(a) Definitional Problems

Relatively speaking, a tribe is a small community and has autonomous political

institutions; generally a tribe is economically backward. It belongs generally to preagrarian type of economy, lack of monetization and with extremely simple technology. Kinship dominates the social organizations of tribe. Generally tribal communities have ‘magico-animistic type of religious belief and an egalitarian social order. There is a near absence of social stratification, high degree of ‘gender equality’. As tribal communities exist in relative isolation, they aren’t only culturally distinctive, but are also racially distinctive because intermixing with other communities is prohibited”.

There are almost 500 tribes in India. Since they belong to different racial stocks and

culture, occupation, religion, traditions are not similar, hence there is definitional

problem among the tribes of India. In India, tribes cannot be identified in a fixed definition or situation because of their highly diverse nature. Andre Beteille correctly said that there is a basic problem in the definition of tribe that it is very tough to differentiate between peasants and tribe. D.N Majumdar defined tribes as “a group of families who have common names, commands and control over a piece of land politically and economically, have common dialect and endogamous can be called as tribes”.

W.J. Perry defined tribes as a group of family who speaks common dialect and live in a particular geographical boundary can be called as ‘tribe.’ But the problem of defining tribe in India is their diverse situation and reality. That is why a single definition of tribe cannot undertake all the tribes in India under its umbrella because: If we take geographical and political autonomy as the core of their definition, there are many tribes in Rajasthan (Meena), Jharkhand, Bihar, MP, who do not have any political and geographical autonomy. They are the part of mainstream society, hence the definition of geographical isolation, cannot include them. D.N. Majumdar identifies a characteristic, that is, believer of ‘ancient religion’ but most of the tribes have adopted Hinduism, Christian and Islamic way of life and no more believe in their primitive religion. Hence, this definition does not include these types of tribes.

Some sociologists take the economic and occupational criteria like food gatherer,

hunter, peasant and primarily based on barter system which means that a large

number of tribes who have been urbanized, industrialized and are very much part

of market economy cannot be included in this definition.

Other definitions identify tribes as local-dialect speaking community but many tribes of India largely speak Hindi and other languages hence they cannot be included in this. Because of these above mentioned definitional problems after independence, President of India has been given the right to identify any community as tribe and can include them in the schedule called as ‘Schedule Tribe.’

(b) Geographical Spread

The geographical spread among tribes is not uniform and concentrated rather it is highly diverse and scattered. Many sociologists/anthropologists are trying to classify their geography spread but B.S. Guha’s classification is largely accepted who divided the geographical spread of tribes in four zones.

- North-East Zone

- North Zone

- Central Zone

- Southern Zone

North-East Zone – He included the tribes of lower Himalayas which separates them

with plateau of Garo, Jaintia and Mishmi Hills in this zone Main tribes in this region are – Garo, Khasi, Naga, Kuki, Gorang, Apatins, Dafla, Miri etc.

Northern Zone - In this zone upper part of Himalaya and the tribes who are separated through the hills of Rajmahal above the Ganga belt are included in this region. For example, Khas, Lushai, Gaddi, Bakarwal, Lepcha, Bhoksha, Tharu are tribes.

Central Zone - In this region, the tribes of plains of lower Ganga and above the Narmada river are included M.P., Chhattisgarh, southern Rajasthan, Northern Maharashtra, Odisha, Jharkhand are included in this region. It constitutes almost 81% of total tribes in India. For example, Bhil, Gond, Santhal, Birhor, Oraon, Kol, Munda, Khond, Kharia, etc.

Southern Zone - In this zone, the tribes who reside in the lower part of Krishna river to Kanyakumari are included. The tribes of A.P., Karnataka, Kerala, T.N. are included. For example, Chenchu, Kota, Koya, Toda, Kurumba, Kadar, etc.

Apart from these four regions, Leela Dubey identified one more region called as coastal regions in which she included tribes of Andaman and Nicobar; Lakshadweep – Jarawas, Onge, Sentinel, Andamanese, etc.

