Tribes as Indigenous People of India

Author(s): Virginius Xaxa

Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 34, No. 51 (Dec. 18-24, 1999), pp. 3589-3595
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4408738
Accessed: 30-12-2018 12:18 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Economic and Political Weekly

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 30 Dec 2018 12:18:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SPECIAL ARTICLES

Tribes as Indigenous People of Ind

Virginius Xaxa

Defining 'tribe' has conceptual as well as empirical problems for the academ
administrative convenience has now been adopted by the tribals themselves to mea
people of a region. There is no claim to being the original inhabitants of tha
to the natural resources is asserted vis-a-vis the outsiders and the dominant caste. The tribal identity now
gives the mzarginalised peoples self-esteem and pride.
THE idea of 'indigenous people' is an use of criteria that were adopted. Thesethe two was differently conceived in the
issue of considerable contention in India ranged from such features as geographical two ethnographies. In the colonial ethno-
today. This was hardly so till a few years isolation, simple technology and condi-graphy, the concern shown by the British
ago. In fact, social workers, administra- tion of living, general backwardness to theadministrators-scholars was to mark off
tors, politicians and even scholars widely practice of animism, tribal language, tribe from caste. Hence tribes were shown
physical features, etc. The problem how-to be living in complete isolation from the
used the term to refer to a certain category
of people. They hardly felt any unease everin lay in the fact that they were neitherrest of the population and therefore with-
the use of native equivalent of this term, clearly formulated nor systematicallyout any interaction or interrelation with
viz, 'adivasi'. Ghurye had of course some applied. One set of criteria was used inthem. In contrast the main concern in the
reservation to the use of such terms; the one context and quite another in anothernative ethnography has been to show close
expression he used was 'so-called aborigi- context. The result is that the list includes interaction of the tribes with the larger
nes'. Again it is they who took the termgroups and communities strikingly differ-society or the civilisation. Both Ghurye
along with all the prejudices and conjec- ent from each other in respect of not only(1963) and Bose (1975), for example,
tures to the masses. That is how the iden- size of the population but also the levelstressed the nature of interaction between
tity of adivasis has entered into the con-of technology and other characteristics. tribes and the larger Hindu society and the
sciousness of the tribal people. The iden-Indian anthropologists have been acutely ways in which tribes have been drawn into
aware of a certain lack of fit between what
tity that was forced upon them from outside the Hindu society. They stressed similari-
precisely to mark out differences from thetheir discipline defines as tribe and whatties between the two societies. Sinha (1958)
dominant community has now been they are obliged to describe as tribes. Yeteven goes to the extent of viewing tribes
internalised by the people themselves. Notthey have continued with the existing as a dimension of little tradition that cannot
only has it become an important mark of labels. be adequately understood unless it is seen
social differentiation and identity asser- The early ethnographers were not very in relation to the great tradition.
tion but also an important tool of articu-clear about the distinction between caste In view of such conception, tribes have
lation for empowerment. and tribe in India. The 18th century writ- come to be primarily studied in relation
ings, for example, showed synonymous to features and characteristics of the larger
The term7 tribe
use of the term tribe with caste. Later it
society. The focus is on how tribes are
The Anthropological Survey of Indiawas even used in a cognate manner as one getting absorbed into the larger society,
the so-called mainstream, by becoming
could see in the use of phrase 'caste and
under the 'People of India Project' identi-
fies 461 tribal communities in India. Theytribes of India' by Risley and many others
caste, peasant, class and so on. With such
are enumerated at 67,583,800 persons con-in their writings. Efforts to make a dis-conceptualisation, the identity of the tribal
tinction between the two began to be made
stituting 8.08 per cent of the total popu- group or community is indeed put at risk.
lation as per the 1991 census. The share after initiative was taken to collect de- This is because of the way tribes have been
of the scheduled tribe population to thetailed information about the people for theconceptualised in anthropological litera-
census. The census officials were how-
total population in 1971 and 1981 was 6.94 ture and the reference with which tribal
ever far from clear with regard to society
and 7.85 per cent respectively. The ques- the in India is studied.
criterion of distinction. It is with the 1901
tion of tribes in India is closely linked with Tribes are primarily seen as a stage and
administrative and political considerations. census that one finds a mention of criteria
type of society. They represent a society
Hence there has been increasing demandhowsoever inadequate that may be. It that lacks positive traits of the modern
by groups and communities for their in- defined tribes as those who practised society and thus constitutes a simple, il-
clusion in the list of scheduled tribes of animism. In the subsequent censuses literate and backward society. With change
animism was replaced by the tribal reli- in these features on account of education,
the Indian Constitution. That partly explains
gion. Although the criterion so introduced modern occupation, new technology, etc,
the steady increase in the proportion of the
scheduled tribe population in India espe- was highly unsatisfactory, it continued to tribal society is no longer considered to
be used widely and extensively.
cially in the period between 1971 and 1981. be tribal. If transformation is in the direction
There has been more concern with the It is only in the post-independence period of caste society then it is described as
identification of tribes than with their that more systematic effort was made having become caste society. If the ref-
definition. This does not mean that lists towards distinguishing tribe from caste. erence is peasant then it is posited as the
have been drawn without any conception Though the distinction between the two peasant society and if the general direction
of tribe whatsoever. There did exist some was made in both colonial and post- of transformation is social differentiation,
conception. This was obvious from thecolonial ethnography, the relation between then it is described as differentiated or

