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: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4408077
Accessed: 09-09-2019 10:11 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 support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://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 14.139.45.243 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 10:11:20 UTC
All use subject to https://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 th
transformation of any given tribe into a caste or just another socially stratified group, or the merger o
the tribe in the peasantry. Questioning the assumption of loss of tribal identity, this article attributes i
to the study of tribes not as communities in their own right but in terms of affinity or non-affinity wi
mainstream communities.

THERE are more than 400 groups inand caste have been rooted in the con- and pastoral castes. 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 groupspeople at large. They have also had a long reflected in the later censuses. Risley and
have all been undergoing changes. Thesehistory. Such has not been the case with Gait, in charge of the 1901 and 1911
changes have been observed and describedthe category of the tribe: it was added to censuses respectively, added 'so-called
by a variety of persons for nearly 100the 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 tribebe 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 withpological 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 withan 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 greaterIndian 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 undergohas a longer history than the one which were difficulties in distinguishing the
changes of many kinds, these no longerbecame 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 speakoped later (the primitive stage of living) observations in mind Ghurye [1963:205]
more than one language; they earn theirthat 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. Yetings. The term has thus undergone changes the scheduled tribes and who have been
they remain Oraons in some sociallyin 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 thenot 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 ofings or communities. Their description in have not arrived at systematically worked-
Indian society as a whole. The mostcaste/tribe terms was a later phenomenon. out criteria to this day. It has generally
important implication is that new castesIt is therefore not very clear in which sense been assumed that tribe and caste repre-
are no longer being formed, whether, bythe 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 becomephase. 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, withoutmay have been more in vogue. References civic and religious disabilities, etc, and
any loss of their distinctive identities. to the rajput, 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 beenon 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 14.139.45.243 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 10:11:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
that tribes do not differentiate as sharply the rest of the population and had norungs 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 ethnography 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. Thesistency. 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 of how to enable the tribesmen of the first
ently conceptualised. Sinha [1958] views
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 to suffer the despair and degradation of
it is seen in relation to the great tradition.
disposition of members. Tribes are said In contrast
to Beteille [1986:316] views itthe third. Dube classifies tribes almost
take direct, unalloyed satisfaction inmore thein 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
civilisation coexist, as in India and the
food, drink, sex, dance and song - whereas 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, inmaintained,
the the two are treated not as or the higher rungs by getting absorbed
'jati' society, the village is expected isolated
to be but in interaction with each other. into Hindu society.
culturally heterogeneous, with each Even
jatiwhen tribes have been conceived as Some scholars caution against such a
following a unique combination of remaining
cus- outside the state, which has conception of transformation of the tribes.
most often been the case, they have been
tomary practices. Tribesmen, on the other 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 necessarilywith 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 in the interpretation of tribal transforma-
been conceived is in terms of a tribe getting
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
pologists have made such observations in
structures; multi-functionality of kinship 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 shows tribal elements being fused into the
has referred to tribal elements being fused
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 of is 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. Andgot 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. ofSanskritisation 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 acculturation,
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 byunderstood 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. Vidyarthigional 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
TRANSFORMATION TO CASTES
similated. Elwin [1944] envisaged four the processes of social change experi-
categories of tribes: (1) purest of pureenced 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 modethe 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 14.139.45.243 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 10:11:20 UTC
All use subject to https://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
have tribes made claims for higher status longer. Today, acculturation for tribes
different social processes at work, though
[Hardiman 1987:158-59]. Rather it is
in actual empirical reality these processes means adopting the ideas values and
coincide and overlap. There has been a
outsiders who impose such a status on the practices of the dominant community rather
tendency among the social scientists to In fact, even after Hinduisation tribes than being part of that society by assuming
tribes.
use them interchangeably. More often remain
than by and large outside the hierarchi- a caste status.

calof
not the difficulties arising from the use 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 sufficie
tion' and 'absorption'. However, the main
the larger social structure of the neigh- ground for designating a group as a cas
bouring Hindu and linguistic community. Is it not possible for a tribe to be Hindui
processes in terms of which the transfor-
mation of tribe into caste is interpreted Take
are the case of the meteis and the koch- and yet to remain outside the caste syste
Hinduisation and Sanskritisation. rajbongshis, who unlike other tribes have and to be governed by tribal principles
The question is whether such processes taken to Hinduism as a whole. It is not social organisation? Such questions ha
as Hinduisation and Sanskritisation lead clear what caste status and caste name theyeither not been given sufficient attent
to the dislocation of tribal society and or have been overlooked in studies which
assumed after adopting Hinduism. Their
claim of kshatriya status was made much
pave the way for its absorption into Hindc1 place tribes in a caste or civilisation frame-
society. Does a tribe by virtue of accul- after their adoption of the Hindu waywork. 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- Hindu society as the scholars have been
of it. Hardly any elaborate caste differen-
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. whole In 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 meteiTheoretically it is possible to
it is not true of India after independence. society. The latter too see themselves aasform of Hindu faith and prac
Since acculturation or transformation of different from the meteis. out becoming part of Hindu soc
caste sense. If Hindu society
tribes into castes is attributed to the pro- Likewise, the integration of the koch-
cess of Sanskritisation/Hinduisation, it is rajbongshis who have embraced Hindu- organisation are inseparable,
Hinduisation alone cannot account for the
imperative at the very outset to examine ism as well as Bengali/Assamese with 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 of
do 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 rajputs 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 ritual 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 in India. If at all tribes consider some the Hindu belief system and practices. Is
it is
not possible to conceive of the Hinducastes faith superior, it is not because of theit 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 statuslambardars, 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 14.139.45.243 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 10:11:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 It is also to be stated that tribes have and thus outside the complex of
been Hinduised have shown solidarity with
not moved into processes like Hinduisationgroups described as tribes rather than civilisation.
as One is not sure whether even
or Sanskritisation as whole groups. Thecastes. after experiencing changes at the level of
general pattern is that only a section of In short the process of Hinduisation is
culture, including religion and language,
a tribe moves to a new pattern of life,necessary but not sufficient for tribes a tribe
tocan be said to have become a caste.
provided by say Christianity, Hinduism or be integrated into caste society. To Much bedepends on the nature of its linkage
Islam. If this is the case more often than integrated tribes must be drawn into withthethe social structure of the regional,
not, can we describe some members of a social organisation of the caste. That by
linguistic and caste society. Indeed what
group as a caste and olhers as a tribe? Theand large, is not an empirical reality. seems to this author to be the most crucial
empirical reality of a village in which LANGUAGE
feature for the integration of a tribe into
tribes form a minority and are absorbed the structure of the regional community
into the Hindu fold is inappropriately The discussion above points to theisfact 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 wherea caste without being first integratedcommunity.
into
even if Hinduisation operates it may not the structure of Hindu society. Where such One 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 is in interpretation of the trans-
it deserves
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 to
anthropologists have arrived at the con-
addressed them as castes rather than as become a caste only after it has been clusion that tribes are becoming castes or
tribes. The koch-rajbongshis of Assam assimilated into the regional linguisticgetting 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
society. Does a society cease, by virtue
process which is so central to integration
moving to a different value system is rather
rare. Even where such a thing has hap- with the regional community and there- of cultural change, to be a society? Does
fore caste society has been glossedBengali
pened, it has not given rise to a hierarchi- over society cease to be a society in
cal caste structure. The group as a whole the wake of westernisation and
by sociologists and social anthropologists.
tends in general to belong to the same modernisation within it? Nobody
In fact, it is not possible to get integrated
caste stratum. Nor is the group adequatelyinto the caste society without first getting
denies the existence and identity of Be
integrated into the caste structure of the society, but if cultural transform
integrated into the linguistic community.
neighbouring regional community. Tribes have been differentiated notoccurs
only in a tribal society the general t
In examining the question of the trans- from castes but also from the dominant is to negate its existence. Anthropolo
formation of tribe into caste, it is not community of the region. The dominanthave been swift to incorporate tribes i
enough to look only at the relationshipcommunity is invariably a linguistic com- larger society at the slightest sign of ch
between tribes and caste society. There ismunity. Besides representing a languagein 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
selves perceive their equation with caste
organisation and a way of life. This raises conclusions such as the ones reache
society. After adopting certain Hinduan interesting question: should a tribesociologists/social anthropologists
which has become Hinduised and even
beliefs and practices, do tribes identify based on inadequate ethnography,
themselves as tribes or as castes? The 'caste-like' be treated as a caste or as a cept and even logic. There is hardly
tribe if it sticks to its language? After inquiry
important route along which tribes under- all, into the ways in which a Hind
went Hinduisation or Sanskritisation is
tribe has also been conceived in opposi- tribe is linked with caste society and
what anthropologists have described tion
as to 'linguistic community'. Can a group its roots. Also, no effort has been
to ascertain whether an acculturated tribe
be both a tribe and a caste at the same time?
the 'religious/cultural movement'. Among
This seems far from tenable.
the tribes, the movement is better known is regulated by caste or tribal principles
as the Bhagat movement. Does a Hinduised, Sanskritised tribe of social organisation. Concepts such as
become a caste if it retain its language,
It is interesting to note that tribes even Sanskritisation and Hinduisation are in-
when they have been Hinduised describe culture, customs, social practices and soadequate 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 make as 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 not if only in relation to caste but also in
however, do not identify and designate they get drawn into the structure of the relation to peasant society. In social an-
themselves as belonging to different castesregional 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
colonial ethnographers. But anthropolo-
where is this aspect of distinctive identity generally been defined as a more or less
more glaring than in the movements gists have distinguished tribes from othershomogeneous 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, forestsbeing common culture.
and language and the social organisation
employment. In these movements of
thethe caste. Tribes have been treated as But as Beteille [1960] puts it, it is one
tribes precisely because they have beenthing to show the boundaries between
divide between caste and tribe has been
relatively sharp. And yet tribes that have tribes and non-tribes or between different
outside the dominant regional community

522 Economic and Political Weekly June 12, 1999

This content downloaded from 14.139.45.243 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 10:11:20 UTC
All use subject to https://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- because of the false dichotomy that has
peasants because they see little difference
eral. An attempt has tlerefore been made been posed between tribe and peasant.
in the way tribes make their living from the
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 they in 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 fromamong 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 partsin terms of which tribes in India have been
with part culture. Redfield 11956], for of India where peasants. especially thosestudied, 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 characteristics 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 casenever 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
tribes in Chhotanagpur and shows that the differentiation in tribal society. One can
and family labour produce mainly tor their
own consumption anti for the fulfilmentrealities there approximate to the concept find in the same society people who are
of their obligation to the holders of 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
g,-nerally been described as peasants, as landless agricultural labourers, quarry/
There has been mucli inquiry in anthro-
pology with regard to the extent to whichThe study of tribes as communities has mine workers, stone crushers, plantation
tribal people in India can be regarded given
as workers or industrial workers. And still
way to 'village studies'. Indeed,
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.
between caste and tribe in the study of
( ) hunters, fishers and gatherers; (2) shift- 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 onlybers as of a tribal community. In view of all
ricultural labourers; and (5) plantation anda 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 culturalways 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 onlyied in their own right and against the
from
strategy of Indian stale especlally afterthe caste dimension of Indian society but of the processes at work in those
backdrop
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 the by communities that are seen to be part
ars have tocused on the fact that tribes larger community is said to be either of in 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 ar
shifting agriculture t terraced or settled or already one. Either in the process changing
of 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 Indi
shifted to plough agriculture. In fact, morea 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, t

Economic and Political Weekly June 12, 19991 523

This content downloaded from 14.139.45.243 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 10:11:20 UTC
All use subject to https://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
Bailey, F G (1961): 'Tribe' and 'Caste' in India.
identity. society: in the Indian context tribes are
contributions to Indian Sociology (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 not Six Essays in Comparative Sociology,
- (1974):
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- Reference to India', Journal of European
could be overcome by the use of the term
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).
peasant status and social differentiation. term 'tribe' in the Indian context.
- (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.
Foster, G M (1953): 'What Is Folk Culture?'
first of all invariably seen as society. It the term of reference for the study of tribes
in India is the terms that tribal people American Anthropologist (55) 2.
is a society like all other societies. That
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 in
Godelier, 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.
Kosambi, D D (1975): The Culture and
society is related through its boundaries.in history this was how groups now iden-
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. Boundarieshis introductory essay in the volume 'Tribaland Continuity, University of California Press.
set certain limit of interaction in the legal Situation in India'. He says, we know thatBerkeley
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 certainnames. Yet the term by which they Ray, were
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:
A Preliminary Appraisal in K S Singh (ed),
sive religion, frequency of co-operation an approach will enable us to assess trans-
Tribal Situation in India, IIAS, Shimla.
for common goals, etc. Thirdly tribes formations
are 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. Sinha, S C (1958): 'Tribal Culture of Peninsular
social heterogeneity but groups or com-
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 becomeon. Generally speaking therefore, they
Singh, K S (1993): 'Marginalised Tribals',
caste society, peasant society or a socially- must be compared with other societiesSeminar (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 14.139.45.243 on Mon, 09 Sep 2019 10:11:20 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms