Tribal communities are often identified by some specific signs such as primitive traits, distinctive culture, geographical isolation, shyness to contact with the community at large and backwardness. Along with these, some tribal groups have some specific features such as dependency on hunting, gathering for food, having
- pre-agriculture level of technology,
- zero or negative growth of population and
- extremely low level of literacy.
These groups are called Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups. The need for identification PVTGs are more vulnerable among the tribal groups. Due to this factor, more developed and assertive tribal groups take a major chunk of the tribal development funds, because of which PVTGs need more funds directed for their development. In this context, in 1975, the Government of India initiated to identify the most vulnerable tribal groups as a separate category called PVTGs and declared 52 such groups, while in 1993 an additional 23 groups were added to the category, making it a total of 75 PVTGs out of 705 Scheduled Tribes, spread over 17 states and one Union Territory (UT), in the country (2011 census).
How they are identified
Government of India designed a procedure to identify PVTGs. According to the procedure, the state governments or UT governments submit proposals to the Central Ministry of Tribal Welfare for identification of PVTGs. After ensuring the criteria is fulfilled, the Central Ministry selects those groups as PVTGs.
| State / UT Name | PVTGs Name |
| Andhra Pradesh and Telangana | 1. Bodo Gadaba 2. Bondo Poroja 3. Chenchu 4. Dongria Khond 5. Gutob Gadaba 6. Khond Poroja 7. Kolam 8. Kondareddis 9. Konda Savaras 10. Kutia Khond 11. Parengi Poroja l2. Thoti |
| Bihar and Jharkhand | 13. Asurs 14. Birhor 15. Birjia 16. Hill Kharia 17. Konvas 18. Mal Paharia 19. Parhaiyas 20. Sauda Paharia 21. Savar |
| Gujarat | 22. Kathodi 23. Kohvalia 24. Padhar 25. Siddi 26. Kolgha |
| Karnataka | 27. Jenu Kuruba 28. Koraga |
| Kerala | 29. Cholanaikayan (a section of Kattunaickans) 30. Kadar 31. Kattunayakan 32. Kurumbas 33. Koraga |
| Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh | 34. Abujh Macias 35. Baigas 36. Bharias 37. Hill Korbas 38. Kamars 39. Saharias 40. Birhor |
| Maharashtra | 41. Katkaria (Kathodia) 42. Kolam 43. Maria Gond |
| Manipur | 44. Marram Nagas |
| Odisha | 45. Birhor 46. Bondo 47. Didayi 48. Dongria-Khond 49. Juangs 50. Kharias 51. Kutia Kondh 52. Lanjia Sauras 53.Lodhas 54. Mankidias 55. Paudi Bhuyans 56. Soura 57. Chuktia Bhunjia |
| Rajasthan | 58. Seharias |
| Tamil Nadu | 59. Kattu Nayakans 60. Kotas 61. Kurumbas 62. Irulas 63. Paniyans 64. Todas |
| Tripura | 65. Reangs |
| Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand | 66. Buxas 67. Rajis |
| West Bengal | 68. Birhor 69. Lodhas 70. Totos |
| Andaman & Nicobar Islands | 71. Great Andamanese 72. Jarawas 73. Onges 74.Sentinelese 75. Shorn Pens |
The characteristics of PVTGs
In 1973, the Dhebar Commission created Primitive Tribal Groups (PTGs) as a separate category, who are less developed among the tribal groups. In 2006, the Government of India renamed the PTGs as Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs). PVTGs have some basic characteristics -they are mostly homogenous, with a small population, relatively physically isolated, social institutes cast in a simple mould, absence of written language, relatively simple technology and a slower rate of change etc.
Population : In India, tribal population makes up for 8.6% of the total population. Tribal people live in about 15% of the geographical area of the country. The places they live vary from plains, forests, hills, inaccessible areas etc. PVTGs are scattered in different geographical areas of the country. According to the 2001 census, the PVTGs population is approximately. 27,68,322. There are 12 PVTGs having a population above 50,000 and the remaining groups have a population of 1000 or less. The PVTG of Sahariyas has the highest population of 4,50,217, while the PVTGs of Sentinelese and Andamanese has a very small population of 39 and 43, respectively.
Social conditions and declining population
The cultural practices, systems, self governance and livelihood practices of PVTGs have a lot of variations, depending on the group and locality. These tribal groups are widely different culturally. The level of inequalities in social and economical conditions is very high amongst PVTGs. Their problems are also very
different from group to group. The growth of PVTGs’ population is either stagnating or declining, compared to the general population growth, particularly in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands where the declining rate is very high. There are five PVTGs in the Andaman islands such as Great Andamanese, Jarawas, Onges, Sentinelese and Shom Pens. In 1858, the Great Andamanese were estimated at nearly 3500,in 1901 their number declined to 625. According to the2001 Census, the Great Andamanese stood at just 43, Jarawas are 241, Onges are 96, Sentineles are 39 and Shom Pens are 398.
Livelihoods
PVTGs depend on various livelihoods such as food gathering, non Timber Forest Produce (NTFP), hunting, livestock rearing, shifting cultivation and artisan works. Most of their livelihoods depend on the forest. The forest is their life and livelihood. They collect various NTFP items such as honey, gum, amla, bamboo,
shrubs, fuel wood, dry leaves, nuts, sprouts, wax, medical plants,roots and tubes. Most of the NTFP items they gather are for consumption and they sell the remaining to middle men. But due to the shrinking forests, environmental changes and new forest conservation policies, their NTFP collection is getting hampered. Because of the lack of awareness about the value of NTFP produce, PVTGs have been exploited by the middle men.
Health conditions
Health is a prerequisite for human development and it is an essential component in well-being of humankind.Health problems of any community are influenced by different factors such as social, economical and political factors. The health status of PVTGs is in an awful condition because of multiple factors like poverty, illiteracy, lack of safe drinking water, bad sanitary conditions, difficult terrain, malnutrition, poor maternal and child health services, unavailability of health and nutritional services, superstition and deforestation. The diseases like anemia, upper respiratory problem, malaria; gastro-intestinal disorders like acute diarrhea, Intestinal protozoan; micro nutrient deficiency and skin infection diseases are common among PVTGs. Many of these diseases can be prevented by providing nutrition food, timely medical facilities and health awareness. The condition of education is also very poor, with an average literacy rate of 10% to 44% in PVTGs.
Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups: Food Security and Habitat Rights The Right to Food Commissioner’s Report identifies Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) as most susceptible to malnutrition. The report acknowledges that these communities derive their nutrition from the forest and habitat they live in. Tribals are denied access to the forest and its produce, often due to persistent lobbying by conservationists and environmentalists. PVTGs inhabit areas that are inaccessible by road, and therefore cannot travel easily to Anganwadi centers, where food is prepared. Moreover, their hamlets are considered too small to open an Anganwadi centre. As far as the Midday Meal Schemes are concerned, tribals are wary of their children attending mainstream schools, either due to fear of stigmatization in school or physical distance.
A spate of infant deaths among the PVTG in Attapadi in the Palakkad district of Kerala brought back the spectre of malnourishment, anaemia and extreme poverty. The report of the advisor to the commissioners in the Right to Food petition before the Supreme Court received information that 36 children had died
in the six months preceding his visit in May 2013. Severe anemia, malnourishment, the lack of potable water, the absence of specialized doctors and of equipment led to the precarious nature of health care and protection in Attapadi, leading to the death of infants. At a public hearing in Attapadi, speaker after speaker spoke of the distance between the dwellings of Kurumba tribals and the ration shop, the paucity of minor irrigation projects that could ensure drinking water and irrigation to the tribal community, the inaccessibility to remote tribal villages and the problem brought on by drought. One issue that was raised was about forest-dwelling communities which have had a sudden shift in their nutrition status after rules that have been made which prevent killing of animals without providing them with alternatives that would make up for the loss of nourishment.
Attapadi has again highlighted the implications of extreme poverty and inaccessibility. Attapadi is a stark reminder of how forgotten tribal communities can become and what contexts of direness are produced by extreme poverty, remoteness and the non-provision of services by an administration. An ‘Attapadi package’ was put together “intended to improve the health services, functioning of the Anganwadis and also revive traditional agricultural practices in the region, along with implementation of the Kurumba package which itself includes house construction, buying of land, electrical works, soil conservation,
drinking water program, road, health, poverty alleviation, community area development, etc.” Although this was a response to an emergency, it reveals the extent of systemic changes needed to deal with situations of extreme poverty and vulnerability. Years of deprivation has caused malnutrition rates to escalate. Control over forest resources is, therefore, essential for the survival of PVTGs. In recognition of this vulnerability, the FRA has a special provision for PVTGs for “rights including community tenures of habitat and habitation” under Section 3(1) (e). Habitat is defined as including the ‘area comprising the customary habitat and such other habitats in Reserved Forests and Protected Forests’.
In the Orissa Mining Corporation. v. MoEF case, the Court pointed to the FRA Rules, 2012 which state: “In view of the differential vulnerability of Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PTGs) amongst the forest dwellers, District Level Committee should play a pro-active role in ensuring that all PTGs receive habitat rights in consultation with the concerned PTGs’ traditional institutions and their claims for habitat rights are filed before the concerned Gram Sabhas.”
The Rules further state that the DLC is also vested with the function of examining whether claims filed by PVTGs have been addressed keeping in mind the objectives of the FRA. For PVTGs, the implementation of FRA has been poorest since their habitat rights are not clearly defined or understood by the Forest Department. No disaggregated information and data at the national level on status of the implementation of the provision for rights of PVTGs particularly of habitat rights under the FRA. The Joint Committee Report, 2010, found that “Orissa is the only state that has taken some pro-active steps on PTGs and issued a number of circulars focusing their rights, and entrusted the responsibility on the micro-project officers and project administrators of ITDAs, but neither ‘habitat right’ nor CFRs in any case has been finalized.” Out of the 75 PVTGs, there are hardly one or two examples of habitat rights claims (claims by the Juangs in Keonjhar, Odisha and by Madia in Bhamragarh of Maharashtra). The claims by the Juangs are still pending. Some problems that arise for tribal communities in claiming habitat rights include: lack of clarity over definition and interpretation of what is entailed in habitat rights; multiple interpretations of habitat, especially if the user rights of other, non-PVTG groups sharing the same territory are involved; or if the traditional habitat boundaries of PVTGs overlap with wildlife habitats; and a lack of awareness among such communities about the terms in which to articulate such claims. The definition of ‘habitat’ among PVTGs is still evolving. One example is the work being done in the Baigachak area of Dindori district, Madhya Pradesh to document the traditional ‘garhs’ or places of origin of the Baigas, a forestdependent PVTG belonging to Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. Garhs are sacred paces (villages, trees, rocks, or caves) that could extend much further than the traditional village or forest boundaries of Baigas resident in one particular area. Garhs are often in Reserved Forests, and are associated with deities, sacred plants and totemic animal species revered and protected by particular clans of the Baigas. The worship of garhs is a living tradition. Activists in Dindori are attempting, through tracing the garhs of various Baiga clans, to establish a history of the range and pattern of movement through which Baigas have settled in their present habitations.
The difference between states of poverty and of vulnerability has been explored in the context of PVTGs. It is doubtless true, that many communities of Scheduled Tribes, and more particularly of PVTG, can be classified as being in poverty. Yet, their access to resources in forests makes a difference to the extent of their vulnerability. Where there has been a depletion of forest cover, and the emphasis is on timber trees, it was pointed out that the effect was to add to the vulnerability of PVTGs. Where, on the other hand, the resources are safeguarded and the community has access, the ability to prevent nutritional distress can be
augmented.
There are attempts underway to document and give value to the resources which are found in PVTG areas. The Jana Swasthya Sahyog in Chhattisgarh has, for instance, identified the various food, fruits and flora in the region and explained the nutritional value of the produce. The depletion of these resources, or denial of access to the resources, threatens a descent from poverty to vulnerability. This is a tangible loss and must be accounted for, and averted, when any program or project is proposed.
Scheme for PVTGs
The Scheme for Development of Primitive Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs), came into effect from April 1,2008. The Scheme defines PVTGs as the most vulnerable among the Scheduled Tribes and the Scheme therefore seeks to prioritise their protection and development. It identifies 75 PVTGs. The Scheme seeks to adopt a holistic approach to the socio-economic development of PVTGs and gives state governments flexibility in planning initiatives that are geared towards the specific socio-cultural imperatives of the specific groups at hand. Activities supported under the scheme include housing, land distribution, land
development, agricultural development, cattle development, construction of link roads, installation of non-conventional sources of energy, social security, etc.
Funds are made available only for activities essential for the survival, protection and development of PVTGs and not already funded by any other Scheme of the central/state governments. Each state and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands’ administration, is required to prepare a long term Conservation-cumDevelopment (CCD) plan, valid for a period of five years for each PVTG within its territory, outlining the initiatives it will undertake, financial planning for the same and the agencies charged with the responsibility of undertaking the same. The CCD Plan is approved by an Expert Committee, appointed by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. The Scheme is then funded entirely by the Central government.