in Uttar Pradesh, while in Rajasthan, a majority of people are labourers, and a few also do agriculture. I worked first with Rajasthan Agriculture University. In 1978 I joined Seva Mandir, one of the largest NGOs in the area. I made many friends at that time, who continue to support and guide me till today. The value of working closely with poor and marginalised people was instilled in me when I worked with Seva Mandir and continues to be my key motivation today. At times, responsibilities in the family make me consider return to my native land in Uttar Pradesh, but the condition of the people I work with, especially the poorest, reinforce the commitment in me to stay and continue working. When I was young, I was actively helped my parents in agriculture. It is this knowledge and these benefits from land and agriculture that I want to bring to the poor communities in Rajasthan. As a citizen, this is the least I can do for society.