Transformation of Tribes in India: Terms of Discourse Author(s): Virginius Xaxa Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 34, No. 24 (Jun. 12-18, 1999), pp. 1519-1524 Published by: Economic and Political Weekly Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4408077 Accessed: 06-03-2018 11:21 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 [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://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 14.139.62.115 on Tue, 06 Mar 2018 11:21:22 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Transformation of Tribes in India Terms of Discourse

Virginius Xaxa

Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see as the end result of social change in tribal India the transformation of any given tribe into a or just another socially stratified group, or the merger of the tribe in the peasantry. Questioning the assumption of loss of tribal identity, this article attributes it to the study of tribes not as communities in their own right but in terms of affinity or non-affinity with mainstream communities. THERE are more than 400 groups in and caste have been rooted in the con- and pastoral . A somewhat more Indian society which are officially des- sciousness and the social relations of the serious effort towards a distinction is ignated as scheduled tribes. These groups people at large. They have also had a long reflected in the later censuses. Risley and have all been undergoing changes. These history. Such has not been the case with Gait, in charge of the 1901 and 1911 changes have been observed and described the category of the tribe: it was added to censuses respectively, added 'so-called by a variety of persons for nearly 100 the list mentioned above by the British in animists' in the table for caste and others. years, but their consequences and impli- the 19th century. That category is hence Marten followed the same pattern in the cations have been seriously misconstrued. seen as a colonial construction [Beteille 1921 Census, except that he changed the The conventional wisdom among anthro- 1995: Singh 1993]. Even so, it has come to heading from 'animism' to 'tribal reli- pologists has been that when a tribe be extensively used in social science litera- gion'. Hutton continued with the distinc- undergoes change through a loss of iso- ture in general and sociological and anthro- tion between tribes and others in terms of lation and through close integration with pological literature in particularas an aid to religion and tribes were distinguished from not in terms of caste or caste-like features. the wider society, sooner or later, and with an understanding of Indian social reality. unfailing regularity, it becomes a caste. When the British began to write on For Hutton the tribe-caste distinction could While this may have been true to a greater Indian society, the term 'tribe' was used be maintained only thus. or lesser extent till the forties, the argu- in general parlance in more than one sense: Tribes were thus defined as those that ment is no longer valid. Yet anthropolo- in reference to a group of people claiming practised 'animism'. Of course those in gists have gone on making such a general- descent from a common ancestor, and in charge of the census operations were not isation - and despite inadequacy of data, reference to a group living in a primitive satisfied with this basis of demarcation of concept and argument to support it. or barbarous conditions. The former usage the tribes. They were of the view that there Now, while tribes continue to undergo has a longer history than the one which were difficulties in distinguishing the changes of many kinds, these no longer became prevalent after the colonial en- religion of the tribes from that of the lower transform them into castes. The Oraons counter. Yet it is in the sense that devel- strata of Hindu society. Keeping these today practise various religions and speak oped later (the primitive stage of living) observations in mind Ghurye [1963:205] more than one language; they earn their that the term 'tribe' has come to be mainly went to the extent of observing that so- livelihood from a variety of occupations, conceptualised in anthropological writ- called aboriginals who form the bulk of both agricultural and non-agricultural. Yet ings. The term has thus undergone changes the scheduled tribes and who have been they remain Oraons in some socially in the concept in the course of history. designated in the censuses as animists are significant sense. They have not become The early British writings on India did best described as 'backward Hindus'. a caste with any definite standing in the not study groups or communities from the In the post-independence period one caste hierarchy. This argument has impli- caste/tribe perspective. The groups were finds more systematic efforts to distin- cations not only for the understanding of studied in their capacity as human group- guish tribe from caste. And yet, scholars tribes but also for the understanding of ings or communities. Their description in have not arrived at systematically worked- Indian society as a whole. The most caste/tribe terms was a later phenomenon. out criteria to this day. It has generally important implication is that new castes It is therefore not very clear in which sense been assumed that tribe and caste repre- are no longer being formed, whether, by the British ethnographers used the term sent two different forms of social the transformation of tribes into castes or 'tribe' in India, especially in the early organisations - castes being regulated by by other means. Tribes have become phase. The impression one gets is that the the hereditary division of labour, hierar- peasants and socially differentiated enti- usage in the sense of common ancestry chy, the principle of purity and pollution, ties but, contrary to views held, without may have been more in vogue. References civic and religious disabilities, etc, and any loss of their distinctive identities. to the , ahir and jat 'tribes' as well tribes being characterised by the absence as the interchangeable use of the terms of the caste attributes. CASTE AND TRIBE 'tribe' and 'caste' in 18th century writings The two types of social organisations Diversity or heterogeneity has been on India tends to support such view. are seen as being governed by different termed one of the hallmarks of Indian Ethnographers evidently had difficulty principles. It is said that kinship bonds society. Religion, language, region, caste differentiating one from the other at least govern tribal society. Each individual is and tribe have been considered to be the in the initial stage. hence considered equal to the others. The most important distinctions. But not all In the census reports of 1881, when the lineage and clan tend to be the chief unit of them have been conceptually and theo- first 'proper' all-India census was under- of ownership as well as of production and retically as contentious as the category of taken, the term used was not 'tribe' but consumption. In contrast, inequality, tribe. It has generally been said that the 'forest tribe', and that too as a sub-heading dependency and subordination are inte- categories of religion, language, region within the broader category of agricultural gral features of caste society. It is also said

Economic and Political WeeKly June 12, 1999 1519

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.115 on Tue, 06 Mar 2018 11:21:22 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms that tribes do not differentiate as sharply the rest of the population and had no rungs of Hindu society, and (4) groups as caste groups do between the utilitarian interaction or interconnection with them. fully adapted to the Hindu faith and living and non-utilitarian function of religion. In contrast the main concern of post- in modern style. Caste groups tend to maintain different colonial has been to show a The criteria of classification used by forms, practices and behaviour patterns close interaction between the tribes and Vidyarthi suffer for want of logical con- for each of these two aspects of the re- the larger society or civilisation. The sistency. Elwin went to the extent of writing ligion. Tribes in contrast maintain similar relationship has, of course, been differ- that the whole aboriginal problem was one forms, practices and behaviour patterns ently conceptualised. Sinha [1958] views of how to enable the tribesmen of the first for both functions. 'tribe' as adimension of little tradition that and the second classes to advance direct Tribes and castes are also seen to be cannot be adequately understood unless into the fourth class without their having different in respect of the psychological it is seen in relation to the great tradition. to suffer the despair and degradation of disposition of members. Tribes are said In contrastto Beteille [1986:316] views it the third. Dube classifies tribes almost take direct, unalloyed satisfaction in more the in terms of distance from state and along the lines spelt out by Elwin. Many pleasures of the senses - in such areas civilisation as in contexts where tribe and others, including Bose and Fuchs, have food, drink, sex, dance and song - whereas civilisation coexist, as in India and the not made specific classifications but do caste people maintain a certain ambiva- Islamic world. Though the distinction is mention tribes occupying either the lower lence about such pleasures. Further, in maintained, the the two are treated not as or the higher rungs by getting absorbed 'jati' society, the village is expected isolatedto be but in interaction with each other. into Hindu society. culturally heterogeneous, with each Even jati when tribes have been conceived as Some scholars caution against such a following a unique combination of remainingcus- outside the state, which has conception of transformation of the tribes. tomary practices. Tribesmen, on the other most often been the case, they have been Roy-Burman [1983-1994] in his later hand, expect their society to be homoge- viewed as being in constant interaction writings points out that if the transforma- neous - or, at least, not necessarily with het- civilisation: tribal society has been tion of tribe into peasant cannot be taken erogeneous [Mandelbaum 1970:577]. seen not as static but in process of change. for granted nor can the transformation of From attempt such as these certain One of the dominant modes in which tribe into caste in the Indian context. Pathy images and perceptions have been devel- the transformation of the tribal society [has 1992:50-51 ] questions the dominant trend oped with respect to the 'tribe' concept been conceived is in terms of a tribe getting in the interpretation of tribal transforma- in India. These include the absence of absorbed into a society that represents tion, citing lack of historical and contex- exploiting classes and organised state civilisation. Both historians and anthro- tual evidence. Yet he endorses quite structures; multi-functionality of kinship pologists have made such observations in approvingly the observation of Kosambi bonds; all-pervasiveness of religion; theseg- context of the past. Kosambi (1975) that the entire course of Indian history mented character of the socio-economic has referred to tribal elements being fused shows tribal elements being fused into the unit; frequent co-operation for common into the general society. N K Bose (1941) general society. goals; shallow history; distinct taboos, makes a reference to tribes being absorbed The transformation of tribes into castes customs and moral codes; the youth into Hindu society. A large number ofis conceived to occur through methods dormitory; a low level of technology; anthropological works of the post-inde- which have beli diversely conceptualised. common names, territories, descent, lan- pendence era still points to phenomenon Kosambi [1975] considers adoption of the guage, culture, etc [Pathy 1992:50]. such as tribes being absorbed or assimi- technology of Hindu society by the tribes, But these sets of attributes in terms of lated into Hindu society or tribes becom- the major method of absorption that takes which tribes are differentiated from castes ing castes. Tribes are said to have accepted place under the prevalent system for the are not possessed by a large number of the ethos of caste structure and to have organisation of production. He says that groups identified as tribes in India. And got absorbed within it. Hence they are tribes are drawn into the non-competitive even groups that do subscribe these at- treated as hardly differentiable from system because they find protection within tributes have dissimilarities. At one end neighbouring Hindu peasantry. Some it.of Sanskritisation is seen as another method there are groups that have all these fea- the well known tribes in this category are through which tribes are absorbed into tures and at the other are those that hardly said to be bhils, bhumijs. majhis, khasas Hindu society. The other significant show these attributes. The large majority and raj-gonds. In fact, much of the social method of tribal assimilation is what Sinha of the groups, however, fall somewhere anthropological discourse on tribes has [ 1962, 1987] calls the state formation. He in between. The assumptions made about been primarily couched in terms of tribes states that the process of , tribes more often than not have, therefore, being transformed into castes. Hinduisation and social stratification been misleading and fallacious to a con- Nowhere is this better reflected than in within the village could not be properly siderable extent. the classifications of tribes provided by understood unless the data are examined The only thing the tribes seem to have eminent anthropologists. Roy-Burman in the broader context of the formation of in common is, as Beteille puts it, that they [1972] classified tribes into (1) those the principality. He adds that the forma- all stand more or less outside Hindu incorporated in Hindu society, (2) those tion of the state provided the decisive civilisation. And since the identification positively oriented to Hindu society, socio-political framework for the transfor- of tribes is also linked with political and (3) those negatively oriented and (4) those mation of the tribal system into the re- administrative considerations, little effort indifferent to Hindu society. Vidyarthi gional caste system. has been made to critically examine it. [1977] talked of tribes as (1) living in SANSKRITISATION Rather the criteria have been uncritically forests, (2) living in rural areas, (3) semi- accepted among social scientists. acculturated, (4) acculturated, or (5) as- Scholars have conceptualised diversely similated. Elwin [1944] envisaged four TRANSFORMATION TO CASTES the processes of social change experi- categories of tribes: (1) purest of pure enced by tribes in contact with non-tribal The concerns of the British Raj's ad- tribal groups, (2) groups in contact with societies. This is evident from the range of ministrator scholars gave rise to the con- the plains but still retaining the t'ibal mode the terms used for capturing the processes, ception that tribes lived in isolation from of living, (3) groups forming the lower the most common being 'Sanskritisation'

1520 Economic and Political Weekly June 12, 1999

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.115 on Tue, 06 Mar 2018 11:21:22 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms and 'Hinduisation'. At times anthropolo- that is accorded to is said to be 'low caste'. themselves even though they attain no gists have also used 'Kshatriyisation' and If this is the case, where is the process of higher status? Do they want to be ab- 'Rajputisation' as substitutes for social mobility for the tribes? What is it sorbed into the larger society? Well, this 'Sanskritisation'. These terms describe that tribes gain through this process? Nor may have been the case in the past but no different social processes at work, though have tribes made claims for higher status longer. Today, acculturation for tribes in actual empirical reality these processes [Hardiman 1987:158-59]. Rather it is means adopting the ideas values and coincide and overlap. There has been outsiders a who impose such a status on the practices of the dominant community rather tendency among the social scientists tribes. to In fact, even after Hinduisation tribes than being part of that society by assuming use them interchangeably. More often remainthan by and large outside the hierarchi- a caste status. not the difficulties arising from the use cal of structure of Hindu society. If at all HINDUISATION such terms are overcome by use of tribessuch have made claims they have been generic terms as 'acculturation', 'assimila- made only after they have been drawn into Is the process of Hinduisation sufficient tion' and 'absorption'. However, the mainthe larger social structure of the neigh- ground for designating a group as a caste? processes in terms of which the transfor- bouring Hindu and linguistic community. Is it not possible for a tribe to be Hinduised mation of tribe into caste is interpreted Takeare the case of the meteis and the koch- and yet to remain outside the caste system, Hinduisation and Sanskritisation. rajbongshis, who unlike other tribes have and to be governed by tribal principles of The question is whether such processes taken to as a whole. It is not social organisation? Such questions have as Hinduisation and Sanskritisation lead clear what caste status and caste name they either not been given sufficient attention to the dislocation of tribal society and assumed after adopting Hinduism. Their or have been overlooked in studies which pave the way for its absorption into Hindc1 claim of status was made much place tribes in a caste or civilisation frame- society. Does a tribe by virtue of accul- after their adoption of the Hindu way work. of If Hindu society cannot be under- turation cease to be a tribe and become life. Moreover, it was made for the whole stood otherwise than as a caste society, a caste? Almost all the scholars referred of the community and not for a segment the transformation of tribe into caste or to earlier tend to think so. To these schol- of it. Hardly any elaborate caste differen- Hindu society as the scholars have been ars, tribes eventually cease to exist as tiation exists within the tribe. If at all there postulating is problematic. Indeed, the entities independent of the caste society are brahmins, they are immigrants. wholeIn argument of the transformation of from which they were earlier differenti- Manipur they are not from amongst the tribe into caste seems to be misplaced and ated. The fact of the matter is that while meteis but belong to other ethnic commu- even erroneous. this may have been the case in the past, nities and are not considered part of metei Theoretically it is possible to embrace it is not true of India after independence. society. The latter too see themselves aas form of Hindu faith and practices with- Since acculturation or transformation of different from the meteis. out becoming part of Hindu society in the tribes into castes is attributed to the pro- Likewise, the integration of the koch- caste sense. If Hindu society and caste cess of Sanskritisation/Hinduisation, it is rajbongshis who have embraced Hindu- organisation are inseparable, however, imperative at the very outset to examine ism as well as Bengali/Assamese with theHinduisation alone cannot account for the the appropriateness of these terms and dominant regional community had been transformation of tribe into caste. In fact concepts. Sanskritisation is seen as a far from complete. In fact, they are ad-sociologists and social anthropologists process whereby communities lower down dressed and identified more by their ethnic need to consider other questions: do tribes the social ladder emulate the lifestyle of names than the caste name. It is not even actually become part of the structure of the dominant caste of a region. By this sure that they have a caste identity. That caste society after they have taken to process of emulation. the lower castes they have been claiming kshatriya status Hinduisation/Sanskritisation? What caste would move up in the caste hierarchy. is an altogether different story. identity do they assume and what position Sociologists and social anthropologists The problems with the concept ofdo they occupy in the caste hierarchy? Nor have broadened the scope of this concept Sanskritisation of tribes do not end there. is it clear whether all groups involved in to describe a certain process of change that There is also the problem of the reference the process of Hinduisation occupy the has been going on in tribal society. Is this group. It is far from clear from the litera- same position or there is hierarchical extension of scope valid? In the author's ture as to which of the caste groups the arrangement among them as in the case view it is far from appropriate. The ex- tribes (barring those belonging to royal or of the dalits. tension is inappropriate because it assumes chieftainly lineage) emulated in their Also what caste roles do such groups that tribes are part of Hindu society and respective regions. The royal/chieftainly assume, say, in villages of Chhotanagpur caste society. But tribes have been con- lineage has invariably emulated the in which banias, brahmins, rajputs and ceived of as tribes precisely because they and has entered into matrimonial alliances others live alongside the tribals? In fact, are outside Hindu as well as caste society. with them. Thus whereas the upper strata the nature of tribal people's interaction Sanskritisation demands that tribes must of tribal society got integrated into Hindu with the caste members of society is first enter Hindu society. caste society, the rank and file continued governed more by consideration of market The question that arises is whether to live outside Hindu society though there and economic interdependence than by Hinduisation is the same as Sanskritisation. may have been a process of Hinduisation purity-pollution ones. Further, their lives The two are interrelated, but it may be among them. Climbing up the ladder of continue to be grounded on kinship bonds more appropriate to describe the processes hierarchy had not been their main concern. and the absence of hierarchical ordering. involved in the context of tribes as Given all this, it would perhaps be In short, tribes do not have any kind of Hinduisation. This is so because climbing appropriate to speak of Hinduisation rather social, cultural or dependence on up the caste ladder is not the overriding than of Sanskritisation in the context of caste society even after acculturation int. concern among the tribes. Of course tribes it isin India. If at all tribes consider some the Hindu belief system and practices. Is not possible to conceive of the Hindu castes faith superior, it is not because of the it appropriate then, to study people des- and practices outside organisation caste into factor per se but because their cribed as tribes from the perspective of the castes. Hinduisation invariably entails members happen to bejagirdars, thicadars, caste structure? The anthropologists have assuming some caste status. But the status lambardars, etc. Why do tribes Hinduise tried to find caste where it does not exist.

Economic and Political Weekly June 12, 1999 1521

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.115 on Tue, 06 Mar 2018 11:21:22 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms It is also to be stated that tribes have been Hinduised have shown solidarity with and thus outside the complex of not moved into processes like Hinduisation groups described as tribes rather than civilisation.as One is not sure whether even or Sanskritisation as whole groups. The castes. after experiencing changes at the level of general pattern is that only a section of In short the process of Hinduisation culture, is including religion and language, a tribe moves to a new pattern of life, necessary but not sufficient for tribes a tribe to can be said to have become a caste. provided by say Christianity, Hinduism or be integrated into caste society. ToMuch be depends on the nature of its linkage Islam. If this is the case more often than integrated tribes must be drawn into with the the social structure of the regional, not, can we describe some members of a social organisation of the caste. That linguistic by and caste society. Indeed what group as a caste and olhers as a tribe? The and large, is not an empirical reality. seems to this author to be the most crucial feature for the integration of a tribe into empirical reality of a village in which LANGUAGE tribes form a minority and are absorbed the structure of the regional community into the Hindu fold is inappropriately The discussion above points to the is fact not only religion and language but also extended to villages and regions where that it is not possible for a tribe to become the organisational structure of the regional they may not be in a minority and where a caste without being first integrated community. into even if Hinduisation operates it may not the structure of Hindu society. Where suchOne could say that linguistic accultura- lead to abandonment of tribal identity. integration has occurred, a very important tion is more import;.nt than religious Where. however, tribes have taken to process has been the adoption by the acculturation.tribe Sociologists and anthropolo- Hinduisation en bloc, they have to a great of the language of the regional commu- gists have never given language the place extent moulded themselves along caste nity. A caste as a social organisation it deserves is in interpretation of the trans- lines. They have even identified them- operative only within a linguistic commu- formation of tribe into caste. And yet selves in caste terms and others too have nity. Hence it is possible for a tribe anthropologists to have arrived at the con- addressed them as castes rather than as become a caste only after it has beenclusion that tribes are becoming castes or tribes. The koch-rajbongshis of Assam assimilated into the regional linguistic getting integrated into Hindu society. and West Bengal are a case in point. But community such as the Bengali or Athe tribe which is drawn into a larger the phenomenon of the group as a whole Oriya or the Assamese community. society This does not cease to operate as a moving to a different value system is rather process which is so central to integration society. Does a society cease, by virtue rare. Even where such a thing has hap- with the regional community and there-of cultural change, to be a society? Does pened, it has not given rise to a hierarchi- fore caste society has been glossed Bengali over society cease to be a society in cal caste structure. The group as a whole by sociologists and social anthropologists. the wake of westernisation and tends in general to belong to the same In fact, it is not possible to get integrated modernisation within it? Nobody ever caste stratum. Nor is the group adequately into the caste society without first getting denies the existence and identity of Bengali integrated into the caste structure of the integrated into the linguistic community. society, but if cultural transformation neighbouring regional community. Tribes have been differentiated not occursonly in a tribal society the general trend In examining the question of the trans- from castes but also from the dominant is to negate its existence. Anthropologists formation of tribe into caste, it is not community of the region. The dominant have been swift to incorporate tribes in the enough to look only at the relationship community is invariably a linguistic com- larger society at the slightest sign of change between tribes and caste society. There is munity. Besides representing a language in their life patterns. also a need to consider how tribes them- it also represents a set of customs, a social What the discussion points to is that selves perceive their equation with caste organisation and a way of life. This raises conclusions such as the ones reached by society. After adopting certain Hindu an interesting question: should a tribe sociologists/social anthropologists are beliefs and practices, do tribes identify which has become Hinduised and even based on inadequate ethnography, con- themselves as tribes or as castes? The 'caste-like' be treated as a caste or as a cept and even logic. There is hardly any important route along which tribes under- tribe if it sticks to its language? After inquiryall, into the ways in which a Hinduised went Hinduisation or Sanskritisation is tribe has also been conceived in opposi- tribe is linked with caste society and with what anthropologists have described tionas to 'linguistic community'. Can a group its roots. Also, no effort has been made the 'religious/cultural movement'. Among be both a tribe and a caste at the same time? to ascertain whether an acculturated tribe the tribes, the movement is better known This seems far from tenable. is regulated by caste or tribal principles as the Bhagat movement. Does a Hinduised, Sanskritised tribe of social organisation. Concepts such as It is interesting to note that tribes even become a caste if it retain its language, Sanskritisation and Hinduisation are in- when they have been Hinduised describe culture, customs, social practices and so adequate for advancing the argument in themselves not as Hindus but as Bhagats. on? While the influence of Hinduism or support of transformation of tribe into caste. It is outsiders, census officials and anthro- Hindus on tribes is important, it does not TRIBE AND PEASANT pologists, who tend to describe them makeas them Hindus. To be Hindus they 'Hindus'. Anthropologists have even been need to be drawn into the structure of Tribal society in India has been studied prone to describe them as castes. Tribes, Hindu society, which is possible only notif only in relation to caste but also in however, do not identify and designate they get drawn into the structure of therelation to peasant society. In social an- themselves as belonging to different castes regional linguistic community. thropological literature peasant society has in the sense used and understood by the Tribes were differentiated from non- invariably been conceptualised and stud- outsiders and the social scientists. No- tribes on the basis of religion alone by the ied in contrast to tribal society. A tribe has where is this aspect of distinctive identity colonial ethnographers. But anthropolo- generally been defined as a more or less more glaring than in the movements gists have distinguished tribes from others homogeneous community having com- launched by the tribes, especially those on several criteria, the most important mon government, a common dialect and pertaining to autonomy, land, forests being and language and the social organisation common culture. employment. In these movements ofthe the caste. Tribes have been treated as But as Beteille [1960] puts it, it is one divide between caste and tribe has been tribes precisely because they have been thing to show the boundaries between relatively sharp. And yet tribes that have outside the dominant regional community tribes and non-tribes or between different

522 Economic and Political Weekly June 12, 1999

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.115 on Tue, 06 Mar 2018 11:21:22 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms tribes and quite another to specify the plied. Some scholars describe them as One is confronted with such a problem characteristics of tribal societies in gen- peasants because they see little difference because of the false dichotomy that has eral. An attempt has tlerefore been made in the way tribes make their living from the been posed between tribe and peasant. to specify these characteristics. Tribes have way the larger non-tribal community does. Tribes can still move in the direction of come to be defined by the features of a There are of course scholars who have the peasantry without losing the social segmentary system. This means that tribes tried to look at the problem by system- attributes of tribes. Social scientists have are conceived of not only as small in scale atically applying criteria evolved in an- therefore not been quite at ease even when but also as representative of a structural thropological writings. Thus, keeping theyin talk of the transformation of tribe to type which is quite difterent from the more mind the segmentary system in terms peasant.of Oommen [1995:21-371, for ex- complex social systeni in which the peas- which tribes have generally been defined. ample. points out that with the advent of antry and gentry coexist. Ideally then. Bailey [1961] differentiates tribes from the settled agriculture among the tribes. tribal societies are small in scale, restricted castes peasants. It is worth noting that they are increasingly specialised as peas- in the spatial and temporal range of their Bailey was more interested in differenti- ants but that even the settled agriculturists social, legal and political relations and in ating tribe from caste ratlier than from among them are not yet peasants in several possession of a morality, religion and world- peasant. He characterises caste society respects,as particularly in the area of culture. view of a corresponding order. In short, predominantly hierarchical and organic S(CIAL DIFFERENTIATION tribal societies are self-contained units. and tribal society as basically segmental. In contrast, peasant society is seen not Sinha [1965] finds such characterisation There is still a tliird term of reference as a whole society butt as a part society inadequate. He says there are some parts in terms of which tribes in India have been with part culture. Redfield 11956], for of India where peasants. especially those studied, and this is social differentiation. example, uses the term peasant for any belonging to the rajput and jat castes, Sometimes this has been couched in terms society of small producers who produce approximate more or less closely to the of class or social stratification while tribal for their own consumption through thecharacteristics of the tribes. He goes to the society has never been static. change has cultivation of land and wilo form a seg- extent of viewing tribes as a special case never been as unprecedented and dramatic ment of the town-centred economy and ofa little tradition within the civilisation of as in the last 50 years: Tribal society has society. Similarly, Shanin [1973] defines India. Beteille [1974:61] applies the con- moved from homogeneity to a consider- peasants as small agricultural producers cept of peasants, as formalised in Shanin's able degree of heterogeneity. who with the help ol simple equipment definition, to the empirical realities of the To start with, there is occupational and family labour produce mainly tor their tribes in Chhotanagpur and shows that the differentiation in tribal society. One can own consumption anti for the fulfilment realities there approximate to the concept find in the same society people who are of their obligation to the holders of peasant more than the realities obtaining engaged in agriculture (shifting or settled) political and economic power. elsewhere among comimunities that have or commerce. There are others who work There has been mucli inquiry in anthro- g,-nerally been described as peasants, as landless agricultural labourers, quarry/ pology with regard to the extent to which The study of tribes as communities has mine workers, stone crushers, plantation tribal people in India can be regarded givenas way to 'village studies'. Indeed, workers or industrial workers. And still peasants. The inquiry arises from the tact village studies are seen as different from, others are lawyers, doctors, teachers. that not all the coimmunities described as or alternative to, tribal studies. There isgovernment servants, politicians, etc. tribes stand at the same level of develop- little doubt that this way of contrasting Along with occupational differentiation ment. Accordingly, tribes have been clas- tribal studies with village studies is adirect there have been differences of wealth and sified on the basis of the characteristic consequence of the lalse opposition be- income, giving rise to social stratification mode ol livelihood. Bose [1971:4-51, ior tween tribe and peasant posed in anthro- in the form of class not only in the quali- example, divided the tribal people into: pological writings. The dichotomy posed tative as well as the quantitative sense. ( ) hunters, fishers and gatherers; (2) shift- between caste and tribe in the study of There have also been differences of ing cultivators: (3) settled agriculturists In(dian society has also led to a dichotomy religion, ideology, values, political orien- using plough and plough cattle: between the concepts of tribe and peasant. tation, way of life, etc, among the mem- (4) nomadic cattle-keepers, artisans, ag- Indian society has been seen not only bers as of a tribal community. In view of all ricultural labourers; and (5) plantation and a caste society but also as a peasant so- this, it is generally held that a given iribal industrial workers. Some of these are con- ciety. The two in fact have been seen as society has become like any other com- sidered no different from the non-tribal co-terminus. Conversely, communities ponent of Indian society and hence that peasant population. The process of identified as tribes are not treated as society is no longer a tribal society. peasantisation among tribes in Indian peasants and assumed to make a living in BASIS FOR MISCONSTRUCTION history is attributed largely to cultural ways that are different from those of the contact with the non-tribal world. It has larger caste society. Correspondingly. Elsewhere in the world, tribes are stud- also been attributed to the development tribes in India are seen apart not only ied from in their own right and against the strategy of Indian stale especlally after the caste dimension of Indian society backdrop but of the processes at work in those independence. also from the peasant dimension. Hence societies. Unlike in India. they are not In support o)t the theory of the transfor- any tribal community which has been studied against the end point represented mation of tribes into peasants some schol- making a living in the same way as theby communities that are seen to be part ars have tocused on the fact that tribes larger community is said to be either ofin civilisation. Whereas elsewhere the have moved away from hunting/fishing orthe process of becoming a peasant society focus of study has been on how tribes are shifting agriculture t terraced or settled or already one. Either in the process changingof and becoming nationalities or agriculture. Others note that tribes have ceasing to be a tribal society or already nations in the process, the focus in India shifted to plough agriculture. In fact, more a non-tribal society. Does it mean that has been on how tribes are becoming castes, often than not lribes have been described thlere is nothing left of the attributes as- peasants and stratified communities. And as peasants without the criteria used for sociated with the tribe in th. changed since these are the features which defining peasants being adequately ap- situation of the peasantisation process'? characterise Indian society in general, tribes

Economic and Political Weekly June 12, 19991 523

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.115 on Tue, 06 Mar 2018 11:21:22 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms are viewed as being absorbed into the overlooked the context in which the term References larger society, in the process losing total 'tribe' has come to be used in Indian identity. society: in the Indian context tribes Bailey, are F G (1961): 'Tribe' and 'Caste' in India. contributions to Indian (5). Such an empirical and conceptual scen- identified and described primarily in terms Beteille, A (1960): 'The Definition of Tribe ario in the study of tribes exists in India of their being outside civilisation. Such Seminar, (14). precisely because of (1) the way tribes problems may not arise when tribes do- (1974): not Six Essays in Comparative Sociology, have been conceptualised in the anthro- coexist with non-tribal societies. Indeed, Oxford University Press, Delhi. pological literature and (2) the reference problems of the type referred to -above (1986): 'The Concept of Tribe with Special in terms of which they have been inves- could be overcome by the use of the term Reference to India', Journal of European tigated. In nutshell, tribes have been stud- 'indigenous people' - but not without Sociology (27). - (1995): 'Construction of Tribe', The Times of ied not in their own right but only in giving rise to problems of a different di- India. June 19. relation to the general Indian society, the mension. There is then something clumsy Bose, N K (1941): 'The Hindu Method of Tribal overriding features of which are caste, and basically wrong with the use of theAbsorption', Science and Culture (7). term 'tribe' in the Indian context. peasant status and social differentiation. - (1971): Tribal Life in India, Government In the conceptualisation of tribes in Publications, Delhi. TRIBE AS COMMUNITY anthropology, three distinct but inter- Elwin, V (1944): The Aboriginals, Oxford related strands are intertwined. Tribes are In view of all this what is suggested as University Press, Bombay. first of all invariably seen as society. It the term of reference for the study of tribes Foster, G M (1953): 'What Is Folk Culture?' is a society like all other societies. That in India is the terms that tribal people American Anthropologist (55) 2. Ghurye. G S (1963): The Scheduled Tribes. is, it is made up of people; it has bound- themselves use to identify themselves and Popular Prakashan, Bombay. aries (people who either belong or do not). as they are identified by the people inGodelier, M (1977): Perspectives in Marxisr People belong to a society by virtue of the adjacent habitations. It is common expe- Anthropology, Cambridge University Press, rules under which they stand, rules which rience that groups and communities Cambridge. impose on them regular, determinate ways brought under the broad category of tribe Hardiman, D (1987): The Coming of the Devi: of acting towards and in regard to one generally see say, as santhals, oraons, Adivasi Assertion in Western India, Oxford another. The characteristic of a tribe as a khasis or garos and not as tribesmen. Even University Press, Delhi. society is related through its boundaries. in history this was how groups now iden- Kosambi, D D (1975): The Culture and At the same time, boundaries have been tified as tribes were identified and ad- Civilisation of Ancient India in Historical Outline, Vikas Publishing House, Delhi. defined linguistically, culturally and po- dressed. Ray [1972:8-10] points to this Mandelbaum,in D (1970): Society in India: Change litically by anthropologists. Boundaries his introductory essay in the volume 'Tribal and Continuity, University of California Press. set certain limit of interaction in the legal Situation in India'. He says, we know that Berkeley political, economic and social relations of there were 'janas' or communities of people Oommen, T K ( 1995): Alien Concepts and South its members. like the savaras, the kullutas, the lollas, Asian Reality, Sage Publications, Delhi. Secondly, a tribe is also seen as a the bhillas, the khasas, the kinnaras and Pathy, Jaganath (1992): 'The Idea of Tribe and distinctive type of society. Godelier countless others whom today we know as the Indian Scene' in Buddhadeb Chaudhun, Tribal Transformation in India, vol iii, Inter- (1977:30), for example, sees tribal societ- 'tribes' and who bear almost the same India Publications, Delhi. ies as being characterised by certain names. Yet the term by which they were Ray, Niharranjan (1972): 'Introductory Address' positive and negative features, the nega- known to the multitudes of people were in K S Singh, Tribal Situationn Indi(a. IAS, tives being the absence of literacy, not 'tribes' but 'janas' meaning 'commu- Shimla. civilisation, industrialisation, speciali- nities of people'. Redfield, R ( 1956): Peasant Society and Culture. sation, etc. The positive features are those If tribes are studied as janas, the prob- An Anthropological Approach to Civilisation, absent in modern societies: social rela- lems we are confronted with when we use Chicago University Press, Chicago. tions based on kinship bonds, all-perva- the term 'tribe' will be overcome. Such Roy-Burman, B K (1972): 'Tribal Demography: sive religion, frequency of co-operation an approach will enable us to assess trans- A Preliminary Appraisal in K S Singh (ed), Tribal Situation in India, IIAS, Shimla. for common goals, etc. Thirdly tribes formationsare occurring in tribal society in - (1983): 'Transformation of Tribes and seen as representing a socio-political the direction of caste, peasant, social Analogous Social Formation', Economic jand formation which with the passage of time differentiation or religion without ques- Political Weekly 18(27). will move on to a new stage such as nation, tioning distinctive identity of the group - (1994): Tribes in Perspective, Mittal nationality or nationhood. concerned. It means that the terms of Publications, Delhi. While these three approacnes have gone reference in tribal studies are not to be Shanin, T (ed) (1973): Peasants and Peasant into the making of the concept of tribe, such categories as caste, peasanthood and Societies, Penguin Press, Hammondsworth. the last two have overshadowed the first. social heterogeneity but groups or com- Sinha, S C (1958): 'Tribal Culture of Peninsular India as a Dimension of Little Tradition in What has happened in the process is that munities such as the Bengalis, the the Study of Indian Civilisation - A tribes have been primarily seen as a stage Assamese and the Gujaratis. The counter- Preliminary Statement', Journal of American and type of society. They are seen as parts of tribes are not castes or peasants Folklore (71). primitive, simple, illiterate and backward but communities or societies incorporat- - (1962): 'State Formation and Rajput Myth in societies. With the onset of changes in the ing castes and peasants. The latter are not Tribal Central India', Man in India 42(1). features that constitute its specific features whole societies but only elements of -(1965): 'Tribe-Caste and Tribe-Peasant Continua through education, specialisation, mod- wholes. Tribes on the other hand are in Central India', Man in India, 45(1). ern occupations, new technology, etc, tribal whole societies each with its own lan- - (ed) (1987): Tribal Politics and State System in Pre-Colonial Eastern and North Eastern society is no longer considered tribal guage, territory, culture, customs and so India, CSSS, Calcutta. society. It is described as having become on. Generally speaking therefore, they Singh, K S (1993): 'Marginalised Tribals', caste society, peasant society or a socially- must be compared with other societies Seminar (412) differentiated society as the case may be. and not, with castes, as has been the case Vidyarthi, L P and B N Rai (1977): The Tribal What has happened is that anthropolo- in sociological and anthropological Culture in India, Concept Publishing gists and other social scientists have writings. Company, Delhi.

1524 Economic and Political Weekly June 12, 1999

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.115 on Tue, 06 Mar 2018 11:21:22 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms