Nomadic Report

Source:

http://www.hic-sarp.org/documents/NomadicReport.pdf




CONFRONTING DISCRIMINATION
1
Introduction
Nomadic communities constitute approximately 7% of
India’s population. Marginalization continues to characterize the nomadic experience, and phenomena such as urbanization and environmental conservation schemes have contributed to the increasing impoverishment of these communities. In turn, the growing poverty has contributed to high rates of malnutrition, illiteracy and landlessness amongst these communities.

Land continues to be the primary source of livelihood, social and financial security in rural India.
Consequently, many of these communities view settlement as the solution to their current
difficulties. Although exercising the right to self-determination is essential to the identity of a
community, the movement to settle raises many concerns. Impact analyses have to be conducted
to determine how settlement will affect the cultural identity of the community, how the dynamic
relationship between the community and the land will be altered, and how community customs
can be preserved in light of the change in lifestyle. The needs of the community have to be
identified and articulated in order to design programs that facilitate lifestyle adaptation.
Ecological impacts of displacement must also be examined since nomadic communities have
helped to preserve eco-diversity through their sustainable hunting, farming, herding and foraging
practices.

Since 2001, Habitat International Coalition-Housing and Land Rights Network (HIC-HLRN)
has worked with the nomadic communities of Rajasthan, India. HIC-HLRN has contributed
to the advocacy for their land and housing entitlements by sharing its expertise, research material
and facilitating human rights education through workshops and training exchange programs. In
May 2002 and October 2003, HIC-HLRN conducted a pilot study concerning the ongoing
struggle for land and housing rights of six nomadic communities in Rajasthan. This project was
undertaken in collaboration with Muktidhara Sanstan, a community based organization that has
been working on the citizenship and constitutional rights of nomadic communities in the Aravali
region of Rajasthan. The research was undertaken by Rita Anand, a freelance journalist who
conducted the May 2002 phase and Ai Li Lim of Rooftops Canada who made a separate visit
to the communities in October 2003. The HLRN work with the nomadic communities has also
benefited from the guidance of Shivani Bhardwaj.

The researchers from HLRN visited the settlements of six different nomadic tribes in various
parts of Rajasthan. A total of eight settlements were visited in addition to three single-family
dwellings located in various villages in the Alwar district of Rajasthan. During the October 2003
visit Ai Li Lim met with K.L Sharma, tehsildar, or District Land Administrator, of the Bansur
district to gain insight on the local land allotment process and to observe the office’s management
of a particular application for land deed filed by a member of the nomadic community. She
also met with Prithvi Raj and Satish Kumar Sharma, District and Session Judges in Jaipur, to
discuss the status of Habitual Offenders Act and the workings of the special courts for claims
made under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Our study has revealed that, among other factors, State failure to provide the legal infrastructure
to facilitate land holding and protect tenure has exacerbated the vulnerability of the nomads.
In many cases, landless families are forced to move into unoccupied land. Their lack of legal
status however, leaves them vulnerable to evictions. Further, the communities’ inadequate access
to basic amenities such as water, grazing land and roads are violations of human rights, pursuant
to the Indian Constitution and international law. A review of India’s international and domestic
commitments regarding land and housing rights has also shown that the right to adequate
housing must be adapted to the community’s needs. Thus, regardless of a community’s choice
of lifestyle, the universal standards of adequate housing must be met.

Executive Summary
The grassroots demand to formally articulate and advocate for the rights of
the nomadic communities has yielded a pilot study conducted by Habitat International Coalition’s Housing and Land Rights Network (hereinafter HIC-HLRN) in collaboration with Muktidara Sansthan, a community based organization.
For the purpose of the study, six nomadic communities were visited in the Alwar district of
the state of Rajasthan, namely the Bhopas, Bawarias, Gadhiar Lohars, Kalbelias, Nats and
Banjaras. The methodology of the inquiry included: observing the living conditions in the
communities and recording instances of State failure to provide basic living amenities, reporting
how land allotment schemes are implemented and retrieving testimonial evidence of human
rights violations such as forced evictions, police brutality and racial harassment. Visits and
investigations were facilitated by the local organization, Muktidara Sanstan.
The primary objective of the study was to identify the substantive concerns of the communities
and to articulate these concerns within the paradigm of fundamental human rights, in particular,
the right to land and adequate housing. It is hoped that by broadening the discussion to the
universal language of rights, the report will:
1. Provide the communities with tools to assert their rights more effectively;
2. Emphasize the need for further, in-depth studies to be conducted, in light of the absence
of information about nomadic tribes in India;
3. Identify problems that may arise during the adaptation to sedentary life;
4. Raise public awareness about the issues confronting nomadic tribes;
5. Initiate the creation of ties with other nomadic communities within India;
6. Pave the way towards a network with the Roma communities of Europe to strengthen the
advocacy for nomadic rights on the international level.
Observations and Findings
While HIC-HLRN recognizes that not all nomadic communities wish to alter their nomadic
lifestyle, the research team observed that many communities are choosing to pursue sedentary
lifestyles because traditional livelihoods have become unsustainable. All the communities studied
live well below the poverty line. Finding food is a daily challenge as urbanization has encroached
upon common lands used for agriculture and conservation laws limit access to the forest produce
that is critical to survival. The movement to settle is in part, a response to narrowing livelihood
options as communities work toward the ultimate goals of self-reliance and the preservation
of their culture:1
1. Through the classification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the Indian
Constitution provides legal benefits to communities that have been historically marginalized.
The exclusion of some nomadic communities from the constitutional categories denies them
these legislative safeguards and benefits.
2. The failure of the government to implement land reforms that recognize the customary
rights of nomadic communities is a denial of the right to legal security of tenure, a
fundamental component of the human right to adequate housing.
3. On a normative level, the nomads continue to suffer social isolation, ostracism and suspicion
despite the constitutional guarantee to promote and protect the cultural and economic
concerns of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.2 Pursuant to
both international and national legal obligations in matters of housing policy, the State must
remain accountable in ensuring access to adequate housing and monitoring the impact of
their housing policies. Presently, no formal scheme exists to address the housing needs of
nomadic communities.
Recommendations
The State must comply with all its commitments in accordance with the Constitution of India
and the various international treaties it has ratified. Development and resettlement measures must
be established with the consent and collaboration of the nomadic communities. The right to
adequate housing can only be realized if various international criteria are fulfilled including: the
right to secure tenure, availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure, habitability;
accessibility for disadvantaged groups, affordability; location that allows access to schools and
jobs, and housing policies that respect the cultural identities of the inhabitants.3 Presently, these
minimum core obligations are not realized.
HIC-HLRN recommends that the central government of India and the state government of
Rajasthan:
1 Mandakini Pant, “Expression of Rights and Citizenship: the Case of the Nomads of Rajasthan, India” online: Pria Annual Report
   2001 <http://www.pria.org/studyreport.htm> (date accessed: 14 September 2003).
2 Article 15 of the Constitution of India prohibits discrimination on the grounds of Religion, Race, Sex or Caste. More significantly,
 the Constitution enjoins the advancement and amelioration of Scheduled Castes and Tribes as well as Other Backward Classes, Article
15.4. These provisions are to be interpreted in accordance with the principles of “justice, social and political,” enumerated in the
 preamble of the Constitution. For more on the discrimination suffered by the nomadic communities refer to Pant, supra, note 1.
3 Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 4 (1991) The Right to Adequate Housing (Article 11(1) of the
 Covenant), U.N. Doc. HRI\GEN\1\Rev.1 at 53 (1994).

Citizenship Rights
1. Recognize the citizenship rights of such communities by implementing participatory
processes that encourage the voice and visibility of nomadic community members in all levels
of decision-making. In this light, voter identity cards should be issued.
2. Sensitize law enforcement officials through training and awareness programs. Ensure that
strong punitive action is taken in cases of police brutality. Training programs should be
established involving national, state and civil society human rights institutions
3. Develop public awareness campaigns to promote better understanding about nomadic
communities.
4. Repeal of the Habitual Offenders Act, taking into consideration the historical stigma suffered
by nomadic communities as social outcasts prone to crime.
5. Community-based groups are key players in reacting and responding to the needs of affected
communities and lobbying for policy reform. The State must recognize their roles as
intermediaries and collaborate with them when designing policies for livelihood training and
land reform.
Land Entitlements and the Right to Adequate Housing
1. Ensure transparency and administrative efficiency in all state transactions with the affected
communities. Application for title deeds should be dealt with as a priority. Written
explanations should be given to claimants for any delays in the application process.
2. Update land records to include the customary rights of access and use of nomadic
communities. For example, migration routes should be mapped out and access to these lands
should be facilitated.
3. Ensure that nomadic communities are given time and the forum to voice their needs and
to discuss land allotment and encroachment issues, especially during public hearings held
at the panchayat, or village, level.
4. Improve accessibility to records for verifying title deeds and other associated information
to encourage transparency.
5. Perpetrators of forced eviction are punished to the full extent of the law and a schedule
of sanctions for such offences should be published.
Right to Livelihood
1. Initiate dialogue and a policy of public participation with the Department of Forestry with
regards to environmental conservation schemes. In that regard, the Indian Forest Act and Wild
Life Protection Act should be amended to include provisions that enjoin public consultation
with communities affected by conservation measures. It is crucial that future establishment
of protected areas should begin with the consent and the cooperation of the indigenous
communities.

2. Establish livelihood-training programs designed in collaboration with the local community-
based organizations, focused on addressing the specialized needs of the communities.
HIC-HLRN and Muktidhara hope that the findings of this report will inform the establishment
of a regulatory and administrative housing policy for nomadic communities. It is also hoped
that by voicing some of their concerns, the report will initiate meaningful dialogue between the
affected communities and the government that will thereby engender new processes that
emphasize consultation and inclusion.
Mukti Dhara Sansthan
Formed in 1991, Muktidhara is a community-based organization committed to securing the
citizenship rights and alleviating the social and economic deprivations of the Rajasthani nomads.
The organization works with 18,000 nomads residing in 26 informal settlements at Alwar, Jaipur,
Dausa and Bharatpur districts in northwest Rajasthan. Muktidhara has been at the forefront of
the Rajasthani nomads’ struggle to acquire land rights, voting rights and adequate education,
health and civic amenities. It has attempted to compel government accountability in the
implementation of state policies regarding nomadic communities. In addition to lobbying for land
entitlements, Muktidhara has initiated rehabilitation and development programs aimed at
increasing self-reliance. Informal education centers have been set up to teach nomadic children
basic reading and writing skills. The organization has assisted in the digging of wells and worked
to obtain voter identification and ration cards for every member in the district.To date,
Muktidhara’s interventions have reaped positive outcomes. Several nomadic communities in the
Alwar district have been allotted land entitlements. Members of the district have been included
on the public voting list. Six informal pre-schools have been established to prepare nomadic
children for primary education. A panchayat, or council of nomads meets periodically to settle
disputes and discuss development strategies. With Muktidhara’s guidance, the nomadic
communities of Rajasthan are learning to vocalize and articulate their needs and to demand the
right to live with dignity and self-respect. However, much work remains. The community
continues to be plagued by rising rates of poverty and unemployment. District level governments
continue to be suspicious of Muktidhara’s activities and, as a result, are often unresponsive to
the organization’s demands. Initiatives to open more informal schools have been hindered by
the lack of instructors willing to commute to distant villages.

