Adivasi Women and the Equality Quest/ion
Adivasi women exemplify a confounding intersectional position within India’s societal structure. As part of a broader community-level assertion for land and resources, Adivasi women have played crucial roles. Yet, Adivasi women’s struggle for inheritance has resisted both customary laws and the State’s historic, oppressive imposition of land acquisition policies.
Astha Saxena
Published on: 8 March 2025, 09:22 am
THE question of equality for Adivasi* and other forest dwelling women contains discussions on multiple layers of discrimination, all of which are not necessarily based on gender. These layers cut across caste and class bias and make Adivasi women among the most marginalised in the country. To initiate a conversation around the question of equality for Adivasi women requires that we not only unfold the gender perspective, but also problematise the mainstream legal and political discourse which articulates the identity of forest-dwelling communities as the ‘other’. Such discourse requires that feminist perspectives confront our own paradigm and conduct an inward critique — forcing us to question our frames of reference for equality.
In this context, we need to explore the nature and content of feminist legal reforms that are proposed in addition to interrogating the backlash that such reforms might face. Often, questions of equality for Adivasi women are pitched to fit the framework set for women from dominant communities, with no regard to their unique sense of identity and connection with their communities or lands.
Interestingly, the case for equality for Adivasi women is most popularly made by singling out the customary laws of community which discriminate against women in matters of inheritance.
Often, questions of equality for Adivasi women are pitched to fit the framework set for women from dominant communities, with no regard to their unique sense of identity and connection with their communities or lands.
Two years ago, the Supreme Court had noted that family law in India has been functioning on some biases which had to be reformed. In Kamala Neti v Land Acquisition Officer (2023), the Court said that there was no justification for denying right of survivorship to women of Scheduled Tribe or tribal communities when that right was readily available to other women who fell within the purview of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ( ‘1956 Act’). It was the opinion of the Court that when non-tribal women are entitled to an equal share in the property, there is no rationale in denying the same to a tribal woman. However, since the 1956 Act made a very clear distinction between tribals and non-tribals, and specifically did not apply to tribal women, the Court could not extend that benefit without effectuating a judicial amendment in the law. Therefore, the Court directed the Union government to consider the question, and withdraw exemptions provided under the 1956 Act in so far as the applicability of this law to Scheduled Tribes was concerned.
