Transformation of Tribes in : 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: 18/11/2014 03:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. 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].

.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 14.139.45.242 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 03:22:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Transformationof 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 Indiansociety which are officially des- sciousnessand the social relationsof the serious effort towards a distinction is ignatedas scheduledtribes. These groups peopleat large.They havealso hada long reflected in the later censuses. Risley and haveall beenundergoing changes. These history.Such has not been the case with Gait, in charge of the 1901 and 1911 changeshave been observed and described the categoryof the tribe:it was addedto censuses respectively, added 'so-called by a variety of persons for nearly 100 the list mentionedabove by the Britishin animists' in the table for caste and others. years,but theirconsequences and impli- the 19thcentury. That categoryis hence Marten followed the same pattern in the cationshave been seriously misconstrued. seen as a colonial construction[Beteille 1921 Census, except that he changed the Theconventional wisdom among anthro- 1995:Singh 1993].Even so, ithas come to heading from 'animism' to 'tribal reli- pologists has been that when a tribe be extensivelyused in socialscience litera- gion'. Hutton continued with the distinc- undergoeschange through a loss of iso- turein general and sociological and anthro- tion between tribes and others in terms of lationand through close integrationwith pologicalliterature in particularasan aid to religion and tribes were distinguished from thewider society, sooner or later, and with an understandingof Indiansocial reality. not in terms of caste or caste-like features. unfailingregularity, it becomes a caste. When the British began to write on For Huttonthe tribe-castedistinction could Whilethis may have been true to a greater Indiansociety, the term 'tribe' was used be maintained only thus. or lesser extent till the forties, the argu- in generalparlance in morethan one sense: Tribes were thus defined as those that mentis no longervalid. Yet anthropolo- in referenceto a groupof peopleclaiming practised 'animism'. Of course those in gists havegone on makingsuch a general- descentfrom a commonancestor, and in charge of the census operations were not isation- anddespite inadequacy of data, referenceto a groupliving in a primitive satisfied with this basis of demarcation of concept and argumentto supportit. orbarbarous conditions. The former usage the tribes. They were of the view that there Now, while tribescontinue to undergo has a longer historythan the one which were difficulties in distinguishing the changesof many kinds, these no longer became prevalentafter the colonial en- religion of the tribes from that of the lower transformthem into castes. The Oraons counter.Yet it is in the sense thatdevel- strata of Hindu society. Keeping these todaypractise various religions and speak oped later(the primitivestage of living) observations in mind Ghurye [1963:205] more thanone language;they earn their thatthe term 'tribe' has come to be mainly went to the extent of observing that so- livelihoodfrom a varietyof occupations, conceptualisedin anthropologicalwrit- called aboriginals who form the bulk of bothagricultural 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 significantsense. They have not become The early Britishwritings on Indiadid best described as 'backward Hindus'. a caste with any definite standingin the notstudy groups or communitiesfrom the In the post-independence period one castehierarchy. This argumenthas impli- caste/tribeperspective. The groupswere finds more systematic efforts to distin- cationsnot only for the understandingof studiedin theircapacity as humangroup- guish tribe from caste. And yet, scholars tribes but also for the understandingof ings or communities.Their description in have not arrivedat systematically worked- Indian society as a whole. The most caste/tribeterms was a laterphenomenon. out criteria to this day. It has generally importantimplication is that new castes It is thereforenot very clear in whichsense been assumed that tribe and caste repre- are no longerbeing formed,whether, by the Britishethnographers used the term sent two different forms of social the transformationof tribesinto castesor 'tribe' in India, especially in the early organisations - castes being regulated by by other means. Tribes have become phase.The impressionone gets is thatthe the hereditary division of labour, hierar- peasantsand socially differentiatedenti- usage in the sense of common ancestry chy, the principle of purity and pollution, ties but, contraryto views held, without mayhave been more in vogue.References civic and religious disabilities, etc, and any loss of their distinctiveidentities. to the ,ahir and jat 'tribes'as well tribes being characterised by the absence as the interchangeableuse of the terms of the caste attributes. CASTEAND TRIBE 'tribe'and 'caste' in 18thcentury writings The two types of social organisations Diversity or heterogeneityhas been on India tends to support such view. are seen as being governed by different termedone of the hallmarksof Indian Ethnographersevidently had difficulty principles. It is said that kinship bonds society.Religion, language, region, caste differentiatingone fromthe otherat least govern tribal society. Each individual is and tribehave been consideredto be the in the initial stage. hence considered equal to the others. The most importantdistinctions. But not all In the censusreports of 1881,when the lineage and clan tend to be the chief unit of themhave been conceptually and theo- first 'proper'all-India census was under- of ownership as well as of production and reticallyas contentiousas the categoryof taken, the term used was not 'tribe' but consumption. In contrast, inequality, tribe.It has generallybeen said that the 'foresttribe', and that too as a sub-heading dependency and subordination are inte- categoriesof religion, language,region withinthe 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 14.139.45.242 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 03:22:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions thattribes do not differentiateas sharply the rest of the population and had no rungs of Hindu society, and (4) groups as caste groupsdo betweenthe utilitarian interaction or interconnection with them. fully adapted to the Hindu faith and living and non-utilitarianfunction of religion. In contrast the main concern of post- in modern style. Caste groups tend to maintaindifferent colonial has been to show a The criteria of classification used by forms, practicesand behaviourpatterns 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 contrastmaintain similar relationship has, of course, been differ- that the whole aboriginal problem was one forms, practicesand behaviourpatterns ently conceptualised. Sinha [1958] views of how to enable the tribesmen of the first for both functions. 'tribe' as adimension of little traditionthat 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 differentin respectof the psychological it is seen in relation to the great tradition. to suffer the despair and degradation of dispositionof members.Tribes are said to In contrast Beteille [1986:316] views it the third. Dube classifies tribes almost take direct,unalloyed satisfaction in the more in terms of distance from state and along the lines spelt out by Elwin. Many pleasuresof the senses - in such areasas civilisation in contexts where tribe and others, including Bose and Fuchs, have food,drink, sex, danceand song - whereas civilisation coexist, as in India and the not made specific classifications but do caste people maintaina certainambiva- Islamic world. Though the distinction is mention tribes occupying either the lower lenceabout such pleasures. Further, in the maintained, the two are treated not as or the higher rungs by getting absorbed 'jati'society, the village is expectedto be isolated but in interaction with each other. into Hindu society. culturallyheterogeneous, with each jati Even when tribes have been conceived as Some scholars caution against such a following a uniquecombination of cus- remaining outside the state, which has conception of transformationof the tribes. tomarypractices. Tribesmen, on the other most often been the case, they have been Roy-Burman [1983-1994] in his later hand,expect theirsociety to be homoge- viewed as being in constant interaction writings points out that if the transforma- neous - or, at least, not necessarilyhet- with 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 transformationof From attempt such as these certain One of the dominant modes in which tribe into caste in the Indian context. Pathy imagesand perceptionshave been devel- the transformationof the tribal society has [ 1992:50-51 ] questions the dominanttrend oped with respectto the 'tribe' concept been conceived is in terms of a tribegetting 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;seg- the context of the past. Kosambi (1975) that the entire course of Indian history mentedcharacter of the socio-economic has referredto tribal elements being fused shows tribal elements being fused into the unit; frequentco-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 transformationof tribes into castes customs and moral codes; the youth into Hindu society. A large number of is conceived to occur through methods dormitory;a low level of technology; anthropological works of the post-inde- which have beli diversely conceptualised. commonnames, 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 attributesin termsof lated into Hindu society or tribes becom- the major method of absorption that takes whichtribes 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 numberof the ethos of caste structure and to have organisation of production. He says that groupsidentified as tribes in India.And got absorbed within it. Hence they are tribes are drawn into the non-competitive even groups that do subscribethese at- treated as hardly differentiable from system because they find protectionwithin tributeshave dissimilarities.At one end neighbouring Hindu peasantry. Some of it. Sanskritisationis seen as anothermethod there are groups that have all these fea- the well known tribes in this category are through which tribes are absorbed into turesand at the otherare those thathardly said to be bhils, bhumijs. majhis, khasas Hindu society. The other significant show these attributes.The largemajority 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 assumptionsmade about been primarily couched in terms of tribes states that the process of , tribesmore often than not have, therefore, being transformed into castes. Hinduisation and social stratification been misleadingand fallaciousto a con- Nowhere is this better reflected than in within the village could not be properly siderableextent. the classifications of tribes provided by understood unless the data are examined The only thing the tribesseem to have eminent anthropologists. Roy-Burman in the broader context of the formation of in commonis, as Beteille putsit, thatthey [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 tribesis also linkedwith politicaland (3) those negatively oriented and (4) those mation of the tribal system into the re- administrativeconsiderations, little effort indifferent to Hindu society. Vidyarthi gional caste system. has been made to examine it. [1977] talked of tribes as (1) in critically living SANSKRITISATION Ratherthe criteriahave been uncritically forests, (2) living in rural areas, (3) semi- acceptedamong social scientists. acculturated, (4) acculturated, or (5) as- Scholars have conceptualised diversely similated. Elwin [1944] four the of social TRANSFORMATIONTO CASTES envisaged processes change experi- categories of tribes: (1) purest of pure enced by tribes in contact with non-tribal The concernsof the 's ad- tribal groups, (2) groups in contact with societies. This is evident from the range of ministratorscholars gave rise to the con- the plains but still retainingthe t'ibal mode the terms used for capturingthe processes, ceptionthat tribes lived in isolationfrom of living, (3) groups forming the lower the most common being 'Sanskritisation'

1520 Economic and Political Weekly June 12, 1999

This content downloaded from 14.139.45.242 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 03:22:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 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 sorbedinto the largersociety? Well, this 'Sanskritisation'. These terms describe that tribes gain through this process? Nor may have been the case in the pastbut no different social processes at work, though have tribes made claims for higher status longer. Today, acculturationfor 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 a outsiders who impose such a status on the practicesof thedominant community rather tendency among the social scientists to tribes.In fact, even afterHinduisation tribes thanbeing part of thatsociety by assuming use them interchangeably.More often than remain by and large outside the hierarchi- a caste status. not the difficulties from the use of cal structure of Hindu If at all arising society. HINDUISATION such terms are overcome by use of such tribes have made claims they have been generic terms as 'acculturation', 'assimila- made only after they have been drawn into Is theprocess of Hinduisationsufficient tion' and 'absorption'. However, the main the larger social structure of the neigh- groundfor designating a groupas a caste? processes in terms of which the transfor- bouring Hindu and linguistic community. Is it notpossible for a tribeto be Hinduised mation of tribe into caste is interpretedare Take the case of the meteis and the koch- andyet to remainoutside the caste system, Hinduisation and Sanskritisation. rajbongshis, who unlike other tribes have andto be governedby tribalprinciples of The question is whether such processes taken to as a whole. It is not social organisation?Such questionshave as Hinduisation and Sanskritisation lead clear what caste status and caste name they eithernot been given sufficientattention to the dislocation of tribal society and assumed after adopting Hinduism. Their or have been overlookedin studieswhich pave the way for its absorption into Hindc1 claim of status was made much placetribes in a casteor civilisation frame- society. Does a tribe by virtue of accul- after their adoption of the Hindu way of work. If Hindusociety cannotbe under- turation cease to be a tribe and become life. Moreover, it was made for the whole stood otherwisethan as a caste society, a caste? Almost all the scholars referred of the community and not for a segment the transformationof tribe into caste or to earlier tend to think so. To these schol- of it. Hardly any elaborate caste differen- Hindusociety as the scholarshave been ars, tribes eventually cease to exist as tiation exists within the tribe. If at all there postulatingis problematic.Indeed, the entities independent of the caste society are brahmins, they are immigrants. In whole argumentof the transformationof from which they were earlier differenti- Manipur they are not from amongst the tribeinto caste seems to be misplacedand 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 Theoreticallyit is possible to embrace it is not true of India after independence. society. The latter too see themselves as a formof Hindufaith and practiceswith- Since acculturationor transformationof different from the meteis. out becomingpart of Hindusociety 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- organisationare inseparable,however, imperative at the very outset to examine ism as well as Bengali/Assamese with the Hinduisationalone cannot account for the the appropriateness of these terms and dominant regional community had been transformationof tribeinto 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 theirethnic needto considerother questions: do tribes the social ladder emulate the lifestyle of names than the caste name. It is not even actuallybecome partof the structureof 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. identitydo theyassume and what position Sociologists and social anthropologists The problems with the concept of do theyoccupy in thecaste hierarchy? Nor have broadened the scope of this concept Sanskritisation of tribes do not end there. is it clear whetherall groupsinvolved in to describe a certain process of change that There is also the problem of the reference the process of Hinduisationoccupy 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 arrangementamong them as in the case view it is far from appropriate. The ex- tribes (barringthose belonging to royal or of the dalits. tension is inappropriatebecause 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 invariablyemulated the in which banias, brahmins,rajputs and ceived of as tribes precisely because they and has entered into matrimonialalliances otherslive alongsidethe tribals?In fact, are outside Hindu as well as caste society. with them. Thus whereas the upper strata the natureof 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 governedmore by considerationof market The question that arises is whether to live outside Hindu society though there and economic interdependencethan by Hinduisationis the same as Sanskritisation. may have been a process of Hinduisation purity-pollutionones. Further,their lives The two are interrelated, but it may be among them. Climbing up the ladder of continueto be groundedon kinshipbonds more appropriateto describe the processes hierarchyhad not been their main concern. and the absenceof hierarchicalordering. 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 appropriateto speak of Hinduisationrather social, culturalor dependenceon up the caste ladder is not the overriding than of Sanskritisation in the context of caste society even afteracculturation int. concern among the tribes. Of course it is tribes in India. If at all tribes consider some the Hindubelief system and practices.Is not possible to conceive of the Hindu faith castes superior, it is not because of the it appropriatethen, to study people des- and practices outside organisation into caste factor per se but because their cribedas tribesfrom the perspective of the castes. Hinduisation invariably entails members happento bejagirdars,thicadars, caste structure?The anthropologistshave assuming some caste status. But the status lambardars, etc. Why do tribes Hinduise triedto find caste whereit does not exist.

