ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846 Criminalisation and Political Mobilisation of Nomadic Tribes in Uttar Pradesh RAMA SHANKER SINGH Rama Shanker Singh ([email protected]) is an independent historian, and a former fellow at the Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla. He has experience researching on riverine communities. Vol. 56, Issue No. 36, 04 Sep, 2021 This article aims to historicise the experiences of nomadic and denotified communities with respect to their encounter with colonialism, and maps their attempt at gaining political visibility and representation in Uttar Pradesh. Based on archival material and ethnographic accounts from various districts of UP, the article delineates the ways in which DNT communities have been stigmatised and excluded historically. The politics of appropriation is at work and they are being lured by the Hindutva and welfare politics of the Bharatiya Janata Party. “But unfortunately there are ten million people in India who, without any fault on their part, are described as criminal tribes from their very birth. Hundreds of thousands of men and women in India were declared as criminal tribes according to the current law. To deprive them of their rights they are declared so. No matter whether they are criminals or not, from their very birth, they are made criminals. Some provision to abolish this law must be embodied in this Resolution. I hope the mover will realize it and provide some safeguards for this Class in the Resolution” (Constituent Assembly Debates 1947). These are the words of H J Khandekar, who represented Central Provinces and Berar, during a discussion in the Constituent Assembly of India in early 1947. He highlighted the ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846 suffering, exclusion and stigma faced by the “criminal” tribes of India. His was the sole voice of concern about the issue but his resolutions did not find a place in the subsequently drafted Constitution of India. In 1952, these communities were declared “denotified.” This article tries to historicise the experience of nomadic and denotified communities with respect to their encounter with colonialism, and maps their attempt at political visibility and representation in Uttar Pradesh (UP). Through archival material and ethnographic accounts from various districts of UP, the article charts efforts made by denotified communities to build political power. Data collection for the study was carried out through open-ended questionnaires seeking to document the life world and politics of denotified communities in the Gonda and Allahabad districts of UP. The data was then corroborated with colonial archives and the modern-day governmental outlook towards these communities. The electoral mobilisation of Dalits and backward castes in India, and how they are trying to carve out a social and political space is quite visible. Using the right to vote, they have silently revolted. At the same time, there are “other groups” who are not in a position to start a revolution. They are making their space inch by inch in Indian democracy. The Making of Stigma and Exclusion The earliest texts on Indian statecraft were suspicious of wandering communities. The king was advised to exercise vigilance over them. Their physical presence and occupation was controlled by the state. The Arthashastra of Kautilya believes that actors, dancers, singers, musicians, bards, and performers should be stopped from entering the village (Olivelle 2014: 101). Historically, these communities engaged in the performing arts such as acting and singing. Among them, the Suta (story tellers) were also the oral record keepers of dynasties before the advent of the Puranas. These communities were also engaged as soldiers, physicians, keepers of horses and elephants (Thapar 2013: 97-110). The wandering communities were in a good position during medieval times, and a lot of the internal trade was dependent upon the caravans of these communities and the state was not as powerful as it subsequently was in the colonial period. So, there was space for these communities to flourish to some extent. The colonial government created a violent rupture in the life of nomads. Critical writings on nomadic and denotified tribes (DNT) in modern times investigate the controlled surveillance, oppression, discrimination, and exclusion of nomadic communities by the colonial masters. Works by Ganesh Narayan Devy (2002, 2006), Meena Radhakrishna (2001), and Bhangya Bhukya (2010) have shown the degree of exclusion and violence faced by these communities. The English came to India and formed their worldview in accordance with their colonial project of subjugation. Anthropology in colonial India was officially a project to manage information about Indian social life. Even senior police officers were being appointed as anthropologists. Data became the basis for the marginalisation and stigmatisation of many communities, especially in the periphery of mainstream society ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846 (Dirks 2015). The dignity of these communities was snatched from them and they were ousted from history (Radhakrishna 2001). In 1871, the Criminal Tribe Act (CTA) was passed, labelling about 200 communities in several provinces “criminal” communities under this act (Devy 2013). The colonial officers made significant efforts to identify several communities as born “criminals.” It gave the police control over nomadic communities. Specifically, these communities had to register themselves at the nearest police station and obtain a licence. They could not go out of their designated district without the permission of the police. If they changed their residence, information had to be supplied and permission requested. If a member of a community was not present for more than a year in their settlement without police permission, they had to suffer through three years of prison time.1 The Barwar community of Gonda was defined as a criminal tribe on 1 July 1884. Their population was recorded and their hamlets were marked.2 The Barwar revolted against British rule in India and they were patronised by Raja Devi Baksh Singh of Gonda during the mutiny of 1857 (Singh 1995: 159). The report of the Inspector General of Police of the North Western Provinces alleged that there was clear evidence to show that the Barwars of Gonda, the Saunrahiyas of Lalitpur, and the Aheria of Etah were “criminals.” The most devastating effect of the CTA was that it not only defined communities as criminal but marked rural and semi-rural spaces as dens of criminals. Controlling communities became an exercise in controlling rural spaces. Two years after the proclamation of CTA, in 1973, 11 villages in Etah were defined as belonging to born “criminals.” Forty-eight families from the Aheria community were brought under the act. The fate of Aherias of Aligarh was also the same. The Doms of Gorakhpur were also considered criminal in the last two decades of the 19th century.3 The 20th century brought ruthless rules for both wandering and settled communities. A report written by E J W Bellairs, the superintendent of police of Basti, shows that 33% of the adult male population of the Khatik community was under deep surveillance in August 1913. The state had labelled them as “criminal” in 1911. The government opened one more reformation camp and “industrial home” in Phoolpur, Allahabad for the girl children of criminal tribes. Salvation Army commissioner Booth-Tucker wrote to L Stuart, the secretary of the government of the United Provinces, that these girls should be trained in silkworm rearing, silk reeling, weaving and needle work.4 Thus, the Salvation Army and the government officers were very eager to “uplift the social and moral status” of denotified communities. It was said that these communities were a threat to civilised life and that they must be kept under state supervision. It gave “substantial reasons” to the provincial government to carry out state-controlled measures.5 These settlements wreaked much havoc in the cultural and economic life of nomadic ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846 communities, and separated them from the rest of society, both physically and legally. The opening of “criminal” case histories sheets of individuals, communities and villages at the police stations also had a detrimental impact on the social life of nomadic people. Now, they were clearly marked criminals living in a marked space. Their everyday activities became suspicious. Earlier, they were a part of the rural landscape of the country. Now, they were criminals and were disassociated from the rest of the society. It brought upon them more deprivation and penury. ‘Free’ India? While nomadic communities continued to be labelled “criminals” in independent India, this label was “denotified” in 1952 on paper. It was ironic that they were freed from one derogatory colonial identity but remained marked by another postcolonial identity. The behaviour of the police did not change, and the Habitual Offender Act,1952 re-created the conditions that caused the marginalised and stigmatised nomadic communities. Both in the colonial period and for a long time afterwards, these communities struggled to gain political power either as a political constituency that could make collective demands or via leaders who could redress the lack of skills required to access the modern system of state entitlements (Singh 2019: 54). They have made specific efforts to gain visibility in the last few decades. Many representatives from nomadic communities, along with intellectuals and social workers from across the country, are asking for their dues and compensation. In New Delhi in 2002, when the 50th anniversary of the 1952 denotification was being observed. Former Prime Minister V P Singh was present (Gupta 2015). Representatives asked for improvements in the living conditions of NT-DNT communities and for the provision of reservations. The pressure bore fruit and the state formed two commissions to understand its relationship with nomadic communities. According to the report of the National Commission for Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-nomadic Tribes headed by Balkrishna Renke (constituted in 2003), a large number of DNTs were found to be living in Uttar Pradesh.