Demographic Trends and Occupational Structure of Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups of Jharkhand

 

Dr. Santanu Sahu

UGC- Dr. S. Radhakrishnan Post Doctoral Fellow, University Department of Economics, Ranchi University, Ranchi, Jharkhand.

 

ABSTRACT:

The Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) constitute the most vulnerable tribal entities in Jharkhand. Their population has remained low, with low levels of literacy and primitive methods of agriculture and livelihood. The present paper explores the trends in PVTGs population and its regional distribution in Jharkhand along with throwing light on their occupational distribution and composition of workforce. The PVTGs derive their livelihood from forests and land resources. They are primitive and archaic in nature. Their literacy level is very low and they suffer from poor health conditions. The PVTGs have not become a part of the mainstream economy because their traditions, cultures, beliefs and practices all remain associated with nature and they add no nominal value to mother nature from which they derive everything which reflects their strong heritage of respecting the natural world and the environment.

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

Jharkhand is a land of diverse cultures where a large number of tribal groups coexist. The tribal groups have varied culture, ethnicity, language, tradition, religious beliefs and occupational practices but share the common auspices of drawing their livelihood, belief and culture and tradition from Mother Nature. The tribals have their own set of legislation, religious and livelihood practices which makes them all the more vulnerable. Further among the tribal communities there are groups which are all the more isolated both geographically as well as socially, economically backward, archaic and vulnerable. These have witnessed declining population, economic deprivation, low levels of literacy, poor health and living conditions and have practiced primitive agriculture.

 

They have been identified as Primitive Tribal Groups (PTGs). These communities have not achieved any social and economic development and remain in isolated hamlets with little or no infrastructure and administrative support. The first step in the direction of addressing the issues of PTGs involves a legal recognition and this step was taken in 1961 by Dhebar Commission which outlined the PTGs earlier known as PTGs as extremely backward occupying the lowest strata of tribal society. Further the Shilu Ao team in 1969 voiced the need for separate central schemes for the upliftment of the PTGs. In order to identify the PTGs it was also required to outline certain guidelines for the same. These guidelines came upon after the recommendations of the workshops on Primitive Tribal Communities, 1975 and Conference of Tribal Commissioners. Ever since the 5^th Five Year Plan the centre has been assisting for their planned development. The main guidelines for identifying the PVTGs has been (i) Pre-agricultural level of activity (ii) very low level of literacy (iii) stagnant or declining population. The issue of identification assumes importance in the light of the fact that development issues of these tribal groups need to be addressed from all perspectives and has thus become an important piece of discussion across wide spectrum of policy makers. It must be pointed out here that Primitive Tribal Groups are now known as Primitive Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) ever since 2006.

 

As per Census 2001 there are 75 different groups of PVTGs in India out of whom 8 are found in Jharkhand namely Asur, Birhor, Birjia, Korwa, Mal Pahariya, Pahariya, Sauria Pahariya and Savar. These PVTGs are 8 among the 32 tribal groups that exist in Jharkhand.

 

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

The present section explores the review of literature and related survey. The tribals constituted around 40 percent of the total population of Jharkhand in 1911 and this declined to around 30 percent by 1951. This variation in tribal population has been due to immigration and emigration process (Ekka, 2000). There have been studies that show that the tribal emigration to these regions-was 33000 in 1891; 282000 in 1901; 7 07000 in 1911 and 9 47000 in 1921 censuses (Weiner, 1988).

 

The tribals suffer from poor health conditions. They are plagued by malnutrition and high incidence of death. As high as 56 percent of the tribals were malnourished according to a study conducted in 1988 in Jharkhand (Singh, 1988). Different groups of tribals have witnessed different rates of population growth between three decades - 1961-71 and 1981-91. Some have witnessed positive rates of growth while some have witnessed negative rates of growth. The rate of population growth among the Santhals, the Mundas and the Oraons has been between 15 and 20 per cent but has declined among the Ho. The rate of population growth for Mal Pahariya has witnessed an improvement from 7.07 percent in 1961-7 to 63.09 percent in 1981-91. Similarly the rate of population growth among the Gonds has also been high increasing from 45.78 percent to 97.97. On the other hand the Sauriya Pahariya have registered negative rate of growth during the latter decades under study (Chand, 1994).

 

An overview of the demographic composition of tribals in Jharkhand in the last 100 years indicates that there has been a decline in the tribal in general. However tribals are found in majority in the districts of Gumla, Lohardaga and East and West Singhbhum (Ekka, 2000).

 

METHODOLOGY:

The paper is based on secondary data taken from different sources viz., census (different rounds), report of Jharkhand Tribal Welfare Research Institute (JTWRI). The paper tries to explore the occupational structure of the PVTGs by taking a look at the workforce participation rate, percentage distribution of main and marginal workers and distributional pattern across different industrial classifications. For this the paper makes use tables and diagrams.

 

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS:

The present section presents the main findings of the study. It explores the trends in different demography indicators and decadal growth rate of the population of the PVTGs along with distribution of the PVTGs across different districts. In addition to this the occupational distribution of the PVTGs and changes in it between the two census 2001 and 2011 is also presented in this section.

 

Trends in Demography:

A close look at the variation in PVTGs population reflects that there has been growth in their absolute number but their overall population remains relatively small. The decadal growth rate reflects it better as shown in table 2. Some of the PVTGs like Birhor, Birjia, Korwa, Sauriya Pahariya and Savar have even witnessed negative growth rates in some decades. These communities have witnessed very low decadal compound annual growth rates as well with some groups registering negative rates.

 

 

Table1: Population Distribution of PVTGs in Jharkhand from 1941 to 2011

PVTGs	1941	1951*	1961	1971	1981	1991	2001	2011
Asur	4388	-	5819	7026	7783	9122	10347	22459
Birhor	2550	-	2438	3464	4377	8038	7514	10726
Birjia	2075	-	4029	3628	4057	4529	5365	6276
Korwa	NA	-	21162	18717	21940	24146	27177	35606
Mal Pahariya	40148	-	45423	48636	79322	79154	115093	135797
Parhaiya	10134	-	12268	14651	24012	29256	20786	25585
Sauria Pahariya	58654	-	55606	59047	39269	47826	31050	46222
Savar	1645	-	1561	3548	3014	4203	6004	9688
Total	119594	-	148306	158717	183774	206274	223336	292359

Source: P. C. Oraon and Census data 2001 and 2011.

Note: * Caste wise census data not available for census 1951

 

 

 

Table 2: Decadal Growth Rate of PVTGs Population

Year	Asur	Birhor	Birjia	Korwa	Mal Pahariya	Parhaiya	Sauria Pahariya	Savar	Total
1941	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
1951	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
1961	32.6	-4.4	94.2	-	13.1	21.1	-5.2	-5.1	24.0
1971	20.7	42.1	-10.0	-11.6	7.1	19.4	6.2	127.3	7.0
1981	10.8	26.4	11.8	17.2	63.1	63.9	-33.5	-15.1	15.8
1991	17.2	83.6	11.6	10.1	-0.2	21.8	21.8	39.4	12.2
2001	13.4	-6.5	18.5	12.6	45.4	-29.0	-35.1	42.9	8.3
2011	117.1	42.7	17.0	31.0	18.0	23.1	48.9	61.4	30.9

Source: Author’s own calculation from P. C. Oraon and Census data 2001 and 2011.

 

Table 3: Annual Compound Growth Rate of PVTG population

PVTGs	1961-71	1971-81	1981-91	1991-2001	2001-2011
Asur	0.008	0.004	0.007	0.005	0.435
Birhor	0.015	0.010	0.026	-0.003	0.403
Birjia	-0.005	0.005	0.005	0.007	0.380
Korwa	-0.005	0.007	0.004	0.005	0.455
Mal Pahariya	0.003	0.021	0.000	0.016	0.513
Pahariya	0.008	0.021	0.009	-0.015	0.441
Sauria Pahariya	0.003	-0.018	0.009	-0.019	0.466
Savar	0.036	-0.007	0.014	0.015	0.399
Total	0.003	0.006	0.005	0.003	0.547

Source: Author’s own calculation from P. C. Oraon and Census 2001 and 2011data.

 

A look at the sex ratio of the PVTGs reveals that there has been an improvement in the sex ratio between the two census years 2001 and 2011 as presented in table 4. The sex ratio of the PVTGs has improved by 3 percent between 2001 and 2011. This is greater than the percentage improvement of the sex ratio of both all the Scheduled Tribes population of Jharkhand which is only 1.6 percent as well as the total Jharkhand population which is 0.74 percent.

 

Table 4: Sex Ratio of PVTGs and ST in Jharkhand

	Sex Ratio		Child Sex Ratio
	2001	2011	2001	2011
India	933	943	927	919
All STs (India)	978	990	973	956
Jharkhand	941	948	965	948
All STs (Jharkhand)	987	1003	979	976
PVTGs (Jharkhand)	962	991	992	998

Source: Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, GOI.