Economic and Political Weekly December 18, 1999 3589

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 30 Dec 2018 12:18:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
stratified, and thus ceases to be tribal was passed in consultation with other
and political activists have been using the
society. In the process it is forgotten that international bodies. term 'adivasi', the Indian-language term
tribe besides being a stage and type of The context of the discourse on the for the indigenous people, freely to refer
society is also a society alike and similar to the tribal people since the turn of the
indigenous, initiated by the ILO and later
to any other kind of society, say the Oriya accepted by the UNO thus basically hinged
present century. The term, in conjunction
or the Bengali. But it is precisely this that on the twin concepts of 'need right' with
and other related terms such as aborigi-
comes to be denied on account of the nes, autochthonous, etc, has also been
'power right' of a certain social category
changed situation. Of course it is true of that extensively used by scholars and admin-
people all over the world. This category
the tribes are not of the same stage and of people were progressively being
type istrators in their writings and reports. The
marginalised and dispossessed from their term was used mainly as a mark of iden-
as Bengali or Oriya societies. There is then
sources of livelihood and were vulnerable
something clumsy about the use of the term tification and differentiation, that is, to
to cultural shock and decimation of their
tribe in describing the Indian social reality. mark out a group of people different in
collective identity. physical features, language, religion, cus-
Concept of indigenous The ILO convention referred to above tom, social organisation, etc. Even Ghurye
Such conceptual and empirical prob- and the Working Group on Indigenous (1963:12) who otherwise talks of tribes
lems inherent in the use of the term tribe Population set up by the Human Rights as backward Hindus and has reservation
or tribal society could to some extent beCommission of the UNO speaks of about the the use of the term 'adivasi', refers
overcome by the use of the term indi-indigenous population as follows. They to them as the aborigines. He writes, "when
genous but not without giving rise to other the history of internal movements of
are those tribal and semi-tribal population
problems. The term indigenous or itsthat are regarded as having their descent peoples is not known, it is utterly un-
equivalent has been used in anthropologyfrom the populations which inhabitedscientific
the to regard some tribe or the other
to describe groups called tribes for quitecountry orthe geographical region to whichas the original owner of the soil. It is
some time. Its use now has however gonethe country belongs, at the time ofpossible the to contend that even if the tribes
beyond the discipline of anthropology.conquest or colonisation by Europe. They are not aborigines of the exact area they
The international agencies are increas-are in addition also those who iTrespective now occupy, they are the autochthonous
ingly and extensively making use of this of India and to that extent they may be
of their legal status live more in conformity
term and concept in their deliberations andwith their social, economic and cultural called the aborigines."
discussions. With this the term has come institutions than with the institution of the Thus hardly any unease was felt by
nation to which they belong [Roy-Burman scholars in the use of the term to refer to
to occupy wide currency in general as well
as in the other social sciences literature. undated; Pathy 1992b]. The semi-tribal these groups of people. No effort what-
In the deliberations of the international
population are defined as those who are in soever was made to dispel the myth as-
agencies, the term was used for the first
the process of losing their identity but not sociated with the term then. The term
time in 1957 [Roy-Burman undated]. yet It integrated in the national community. however did not remain confined to only
gained wide currency after 1993 with theThus there are three aspects which are the scholars, administrators, politicians
central to the conceptualisation of the
declaration of the year 1993 as the inter- and social workers; it percolated down
national year of the indigenous people. indigenous people. First, the indigenous also to the people. Indeed, it is social
In 1957 the general conference of the are those people who lived in the country workers, political activists, administrators
ILO adopted a convention concerningto which they belong before colonisation who took the term and along with it all
protection and integration of indigenous or conquest by people from outside the the prejudices and conjectures to the masses
country or the geographical region. Sec-
and other tribal and semi-tribal population [Sengupta 1988:1003]. The term thus came
in independent countries. The convention ondly, they have become marginalised as to be widely used to refer to the tribal
an aftermath of conquest and colonisation people. It was hardly questioned, let alone
framed general international standards for
facilitating government actions towards by the people from outside the region. debated. So long as it had not assumed
protecting and promoting progressive Thirdly, such people govern their life more a political dimension, it had remained an
in terms of their own social, economic and accepted term of description and designa-
integration of these people into the respec-
tive national communities (Conventionthe cultural institution than the laws ap- tion of certain category of people.
No 107). By 1985 the ILO felt the need
plicable to the society or the country at It is only with the internationalisation
to revise the convention on account of large. What is important here is that the of the rights and privileges associated with
changes in attitudes and approaches notion
to- of indigenous people, despite shar- it that the use of the term indigenous has
wards these people worldwide. The ILO ing attributes in common with the people come to be critically examined or even
had earlier proposed integration as described
the as the tribal and semi-tribal challenged in the Indian context. The sense
desired objective but this was no longerpopulation, is seen as different from in which the term was used earlier and the
the
being seen as appropriate. This waslatter so in the sense that the indigenous are sense in which it has come to be used today
because the international organisations invariably
and marked out as a distinct inter- are definitely not identical though they
increasing number of governments were national entity. That is, the indigenous are overlap in some sense. Today, aspects of
moving toward greater recognition of theinvariably seen as victims of conquest and marginalisation are built into the defini-
rights of indigenous and tribal peoplecolonisation
to from outside the region; hence tion of indigenous people. Only those
the outsiders are easily identifiable.
retain their specific identities and to par- people that have been subjected to domi-
ticipate fully in the planning and execu- nation and subjugation have come to
Tribes as indigenous
tion of the activities affecting their way constitute the component of the indig-
of life. Accordingly the ILO adoptedThe a term indigenous people, though of enous people. Yet the use of the term
revised convention (No 169) in 1989 after
recent coinage at the international level, adivasi (indigenous) to designate certain
the expert committee appointed by the has been in use in India for a long time. category of people and not the other
In fact, the social workers, missionaries
ILO gave its recommendation and the same category clearly reveals that these aspects

