After 23 years of legal proceedings, what does this case mean for the Adivasi community and their rights?

The court has referred to the Adivasis and described the Muthanga agitation as part of their struggle for freedom, which is a positive aspect. However, the 23-year-long trial has failed to address the broader social, historical and political context of the agitation.

The 2003 Muthanga land stir was the culmination of a two-decade-long Adivasi struggle. Earlier negotiations with the UDF (United Democratic Front) government led by then Chief Minister A.K. Antony resulted in an agreement and a rehabilitation package in 2001 to provide land to landless Adivasis through the Tribal Resettlement and Development Mission. When the agreement was not properly implemented, the Adivasis launched the Muthanga land occupation as a form of agitation.

Following the Muthanga agitation, land was distributed to several Adivasi families under the package, and the programme for providing land to the landless continues. However, this broader context and the long-standing struggle for land have not been adequately addressed in the trial.

Instead, the case has largely been treated as a criminal case against those who participated in the protest, leaving the wider social and political dimensions of the Adivasi struggle unaddressed.

Do you believe the system has failed to address the police action during the Muthanga eviction?

The suppression of the Muthanga agitation was, in our view, a horrific form of persecution of a vulnerable and totally unarmed community. The entire State machinery, particularly the police, was mobilised to crush the movement, while misleading police accounts and sections of the media helped isolate Adivasis and obscure the violence. The majority of the Adivasis who participated in the agitation belonged to some of the most marginalised indigenous communities. The police operation was marked by indiscriminate violence and brutality, including against women and children, several of whom sustained severe injuries. We believe the police used disproportionate force, including revolvers and rifles, against people who could easily have been arrested.

I cannot say whether then Chief Minister A.K. Antony personally ordered the action, but the State machinery clearly acted to ensure the movement would be rooted out. After the firing, the NHRC (National Human Rights Commission), acting on a complaint by social activist Nirmala Deshpande, ordered a detailed, independent inquiry, preferably by the CBI. However, the State also handed over six criminal cases registered against protesters to the CBI, although we had never sought such a probe, making an independent inquiry impossible in our view.

Besides the six criminal cases, one FIR was registered concerning Adivasi protester Jogi’s death and six FIRs related to forest offences. The CBI filed three charge sheets in criminal cases. We challenged the investigation as biased in the Kerala High Court, but the plea was dismissed. As a result, the NHRC-ordered independent inquiry has never taken place. The February 17, 2003, forest fire, which we believe contributed to the escalation, was also never properly investigated despite our identifying 22 suspected persons and seeking a probe. Instead, allegations that protesters had kidnapped people were widely reported, paving the way for the eviction. We also believe political factors, including the Global Investors Meet and the Mathikettan Shola controversy, influenced the decision to crush the agitation. Land at Muthanga had reportedly been earmarked for a project discussed at the investment meet. We believe that this was connected to the then Forest Minister K. Sudhakaran.

After being socially isolated in the aftermath of the incident, we began receiving wider public support when figures such as Arundhati Roy and other civil rights activists spoke out. The courts remained our only recourse, but they did not give due consideration to our arguments. It seemed as though the underlying question before the judiciary was: what human rights do people labelled as encroachers have? The judiciary has largely viewed Muthanga as unilateral violence against the State, despite the stark disparity between the unarmed Adivasis and the heavily armed police.

The AGMS supported the UDF in the 2026 Assembly elections. Do you feel the State government is now sidelining the demand for a detailed probe into Yogi (Jogi)’s death in the 2003 Muthanga agitation and the alleged human rights violations during the stir?

Jogi’s death remains unanswered, and the CBI has not yet closed the case. I believe we will have to approach the courts for appropriate orders, as the alleged violations are unlikely to be investigated simply because we demand it.

The police had registered his death as an unnatural death under Section 174 of the CrPC, but the CBI never properly investigated it. The CBI later submitted a brief report stating that Jogi had died in the firing during the incident.

The circumstances of the policeman’s death remain unclear. Jogi was killed at the same spot, and we believe he may have died from a grenade. This needs to be properly investigated.

We will seek a reinvestigation into Jogi’s death through legal and governmental channels.

How much has the situation of landless Adivasis in Kerala changed since 2003? Why have successive land-distribution and rehabilitation programmes failed to resolve the issue?

The landless Adivasi issue has remained unresolved because successive governments failed to implement rehabilitation as a comprehensive package. Land was distributed in scattered locations, much of it unsuitable for habitation, while housing, livelihoods, agriculture and financial assistance were not provided together. The Adivasi Rehabilitation Mission should have been implemented in mission mode, with families settled together and supported with all essential facilities. During the Oommen Chandy-led UDF government’s tenure, we staged a six-month protest, following which the government decided to distribute land to Adivasis. Applications were submitted for 657 people, but the government issued an order covering only 444. More than a decade later, the process remains incomplete, while much of the land distributed is reportedly unfit for habitation.

After getting bail, you said it was time for a second land agitation. Is direct action and land occupation still necessary, or should the movement rely more on legal and political avenues? What should be the AGMS’s priorities now?

What I meant by a second land agitation is the next phase of the movement. It would focus on legal and political action rather than occupying land. The government has already identified surplus land that can be distributed to landless Adivasis and Dalits, and the UDF has promised to implement the land package and PESA (the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act). The UDF government’s Budget announcement of Land Reforms 2.0 is aimed at removing legal restrictions on acquiring land for commercial purposes. However, proposed changes to land laws and the land ceiling could undermine land reforms. Our priority is to ensure that the land ceiling is retained and to prevent a return to the old landlord system.

Is land still the central issue for Kerala’s Adivasi communities, or have issues such as employment, education, healthcare and displacement become more important?

Land remains a major issue, but education is equally important. For the past six to seven years, we have focused on education through initiatives such as the Adishakthi Summer School. The Paniya, Adiyan, Kattunayakan and Vettakuruma communities, among the most disadvantaged, need a special reparation package, as they continue to face poor access to quality and higher education. Changes in higher education and cuts or restrictions on e-grants and scholarships have further worsened the situation.

Adivasi settlements are often close to forests and among the first to face attacks by wild animals. Are these communities receiving adequate protection and timely assistance? Should the government consider giving Adivasi communities a greater role in managing forests and preventing human-wildlife conflict?

No, Adivasi communities are not receiving adequate protection or timely assistance. In Aralam Farm alone, more than a dozen Adivasis have died in human-wildlife conflicts. The government should restore degraded forests, use available manpower effectively and involve Adivasis and other forest-fringe communities in managing forests and preventing such conflicts.

Do you think today’s younger generation of Adivasis has a different approach from the generation that participated in the Muthanga struggle?

The younger generation is less focused on land-related issues, partly because education and changing aspirations have altered their traditional outlook. At the same time, they lack quality education and employment opportunities, with government jobs often seen as their only option. There is a need for greater awareness and higher-level engagement among them.

Has the movement been weakened by differences within Adivasi leadership and organisations?

The movement has differences of opinion within it, and there may be differences over certain issues. But these differences have not weakened the movement’s core demands. No one opposes demands such as self-governance, political representation, or land rights for all Adivasis.