Historical and Legal Overview of
Nomadic Communities in India
The ghumantoos, or nomads, of India are mobile tribes, each characterized by a distinct culture
that is reflected in their beliefs, customs and traditional practices. Each jati practices a hereditary
occupation and often speaks a specialized dialect. The exact number of the nomadic population
is unknown because a formal census has never been conducted of these nomadic communities
in India. However, informal studies indicate that about five hundred endogamous groups make
their home in India, two dozen of which can be found in Rajasthan. Nomadic communities
constitute about 7% of the Indian population.4 At present, nomadic communities are found
in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Haryana and
Punjab. Pastoral nomadic communities also live in the Himalayan region in India.
In general, nomadic tribes are organized into sub bands of five to fifteen families, each headed
by an elder who wields the authority to settle disputes. A panchayat, or village council often
governs inter-jati affairs. Family size may range from five to twenty five people, since the family
group commonly includes extended family members. The sub band might travel on independent
routes and maintains a self-contained existence and governance for most of the year. However,
bands belonging to the same ethnic group return annually to the tribe’s customary camping
ground in order to regroup. During these reunions, marriages are performed, cattle are traded
and communal bonds are reformed.5
Non-pastoral nomads traditionally depend on sedentary communities for their subsistence by
providing services or goods to the communities they frequented during their travels. Each jati
practices a particular craft such as basket weaving, blacksmithing and acrobating. In the past,
because of the varied lifestyles and occupations of the tribes, livelihoods could be sustained
and inter-tribe competition for jobs was minimal.
Today, nomadic communities in India are confronted with barriers of discrimination and
exclusion. Colonial laws that declared these tribes to be “criminal” and caste segregation have
contributed to this marginalization. Despite the repeal of such laws and constitutional guarantees

(K.C Malhotra, “Nomads in India” in State of the Environment in India, eds. R. Chopra & A. Agarwal, New Delhi: 1982.
See informal study reports in the introduction of Miriam Robertson, Snake Charmers: The Jogi Nath Kalbelias of Rajasthan. Ethnography
of Non-Pastoral Nomads, Illustrated Books, Jaipur: 1998 at 27.)

of equality, hierarchical social norms and historical prejudices continue to color the treatment
of nomads today. For example, nomadic children are excluded from attending schools and
families are banned from water wells and houses of worship. Physical contact with members
of upper caste communities is forbidden because members of the nomadic community are
considered impure. Thus, they are made to eat from different utensils and restricted from the
facilities frequented by members of the upper castes.
Caste based violence is a prevalent concern. Nomadic communities are commonly blamed for
high incidents of crime and soaring unemployment rates in the villages. Nomads that attempt
to settle have had their houses burnt by members of settled communities unwilling to live in close
proximity with nomadic families. The nomads continue to be targeted as objects of physical abuse:
members of the community are physically threatened, stoned and mobbed by villagers intent on
eradicating the social problems allegedly caused by the nomads. These incidents are largely
unreported because caste bias often extends to local law enforcement agencies and the media.
Exclusion from schools contributes to high rates of illiteracy and unemployment. These social
problems have, in turn, caused widespread poverty and high mortality rates. Lacking the academic
requirements, most nomadic community members do not qualify for basic jobs. Legislative and
constitutional guarantees have not translated into work opportunities, training, health care and schools.
Nomadism v. Settlement
The livelihoods of nomadic communities have been affected by various phenomena. Pastoral
nomads and nomadic hunters and gatherers have been particularly affected by privatization,
degradation in the quality and quantity of natural resources and restrictions on their access to
these resources. For non-pastoral nomads, mechanization, industrialization, and advances in
modern entertainment technologies have also had adverse implications on livelihoods.
Diminishing sources of income is the principle cause of the growing numbers of nomadic tribes
shifting to sedentary lifestyles. This change in lifestyle often requires occupational change as well.
For example, nomadic tribe members are increasingly resorting to wage labor.6 It must be
emphasized that the choice to pursue a nomadic or settled lifestyle rests solely with the individual
or the community. However, the question of settlement raises several critical issues:
1. How will settlement affect the cultural identity of the communities?
2. Will engaging in new professions and livelihoods result in the erosion of cultural identity
and stifle the heritage connected with the freedom to travel?
3. What will adaptation entail, considering that many of these communities have known no
other way of life and are not trained to perform tasks relevant to sedentary life?
4. What are the ecological impacts of resettlement?
5. How will settlement policies affect other communities that want to continue the nomadic
way of life?
6 P.K Misra & N. Prabhakar, Non Pastoral Nomads and Bio-Diversity Subthematic Paper Prepared for the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action
Plan. Draft. Government of India: 2002.

Criminality: Notification and Denotification
The prevailing social and economic impoverishment of the nomadic communities must be
understood within its historical framework. Marginalisation of nomadic communities began with
the British assumption of sovereignty in 1858. Sovereign laws replaced native customary laws and
contributed to the dissolution of the traditional fabric of Indian society. Through the enactment
of a succession of land and criminal legislation, nomadic communities were divested of usufructuary
and hunting rights to the land, forests and animals from which they derive their livelihoods.
Prior to the 19th century, the nomads of India fulfilled specialized roles, connecting distant villages
by making available goods and know-how from regions that were otherwise inaccessible. Even
though excluded by caste, nomadic communities had a defined place within the social structure
as they provided a variety of distinct services ranging from blacksmithing to entertainment.7
The Criminal Tribes Act
In 1871, the colonial government enacted the Criminal Tribes Act with the objective of gaining
greater control over rebel rural regions that resisted British annexation of land. In effect, tribes
listed in the Act were declared “criminal.” Law enforcement officials were granted wide
discretion regarding the management and governing of such enlisted communities, enabling
them to carry out summary convictions and imprisonment without trial. Pursuant to the Act,
the listed communities were subjected to mandatory daily registration that severely curtailed their
movement. Rehabilitation camps were established in which criminal tribe members were
“chained, shackled, caned and flogged while being surrounded by high walls ... in the name of
the homegrown science of “curocriminlogy”, it was declared they would be cured of their
criminal propensities if they were given work.”8
In 1952, the Criminal Tribes Act was repealed and replaced by the Habitual Offenders Act. The
listed tribes were officially de-notified. However, the stigma of criminality still remains and the
nomads continue to be perceived as social outcasts. Nor did de-notification affect the cycle of
derivation. De-notified tribes are not an enumerated class under the constitutional schedules
and because of this, lack the constitutional safeguards and benefits enjoyed by the Scheduled
Castes and Tribes. Although some tribes have been included in recent amended lists, many
impoverished tribes meriting specialized concessions remain unscheduled.9
The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), in a historic meeting held in February 2000,
recommended repeal of the Habitual Offenders Act.10 The NHRC pledged to monitor the atrocities
suffered by de-notified communities, reorient police training systems and to sensitize State
machinery. The Commission recommends that each state work out an Action Plan addressing the
requirements and special problems of these groups. However, to date such recommendations have
yet to be implemented and the State of Rajasthan has not repealed the Habitual Offender’s Act.
Meena Radhakrishna, “Dishonored by History” online: The Hindu Folio <http: www.hindunet.com/folio.html.> (date accessed: 15
September 2003).
8 Ibid.
9 Milind Bokil, “De-notified and Nomadic Tribes: A Perspective,” Economic and Political Weekly, 12 January 2002.
10Taking up the Cause of the Denotified and Nomadic Tribes” online: National Human Rights Commission, India <http:
www.nhrc.nic.in> (date accessed: 16 September 2003).7

Exclusion from Reservations
The Constitution makes provisions for the protection and “uplifting” of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes. To implement the constitutionally mandated welfare schemes, the tribes were
identified and schedules were drawn up in 1950. However, orders for de-notification for
“criminal tribes” were not passed until 1952. As a result, the de-notified tribes were excluded
from the constitutional schedules. This exclusion has numerous implications:
1. The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, prohibiting the violation
of the civil and political rights of enumerated castes and tribes, does not apply to de-notified
tribes. As such, violations of human rights cannot be addressed under its provisions.
2. De-notified tribes do not qualify for reservations and concessions. This contributes to the
lack of representation in government and exclusion from employment opportunities.
Some de-notified tribes have been categorized as scheduled tribes in state lists but there has
been no uniformity in the implementation of classification policies. The stigma of criminality
and nomadism hinders the integration envisioned by government policies. Because their history,
experiences and circumstances differ from that of other intermediate castes, a distinct framework
of entitlements for ex-criminal tribes must be created. In a submission to the National Commission
to Review the Working of the Constitution of India, jati representatives requested the creation of a
separate schedule, particularly reflecting the needs of de-notified tribes.11
However, the government has yet to respond to this submission.
Protection for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Today, although legally denounced, caste segregation prevails. As an illustration, in 1991, only
29% of Scheduled Castes and 36% of Scheduled tribes were literate.12 The Constitution of India
designates special provisions for the improvement of the so-called “backward” classes, or
Scheduled Tribes and Castes. In addition to the prohibition of discrimination guaranteed to every
citizen, the constitution includes safeguards to ensure that social and economic disabilities are
alleviated.13 The Constitution also stipulates that a National Commission be appointed to
investigate the conditions of these classes and identify the sectors and classes of society that
should qualify for aid. These identified classes are subsequently listed and granted constitutional
protection.14 In addition, the Constitution guarantees the implementation of welfare schemes and
provides for special reservation of seats in the Legislature for Scheduled Castes and Tribes.15 To
protect the civil and political rights of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was enacted in 1989.16
See All India Banjara Seva Sangh’s Report to the National Commission to Review the Working Constitution of India, 2000.
UNDP India, UNDP India Reports, citing 1991 Census India, online: <http: www.undp.org.in> (date assessed: 10 November 2003).
The Registrar General of India has not released literacy rates for SC/STs from the 2001 Census.
13Article 15.
14Article 340.
15Article 275(1), Article 330.
16Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (33 of 1989), 11 September 1989.

Implications of Conservation and Eco Diversity Schemes
Various legislative enactments aimed at ecological preservation have eroded the customary rights
of hunting, foraging and trapping of nomadic communities. Pastoral nomadic tribes that are
restricted from reserved land are unable to graze their herds and non-pastoral nomads that
depend on the forests for resources are similarly deprived of the main source of their livelihoods.
The establishment of protected areas has not only alienated communities from their cultural
heritage, but has also contributed to the growing poverty amongst nomadic communities.
Government initiatives to promote biodiversity have either failed to recognize the right of
affected nomadic communities to participate in eco management policies or have not made such
participation mandatory. Forest officials often penalize pastoral nomads for their efforts to
protect the forest, not understanding the relationship of mutual dependence and respect
nomadic communities share with the environment.17
Nomadic communities have long lived in harmony with their natural surroundings, respecting and
protecting the integrity of the lands. Their sustainable hunting, collecting, pastoral and farming
practices have helped to preserve eco diversity. For example, by raising their animals in conditions
close to what is found in the wild, the rearing practices of pastoral nomads have contributed to
the maintenance of native breeds of animals.18 Land management policies can therefore be
strengthened by incorporating their insight, know how and traditional practices. Despite this,
nomadic communities continue to be excluded from resource management decisions.
The Wildlife (Protection) Act19
Enacted in 1972 with a view towards ecological conservation, the Act prohibits:
1. The hunting or capture of wild animals without a permit and authorizes state appropriation
of any wild animal bred in captivity.20 Permits are only granted for an exhaustive list of
purposes, including education, scientific research and scientific management.21 Provisions
addressing the needs of communities that practice hunting indigenously are not included
within the Act. Pursuant to the Act, tribes are prohibited from capturing the animals that
have been their only means of income.
2. The collecting of plants from forest lands.22 Tribes who sustain themselves with forest
products and the sale of medicines made from plants must seek a permit in order to legally
maintain their everyday activities.
3. The Act also enables the state government to declare tracts of forest reserved for
conservation purposes. Provided that all notification requirements are met, the courts have
Ministry of Environment and Forests and Kalpavriksh, Securing India’s Future: National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. Draft.
Government of India: 2003.
18P. Vivejanandan and SEVA, National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan Sub Theme: Pastoral Communities and Biodiversity Conservation. Draft.
Government of India: 2003.
19Wild Life Protection Act 1972 (53 of 1972) [hereinafter WPA].
20WPA Chapter III s.9 See Annex 1.
21WPA Chapter III s.12.
22WPA Chapter IIIA s.17A
17
upheld the forced eviction of unauthorized occupants.23 Individuals with prior claims to
the lands must tender an application to assert their rights.24 Such stringent bureaucratic
requirements substantively discriminate against the nomadic communities as many lack the
resources to undertake land claims.
4. The Act prescribes for the constitution of a Wild Life Advisory Board. The Board exercises
an advisory role when the state formulates conservation policies. Although the provision
allows for tribal representation on the Board, it does not explicitly impose mandatory
participation. Ultimately, the State wields the discretion to determine the Board’s constitution
and thus has the capacity to veto tribal representation.25
Indian Forest Act26
The Indian Forest Act empowers the state government to declare any forestland and forest produce
“reserved.” After a declaration of reservation, the state government has full management control
over the land and its resources, including the power to levy duties on timber or forest produce
collected and harvested within reserved forests. The Act also prohibits grazing, clearing, trapping
or hunting within reserved forests.27 In effect, the Act grants the government wide regulatory
ambit to restrict access to reserved lands, but this power is not circumscribed by a corresponding
state obligation to consider particular needs of the nomadic populations that depend on the
forests for their livelihoods.
Although shifting cultivation is allowed, the state government heavily regulates the practice.28
This right is deemed by the courts to be a privilege subject to the discretion of the government.29
The court’s interpretation invalidates the customary rights of pastoral nomads. Claimants must
submit to the jurisdiction of the state government who demarcates the amount of land suitable
for the needs of the applicant.
The Land Acquisition Act
The land rights of the nomads are also diminished by the enactment of legislation related to land.
The Land Acquisition Act 1894 describes the circumstances and reasons for which private land can
be acquired by the State. There are three salient characteristics of the acquisition process: First,
the government must declare its intent to acquire. Second, any person “interested” in filing an
objection to the intention to acquire has 30 days to do so after declaration of intention.30 Third,
any claim for compensation requires the production of entitlement documents. This requirement
excludes nomadic communities from compensation since nomadic lifestyles preclude the finding
of permanent occupation and “ownership” as envisioned within the Act.
Jaladhar Chakma v. Deputy Commissioner, Aizwal, Mizoram, AIR 1983.
WPA Chapter IV, s. 19.
25WPA Chapter II, s 6.
26Indian Forest Act 1927, (16 of 1927) [hereinafter IFA].
27IFA Chapter II s. 26(ff), See Annex 2
28IFA Chapter II s. 10.
29Mohd. Sidiq v. State, AIR 1968 All 396.
30Land Acquisition Act 1894 (1of 1894), s. 4(1).

Settlement: The Case of Six Nomadic
Communities in Alwar, Rajasthan
India’s northwest state of Rajasthan is home to 24 nomadic tribes with an estimated population
of nearly four million people. In recent years, phenomena such as industrialization, urbanization,
and the enactment of various land and forest policies have decimated their traditional livelihoods.
In the past, nomadic communities were viewed with fear and distrust because of their distinct
social norms but growing poverty has widened the social gap between settled and nomadic
communities, contributing to their increased isolation.31 In Rajasthan, relationships with settled
communities have deteriorated and hostility against the nomadic existence has intensified.
Because traditional livelihoods are no longer sustainable, many nomadic communities, including
the six studied in this report, seek to settle permanently. These six communities have settled
mainly in so-called “wastelands” or uncultivated, unoccupied government land under state
jurisdiction. Hostile resistance from settled communities hinders adaptation to sedentary lifestyle.
This hostility manifests in many different ways: homes are burnt, children are denied entry in
schools, families are prohibited from using village wells or pumps and community members are
subjected to harassment from local law enforcement.
Introduction to the six studied communities: Banjaras, Gadiya Lohars,
Nats, Bhopas, Kalbelias and Bawarias.
Banjaras
Known as the traders of salt and cattle, the Banjaras are, according to folklore, descendants
of the Charan people who were bards to the Rajputs. Their nomadic lifestyle began during the
Mughal dynasty, when they became carriers in the Mughal army. Their nomadism continued
throughout the colonial period when they became transporters of food grain and followed
transport routes through Gujarat, Rajasthan and Kabul. Also known as the ghumantoos, or people
of the cattle, the tribe is known for their distinct religion that is a blend of Hindu, Sikh and
Muslim rites and beliefs. Central to the religion is the figure of the cow, believed to be able
Meena Radhakrishna, “Colonial Construction of a Tribe: Yeruklas of Madras Presidency,” Economic and Political Weekly, 8-15 July
2000, refer to Introduction.

to ward off evil spirits and diseases. Often, Banjaras set up camps near cattle fairs, where trading
of their herd would ensue.32 Their knowledge of the lands is legendary, as their travel routes
became the foundation of the highways of North India. With the advent of railways and roads,
their historical roles have become obsolete. The Banjaras are listed as Other Backwards Castes
in Rajasthan.
Gadiya Lohars
Blacksmiths by trade, the Gadiya Lohars travel via carts drawn by donkeys known as gadiyas.
According to legend, the tribe followed the medieval leader Maharana Pratap and sought
protection of the forests after his defeat by the Mughal kings. The travel routes of the tribes
are determined by the agricultural seasons, as income is derived mostly from forging farming
implements. Every member of the household participates in the manufacture of steel tools,
although the male head is usually the principle artisan. Traditionally, trade in bullocks also
supplemented their income and from March to May the entire tribe gathered at a summer camp
to renew social ties and settle outstanding disputes.33 The Gadiya Lohars have Other Backward
Class status in Rajasthan.
Nats
The Nats were historically wandering entertainers. They are trained from childhood to be
acrobats and jugglers and these skills are displayed in fairs and carnivals. Also renowned for
their knowledge in herbal medicines, the elders of the tribes were, sought after for their tattooing
abilities. The Nats have Scheduled Caste status in Rajasthan.
Bhopas
The Bhopas are troubadours by profession. Using verse, song and dance, the Bhopas perform
traditional Hindu stories such as the battles contained in the Ramayana and the Mahabarata.. The
Bhopas’ historical knowledge is voluminous as they can recount the histories of each region
that they regularly traverse. The Bhopas are classified as a Scheduled Caste in Rajasthan.
Kalbelias
The Kalbelia tribe practices snake charming. As a tantric sect and followers of the guru Kanipa,
their esoteric practices have fuelled popular belief that they are practitioners of voodoo and
black magic. Kalbelias believe their guru was blessed with the ability to tame the serpent so
for them, snake charming is a sacred calling. Members of the Kalbelia tribe are often intricately
tattooed and female members wear heavy silver anklets and bracelets. These bodily ornaments
are to be presented after death as gifts to the gods. In addition to their prowess with snakes,
C.H Childers, “Banjaras,” in Pastoralists and Nomads in South Asia, eds. Lawrence Saadia Leshnik, Gunther-Dietz Sonthiemer, Otto
Harrassowitz, Weisbeden, Germany: 1975.
32
P.K Misra “The Gadiya Lohars: Nomadism and Economic Activities” in Pastoralists and Nomads in South Asia, eds. Lawrence Saadia
Leshnik, Gunther-Dietz Sonthiemer, Otto Harrassowitz, Weisbeden Germany: 1975 at 275.
33 the Kalbelias are known for their potent poisons, potions and medicines, extracted from the
venom of their snakes. It should be noted that the Wildlife Act prohibits the capturing of snakes.
Thus, the Kalbelias have been forced to practice their art in fairs and exhibitions outside the
country. The tribe is classified as Scheduled Caste in Rajasthan.
Bawarias
The Bawarias are hunters, trappers and trekkers. Traditionally, they supplemented their
livelihoods by selling their catch in local villages. In Rajasthan alone, their population numbers
31,903.34 Hindi is the dominant tongue amongst the Rajasthani Bawarias. Currently, a large
majority of the population is engaged as guards in agricultural fields (chowkidari). During
agricultural season, the Bawarias set up temporary settlement in the fields of their employers.
Bawarias are classified as Scheduled Caste in Rajasthan.
Bahar Dutt, “The forgotten people- Bawarias of Rajasthan, Proceedings of a Public Hearing.” Draft. New Delhi: August 2003.

34The Legal Framework:
The Right to Land and Adequate Housing
The Government of
India is obliged to respect and protect the human right to adequate
housing. The human rights paradigm engenders State accountability and offers the perspective,
the standards and the mechanisms to ensure that entitlements are effectively realized. This
framework also ensures that the overarching themes of equality and indivisibility of rights inform
the discussion of land and housing entitlements.
In the case of the Rajasthani nomads, the fight for land and housing rights must also be
understood in the context of discrimination and exclusion. Caste bias and anti-nomadic
sentiments profoundly affect access to land, education and employment opportunities. The
systemic discrimination suffered by members of nomadic communities is a flagrant breach of
human rights norms.
The Indian Constitution
The Indian Constitution enumerates the fundamental rights and duties of the State, and protects
individual liberty by guaranteeing economic, social and political justice for all. The overarching
philosophy of the Constitution is promulgated in a preamble that delineates the objects the State
is obliged to promote and the spirit in which the constitutional provisions should interpreted,
namely, the ideals of justice, liberty and equality.35
Although the right to property has been omitted from the set of fundamental rights protected
by the Constitution, the right to adequate housing is recognized and protected as a subset
of other fundamental rights.36 Article 21 provides that no person be deprived of his or her
life and personal liberty.37 The courts have held that the right to life encompasses the right
to live with human dignity. The Supreme Court affirms that living with dignity necessarily
entails that the core amenities of life are readily accessible. Thus, the right to shelter is a
constitutional guarantee.
Re Berubari Union, A. 1960 S.C. 846.
3544th Amendment Act, 1978. Because the right to property is not a fundamental right, any person deprived of property as a result
of governmental policy has fewer means of redress against the government including restricted access to compensation.
36See Annex 3
37 The Supreme Court of India, in Francis Coralie v. The Union Territory of Delhi, posits:
The fundamental right to life which is the most precious human right and which forms the arc
of all other human rights must be interpreted...[to] enhance the dignity of the individual and
the worth of a human person...We may think that the right to life includes the right to live with
human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely, the bare necessities of life such as adequate
nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head.38
This expansive vision of the right to life and human dignity is reiterated in Chamelli Singh and
Ors. v. State of UP:
Right to live guaranteed in any civilized society implies the right to food, water, decent
environment, education, medical care and shelter [emphasis added].
The Supreme Court has held that that the right to livelihood is an integral facet of the right
to life.39 Transgression of the right by legislation or administrative policies is colorable State
action under the Constitution. In the same vein, the Supreme Court has recognized the close
nexus between the effects of eviction and livelihoods in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corp:
Eviction of the petitioners from their dwellings would result in deprivation of their livelihoodÉ
The right under article 21 is the right to livelihood, because no person can live without the means
of living i.e. the means of livelihood...there is a close nexus between life and means of livelihood
and as such that which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life liveable, must
be deemed an integral component of life.40
Article 14 of the Constitution is a guarantee of equal protection of the laws. This is a guarantee
of substantive equality, interpreted by the courts as an obligation of the State to take affirmative
action in providing facilities and opportunities for those disadvantaged.41 More significantly,
Article 15 directly addresses the principle of equality by prohibiting discrimination on the
grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Read together, these provisions not only
prohibit the exclusion of nomads from basic needs and land rights, but also implicate State action
in redressing these deprivations.
India’s commitment to justice and equality on an international level is enshrined in Article 51
of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has declared that the provision enjoins the State to
meet its international obligations. More particularly, the court has articulated that legislative and
executive actions conform to the principles established in international covenants.42
International Mechanisms and Instruments
India is a signatory to international instruments that among others, obligates the State to take
steps to eradicate discrimination and other segregationist practices. In addition to these anti-
discrimination instruments, the government has ratified treaties that recognize that the right to
adequate housing as a fundamental human right. The act of ratification legally binds the State
to implement its obligations through legislative enactments, policy decisions, judicial affirmation
(1981) 1 SCC 608.
Narendra Kumar v. State of Haryana JT (1994) 2SC 94.
40
(1985) 3 SCC 545.
41
Panchayat Varga Shramaji Samudaik Sahakari Khedut Cooperative Society v. Haribhai Mevabhai A.I.R 1996 S.C. 2578.
42
Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996) 5 SCC 125.
38
39
and administrative reform. Pursuant to the Limburg Principles, timely implementation of rights
emanating from international covenants is imperative.43
The list of international instruments ratified by India include: International Convention on the
Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (hereinafter ICERD), International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereinafter ICESCR), International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (hereinafter ICCPR), Convention for Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women
(hereinafter CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of Child (hereinafter CRC).
Article 7 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights guarantees the right to equal protection
of the law and equal protection against any discrimination.44 The preamble sets forth the
obligation of signatory states to effectively implement such entitlements with the objective of
promoting social progress and better standards of living. Protection against discrimination is
reaffirmed in Article 5 through its prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment of people.45
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination condemns the
practice of apartheid and segregation in any form.46 Article 2 articulates the State Party’s pledge
to undertake the appropriate measures to protect against discrimination. In this context Article
2(2) refers in particular to the realization of economic, social and cultural rights. Elaborating
on the fundamental obligations laid down in Article 2, ICERD in Article 5 guarantees:
the right of everyone, without distinction as to race of color, or national or ethnic origin, to
equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights:
(b) The right to security of person and protection by the State against violence or bodily harm
whether inflicted by government officials or by any group or institution;
(d) (v) The right to own property alone as well as in association with others
(e) (iii) The right to housing
(e) (iv) The right to public health, medical care, social security and social services
(f) The right of access to any place or service intended for use of the general public....47
General Recommendation XIX of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination recognizes
that racial segregation may be created by governmental actions or can occur as a social phenomenon
but nonetheless obligates the State Parties to monitor such trends and work towards eradication.48
Article 15(d) of the Maastricht Guidelines binds the government to regulate the behavior of third
parties to prevent the violation of economic, social and cultural rights.49
Similarly, the ICCPR obligates State Parties to ensure that that fundamental rights and freedoms
are not violated, irrespective of race, color, sex, birth status and religion.50 Article 6 declares
The Limburg Principles, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1987/17 (1987), are guidelines used to interpret the scope of obligations contained in
ICESCR provisions. These principles have the status of customary law.
44
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. res. 217(III), UN Doc. A/810, (1948) [hereinafter UDHR].
45
Ibid.
46
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 660 U.N.T.S. 195, entered into force 4 January 1969.
47
Ibid. Article 5.
48
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation XIX on racial discrimination and apartheid (Article 3)
of the Convention, U.N. Doc. HRI\GEN\1\Rev.4 at 147 (2000).
49
Article 15, “Violations through acts of omission,” states: “Violations of economic, social, cultural rights can also occur through
the omission or failure of States to take necessary measures stemming from legal obligations. Examples of such violations include...(d)
The failure to regulate activities of individuals or groups so as to prevent them from violating economic, social and cultural rights....”
50
See Article 2, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, GA RES. 2200A (XXI), UN Doc. A/6316 (1966) entered into force 23
March 1976.
43

that every human being has the inherent right to life and in that view, and Article 7 prohibits
inhuman or degrading treatment of individuals.
Article 25 of the UDHR sets forth the right to an adequate standard of living that includes
the right to adequate housing:
25(1) everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of
himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social
services and the right to security in event of...circumstances beyond his control.
The right to adequate housing is most comprehensively addressed in the Article 11 of the
ICECSR. Not only is the State obliged to recognize the right to an adequate standard of living
including food, clothing and housing, the provision also requires State intervention to take the
appropriate measures to ensure the effective realization of the right. The Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights has reiterated in General Comment 4 that the right to housing is not
restricted to shelter but encompasses the right to live in security, peace and dignity. The
Committee also notes that realization of other rights such as the right to participate in decision-
making is indispensable to the full enjoyment of the right to adequate housing.
Several international instruments address the specialized housing needs of women and children.
CEDAW Article 14 ensures that “women enjoy adequate living conditions, particularly in relation
to housing, sanitation, electricity and water supply, transport and sanitation.” For children, CRC
Article 27.3 calls on State Parties to assist parents and guardians in providing the child with
proper food, clothing and housing.
The Maastricht Guidelines make it incumbent for State Parties to ensure the progressive realization
of enumerated economic, social and cultural rights, irrespective of resource scarcity and level of
economic development.51 These guidelines set the international norms for monitoring and
adjudicating economic, social and cultural rights. Progressive realization therefore requires immediate
State action, demonstrating that measurable progress and specific targets are set and satisfied.
The Indigenous Question- Quest for Recognition
In recent years, much international attention has been devoted to issues affecting indigenous
peoples.52 Aboriginal communities have made enormous strides in ensuring that their rights are
protected in international instruments. The ICERD and ICCPR both guarantee self-
determination for indigenous communities and General Recommendation XXIII of the CERD
Committee directs State Parties to parties to recognize and protect the rights of indigenous
peoples to own, develop, control and use their common lands, territories.53 Limburg Principle
14 qualifies that special measures are required to protect the rights of indigenous peoples.54
Currently, there is no consensus on whether the term indigenous applies to the tribal groups
of India. The Government of India has not recognized the adivasis as indigenous peoples of
Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Maastricht, January 22-26, 1997.
See, for example, Douglas Sanders “Indigenous People on the International Stage,” in The Indigenous Question: Search for Identity ed.
Walter Fernandes, Indian Social Institute, New Delhi: 1993.
53
The relevant articles in the ICCPR are Article 1 and Article 27. See also ICERD, Articles 2.2 and 5(c).
54
See Annex 4 for the text of Article 14.
51
52

India.55 Notwithstanding the political debate that surrounds the definition of the term
indigenous, it is not disputed that the adivasis are among the earliest settlers in India.56
In light of the growing movement to garner indigenous status for India’s adivasis, it is important
to take note of the existing legal framework protecting indigenous rights. ILO 169 is the most
cogent elaboration of indigenous rights.57 Article 2 calls on State Parties to eliminate the socio-
economic gaps between indigenous and national communities in consultation with the
concerned groups and Article 8 protects customary practices and institutions from the
encroachment of domestic policies. The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection
of Minorities has tabled a Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. The Declaration
recognizes that indigenous peoples have been deprived of their human rights and fundamental
freedoms as a result of colonization and dispossession.58 The Declaration therefore emphasizes
the realization of the right to self-determination as the primary means of development and
strengthening cultural institutions. These legal entitlements for indigenous populations are useful
reference points for adivasis and nomadic rights advocates in India.
Caste Based Discrimination
Various international treaty bodies have raised concerns about the continued prevalence of caste
and descent based discrimination. The Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination has noted that despite the passage of constitutional provisions and legal provisions
in India, “widespread discrimination” continues that “points to the limited effect of these
measures.” It emphasized that the perpetuation of the caste system contributes to the violation
of human rights in India and urged the state and national governments to adopt urgent measures
to combat the continued discrimination of vulnerable groups.59 In 2002 the Committee issued
General Recommendation XXIX, stating that caste and descent-based discrimination are in
direct violation of ICERD obligations.60
The growing international awareness about caste and descent based discrimination can partly
be attributed to the advocacy efforts of the dalit rights activists and organizations. With input
and submissions from dalit rights organizations, the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection
of Human Rights unanimously passed a resolution to commission an expert to prepare a working
paper on discrimination based on occupation and descent, further highlighting the issue of
untouchability in South Asia.61
For more in depth discussion, see K.S. Singh & B.K. Roy Burman, “Status of the Tribals in India,” Social Change, Vol. 23 Nos. 2
& 3 (1993).
56
Ibid.
57
General Conference of the International Labor Organization, Convention (No. 169) concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent
Countries, (seventy-sixth session), (1991).
58
Report of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations, Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People), (eleventh session), U.N. Doc. E/
CN.4/Sub.2.1993/29/Annex I.23 (1993) [hereinafter Declaration].
59
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination:
India. (forty ninth session), UN Doc. CERD/C/3.ADD (1996).
60
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation. XXIX on Article 1, paragraph 1of the Convention (sixty
first session), UN Doc. CERD/C/365/Rev.1 (2002). See Annex 5.
61
Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Resolution. 2000/4 (fifty fourth session), UN Doc. E/CN.4/
Sub.2/2002/L.42 (2002).
55

The Findings
The Housing Rights Methodology
HIC-HLRN will utilize the indicators for adequate housing developed by the Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as a framework for the findings of our study.62 General
Comment 4 sets out the aspects of housing that are significant in determining the concept of
adequacy. In addition to the overarching objectives of peace, dignity and security, State
governments must ensure the following entitlements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Legal security of tenure
Availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure
Affordability
Habitability
Accessibility
Location
Cultural Adequacy
It is hoped that our findings will shed light on the reality that confronts the nomadic communities
today and the ineffectiveness of current government settlement policies. These findings have
also guided us in making recommendations to the various parties involved and raise crucial issues
for the road ahead that will necessitate further study.
1. Legal Security of Tenure
UDHR 17, ICESCR 11, ICCPR 1, Maastricht 6
Tenure can be exercised in diverse forms including lease, ownership occupation and
informal settlement. The right to secure tenure protects inhabitants from forced eviction,
harassment or intimidation that threaten the safety and peace that are fundamental
components of adequate housing. The Commission on Human Rights deems forced evictions
gross violations of human rights.63
Note that testimonial evidence of atrocities often lacked specific dates. Wherever possible, HIC has provided dates through
investigation of police reports.
63
See Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 1993/77, (sixty seventh meeting), UN Doc. E/CN.4/RES/1993/77 (1993).
62

Due Process and the Right to Information in the Context of Rights to
Legal Security of Tenure
To date, the State of Rajasthan has not developed a formal settlement policy for nomadic
communities who desire to settle permanently. Because of government inaction and non-
compliance with domestic and international housing commitments, the nomads have been
occupying vacant land classified as pasture land, gochar (village grazing grounds) and “wastelands”
in State registers. Tenure is precarious because the tribes do not have title deeds to the lands
they are currently occupying.
Nomadic communities continue to be denied access to information and representation or
participation in village level meetings. As a result, they are excluded from land allotment
decisions. The communities are not involved in the decision making processes of district
collectors that allot gochar land for private use, as well as forest management functionaries that
design forest management policies.
On the village level, public information meetings are held for the disbursement of vacant lots.
Description of plots, size and location are made available to the villagers during such meetings.
Although these meetings were held throughout the month of June 2002 in the town of Alwar,
nomadic attendance and participation was non-existent. It was reported that nomadic
communities were discouraged from attending through purposeful misinformation about venues
and times of meetings by settled villagers and local officials.64 This denial of the right to
participate in disbursement processes violates anti-discriminatory provisions in the Constitution
as well as the norms established by international law.65
The bureaucratic requirements of title deed applications further hinder the settlement process.
Proof of long-term occupancy on the disputed land must be established and the request for
land formally submitted to a district collector, a sub-divisional magistrate, a block officer and
finally, the sarpanch, or village chief, who wields discretionary authority to issue or deny the
request for land. The research team heard accounts of land proceedings that have been in
progress for a decade.66 During this process, the nomads are considered illegal occupants of
the land, liable to eviction and dispossession.
More alarmingly, applicants are not informed of the progress of their applications and are
routinely denied information when it is demanded. The lack of transparency in decision-making
procedures and the lack of accountability in facilitating requests for title deeds breaches the
constitutionally guaranteed right to information.67 In short, the nomadic communities are not
involved at any level of decision-making. They are not informed about crucial characteristics
of the land, such as availability of water for irrigation and quality of the soil. It is reported
that local officials adopt a “take it or leave it” attitude and are insensitive to the social and
economic needs and concerns of the community.
Testimony of Ratan Katyani, 8 October 2003.
See for example, ICERD Article 5. See also, ILO Convention 169 (Article 6).
66
Testimony of Dhooli Bawaria, 8 October 2003.
67
The right to information has been affirmed in L.K Koolwal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1954 SC 73.
64
65
Customary laws relating to caste also hinder nomadic landholding. In the Banjara settlement
of Rawal Kar Jodah, regional customary practices dictate that only members of the higher castes
are entitled to own land. Thus, the eleven Banjara families have occupied 2 hectares of farmland
for 4 years, pursuant to an informal purchase agreement with local landowners. Since their
easement of use is not secured in contract, their entitlement to continued use could be subject
to the whims of the landholders. For example, the village leader had applied for a land deed
in the year 2000 but there has been no response from village land allotment authorities.68
Individual Case Study 1
The Nimuchana settlement of Bawarias has been living in the Chillori district for more than a
decade. Laxman Bawaria and his family have had numerous conflicts with hostile neighboring
landowners who view the Bawarias as squatters on village land. In July 2003, villagers determined
to oust his family burned Laxman’s hut. Their neighbors illegally harvest the community’s mustard
seed crops and each year, the land used by the community for agriculture is increasingly
encroached upon by the expansion of surrounding farms.
Laxman applied to the local land administration office for a title deed in the year 2000. During
the researcher’s visit in 2003, Laxman’s application was still pending. When the research team
visited the land allotment office in Bansur, the land officer, K.L Sharma, stated that Laxman’s case
was still under district consideration, and although he could not justify the delay he refused to
formally sign the deed.
Cases of Forced Evictions
International concern over the issue of forced eviction is underlined by the fact that it has received
particular mention by various UN bodies. General Comment No. 7 of the CESCR requires that
“all states refrain from forced evictions and ensure the law is enforced as against its agents or third
parties who carry out evictions.”69 Despite these affirmations, a large gap remains between
international standards and the reality confronting nomadic communities in India.
It was reported that the informal homes of nomadic tribes are often mobbed and raided by
local authorities and village members.70 Violent tactics of intimidation are used by village
members to expel nomads from their informal settlements: stones are thrown on makeshift huts,
water pumps used by the nomads are destroyed, crockery and water jugs are deliberately broken
and homes are burnt. Acting in cooperation with village members, local law enforcement officials
often ignore claims of harassment or coercion filed by nomadic families. First Information
Reports are not completed or filed. Community members allege that police inaction stems from
pervasive, prejudicial attitudes of local law enforcement authorities.71
The cases below underline the need for urgent action by state and village authorities to contain
the violence and victimization caused by forced evictions. Testimony from members of nomadic
Testimony of Sohan Pal Banjara, 9 October 2003.
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 7, The Right to Adequate Housing (Article 11(1) of the Covenant):
Forced evictions (sixteenth session), UN Doc. E/C.12/1997/4 (1997). See Annex 6.
70
Testimony of Sua Bawaria, 7 October 2003.
71
Testimonies of Ratan Katyani, and Dhooli Bawaria, 8 October 2003.
68
69

communities attest to the state’s failure to prevent local administration and hostile villagers from
ousting nomadic families from the lands they have settled on.
In the year 2000, 80 Banjara families in Vir Bhagat Singh bustee commenced construction of
permanent homes. Members of the community claimed that their settlement plans were disrupted
by local Brahmin priests planning to transform the settlement area into a parking lot. Makeshift
huts were burnt and the communal property destroyed by priests determined to oust the
“squatting” families from the plot. Without priority claim to the land and documented proof of
tenure, the Banjara families had no means of legal redress.72
In the village of Allahpura, ten Bhopa and four Bawaria families were physically assaulted and
their huts burnt, allegedly by members of a neighboring village of Mem Muslims in August 1993.
The community of Mem Muslims claimed that the land was needed for a cemetery, and demanded
immediate evacuation. Local police were informed of the transgressions but no action was
pursued nor were First Information Reports filed to launch preliminary investigations.73
Similarly, a settlement of Banjaras in the village of Haldina was reportedly attacked in the night
by hired thugs from the village in September 2002. Huts were pillaged and burnt. Women and
children that were physically threatened evacuated under duress. Compelled into silence by fear
of further violence, when questioned by law enforcement officials, tribe’s people did not deny the
story fabricated by members of the settled communities that they had burnt the huts themselves.74
Individual Case Study 2
Sua Bawaria had settled his extended family consisting of nearly thirty adults and children in
the outskirts of the village of Virat Nagar. The adults made their livelihoods as agricultural laborers
and chowkidars, night watchmen, for village farms. Despite being gainfully employed by local
landowners, relations with the villagers remained hostile, as they regarded Sua’s settlement as
a usurption of village common land.
In the summer of 1999, Sua’s hut was set on fire whilst the family was asleep within. The fire
took the life of Sua’s grandchild, then only six days old. Municipal law enforcement authorities
have not launched a formal investigation and the government has not provided compensation
or aid for the reconstruction of the home or replacement of destroyed possessions.
In the year 2000, Sua was arrested by the land administration officer of Virat Nagar on the charge
of illegal land occupation. He was incarcerated for three months at the Kotputli prison in Jaipur.
He claimed that upon arrest, he was not informed about the charge or provided legal
representation. His release upon bail was only achieved after his family sought legal advice from
a local NGO. His case is still pending today.
Testimony of Ratan Katyani, 23 June 2002.
Ibid.
74
Ibid.
72
73

