Groups and communities, identified and described as tribes during the British rule came to be re-christened as Scheduled Tribes after India became independent and adopted the constitution. The constitution as per article 342 had provided for listing of these groups in a Schedule so that certain administrative and political concessions could be extended to them.

It is important to note the distinction between tribes and scheduled tribes. Whereas one may belong to the same social and cultural group viz., tribe, one may not necessarily be listed as member of a scheduled tribe.

The term ‘scheduled tribe’ is a politico-administrative category. Hence it is also possible that a group treated as scheduled tribe in one state, may not be treated as such in another. Even within a state, a given group may be a scheduled tribe in some parts, but may not be so in other parts of the same state. A scheduled tribe is contingent and it is notified as such in the scheduled list. In general however, groups described as tribes are enumerated as the scheduled tribes.

The question to be posed at the outset is, who are those groups and communities who have come to be described and enumerated as tribes. What was the ground on which they came to be so described and enumerated during the colonial rule? It may be mentioned that the British in the beginning, were far from clear as to the distinction between caste and tribe. In fact, they used the term interchangeably. The working out of a criterion by them began only with the census of 1901. Here, tribes were described in terms of those who practiced animism. Subsequently, the term was replaced by tribal religion. Later, other criteria, such as living in isolation and primitive conditions of living were also added. In short, to use Andre Beteille’s phrase, ‘tribes were viewed as those who were outside of civilization whether Hindu or Islamic’.

During the British rule, tribes had been drawn to Christianity but this did not draw them any closer to European civilization. The barriers were not only cultural but also social. Despite conversion to Christianity they remained outside of European civilization.

------------------------------
* Prof. Virginius Xaxa is a Professor of Sociology. He is at the Department of Sociology, School of Economics, Delhi.

As per the 1991 census, groups and communities described as tribes were enumerated at 67.76 million, representing 8.08 per cent of the country’s population (now estimated at 88.8 million, forming 8.6 per cent as per 2001 census); they represent an enormous diversity. This is evident from the fact that as per the Constitution order (Scheduled Tribes) 1950, as many as 212 tribal communities in 14 states were declared to be scheduled tribes. As per the Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment 1976), nearly 300 tribal communities were listed in the constitution. The Anthropological Survey of India under the People of India Project, identified as many as 461 tribal communities in the country (Khubchandani 1992:2; Singh 1993:1-7).

Tribal communities are scattered over the length and breadth of the country. However their distribution is far from even. In fact, about 86 per cent of the scheduled tribe population is concentrated in the Central belt covering 9 states: Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal. About 11 per cent inhabit the north-eastern region and only 3 per cent inhabit other states of North and South India (Verma 1990:17-18).

However, if one were to look at the share of the tribal population to their respective states or region, the scenario is quite different. The north-eastern states, except Assam, have a very high concentration of scheduled tribe population: Mizoram 94.75%; Nagaland 87.70%; Meghalaya 85.53%; Arunachal Pradesh 63.66%. The central Indian states come next: Orissa 22.21%; undivided Madhya Pradesh 23.27%; Gujarat 14.92%; Rajasthan12.44%; Maharashtra 9.27%; undivided Bihar 7.66%; Andhra Pradesh 6.31%. The share of the tribes in other states, except the Union Territories of Lakshadweep (93.15%) and Dadra & Nagar Haveli (78.99%) is negligible (Planning Commission 2001:5)

The tribal communities are also considerably varied in terms of their size. There are tribes whose population ranges from about 10 to over 70 lakhs as per the 1981 census enumeration. The Gonds, Bhils, Santhals, Oraons, Minas, Mundas, Khonds etc. are included. On the other hand, there have been tribes whose population has been reported even in ones and twos. The 1981 census enumerated 5 tribes with a single person, 17 tribes with a population of 2 to 10 persons, 16 tribes with that of 11 to 50 persons, 9 tribes with 51 to 100 and 17 tribes with 101 to 500 persons. In all, 64 tribes reported a population of less than 500 persons (Singh 1993:1). The large chunk of tribes falls in the range between the above two extreme categories. Even here there are wide variations. Whereas some have the population between 5 to 10 lakhs, others between 1 to 5 lakhs and still others less than one lakhs.

There are also wide ranging diversities among them in terms of language and linguistic traits, ecological situations, physical features etc. Keeping these in mind various attempts have been made to classify them into some meaningful categories.

In terms of language, they have been classified as Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, Austro-Asiatic, and Tibeto-Burman linguistic families. On the basis of physical features, even though contested and discarded, they are divided into Negrito, Proto-Australoid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid. The division on the basis of region has already been referred to earlier in the discussion. In terms of ecological situations, they have been described either as hill, forest, or plains tribes. There are still other bases on which they have been divided. The extent of acculturation to the larger society, and modes of making a living, are more important among them. On the basis of the latter, tribes have been classified as hunters and food gatherers, agriculturists (shifting or settled), plantation, mine and industrial workers.

Tribes are also differentiated with regard to level of their development, that is, some are considerably developed and differentiated, others are still at a very low stage of development. In fact, the Planning Commission has delineated a substantial 75 tribal groups spread over 15 states and union territories, as primitive tribes. The Paniyan, Kurumba, Kattunayakan, Koraga, Kadar, etc., are some of such tribal groups in South India. Asur, Birhor, Birja, Korwa, Bondo, Juang, Saura, Kolagha, Kathodi Padhar, Siddi, Kamar, Sahariya, Abujh Maria, etc are similar groups from central India. As per the 1991 census, they are enumerated at 1.36 lakhs (Planning Commission 2001:41).

Notwithstanding these diversities, they have all been described as tribes, mainly because of their isolation from the larger society and related backwardness. This is what they shared in common with each other. There were, besides these, other features which tribes had in common with each other. These included such features as kinship based social organization, absence of the principle of hierarchy, religious beliefs and practices, social customs, food habits and even psychological disposition. Commonality is more pronounced among tribes with similar ecological situations and modes of making a living.

As stated above, what distinguished tribes from non-tribes, is that they lived in isolation from the dominant community, as well as their backwardness. Hence, the state’s unstated policy and strategy after India attained independence, has been one of integrating them into the larger society through protection and promotion of their interests and welfare. The provisions enshrined in the Indian constitution bear testimony to that. Accordingly, various policies, programmes, and strategies have been worked out since independence, by the government, for their upliftment. On account of these and also due to measures initiated by voluntary associations, tribal societies have undergone transformations. These are visible in all directions, which are encouraging as well as depressing.

The changes, which are positive, are however, occurring at a very slow pace. But the changes which are depressing, are taking place at an accelerated rate. Of course, such changes are far from even in respect of different tribes and regions. Hence, one has to guard oneself from generalizing for the whole of the tribes. One can enter into meaningful dialogue with tribes only if one has an understanding of the changes and problems they have been encountering.

Whatever may be the stage of their development, tribes have been solely dependent for their livelihood on land and forests. However, it is precisely this life support system, which has come to be the most frontally attacked since the onset of the British rule.

The British incorporated tribes into the state structure, and also drew them into the larger Indian social structure. They introduced new, alien, and uniform civil laws and administrative structure among the tribal people. They also introduced the notion of private property, and the records of rights in land, and state control over forests, which resulted in the curtailment of unrestricted rights and privileges that tribes had enjoyed over the forests. All these played havoc with tribal society.

The opening up of the tribal areas under the British rule led to a steady immigration of land hungry non-tribal populations into tribal areas resulting in unprecedented land alienation from tribes to non-tribes. The process continued all through the British period and has continued steadily even after independence, despite enactment of laws against alienation, and other administrative measures towards protection and welfare of the tribal people.

Indeed, even though laws aimed at restoration of land, exist, yet, land has been passing from tribes to non-tribes. This is obvious from the fact that the percentage of tribal cultivators has decreased from 68.15, in 1961 to 54.5, in 1991. Conversely, the percentage of agricultural labourers has increased from 19.71, in 1961 to 32.69, in 1991 (Planning Commission 2001:91). How and why has this been happening is something which needs to be probed. Not only that, but also a way out for arresting such a process needs to be worked out. It is one thing to work out measures to take advantage of the law, but quite another to identify the processes leading to land alienation and to plug them off.

Two major processes at work today are indebtedness and displacement. As for the latter, a total population of 21.3 has been displaced during 1951-1990 in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Orissa alone. Of this, 8.54 million, that is, 40 per cent have been tribals. However, only 2.12 million (24.8%) have been resettled so far (Planning Commission 2001:39). Thus a vast majority of them have been pushed into the vortex of increasing disadvantage, unemployment, debt bondage, and destitution. This has resulted in inflating the size of the tribal population living below the poverty line. In 1993-94, the tribal population living below the poverty line was as high as 51.14 per cent as compared to 35.97 per cent for the general population (Planning Commission 2001: 43).

One has also to find ways and means whereby tribals can get access to the forests for their needs and requirements. The New Forest Policy has begun to recognize the importance of tribals in the conservation of forests and forest wealth. Hence there is need for an articulation of more and greater access to forests and also the mode and mechanism for their participation. In short, the scenario has been one of increasing landlessness, very little scope for the tribals’ entry in the industrial sector as well as little occupational diversity.

The tribals however, have not remained silent spectators to this process of loss of control over land and other resources. They have resisted the encroachment both by the state and non-tribal people, right through the British and post independence period. Indeed their resistance is going on even today in different parts of the country.

Tribals also suffer from increased disease burden because of poverty and consequent malnutrition, poor environmental sanitation, lack of safe drinking water leading to increased morbidity from water borne infections, lack of health care facilities and even social barriers. Though no systematic study has been conducted, it is held that malnutrition among tribals, especially women and children, is quite common.

Again most tribal women suffer from anemia. All these debilitate their physical condition and lowers resistance to diseases. Experts hold that not a single tribe in the different states of India can be said to have a satisfactory dietary pattern, as tribal diets are frequently deficient in calcium, Vitamin A, Vitamin C, Riboflavin and animal protein (Planning Commission 2001: 36).

It is in the area of education that tribes are said to have made some tangible progress. However, this is confined mainly to the northeastern region and even there, among some of the tribes. Among other tribal groups there remains much to be done. One can draw some inference about the status of education among tribes from the literacy figures, which still remain very low. As per the 1991 census, the literacy rate among tribes was only 29.6 per cent. The general literacy rate was 52.2 per cent then. As for the female literacy rate, it stood at 18.2 as against 39.3 per cent for the general population. What is even more important is that the gap between tribes and non-tribes has been greatly widening. Whereas it was 19.8 per cent in 1981, it has increased to 22.6 per cent by 1991. Equally important to note is the drop out rate among tribal students, which was as high as 77.7 per cent in the classes between I-VIII in 1993-94 (Planning Commission 2001: 35)

In the field of education, the role of the Christian mission has been commendable. Many Christian Congregations have reoriented their educational policy in recent years in favour of the poor, backward and downtrodden. While this has been a positive step, the quality of education has been a casualty. This is most glaringly reflected at the level of higher education, where tribal students are found terribly wanting. That largely explains why posts earmarked for tribes in government and public sector undertakings or institutions of higher learning, especially at the middle and higher level posts, have continued to remain vacant till this day.

There is an aspect of education imparted by the Christian missions, which in retrospect, seems to have weakened the backbone of tribal societies. This has to do with the medium of instruction adopted by the Christian missions, especially in the central belt. Tribes were incorporated into the dominant community of the region through the medium of modern education. There was/is nothing wrong per se in this but, this was done at the cost of the tribal language. Indeed this explains why tribal identity in terms of language, is very strong in the northeast but is not so in central India. Indeed, the adoption of the regional language by tribes has been one of the most important contributing factors to the erosion of tribal identity, culture and solidarity.

The Christian missions’ violence to tribal culture has not only been confined to language but also other aspects of their culture. Of course, some of them may have been seen as being not in conformity with Christian teachings and ethics. But even where it had nothing to do with ethics, the Christian converts were exhorted to refrain from participation in some of their traditional practices.

While tribals stand marginalized vis-à-vis other communities, at the same time they have become considerably differentiated among themselves. They are differentiated on the basis of occupation, religion, political affiliation, education, income and so on. Of these differentiations, some, like religion, are posing a major problem to tribal cohesiveness and identity. Identity is increasingly being articulated along religious lines leading to serious political cleavage and conflict within the tribal societies.

The Christian churches and the Christian community, has played a significant part in the creation of this conflict. The Christian churches contributed in no less measure to the segregation between two segments of tribal communities in their social and cultural sphere. The Christian community sees itself as superior and looks down upon the non-Christian members of the tribal community thus leading to alienation among them from the Christian community. It makes little or no effort to forge unity between the two segments of the community. The extremist right wing Hindu organizations are taking advantage of such conflicts within tribal societies and are using it to their own political gain. The tribals are being induced to identify and enumerate themselves as Hindus, a position, which will have far reaching consequences on the question of tribal identity.

The religious communities have also been impulsive in their endeavor to help the tribal people without even bothering about the implications it will have for society and the people. One cannot have a better illustration of this than that of domestic workers in metropolitan areas, which the religious communities initiated and have given a major boost to. There is no way in which this exodus of tribal girls, mainly Christian, can now be stopped. Yet the problems it has created are unprecedented in tribal society. The problems are not only social but also religious and ethical. Violence against tribal women both physical and sexual has become common in the metropolises.

It is important to note that the tribal Christian community is obsessed and preoccupied with religion. It takes maximum advantage of being tribal but returns little in terms of its contribution towards the tribal cultural cause. It takes little initiative and gives little time for the preservation of the richness of tribal culture.

Another differentiation of equal importance is the increasing gender inequality in tribal society. It is true that tribal society had been relatively more egalitarian than non-tribal society, but it has not been altogether devoid of inequality. Gender inequality has been the most pronounced among them. With changes in tribal society, this inequality has become more and more striking. Whether one takes the sphere of politics or government employment or education or health and nutritional status, tribal women have not been given the same opportunities as men. This is an issue, which needs to be addressed.

As noted earlier in our discussion earlier, in order to draw tribes from their isolation to the so-called mainstream of national life, tribes were extended reservations in education, employment and political life. The reservation in education and employment is contingent upon certain qualifications and performance. Even after 50 years of independence, the participation of tribes still remains inadequate. Much of this has to do with training and the quality of education acquired by the tribes.

In Politics, no conditions of qualifications and performance were attached. The participation of tribals at the state legislatures and in the national parliament, remains unsatisfactory in terms of debates and questions, especially the delivery of goods and benefits to their constituencies and communities, the protection and safeguarding of tribal interests,. Now that reservations have also been extended at the local self-governing institutions, one does not know how the tribes are going to turn them to their advantage.

These are some of the major issues of critical importance as far as the tribal question in India is concerned. If one has to enter into serious dialogue with tribes, there is no way in which one can evade these issues.

Singh, K.S., “The Problem”, Seminar, No. 412, 1993, pp.12-18.

Khubchandani, L.M., Tribal Identity. A Language and Communication Perspective, Shimla: IIAS, 1992

Planning Commission, Govt. of India, 2001 Report of the Steering Committee on Empowering the Scheduled Tribes, New Delhi: Planning Commission, 2001.

Verma, R.C., Indian Tribes through the Ages, New Delhi: Government of India, 1990.