 

Status of Literacy among the PVTGs:

The literacy rate among the PVTGs is low as clearly reflected in the table 5 below. A comparison of the literacy rate between the census years 2001 and 2011 shows that there has been an improvement in the literacy rates of all the PVTGs from 20.7 percent in 2001 to 39.5 percent in 2011.The literacy rate of the Asur has improved by 17.8 percentage points, the literacy rate of the Birhor has improved by 17 percentage points, the literacy rate of the Birjia has improved by 19 percentage points, the literacy rate of the Korwa has improved by 23.6 percentage points, that of the Mal Pahariya has improved by 18.7 percentage points, the literacy rate of the Pahariya has improved by 20.5 percentage points, that of the Sauria Pahariya has improved by 18 percentage points and that of the Savar has increased by 15.6 percentage points. The situation is thus such that there has been an improvement in the literacy rate of the PVTGs over the period of ten years. The improvement in the literacy rate of the total Jharkhand population has been by 14 percentage points which is evidently lower than the improvement registered in literacy rates of the individual PVTGs.

Table 5: Literacy Rates of PVTGs, STs and Total Population of Jharkhand (in per cent)

Communities	2001			2011
	Persons	Male	Female	Persons	Male	Female
Jharkhand	53.6	67.3	38.9	67.6	78.5	56.2
All STs Jharkhand	40.7	54.0	27.2	57.1	68.2	46.2
All PVTGs (Jharkhand)	20.7	29.5	11.4	39.5	48.7	30.0
Asur	29.1	42.5	14.7	46.9	58.0	35.4
Birhor	17.5	23.6	11.2	34.5	41.3	27.4
Birjia	31.2	43.0	19.0	50.2	61.7	38.4
Korwa	14.3	21.6	6.5	37.9	45.8	29.7
Mal Pahariya	20.9	29.4	12.1	39.6	49.1	30.2
Pahariya	12.6	19.1	5.5	33.1	41.5	24.3
Sauria Pahariya	21.7	31.4	11.3	39.7	48.9	30.6
Savar	18.1	25.4	10.7	33.7	43.3	24.0

Source: Authors own calculation from Census 2001 and 2011 data.

 

 

Division and District wise Distribution of PVTG Population in Jharkhand:

Jharkhand has been divided into five divisions namely Palamu, North Chotanagpur, South Chotanagpur, Kolhan and Santhal Pargana. The highest concentration of PVTGs population is found in Santhal Pargana division of the state where around 62.34 percent of the PVTGs population reside. Around 20 percent of PVTGs population is found in Palamu division. South Chotanagpur and Kolhan divisions contain around 7 percent of the PVTGs population each while Kolhan division contains only 3 percent of the total PVTGs population.

 

The district wise distribution of PVTGs population reveals that three districts namely Dumka, Pakur and Sahebganj contain relatively greater percentage of PVTGs population. Around 18.3 percent of total PVTGs population exists in Sahebganj, 16.4 percent exists in Dumka and 14.3 percent in Pakur. About 11.2 percent of PVTGs reside in Garhwa and 8.4 percent are found in Godda. The rest of the districts contain marginal percentage of the total PVTGs population.

 

As far as distribution of individual PVTGs is concerned, Asur is found only in three districts namely Gumla, Loherdaga and Latehar with majority of Asur residing in Gumla. Birhor population is scattered all over the state with majority of Birhor existing in Hazaribagh.Birjiya are found in only three districts Latehar, Gumla and Loherdaga.Korwa are mainly concentrated in Garhwa district with some percentage also found in Gumla, Palamu and Simdega. Hill Khariya are also concentrated only in two districts namely East Singhbhum and Gumla. Mal Pahariya are largely concentrated in Dumka and Pakur with minor concentrations found in Deoghar, Godda, Palalmu and Sahebganj. The Pahariya are chiefly concentrated Garhwa, Latehar and Palamu. The Savar population is chiefly concentrated in East Singhbhum district of Jharkhand. More than 55 percent of Sauriya Pahariya exists in Sahebganj.

 

Structural overview of Occupational Distribution of Tribal Workforce:

The tribals and PVTGs constitute a group who derive their culture, traditions, beliefs as well as livelihood options from mother nature and forests. They have remained primitive in their occupation and livelihood methods. The tribals in Jharkhand largely derive their income and food from the forests and its produce. The table below presents the traditional occupational distribution of PVTGs in Jharkhand.

 

Figure 1: District wise percentage distribution of PVTGs Population

Source: Authors calculation from JTWRI Report 2003.

Table 6: Regional Distribution and Occupational Structure of the PVTGs in Jharkhand

PVTGs	District mainly found	Traditional Occupation
Asur, Agaria	Gumla, Loherdaga, Palamu and Latehar	Iron-smelting and also practice settled cultivation
Birjia	Gumla, Latehar and Loherdaga	Iron-smelting and practice shifting agriculture, collect minor forest produce and also make handicrafts
Birhor	Bokaro, Chatra, Dhanbad, East Singhbhum, Garhwa, Hazaribagh, Koderma, Latehra, Loherdaga, Ranchi, Sarikela, Simdega and West singhbhum	Hunting, food gathering, collect wax, honey and minor forest produce
Korwa	Garhwa, Gumla, Latehar, Palamu and Simdega	Collect food, cultivate maize, millet and vegetables, hunting, rope making and contract labour
Mal Pahariya	Deogarh, Dumka, East Singhbhum, Godda, Jamtara Pakur, Palamu, Ranchi and Sahebganj	Hunting, gathering and shifting agriculture, collect minor forest produce
Pahariya	Chatra, Deogarh, Garhwa, Gumla, Latehar, Loherdaga and Palamu	Hunting and food gathering
Savar	East Singhbhum, Godda, Palamu and Saraikela-Kharsawan	Collect of minor forest produce, prepare and sell wine, wage earning as contract labour and casual labour

Source: Prasad, N (1961) and Oraon, P.C. (2003).

 

Work Force Participation Rate of the STs and PVTGs of Jharkhand:

The table 7 below shows the work force participation rate of the PVTGs and the STs of Jharkhand. A comparison of the census 2001 and census 2011 data shows that there has not been much change in the participation rates of the PVTGs between the years. In case of Birjia, Korwa, Mal Pahariya and Sauria Pahariya there has been marginal increase in the work force participation rate while in case of Asur, Birhor, Pahariya and Savar the participation rate has declined marginally. A comparison with the overall ST population shows that for STs as a whole the participation rate has remained almost unchanged. Another fact that comes to the fore is that women are also actively engaged as workers. Around 40 to 50 percent of females belonging to the ST and PVTGs population are engaged as workers.

 

 

Table 7: Work Force Participation Rate of the STs and PVTGs of Jharkhand

Communities	2001			2011
	Persons	Male	Female	Persons	Male	Female
All STs Jharkhand	46.3	51.9	40.6	46.9	52.3	41.6
All PVTGs (Jharkhand)	48.7	52.6	44.7	48.8	52.2	45.3
Asur	48.3	50.6	45.9	47.5	50.2	44.6
Birhor	49.6	54.3	44.6	47.4	51.6	43.1
Birjia	46.4	49.4	43.2	49.6	51.5	47.6
Korwa	46.9	52.0	41.6	51.0	53.5	48.5
Mal Pahariya	47.9	53.0	42.6	49.3	53.4	45.2
Pahariya	46.8	52.7	40.4	45.7	50.4	40.9
Sauria Pahariya	49.3	51.1	47.5	51.6	52.8	50.3
Savar	54.8	58.0	51.5	48.2	54.2	42.2

Source: Authors own calculation from Census 2001 and 2011 data.

 

The PVTGs hardly own much land. They work as agricultural labourers, household industry workers and other workers apart from being cultivators on their meagre lands. In the present section we explore the occupational distribution and structure of PVTGs workforce. Tables 8 and 9 presents the percentage distribution of total STs and PVTGs population as main and marginal workers as per census 2001and 2011 respectively. It can be seen that except in the case of Savar the share of the all other PVTGs as main worker is greater than their share as marginal worker. However as per census 2011 it can be seen that the percentage share of the STs and PVTGs as main worker is lower than the percentage share as marginal worker. This shows that the condition of workers has declined over the period of 10 years. The percentage share as marginal worker has increased by ample degrees reflecting deterioration in the working condition of both the STs and PVTGs.

 

Table 8: Percentage Distribution of the ST and PVTGs Population of Jharkhand into Main and Marginal Workers as per Census 2001

Communities	Main workers			Marginal workers
	Persons	Male	Female	Persons	Male	Female
All STs (Jharkhand)	59.4	73.6	41.0	40.6	26.4	59.0
All PVTGs (Jharkhand)	57.3	70.6	40.9	42.7	29.4	59.1
Asur	56.3	72.4	37.4	43.7	27.6	62.6
Birhor	63.9	73.0	52.3	36.1	27.0	47.7
Birjia	64.4	76.5	50.3	35.6	23.5	49.7
Korwa	52.0	66.9	32.3	48.0	33.1	67.7
Mal Pahariya	58.1	73.6	38.4	41.9	26.4	61.6
Pahariya	52.8	66.5	33.6	47.2	33.5	66.4
Sauria Pahariya	66.4	80.4	50.2	33.6	19.6	49.8
Savar	44.8	55.6	32.4	55.2	44.4	67.6

Source: Authors own calculation from Census 2001 data.

 

Table 9: Percentage Distribution of the ST and PVTGs Population of Jharkhand into Main and Marginal Workers as per Census 2011

Communities	Main workers			Marginal workers
	Persons	Male	Female	Persons	Male	Female
All STs Jharkhand	46.2	55.1	35.1	53.8	44.9	64.9
All PVTGs (Jharkhand)	38.3	45.8	29.5	61.7	54.2	70.5
Asur	50.5	56.8	43.0	49.5	43.2	57.0
Birhor	42.6	49.6	33.9	57.4	50.4	66.1
Birjia	45.0	51.9	37.4	55.0	48.1	62.6
Korwa	25.6	31.0	19.5	74.4	69.0	80.5
Mal Pahariya	45.0	54.3	34.0	55.0	45.7	66.0
Pahariya	26.2	32.5	18.1	73.8	67.5	81.9
Sauria Pahariya	40.4	53.6	26.7	59.6	46.4	73.3
Savar	30.8	36.8	22.9	69.2	63.2	77.1

Source: Authors own calculation from Census 2011 data.

 

Further the occupational structure also explores the kind of activities the PVTGs are engaged as main and marginal workers. As pointed earlier since the PVTGs posses little or no land they are engaged in other activities as well. As main workers they are primarily engaged in agriculture either as cultivators if they posses any land or as agricultural labourers on others’ farms. However there are some PVTGs which hardly possess any land are mainly engaged as agricultural labourers.

 

Table 10 presents an analysis of the percentage distribution of main and marginal workers of the ST and PVTGs population as cultivators, agricultural labourers, household industry workers and other workers as per census 2001. As main workers the STs and PVTGs were mainly engaged as cultivators. The next best occupation as main worker was agricultural labourer which engaged a large section of the population. Again Birhor and Savar are two communities which were largely engaged as agricultural labourers and not as cultivators. It can be seen from table 10 that among the main workers the Asur, Birjia, Mal Pahariya and Sauria Pahariya were mainly engaged as cultivators while the Savar and Birhor were mainly engaged as agricultural labourers as per census 2001.

 

 

 

 

Again in case of marginal workers the Birhor, Birjia, Korwa, Mal Pahariya, Pahariya, Sauria Pahariya and Savar were all engaged mainly as agricultural labourers. This means that large percentage of main workers in case of PVTGs was engaged as cultivators whereas large section of marginal PVTGs workers was engaged as agricultural labourers.

 

Similarly the table 11 presents an analysis of the percentage distribution of main and marginal workers of the ST and PVTGs population as cultivators, agricultural labourers, household industry workers and other workers as per census 2011. In case of main workers among the ST and the PVTGs, except the Birhor and the Savar all are mainly cultivators. The next best occupation that keeps them engaged is as ‘other workers’ as can be seen from table based on census 2011. However the Savar are chiefly engaged as agricultural labourers. Again in case of marginal workers the situation is similar to that in census 2001. Here also a large percentage of the marginal workers among all the PVTGs as well as the STs are engaged as agricultural labourers.

 

These facts reveal that the marginal workers constitute the exploited class who do not work as cultivators rather serve as agricultural labourers.

 

Table 10: Distribution of Main and Marginal workers of ST and PVTGs Workers in Jharkhand as per census 2001

Communities	Main workers				Marginal workers
	Cultivators	Agricultural Labourers	Household Industry Workers	Other Workers	Cultivators	Agricultural Labourers	Household Industry Workers	Other Workers
All STs (Jharkhand)	62.0	17.9	3.2	17.0	38.8	50.2	2.6	8.4
All PVTGs (Jharkhand)	41.0	30.3	10.8	17.9	25.6	51.2	8.2	15.0
Asur	76.2	5.2	1.3	17.3	67.5	20.6	2.2	9.6
Birhor	10.3	19.4	39.6	30.7	6.5	33.1	37.1	23.3
Birjia	53.7	24.7	15.4	6.2	37.7	46.6	7.9	7.8
Korwa	41.4	44.0	4.4	10.2	17.6	72.1	2.1	8.2
Mal Pahariya	47.5	32.9	2.4	17.1	26.4	57.7	3.0	12.9
Pahariya	33.8	36.7	17.0	12.5	15.1	68.3	6.4	10.2
Sauria Pahariya	62.6	18.3	0.4	18.7	31.5	40.3	1.1	27.1
Savar	2.7	60.8	5.8	30.8	2.1	71.0	5.9	20.9

Source: Authors own calculation from Census 2001 data.

 

Table 11: Distribution of Main and Marginal workers of ST and PVTGs Workers in Jharkhand as per census 2011

Communities	Main workers				Marginal workers
	Cultivators	Agricultural Labourers	Household Industry Workers	Other Workers	Cultivators	Agricultural Labourers	Household Industry Workers	Other Workers
All STs (Jharkhand)	49.1	22.5	2.4	26.0	34.0	52.3	2.5	11.2
All PVTGs (Jharkhand)	33.8	37.2	5.7	23.2	19.6	59.5	7.2	13.7
Asur	60.9	15.3	0.8	23.0	30.3	51.5	2.1	16.1
Birhor	6.9	21.4	25.9	45.8	4.5	40.8	19.1	35.6
Birjia	40.8	47.5	3.6	8.1	35.4	48.2	11.5	4.9
Korwa	32.9	44.6	3.3	19.2	13.8	73.7	3.4	9.0
Mal Pahariya	41.6	41.2	1.2	16.0	20.6	68.2	3.2	8.0
Pahariya	24.5	50.1	7.3	18.0	15.5	62.8	7.6	14.1
Sauria Pahariya	54.1	30.7	0.9	14.3	31.6	58.6	3.2	6.6
Savar	8.6	47.2	2.9	41.4	5.1	72.3	7.3	15.3

Source: Authors own calculation from Census 2011 data.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

Thus, it becomes clear that the situation of the PVTGs is grim. They are engaged chiefly as cultivators or agricultural labourers. Although the literacy rate among the PVTGs has improved between 2001 and 2011, it still remains below 50 percent which is far below the national as well the Jharkhand state average. Their economy is still subsistence based with little capacity to save. Although the PVTG population has increased between the 2001 and 2011 census their absolute numbers continue to be very low. This reflects poor health and nutrition options available to them and high incidence of morbidity and mortality. This calls for some serious and focused policy action to improve their socio-economic conditions. Thus, a more focused and customised policy prescriptions are required for addressing the specific issues of the PVTGs.

 

REFERENCES:

1.      Ekka, Alexius and Mohammad Asif (2000): “Data Base on Development-Induced-Displacement and Rehabilitation in Jharkhand 1951-1995”, Research Project under completion, Indian Social Institute, New Delhi.

2.      Weiner, Myron (1988): Sons of the Soil, Oxford University Press, Delhi

3.      Singh, A K et al (1998): “Population-Health Education in the Tribals of South Bihar”, Social Change 18(1) March.

4.      Chand, S K (1994): “Tribal Population and Development in Bihar” in U P Sinha and R K Sinha (eds), Population and Development in Bihar, BR Publishing Corporation, Delhi.

5.      Ekka, Alexius (2000): “Jharkhand Tribals: Are They Really a Minority?”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 35, No. 52/53, pp.4610-4612.

6.      Saxena, N. C. (2007): Rehabilitating Degraded Lands, In Mahesh Rangarajan (ed.) Environmental Issues in India: A Reader. Pearson, Longman: New Delhi.

7.      Oraon, P. C (2003): Land and People of Jharkhand, JTWRI, Ranchi.

8.      Primitive Tribal Group of Jharkhand Survey Report (2002-03), Jharkhand Tribal Welfare Research Institute, Ministry of Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

9.      Dhebar, U. N. (1960-61): “Report of the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes Commission”, (New Delhi: Planning Commission).

10.   Census of India various issues, Government of India.

11.   Prasad, N (1961): Land and People of Tribal Bihar, Ranchi, Bihar Tribal Research Institute, Govt. of Bihar.

12.   JTWRI (2003): Primitive Tribal Group of Jharkhand Survey Report, Govt. Of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accepted on 27.05.2019            © A&V Publications All right reserved