Individual Case Study 3
Ram Sahai Bawaria established a home in the village of Leila Mandari in Thanagazi. Although
he has applied for a title deed, the village land allotment authorities have ignored his application.
The family supplements their income by guarding goats belonging to landowners in the
surrounding area. In July 2003, Ram was involved in a verbal altercation when a goat under
his care escaped and grazed in his neighbor’s field. On 24 August 2003, a group of villagers
consisting of 6 males and 4 females set fire to Ram’s hut, in retribution for his perceived trespass.
Ram’s wife was forcibly detained in the burning hut and suffered severe burns on her legs and
feet. Although a complaint was lodged in the Naranpour police station, the police have not
instigated a follow up investigation. During the research team’s visit, Ram’s family lived in a
makeshift shelter fashioned of wood stilts and thatched grass, seven meters away from their former
hut which was reduced to ashen rubble. Ram estimates that he lost Rs 15,000 in the destruction
of his home and moveable possessions.
Because the nomadic populations are not legal owners on the lands they have chosen to settle,
their tenure is extremely vulnerable to encroachment by settled communities with competing
claims to the land. Evictions carried out by members of settled communities are often not
investigated and thus, the perpetrators remain unpunished. The prevalence of discriminatory
attitudes in regional public institutions transgresses international human right standards.75 These
standards require the State to sensitize law enforcement officials to become aware that their
duties include the maintenance of human rights.76
2. Availability of Services, Materials and Infrastructure
UDHR 25, ICESCR 12, ICERD 5(e), ILO 168 Art. 7(2), Maastricht 14(g)
Access to health facilities, safe drinking water, heating, lighting and proper sanitation and
drainage services are necessary components of adequate housing. Particularly for women and
children, issues of nutrition or resources for cooking and privacy concerns must be addressed.
It is the State’s obligation to provide sustainable and reasonable access to basic resources.
Water
Rajasthan is composed primarily of desert land. Because of this, water is a scarce commodity and
is the paramount concern amongst the communities visited. Most settlements have access to a
hand pump or bore well. This single source of water is often communal, shared by dozens of
families. Water drawn from hand pumps is used for drinking, bathing, feeding animals and watering
crops. Low water levels, especially in dry summer months, result in irregular water supply.
Because of the scarcity of access, there is no surplus water for the raising of animals or cultivating
crops. As a result, herding communities have to travel daily to natural watering holes in order
to hydrate their animals. Agricultural crops are dependent on rainwater; hence dry periods or
droughts severely diminish the livelihoods of pastoral nomads. In the village of Nimuchana,
ICERD Article 2
See Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General Recommendation XIII on the training of law enforcement officials in the
protection of human rights (forty-second session), U.N. Doc. HRI\GEN\1\Rev.1 at 67 (1994).
75
76

district of Chillori, twenty-seven Banjara families share a single hand pump for water. Growth
of their millet crop is dependant on rain. The yield is not sufficient to sustain the settlement’s
dietary needs and male members have to resort to hunting and gathering in order to feed their
families. All the communities visited have voiced the urgent need for the installation of more
sources of water. The State of Rajasthan charges Rs 5000 for the installation of a hand pump.
Many families cannot afford the cost of installation.
Water quality and its potability is a prevailing problem. The research team found that water drawn
from the communal hand pump in the Rawal Kar Jodah settlement was cloudy with mineral
sediments. The community leader reported an increase in cases of water-borne illnesses such
as typhoid and viral fevers. Children bore the scabs of eczema and other skin conditions due
to washing in contaminated water.77 Despite numerous complaints to the government, water
quality is not tested before the digging of bore wells and hand pumps.
In the village of Thanaghazi, about forty Gadiya Lohar families rely on one tap for their drinking,
cooking and washing needs. The nomadic community is allowed to access this water source only
in the evenings, when upper caste villagers do not frequent the area. Personal hygiene is poor due
to lack of water. For the women, privacy is at a premium since there are no separate bathing facilities.
In most tribes, female members of the community bear the responsibility of fetching water for
their family’s needs. Tribal women recounted incidents of harassment and verbal abuse from
caste women who accused them of defiling water sources. Their water containers have been
destroyed as an additional means of intimidation.
Access to potable water is an essential human need and a fundamental component of the right
to adequate housing. General Comment 15 states that access to water is inextricably related to
the right to the highest attainable standard of health as set out in article 12 of the ICESCR,
as well the rights to food and adequate housing.78 In contravention of international standards
addressing water supply and quality, the state government has not taken adequate measures to
ensure that water supply is safe, readily accessible and affordable.
Health Facilities
Medical facilities are non-existent in the isolated nomadic settlements. Because many of the
communities are located in hillside regions inaccessible by vehicles, medical care consists of
traditional herbs and practices dispensed by the elders of the tribe. In the Banjara settlement
of Hanuman Kah Goara, the nearest clinic is 4km away in the village of Malluthana via rocky
and hilly footpaths. Incidents of malaria and typhoid are common since the community cannot
afford preventative vaccinations. Although medical consultation is free in government clinics,
the cost of drugs must be borne by the patient. Tribe members suffered from conjunctivitis,
gaping cold sores and other skin ailments.
Observed, 8 October 2003.
See Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, General Comment 15 The right to water (Articles. 11 and 12 of the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), UN Doc. (E/C.12/2002/11, (2002). The right to clean drinking water is affirmed in
the Kyoto Protocol and guaranteed in Article 24.2(c) of the CRC. See Annex 6 for the relevant excerpt of General Comment 15.
77
78

In the Bamanwas settlement, the sick have to walk for two hours to the town of Thanaghazi
to receive medical attention. Lack of sanitation and drainage systems, unsafe drinking water and
malnutrition attract and conduct diseases. It was reported that caste discrimination is prevalent
even in the medical community: nomadic tribes people are refused service at local hospitals or
are treated with hostility and disdain.79
Women do not receive medical attention during pregnancy and post-pregnancy Delivery of
children takes place in makeshift shelters or huts, without medical supervision because hospitals
are too distant. In Thanagazi, the Gadiya Lohar women undergo childbirth on wooden carts
with only overhead coverings of tarps and rags. Furthermore, children are not legally registered
and remain outside the protection of State welfare policies and reservation schemes.
Article 12 of the ICECSR delineates the right of every human being to enjoy the highest
attainable standard of mental and physical health, mandating that State parties to ensure
provision of medical services and to improve environmental surroundings to prevent diseases.
In failing to undertake legislative and policy measures to ensure that nomadic communities have
accessible health services, including reproductive care, and in failing to guarantee access without
discrimination, the Indian government contravenes the right to an adequate standard of living
as set out in Article 25 of the UDHR:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself
and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services ....
Electricity and Fuel
Every settlement visited is not installed with electricity. Because of the lack of light, night travel
within the settlements is kept to a minimum and children have to complete all schoolwork before
dusk. Kerosene lamps are utilized as a light source but because of the cost of fuel, they are
used sparingly. With ration card deductions, the cost of subsidized kerosene is Rs 25 a litre.
It was reported that district governments have rejected demands for installation of electric lines,
stating that the cost must be borne by the community. Some families in the Thanaghazi village
also state that at the conservative estimate of Rs 115 a month per family, their unstable incomes
cannot support the monthly cost of electricity.
Individual Case Study 4
The Gadiya Lohar settlement in the village of Thanagazi consists of 22 families, 12 of which
have title deeds and have constructed permanent homes of brick and mud. The ten families
without deeds live on the periphery of these homes in makeshift shelters of wood stilts and
canopies of rags. The main road in the village of Thanagazi, lined with electrical poles and shops
equipped with electricity runs five feet away from the settlement. It was reported that the request
to extend electricity to the settlement was denied. The municipality’s position was that installation
of a single pole, even in such close proximity, costs Rs 7000. Because tenure for many dwellers
remains precarious, the settlement has not been willing to invest in the installation.
79
Testimonies, Nimuchana settlement, 8 October 2003.

The primary source of fuel for cooking and heating purposes is firewood and a mixture of dried
leaves and agricultural waste. Although the Indian Forest Act prohibits the collection of forest
produce, all the families surveyed risk the illegality of gathering wood to avoid the additional
expenditure of purchasing fuel.
3. Affordability
ICESCR 7, CEDAW 13, Maastricht 15
The principle of affordability entails provision of housing at a reasonable cost. The
attainment of basic needs should not be compromised in order to pay for housing related
cost. To this end, it is incumbent upon the State to implement housing subsidies for those
unable to afford adequate housing and to ensure that the cost of housing does not exceed
general income levels. This responsibility includes guaranteeing the availability of natural
material if it is the primary source of construction material.
Earnings per family vary seasonally, ranging from Rs 10-40 a day. Many communities struggle
for food. In the Nimuchana settlement, children bore symptoms of long-term malnutrition:
emaciated bodies and distended abdomens. During growing season, the settlement’s diet
comprises of harvested millet crop and any meat acquired from hunting. Industrialization,
modern machinery and prohibitive legislation has rendered traditional livelihoods such as snake
charming obsolete. Many community members resort to other means of work for sustenance.
However, employment options are limited due to the high levels of illiteracy and the lack
vocational training. Members of the Bawaria tribe work as agricultural guards or chowkidars for
a weekly sack of wheat and the Bhopas find work as holy men during festivals but supplement
their income by begging in larger villages.
It was reported that materials for a modest one roomed hut of mud bricks and thatch costs
approximately Rs 500. A permanent single room structure of stone and iron buttresses costs
Rs 30,000.80 Since a large percentage of income is needed for basic living expenses, most nomadic
families have difficulty raising the funds to build homes without access to government credit
schemes. Bank loads are not accessible without land deeds as collateral security.
Community efforts to build huts have been stalled by the local administration charging that the
nomads do not have land rights. In May 2000, the Gadiya Lohar community at Thanaghazi hired
a tractor to level a stretch of barren land they had settled with the intent to begin building huts.
The local land administrator did not permit the leveling of land, demanding that the community
provide ownership papers. To date, the Gadiya Lohar community continues to live in makeshift
tents. The chief of the Thanaghazi settlement, Kamlesh, has stated that they would invest in
housing only if the government allotted title deeds.
Precarious tenure is the main hindrance to investing income on permanent housing. The
communities visited expressed a unanimous desire to construct permanent homes but fear the
possibility of eviction due to the lack of title deeds securing ownership. Meager incomes have
Testimony of Shyama Suar, 9 October 2003.
80

not been supplemented by government housing subsidies or credit schemes. Most home
construction has been financed by informal loan arrangements and pooling within the
communities.
The right to social security, health and gainful employment are guaranteed in Articles 6 and 11
of the ICESCR. Sustainability of adequate housing is inextricably linked to the ability to earn
a steady income. The erosion of employment opportunities for nomadic communities is
neglected by the State, in violation of Article 6 of the ICESCR. In Rajasthan, no formal policy
of rehabilitation or training has been implemented to assist the nomads with their livelihood
options. In addition, in view of the impoverishment of the nomadic communities, federal and
state governments are obliged to provide raw material for housing at accessible, government-
subsidized rates.
4. Accessibility
ICESCR GC 4, CEDAW, CRC
Settlement plans; housing policies and structural design must be executed with particular
consideration to the specialized needs of disadvantaged and historically marginalized sectors
of society. Hence, women, children, the elderly, people with disabilities, must be guaranteed
equal access to civil amenities such as medical services and schools.
Voicelessness and non-participation in decision-making processes is particularly acute amongst
nomadic females. Customary practices and traditions not only preclude women from decision-
making but also prevent women from acquiring land and property. In the Banjara village of
Sajanpour, a community meeting to discuss water supply was composed only of men.81 As a
result of their exclusion, community development processes are insensitive to the needs of
women even though they are central in the daily management of households. In many families,
the sole ration card is issued in the name of the male head of household. In agrarian societies
where land is the most important economic asset, denial of women’s right to access and to
control over land exposes the household to poverty and homelessness.82 Thus, it is critical that
land entitlement is extended to both nomadic men and women.83
The lack of basic facilities and the non-implementation of education and vocational training
programs have alarming implications for women and children. As livelihood options narrow for
the nomadic community, women in particular, have difficulties finding gainful employment. It
was reported that strength intensive agricultural work is most often reserved for men. As a result,
some women in the Gadiya Lohar community are resorting to beggary and in the Nat community
young girls are forced into prostitution.84
Although the Supreme Court has affirmed that Article 45 of the Indian Constitution mandates
free and compulsory education for children up to the age of fourteen, most nomadic children
Community meeting, observed 8 October 2003.
Bina Agarwal and Renee Hirschon, Women and Property-Women as Property, New Delhi: 1984.
83
This is affirmed in CEDAW Article 14.
84
Oral testimony of Ratan Katyani, 8 October 2003. See also, Mukherji, supra note 4.
81
82

