TRIBES in INDIA: An Perspective [Dr Satish Ganjoo]

Tribal people form a major segment of the world population and are called by different names like aboriginals, indigenous, primitive, native and so on. The word “tribe”is derived from the Latin term – tribus, which was applied to the three divisions of the early people of Rome. Now it is used for a group of people consisting of a number of clans. With the growth of nationalism in Europe, the term ‘tribe’ came to denote a race of people living with a given territory.

India has been a vibrant and viable mix of languages, religions and cultures since prehistoric times. A large number of tribal people also inhabit here. According to Census of 2011, they are 8.6% (104 million) of total population and are believed to be the earliest settlers in the country. Tribes live in different regions of Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, North-Eastern states, Andaman and Nicobar. The term ‘Adivasi’, meaning the original or first inhabitants, is used for tribes in India; though it is now agreed that many of them appeared at different historical periods. It is also believed that prior to the caste system, people were divided into different tribes.

The term ‘Adivasi’ carries the specific meaning of being the original inhabitants of a region. It was specifically coined for that purpose in 1930s with a deliberate attempt to divide society in tribes and castes by the British. Atavika, Vanavasi (forest dwellers) and Girijan (hill people) are also used for tribes in India. However, the tribes were never considered untouchables by the caste-Hindus or main-stream society. The origin of some tribes, like Garasia and Bhilala, was the result of intermarriages between the Rajputs and Bhils. They enjoyed autonomy and sustained their own kingdoms in Central India and other regions. They are very much the part of main-stream society and composite Indian culture.

Western writers in India, known as Orientalists, followed by anthropologists and sociologists, used the term ‘tribe’ with western definition and argued that tribes in India belong to three reces --- the Negritos, the Mongoloids and the Mediterranean. They advocated that Negritos were the earliest inhabitants of the Indian Peninsula. The Mongoloid race is represented by the tribal people in the sub-Himalayan region. Even they were divided into two categories --- the Palaco Mongoloids, living in Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Manipur; and, Tibeto Mongoloids in Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh. The Mediterranean people are represented by the Dravidians. These Western scholars also coined the theory that after so-called Aryan invasion, there was a protracted struggle between the Aryans and the Dravidians. The conquered Dravidians were reduced to low status and called “Sudras”. Those Dravidians who escaped defeat maintained their independent status and are believed to be the forerunners of the various tribes in India. It is also believed that the builders of Indus Valley Civilization might have been the aboriginal people of India and their extinction is attributed to the disastrous alteration of the course of the Indus river. Another vague explanation put forward by some scholars like Stephen Fuchs is that so-called Aryan invaders might have destroyed the centres of Harappan Civilization. No doubt, this conclusion is drawn on the discovery of unburried skeletons on the steps of a building in Mohenjodaro; but, there is also no clear evidence from the archaeological excavations whether they spoke Dravidian languages. A thorough study of historical sources reveal that the sub-continent of India has been the cradle of different indigenous cultures and civilizations since ancient times, which developed into mainstream society. Every tribe, caste and clan contributed its share and were incorporated into this society of composite culture and heritage.

The ancient scriptures of the Vedic period contain some references of conflict between the Aryans from the north-western region of India and non-Aryans. In the later Vedic period (1000-600 BC), this struggle between the two continued. But this never proves that Aryans migrated from other countries or regions. It could have been a power or class struggle between the two indigenous groups or regions. According to Kosambi, aryanisation of the Tribals and tribalization of the Aryans was on as a two-way process. During the early phase of historical period, some tribal pockets were subjugated by invaders, not Aryans. Ajatasatru destroyed the tribal republic of Vaisali and Alexander wiped out tribal settlements on the north-western borders of India. But then invaders are invaders and they never make a difference on the basis of caste, race or religion.

It is literally difficult for a given social grouping to decide whether it is a caste or a tribe. Historians and anthropologists believe that caste endogamy reflect the once-tribal origins of various groups who now constituted the settled-Hindu caste. This support the theory all people have their origin from tribes. It is very important and require a thorough study. Another feature of caste-Hindu society, which is used to distinguish them with Muslims and other social groups, is lineage (clan or ‘gotra’) and village exogamy. Indian tribes, including the Muslim Gujjars of Kashmir and the Kalas of Pakistan, observe these exogamous traditions in common with caste-Hindus. This proves that the Aryans, the Dravadians, the Tribals, the caste-Hindus --- were all the part and parcel of mainstream society, incorporated together by the close bonds of culture and heritage.

The participation of tribals in sub-Puranic and epic traditions prove that they were always part and parcel of mainstream Indian society. Western or European parameters to distinguish between tribals and mainstream society cannot apply here. Ancient literary works ---n Ramayana, Mahabharata, Dharma Sutra (600-300 BC), Manusmriti (200 BC – 200 AD), Panchatantra, Kathasarita Sagara, Vishnu Purana, Kadambari and Harsha-Charita give hundreds of descriptions revealing the close interaction between the tribals and non-tribals. No doubt, during 400-1000 AD, the process of sanskritisation by Brahmin priests and preparing of suitable genealogies for themselves affected the society as a whole and not tribals only. The mechanism of Brahmins was simply a process of improving their position in local caste hierarchy.

With the advent of Muslim invaders in the 11th and 12th centuries, some Rajputs --- who did not submit to invaders, took asylum in tribal areas. It was during the Moghul rule (12th – 18th century AD) that the tribal and non-tribal rulers in Central India and Bihar were forced to show their allegiance to the Turko-Afghan and Mughal rulers. Persian, Greek and other hordes of nomadic invaders also disturbed the tribal and non-tribal regions alike. People were forced to convert to Islam. However, even after conversion to Islam, they retained their identity and remained connected to their roots. Muslim saints, missionaries and refugees also played a major role in the conversion of people to Islam both tribals and caste-Hindus. Kashmiri Pandits --- who were given three choices of conversion, exile or death; are the best example of brutal tyranny in caste-Hindus.

The British authorities and missionaries tried to change the whole political, social, cultural and economic scenario of India for their own interests. The British rule in India can be divided into three stages:

1. 1756-1858: Period of British conquests, annexations and consolidation,

2. 1858-1905: Period of apparent association,

3. 1905-1947: Period of divide and rule.

Every effort was made to convert the tribals and other economically poor people into Christianity. This process of conversion is still on in the remote and far flung areas. During the last few decades tribes from Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand have been converted to Protestant groups.

The majority of tribes in India practice Hinduism. It is asserted by some anthropologists that much of what constitutes folk Hinduism today is actually descended from as amalgamation of tribal traditions, customs, idol worship practices and deities. At the Lingaraj Temple in Bhubaneshewar, there are Brahmin and Badu (tribal) priests. Some scholars believe that Indian tribals are close to the romantic ideal of the ancient Silvan culture of the Vedic people. Madav Sadashiv Golwalkar said: ‘’ The tribals can be given yajnopavita ….. They should be given equal rights and footings in the matter of religious rights, in temple worship, in the study of Vedas and, in general, in all our social and religious affairs …..’’

In the 18th century, the British consolidated the feudalism in India under the Jagirdari and Zamindari systems. Permanent Settlement was imposed in Bengal and Bihar. Land, both forest areas belonging to tribals and agriculture land of non-tribals, was made the legal property of British – designated landlords (Zamindars). People resented the British exploitation and encroachment in the forests and over agriculture land. There were a number of revolts and uprisings against the imperialist attitude of the British:

1. Great Kuki Moment (1860)

2. Halba Revolt (1774-79)

3. Chakma Uprising (1776-87)

4. Chuar Uprising in Bengal (1795-1800)

5. Bhopal-patnam Struggle (1795)

6. Khurda Uprising in Orissa (1817)

7. Bhil Uprising (1822-57)

8. Paralkot Uprising (1825)

9. Tarapur Uprising (1842-54)

10. Maria Uprising (1842-54)

11. First Freedom Struggle by Sidu Murmu and Kanu Murmu (1856-57)

12. Bhil Uprising started by Tanya Tope in Banswara (1858)

13. Koi Uprising (1859)

14. Gond Uprising started by Ramji Gond in Adilabad (1860)

15. Muria Revolt (1876)

16. Rani Uprising (1878-82)

17. Ist Rampa Uprising in Vizagapatnam (now Visakhapatnam District, 1879)

18. Santhal Uprising (1885-86)

19. Bhumkal Uprising (1910)

20. The Kuki Uprising in Manipur (1917-19)

21. IInd Rampa Uprising (1921-23)

22. Munda Revolt

23. Yadav Uprising

In United Kingdom, the cunsus was largely a secular institution for collection and presentation of data. But in colonial India, census was started with different purpose in 1872. Conscious attempts were made to introduce the elements of religion, caste and race to divide the people on one pretext or other. The imperialist British were interested to know about the land and people under their control. Earlier the work on gazetteers was begun by W. W. Hunter under the orders of Lord Mayo. Several volumes of Imperial Gazetteer of India aqnd Census Reports covered large subjects dealing with land and people of India. When the British had every detail, they made a strategy to divide the people of India on the basis of race, religion and caste to rule over and exploit them. Since racism dominated the minds of colonialists, it was used as first order classification of Indian population followed by religion, caste and sects. Following is the scheme of British classification adopted in Indian censuses during the colonial rule:

I: Indo-Aryans

A: Hindus –

Hindu Brahmanic, (b) Hindu (Aryan-Vedic Theists), (c) Hindu (Brahmo-Eclectic Theists). 

B: Sikh

C: Jain

D: Buddhist

II: Iranian -

A: Zorosastrian (Parsi)

III: Semitic -

A: Muslims

B: Christians

C: Jews

IV: Primitive –

A: Animistic (Latin ‘animus’, believes that non-human entities – animals, plants and inanimate 

Objects or phenomena possess a spiritual essence).

V: Miscellaneous –

In colonial census every effort was made to build categories designed according to the motion of race, caste and religion. It was a master stroke of British diplomacy in India. The reconstruction of heterogeneous and rival communities was the launching pad through which divide and rule was possible. This was important for the existence of colonialism in India. British introduced the concepts and categories of race, religion and caste in India according to colonial perception of Indian society as primordial pre-capitalist entities. Earlier the boundary line between different communities in India was obscure and communal consciousness lacking. The people in India were turned into enumerated communities through census and later into political into political communities by the instruments and mechanism of colonial policy of divide and rule. As such the demographic divide was brought to the centre stage of communal politics. British were aware that to consolidate their position in India, they have to exploit the diversities of Indian people. With this purpose they coined the vague theories of Aryan invasion; tribals and non-tribals; caste-Hindus and stream-lined society; primitive and semitic; and, all that.

Independent India has inherited this legacy from the British and continued the agenda of the construction of communities on the basis of race, religion, caste and region. The impact of colonial census on communal relations and communal politics in India has been little explored by researchers and need a thorough study to bring out the facts and correct the manipulated perceptions of history.