Discuss the representation of Mary Oraon in Mahasweta

Devi's story 'The Hunt' in relation to the stereotypes

prevalent in mainstream society about her community.
Word limit: 500-800 words
1. tick
‘The Hunt’ comes as a breath of fresh air where Mary Oraon, the beautiful half white
half tribal girl has the courage and determination to take matters in her own hands
and put an end not only to her own oppression but also to a threat to her entire
community.

The events of the story revolve around Mary Oraon, a half tribal girl who works for the
estate owner Mr. Prasad at the Dixon Bungalow. Everything seems to be going
smoothly until the day Tehsildar Singh lands in the village, being invited by Banwari
Lal, Mr. Prasad’s son, for negotiating a deal regarding the giant Sal trees on Prasad’s
estate. Not only does he eye the Sal he even begins lusting after Mary the moment he
sets eyes on her. Mary is angry and rebuffs his advances without much success. On the
day of Jani Parab, the annual hunting festival, Mary ultimately resorts to violence to
put an end to the matter by hunting down Tehsildar. Rather than being a passive
victim of male sexual aggression she avenges her oppressive plight by killing her
assailant.
Having triumphed over her aggressor Mary returns to the group of women and joins
them in the celebration which is part of the festival. She feasts and she dances with
abandon and then quietly leaves the village for a promise of a better life elsewhere with
Jalim, her prospective mate

Contemplating on how I should introduce a series of articles on contemporary concerns of

Adivasi/Tribal communities has led me to believe that it would be pointless to have ahistorical
conversations. We need to place the contemporary, everyday resistance of the communities
within the ambit of historical developments.

Adivasis or indigenous people are the descendants of those who inhabited the region since before
the time when people of different cultures and geographical regions arrived. Our communities
have languages, religions, cultural, social, economic and political systems of our own, that rest on
the pillars of our jal, jungle, jameen (water, forest, land.) Each Adivasi community is distinct and
unique; and firmly believe that the community collectively is steward of the jal, jungle, jameen.
The Indian subcontinent has been home to various Adivasi communities much before the Aryans
arrived between 2000 BC and 1500 BC. After the movement of the Aryans in the Adivasi regions
of the Indian subcontinent, the Adivasi communities and the Aryans continued to have different
ecological, cultural, religious, social and political spaces; often interacting with other
communities and societies via trade, conquests, sharing of technology, language etc.

For example, 'langal' (Sanskrit word meaning plough) is of Mundari origin, language of the
Munda tribe (N Sengupta (1985) in Tribal India: History, Politics Polemics.) Through history, as
the Indian subcontinent witnessed multiple invasions and kingdoms rise and fall, Adivasi
communities continued to bear the brunt. In fact, more often than not, dominant society was not
even aware of the existence of some of the Adivasi communities (KS Singh (1978) in Colonial
Transformation of Tribal Society in Middle India). With the rise of European colonialism in the
Indian subcontinent, particularly the rise of British Empire through the East India Company
during the 18th, 19th and 20th Century, the influx of dikus (meaning: outsiders, a person who is
not an Adivasi) increased exponentially in the Adivasi regions.
Anthropology defined and described Adivasis, as 'primitive', 'savage', 'uncivilised' and 'junglee';
laying the foundation stone for the communities to be colonised and marginalised. In the Indian
subcontinent, anthropologists derived their knowledge from the dominant upper-caste
communities (H Schwarz (2010) in Constructing the Criminal Tribe in Colonial India: Acting
like a thief) Starting in the late 18th Century till the 20th Century, European invaders (especially
Britishers) with the support of the non-Adivasi rulers colonised Adivasi land. Colonial rule in
India produced several policies and legislations aiming to "civilise" the "savage and uncivilised"
Adivasi communities; in effect invalidating our knowledge systems, our way of life, and our
existence. The most prominent examples of this are laws such as the Permanent Settlement of
1793 and the Criminal Tribes Act of 1871.

Adivasi communities believed in collective living wherein the resources — jal, jungle, jameen —
belonged to the community collectively. The administrative policies and mechanisms brought in
by the British disrupted this Adivasi way of life and collective existence. Under the garb of
civilising the Adivasi communities, colonial rulers tried to rip them off their resources, their
identity, and their religious, cultural, social, economic and political systems; a practice which
remains prevalent in present day independent India.

The British Raj witnessed numerous revolts and andolans led by various Adivasi communities.
Halba rebellion (1774-79), Tilka Manjhi revolt (1784), uprising of the Mahadev Koli Tribes
(1784-85), Tamar revolt (1789, 1794-95), the Kol revolt (1832), Khond revolt (1850), the Naga
revolt (1879), revolt by the Munda Tribal community (1895), Kuki uprising in Manipur (1917-
19), Tebagha Movement (1946-47) to name a few. These revolts and andolans by the Adivasi
communities were not only against the Britishers but also against the dominant caste society
encroaching on Adivasi regions through the Zamindari system

India's Independence in 1947 did not mean the end of the colonisation faced by the Adivasi
communities, of their land or their knowledge systems. To the contrary, India furthered its
'development' agenda by looting the Adivasi communities of its resources. Post Independence, the
Adivasi/indigenous citizens were categorised and listed as Scheduled Tribes. The listing was
purely for administrative purpose and was based on colonial notions that Adivasi communities
are 'primitive'. As a result, not all of these Adivasi/indigenous communities were listed as
Scheduled Tribes. For instance, the Mundas, the Santhals and the Oraons in Assam or the
Andamans, and the Kols in Uttar Pradesh.

While deliberating upon the nature of Indian State and its relationship with its citizens, the
Constituent Assembly of India had a clear understanding that the way of life of citizens from
Adivasi/indigenous communities is distinct from that of the non-Adivasi citizens. Based on this
understanding, the Constituent assembly included Fifth Schedule and Sixth Schedule in the
Constitution of India. The Fifth Schedule is extended to adivasi/tribal regions in 10 states in India
namely: Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan and Telangana. Sixth Schedule is extended to tribal regions
within 4 states in the north-eastern region namely: Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.

The Fifth Schedule makes provisions for Tribes Advisory Councils (TAC) at the state level. In
the original draft of the Fifth Schedule, TACs were given constitutional powers to take up
administrative matters concerning tribal communities residing in the Scheduled region, and to
advise the Governor of the concerned state. The Governors were bound to act upon the advice of
the TACs. Jaipal Singh, an adivasi member, vehemently argued in the Constituent Assembly
demanding that TAC should be given constitutional powers mentioned in the original draft. But
the Constituent Assembly conveniently decided to withdraw all such powers earlier given to
TAC, making it toothless body which would operate only when at the discretion of the Governor
of the state.
Jaipal Singh, who belonged to the Munda community and led the Indian hockey team to victory
in the 1928 Olympics, made a statement in the Constituent Assembly which provides the
perspective on what the TAC's would eventually turn out to be. "I find that this new proposed
Fifth Schedule has, somehow or other, perhaps without meaning it, emasculated the Tribes
Advisory Council."

When asked about her community, Mini says that she does not like the attitude of
people from the plains; her community is often perceived as “violent” and women are
seen as photographic objects because of the customary attire. “Only for mere 10 rupees
tourists take pictures and advertise our community women as ‘exotic’ Indians and
“naked” Indian tribes”. As someone actively engaging in social work in her region, Mini is
determined to shatter the stereotyped identity of her community and challenge the
idea that by “giving alms to the tribals they (the non-tribals) cannot exploit and restrict
them from developing.”

Mini’s reaction is against a long-standing historical violence and injustice done to the
Bonda community. The narratives and knowledge formation of the community have its
roots in colonial ethnography which stereotyped the community as “primitive” and
“savage.” The “strange dress” and appearance of Bonda women, violent and homicidal
ways of men, and inaccessibility of their villages, in the colonial narratives remained the
primary information, recognising the Bonda tribe as “classical savage type.”

Historically, Bonda women keep their head shaved, covering it with a fillet of
palmyra, olive shells or scarlet seeds. They cover their upper body with brass
collars of different patterns of brass chains and beadwork necklaces of different
colours. Their lower body is covered with a small ‘ringa’ skirt tied by a waistband
attached in front. Though Bonda women cover themselves with a lot of
ornaments and necklaces, their semi-naked appearance to others is determined
to form the identity of the community as “naked tribe.”

In the Bonda community, all significant roles of gender-based identities are

attached to myth and rituals, and the customary attire is part of myth which
constrains Bonda women from wearing any other cloth except” ringa” (loin
cloth). Gregory Staley (2008) in his essay published in the anthology Laughing
with Medusa: Classical Myth and Feminist Thought, articulates that investigating
myth is a constructive feminist exercise.

The significant issue with the myth is that it propagates the stereotyped identity of the
Bonda community as “naked,’ and ‘uncivilised”.

he myths reinforce the violent gendered stereotypes of cursed nudity,

and propagate and reinforce colonial stereotypes that justified the
documentation of the tribe as ‘uncivilised’. Thus, caught between
tradition and coloniality, the Bonda women, ironically, face violence
both within and outside the community.

https://16daysblogathon.blog/2021/12/01/systemic-stereotypes-violence-against-bonda-tribal-
women/

associated with crime…never given a chance…given resources…they would not turn to crime.

Everone wants the resources and cheap labour without giving back development or economic
stability or prosperity in return

Mary faces exploitation at the hands of a government official….timbre trade…tribals used as cheap
labour…give nothing back to the area…sell timbre at high price and keeps profits to themselves.

.
Mahasweta devi‘s Shikar translated by Gayatri chakravarti spivak as „The Hunt‟ and included
in the collection imaginary maps is indeed a poignant narrative of the twin exploitation of
nature and tribal. The story clearly presents a picture of destruction of natural resourses and
domination of tribal running parallel in undeveloped areas like kuruda in India. The story falls
into three sections. Section one explains the peaceful tribal life overtaken by a few estate
owners and their exploitation of the people of the region. Mary Oraon is one such victim of
exploitation. Dixon an Australian planter employs and exploits her mother, Bhikni and his son
his successor impregnates the woman and deserts her and runs away to his own land.
Prasadji the new owner of the estate continues them in his service and they remain his
willing slaves. Section two deals with the landing of Tehsildar Singh, the contractor on the
quiet but impoverished existence of Kuruda. It marks the onset of the mainstream
mechanized and industrialized exploitation and the total alienation and reification of the
tribes. Section three marks the desperations of the tribes on their being forced to resort to
violence as the only possible alternative when the system fails in justice. Mahasweta Devi‘s
story ‗The Hunt‟ centres around the animal hunting festival, the most popular myth of the
tribals of Bihar. The original title in Bengali is ―Shikar‖ which means the hunt. Explaining the
contest of the myth, Devi writes in the story,‖ Once there were (wild) animals in the forest,
life was wild, the hunt game had meaning.‖ (p 12) In this sense the myth marked the
protection of the entire tribe and its environment from the destructive animals. The tradition,
however, is kept up long after it had lost its relevance. The myth informs the central theme
of the story. Tehsildar Singh a greedy mainstream contractor lands in the quiet village of
Kuruda with intentions of felling and carrying away the giant sal trees in Prasadji‘s estate of
seventy five acres of land. The tribals interest and well being at once of man and nature is
represented by Mary Oraon, who embodies the intelligence of the west and the love of the
tribals. She puts her intelligence to the best use and tries to counsel Prasadji and other
village head men, but to no avail. She explains to Prasadji that the contractor had tricked
him and would get the sals at throw away price and would sell them to the timber
merchants at an exhobitant rate by cubic foot. Prasadji is misled by his son and other village
mirazdars like Lalchand and Mulni. Though the government of India has passed laws declaring
illegal the felling of trees in forest regions the government machinery is so corrupt that the
illegal action never comes to light. Thus the happenings in Kuruda are representative of what
happens in the whole of India. Events in the short story, the writer declares are authentic,
including the character of Mary. She says she has actually seen her and heard her life history
from the songs of the tribes. Thus the story combines the particular and the representative.
The tribals are blamed for deforestation. One of the village elders explains to Mary, ―If I
said ‗No‘, the villagers would go wild. They would say who gives us this kind of money?‖ (p
9) In her own life, once a tribal told Mahasweta Devi, ―I need five rupees a day to buy
rice. Ask me to fell a tree, I‘ll do it unwillingly, but I‘ll do it.‖ (P xii). Tehsildar Singh in the
story is the representative of the mainstream power that exploits the poor workers as well
as the earth. The myth of hunt game is rehearsed through Mary Oraon, who like Mother
Earth is also viewed by the contractor as an object to be exploited. She identifies him as the
wild ‗animal‘. She takes law into her own hands and dispenses justice by killing him on the
festival day. At the end, she walks ―fearless as she has killed the biggest beast‖ (p 17). Thus
the myth gets well intergrated with the present day tribal life. The story promotes awareness
among the powers that be, that because of their negligence, deforestation goes on
undeterred. Government should intervene and prevent deforestation on war footing and the
tribals should be educated and guaranteed a minimum standard of living and purposeful
engagements, if the land and its people are to remain secure and protected from
degeneration.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=http%3A%2F
%2Fwww.ijtrd.com%2Fpapers%2FIJTRD10881.pdf&clen=286806&chunk=true

https://www.firstpost.com/india/adivasis-and-the-indian-state-stereotyped-as-primitive-savage-
tribal-communities-fight-for-right-to-choose-social-cultural-land-owning-systems-7200111.html

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340023667_Working_Paper_-
_Postcoloniality_and_Bhil_Identity-_perpetuating_tribal_stereotypes_in_India