Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Transformation of Tribes in India Terms of Discourse
Transformation of Tribes in India Terms of Discourse
Transformation of Tribes in India Terms of Discourse
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
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
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.