3590 Economic and Political Weekly December 18, 1999

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 30 Dec 2018 12:18:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
were not altogether lost sight of. It may could hardly make legitimate claim that
outside of this process. Given this, how far
be noted that even earlier the term was back should one go in history to determine they are the only natives of India. They
used to delineate people who were back- people who are natives and who are cite observations made by scholars, how-
ward and cut off from the mainstream immigrants. Indeed any demarcation is soever conflicting they may be, in support
civilisation. The basic mark of differen- going to be arbitrary and hence extremely of their position. Hutton for example is
tiation was between those who were part contentious. And indeed so has been the of the view that only the Negritos may be
of the civilisation and those who were not. case as we can see from the discussion considered as the original inhabitants of
Hence he use of the term adivasi to describe below. It is also maintained that the com- India though they do not have any marked
tribal people seems to have some validity munities described as tribes have been presence now. He considers groups be-
even in the sense of maroinalisation. living in close proximity with the non- longing to the Austric, Dravidian catego-
Historical antiquity may have been a more tribal people for over centuries leading to
ries, etc, as much outsiders as the Aryans.
distant criteria, but the most immediate much acculturation and even assimilation Guha is also cited for making similar
and proximate seemed to be the fact into thatthe larger Hindu society. The Indian observation in the context of Austric
they were not part of the civilisation. In
experience, it is stated, is different from speaking people [Shah 1982]. But more
that of the new world where it was marked authoritative sources on which such claim
a certain sense then there was the aspect
of marginalisation that was taken note
by of
conquest, subjugation and even deci- is questioned are the traditions of the tribes
while designating a group as adivasi.
mation. It is hence argued that it is not only themselves as they speak. Dube (1977:2)
This seems all the more obvious when the point of departure that is problematic writes, "it is difficult to speak of 'original'
we take the other aspects of the Indianbut also the Indian experience. inhabitants, for tribal traditions themselves
society. The coming of the Aryans has It is with the people described as tribes make repeated mention of migration of
been invariably taken as the decisive that the term indigenous people has gen- their ancestors. There is considerable
historical factor to determine the original erally come to be associated in India. It evidence to suggest that several groups
people of India. Yet not all the originalis assumed that they have been the original were pushed out of the areas where they
people have been called the indigenoussettlers of what geographically constitutes were first settled and had to seek shelter
people. The groups speaking languagesIndia today or at least people who inhab- elsewhere. And there are several groups,
belonging to the Dravidian linguistic stockited the region before the coming of the now absorbed in Hindu society, which can
no doubt have been considered the inhab- more dominant sections of the Indian make an equally tenable claim to being
itants of India before the coming of the society, viz, the Aryans. They are said original
to or, at any rate very old inhabit-
Aryans. Yet they have never been de- belong to social groups other than the
ants". Beteille (1998) makes similar
scribed as the indigenous people, mainly Aryans and speak a variety of dialects observation on the point under reference.
because they do not constitute the belonging presumably to two main lin-There are two substantive points that
marginalised groups. The government of families, viz, the Dravidian and the
guistic have been made here. One is whether one
India had in fact placed no objection to The plausibility of groups speak-
Austric. can speak of tribes as the original people
the use of the term when it was deliberated
ing Tibeto-Burman languages is not alto- especially in view of their migratory
upon in the ILO convention in 1957 and ruled out from the purview of the
gether movement. This is indeed an important
was tied to covenant 107. This was so argument and cannot be brushed aside.
status of the original inhabitants in India.
because the term then had not raised such These groups have generally been de-
The other makes reference to the claims
issues as empowerment and rights; rather scribed as adivasis or the original people that may be made by groups that have been
it had articulated the need of integrating by social workers, missionaries, political absorbed into the Hindu society. The latter
the indigenous and tribal people into the activist's scholars and administrators sincesuffers from a certain flaw. Firstly, it is
larger social and political system. By the beginning of the present century. Ray
hypothetical. The second is that the groups
contrast the focus had shifted from inte-(1973:124-25) writes, "The communities lose the right to make such claim by virtue
gration to one of rights and empowerment of people of today whom the anthropolo-of their choice to get absorbed into the
by 1989. And no sooner had the issue gists call tribals, happen to be the indi- dominant, viz, the Hindu society.
shifted than the argument ensued that a genous, autochthonous (adivasis, adimjati)If the issue of tribes as natives is ques-
category such as this does not hold in the people of the land, in the sense that they
tionable, is it so also with the second
Indian context. had long been settled in different parts question?
of That is, are all tribal groups the
the country before the Aryan-speaking inhabitants that settled the territory before
Arguments against
peoples penetrated India to settle down the coming of the Aryans, the assumed
Much of the discussion questioning the first, in the Kabul and Indus valleys and cut-off point for demarcating the indi-
indigenous people's status in India has then within a millennium and half, to genous people in India? Whereas this is
centred on the complex historical pro- spread out in slow stages, over large areas
more or less the case, it cannot be said with
cesses of the movement of the population of the country and push their way of life
certainty for all the groups described as
and their settlement in the subcontinent. tribes in India. It is said that there are tribes
and civilisation over practically the entire
It is said that unlike in the Americas, area of the country along the plains and in India especially in the north-east whose
Australia, New Zealand with a recent the river valleys." settlement in the territories they inhabit
history of conquest, immigration and The question that is of central impor- today is an even later phenomenon than
colonisation in India identification of tance here is (1) whether groups desig- the settlement of many non-tribes in other
nated as tribes have been natives of Indiaparts of India. The Nagas for example are
indigenous people is not easy. Rather there
have been in India waves of movement stated to have come to India around the
and non-tribes immigrants; and (2) if they
of populations with different language. have not been natives whether their settle-
middle of the first millennium BC first to
race, culture, religion dating back centu-
ment is prior to that of the arrival of the
Tibet and later to the territory where they
ries and millennia. Even groups or com-major social group, the Aryans. Most live of now, a period later than the coming
munities described as tribes have not been
the scholars are of the view that tribes of the Aryans. The Mizos are said to have