(c) Colonial Polices and Tribes

Though there is a debate amongst sociologists whether tribes are an ‘autonomous or

isolated community’ (Verrier Elwin) or ‘backward Hindus’ (G.S. Ghurye) but it cannot

be denied that they came in the contact of larger society during British period. Since the main aim of the colonial rule was to exploit the resources of the country for revenue generation, this purpose led to interfere them in the tribal life.

In 1855, various committees and policies were made in which Lord Dalhousie announced first forest Policy in which the timber was declared as the property of state and its cutting was a criminal offence.

Gradually, with the establishment of British rule, there started phase of invasion and

appropriation. It was a direct invasion and penetration in areas of tribals.

It became all the more easy with development of: ‘Railways and roadways’ with British in India, a new system of administration developed. So, political autonomy of tribal’s was lost plunder of natural resources led to displacement and confrontation with tribals. So, railways and road ways developed selectively to link mine towns with post towns.

This sounded the death knell of tribal autonomy. British policies on forest declared forest as a national asset and through laws it regulated use of forest products and produce. In tribal regions, land was never privately owned. They didn’t have ownership right. The right that existed was right to use but not to own. British created institution of private property. They also created a comprador (zamindar) class. These zamindars became collaborators of British rule among tribals. Ownership rights were vested on these traditional elite. As roads, railways, post and telegraph developed, it made Tribal County highly attractive to outsiders. Land hunger was constantly on the rise. So, people migrated to tribal areas.

Through this process, it led to monetization of market economy private brewing of liquor came to be controlled through license. Liquor drinking is an integral part of tribal life as tribal’s traditionally had a hedonistic life style. So, they started purchasing liquor, which pushed them to indebtedness. Rain failures, droughts, famines added to the existing misery, Money lenders were the plain people who often exploited the innocent tribals.

All this led to land alienation. Millions of tribal’s migrated from Chotta Nagpur region to Bengal to work as laborers in tea plantations. Thus policy of British contributed to ‘marginalization and pauperization’. This resulted in loss of tribal autonomy. Santhal rebellion was due to massive disenchantment of tribals. British didn’t study the custom, practices and lifestyle of tribals before drafting a policy.

Tribals never had a policy of maintaining land records as land was jointly owned. Also tribals had practice of shifting cultivation. So, they used to come back to the same territory after 20-30 years. British found these lands uninhabited and not recorded. So, it was declared as government land. (16) B.D. Sharma reports how forest officials used to interpret law in a ridiculous manner, which made them paupers. This indicates even the unsympathetic attitude of forest administrators.

All the policies made during British period were aimed at control over the forest for

economic gain which had dysfunctional impact on the tribes. In brief, we can mention as following:

- Tribes have lost their control over their “Jad, Jungle, Zameen”. Economic

resources of their livelihood which they have controlled for centuries.

- They became part of larger political unit and hence lost their political autonomy.

- First time ever they came in contact with outsiders who exploited them in

multiple ways.

- The cultural contact with the outsiders on the one hand created cultural problems

and on the other hand they became aware of their exploitation and rights.

The above mentioned problems and exploitation led to multiple consequences among the tribes:

- Few numbers of tribes joined the mainstream and became the larger part of society. Many of the tribes, especially of North-East and Central India came under influence of missionaries and converted to Christianity.

- Many of the tribes felt exploited and revolted against the administration in which 1918 Bhil Revolt, 1920 Koli Revolit, 1829 Khasi Revolt, 1831-32 Kol Revolt, 1855-56 Santhal Revolt, 1899 Munda Revolt, 1917-18 Kuki Revolt are worth mentioning.

Hence it can be concluded that the impact of colonial policy was largely exploitive in nature which led to multiple problems like, impoverishment, land alienation, displacement, and loss of cultural identity; and their uneasiness reflected in many forms in tribes, especially in revolts and rebellions.

(d) Issues of Integration and Autonomy

Because of rising discontent and rebellion among tribal, British started to look at the problem. There were conflicts and debate amongst the anthropologist regarding the policy towards the tribes in which two contradictory school were prominent:

- Policy of Isolation (Isolationist Approach) – Supported by Verrier Elwin, Heimendorf and other western anthropologists who believed that tribes have never been part of Indian society and they are habitual of living in isolated and autonomous way.

Elwin was chief advisor to both British government and Nehru regarding tribal problems. He identified the problem of tribals due to contact with plain people. Advanced life style of plain people is giving opportunity to exploit backward tribal. So, according to him, solution lies in re-isolating the tribal, he advocated national parks, sanctuaries etc. where only tribal should be allowed to live. So, he thought that by ‘re-isolation’, exploitation of tribal can be prevented.

- Policy of Assimilation – Policy of isolation was strongly opposed by Indians who advocated policy of ‘assimilation’. G.S. Ghurye and other nationalist anthropologist accused Elwin for trying to make “tribal Zoo” so that the missionaries can convert them and he believed that tribes are “backward Hindus” and always been part of larger Hindu society, hence they must be brought in the mainstream so that their backwardness can be removed and they should become the larger part of society.

Those who controlled capital and had desire to invest in tribal areas supported Ghurye. In this, one argument they put forth was that, by isolating tribal, they would be denied advantages of mobilization. They said that national parks would only serve as national zoos. So, it would permanently relegate tribal to a state of backwardness. That is how there emerged two alternatives on tribal problems.

Finally, after independence an attempt was made to reconcile these two views. State accepted the ‘policy of integration’ in which on one hand their cultural identity was maintained and on other hand their development was also ensured because:

- If they are left isolated because of their unawareness they may destroy rich flora and fauna, extinctive animals etc. which has larger impact of environment.

- There are many customs, traditions and practices like human sacrifice, animal sacrifice and other derogating and unwanted things in civil societies which are prohibited.

- If we compare their demographic profile with other societies, it is easy to identify that their population growth rate, age expectancy are very low and hence if not developed or interfered some of them may extinct over the period.

- They are the human resources of the society and if they are underdeveloped, malnourished and diseased, their contribution in nation building cannot be ensured which will halt the growth or prosperity of the country.

- It is important that distributive justice and welfare must be ensured to every individual in the society because in a democratic, socialist and welfare state, any community cannot be left marginalized because of their unawareness. It is against one’s democratic rights.

Nehru finally arrived at ‘Panchsheel’ for tribal administration, a policy of integration, in which he tried to synthesis both views. A broad principle of tribal policy was laid down in his famous panchsheel.

According to Nehru Panchsheel:

a. We should avoid imposing anything on tribals. Their traditional arts and culture should be encouraged.

b. Tribal rights in land and forests should be respected.

c. We should train a group of their own people to administer.

d. We should not over administer them or overwhelm them with a multiplicity of

schemes.

e. Results should be judged not by statistics or amount of money spent but by the quality of human development.

So, integration policy advocated cultural autonomy for tribal. After independence various schemes and policies were launched. Tribal development approach was parallel to rural development approach.

Initially there was Tribal development programme through tribal development blocks for multipurpose programme outcome. But it only helped in further marginalization. It was an Area development approach which made Tribal County more attractive to outsiders. In only increased land alienation and exploitation of tribal.

From 5th FYP, we synthesized Area development and Tribal development programme. Those areas which were overwhelmingly inhabited by tribal, Area development approach were followed. In those areas where tribal were significant but not majority, target group approach was adopted. A special approach was adopted for primitive tribes.

Along with this, the sub-plan approach was adopted from 5th FYP. Under this, each

department was forced to allocate some money to tribal policy. Along with this political autonomy was given to tribal within frame work of the constitution. This was to provide a measure of political autonomy.

However the pattern of exploitation largely persisted even after independence. After

independence, national policy embarked on rapid social and economic development. Process of modernizations worked to the disadvantage of tribal. Janardhan Rao called it phase of ‘development and displacement’. As reported by N.S. Reddy, in 1989, 51% of Adivasi land in A.P. was under effective control of non-tribal. Another study in Godavari valley region shows that 6 families of non-tribal control more than 5000 acres of land each. As reported by Parameswaran in 1990, in vemulapalli village (A.P.) a single family controls 8000 acres of patta land.

