Items Description of Module Subject Name Social Work Paper Name History and Philosophy of Social Work Paper Coordinator Dr. Ruchi Sinha Content Dr. Alex Akhup and Joy Prafull Lakra Writer/Author (CW) Content Reviewer Prof Manish Jha Module Name/Title Taxonomy of social theories—Part7 The Lived Struggles of tribe/Adivasi In India: Understanding Tribal Social Work Module Id 27 Objectives • To understand the anti-oppressive perspective of practice with specific reference to Tribal and Dalit Social Work • To learn aspects of practice with indigenous peoples Key words Indigenous peoples, struggles, perspectives, anti-oppressive practice, structural social work
Introduction Module 16 and 26 deals with structural perspective to social work that locates the primacy of context, structures and processes in social work theory and practice. This perspective is based on sociology of structural change and offers a experiential view of the social world. Within this perspective we discuss emancipatory practice, which is aimed at addressing structural inequalities upon people’s lives. It adopts a processual methodology to understand structural relationships between state and people, individuals and society towards empowerment of marginalised sections of society. This approach in Social Work scholarship and practice at times is referred to a anti- oppressive practice, a social work response to struggles of ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, feminists etc. In order to establish a transparent link between social work practice and social justice through eradication of oppression, anti-oppressive practices aim to challenge structural power dynamics. In particular, it focuses on Indigenous & Decolonizing Social Work that that elucidates number of processes embedded in thought and practice concerning colonialism, oppression, sovereignty, self-determination as well as cultural rights. The concept of “decolonizing social work” therefore is seen as although not exclusively but majorly concerned with the rights of Indigenous Peoples, tribes/adivasis (Gray, Coates, Bird, & Hetherington, 2016). This module aims to highlight this and the importance of the structrual perspective in social work theory and practice, through the Lived Struggles of tribe/Adivasi in India
Learners Objective 1. To understand the context and cultural practices of Tribes/Adivasi 2. To understand worldview and philosophies that define tribal societies and their struggle 3. To understand lived reality of tribes/adivasis for structural social work theory and practice
Key Words: Tribal soceity, Adivasi, worldview, struggles, social work, survival politics, cultural rights, customary practices.
In the worldviews of tribes/Adivasis and indigenous peoples, life and world around is realised through a struggle. Existence itself is a struggle that precedes all things. It is a struggle to live within their land, worldviews and cultures. It is a struggle to occupy a point of view without being assimilated or displaced. Every activity of their lives is part of this struggle. It manifests in their daily lives; cultural process, livelihood, worldviews, beliefs, and aspirations. This worldview defines the very principle that upholds a social reality. 1. Conceptualization of Tribal/Adivasi Society In social science literature concerning tribes, it is observed that structural approach on understanding tribes/Adivasi picked up momentum in 1940s when status societies, clan societies were identified as different from the social contract societies. In fact, then, tribes were identified as political and cultural entities often referred to as having segmented social structures. Although, still within the uni-linear evolutionary approach, segmented societies (acephalous in nature) were then not considered as anachronism but the main. The construct of tribal societies as segmented was further enhanced in 1960s through social theory of change and dynamicity. Dynamic theory of social structure propagated an understanding of tribal societies as not fixed, taking a theoretical break from the elementalist approach that objectifies tribes. In fact, emphasis was made that dynamicity of their social structure was a necessary condition against hegemony of contract based state societies. The dynamic nature of their social structure could protect them from exploitation, displacement and assimilation. However, understanding arrived then being still within evolutionary perspective could not stand the critique of historiography. Question was raised on the process of differentiating between the stages of civilization such as band, tribe, chieftainship and state. In particular, the problem of differentiating stages between tribe and chieftainship was emphasised. This evolutionary stage of classification further gave rise to understanding of tribes both as a) stage in civilization and b) a type of society. In particular, there were theoretical discussions on tribes and Adivasis in relation to “tribes-in-transition”, “tribe-caste continuum”, “livelihood based” and “ecology based” in the Indian context. Besides, there emerged a critique of evolutionary approach of colonial ethnography paving way for understanding tribal societies from a historical approach. This gave primacy to time and space. In such theoretical backdrop, contextualisation and regional understanding came into picture.
The emerging theoretical debate relied on the framework of relative ethnicity where social boundary became important site of study. In fact, in India, debate on tribe came to be closely linked to coexistence of caste and tribe, civilization and tribe. This framework opined that there is permeability of boundary, social interaction across tribes and others. It is argued that tribe and civilization are always coexisting in South Asian context. At this time, in the background of the nation state building process in India three perspectives on understanding tribes emerged; assimilation, isolation and integration. One observes that the approach to assimilate culturally and politically was made a policy strategy for peninsular region. While in the north east, ground reality oriented only a strategy of political assimilation, which generally is understood as integration approach. However, these formulations are pitched in the backdrop of categorization process of state expressed in census surveys where several categories have been used to refer to tribes in Indian context such as; 1. Forest Tribe in 1891 census 2. Animist as added in 1901 3. Hill Tribes in 1921 3. Primitive tribes in 1931 In the Constitution, they came to be categorised as Scheduled Tribes. According to Census 2011, Scheduled Tribes constitute 8.6% (104 million) of the total population in India. Around 83% of them belong to the Eastern, Central and Western belt of our country. Around 12 percent inhabit in north-eastern states. However, the academic debates regarding tribes did not end with the Constitutional recognition of scheduled tribes or scheduling of tribal areas. In fact, in 1990s, this became more intense in which the concept such as Adivasi, indigenous, ethnicity, nation and nationalities were used to refer to the reality of tribes. Further, the recent empirical analysis indicates issues and problems faced by tribes in the state described as process of social exclusion. Towards this, the latest government High committee report, 2014, apart from giving detailed picture of tribal reality, indicates a situation of adverse inclusion when especially viewed from a political economy of development. 2. Worldview of Tribe/Adivasi In the cosmology of tribes, there is an intrinsic relationship between earth, people, economy, social and political. It is a holistic worldview. Human beings are therefore fundamental part of the natural world. The ecosystem and the social structure are congruent. The social is the natural. The law of nature shapes cultural processes and manifests itself in variegated biodiversity. Every aspect of life and human culture is nit closely with ecology, cosmocentric in nature. Earth is considered as source of life. The clan totems, rituals and cultural festivals reflect this lifeworld. Human society is embedded in cosmology and provides a vital base to a way of life, specific and meaningful to lived experience. This understanding posits an embedded philosophy of human beings, culture and ecosystem. As seen in history, this society came into contact with colonial epistemology in the event leading to nation-state formation predominantly shaped by a civilization project and possibly having an extended manifestation in the post colonial state context. This circumstance reoriented the process of change and transformation affecting tribal societies. In fact, this event necessitated the primacy of a critical theoretical disengagement for any meaningful academic attempt to significantly foreground the foundational nature of ecology. It makes a defence of the human right, democratic, civil and political rights anchored in the framework of egalitarian society, democracy, consensus and progress. However, right often comes within the purview of the economics which shapes a concept of a nation-state and citizenship which excludes certain section of the society and could hamper a progressive change. Given below are some important features of the worldview of tribes/Adivasi; i) In Harmony with Nature Tribes are very close to nature and its environment. Tribal life revolts around different seasons and different festivals and reflects closeness to nature. For example, 'Sahrul' is celebrated to mark the arrival of the new season and also the marriage between the Earth and Sun. The forest and land are considered as the provider of their livelihood. It upholds their worldview, culture and identity. ii) Original Settlers Experience of tribes/Adivasi indicates they are the first settlers in the region. Their forefathers came to this land centuries back, cleared the jungles and made the land cultivable. The land held by original settlers among the Oraons is known as 'Bhuihari land' and Mundas referred to it as 'khuttkatti land'. There is rent free land in the villages for the 'pahan', the burial place known as 'sasan' among the mundas and 'Masna/ Hargari' among the Oraons. People recalled of Mundas taking the burial stones, 'Sasan Dhiri' to the Court in Kolkata during the Sardar Movement (1860- 95) as a proof that the land belonged to them. iii) Community Ownership The tribal communities have collective ownership. The land belongs to the people and chief or the village head is the guardian of this land. The people have only a usufruct right on the land. However, the survey of land for settlement came directly against the people's ownership system. In fact, many were dispossessed from their as they could be considered as rightful ownership within the individual land deed. The present day liberal idea of the rights of the individual is directly in conflict with tribal philosophy which upholds land as an identity, culture and territory of the community. iv) Self Governing System
The existence of tribes and identities is closely linked to local self governance. It is an intrinsic part of their social and political structure. In fact, the pre-British and/or the pre-history academic description of this context indicates a unique social reality defined by coexistence of various culturo-political entities which are today referred to as tribes and/or scheduled tribes. In the modern political understanding, they are generally identified with chieftainship system. Every tribal village is distinctive of a local governance system based on chieftainship. The nature of the chieftainship system varies from village to village as closely shaped by local political economy and regional ecology. As observed in colonial monographs and state classifications, attempts have been made to classify people along ethnic and linguistic lines. For example, the secular religious administration of the Munda village is entrusted to two officials; the Munda or the village headman. He is in-charge of the secular concerns of the village and the Pahan or the village priest offers sacrifices to the village spirits on behalf of the whole village community. Originally, the same person in said to have discharged two offices. The headman collects from the khuntkatti family its share of the quit rent payable to the state for the whole village community. On him also falls the task of apportioning among various families the various revenue burdens, and contributions for communal religious and social functions. He also presides at the meetings of the village panchayats or the council of village elders to which matters of urgency such as the settlement of village disputes, the partition of family property, and the punishment of offenders against the generally gathers at the village akhara or dancing ground. The offices of the village headman and the village priest do not carry among the Mundas any superior rights to property and their incumbents are but the public servants and the mouth piece of village community. About a dozen or more villages inhabited by Mundas belonging to the same kili or clan constitute a wider social organization known as Parha administered by a local body called the Parha Panchayat or a federal council. Matters too important to be left to the decision of the village councils come here for adjudication. The administrative head of the Parha is given the title of Manki or Parha Raja. v) Diversity and Uniqueness This social world is characterised by fundamental features of diversity and plurality. The fact that tribal and Adivasis still hold onto their identity, culture and land is a defence of the principle of diversity and respect of humanity. This suggests listening and dialogue in a manner of 'sitting around the fire' to comprehend the meaning of the worldviews of tribals and Adivasis. The questions of the struggle should be deliberated through methods of problematising and revisiting the history that has made them objects of the project of civilization and modernity. Towards this, the available and known history of resistance to assimilation and displacement is a fact. However, it is important to focus our sight on the meaning and hope in the struggle and not be disillusioned by the factuality of the struggle itself. vi) Heart of Struggle The heart of struggle of Adivasi and tribal reflects a dialogical way of lived experience. Tribes and Adivasis are dialogical communities. They respect life and diversity. Although, they do not have knowledge to handle contingencies, they are moved by possibilities. Life comes as a probability and possibility. They are with the natural, down to earth and life. They are able to convert their lived experiences into knowledge that have always given them space to survived, despite waves of colonial encounters in the historical context. Their struggle is for reclamation of their episteme, ways of seeing and understanding the world and others around which survived waves of colonialism. It challenges any colonial constructs and frames. It alludes that they are grounded subjectivitists who can occupy a point of view. The point-of-view recognises diversity of frames and narratives of understanding self, society and the world around. It is a new thinking, non-hegemonic, non-linear and works on dialogue, respect and reciprocity. Dialogical episteme is concerned about safeguarding humanity and the diversity of lived experiences. It intends to reimage subjectivities and agencies, resists forms of colonization or subjugation, and create a new space for articulation of peoples experiences and world of diversity and difference principle and uniqueness are world of possibility. vii) Political Subjecthood Their struggle as political is closely linked to self rule and self determination. It is an intrinsic part of their social and political structure. The daily struggle is a survival politics. In this politics winning and losing are parts of the life. The dynamics of lived experiences generates strategic thinking. Therefore the fight is strategic; conflicts are part of the lived at strategic place and time. The people are aware of this harsh reality. This is the grounded politics shaped by time and place. The place is there always but what matters is the time. Time is negotiable. This dynamicity of lived becomes a source of their political power to survive. This is not opportunism but survival politics. viii) Sociality, Reciprocity and Respect for Others The social relationship of tribal communities is defined by reciprocity, trust and respect. There is a social system which people impose on them as matter of being them social. Their relationship is base on reciprocal frame where there is an element of respect and trust for the other. The barter system of the earlier times explains this reality. This social relationship can be defined as mutual. In fact, one is governed by sociality. ix) Open Communication Taking inspiration from the struggle of tribes and Adivasis, inter community relationship comes with open communication. It works on listening with open mind and takes grounded self into confidence. It safeguards dynamic social processes and challenges dominating communications.
The existence of open communication implies a sociality that upholds diversities. There is constant negotiation in open communication channel. However, it does not claim to be an authority, but accepts relativity of ways of thinking and understanding. It is a mutual bond of relationship and communication that protects the lived experiences. Dialogue ensures respect of communication between persons and narratives. It is a just communication. It accounts for progressive and inclusive space. Communication can reduces conflicts and binds people together. The focus is not on uniformity or conformity but mutual communication. If there is lack of open communication, violence and hegemony occur. x) Consensus and Participatory The lived experiences of tribes and Adivasi suggest consensus meaning making process. They are governed by consensual polities. The affairs of the community are run on consensus. The consensus defines the rationality and civility. This is vividly visible in the self governance processes in the villages. This consensus is arrived at within the social relationship grounded in collective worldview. Consensus takes precedence over individual rationality. Rationality is defined by sociality, humanity. It binds the people in mutual relationship. All disputes and conflicts are governed by consensual decisions indicating a consensual democracy. The idea of state, democracy and citizenship are negotiated spaces and needs to uphold dialogue to allow violence free just world. 3. Context and Lived Struggles The establishment of the state and administration in tribal areas got materialised in the framework of colonial cultural of non-cultural interference and conciliation, an indirect policy of governance. The British encountered tribal societies as polities and cultures. Their encounter gave rise to an idea of self rule and self determination. As for instance, the British administrators have to recognise customs and customary practices. They came to realise that peoples had their own worldview; clan based social structure and self governance system and institutions. The day-to-day lived struggles of tribe/Adivasi in the event of formation of state highlight important aspects of tribal society, state and governance. This can be broadly discussed under the following points as given below. a) Peninsular Region In 1765, the East India Company was granted the Diwani of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa by the Mughals. This meant that the East India Company would have power to collect taxes from the areas under its jurisdiction. In order to collect taxes, they had to enter the areas and sign pacts and agreements with the local kings and zamindars. In contrary, they were received with protest by the tribals. In 1772, the Paharias of Rajmahal Hills were the first to protest the entry of the British in their areas and gave a stiff resistance to them. Similarly, the Santals under the leadership of Tilka
Majhi revolted in 1784. The tribal resentment to the British became more severe when Lord Cornwallis introduced the Permanent Settlement of Bengal in 1793. The decade following this was marked by revolt in Singhbhum, Gumla, Birbhum, Bankura, Manbhoom and Palamau, culminating in the great Kol Risings of 1832. The Tribal Revolts against the British, the zamindars and money lenders culminated with “Birsa Munda's Ulgulan” the massive movement lead by the 20 years old Birsa Munda. Birsa Munda, known as 'Dharti Abba' was born on 15th Novemver 1875. While studying at Gossner Evangelical Lutheran Mission School, Chaibasa run by German missionaries, he got agitated with both the missionaries and the British government and gave up Christianity. He started gathering people and started teaching and preaching them. He preached on moral life and giving up superstitious practices such as witchcraft and drinking alcohol. He possessed miraculous powers and started healing people. He was arrested in 1895 and sent to 2 years of imprisonment. After his released, he led the movement from the front and started attacking the churches, landlords and the police stations. He was caught again on 3rd of February 1900 and died in a mysterious condition on 9 June 1900 at Ranchi Jail. Further, Captain Wilkinson managed to enter the Kolhan area in 1836 with the aim of gaining control over the region. The British realized that the resentment of the Ho's came from the disruption of the traditional rights over their land and resoures, and the notion of private propety which stood in opposition to their community ownership. They enacted a law known as 'Wilkinson's Rule' in 1837 recognising the traditional rights of the Ho's. This law also made the Ho inhabiting areas non-regulated. On 30th June 1855, the Santals under the leadership of Siddu Murmu, Kanhu Murmu, Chand Murmu, Bhairav Murmu, Phulo Murmu and Jhano Murmu started rebellion against the British Colonialist and the oppressive zamindars. This movement was crushed with massive force leading to the deaths of thousands of Santal. Immediately after the Santal Hul of 1855- 56, Santal Pargana region was made into non regulated area. The Act of XXXVII was passed, creating 'Damin- i- koh' making non applicable of general laws and regulations in the area. In 1834, Chotanagpur region covering areas of 32500 sq. Km was brought under the South – West Frontier Agency. Later with the regulation of XX of 1854, the South West Frontier was abolished and passed under the lieutenant Governor of Bengal as a non-regulation province administered by the deputy commissioner. This region became non regulated, barring the entry of the outsiders. The non regulated areas came to be known as the 'backward tracts' in the Government of India Act, 1919. In Government of India Act, 1935, non regulated hilly regions of the North East India came to be known as 'fully excluded' and non regulated regions of the Central and eastern provinces were called 'partially excluded'. When the constitution was drafted, the 'fully excluded areas' became part of the Sixth Schedule and the 'partially excluded areas ' became part of the Fifth Schedule in the Constitution of India. Both fifth and the sixth schedule are the constitutional mechanism to assist tribes to govern themselves, protecting them from land alienation and exploitation. The Magna Carta, protecting the age old rights of the tribes and safeguarding their land, water and forests are Chotanagur and Santal Pargana in Chotanagpur Tenancy Act 1908 (CNTA) and Santal Pargana Tenancy Act 1949 (SPTA). But the successive governments down the years have brought amendments to these important acts and weakened it. In the post colonial period, this region therefore came under the Fifth Scheduled of the Constitution. This focused on securing protection and development for the Adivasi. Further, in 1996, Panchayats(Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA) has been enacted in many parts of this region to bring community empowerment. The following points given below are some of the importance learnings emanating from struggles of Adivasis in peninsular region. i) Political Struggle for Autonomy When it came to be known that the British would leave the country soon, tribal realised that they would not be able to live under the dominance of dominant regional caste or language. This gave rise to the idea of creating three separate states for tribes inhabiting in India; Jharkhand region, Gondwana and Bhilistan. The first region lied within the southern part of Bihar and few districts from Odisha, West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh. This area finally became a state on 15th November, 2000. The Gondwana comprised of Gond concentrated regions in Madhya Pradesh, Chhhatigarh, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh and Bhilistan comprised of the Bhil concentrated areas in Gujarat, MP, Rajastan and Maharashtra. ii) Agrarian Struggle Almost all the tribal movements like the Kol insurrection (1831-32), Santal Hul (1854-55), Sardar Movement (1860-95), Birsa's Ulgulan (1895-1900) and Tana Bhagat movement (19-15-17) are viewed as agrarian and forest based movements. It began with many people migrating to tribal areas as zaminders and money lenders. These people were assigned by the British government to collect taxes on the land. The tribals resisted but they were subjugated through force and made to pay tax on the land. What made their conditions worst was that they had to give their free services to the landlord known as 'beth begari'. Besides, British needed forest for wood to build railway carriage, ship and paper industry. They also used the Land Acquisition act 1894, which gave them power to acquire huge track of land for different purposes. iii) Cultural Rights The struggle for cultural rights came as reaction to the realization of cultural lost among tribes. They started to revive the customary norms and practices to maintain solidarity within the group. The traditional governing system like 'parha' among the Oraons, 'Manki-Munda' among the Mundas, 'Manji- Parganait' among the Santals, 'Doklo-so' among the Kharias which had almost died by this time was revived. Marriage was restricted within the community. There was a realization of creating own script to bring community bonding across regions. During this time, Guru Raghunath Murmu developed 'Ol Chiki' for Santali, Guru Lako Bodra developed Ho script 'Warang Cithi' and the Kurukh script 'Tolong Siki' was formulated by Dr. Narayan Oraon. iv) Land, Water and Forest Protection of the land, water and forest become important to tribal who started realizing the process of resource extraction in their region. Such activities led to destruction of land, water and forests and simultaneously caused displacement of people and livelihood. During these time, various resistance movements emerged to resist construction of large dams, field firing range, large scale mining units etc,. The Koel Karo dam struggle and the Naterhat Field Firing Range in Laterhar district are noteworthy. b) Northeast Region The intentionality of state in the northeast region can be defined in terms of securing colonial monopoly of regional trade and commerce. Treaty of Yandaboo 1826 marks a full historical realization of British expansion in the region. Since then, the tribes in the hill regions came under direct purview of the British government and state structure. The state territorialisation process became a fundamental structure that reorganised the territory, culture and economy. State process came into direct confrontation with the tribal polities, the chiefs in particular. In fact, the colonial territorialisation generated a structure where the embedded societies restructured within the binary framework of state-nonstate, civil-ethnicities, tribes-nontribes etc. The British colonial policy followed regulation and control to establish their dominion. After they faced intense resistance from the cultures, they adopted indirect approach with cultural non-interference and conciliation. In this context the Inner line Permit 1873 was implemented. The region was governed within the legislative boundary of the Assam province where the governor was empowered to directly oversee these areas. In the colonial construct, the tribal areas in the northeast were usually referred to as the backward tract and/or the un-administered tracts. The basic framework of British policy was laid out in the Government of India Act 1919 and the Government of India Act 1935. Along these legislations, eventually the areas were categorised as the excluded areas. This framework draws its legitimization from the principle of protection of the cultural groups in the region. In the post Independence, the Sixth Scheduled, the hill councils and other specific regulations are in place. The focus is on giving political and administration autonomy to tribes considering the customary rights and practices. The context in the northeast in specific highlights understanding of dynamic identities and their struggles as given below. i) Embedded Ethnic Life-world Tribal reality is embedded in the life world of the social realities, a totality of culture that constitutes the life style of the people. In this perspective ethnicity becomes an objective reality; a reality in the process of ‘being’ and ‘becoming’, the element of essential attributes in the state of flux in time and place. Thus, the worldview becomes the epistemological premise of reading the meaning of the world; life on this earth and after death. The objectivity of the reality is confirmed through its ability to exert influence in the mind of the individual persons who ascribed to it in the context of the state and other ethnic groups and individuals. Closely related to the objective reality are consciousness, feeling and bonding attached to the collective individuals. Consciousness is the subjective reality of the individual in the condition of its response to the objective reality, the ascribed ethnic identity. It is usually expressed in what one ‘says’, and ‘does’ in the cultural context. ii) Nations and Ethnicities The northeast tribes are also described as proto nations having history and culture occupying a specific territory. Among tribes, the articulation of various tribes along Nationhood, dating back to pre independence is one such among this perspective. This articulation is based on the concept of nation and nationality. Nation in simple sense understood as people with specific history and culture who have been here before the coming of the state. Ethnicity in this context is closely related to the assertion for recognition of history, culture and territory, a homeland. Therefore, such ethnicity is defined by the concepts of autonomy, self determination and even sovereignty. However, it should be noted that there are various other similar such articulations which have come with the coming of the state in the region. iii) Customary, Self Determination and Political Autonomy India as a principle recognises ‘unity in diversity’, a multicultural perspective. The inclusion of various legal and administrative systems with regard to the scheduled tribes can be understood. This perspective is also seen in the state reorganization process, and also the district delimitation. It considers the basic reality of the cultural identities in the northeast. Tribal/Adivasi ethos builds on qualities of worth and dignity of humanity as embedded within the ecological realm; cosmocentric in a sense. It is self sustaining, self-balancing, self reliant and self-adjusting. It operates based on the principles of equity, equality and justice within the framework of self rule. Self rule is a fundamental culturo-political principle. In fact, this principle finds its international recognition in the United Nations Convention (ILO 107 and 169) and United Nation Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007. In the framework of the self rule, self definition and self determination indicate that the self/collective doesn’t become subservient to the dominant. It proactively nurtures self/collective as an agency. Therefore, as understood from an Indian experience, self rule is directly related to collective ownership of the land and forest (as recognised in ILO 107, article Nos.4 and 11), territorial rights (as stated in ILO 169, article No.13) and the right to govern it with one's own customs and genius.
Conclusion The context building of Tribes/Adivasis in India elucidates how Indigenous social work is a response to the dominant Euro-American social work approaches. This practice is primarily political and is framed within the human rights and social justice discourse (Gray et. al, 2008). It would be apparent from the above that Indigenous social work therefore is a political process which requires engagement with Indigenous Persons so that they are able to develop on their own terms and pace. It involves enforcement and shaping of policies that will help tribes/adivasis (Indigenous Persons) to achieve entitlements that they have made to legitimate claims. It is geared towards ensuring access to resources as they are amongst the most impoverished/marginalised/exploited groups in the world. For this it is important that social workers partake in advocacy as Indigenous Peoples are engaging in various forms of activism. While involving in advocacy, it is important that social workers ensure that service delivery models as well as theoretical frameworks are relevant to the contexts and local cultures and finally practice should ensure that governments take responsibility to live up to agreements and treaties and provide appropriate restitution for damages (Gray et. al, 2008).