Chapter 1 Introduction Indian society is made of castes, tribe, religions, and nomadic communities. The nomadic communities are outside of the caste system. In India, about five hundred different communities of mobile herders, foragers and peripatetics have been estimated, and their population is roughly mentioned seven per cent of the total.1 The Kaikadi is one of the ex-criminal, nomadic communities in India. The present study is on occupational mobility among the Kaikadis and its impact on social mobility. The Oxford Dictionary of Sociology defines nomads or nomadism as groups who move from place to place, without a year-round permanent residence.2 Anthropologists have classified nomads into two broad types based on their economic activities. They classified all the nomads either as hunter-gatherers or pastoralists by the extent to which they are independent of other sedentary groups. A third nomadic group, gypsies are excluded from the classical typology. However, the term nomad encompasses three general types: nomadic hunters and gatherers, pastoral nomads, and tinker or trader nomads. Nomadic communities move from one place to another to for sustenance. Their physical movement is based on their economic activities. According to their economic activities, nomads are classified differently by scholars. Raghaviah has classified nomadic communities in India as well as all over the world into five broad categories: (i) food gatherers (ii) pastoral nomads (iii) trader/seasonal nomads (iv) criminal nomads and (v) beggar nomads.3 Aparna Rao and Michael Casimir classified nomads into three 1 Apama Rao and Michael J. Casimir: '•Nomadism in South Asia An Introduction", in Aparna Rao and Michael J. Casimir (ed.), Nomadism in South Asia, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2003, pp.5-6. : Gordon Marshall (ed.): The Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, Oxford University Press, New York. 1998, p.451. ' V. Raghaviah: Nomads, Bharateeya Adimjati Sevak Sangh. Delhi, 1968. 1 economic categories: (i) pastoralists or animal husbanders, primarily endogamous communities economically dependent on livestock (ii)foragers/hunter-gathers/gatherer- hunter, whose principal economic and traditional subsistence life consists of gathering/collecting and/or hunting and who have no regular access to cultivable land, and (iii) peripatetics, primarily non-food producing itinerant communities subsisting on the sale of self-produced goods, specialized services to sedentary and nomadic clients.4 Arora and Haldar have classified nomadic communities into eight types on the basis of economic activities maintained by nomadic communities in British India. These are: (i) hunters and food-gatherers (ii) traders, involved in selling and buying of cattle, buffaloes and merchandise sell of salt and tamarinds, jaggery, etc. and the hawkers, dependent on sale and purchase of honey, wax, arrow-roots, resins, gums, stick, lac and iron (iii) beggars and fortune tellers (iv) acrobats, jugglers, conjurers and showmen (v) labourers at household chores, agricultural works, cool mining works, road building works, etc. (vi) makers and sellers of different articles prepared with wood, grass, leaves and iron (vii) quacks who obtain their living by selling herbal medicines and (viii) nomads who gain sustenance through means other than the above occupations.5 In view of the above classification, the Kaikadis could be categorised as a peripatetic community notified as criminal tribe in the colonial period. Their notification as a criminal tribe was made a basis for their identification and stigmatization. The stigma of criminality becomes a crucial factor for their social status. Taking into account the importance of this aspect, it is necessary to discuss the construction of Criminal Tribes Act, 1871 and notification of nomadic people as criminal tribes. The Construction of Criminal Tribes Act, 1871 In the colonial period, some of the nomadic communities in India were classified as criminal tribes by British rulers. To maintain law and order, and to control the criminal activities of persons and groups, the Criminal Tribes Act (CT A) was created in 1871. 4 Aparna Rao and Michael J. Casimir: op.cit. pp. 5-6. 5 Sushil Arora and A.K. Haldar: "Economy of the Nomadic Communities of India", Man in India, Vol. 74, No. 2, 1994, pp.181-191. 