are not registered at birth and therefore, are not within the supervisory ambit of state educational
administrators.85 None of the children attend schools in the Lilomedha, Nimuchana and Rawal
Kar Jodah settlements. Children from a settlement of Gadiya Lohars in Thanaghazi, attend a
non-formal school facilitated by a local NGO. Because the school is not subsidized by
government funding, the facilities are spartan. The “classroom” consists of an unsheltered
cleared space on the edge of the settlement, devoid of chairs and tables with a makeshift board
for teaching purposes. The lack of facilities for learning, as well as government inaction with
regards to monitoring attendance of children, perpetuates a downward socio-economic spiral.
Untrained, illiterate and unqualified, nomadic children cannot be integrated into mainstream job
opportunities thus continuing the cycle of destitution.
The Commission on Human Rights has recognized that women are particularly affected by poor
housing conditions. The Commission enjoins State parties to improve living conditions, in
consultation with affected women, and to create opportunities for women to acquire training
and education to realize their housing rights.86 Thus, it is insufficient that de jure rights exist to
protect women against discrimination or deprivation but the government must ensure that these
rights are translated into de facto means of control and participation.
Implementation of comprehensive national plans of action to combat malnutrition, homelessness
and illiteracy amongst children is dependant on timely birth registration. The Committee on the
Rights of the Child has enjoined the Indian government to improve registration measures in rural
areas.87 Expressing concerns that incidents of forced relocation and displacement in India
adversely affect child welfare, including lack of access to health care and education, the
Committee has emphasized the State’s responsibility to facilitate family rehabilitation programs
and ensure the provision of basic amenities.88
5. Habitability
UDHR 12, ICESR 12, Maastricht 9
Housing standards must meet minimum standards of habitability and safety. International
standards for adequate housing direct the competent authorities to ensure reasonable levels
of structural safety, hygiene and comfort. General Comment 4 also dictates that structural
design must protect from disease vectors, elements of nature and provide sufficient space
for personal development.
The environmental conditions of every settlement visited are unfit for human habitation. Living
spaces are shared with animals. People defecate in the open because there are no toilet facilities.
Common areas where communal cooking takes place and where children play are strewn with
animal and human excreta. In Nimuchana, animal droppings were found in the huts around
M.C Mehta vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1996.
Commission on Human Rights, Resolution on women’s equal ownership, access to and control over land
and the equal rights to own property and to adequate housing 2003/22 (fifty sixth meeting) UN Doc. E/CN.4/RES/2003/22 (2003).
87
Committee on the Rights of the Child, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: India, (twenty third session),
CRC/C/15/Add.115 (2000). This right is also delineated in ICCPR Article 24(2).
88
Ibid.
85
86

the narrow cots of rope and wood. The sites where hand pumps are located are filthy with mud
and accumulated dirt since they also serve as bathing and laundry facilities.
The lack of drainage is also a cause for concern. During monsoon season, many settlements
are flooded with sludge-filled water. These become breeding places for malaria carrying
mosquitoes. Low lying areas become cesspools of mud and effluent waste. In Thanaghazi,
because the Gadiya Lohar settlement is located within the perimeter of the village watering hole,
floodwaters annually submerge the makeshift shelters.
Most families live in single room huts constructed of dried mud, thatch, and branches averaging
3m by 4m in size. The single room is a multi-purpose site for the extended family and is used
for cooking, sleeping, and as a storage room for fodder. Since space is limited, only eight to
ten people can sleep within the hut and remaining family members sleep outdoors under canvas
tents. The tent-like structures are poor protection against wind, rain and cold. In the Thanagazi
settlement, twelve families live in makeshift shelters of wood stilts and overhead canopies of
canvas and cloth, unprotected on all four sides from the elements. For women, the closed living
conditions renders privacy for bathing and changing impossible.
The abysmal living conditions that prevail in the nomadic settlements are inconsistent with the
minimum standard of habitability that is implicit in the realization of the constitutionally
enshrined right to life. Recognizing the legal right to habitability, the Supreme Court of India
has reiterated that a “decent environmentÉreasonable residence is an indispensable necessity
for fulfilling the constitutional goal in the matter of development of man.”89
6. Location
ICESCR 6 & 12
Because adequate housing encompasses access to basic amenities and public services, location
is a crucial component of the right. States must ensure that settlements are in close proximity
to schools, employment opportunities, medical services and other important civic facilities.
Particular consideration should be paid to settlements in rural areas, where the cost of
commuting to work can be prohibitively excessive. Homes should also be a safe distance
away from sources of pollutants and other deliterious substances that are threats to health.
With the exception of the Gadiya Lohar settlement in Thanaghazi and the Bhopa settlement
in Allahpura, all the settlements visited were located in remote areas, inaccessible by vehicles,
on the periphery of settled village communities. Many tribes have settled in these remote sites
by necessity since caste customs preclude sharing space with higher caste communities. Hanuman
Kah Goara and Rawal Kar Jodah are located 4-5 km from the nearest paved road. For settlement
sites situated between private farmlands, community road construction efforts are unfeasible
before local landowners grant permission.
Inaccessibility is exacerbated during monsoon, as slush and mud restrict the mobility of
community members and severely curtail excursions to the village markets for amenities or public
Shanti Star Builders vs. Naryan Khimalal Totame & Ors, JT 1990 (1) S.C 106, Civil Appeal No. 2598 of 1989.
89

distribution shops for rations. Distance is a contributing factor to the low levels of school
attendance among nomadic children. For example, the commute from the Leilomandar
settlement to the closest paved road where school buses can operate is treacherously winds
through rocky footpaths.
Poor road connection and distance from the villages also hinder access to employment
opportunities. Often, community members are limited to agricultural labor or herding as sources
of livelihood. In Hanuman Kah Goara, several community members travel 3 km to the closest
village daily on foot in order to supplement income derived from agriculture. Limited mobility
directly affects livelihoods. Since it is unsafe for women to travel alone to work on isolated
footpaths, income-producing capability of households are drastically reduced
Freedom of movement is a fundamental right, articulated in Article 13 of the UDHR.
Substantive measures to ensure the full realization of the right include the provision of road
connectivity and affordable means of transportation. The isolation of nomadic settlements is
the result of the state government’s failure to provide infrastructure such as roads and bridges.
As a consequence of their isolation, nomadic communities are faced with the diminishment of
their livelihoods and limited access to education and healthcare.
7. Cultural Appropriateness
ICESCR 11 & 15, ICERD 1, ICCPR 15, ILO 169 Art. 2
The home environment defines our cultural identity. Hence, the space for personal
development, and the room to express our uniqueness is an important dimension of housing.
Homes should be configured to suit the cultural needs of their inhabitants and construction
materials should meet use needs of the community. This aspect of the right to adequate
housing entails that diversity be preserved and cultural or religious preferences respected.
Each nomadic tribe has distinctive customs and livelihoods, hence housing and property needs
vary accordingly. As pastoralists and agriculturalists, the Bawarias and Banjaras need fertile, arable
land for agriculture and the grazing of animals. The Gadiya Lohars, Nats, Bhopas and Kalbelias,
with occupations ranging from blacksmithing to entertainment, are dependent on access to
consumers in urban markets. For the latter group of tribes, some of whom can no longer practice
their traditional occupations, close proximity to urban areas creates employment and vocational
rehabilitation options.
Among most of the tribes visited, the practice of living together with members of extended
family was common. Family size, per residence, ranged from 8 to 23 adults and children. With
the exception of the Gadiya Lohar settlements, most families kept their livestock in their homes.
Overcrowding has led to the absence of privacy.
Currently, questions of cultural adequacy are premature because reliable data on the long term
needs and lifestyles of these communities has never been collected. To date, nomadic
communities of Rajasthan lack the citizenship rights to vote, register in schools and gain access
to government sponsored amenities. Although they are constitutionally defined as citizens, the

numerous deprivations they suffer reflect a contrasting reality. Many nomadic communities have
not been included in India’s National Population Census, the primary tool used to monitor and
assess the socio-economic conditions in the country. Further in-depth study is necessary to
understand the needs of these communities and to adapt the context of adequate housing to
their particular lifestyles.
Cultural education must also be facilitated on a micro level. Absence of information about social
relations and dynamics within nomadic communities has led to uninformed policy making. More
research and human rights education should be conducted to identify and prevent the human
rights violations within the community. Potential areas of study include inter-jati discrimination,
prevalence of domestic violence and incest and women’s role within society.

Observations and Recommendations:
The Road Ahead
General Observations
1. Many of the challenges that confront nomadic communities today can be attributed to
continued caste based discrimination and alienation from settled communities.
2. The combination of modern technology and legislation aimed at eco-conservation has
caused the diminishment of traditional livelihoods, leading to widespread impoverishment.
Regional and national governments have not taken measures to address the problem of
narrowing livelihoods or provided support for these communities. As a result:
• Families are denied their rights to adequate housing.
• Communities fall further into the cycle of deprivation.
• Historic patterns of marginalization and exclusion are repeated.
3. Denial of the right to housing and land has adverse implications on other aspects of life.
For example, without having a permanent address, children cannot to be registered in schools
and communities lose their political voice because they are not included on voter lists.
4. Lack of information and knowledge about the lifestyles, needs, customs and traditions of
nomadic communities contribute their marginalization.
Observations Regarding Land Entitlements and the
Right to Adequate Housing
1. Many nomadic communities have expressed the desire to pursue sedentary lifestyles. Often,
settlement efforts are hindered by public antipathy towards nomadic communities.
• Government housing policies have not addressed the particular obstacles that nomadic
communities face regarding settlement such as the existence of caste hostility.
• Land allotment processes are carried out on a municipal level and often reflect the local
caste segregationist attitudes. Applications for title deeds filed by nomadic families are
not processed, reportedly due to pressure exerted by members of settled communities
on local land allotment authorities.

2. In many instances, nomadic settlements have been destroyed and the inhabitants, forcibly
evicted by members of non-nomadic communities.
• It has been reported that caste bias extends to local law enforcement authorities. As a
result, civil atrocities committed against nomadic communities, including incidents of
forced evictions and intimidation, are not pursued.
• In many cases, First Information Reports filed against perpetrators are not been followed
through with formal investigations.
3. Access to adequate accommodation is the immediate concern amongst many nomadic tribes.
Typically, housing and living conditions in the settlements are inhabitable:
• Civic amenities such as piped water and electricity are non-existent. One hand pump is
commonly installed for each settlement and overuse has affected the quality of water
pressure.
• Types of shelter vary according to the lifestyles of the tribes, ranging from make- shift
tents to thatched huts. However, most shelters do not provide adequate protection to
the elements.
• Conditions within the settlements are squalid due to lack of sanitation facilities.
• Access to health care, schools and public distribution shops is severely limited by poor
road connections.
4. Nomadic communities are often denied their rights to due process, information and rights
to participate when dealing with district authorities.
• Tribes are not informed about community meetings where land allotment is planned and
discussed.
• District land allotment authorities allegedly refuse to provide information when nomadic
tribe members inquire into the status of their title deed applications.
• Contrary to constitutional guarantees, customary (caste) laws bar nomadic families from
ownership of land in some villages. For these arrangements, a percentage of income
derived from the harvest is taxed for rent.
Observations Regarding the Denial of Human Rights
1. A vast majority of nomadic communities subsist below the poverty line but ration cards
are not distributed in the settlements to facilitate access to more affordable food and fuel.
2. The Forestry Act and Wildlife Conservation Act continue to deny customary rights of
hunting and foraging, foreclosing significant livelihood options.
3. Incidents of harassment, intimidation or violence due to caste hostility are under-reported
because law enforcement authorities have exhibited caste based bias.

4. Law enforcement authorities commonly raid and search settlements without warrants under
the guise of nuisance control or crime prevention.
5. Inadequate access to schools contributes to the high illiteracy rates amongst the nomadic
communities. Many families are unable to register their children in schools without
permanent addresses or identity cards. Often, children are subjected to harassment in the
village schools.
Recommendations
To the Government of India:
1. Establish constitutional safeguards for de-notified tribes that have been excluded from
constitutional schedules. Recognize that these tribes face a specific form of marginalization
due to the stigma caused by enactment of the Criminal Tribes Act.
2. In the development of legislation and policies to protect the rights of nomadic
communities, ensure compliance with India’s obligations under the international human
rights instruments, in particular its obligations to protect these communities from all forms
of discrimination.90
3. Guarantee the meaningful participation of nomadic communities in all levels of decision
making by initiating dialogue with the communities and reserving positions for them in
the government.
4. Drafting of a national habitation policy for nomadic communities that seek to settle, with
the caveat that settlement policies can only be implemented with the consent and
consultation of the communities. Drafting should take place in consultation with, inter alia,
the nomadic communities, civil society organizations, ecologists and economists.
5. Provisions should be made to ensure women’s right to property. A system of subsidized
loans and grants or cooperative schemes should be established to ensure that land and
adequate housing are accessible and affordable.
6. Nomadic communities must be included in the National Census. Organized and in-depth
social- economic studies have to be conducted to forecast the potential problems
communities may face in their adaptation to sedentary life.
7. Recognize and respect the citizenship rights of nomadic communities. The Census and
Election Commissions should work concurrently to ensure that voter identity and ration
cards are issued and distributed in the settlements. Regularized birth registration should
be enforced.
8. The Indian Forest Act and the Wildlife Conservation Act should be amended to include a provision
that enjoins prior consultation with communities affected by conservation measures.
In relation to the state obligations arising out of international commitments on the right to adequate housing and non-discrimination
see the draft guidelines prepared by the Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing in his 2002 report to the UN Commission on
Human Rights: E/CN.4/2002/59. See Annex 8 for relevant excerpts.
90

9. Initiate livelihood training in cooperation with the community that is designed to address
their particular needs.
10. Facilitate access to education, including more vigilant monitoring of the quality of
instruction in informal schools.
11. Promote public awareness and re-education by advocating against caste segregation.
12. Establish halting sites for nomadic communities who maintain the traditional nomadic or
semi-nomadic lifestyle. This will enable families to provide addresses when registering
children in school or applying for social benefits.
13. Implement the recommendations of the National Biodiversity Action Plan. This includes
giving effect to co-management policies and recognition of customary rights of access and
use of natural resources.
To the Government of the State of Rajasthan:
1. Amend the Land Revenue Act 1956 to lower entitlement criteria for nomadic communities.
2. Repeal the Habitual Offenders Act as recommended by the National Human Rights Commission
  in February 2000.
3. Monitor land allotment processes on the district level to ensure transparency and
  accountability.
4. All records should be computerized to ensure easy access to land records, information on
  title deed applications and information on land availability.
Timely and reasonable explanations in writing should be provided for any delays in the
application process for title deeds.
5. Training programs should be carried out to sensitize law enforcement authorities, state and
  local authorities, civil society and the general public about nomadic issues. A zero tolerance
 policy for the use of excessive or unjustified force must be institutionalized.
6. Forcible evictions carried out by members of settled communities must be dealt with swiftly,
  to the full extent of the law.
7. An organized monitoring system should be implemented to ensure that the living
  conditions in nomadic settlements are adequate and that families are accorded access to
 electricity and water.
To NGOs and CBOs:
1.
NGOs and CBOs should collaborate their efforts in a nation wide and international
campaign to advocate and raise public awareness about the issues of land entitlements for
nomadic communities. A national alliance should be established, bringing together NGOs
working for nomadic rights, in order to design a coordinated strategy to place the plight
of nomadic communities in the forefront.

2. More human rights education should be conducted within communities.
3. NGOs should utilize international human rights instruments and mechanisms to strengthen
  the arguments for land entitlement and to ensure more vigilant monitoring of government
 implementation of international law obligations.
4. Funding and technical expertise should be provided to local CBOs engaged in livelihood
  training and adaptation programs for communities that wish to settle.
5. Strengthen alliances with Roma lobby groups in Europe in order to exchange and learn
  from their experiences in national and international advocacy as well as benefit from their
 networks.
6. Explore means to advocate and raise awareness about nomadic issues on the international
  agenda in the way that indigenous and dalit rights groups have done in recent years.

ANNEXES
Annex 1
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
CHAPTER III
HUNTING OF WILD ANIMALS
4. Prohibition of hunting — No person shall hunt any wild animal specified in Schedules I, II,
III, and except as provided under section 11 and section 12.
11. Hunting of wild animals to be permitted in certain cases.– (1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of Chapter IV,—
(a) the Chief Wild Life Warden may, if he is satisfied that any wild animal specified in
Schedule I has become dangerous to human life or is so disabled or diseased as to be
beyond recovery, by order in writing and stating the reasons therefore, permit any person
to hunt such animal or cause such animal to be hunted;
(b) the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorized officer may, if he is satisfied that any wild
animal specified in Schedule II, Schedule III, or Schedule IV has become dangerous to
human life or to property (including standing crops on any land) or is so disabled or diseased
as to be beyond recovery, by order in writing and stating the reasons therefore, permit any
person to hunt such animal or cause such animal to be hunted.
(c) The killing or wounding in good faith of any wild animal in defense of oneself or of
any other person shall not be an offence:
(d) Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall exonerate any person who, when such
defense becomes necessary, was committing any act in contravention of any provision
of this Act or any rule or order made there under
(e) Any Wild animal killed or wounded in defense of any person shall be Government property.
12. Grant of permit for special purposes. — Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere
in this Act, it shall be lawful for the Chief Wild Life Warden, to grant a permit, by an order
in writing stating the reasons therefore, to any person, on payment of such fee as may be
prescribed, which shall entitle the holder of such permit to hunt subject to such conditions as
may be specified therein, any wild animal specified I such permit, for the purpose of, —
(a) education;
(b) scientific research;
(c) scientific management.
CHAPTER III A
PROTECTION OF SPECIFIED PLANTS
17A. Prohibition of picking, uprooting, etc. of specified plant—Save as otherwise provided in
this Chapter, no person shall —

Willfully pick, uproot, damage, destroy, acquire or collect any specified plant from any forest
land and any area specified, by notification, by the Central Government.
Annex 2
Indian Forest Act, 1927
26. Acts prohibited in such forests,—(1) Any person who—
(a)
makes any fresh clearing prohibited by section 5, or
(b) sets fire to a reserved forest, or in contravention of any rules made by the state
Government in this behalf, kindles any fire, or leaves any fire burning, in such Manner
as to endanger such a forest;
Or who, in a reserved forest—
(c)
keeps or carries any fire except at such seasons as the Forest-officer may notify in this
behalf;
(d) trespasses or pastures cattle, or permits cattle to trespass;
(e) causes any damage by negligence in felling any tree or cutting or dragging any timber;
(f) fells, girdles, loops, or burns any tree or strips off the bark or leaves from, or otherwise
   damages, the same;
(g) quarries stone, burns lime or charcoal, subjects to any manufacturing process, or
removes, any forest-produce;
(h) clears or breaks up any land for cultivation or any other purpose;
(i) in contravention of any rules made in this behalf by the state Government hunts,
   shoots, fishes, poisons water or sets traps or snares; or
(j) in any area in which the Elephants preservation Act.1879 (6 of 1879), is not in force,
   kills or catches elephants in contravention of any rules so made,
(k) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which may extend to six months, or
with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both, in addition to such
compensation for damage done to the forest as the convicting court may direct to be paid.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prohibit—
(a)
any act done by permission in writing of the forest officer, or under any rule made
by the state Government; or
(b) the exercise of any right continued under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 15,
or created by graft or contract in writing made by or on behalf of the Government
under section 23.
(3) Whenever fire is caused willfully or by gross negligence in a reserved forest, the state
Government may (notwithstanding that any penalty has been inflicted under this section)
direct that in such forest or any portion thereof the exercise of all rights of pasture or to
forest produce shall be suspended for such period as it thinks fit.

Annex 3
Constitution of India
21. Protection of life and personal liberty. - No person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Annex 4
Limburg Principles on the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, U.N. Doc E/CN.4/1987/17
14. Given the significance for development of the progressive realization of the rights set forth
in the Covenant, particular attention should be given to measures to improve the standard
of living, of the poor and other disadvantaged groups, taking into account that special
measures may be required to protect cultural rights of indigenous peoples and minorities
Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
15. Violations of economic, social, and cultural rights can also occur through the omission or
failure of States to take necessary measures stemming from legal obligations. Examples of
such violations include:
(d) The failure to regulate activities of individuals or groups so as to prevent them from
violating economic, social and cultural rights.
Annex 5
CERD General Recommendation XXIX on Descent Based Discrimination
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,
Confirming the consistent view of the committee that the term ‘descent‘ in Article 1, paragraph
1 the Convention does not solely refer to race and has a meaning and application which
complements the other prohibited grounds of discrimination.
Strongly reaffirming that discrimination based on ‘descent‘ includes discrimination against
members of communities based on forms of social stratification such as caste and analogous
systems of inherited status, which nullify or impair their equal enjoyment of human rights;
Strongly condemning descent-based discrimination, such as discrimination on the basis of caste
and analogous systems of inherited status, as a violation of the Convention;
Measures of a General Nature
To adopt special measures in favor of descent-based groups and communities in order to ensure
their enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms, in particular concerning access to
public functions, employment and education.
To establish statutory mechanisms, through the strengthening of existing institutions or the
creation of specialized institutions, to promote respect for the equal human rights of members
of descent-based communities.

To educate the general public on the importance of affirmative action programmes to address
the situation of victims of descent-based discrimination.
Annex 6
CESCR General Comment 7, the right to adequate housing (Art.11 (1) of the ICESCR): forced evictions.
1. In its General Comment No.4 (1991), the committee observed that all persons should posses
a degree of security of tenure which guarantees legal protection against forced eviction,
harassment and other threats. It concluded that forced eviction are prima facie incompatible
with the requirements of the Covenant. Having considered a significant number of reports
of forced evictions in recent years, including instances in which it has determined that the
obligations of states parties were being violated, the Committee is now in a position to seek
to provide further clarification as to the implications of such practices in terms of the
obligations contained in the Covenant.
2. The International community has long recognized that the issue of forced evictions is a
serious one. In 1976 the Vancouver Declaration on Human Settlements noted that “major
clearance operations should take place only when conservation and rehabilitation are not
feasible and relocation measures are made” In the 1988 Global Strategy for shelter to the
Year 2000, the General Assembly recognized the “fundamental obligation (of Governments)
to protect and improve houses and neighborhoods, rather than damage or destroy them”
Agenda 21 stated that “ people should be protected by law against unfair eviction from their
homes or land” In the Habitat Agenda committed themselves to “protecting all people from,
and providing le4gal protection and redress for, forced evictions that are ensuring, as
appropriate, that alternative suitable solutions are provided “ The Commission on Human
Rights has also indicated that “forced evictions are a gross violation of human rights”
However, although these statements are important, they leave open one of the most critical
issues, namely that of determining the circumstances under which forced evictions are
permissible and of spelling out the types of protection required to ensure respect for the
relevant provisions of the Covenant.
3. The use of the term “Forced evictions” is, in some respects, problematic. This expression seeks
to convey a sense of arbitrariness and of illegality. To many observers, however, the reference
to “forced evictions” is a tautology, while others have criticized the expression “illegal evictions”
on the ground that it assumes that the relevant law provides adequate protection to the right
to housing and conforms with the Covenant, which is by no means always the case. Similarly,
it has been suggested that the term “unfair evictions” is even more subjective by virtue of
its failure to refer to any legal framework at all. The international community, especially in
the context of the Commission on Human Rights, has opted to refer to “forced evictions”
primarily since all suggested alternatives also suffer from many such defects.
4. The term “forced evictions” as used throughout this General Comment is defined as the
permanent or temporary removal against their will of individuals, families and/or
communities from the homes and/or land which they occupy, without the provision of and
access to, appropriate forms of legal or other protection. The prohibition on forced evictions

does not, however, apply to evictions carried out by in accordance with the law and in
conformity with the provisions of the International Human Rights Covenants.
5. The practice of forced evictions is widespread and affects persons in both developed and
developing countries. Owing to the interrelation and interdependency, which exist among
all human rights, forced evictions frequently violate other human rights. Thus, while
manifestly breaching the rights enshrined in the Covenant, the practice of forced evictions
may also result in violations of civil and political rights, such as the right to life, the right
to security of the person, the right to non-interference with privacy, family and home and
the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
6. In essence, the obligations of states parties to the Covenant in relation to forced evictions
are based on Article 11 (1), read in conjunction with other relevant provisions. In particular,
Article 2 (1) obliges states to use “all appropriate means” to promote the right to adequate
housing. However, in view of the nature of the practice of forced evictions, the reference
to Article 2 (1) to progressive achievement based on the availability of resources will rarely
be relevant. The state itself must refrain from forced evictions and ensure that the law is
enforced against its agents or third parties who carry out forced evictions (as defined in para.
3 above). Moreover this approach is reinforced by Article17 (1) of the international Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights which Complements the right not to be forcefully evicted without
adequate protection. That provision recognizes, inter alia, the right to be protected against
“arbitrary or unlawful interference” with one’s home. It is noted that the State’s obligation to
ensure respect for that right is not qualified by consideration relating to its available resources.
Annex 7
CESCR General Comment 15: The right to water (arts. 11 and 12 of the ICESCR)
2. The human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically
accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses. An adequate amount of safe
water is necessary to prevent death from dehydration, to reduce the risk of water-related
disease and to provide for consumption, cooking, personal and domestic requirements.
3. Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Covenant specifies a number of rights emanating from, and
indispensable for, the realization of the right to an adequate standard of living “including
adequate food, clothing and housing”. The use of the word “including,” indicates that this
catalogue of rights was not intended to be exhaustive. The right to water clearly falls within
the category of guarantees essential for securing an adequate standard of living, particularly
since it is one of the most fundamental conditions for survival. Moreover, the Committee
has previously recognized that water is a human right contained in article 11, paragraph 1,
(see General Comment No. 6 (1995). The right to water is also inextricably related to the
right to the highest attainable standard of health (art. 12, para. 1) and the rights to adequate
housing and adequate food (art. 11, para. 1). The right should also be seen in conjunction
with other rights enshrined in the International Bill of Human Rights, foremost amongst
them the right to life and human dignity

Annex 8
UN Special Rapporteur on adequate housing: Draft Guidelines for States and other parties on The Right
to Adequate Housing and Discrimination91
46....(a) Enact or strengthen legislative measures that prohibit racial discrimination in all areas
of the public and private sectors, including housing, planning and land policies and
provision of building materials, services and housing finance;
(b) Ensure that policies, programmes, and budgetary and financial allocations are carried
out in good faith to promote equal access to civic services essential to the realization
of the right to adequate housing - including potable water, electricity and sanitation-
repeal policies and programmes that promote discriminatory access;
(c) Guarantee access to judicial remedies for violations of the right, such as forced
evictions, deliberate denial of civic services, including reparations for damages suffered,
in accordance with article 6 of the International Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination;
(d) Develop national institutions with adequate resources and mandates to monitor
legislative, judicial and administrative services, including to receive complaints, and the
capacity and authority to undertake follow-up action;
(e) Undertake affirmative action to diminish, eliminate and compensate for conditions that
cause or help to perpetuate discrimination in the realization and retention of the right
to adequate housing;
(f) Eliminate barriers to the enjoyment of the right to adequate housing that are
disproportionately faced by ethnic and racial minorities and indigenous peoples living
in life threatening and health-threatening housing conditions; special attention needs
to be given to particularly vulnerable groups, i.e. persons affected by HIV/AIDS, so
that they do not suffer from discrimination in housing;
(j) Address the multiple discrimination facing minority, indigenous and distinctly low-
income communities the habitability of whose housing is made hazardous by the
environmental degradation of the areas where they live, often adjacent to an
environmentally degraded workplace;
(l) Provide domestic remedies for violations of the right to adequate housing, including
facilities, training for legal practitioners, regulations and procedures, policy guidance,
efficient administration of justice, equal court access and public education towards
improved prosecution, litigation and other forms of dispute resolution with judicial effect;
(m) Strengthen the efforts to monitor the living conditions of marginalized racial and ethnic
groups, particularly with regard to fundamental economic, social and cultural indicators,
including housing, and efficiently collect and disaggregate data according to different
criteria such as gender, age, ethnicity, etc.;
Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, Mr. Miloon
Kothari, to the UN Commission on Human Rights (58th Session), U.N. Doc E/CN.4/2002/59. (www.unhchr.ch/housing)
91

Glossary of Terms
Adivasis : Tribal Communities
Below Poverty Line : The poverty line is the average cost consumption for caloric norms to be
met. The norms were 2400 calories per capita per day for rural areas, and 2100 calories for urban
areas. These calorie norms have been expressed in monetary terms as Rs. 49.09 and Rs. 56.64
per capita per month for rural and urban areas respectively at 1973-74 prices.92
Brahmin: The priestly caste in classical four-tier Hindu caste system.
Busti : Settlement, cluster of houses
Chowkidari : agricultural guard who protects crops from poachers and wild animals
Dalits : Also referred to as untouchables or Harijans. People traditionally outside of the Hindu
caste system and therefore considered impure.
First Information Report: First report filed at a police station when lodging a complaint.
Gadiya : Donkey
Ghumantoo: Nomadic
Gocher : Village grazing grounds
Jati: Endogamous community or caste
Non-pastoral nomads: Non-pastoral nomads rely on supplying specialized goods and services for
their livelihoods.
Panchayat: Village council
Patta: Title deeds to land
Pastoral nomads: Nomadic communities whose livelihood is largely based on the rearing of
domestic animals.
Sarpanch : Village head
Tehsildar : District land administrator
First determined by the Task Force on the ‘Projections of Minimum Needs and Effective Consumption Demands’, constituted by the Planning
Commission, Government of India, in 1979 under the chairmanship of Dr. Y.K. Alagh, Chairman, Advisor (PP) Planning
Commission, New Delhi
92

HIC-HLRN Publications
Fact-Finding Reports
Impact of War and Forced Evictions on Urbanization in Turkey
Violations of Housing Rights
Fact-finding Report no. 1 (1996)
Habitat International Coalition (HIC)
In Quest of Bhabrekar Nagar
A report to enquire into demolitions in Mumbai, INDIA
Fact-finding Report no. 2 (1997)
Habitat International Coalition (HIC)
Fact-finding Mission to Kenya on the Right to Adequate Housing
A report on slum conditions, evictions and landlessness
Fact-finding Report no. 3 (2001)
HIC-HLRN, Sub Saharan Regional Program1
Resettlement on Land of Bhutanese Refugees
A report on new threats to repatriation
Fact-finding Report no. 4 (2002)
HIC-HLRN, South Asia Regional Program (SARP)
Restructuring New Delhi’s Urban Habitat:
Building an Apartheid City?
A report on the resettlement process of Delhi, INDIA
Fact-finding Report no. 5 (2002)
HIC-HLRN, South Asia Regional Program (SARP)2
Rebuilding from the Ruins:
Listening to the Voices from Gujarat and Restoring People’s Rights to Housing,
Livelihood and Life
A report on ethnic conflict in Gujarat, INDIA
Fact-finding Report no. 6 (2002)
HIC-HLRN, South Asia Regional Programme (SARP); Youth for Unity and Voluntary
Action (YUVA)3
In collaboration with Human Rights Monitoring Group (HURIMOG)
In cooperation with Sajha Manch, New Delhi
3
Mission conducted at the request of Citizen’s Initiative, Ahmedabad
1
2

The Impact of the 2002 Submergence on Housing and Land Rights in the Narmada
Valley: Report of a Fact-finding Mission to Sardar Sarovar and Man Dam Projects
A report on housing and land rights violations and inadequate rehabilitation
Fact-finding Report no. 7 (2003)
HIC-HLRN, South Asia Regional Programme (SARP)
Research Reports and Training Manuals
Trade, Investment, Finance and Human Rights
Essential Documents
Research Report (2001)
International NGO Committee on Human Rights in Trade and Investment (INCHRITI)
Children and Right to Adequate Housing:
A Guide to International Legal Resources
Research Report and Training Manual (2002)
HIC-HLRN, South Asia Regional Programme (SARP) & Centre for Child Rights (HAQ)
Dispossessed: Land and Housing Rights in Tibet
Research Report (2002)
Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy (TCHRD) in collaboration with
HIC-HLRN
Community Action Planning: Processes – Ideas – Experiences
Manual for human rights based slum upgradation (2002)
HIC-HRLN, South Asia Regional Programme (SARP); YUVA; PDHRE
Methodology for Monitoring the Human Right to Adequate Housing:
The “Tool Kit”
Indicator and benchmarks to assess realization and violations of the Right to
Adequate Housing
(forthcoming publication)
HIC-HLRN
Urgent Action: HLRN Guide to Practical Solidarity for Defending the
Human Right to Adequate Housing
Training Manual
HIC-HLRN, Middle East/North Africa (MENA) Regional Programme
Standing up Against the Empire: A Palestine Guide:
From Understanding to Action.
Report of a seminar organized at the World Social Forum III, Porto Alegre
HIC-HLRN, Middle East/North Africa (MENA) Regional Programme

Reports to UN Bodies
Child in Search of the State
Alternative report to the India country report on the implementation of the Right to
Housing as enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1998)
Habitat International Coalition (HIC); Laya, Human Rights Foundation (HRF) and Youth
Unity for Voluntary Action (YUVA)
Composite of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Conditions of the Indigenous
Palestinian People under Israel’s Jurisdiction and Control
Joint parallel report to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2001)
HIC-HLRN, Middle East/North Africa (MENA) Regional Programme with seven other
Palestinian, Israeli and international NGOs4
Implementation of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child: Israel
Issues affecting the Indigenous Palestinian People under the State of Israel’s
Jurisdiction and Control
Joint parallel report to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2002)
HIC-HLRN, Middle East/North Africa (MENA) Regional Programme with three other
Palestinian NGOs5
Human Right to Adequate Housing in India
Joint parallel report to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2002)
HIC-HLRN, South Asia Regional Programme (SARP) with Indian NGOs6
Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel; Association of Forty (Israel); Badil Resource Center for Palestinian
Residence and Refugee Rights (Bethlehem); Boston University Civil Litigation Program (USA); LAW Society for the Protection
of Human Rights and the Environment (Jerusalem); Palestinian Center for Human Rights (Gaza,); World Organization against
Torture (Geneva, Switzerland)
5
Defence for Children International (Palestine); LAW Society for the Protection of Human Rights (Jerusalem) under the State
of Israel’s Al Mezan Center for Human Rights
6
National Forum for Forest People and Forest Workers, Muktidhara, Youth for Unity and Voluntary Action, Kalpavriksh, Sajha
Manch, Citizens Initiative, Save Narmada Campaign, and National Campaign for Dalit Human Rights

Housing and Land Rights Network
HABITAT INTERNATIONAL COALITION
Coordination Office and Middle East/North Africa Program:
7 Muhammad Shafiq, No. 8 • Muhandisin, Cairo EGYPT
Tel./Fax: +20 (0)2 347–4360 • E-mail: hlrn@hlrn.org / hic-mena@hic-mena.org
Web: www.hlrn.org / www.hic-mena.org
South Asian Regional Program (SARP):
B–28, Nizamuddin East • Delhi 110013 INDIA
Tel./Fax: +91 (0)11 2435–8492 • E-mail: hichlrc@vsnl.com / sarp.hlrn@vsnl.net
Latin America/Caribbean Program (LACP):
Tacuba No. 53, 1er piso • Colonia Centro • 06000 México, D.F. MÉXICO
Tel: +52 (0)55 12 15 86 • Fax: +52 (0)55 12 38 42 • E-mail: chm@laneta.apc.org
Web: www.laneta.apc.org/hic-al
Sub-Saharan Africa Program (SSAP):
P.O. Box 14550 • Nairobi KENYA
Tel: 254 (0)2 443–226/443–229/443–219 • Fax: +254 (0)2 444–643
E-mail: mazinst@mitsuminet.com • Web: www.mazinst.org
UN Liaison Office:
8 rue Gustave Moynier • 1202 Geneva SWITZERLAND
Tel./Fax: +41 (0)22 738–8167 • E-mail: hic-hrc@iprolink.ch
Confronting Discrimination: Nomadic Communities in Rajasthan and their Human Rights to Land and
Adequate Housing
Authors: Ai Li Lim, Rita Anand
Editor: Miloon Kothari
Contributing Reviewers: Ginger Hancock, Malavika Vartak
Copyright © 2004 Housing and Land Rights Network
Printed in India by: Systems Vision
CONFRONTING DISCRIMINATION
Table of Contents
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
Executive Summary ..............................................................................................3
Historical and Legal Overview of Nomadic Communities in India ................... 7
Nomadism v. Settlement .................................................................................................. 8
Criminality: Notification and Denotification ................................................................ 9
Exclusion from Reservations ......................................................................................... 10
Implications of Conservation and Eco Diversity Schemes ...................................... 11
Settlement: The Case of Six Nomadic Communities in Alwar, Rajasthan ....... 13
The Legal Framework: The Right to Land and Adequate Housing ................. 16
The Indian Constitution ................................................................................................. 16
International Mechanisms and Instruments ................................................................ 17
The Indigenous Question- Quest for Recognition .................................................... 19
Caste Based Discrimination ........................................................................................... 20
The Findings ....................................................................................................... 21
Legal Security of Tenure ................................................................................................ 21
Availability of Services, Materials and Infrastructure ................................................ 25
Affordability ..................................................................................................................... 28
Accessibility ...................................................................................................................... 29
Habitability ....................................................................................................................... 30
Location ............................................................................................................................ 31
Cultural Appropriateness ............................................................................................... 32
Observations and Recommendations: The Road Ahead ................................... 34
Annexes ............................................................................................................... 39
Glossary of Terms ............................................................................................... 45
51

By

Kalidas Shinde

PhD Scholar