Economic and Political Weekly June 12, 1999 1521

This content downloaded from 14.139.45.242 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 03:22:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions It is also to be stated that tribes have beenHinduised have shown solidarity with and thus outside the complex of notmoved into processes like Hinduisation groupsdescribed as tribesrather than as civilisation.One is not surewhether even or Sanskritisationas whole groups.The castes. afterexperiencing changes at the level of generalpattern is that only a section of In shortthe processof Hinduisationis culture,including religion and language, a tribe moves to a new patternof life, necessarybut not sufficient for tribesto a tribecan be said to havebecome a caste. providedby say Christianity,Hinduism or be integratedinto caste society. To be Muchdepends on the natureof its linkage Islam.If this is the case more often than integratedtribes must be drawninto the with the social structureof the regional, not, can we describesome membersof a social organisationof the caste. That by linguisticand caste society. Indeedwhat groupas a casteand olhers as a tribe?The and large, is not an empiricalreality. seems to this authorto be the mostcrucial of a in which featurefor the of a tribeinto empiricalreality village LANGUAGE integration tribesform a minorityand are absorbed the structureof the regionalcommunity into the Hindu fold is inappropriately The discussionabove points to the fact is not only religionand languagebut also extendedto villages and regions where thatit is not possiblefor a tribeto become theorganisational structure of theregional they may not be in a minorityand where a caste withoutbeing firstintegrated into community. even if Hinduisationoperates it may not thestructure of Hindusociety. Where such One could say thatlinguistic accultura- lead to abandonmentof tribal identity. integrationhas occurred, a veryimportant tion is more import;.ntthan religious Where. however, tribes have taken to processhas been the adoptionby the tribe acculturation.Sociologists and anthropolo- Hinduisationen bloc, they have to a great of the languageof the regionalcommu- gists have nevergiven languagethe place extent moulded themselves along caste nity. A caste as a social organisationis it deserves in interpretationof the trans- lines. They have even identified them- operativeonly withina linguisticcommu- formationof tribe into caste. And yet selves in caste termsand otherstoo have nity. Hence it is possible for a tribe to anthropologistshave arrivedat the con- addressedthem as castes ratherthan as become a caste only after it has been clusion thattribes are becoming castes or tribes. The koch-rajbongshisof assimilated into the regional linguistic getting integratedinto Hindu society. and are a case in point. But communitysuch as the Bengali or the A tribe which is drawn into a larger the phenomenonof the groupas a whole Oriyaor the Assamesecommunity. This society does not cease to operate as a movingto a differentvalue system is rather processwhich is so centralto integration society. Does a society cease, by virtue rare. Even where such a thing has hap- with the regionalcommunity and there- of culturalchange, to be a society?Does pened,it has not given rise to a hierarchi- fore caste society has been glossed over Bengali society cease to be a society in cal caste structure.The groupas a whole by sociologistsand social anthropologists. the wake of westernisation and tends in general to belong to the same In fact, it is not possibleto get integrated modernisationwithin it? Nobody ever castestratum. Nor is thegroup adequately into the caste society withoutfirst getting deniesthe existence and identity of Bengali integratedinto the caste structureof the integratedinto the linguisticcommunity. society, but if cultural transformation neighbouringregional community. Tribeshave been differentiated not only occursin a tribalsociety the generaltrend In examiningthe questionof the trans- from castes but also from the dominant is to negateits existence.Anthropologists formationof tribe into caste, it is not communityof the region.The dominant havebeen swift to incorporatetribes in the enough to look only at the relationship communityis invariablya linguisticcom- largersociety at the slightest sign of change betweentribes and caste society. Thereis munity.Besides representinga language in their life patterns. also a need to considerhow tribesthem- it also representsa set of customs,a social What the discussion points to is that selves perceivetheir equation with caste organisationand a way of life. This raises conclusionssuch as the ones reachedby society. After adopting certain Hindu an interestingquestion: should a tribe sociologists/social anthropologistsare beliefs and practices,do tribes identify which has become Hinduisedand even based on inadequateethnography, con- themselves as tribes or as castes? The 'caste-like'be treatedas a caste or as a cept and even logic. Thereis hardlyany importantroute along which tribes under- tribeif it sticks to its language?After all, inquiryinto the ways in whicha Hinduised went Hinduisationor Sanskritisationis tribehas also been conceived in opposi- tribeis linkedwith caste society andwith what anthropologistshave describedas tionto 'linguisticcommunity'. Can a group its roots. Also, no effort has been made the'religious/cultural movement'. Among be botha tribeand a casteat the same time? to ascertainwhether an acculturatedtribe the tribes,the movementis betterknown This seems far from tenable. is regulatedby caste or tribalprinciples as the Bhagat movement. Does a Hinduised, Sanskritisedtribe of social organisation.Concepts such as It is interestingto note thattribes even become a caste if it retainits language, Sanskritisationand Hinduisationare in- when they have been Hinduiseddescribe culture,customs, social practicesand so adequatefor advancingthe argumentin themselvesnot as Hindusbut as Bhagats. on? While the influenceof Hinduismor supportof transformationoftribe into caste. It is outsiders,census officials andanthro- Hinduson tribesis it does not important, TRIBE AND PEASANT pologists, who tend to describethem as make them Hindus.To be Hindus they 'Hindus'.Anthropologists have even been need to be drawn into the structureof Tribalsociety in Indiahas been studied proneto describethem as castes. Tribes, Hindusociety, which is possible only if not only in relationto caste but also in however, do not identify and designate they get drawninto the structureof the relationto peasantsociety. In social an- themselvesas belonging to differentcastes regionallinguistic community. thropologicalliterature peasant society has in the sense used and understoodby the Tribes were differentiatedfrom non- invariablybeen conceptualisedand stud- outsidersand the social scientists. No- tribeson the basisof religionalone by the ied in contrastto tribalsociety. A tribehas whereis this aspectof distinctiveidentity colonial ethnographers.But anthropolo- generallybeen defined as a more or less more glaring than in the movements gists havedistinguished tribes from others homogeneous community having com- launchedby the tribes, especially those on several criteria,the most important mon government,a commondialect and pertainingto autonomy,land, forests and beinglanguage and the social organisation common culture. employment. In these movements the of the caste. Tribeshave been treatedas But as Beteille [1960] puts it, it is one divide betweencaste and tribe has been tribes precisely because they have been thing to show the boundariesbetween relativelysharp. And yet tribesthat have outsidethe dominant regional community tribesand non-tribes or betweendifferent

522 Economic and Political Weekly June 12, 1999

This content downloaded from 14.139.45.242 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 03:22:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 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 largernon-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 in they talk of the transformationof tribe to type which is quite difterent from the more mind the segmentary system in terms of peasant. 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. tribalsocieties 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 possessionof a morality,religion and world- peasant. He characterises caste society as respects, particularlyin the area of culture. view of a corresponding order. In short, hierarchical and predominantly 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 buttas 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 the characteristicsof 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 traditionwithin 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 labourproduce mainly tor their tribes in Chhotanagpurand 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 of peasant more thanthe 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 as given 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 is government 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(diansociety 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 as bers of a tribal community. In view of all riculturallabourers; 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. among tribes in Indian and assumed to make a in peasantisation peasants living BASIS FORMISCONSTRUCTION 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 from ied in their own right and against the strategy of Indian stale especlally after the caste dimension of Indian society but backdrop of the processes at work in those independence. also from the peasant dimension. Hence societies. Unlike in India. they are not In support o)tthe 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 the by communities that are seen to be part ars have tocused on the fact that tribes larger community is said to be either in of civilisation. Whereas elsewhere the have moved away from hunting/fishing or the 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 of changing 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 tribesare 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'? characteriseIndian society in general,tribes

Economic and Political Weekly June 12, 19991 523