Economic and Political Wcekly December 18, 19993591 .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~51

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 30 Dec 2018 12:18:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
settled in the territory where they live only physical features, they are however still and colonisation and hence share all the
in the 16th century. The Kuki settlement considered different from the Indo-Aryan attributes of the colonised people such as
is considered even later than that of the population [Hermanns 1957:23]. ethnic identity, loss of control over cus-
Mizos. In contrast to this, the non-tribal What this means is that people identi- tomary territorial resources, cultural anni-
groups like the Bengalis, Gujaratis, Oriyas, fied and described as tribals are not to be hilation and powerlessness. He makes the
etc, have a much longer history of settle- necessarily treated as indigenous and that case despite his recognition that insisting
ment than these tribes. Given this, it there are tribal groups which could be on original settlement in a territory is
becomes indeed problematic to say that treated as indigenous and others which problematic and unreasonable.
all tribal people in India are earlier settlers could not. In contrast many groups and But then even the issue of colonisation
than the Aryans and therefore tribes are communities especially those belonging and colonised status remains far from
indigenous and non-tribes non-indigenous. to the Dravidian language speaking groupresolved. First of all we do not have detailed
There is a need to make distinction
such as the Tamilians, Telgus, Malyalis,and well researched historical material on
between settlement in the context of
could stake a claim of being indigenousthe nature of relations or encounter be-
pointby virtue of the fact they have been tween groups that are designated as the
country (India being the reference people
inhabitants
here) as a whole and settlement within its of India prior to the coming indigenous people and the other social
parts or regions. In the discourse of
on the
in-Aryans. They are however not groups for the periods preceding the
digenous people, the two aspects are recognised
either as tribals and share few attri- coming of the British. Hence it is difficult
butes in common with the tribals who stand to say anything with certainty about the
ignored or mixed or even interchanged.
An argument valid at one level, for ex-
dispossessed, exploited and marginalised. nature of relations between the two types
ample at the local level, is often used
Rathertothey constitute a part of the domi- of social groups. In general the relation
substantiate the argument at anothernant national community. In terms of otherbetween tribes and non-tribes has been
level,
such as the country as a whole. The Santhals
criteria that go to make up indigenous described as one of mutual coexistence
people, viz, marginalised status, loss of rather than one of subjugation and domi-
may have settled in the territory where
they live now, the Santhal Parganacontrol
or itsover resources, etc, they can hardly nation at least until the advent of British
be 19th
adjacent areas, in the beginning of the considered for the indigenous people rule. In fact, this is the other important
century. They may have even settledstatus.
thereThe congruence between the term ground on which the term indigenous
and
later than the Bengalis. But that in no waythe concept on which the tribal ac-people is contested in the Indian context.
negates the fact that their settlement It is said that most of the studies of the
indefend the application of the term
tivists
India is prior to that of the groupsdoes not stand valid in all situations.
com- history of Indian civilisation show that the
monly referred to as the Aryans such There
as is still another ground on which growth and expansion of Hindu society
the Bengalis or Gujaratis. But to claim the indigenous claim is contested in the was a prolonged and complex process of
indigenous status on this ground is not so Indian context. It is generally held that the assimilation. And the nature of interaction
simple as one call see from the discussion Indian society is made up of a number of between the two has been broadly de-
that follows. Conversely, the settlement of castes and groups and that many of these scribed as one of peaceful coexistence
the Mizos in the country called India may have been formed out of the process of rather than one of conquest and subjuga-
have been a later development than those fusion of various groups and communities tion [Bose 1941; Beteille 1998:189].
of the Gujaratis or Bengalis, but the fact including tribes. This is all the more true Such a nature of interaction between
tribals and non-tribals has also been en-
remains that they are the original settlers in case of the regional linguistic commu-
of the place where they live now. nities such as Bengalis, Gujaratis, Oriyas dorsed by a scholar who otherwise talks
It needs to be mentioned here that the etc. In view of this, it may become nec- of an aggressive absorption into the Hindu
essary that a segment of the same com-
tribal groups in India are not solely com- society with the onset of the colonial rule
prised of the Dravidian and Austro- munity be identified as indigenous and [Desai 1977:24]. Pathy (1992a:51) him-
Asiatic speaking groups. A very largeanother as non-indigenous. self elsewhere talks of a symbiotic rela-
number of the tribal groups in fact belong tionship between the tribals and the non-
Arguments for tribals rather that one of colonisation and
to the Tibeto-Burman speaking groups,
many of whom can hardly be considered The extension of the term is however conquest. He writes, "majority of the so-
strongly defended by activists and other
indigenous if the arrival of the Aryans is called tribals of India had developed class
taken as the cut-off mark to decide who scholars both tribal and non-tribals. This structure over a long period of time and
is indigenous and who is not indigenous. therefore had interactions with the other
is done not so much on the basis of original
To restrict the terms indigenous to refer
settlement as on some other consideration. communities. Up to the time of colonial-
to only those groups of people who had ism, it was largely not a relationship of
They, of course, trace the history of tribals
entry prior to those of Indo-Aryan group in India much before the coming of the domination and subjugation." Not only is
would be to exclude many tribal groups people who have been described as Ary- determining original settlement in the
of the Tibeto-Burman family from the ans. They ask why tribals, whose ancestors territory problematic, but also the ques-
status of indigenous people. There are alsolived here for some thousands of years tion of colonisation and subjugation as one
tribal groups like the bhils that speak can see from Pathy's observation. This
prior to the Aryan invasion, a fact that can
languages of the Indo-Aryan family. This hardly be disputed, should not be consid- means that the question of indigenous
poses the problem of their identification ered indigenous people so that certainpeople could only be raised from the period
as indigenous people. Yet it is generally positive international instruments are made of the arrival of the British and the sub-
held that the groups so referred have been applicable to these marginalised and de- sequent process of colonisation and sub-
drawn into the languages they speak prived social groups. But the case is made jugation in India. If these processes are
through the process of interaction and more forcefully on another ground. Pathytaken as the point of departure for demar-
acculturation with the Indo-Aryan speak- (1992:8), for example, writes that tribalscation of indigenous people, then the issue
ing groups. In terms of their culture and in a way have been victims of conquest of original settlement that is so central to

3592 Economic and Political Weekly December 18, 1999

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 30 Dec 2018 12:18:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
the notion of indigenous people becomes Such claim is difficult to establish to- have moved in the course of last one
redundant in defining indigenous people. day. Not only have the tribal communitiescentury or so. Indeed their claim of bein
In fact the whole exercise of identifi- been brought under uniform administra-indigenous is strongly contested in these
tive and legal structures under the Britishplaces. Nowhere is this more true than i
cation of groups and communities as tribes
during the colonial period was to a greatbut they have also been drawn into theAssam where the migrant tribals' claim t
extent contingent upon the differences politico-economic process of the largerbe the indigenous people is being dispute
tribes displayed in relation to the largersociety especially in the post-independenceby such tribal communities as the bodos
society. Thus tribes were by and large period of economic development. There mishings and others who have a much
considered as those outside civilisation.
are very few tribes which have escaped longer history of settlement in the region
This means that they not only remained such processes. The actual empirical re- than the tribals from Bihar, Orissa, Madhya
ality is then too complex. It is not at allPradesh, etc. If however one takes India
outside the politico-administrative struc-
surprising then that elsewhere Roy-Bur-
ture of the larger society or the kingdom, as a whole, then these migrant groups have
but also outside the general social man (1983:1172-74) writes, "even manya much longer record of settlement than
organisation and worldview of the larger of those with the simplest technology were the tribes in the north-eastern region. The
society. In short they continued to be tribals from this region have also moved
integrated with the wider society'. In short
distinct because they escaped colonisation the use of the term indigenous to describein large numbers to Andaman Island and
and subjugation. Where people were tribal people in India is fraught with dif- have settled there as cultivators after re-
subjugated they became part of the larger ficulties. It does not reflect an empiricalclaiming land from the forest and in the
social organisation and failed to maintain reality but is more of a political construc-process dispossessing the native Jarvas
their distinctiveness. Whether they lived tion. from their territories.
in hills, plateau or forest and lived by Though the question of indigenous
Adivcasi consciousness
hunting, food-lathering or practised slash people has been generally discussed in the
and burn cult': .,i;n followed from being context of the country as a whole, the In the context of India as a whole.
outside civiiis i'on. Beteille (1986:316) discussion in the Indian context has also identification of indigenous peoples is
has forcefully brought this out. He writes been drawn in relation to the regions or indeed problematic. The problem ema-
that where tribe and civilisation coexist, territories within the country. It has gen- nates from the fact that the population
as in India and the Islamic world, being erally been observed that there have been movements and experiences in India have
a tribe has been more a matter of remain- so many migrations in and out of the been different from those of the new \world.
ing outside of state and civilisation, region in the past centuries that no par- It is true that the movement of population
whether by choice or necessity, than of ticular 'jati' can have genuine grounds for even in the new world has been, like in
attaining a definite stage in the evolution- making a clainm to be the original inhab- India, of different race, language, region
ary advance from the simple to the com- itants [Bcteille 1998:189; Hardinan religion, culture, etc. In the new world
plex. The Indian practice of regarding as 1987:15-16]. In discussion of indigenous however these groups did not come to
tribes a large assortment of communities, people in India it is important that we do establish or have special relations with a
differing widely in size, mode of liveli- not mix the problems obtaining at twogiven territory or region in the course of
hood and social organisation cannot there- levels. Often the problem at the level of their movement. In India the movement
fore be dismissed as anomalous. They are the country is used to make case against of the population was somewhat different.
all tribes because they all stood more or tribes being indigenous at the regional/Here different communities came to de-
less outside of Hindu civilisation and not local level and vice versa. Posing the velop distinct and definite association with
because they were all at exactly the same question of tribes as the indigenous peoplecertain territories in the course of the history
stage of evolution. In short they are des- in relation to territories within the country of their movement.
cribed as tribes and therefore even as rather than the country as a whole indeed Whether those especially associated with
gives rise to problems of somerwnhat dif-a given territory are indigenous to the
indigenous people because they escaped
colonisation and subjugation processes.
ferent nature. territory or area they live in is a question
The use of the term indigenous people Movement of populations belonging to that will always be contested. What how-
different race, ethnicity and linguistic
to refer to the tribal people is defended ever has come to be accepted that they
on yet another ground. It is argued that
groups including those described as tribals have developed special relations with the
unlike antagonists who tend to take note
from one place to another is something territory in question. These territories, the
of only historical realism, we have also
that has been in process within India over communities in question have considered
to take note of critical realism. They state
the centuries. Thus the groups which may as their own as against those of other
that irrespective of the place and time be of
indigenous with respect to the country communities. They considered themselves
origin or their occupation or their present
as a whole may not be indigenous in respect to have prior and preferential if not ex-
habitat in India, there are certain commu-
of their settlement in a given territory. It clusive rights over the territory where they
nities, which until recently maintained
may also happen, that the same group is lived either on account of their prior
indigenous and not indigenous at the same
practically autogenous sources of legiti- historical settlement or numerical and other
misation of cultural and social processes
time. The Oraons, Mundas and many other dominance. Following this they aspired to
and were accentuated by the ideology of living in Jharkhand, for example.
tribes promote and protect the interests and
a self-regulated economy and had onlymay have legitimate claim to be called the welfare of their community and confer on
indigenous people in respect of their
marginal articulation with the external the members of their community special
settlement in the country called India prior rights and privileges. It was aspirations
political structures. Their indigenous iden-
tity cannot be brushed away by juxta- to that of the Aryans or even in respect such as this among the members of the
of their settlement in Jharkhand, but it is
position of non-meaningful occurrences community that led to the desire to have
not certain if they can claim to be indi-
in space and time in systemic terms [Roy- a state of their own. And after having
Burman 1992:241]. genous in Assam or Bengal where they realised this, they tend to promote the

Economic and Political Weekly December 18, 1999 3593

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 30 Dec 2018 12:18:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
interests of their members by means of been raised from time to time by the control over land, forest, water, minerals
state patronage of various kinds. dominant regional communities in India. and other resources in their own territory
The people living in their respective In short, people of India representing and are increasingly subjected to inhuman
territories have thus come to see the states different languages, physical features, misery, injustice and exploitation. If their
to which they belong as the culminationcultures, mode of social organisations, status as indigenous people of India is
of the yearning of the members of a etc, identify and relate themselves in a problematic, and the problem indeed is
particular territory to have a homeland ofspecial way with a given territory or region both empirical and conceptual, the least
their own. The Bengalis for example havein the country. Attempts have been made the dominant regional communities could
a very strong sense of attachment to Bengalto provide theoretical understanding to do is to recognise the priorities of rights
as Tamilians to Tamil Nadu. There is in this such developments in India. In doing so and privileges of these people in the ter-
an indication of the recognition, implicit scholars have invariably made use of such ritories and regions they inhabit. It is the
though it may be, that certain people have concepts such as nation and nationality. non-recognition of these rights and privi-
prior right over others in the territory that In the context of India, the two concepts leges by the dominant sections of the Indian
they occupy. This is almost like saying that refer essentially to the internal political society that has led to increasing articu-
they are the original inhabitants of the arrangement of the Indian union compris- lation of the idea of indigenous people by
territory that they inhabit. It is therefore ing a number of linguistic-territorial state the tribal people.
not a coincidence that the dominant com- units and components with a variety of It is in the absence of such powers and
regional pressures. At the same time there
munities hardly feel the need to articulate rights that a new form of identity, viz,
issues in terms of rights of indigenous has always been some kind of check-list de-ntity of adivasis or indigenous people
people. They have states of their own and of the objective criteria whereby a nation : crystallising among the tribes of differ-
therefore territories too. It surfaces only
or nationality could be defined [Vanaik ent parts of India. The term that was
when they feel threatened from the move- 1988]. And in both of these coi;-n options. initiated mainly a point of reference or
ment of the population from outside the the element of territoriality assumes . description has become an important
community. The threat is felt either on central place. marker of identity articulation and asser-
account of fear in the rise of number of The paradox is that whereas such privi- tion today. The designation or description
members from outside the community orleges and rights are freely recognised in of tribes as indigenous people had not
loss of control of power, economic and respect of the dominant communities in emerged from self-identification or de-
political. Nowhere is this identity withIndia, the same is denied to the tribal scription by the tribal people themselves.
communities. In the process they are
land or territory more crudely manifested It was not a part of positive identification
progressively getting dispossessed of their and evaluation by the tribes. Rather the
than in the son-of-the-soil theory that has

INDIA AND WEST ASIA TRADE AND DEPENDENCE

Emerging Markets in Essays on the Indian Economy
the Liberalization Era SUNANDA SEN
JAVED AHMAD KHAN
The recent shift towards globalization and
liberalization in India has raised questions
Beginning with an analysis of the current economic
reforms in the countries of West Asia which have regarding the virtues of initiating an unbridled
opened the region to foreign investment and global market system in a developing country. Spanning
trade, the author goes on to discuss India's the years of transition in India from a controlled to
economic relations, both successful and otherwise, a liberalized economy, Dr Sen analyzes in this
with these countries in the 1990s. Two significant book the reasons for India's continued economic
developments dealt with in depth are India's backwardness despite its efforts towards

I
diplomatic relations with Israel and its integration with global economic systems. This
strengthening economic ties with Iran. This timely analysis of India's experience provides lessons for
book projects the new economic and business other developing nations who are in the process of
climate emerging in the West Asian region. It will opening up their economies to the volatile forces
be of interest to industrialists, businessmen and of global markets. This insightful book will be of
policy makers as also to those in the fields of considerable interest to students and scholars of
foreign trade, foreign policy, international relations international trade and finance, India's economy,
and area studies. development studies and political economy as
also to planners and policy makers.
2000 / 268 pages / Rs 395 (cloth)
2000 / 320 pages / Rs 475 (cloth)
SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd
Post Box 4215. New Delhi 110 048, Tel: 6485884, 644958, 6453915; Fax 91-11-6472426; e-mail: sageind?nda.vsnl.net.in * Sales Office T
Ii Fax: 91-11-6217328; e-nlail: bookordersO ndiasage.com * Ground Floor, 59/5, Prince Baktiar Shah Road. Tollygunge, Calcuta 700 033, Te
Road. T NaQar, Madras 600 017, Tel: 4345822, 4326265; e-mail: sageindmrd4.vsnl.net.in n 31, LB Stadium, Post Box 131, Hyderabad

3594'Ecn c Ai jlitical Weekly December 18, 1999

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 30 Dec 2018 12:18:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
outsiders had imposed it on the tribes. The
identity that was forced from outside has
now been internalised among the tribes.
Today, it is an important mark of identity
and consciousness of the people, an iden-
tity that evokes a sense of self-esteem and
pride rather than a sense of lowly and
inferior society that often goes with terms
like tribe or tribal. The people now use
it to identify and define themselves. It is
in relation to the identity of adivasi that
tribes are increasingly differentiating them-
selves from the non-tribal population at
least at the grass roots level. The decla-
ration of the year 1993 as the international
year of the indigenous people has only
sharpened this identity for identity, since
then carries certain rights and privileges
with it.
Further, the identity being expressed
now by the term adivasi is indeed an
expanded identity cutting across tribes
bearing difte i: t names, speaking differ-
ent languages or dialects. It also goes
beyond groups and communities or parts
thereof that are listed in the Constitution.
It is to be noted that there is an importantterritory. The scenario is just the opposite
gap in the sense in which the term tribein other parts of tribal India. What this
of the indigenous people at the national[Hardiman 1987:15-16]. The use of the
and the international levels. term 'adivasi' in the sense in which it is
The adivasi consciousness and the ar-used by radical scholars hardly takes note
ticulation of indigenous people status ofisthe sense in which people, either out-
not so much about whether they are siders
the or the tribal themselves, use it. Not
original inhabitants of India as about all
thewho shared a common fate in the past
fact that they have no power whatsoevercentury, in fact, identify themselves as the
adivasis. The caste Hindu population
over anything (land, forest, river, resources)
that lies in the territory they inhabit. This
howsoever deprived it may be invariably
is despite being the original inhabitantsavoided
of being called adivasi for it was tied
India in relation to the others. The con- to the loss of status.
sciousness and the articulation are basi-
[I am grateful to A Beteille ior his comments on
cally an expression of the yearning to have
the earlier version of this paper. Its faults however
or to establish a special relation with the
remain mine.]
territory in which they live. It is the same
kind of yearning that the various dominant References
communities of India articulated in the
period before independence or after inde-Beteille, A (1986): 'The Concept of Tribe with
Special Reference to India', European
pendence. That this is so becomes obvious
Journal o'f Sociology (27).
if one maps the tribes or regions where -(1993): 'Myth of Indigenous People', The Times
such sentiment is strongly articulated. Ito f India, January 5.
is a fact that the issue of this identity- (1998):
is 'The Idea of Indigenous People',Current
more strongly articulated in central, west-Anthropology. 39(2).
ern and southern India than in north--east Bose, N K (1941): 'The Hindu Method of Tribal
India. This is because in the north-east Absorption', Science and Culture (7).
- (1975): 771e Structure of the Hindu Society.
people exercise some power over their
Desai, A R (1977): 'Tribes in Transition' in
R Thapar (cd), Tribe Caste and Religion,
Macmillan.

is used and understood by the tribals andindicates is that the assertion of such iden- Dube, S C (1977): Tribal Heritage of India, IIAS,
Shimla.
in the sense in which it is understood bytity is stronger where there is greater degree
Ghurye, S C (1963): The Scheduled Tribe, Popular
others, especially the administrators, law- of marginalisation and powerlessness.
Prakashan, Bombay.
There are however differences in the
yers and academicians. For the latter, Hardiman, D (1987): The Coming of the Decvi:
communities are tribes only if they are soway this new identity is being con- Adivasi Assertion in Western Itlia, Oxford
listed in the Constitution. Tribes on the ceptualised at different levels. The social
University Press, Delhi.
other hand do not view tribes in the sense workers, administrators, scholars and Hermanns, M (1957): Hinduism and Tribal
of politico-administrative category. Rather social scientists have generallv used the Culture, K L Fenmandes, Bombay.

they view them in the sense of belonging term in the sense of only the original Pathy, J (1992a): 'The Idea of a Tribe and
the Indian Scene' in B Chaudhuri (ed),
to the same community irrespective of inhabitants. The adivasi ideologues too
Tribal Transfoirmation in Ind ia, vol 3, New
whether a group or segment of it is listed primarily use this term in the sense of theDelhi.
or not listed in the Constitution. And by original settlement, as this was the sense
- (1992b): 'What is Tribe'? What is Indigenous?
virtue of this bond of emotion they are also in which the outsiders described the tribal Turn the Tables toward the Metaphor of Social
adivasis or the indigenous people though people. The aspect of the maiginalised Justice', Samta, 1.
the Constitution does not recognise them status that evolved in course of historical Ray, N (1973): Nationalism in India, AMU,
as the tribes. development has been added into it now. Aligarh.
In many parts, the category has evenThere are others, especially the radicalRoy-Burman, B K (1983): 'Transformation of
Tribes and Analogous Social Formation',
taken political overtones. In Chotanagpur,scholars, who conceive it only in relation Economic and Political Weekly.
for example, as early as 1939 it assumed to particular historical development, viz,- (1992): 'The Indigenous Peoples and Their
the form of a demand for a separate state that of the subjugation during the 19th Quest for Justice' in B Chaudhuri (ed) op cit.
of their own for the adivasis. Even the century of a wide variety of communities- (nd) ' "Indigenous" and "Tribal" Peoples and
organisation formed to spearhead this
which before the colonial period had the International Agencies', Draft for
movement, viz, Adivasi Mahasabha, drew remained free, or at least relatively free Discussion, Rajiv Gandhi Foundation.
from the control of outside states. This
its inspiration from being described as the Sengupta, N (1988): 'Reappraising Tribal
Movement;, Economic and Political Weekly,
original people. Such a political overtoneprocess, it is argued, was accompanied by
May 14.
is not confined to Chotanagpur alone. an It influx of traders, moneylenders and Shah, G (1982): 'Tribal Issues: Problems and
is catching up in other parts of India as landlords who established themselves
Perspectives' in B Chaudhuri (ed). Tribal
well but more prominently in the tribal under the protection of the colonialTransformation
au- in India, vol 2, Inter-India
regions of central and western India such thorities and took advantage of the new Publications, Delhi.
as Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan. Sinha,of
judicial system to deprive the adivasis S (1958): 'Tribal Cultures of Peninsular
India as a Dimension of Little Tradition in
It has already given rise to a number oflarge tract of their land. Adivasi is hence
the Study of Indian Civilisation: A Prelimiinary
defined as groups, which have shared a
organisations at local and regional levels
Statement', Journal of American Folklore,
that have been articulating the issues of
common fate in the past century and from
vol 71, July-September.
the tribes in terms of the status of the this, has evolved a collective identity ofA (1988): 'Is There a National Question
Vanaik,
being adivasis. It is not meant to imply
indigenous people. There are organisations in India', Economic and Political Weekly.
which are actively articulating the issuethat adivasis are the original inhabitants
October 29.

Economic and Political Weekly December 18, 19993595

This content downloaded from 202.41.10.30 on Sun, 30 Dec 2018 12:18:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms