Livelihoods, Poverty and Development of Adivasis: Reflections from a Village in South India

Abstract

The terms ‘livelihoods’, ‘poverty’ and ‘development’ have different meanings in different societies and people. Development implies a better quality of life and enahancement of opportunities, and better access to assets and services to marginal communities: particularly the Adivasis, women and other marginalized communities. Developing its theoretical framework around the existing literature on the issues, this article argues that prevailing factional politics and apathy on the part of the governing agency are preventing the marginalized groups from adequately benefitting from the developmental interventions. Keeping in view the aforementioned argument, an empirical study was conducted in a tribal settlement in South India in order to understand the implications of different developmental interventions initiated both by the state and NGOs to improve the lives and livelihoods of marginalized groups. On the basis of this argument, this article has sought to raise policy questions pertinent to both the policymakers and practitioners on the efficacy of policies related to vulnerable groups.

The Complexity of the “Tribal” Question in India: The Case of the Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups

“…. .” Elsewhere, Kasi (2017) has argued thatmost studies on poverty and development are undertaken either in India or in the world has discussed the concepts of poverty and development. They address the basic assertions of poverty and its implication on present-day global concerns of humans and their day-to-day lives and livelihoods in their entirety .…”

“…The majority of the tribal people live in the states of Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Odisha, and West Bengal (Government of India, 2011; Kasi, 2017). The socio-economic conditions of the tribals living in these states are, in several ways, different from those living in northeast India.…”

“…The committee report stated that there are 75 PVTGs that have been identified on the basis of the following criteria; forest dependent livelihoods; pre-agricultural level of existence; stagnant or declining population; low literacy rate and a subsistence-based economy (Renganathan, 2018: 217; Sabar, 2021: 21). Earlier, Lokur Committee (1965), the Joint Committee of Parliament on the SCs & STs Orders (Amendment) Bill, (1967), Chanda Committee (1969), have identified essential characteristics of ST’s as follows; indications of primitive traits; a distinctive culture; shyness of contact with the community at large; geographical isolation; and backwardness (Kasi, 2017: 196; Sundar, 2016: 4–5).…”