So, all laws had loop holes. In Maharashtra law says that, a tribal can sell land to a nontribal if he is medically unfit. Law also says that, tribal can’t sell land to non-tribal. But landlords married tribal women as polygamy is allowed, to encroach large pastries of land. Money lenders, zamindars, rich peasants continue to act as land grabbers in tribal areas. Construction of dams led to massive displacement of tribal.

If all public projects are taken into account, more than half a million in tribal are rendered homeless, Bailadila, Bokaro, Bhitai, Jamshedpur, Rourkela, Durgapur, Dhanbad etc are located in tribal regions. So, as they are up routed from natural habitat, it leads to loss of cultural identity. This is the reason why gonds of Adilabad and Maharashtra no longer speak gonds but speak Telugu. So, loss of cultural identity. Along with this, there is a continuous process of deforestation that is going on. According to a study reported by Anil Aggarwal, Bamboo is sold for Rs. 15/tonne to paper industry. Same bamboo is being sold at Rs. 1500/tonne to tribal basket weavers. Droughts, depletion of natural and environmental resource, desertification of tribal land, displacement of Adivasis from their natural habitats into unknown strange cultural milieu has been a direct result of policies pursued by government. Loss of abundant forests and land resources has plunged tribal into intensified poverty.

According to Sen Gupta, among urban population in Jharkhand – ‘outsiders’ were skilled workers, officers, contractors; and ‘tribals’ were unskilled workers, servants and labourers. Perhaps, traders and merchants became owners.

Policy of integration has not really led to integration. Tribals were not benefited from modernization. Process of development meant economic exploitation, displacement, loss of cultural identity. Condition of tribal seems to worsen with economic reforms and globalization. Except for North-East, most of tribal areas are witnessing great exploitation with privatization of mines leading to further displacement without rehabilitation.

-The abovementioned impact created an issue of identity among the tribes because industrialization, conversion, Hinduisation, Islamisation, Modernization, Westernization, modern education, land reforms led to an ‘identity crisis’ because these processes took them away from the tribal identity, which started reflecting in form of various dissatisfactions, rebellion, movements, protests in different parts of the country.

The issue of tribal identity emerged in following forms:

1) In the form of rebellion and movement against the outsiders – especially in Manipur, Jharkhand, Bodoland, etc.

2) In the form of separate state for the welfare of the tribes and promotion of their

own culture. On the basis of this tribal identity, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand have been formed whereas Gorkhaland, Bodoland, Karbi are in the pipeline to become a separate tribal state.

3) In the form of protest against development – especially in Odisha, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh various tribes want to retain their natural heritage and they are protesting against the development offered by the state. They want non-interference. The recent issue of Vedanta and Posco in Odisha is related with it.

4) In the form of demand of separate nation – This is active in North-East where

ULFA (United Liberation Front of Asom), NSCN (Nationalist Socialist Council of Nagaland) and other outfits are active for a separate statehood.

5) In the form of demand of tribal councils and autonomy regarding their own customs tradition and law. Conclusion: It is a human problem of magnified degree. Administrator, social worker and social scientist must pool together to come out with a humanitarian solution.

Tribal areas are under Maoists and ultra-left forces due to their continued exploitation. Most of political elite and parties are unable to evolve a minimum programme to define tribal problems which has created opportunities for Maoists and other ultra-outfits.

Towards a Solution:

1. The issue of tribal rights and tribal self-determination is contentious and no definite solution exists. Yet some consensus on approach exists. For instance, the present topdown approach in dealing with tribals has to be replaced by bottom-up approach. Empowering tribals to develop is the best way to better their lot.

2. Problems of tribal groups differ relative to their technological, economic and cultural status and the solutions will differ accordingly. Giving appropriate autonomy to tribals will help administrations identify their problems and work with them in ameliorating (improving) these. Hence, lot more focus should be on local self governments of tribals.

3. Members of tribal group should be made to participate in developmental projects to ensure fair deal. For instance, recently the Bodo Development Council invited corporate to establish SEZs in its territory. When locals/natives directly deal with corporate, issues against it) are resolved.