2 The construction of criminal tribes has been discussed in three parts. The first part is on the impact of economic policies on the livelihood of nomadic communities under the colonial rule. In the second part, the discussion is about the perception of criminality and the nomadic communities in Europe, particularly in England and causes of the creation of CTA. The third part discusses the stigmatization of nomadic communities and its impact. A. Colonial Policy and the Destruction of the Livelihood of Nomadic Communities The economic policies and infra-structural developments introduced by the British government ruined the traditional means of livelihood of nomadic communities. The British government introduced trade regulation policy, land acquisition policy and forest policy which affected the livelihood of nomadic communities. The British government wanted to control inland trade. Trade in salt, brass and bell metal vessels was monopolised by some communities such as Banjara and Yerukula (Korava). Before the entry of the East India Company into the salt trade, the Banjaras had a monopoly over the transport of salt in Berar, the Central Provinces and Deccan. They carried and distributed salt across the regions. The salt imported from Nagpur to distribute in the whole Central Provinces was near about 600,000 maunds annually. Apart from Zamindars and ryots, the Banjaras employed about forty or fifty thousand bullocks for this work. It proves the significant role of Banjaras in the salt trade. The Banjaras' trade in salt was seen as smuggling because the salt was imported into the Company's territory of Bengal. By declaring it as illicit or smuggled salt, the Company devastated the long established trade of the indigenous community. The Korava community met the same fate in Madras presidency. The community was a trader both in grain and salt. From 1805 onwards, according to the British government's new salt policy, it was mandatory for traditional manufacturers to sell salt to the government. Salt, which was purchased at a low fixed price from traditional 6 Nitin Sinha: "Mobility Control and Criminality in Early Colonial India, 1760s-l850s", The Indian Economic and Social History Review, Vol. 45, No. 1, 2008, pp. 1-33. 3 manufacturers, was resold at a higher price to petty salt traders like the Koravas. This policy affected the salt trading of Koravas. The Korava community first lost their long- established consumers and afterwards their traditional trade in salt. As regards revenue policies, a colonial document of 1853 enlightens us on the subject. The document titled India Reform: The Government of India since 1834 itself alludes on the destitution of itinerant traders. It argues that: 'The people of Madras complain that the whole framework of society has been overthrown to their injury, and almost to their ruin. They complain that salt, the only condiment for their tasteless rice and without which neither they nor their cattle can live, is a Government monopoly. They complain that not only are they taxed for their shops in towns, and for stalls and sheds on roadsides, but for each tool and implement of their traders, nay, for their knives, . They complain that in order to raise revenue from ardent spirits, the government is forcing drunkenness on them; "a vice", they add, •'forbidden by Hindoo and Mahommedan law'V8 Along with new trade policies, infrastructural developments destroyed the occupations of nomadic communities. In 1850s, for transportation of raw material and manufactured goods, the railway network was constructed. The introduction of railways changed the trading structure in India. For instance, traditionally, the Koravas operated pack- bullocks for distribution of salt - this was overtaken by the railways. Consequently with the introduction of railways, a new section of wholesale railway traders emerged. The Koravas become obligated to buy salt from the traders at a price they demanded and they lost a number of salt selling points across the railways route. In 1904, the Madras District Gazetteer for the Bellary District of southern India described the impact of railways on the Korachas and the Lambads. It reported that: 'The railways again, have robbed some of the people of their only employment. Before the days of trains the 7 Meena Radhakrishna: Dishonoured by History: •criminal tribes ' and British colonial policy, Orient Longman, New Delhi, 2001, p.32. 8 India Reform: The Government of India since 1834, Source: Knowsley Pamphlet Collection, 1853. p. 25. 9 Meena Radhakrishna: op.cit. p.33. 4 wandering Korachas and Lambadis lived by trading with the west coast, driving down there once or twice a year large herds of pack-cattle laden with cotton, piece-goods, etc., and returning with salt, areca, cocoanut and so forth.'10 The Lamanis were the nomadic transporters and petty traders. They were engaged as transporters of supplies to the Mughal army and petty trader during peacetime until the eighteen fifties. With the introduction of mechanized transport and opening of railways and roads by the British Government they lost their traditional occupation of transporting merchandise on the back of pack-bullocks along country tracks." The Banjara community was nomadic. By the time of the Mughals, they were recognized as skilled transport workers and grain sellers. They used the oxen for trade purposes. In the British period, technological improvements in transportation, i.e. metalled roads and the railway system adversely affected their trade.12 In the name of the environment, the forest policies also devastated the subsistence of nomadic communities. Several nomadic communities subsisted on hunting, gathering and bartering forest produce, i.e. on forest resources. The forest laws prevented their free access to forest. It prevented them from collecting forest produce and free grazing of cattle.