This content downloaded from 14.139.45.242 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 03:22:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 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 F G 'Tribe' identity. in the Indian context tribes are Bailey, (1961): and 'Caste' in India. society: contributionsto Such an and scen- identified and described in terms Indian (5). empirical conceptual primarily Beteille, A 'The Definition of Tribe ario in the of tribes exists in India of their outside civilisation. Such (1960): study being Seminar, (14). because of the tribes precisely (1) way problems may not arise when tribes do not - (1974): Six Essays in ComparativeSociology, 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). - 'Constructionof The Times ied not in their own right but only in giving rise to problems of a different di- (1995): Tribe', of relation to the Indian the mension. There is then India. June 19. general society, something clumsy Bose, N K (1941): 'The Hindu Method of Tribal features of which are caste, and with the use of the overriding basically wrong Science and Culture (7). status and Absorption', peasant social differentiation. term 'tribe' in the Indian context. - (1971): Tribal Life in India, Government In the of tribes in conceptualisation TRIBEAS COMMUNITY Publications, Delhi. 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. G S (1963): The Scheduled Tribes. is, it is made up of people; it has bound- themselves use to identify themselves and Ghurye. aries who either or do as are identified the in Popular Prakashan, Bombay. (people belong not). they by people Godelier, M (1977): Perspectives in Marxisr to a virtue of the habitations. People belong society by adjacent 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, Assertion in WesternIndia, 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 Vikas Delhi. defined and dressed. to this in Outline, Publishing House, linguistically, culturally po- Ray [1972:8-10] points Mandelbaum,D (1970): Society in India: Change Boundaries his in the volume 'Tribal litically by anthropologists. introductoryessay and Continuity,University of CaliforniaPress. set certain limit of interaction in the legal Situation in India'. He says, we know that Berkeley political, economic and social relations of therewere 'janas'or communitiesof people Oommen, T K ( 1995): Alien Conceptsand 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 BuddhadebChaudhun, Tribal Transformationin India, vol iii, Inter- (1977:30), for example, sees tribal societ- 'tribes' and who bear almost the same ies as characterised certain names. Yet the term which were India Publications, Delhi. being by by they (1972): Address' and features, the known to the multitudes of were Ray, Niharranjan 'Introductory positive negative nega- people 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 AnthropologicalApproach 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): 'TribalDemography: A in K S (ed), sive religion, frequencyof co-operation an approach will enable us to assess trans- PreliminaryAppraisal Singh for common etc. tribesare formations in tribal in Tribal Situation in India, IIAS, Shimla. goals, Thirdly occurring society - 'Transformation of Tribes and seen as a the direction of social (1983): representing socio-political caste, peasant, Analogous Social Formation',Economic jand formationwhich with the passageof time differentiation or religion without ques- Political Weekly 18(27). will moveon to a new stagesuch as nation, tioning distinctive identity of the group - (1994): Tribes in Perspective, Mittal nationalityor nationhood. concerned. It means that the terms of Publications, Delhi. Whilethese three approacnes have gone reference in tribal studies are not to be Shanin, T (ed) (1973): Peasants and Peasant into the makingof the concept of tribe, such categories as caste, peasanthood and Societies, Penguin Press, Hammondsworth. S C 'TribalCulture of Peninsular the last two have overshadowedthe first. social heterogeneity but groups or com- Sinha, (1958): Whathas in the is that munities such as the the India as a Dimension of Little Traditionin happened process Bengalis, the of Indian Civilisation - A tribeshave been seen as a Assamese and the The counter- Study primarily stage Gujaratis. PreliminaryStatement', 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 onsetof changesin the ing castes and peasants. The latter are not Tribal Central India', Man in India 42(1). featuresthat constitute its specific features whole societies but only elements of -(1965): 'Tribe-Casteand Tribe-Peasant Continua througheducation, specialisation, mod- wholes. Tribes on the other hand are in Central India', Man in India, 45(1). ernoccupations, 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 It is describedas become on. India, CSSS, Calcutta. society. having Generally speaking therefore, they K S Tribals', ora must be Singh, (1993): 'Marginalised castesociety, peasant society socially- compared with other societies Seminar (412) differentiatedsociety as the case may be. and not, with castes, as has been the case Vidyarthi, L P and B N Rai (1977): The Tribal Whathas happenedis thatanthropolo- 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 14.139.45.242 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 03:22:35 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions