Abstract

Tribal health is a multi-dimensional concept and understood more by description than definition. While the tribal people of India have been subject of extensive study, researching on their health have been of lesser interest to scholars. However, in the past few years, an increase in researching tribal health, particularly traditional medicine, has been observed. Nonetheless, much of the research on tribal health continues to be fragmented and independent, with a focus on specific health problems limited within specific communities or described as low in comparison to other non-tribal communities and from an etic perspective. Furthermore, most research on tribal health discuss and highlight the cause of their low health status and issues as influenced by problems that lie within their own communities due to socio-cultural practices, beliefs, customs, poverty, behaviour and superstitions thus failing to discuss with exception of a few researchers the importance and role of the government, policy, systems and quality of health care services provided to them. This paper reviews the problems and challenges of researching tribal health in India and gives a way forward for better health research and outcome among them.

 

Key Words: Tribal Health, Tribal Health Research, Research Vulnerability Process, Research Approach, Tribal (Health) Research Ethics

 

Tribal People and their Issues as a Community

Tribal people in India constitute 8.6% of the country’s total population. They are often found residing in the outskirts of forests, hilly areas, or within forested regions and away from ‘main stream’ society. They are characterized as communities with primitive traits, distinct cultures, geographical isolation, a tendency to avoid contact with the larger community, and socio-economic backwardness (Lokur Committee Report, 1961). India recognizes 705 communities as Scheduled Tribes (ST). According to the Report of the Expert Committee on Tribal Health (2018) they may be categorized into four major categories as 1) those living in Scheduled V areas of tribal dominated areas, 2) those living in North East India, 3) the particularly vulnerable tribal groups and 4) tribal people living outside Scheduled areas. Despite seventy-seven years after independence they continue to face various forms of challenges including crimes and atrocities, like rape, assault on women with the intent to outrage their modesty, kidnapping, abduction, grievous hurt, murder, attempted murder, attempted rape, criminal intimidation, simple assault, trespassing, mischief, and more (National Commission of Scheduled Tribes, 2023). The National Crime Records Bureau, India (2024) reveals an increase in crimes against Scheduled Tribes from 8,802 cases in 2021 to 10,064 cases in 2022, representing a 14.3% rise. Among the states, Madhya Pradesh reported the highest number of crimes with 2,979 cases, followed by Rajasthan with 2,521 cases; and Kerala recorded the highest crime rate of 35.5, followed by Rajasthan with 27.3 against Scheduled Tribes in India in 2022, according to the same report.

The status of tribal people in India continues to be lagging behind in many fronts. For example, their economic status is low, with 45.35% of those living in rural areas and 24.1% in urban areas still below the poverty line (Bodhi, 2023). Additionally, they have a lower literacy rate of 58.96%, compared to the national average of 74.04% (Census of India, 2011) Their health status is often described as poor and low (Singh, 2008) with higher malnutrition, low birth rate, higher neonatal mortality rate, higher infant mortality rate and higher under five mortality rate (Mutatkar, 2022) and higher rate of communicable and non-communicable as compared to non-tribal people (Kumar et. al., 2020). According to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA, 2019) the tribal people in India have a lower life expectancy of 63.9 years than the general population of 67 years and lag behind other non-tribal communities in many parameters including health.

Tribal people face a triple burden of diseases. Firstly, they contend with malnutrition and communicable diseases like malaria and tuberculosis, which remain widespread. Secondly, rapid urbanization, environmental distress, and changing lifestyles contribute to the emergence of non-communicable diseases such as cancer, hypertension, and diabetes. Thirdly, there is the burden of mental illness and addiction, as highlighted in the Report of the Expert Committee on Tribal Health (2018). This report identifies ten specific health challenges faced by tribal communities: 1) malaria, 2) malnutrition, 3) child mortality, 4) maternal and women’s health, 5) population growth and infertility, 6) mental health and substance abuse, 7) sickle cell disease, 8) animal bites, accidents and occupational hazards, 9) knowledge gaps on health, and 10) school health of the tribal population. Addressing these challenges is crucial to ensuring that tribal communities can enjoy a healthy and productive life.

Further, the same report comments on the state of health infrastructure and services in tribal areas of India, noting an overall deficit of 20% in Health Sub-centers (HSCs), 30% in Primary Health Centers (PHCs), and 22% in Community Health Centers (CHCs). While there is a surplus of 64% in Auxiliary Nurse Midwives (ANMs) in HSCs and PHCs, there exists an overall deficit of 49% in male health workers in HSCs, 33% in allopathic doctors in PHCs, and 84% in specialists in CHCs. Such deficits are exemplified by instances such as a significant percentage of MBBS doctors, as high as 85% between 2018-2020 (Hindustan Times, 2020) and 70% between 2020-2023 (Times of India, 2023) in Gujarat, and about two-thirds of MBBS graduates between 2015-2021 from Government Medical Colleges of Mumbai (Indian Express, 2023), along with similar instances in other states, refusing to accept postings in rural and tribal areas.

While some of the reasons for not joining such posting include feeling of sense of professional, social and family isolation, perceived salary inequity in comparison to location of posting and lack of amenities such as education for children in such areas (Mavalankar, 2016); a vast majority of them just simply feel such posting as punishment (Islary, 2018) because of lack of fairness in policy and transparency of systems. Such feeling gets aggravated due to precedence of actual practice where government officials including medical have been transferred or posted to rural, remote and tribal areas as part of departmental disciplinary action for various reasons including inefficiency, corruption and harassment of various forms in some cases.

Status of Tribal Health Research in India

The tribal people of India have been subject of many studies. While culture, religion, identity, social structure, land issues, social institutions, history, education, movements and governance tend to dominate, research on tribal health has largely been remaining left out concern. And the available research on tribal health are they are diverse in theme ranging from communicable to non-communicable diseases, from environment, nutrition to genetics and heredity factors, from influence of beliefs, practices and behavior to influence of modern education on health to mention a few. According to the Report of the Expert Committee on Tribal Health (2018) the few research available on tribal health are fragmented and on ‘specific diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, and sickle cell diseases or … nutritional status of communities.’

The author of this paper acknowledges the contribution of many books on tribal health and journals including those listed in UGC-CARE List Group I and UGC-CARE List Group II towards understanding the issues and challenges of tribal health in India. In recent times, two significant reports—namely, the Xaxa Committee Report (2014), which encompasses various aspects of tribal issues including health, and the Report of the Expert Committee on Tribal Health (2018), which could be considered the first and most comprehensive report to date related to tribal health in India, have become important sources of references for understanding tribal health issues and planning policies and interventions in the country.

Further, the ICMR-National Institute of Research on Tribal Health (ICMR-NIRTH) regularly brings out its Tribal Health Bulletin which covers various aspects of health and health issues related to tribal communities in India. Beside ICMR-NIRTH there are a number of MoTA financed Tribal Research and Training Institutes across the country which are mandated to assess the various tribal schemes including health.

A trend analysis by Saravanan et. al. (2022) on tribal health research in India published in Scopus indexed journals between the years 2000 to 2020 showed and increased in number from 3 to 43 publications through the years covering the aspects of traditional medicine (35.7%), nutrition (15.7%), infectious diseases (14.7%), non-communicable diseases (11.6%), reproductive health (7.3%), genetic diseases (6.3%), child health (3.3%), behavioral health (1.8%), health systems (1.5%), health behavior (1.3%) and health policy (0.8%). From the data it is safe to comment that while tribal/indigenous medicine (often termed as traditional medicine) is of curiosity and interest to research, academics and industries the need for research on health systems and policy related to tribal health are of least interest to them.

While lots have been done to understand the status, factors influencing and issues of tribal health in India much still remains to be explored, researched and understood. According to the Report of the Expert Committee on Tribal Health (2018) most research on tribal health are commentaries presenting the findings of localized research carried out by NGOs and there continues to be ‘near complete absence of data on the health situation of different tribal communities’ in India.

The National Health Policy of India (2017) besides acknowledging the need for strengthening and improving the health status and health needs of tribal people through 1) specific measures and services including outreach programmes as they are vulnerable, 2) providing special attention keeping in mind their geographical and infrastructural challenges and largeness of their population, and 3) engagement of private sector in tribal areas for health awareness and services also emphasizes on 4) promoting research and validation of tribal medicines.

Problems and Challenges of Researching Tribal Health in India

Tribal health in simplest term would mean the positive state of physical, social, mental, and spiritual wellbeing of tribal people. It is a term that tries to encapsulate a complex reality of health within these groups across various dimensions and factors that influence their health and wellbeing. However, researching on tribal health has always been problematic and challenging in India due to its wide scope, plethora of health issues and fuzzy intersecting boundaries between ‘what is’ and ‘what is not’ tribal health. The term ‘tribal health’ continues to be vaguely defined and researchers take a broad and diverse interpretation and operationalize the concept to align with the specific focus of their studies. Thus, rather than being explicitly defined, tribal health is typically understood through descriptions and explanations of health issues and associated factors that lead to higher rates of morbidity or mortality and greater incidence or prevalence of health problems among tribal communities in comparison to non-tribal communities. Consequently, investigations into tribal health frequently end up having to narrow down to examine specific health challenges faced by tribal peoples. This difficulty in defining tribal health stems largely from the multifaceted and heterogeneous nature of health issues that vary widely (Narain, 2019) within tribal population and a variety of factors (Basu, 2000) that encompass both physical and social environments, genetic and heredity and socio-cultural practices among them. For example, while those residing in remote areas report higher rates of maternal and child mortality, malnutrition, and other communicable and non-communicable diseases; those living in urban areas are beginning to report higher rate of non-communicable diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and hypertension. Many studies purportedly focused on tribal health inadvertently delve into specific health issues prevalent among tribal communities which make them specific and contextual overlooking the need for locating them within the macro social structure, systems and experiences of communities.

While it is encouraging to see an increase in interest for research and publications on tribal health over the years, there are also ethical concerns on the way these research are carried out.

According to Kumar et al. (2023), besides the lack of clarity and clear explanations to the communities under study, the common practice of using verbal informed consent instead of written consent forms—citing their low literacy rates as the reason—along with the collection and storage of genetic samples without clear explanations of its objectives, poses serious research and ethical concerns. Such studies though sound methodologically scientific fail in ethical standards of research especially among vulnerable communities. The reason cited for frequent use of verbal informed consent in researching among tribes seems rooted either in a blanket understanding of going by average of around 59% literacy rate among them or having overlooked that in some UTs and states of India their literacy rate is as high as 91.7% which is far ahead of national average of 73% (Census of India, 2011).

Researchers especially from other communities and nationalities need also to be mindful and address language and cultural barriers to avoid misinterpretation and better communication (Roy et. al. 2023) so that meaning of data and information are not diluted or lost in the process of translation. Further, some scholars carry with them biases, prejudices and ‘discrimination rooted in social, including caste or race origins’ (Jiloha, 2010) which undermine indigenous/tribal culture and knowledge as ‘undesirable or inferior and incompatible with the modern’ (UN, nd.) giving rise to detrimental research and negative health outcomes. And while on one hand indigenous and tribal people continue to face the challenge of ‘lack of recognition for traditional medicinal knowledge’ by the state and potential users, on the other hand there have been cases of exploitation of such ‘knowledge by researchers’ (WIPO, 2001) for personal gains thus making calls for (tribal) health ethical ‘research regulation that would maximize community benefits and minimize harms’ (Kelley et. at., 2013). This could be one reason for a high interest for research and publications on traditional medicine (35.7%) of all tribal health related study in India. Such approaches and practices by researcher’s risk offsetting the trust and confidence established between tribal communities and health care service providers through participatory and collaborative efforts (Islary, 2021) that is beginning to develop between them.

Further, while low health status and negative health indicators of tribal people are highlighted some positive aspects like tribal people’s knowledge and usage of effective traditional herbal medicines (Kumar et. al., 2020) though are of much interest to researchers and of them having much higher sex ration (990) than non-tribal communities (943) remain ignored, not discussed and hardly highlighted sometimes even dismissed with lighthearted statements of mockery to laughter of the crowds.

For example, during a conference session a couple of years ago, the higher fertility rate among tribal people compared to non-tribal populations in India was discussed as a challenge to achieving health and national population stabilization targets. While one audience member acknowledged the discussion along with a submission about tribal communities having a better sex ratio than non-tribal populations during a Question & Answer session, another member responded with a casual statement that sounded more like mockery than humor. The member said that the case of tribal people having higher sex ratio than non-tribal people could be because of their lack of ‘knowledge’ and ‘not knowing to do it’ (female feticide). While some laughed at it, a few young participants took it quite seriously and wrote down the comment in their note pads.

Often symposiums, conferences and seminars including those on tribal health are sparsely attended by scholars coming from within tribal communities. In many cases such events end with an evening cultural programme where some members from tribal communities are brought and made to perform dances, songs and some ‘natak’ related to their lifestyle for the entertainment, amusement and relaxation of the delegates after their ‘heavy and exhausting academic sessions.’ Typically, such cultural programmes conclude with photo sessions where delegates pose with the colorfully dressed tribal dancers, musicians, singers and actors for memories and posting in social media sites. Many of these events are also purely academic in nature and a few with objectives of interventions do not go beyond giving recommendations for generation of awareness and education.

Further the few tribal scholars doing research on tribal health are made to articulate the research of their own communities from a third person’s narrative in the name of objectivity, methodological soundness and epistemological acceptability. Attempt to capture and define health and experiences of well-being from tribal emic perspective is often treated as noting of vague ideas, sentimental narrations, emotional expressions and inaccurate articulation that are more imaginative than scientific and not within the scope of academics, while at the same time such texts become transcripts for thick descriptions with layered meanings to an outsider doing qualitative research using etic perspective. The author has not been able to locate an ethnographic study on tribal health till the date of writing this paper. Scholars from among tribal communities should be encouraged to do tribal health research using ethnographic approach and write using emic perspective about health experiences of their own communities.

The data on tribal health continues to be ‘severely lacking’, ‘scant’, ‘poor in quality’ and ‘with gaps at all levels’ (Report of the Expert Committee on Tribal Health, 2018) and continues to be over reliant on methodology like Sample Registration System (SRS) which does not provide information on Tribal communities for estimation of their Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR), Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) and Total Fertility Rate (TFR). Often data on tribal health are collected only from accessible and convenient locations that the researchers can reach easily using quick survey methods and convenient approaches which are justified as feasibility of the study, thus leaving out remote, inaccessible or difficult to access areas like forested, hilly, mountainous, arid and riverine habitations due to lack of physical connectivity and other amenities. Such ‘inappropriate methods and practices’ of doing research have proven to be harmful to indigenous/tribal populations (Saravanan et. al., 2022). Besides these, a number of studies on tribal health are also re-analysis of the secondary data found either in public domain or through privy knowledge and privilege access which are collected at the national or district levels by Government and other agencies. According to the Report of the Expert Committee on Tribal Health (2018), ‘secondary data, field visits, consultations with stakeholders, and best practices workshops’ ensure a better and holistic understanding of tribal health issues and dimensions. Similarly, Tanya et al. (2020) argue that field-based data enables a deeper understanding and facilitates better comparison with data available at the state or national levels.

Studies carried out on tribal health invariably tend to conclude their health status as poor or low in comparison with non-tribal people and as caused by their primitive nature of habitat, inferior culture, low literacy rate, evil practices including superstitions and addictive behaviors with few reports and researchers (Report of the Expert Committee on Tribal Health, 2018; Bagchi et. al., 2020, Mutatkar, 2022 & Roy et al., 2023) also highlighting other factors such as lack of human resource, non-availability of drugs, poor infrastructure and quality of service, defunct governance, inefficient health systems and role of health policy as also responsible for poor health outcomes among tribal communities. Thus, many studies directly or indirectly end up by putting the responsibility for poor and low health status among tribal communities on the community people themselves. Xaxa Committee Report (2014) rightly observed it when it says that ‘a reason for the inappropriately designed and poorly managed healthcare in Scheduled Areas is the near complete absence of participation of Scheduled Tribes people or their representatives in shaping policies, making plans or implementing services in the health sector’ thus giving rise to poor health outcomes and status among them.

Financing on tribal health including tribal health research continues to be underfunded. For example, though the Tribal Sub Plan (TSP) mandates the Ministry of Women and Child Development and the Department of Health and Family Welfare direct all states to earmark 7.5 to 8.2% of their budget outlay for health, only seven states in 2012-13 had allotted some budget for health, but without following the guidelines of having to allot the budget in proportion to the tribal population of their states. Further, though the utilization of the TSP fund was found to be near complete there was no data available related to expenditure on tribal health and research with neither MoTA nor states.

Again, though research on tribal health continues to be carried out at various levels and capacities by individuals and institution both public and private there is no mechanism that coordinates and brings them together to a common platform for a common good making them independent, disjoint and disconnected from each other. Also, researchers need to shift their focus from analyzing tribal health as a problem of and by tribes’ approach to analyzing the role of health policy and health systems including governance and financing in ensuring positive tribal health outcomes. Further research on tribal health could be carried out using the lens of health policy and systems research (hpsr). And the recently launched WHO Global Center for Traditional Medicine at Jamnagar, India in 2022 (WHO, 2022) could play a vital role by contributing to tribal health research and ensuring ethical practices in collaboration with other already existing institutions and agencies in the country.

Way Forward

Addressing the problems and challenges of researching tribal health in India would need a concerted effort of many stakeholders at various levels – including at individual, group, institutional, local, regional state and national. It would call for collaboration, discussion and sharing of information, findings and designing a framework for further studies both at micro and macro levels. To make process of tribal health research ethical, transparent and accountable, and its outcome beneficial to communities, there need to be policies, systems, guidelines and mechanisms which govern research and that encompass academics and practice.

The following points listed below most of which are also found in the Report of the Expert Committee on Tribal Health (2018) could act as a way forward for researching tribal health in India –

1. Formulation of tribal health (and research) policy.
2. Following the ethical principles of tribal health research –
3. respect (for tribal culture)
4. relevance (to tribal communities)

• reciprocity (through two-way process of learning and exchange)

1. responsibility (empowerment through active engagement; ensuring that the tribal people face no adverse consequences due to research including denial of access to their traditional knowledge).
2. Following the five approaches for tribal health research –
3. multidisciplinary
4. participatory and community based which addresses needs of community and ensures findings of the research are transmitted and adopted by the community members.

• epidemiologic research which are state and tribe specific which would be foundational for tribal health plan.

1. implementation research integrated into policy and programmatic decision making and
2. evaluation research.
3. Including the following as scope of tribal health research –
4. knowledge, attitudes and practices in tribal people
5. tribal medicines and practices including scientific evaluation of the same.

• epidemiological studies including morbidities, mortalities, rate, trend and intervention studies.

1. health care delivery systems in tribal areas –priorities, coverage, quality, utilization, barriers and bottlenecks and outcomes and
2. policy, governance and financing.
3. Formulating Tribal Health Research Agenda, establishing Tribal Health Directorate and setting up special Tribal Health Research Cell (under MoHFW).
4. Increasing and expanding the network of ICMR and Tribal Research Institutes to districts where tribal population is more than 50%.
5. Streamlining the research activities of NGOs related to Tribal Health.
6. Allotting at least 10% of the budget of Directorate of Health Research for Tribal Health Research.
7. Developing Health Management Information System (HMIS) and making NFHS, DLHS, AHS, NSSO and SRS capture specific information and estimates of tribal health.
8. Regularly monitoring, supervising and evaluating the health policies, programmes and infrastructure to generate knowledge on tribal health.
9. Encouraging ethnographic research and use of emic perspective for tribal health research by scholars from within tribal communities and supporting them financial grants and fellowships.
10. Developing the research capacity and nurturing the research interest of health workers who are working in tribal areas through training, network and support on how to scientifically design health studies, collection data, write and publish on tribal health based on primary data.
11. Promote research in tribal using Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR) lens for better tribal health policy, systems and outcomes.

 

References

1. Bagchi,  T. Das, A. Dawad, S & Dalal K. (2020). Non-utilization of Public Healthcare Facilities during Sickness: A National Study in India. Journal of Public Health: From Theory to Practice. Vol. 30. Pp. 943–951.
2. Basu, S. (2000). Dimensions of Tribal Health in India. Health and Population perspectives and Issues, Vol. 23(2). Pp. 61-70.
3. Bodhi, S.R. and Darokar, S.S. (2023). Becoming a Scheduled Tribe in India: The History, Process and Politics of Scheduling. Contemporary Voice of Dalit. Pp. 1-11.
4. Bora, D & Das B. (2022). Nexus Between Poverty and Superstitious Beliefs among Tribal Communities of Assam: A Case Study of Rabha Tribe. Journal of Anthropological Survey of India.  Vol. 71(2). Pp. 185-201.
5. Census of India. (2011). Government of India. Source: https://sansad.in/getFile/annex/262/AU464.pdf?source=pqars#:~:text=(a)%3AAs%20per%20Periodic,not%20available%20in%20PLFS%20report.
6. Hindustan Times (2019). 85 per cent MBBS graduates avoided rural service in Gujarat in two years (Mar. 3, 2020)  Source: https://www.hindustantimes.com/education/85-per-cent-mbbs-graduates-avoided-rural-service-in-gujarat-in-two-years/story-ALoMzOjDthXOFnZm22ovcK.html
7. India: Lokur Committee Report. (1965). The report of the advisory committee on the revision of the lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Department of Security, Government of India.
8. India: National Commission of Scheduled Tribes. (2023). Crimes against Scheduled Tribes. https://ncst.nic.in/sites/default/files/2017/Atrocities/1127.pdf
9. India: National Commission of Scheduled Tribes. (2023). Crimes against Scheduled Tribes. https://ncst.nic.in/sites/default/files/2017/Atrocities/1128.pdf
10. India: National Crime Records Bureau. (2024). Crime/Atrocities against Scheduled Tribe(s)- 2020-2022. https://ncrb.gov.in/uploads/nationalcrimerecordsbureau/custom/1702029713TABLE7C1.pdf
11. Indian Express. (2023). Maharashtra: In biggest govt medical college, 2 in 3 graduates chose Rs 10 lakh fine over rural posting (Jan 9, 2023). Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/maharashtra-in-biggest-govt-medical-college-2-in-3-graduates-chose-fine-over-rural-posting-8369261/#:~:text=Between%202015%20and%202021%2C%20nearly,compulsory%20one%2Dyear%20rural%20posting.
12. Islary, J. (2019). Pregnancy and Pregnancy Care Practice: The Lived Experience of the Bodos. New Delhi: Mittal Publications.
13. Islary. J. (2021). Ensuring Public Healthcare Service and Health Rights in Communities through Participatory Health Governance. Indian Journal of Health and Wel-being.  Vol. 12(4). Pp. 466-469.
14. Jiloha, R.C. (2010). Deprivation, Discrimination, Human Rights Violation and Mental Health of the Deprived. Indian Journal of Psychiatry. Vol. 52(3). Pp. 207-212.
15. Kumar , R. Dumka, N. & Kotwal, A. (2023). Correspondence article on the research protocol titled ‘Towards Health Equity and Transformative Action on tribal health (THETA) study to describe, explain and act on tribal health inequities in India: A health systems research study protocol’ published in Wellcome Open Research. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10568208/pdf/wellcomeopenres-8-20432.pdf
16. Kumar, M. M. Pathak, V.K. & Ruikar, M. (2020).  Tribal Population in India: A Public Health Challenge and Road to Future. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care.  Vol. 9(2). Pp. 508-512.
17. Mavalankar, D. (2016). Doctors for Tribal Areas: Issues and Solutions. Indian Journal of Community Medicine. Vol. 41(3). Pp. 172-176.
18. Mutatkar, R.K. (2022). Tribal Health Issues: A Need for Tribal Health Policy. Indian Journal of Medical Research. Vol. 156(2), 182-185.
19. Narain, J.P. (2019). Health of Tribal Populations in India: How Long can We Afford to Neglect? IJMR. Vol. 149(3). Pp. 303-316.
20. National Health Policy 2017, MoHFW, GoI. Source: https://main.mohfw.gov.in/sites/default/files/9147562941489753121.pdf
21. Report of the Expert Committee on Tribal Health. (2018). Tribal Health in India – Bridging the Gap and a Roadmap for the Future.  New Delhi. MoTA.
22. Roy, A. D. Muacevic, D. & Mondol, H. (2023). The Tribal Health System in India: Challenges in Healthcare Delivery in Comparison to the Global Healthcare Systems. Cureus Vol. 15(6). Pp. 1-4.
23. Saravanan, C. Bharathi, P. & Indra, S. (2022). Understanding the Trends of Tribal Research in India through Bibliometric Analysis. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care. Vol. 11(10). Pp. 5887-5893.
24. Singh, U.P. (2008). Tribal Health in North East India: A Study of Socio-Cultural Dimension of Health Care Practices. New Delhi Serials Publications.
25. Tanya, S. Velho, N. Narasimhamurti, N. S. &  Srinivas, P. N. (2020). Examining Tribal Health Inequalities around Three Forested Sites n India: Results of a Cross-sectional Survey. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care. Vol. 9(9). Pp. 4788-4796.
26. Times of India. (2023). Gujarat: In Past 3 years, 70% MBBS doctors under bond didn’t join govt duty (Sep. 18, 2023). Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/in-past-3-years-70-mbbs-docs-under-bond-didnt-join-govt-duty/articleshow/103742823.cms
27. (nd.). Sociocultural Biases and Discrimination. Source: https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/rwss/docs/2003/chapter3.pdf
28. WHO. (2022).WHO Launches Traditional Medicine Hub in India. Source: https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220419-who-launches-traditional-medicine-hub-in-india
29. WIPO. (2001). Intellectual Property Needs and Expectation of Traditional Knowledge Holders. Geneva: WIPO.
30. Xaxa Committee Report. (2014). Report of the High Level Committee on Socioeconomic, Health and Educational Status of Tribal Communities of India. New Delhi: MoTA.

Dr.Jacob Islary is an Associate Professor of Social Work at St. Xavier’s University, Kolkata.

 

Introduction

In this paper an attempt is made to unravel the experiences of the researcher in researching tribal governance and policy, especially in the context of Manipur state in Northeast India. The paper delves into the empirical subjectivities and challenges experienced by the researcher while unpacking the intricacies and subtleties of the research processes and methodological approaches in the light of the above stated subject domain.

It is noteworthy to point out that research about tribes has been one of the main themes, at least in social sciences, from the colonial period to post-colonial times. In the Northeast region of India, especially the tribal people and their polity, outsiders carried out research studies with their lenses of approaches and methodological considerations from colonial times until today. However, in the recent discourse on tribes, there has been strong criticism of the methodological approach of studies done on tribes and sought indigenous/tribal methodologies as a frame to study tribes. Tripura (2023) stated that historically (methodologically), studies concerning Tribes in India were dominated by colonial ethnographers and explorers. Subsequently, in post-colonial India, such studies became the field of a dominant male caste. From a similar perspective of dominance, these studies on Tribes in India viewed them as either backward or from the point of view that “civilization” could be achieved only through bringing them into the mainstream. Bodhi (2022) argued that when one picks up any book concerning Tribes written by the hegemon if one cares to read between the lines, one will see, laced through every category, every theory and every reference, a perspective that inferiorized tribal knowledge, rejects and invisibilize tribal epistemologies and indirectly (consciously or unconsciously) affirms Western and Caste worldviews. For Tribes, such epistemic positions have little to do with intellectual abilities and theoretical-methodological depth but rather with a crude form of epistemological fanaticism that seeks to dilute and neutralize non-Western and non-Caste worldviews (Bodhi, 2022, pp. 72-73). These arguments are reflections on how the studies on tribes have been framed from a colonial gaze with biases that do not reflect the realities of the tribal people.

Smith (1999) discussed that indigenous methodology as a paradigm emphasizes considering the specificities of epistemologies and methodologies which are rooted in survival struggles, specific indigenous contexts, histories, cultural protocols, values, and behaviors as an integral part of any methodology and in a language that is understood by the community and derived from indigenous ways of knowing and their concerns. Bodhi (2020) theorized ‘engaged observation’ based on the philosophical understanding that social reality is fundamentally diverse, and its multiple constituents are in perpetual dialogue. Any attempt to forcefully homogenize social realities or overgeneralize them amounts to epistemic violence.

An interesting process called ‘epistemological decolonization’ by Bodhi (2022) conceptualized with an approach to restrained from reducing colonization to a single historical event and sees colonization as an epistemology that is violently layered into the lives of people through ‘waves of colonialism’ and multiple intersecting colonial mentalities. Bodhi’s (2022, p. 11) critical theorization on dialogical historiography claims that historical knowledge is situated and is neither objective nor neutral. The question it posits is less about what history is written and more about who writes it. The frame-of-reference of dialogical historiography is ‘diversity-coexistence’ compared to the ‘universal-particular’ framework of colonial historiography. These theorizations are critical to deconstructing and diluting the larger dominant and biased frame of studying tribal/indigenous studies in India and the global context.

Contextualizing tribal governance and policy studies becomes very critical at this juncture. What tribal are today has implicit consequences of what the governance frame and policies were for the tribal. With the rigid structure of the state and the politics of diplomacy, studying tribal governance systems and policies faced many complexities and challenges. There is a need to intrinsically locate the theorization and frames that are decolonizing in its methodologies and approaches.

Subjective Experiences and Complexities of Research Processes: A Case of Manipur

In this section, I will discuss the subjective experiences of doing research in Manipur. The research study was on the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council and Article 371-C, which are the frames of governance for the tribal people in Manipur. I faced many challenges in the data collection, especially on two fronts. One, the identity of being tribal and researching the tribal governance framework poses certain reservations from the non-tribal and Government officials. Two, most non-tribal and Government officials chose not to give their views and opinions and instead blatantly put the onus of governance failures or problems on tribal disunity. For this reason, it was difficult to capture and dig out the actual views of the non-tribal and officials, which is critical for any governance or policies-related research. The complexity of the research process is discussed in the following section.

The data collection started by making an appointment with the respondents by visiting the office and making a telephone appointment. It took much work for me to identify the various respondents and, more so, the right respondents for the study. One of the difficulties I faced in data collection was that it took many days to get an appointment with government officials, and some officers were not keen to be study respondents. In the context of the tribal organization that was supporting and at the same time demanding more power to the District Council, they were pretty interested in the topic and eager to justify their standpoint. For instance, one of the tribal organizations which opposed the district council election said that this kind of study should be published in the national forum and highlight how exploitative the District Council is for the tribal instead of protecting them. On the other hand, the organizations that supported the district council election said that the District Council is the starting point. With unity among the tribal, the next step is to demand a Sixth Schedule.

As the topic is politicized with many opinions and justifications, drawing any line as a researcher has become very complex. For instance, before the interview begins, the interviewee would ask what other organizations said on a particular issue. In this situation, it was difficult for me to answer and deal with the curiosity the interviewee would have on me. I would answer that the interview went well and ignored the curiosity of the interviewee. I was also cautious not to hurt the sensibilities of the respondents as far as possible.

My identity of being tribal and studying a sensitive issue relating to the tribal of Manipur was challenging for the officials to answer many sensitive issues like the amendment of the act, financial provision, and land rights. In some questions related to government responsibilities, the official did not answer and gave an alibi by saying that it was beyond their authority to answer those questions and change the topic. It was very disappointing for me as the gist of the study where the government officials had to answer was not answered. Further, when the subject was about the politics between the Manipur Government and the district council, it was a surprise to hear from the interviewee that he could not answer those questions and flag off the question. In this situation, focusing on the research objectives and simultaneously handling their curiosity was difficult. However, the HAC Chairman was open and shared the district council and HAC’s problems. I realized that since the Chairman was a tribal, he was more relaxed about the issue. However, due to the issue’s sensitivity, some pertinent questions were not appropriately answered, though I tried to clarify. Instead, the interviewee will change the questions or blame it on the Government of Manipur. It is unethical as a researcher to impose any restriction or urge to answer the questions, as this will blight research ethics. Therefore, I was helpless and in a dilemma to experience this process.

The non-tribal organization experience was challenging as the organization had already taken the researcher’s subjectivity, making them neutral in sharing their views. When essential questions related to the district council’s role and the protection of Tribal were put in, the answers were mainly very political. They stated that people should live in peace and not be aggressive. Most of the answer, or rather the message they wanted to convey, was that peaceful coexistence between different communities in Manipur should be encouraged, and all the communities should ensure the integrity of the state. Being a tribal from Manipur and researching tribal issues, many a time, I was asked by a non-tribal about my views/opinions on tribal movements. In this situation, it took much effort to balance sharing my views while not indulging in any opinion-related debate and discussion. For instance, one respondent asked whether I would prefer moving to Nagaland or an alternative arrangement for the Nagas in Manipur. I responded that I am not a supporter of any political movements, but I am here as a researcher to study the District Council. To avoid this kind of situation, It was pretty challenging for me not to move away from my identity of being ‘Tribal’ as the respondents were more curious about my identity. In this way, they were reluctant to answer some politically sensitive questions regarding Tribal rights, land and autonomy. This situation made me realize that my ethnicity has curtailed the objectivity of the interview. My identity as an insider did pose a challenge on some occasions.

I believe in some way because my identity as a tribal has impeded the interview by not getting the honest opinions of the non-tribal organization. The views of the non-tribal community were more on the need for peaceful coexistence in Manipur despite the existence of a different community, whether in hill or valley. In this situation, it was difficult for me to find other ways to come back to the topic of study and grasp the situation. Concerning the District Council in Manipur, they opined that it is for the self-governance of the tribal in Manipur, and the tribal should respect the act and try to uphold it to the fullest instead of blaming the Government.

My identity of being an insider did act as an impediment. On some occasions, it was a challenge for me to be unbiased towards a particular community and its perspectives. I realized that my pre-notion perception of a specific community would influence the interviewing process and data. Therefore, I must be aware of my biases and ignore these biases to be unbiased. It is not easy, and it takes time. It was tough in the initial phase, but slowly, I could manage quite comfortably. It was imperative to be unbiased as new views and opinions were learned from the interviewees, and I might have yet to find out if I was biased. It was imperative to accept and locate their perspective and not judge them based on respondent ethnicity or community.

Being politically sensitive, the topic under study made it challenging to find respondents with ease. Most respondents were leaders or representatives of organizations, and it took work to get appointments with them. Though some were very receptive and vocal about their views and opinions, some were reluctant to express their views as the topic is politically and ethnically susceptible. One of the most significant challenges was making the respondents open up their views and opinions on such sensitive issues while maintaining a degree of confidence that such statements would be confidential. It is so because the respondents are the voices of the community/organization. They are meticulous in responding and giving opinions that will not be misconstrued. It happens especially with the non-tribal organization.

One of the significant challenges I faced was my ethnicity as a Naga in Manipur. Studying a susceptible subject, some communities hesitated to share any information that would directly be seen as being against the tribes or Nagas in particular. So, most of the respondents would share only the good points and gloss over the negative energies. Lastly, being a Naga, there are preconceptions from other community members conceiving the researcher as favoring the Naga political demand. In this context, the researcher may have yet to obtain some in-depth data on many complex processes.

Conclusion

Due to the complexities of the research process, it is recommended that the research focuses on people’s experiences to unravel peoples’ perspectives from within. This will capture the varied complexities from the state’s rigid structural policies to the lived experiences of the people and have tremendous scope to unpack the convolutions and intricacies of the problems that persist, such as the case of the District Council in Manipur. The complexities of research subjective experiences reflect in resonate with Bodhi’s (2022, p.5) theorization of ‘contextualization’ that the act of contextualization within the decolonial-historical approach is a conscious effort that demands the engagement, deconstruction, delineation, unravelling, and reassembling of these intersecting realities through the identification of ‘lines of enquiry’ rather than the ‘object of inquiry’. As far as the knowledge producer engaging in knowledge production is concerned, contextualization is somewhat restrained to any ‘truth-claim’ by any person about having understood the totality of a particular social reality. The knowledge producer has, at most, unraveled one aspect of the social reality, not the total reality (Bodhi, 2022, p. 6).

In this way, the ‘truth claim’ for the non-tribal in the research I undertook is the one-sided narrative of the dominant community and government officials who blamed the tribals regarding the failure of the governance systems. For these groups of people, their approach is to ‘disengage’ the narratives of the other communities (tribes) and look for a single universal truth by ignoring the multiple narratives. This process de-contextualized the whole process of contextualization, which is vital in producing knowledge and truth. I strongly recommend that for any study on governance or policies on tribes, the multiplicity of narratives of the people is the utmost truth and should focus on what Bodhi (2022) theorizes on epistemological decolonization, contextualization and engaged observation. People’s narratives directly reflect the governance and policies for the people. In researching policies and governance for distinct and unique people like tribes, the thrust of the study should stem from the people’s narratives and not the biased glance of colonial or caste perspectives.

References:

• Bodhi, S. R. (2020). Epistemology of the Peripheralized: A Decolonial-Historical Approach. Nagpur: New Vehicle Production.
• Bodhi, S. R. (2022a). The decolonial-historical approach in social sciences research: its methodological contours. J. Tribal Intellect. Collect. India 6, 1–12.
• Tripura, B. (2023). ‘Decolonizing Ethnography and Tribes in India: Toward an Alternative Methodology’. Front. Polit. Sci. 5: pp. 1–15.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2023.1047276
• Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies-Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books.

 

According to Apatani or Tanii oral tradition, the first priest and knowledge bearer of humankind was Dolyang Chanjang, who was the sister of Abotani – the first complete human and the forefather of all the Tani tribes. Our history is absolutely clear on our descent from Abotani, but fondly remember Dolyang Chanjang as the wise sister. This sister saved his dear life so many times from the absurd and frustrating situations he gets himself into. This sister who gave birth and passed on all the knowledge and wisdom to her sons who are now revered as Popi Sarmi – the wise ones. This sister who was envied by all other powerful spirits gave up all her power and rights to Abotani to save the community. Dolyang Chanjang is praised but has no descendant or legacy to follow. Her story only exists to stitch and push forward Abotani’s history. She flourished and perished, unlike her brother.

This paper will look into the experiences of several tribal women researchers, scholars and academicians, including my own. This is to locate and to not disown our experiences and struggles anymore. Throughout the following sections, this note will discuss what this disowning means and show how this disowning dislocates our struggles from the struggles of other women. In the process, we delve into aspects of research experiences which otherwise get lost only to ‘safe space sharing’. I am writing from years of experience of numerous discussions, deliberations and venting in the safe spaces, about our experiences of researching tribal women’s issues as another tribal woman. It is important to mention here that all the scholars mentioned here identify themselves as cisgender tribal women, all of us are first-generation researchers and scholars belonging to different tribal communities. We discussed our dilemmas of shifting through the insider-outsider complex, our negotiations in gendered spaces, gendered performativity of expectations, access and mobility, dealing with labelling, unequal power dynamics, and disowning of our realities in academic space.

These women are to constantly prove their mettle as scholars, having to prove their credibility beyond their gender identity; and yet are never seen besides their gender identity both in the field and in academia. Sometimes she is expected to ‘speak like a scholar’ and sometimes to speak for her gender. In the field, within the community and among her people, the tension of shifting through these identities becomes challenging. There she has to disown her other parts of her identity – her achievements, who she is as a scholar, her identity thinking of self, her knowledge pool and expertise, the ideology she follows, and all the goods and bads of choices she has made to be where she is – she is reduced to being and behave only as a woman. There she is expected to mindfully and bodily perform her gendered performances. While in academia, one is dealing with other sets of disowning because of denial by her counterparts – who could be non-tribals, racists, casteists, fascist and followers of patriarchy – oblivious of her struggles, or maybe benefits from this oppression. I have a friend who is categorically labelled by her supervisor as a slacker, openly compared with her non-tribal scholars – who also asked her to explain how she is using her scholarship and if she truly believes that she deserves this scholarship/reservation/position. A too-close-to-heart experience experienced by each of us. I for instance (of many other similar instances where the other person chooses to make sure that I should know), was when someone just mentions that I was an obvious selection because I was the only Arunachali. All this sets us behind by miles, paying these extra emotional taxes for our identity, and for what we very proudly want to hold as a badges- as scholars and an intellectual. Today is not the day when I want to take out my time to count and acknowledge for every time there were naysayers there were few who held the doors. There are others whom we call ours, the insiders who choose to not speak about us (tribal women) or to us every time they had the opportunity to research, write, teach or speak. More than outsiders, it is mostly their silence which renders us as imperfect insiders.

Today I am writing only to acknowledge and honor each of these brave, resilient, bright and thinking women who are constantly pushing the frontiers even in small inches.

‘It is getting dark!’

Research is contingent upon the quality of data collected. For most female researchers this also translates into the question of accessibility to the fields and data. And this accessibility for us is contingent to several other factors non-existent for most male researchers. A friend shared about the challenges of mobility she faces every time she visits her field to meet people. Unlike her male counterparts who could make spontaneous plans and adjustments, she has to meticulously plan her travels to field, especially in interior areas. Lack of public transport, roads, places for stay and safety concerns are her recurring obstacles. She cannot easily hop on somebody’s bike or car, she cannot stay back with anyone, she cannot make trips via forests alone, she cannot carry heavy luggage, she has to mind her menstrual cycle, daily family responsibilities even if she is not married. Apart from this, she has to be mindful of socio-cultural standards set for women to avoid any labels which might block her access to information. Her attire, voice, tone and demeanor, if she takes alcohol, if she eats too much, or if she is deemed too friendly with men, if she is married or single, if her topic is culturally appropriate for women, everything counts. Yet my friends seldom complained about these conditions, they only found it frustrating when their male colleagues callously remark – you need to learn to adjust!

Safety and a sense of security are crucial concerns for women when they leave their safe spaces. They might not consciously think about it all the time, but they can become acutely aware of its absence in an instant. During a PhD seminar presentation by a female scholar (non-tribal), she was sharing about once when she missed her regular bus while returning from her field. The next bus wasn’t coming till another two hours while it was getting dark. She had harrowing time in that desolate bus stop waiting for the bus alone. Though nothing happened and it was mostly her mental battle, this experience affected her deeply. Next time onwards she became anxiously conscious of ticking time which even started affecting her interview process. She was interrupted by another male researcher pointing out that this happens to him also, sometimes he had to sleep at the bus stop, and this never deterred his commitment. Most female participants in the seminar were left speechless by this. Later in our safe space, we discussed if sharing about our challenges is always going to be interrogated from the lens of commitment towards our work? How are we ever supposed to talk about, get acknowledged, and address our issues then?

The experiences we have gone through, just like those of the people we have interviewed, demonstrate the harsh reality of living in our patriarchal society where women do not feel safe. These experiences were shared by female researchers from Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Nagaland, Manipur, Assam, and Arunachal, researching in their own communities. Yet, each of them put up a brave face as If they are playing on the equal grounds of academia where gender factor is a reality only as a subject of study not as a reality of being. As if these realities are not ‘always realities’ but only situational or special realities of the fields.

Insider’s Trauma

I have a friend whose research took her to conflict zones. She was the only tribal woman in a fact-finding team for cases of sexual violence against women by militant groups and the state military. In the field, she became too aware of how thin is the line between being a researcher and being the next victim for her. She was suspiciously stared at by both army men and by her own people when knowing she is also a tribal. She belonged and looked like any of the victims who just a few days before, being brutally gang-raped or murdered, were just going about their life and work. Others in her team were not experiencing the same vulnerability, fear and trauma. Years later she still was struggling to describe her emotional entanglements – the fear for her safety, shame for her vulnerability, the trauma of ravaged bodies and spirits of women like hers, anger and helplessness, reflections and trauma she was left with. Her supervisor did not find it remarkable enough and asked her, ‘This is happening in all indigenous land. What are you bringing to the table for the academia?’. She has to speak beyond and above her realities or else package these realities in abstractions and inferences for academic sensibilities, to be worthy of the hallowed university space.

I have a friend who was researching and documenting cases of domestic violence in her community. To all her faith and allegiance to her rich and unique tribal culture and traditions, faith in the egalitarian ethos, communitarian way of life and eco-sensitivity, this study was a rude shock for her. Not only because of the prevalence of cases of domestic violence but because of the normalization and collective denial to see domestic violence as a serious problem by both men and women in her community. Women being beaten black and blue to their physical and mental illness and even eventual death, women turning alcoholic, maniacs, getting abandoned or compelled to break away from their homes, is not seen as crime. Both men and women, including the victims themselves, were more willing to provide explanations for the violence that occurs as if to justify it. ‘Ah the husband is an alcoholic’, ‘the woman talks too much’, ‘the woman was of loose character’, ‘men are men, women need to be women’. The traditional councils refuse to intervene citing these as ‘private’ matters. Even any women’s organizations, would intervene only when the situation went to extremes – the death of the woman. My friend was disturbed because these men are no stranger to her, they are her relatives, uncles, neighbors and friends, who otherwise are some of the most educated and wisest men in her society. What would make her trust her own community to be fair to her if she were the victim?

Performativity of Insider

In research workshops, young scholars are sensitized on social and cultural sensitivity. Right attitude, ethical conduct, acting and speaking in a way that does not dehumanize your subject or informant, particularly when you are studying other cultures. In more recent times, few researchers have started writing about their experiences of researching their own communities. They are talking about the complex interplay of being an insider and outsider while finding/forming their own voice and views. Among these are a few female researchers who are asserting how their community and gender identities shape the research process and knowledge generation. Their bodily appearance and conduct generate perceptions that determine their access to information positively or negatively.

A friend shared about her struggles with gendered performativity. She feels such cultural gender-specific ascriptions are more strictly imposed upon female researchers than her male counterparts. Performing the ascribed femininity, speaking softly, dressing appropriately, sitting in assigned traditional space, sounding more amicable, mindful and acting helpful like helping with picking the teacups, always being light on the toes in case any help is needed, to impress and get approval. This is truer when someone is researching women’s issues and interviewing women in rural settings. In most cases, interviews happen in the respondent’s house where the informant hardly sits down to give a long interview. She is making tea, thinking about or preparing for cooking, watching over kids, waiting on visitors, working in fields or being worried about it, etc. Like most first-generation researchers who are also an insider, like myself, we are ontologically affected by the situation. While most male researcher who are not used to performing or are responsible for these tasks in their respective homes might find themselves unaffected by all the movements around them. We are helplessly drawn into helping around the female informant. One is too aware of what happens when these women miss their time slots – cooking at the right time, attending to children’s needs, feeding the domestic animals or attending to agricultural responsibilities. Years of upbringing and internalizing where these tasks became part of our tactile memory learned at home. The expectations and its performativity bleeds into all spaces, across the tribes and regions where patriarchy is the norm. One has to tick all the societal markers of a good woman’s performance and do it every day to be accepted as an insider who can connect.

An Indigenous Outsider

One of the most challenging realities, and common experiences – more common to comforting, by many tribal women in general and tribal women scholars in particular, has been that it is not up to them to decide if they are indigenous or not. It is up to the different conglomerates of men of respective societies to give or take away the title/identity. These experiences by women have become more common in recent times. Any woman, especially indigenous feminist women, who raises critical questions against patriarchal norms and practices is seen as a ‘traitor’ or someone with ulterior motives to marry non-tribal men. Point in the case could be the times whenever women’s groups in Nagaland or Meghalaya asked for women’s reservation in electoral bodies. They were not only violently opposed but very systematically harassed. This happened while most of the male intellectuals of the community watched in silence despite knowing the better. Another case could be when in 2022, there was an attempt to introduce a draft bill on Marriage and Inheritance of Property Bill, 2021, legalizing inherited property rights to women in Arunachal Pradesh. Not only the draft bill was never brought to the assembly for discussion, any women showing any support were brutally trolled and threatened with murder, arson, rape, social boycott and public humiliation in social media platforms by their own community men. These men, till this sudden outburst, were their own community members whom they saw as their family, friends, relatives, colleagues, or just another tribal community fellow. These spontaneous moments of spite and misogyny and their silent approvals, give rare glimpses of core values and systems sustaining the male-dominated tribal societies.  Women intellectual who tried to speak any sense or women research scholars sharing their knowledge were witch-hunted and vilified with the threat of ‘disowning’ from the community. This is not far from the experiences of many other friends who have braved social media trolling and threats by their own community members for raising questions against the sexism and oppression within their communities.

I have friends, working and studying women’s organizations in their states. The members of these organizations believed in their subservient position to community apex councils/organizations. These apex bodies are largely dominated by men who believe in upholding traditional customs. The women’s organizations are always cautious and mindful of their boundaries and positions. They continue to re-enact the role they play in their private domestic spheres to public domains. They believe in their ‘motherly’ responsibility of being nurturers towards their communities. My friend asks if it is true that if a woman asks for her rights she is questioning or undermining her community’s rights.

The Intimate Insider

 My friends share about the joy and discomforts of being an insider in their research fields. It is a mixed bag for an insider. By being an insider, I mean being a tribal and a woman who is trying to study their community, who embodies within themselves everything that it means. Empathy comes easy because of shared experience. A friend collecting the narratives of widows in conflict zones has lived through that same period of traumatic experience. She understood what it means to fear for one’s life, fearing for family, going through the aftermaths where the community somehow collect itself back. She also knew that for some, this rebuilding might never happen again as a widow and a single parent. The ‘insiderness’ for her meant reliving the pain with her informants and knowing that they are there for each other as a community. But ‘insiderness’, also exposes you to the vulnerability of being ‘who’s who’ of the community. A friend studying the migration of tribal girls to urban places for work, often sourced out to work as house help, found herself caught in the unfavorable side of being an insider. The idea of unmarried girls living alone far away from their communities is always seen with some sense of misgiving. As an insider, she could understand the diverse and layered meanings of the narratives and views shared by different people. She knows that in tribal society, women earning a living is not an issue – tribal women are rarely dependent women. But she also understood how a family dependent on an unmarried woman’s earnings is looked upon. She also had informants who could not open up to her. Being an insider also means that your identity is located in a very complex dynamics of relations – who you are, your parents/family, and the socio-economic status of your family. Not to forget that as a woman, you do not have a direct status in your community, it is all associated with status, particularly to a man.

On the other spectrum of this ‘insiderness’ is how knowing or being aware of people’s perceptions and expectations affected their own processes. A friend shared about how her being married and university job generates more involved responses. While her young female research assistants found it challenging to be taken seriously. Another friend shared that it was often a conscious decision to take male assistants or interpreters while going to field – not for safety reasons – but for bringing some ‘weightage’ to the process. Another scholar noted that often her male driver, from the same community as hers, received more attention and seriousness than her so much so that ultimately, she decided to put him as the main interviewer while she would supply or ask questions through him. I remember my own experience, as a young researcher, of juggling between overselling or underselling my research project on women’s reservation in Panchayati Raj Institution, depending upon if my informant was a male or a female. Male informants were often disinterested or did not take the subject (and the interview process) seriously. I used to explain why it was such an important subject. When it was a female informant, she would get nervous and agitated whenever I approached them for an interview. So, I had to explain that this was just small research, and I only needed her personal opinion on the subject. Women get agitated also because most of the time they believe they have nothing to say, they are not allowed to say, they don’t believe they know anything, there might be some consequences if she says something wrong, or they don’t have anything important to say because they don’t believe they are important. Most of us have heard these lines whenever we tried to interview a woman, ‘I don’t have anything to say’ or ‘Why don’t you ask my husband/father/brother/or any male around? They can tell you better.’ While on one hand there is this challenge of removing the disowning of self by these women; on the other hand, there is this forever ‘lurking uncle’ (as one friend rightly pointed out) in the background who joins out of curiosity, then start adding/correcting/explaining and then gradually taking over the entire conversation. Simultaneously you will see your main informant exiting the scene with a sigh of relief and defeat. We feel what she is feeling because our experiences are not far away from each other.

Gatekeeping

We have many forms of gatekeeping and many gates. Academic gatekeepers who would like you to speak about truth and knowledge only – but only after processing it through their set frameworks or standards. Till they stamp you and publish you your knowledge and truth is not worthy of being real and actually happening.

We have many sorts of gatekeepers. Some in academia decide if you are worthy and control the processes of knowledge production by stamping and publishing your work or by stopping it. We have our own indigenous scholars who refuse to acknowledge your struggles and articulations as real or worthy. You are constantly told to stand in que ‘your time has not come yet or you are not the right person to speak’. They tell you that you need to research, write, talk, think, dream and even believe like a tribal scholar, not like a tribal woman. Your subjectivity and consciousness of being a woman hinder you and blocks you.

We have community gatekeepers, who check upon what you speak and where you speak. The truth and questions you want to raise have to fall or feed into the narratives they have decided upon. Women’s struggles and realities have to be subservient to the community’s identity, struggles and aspirations. Some even stop you from accessing the knowledge.

This reminds me of the time during my PhD fieldwork, when I was trying to interview an elderly speaker well known for his knowledge of oral traditions, particularly of Kiidi Migung – land history. After two visits he agreed to give me some time that also only if his daughter is around to translate from literary Apatani to common Apatani that I could understand. Finally, one late evening I sat for the interview where throughout he was being condescending. And answered in briefs, summaries and left out details. However, as it became late and dark my late father had to come to pick me up. The moment he entered the scene, this person transformed into what he was known to be – one of the most dexterous speakers with profound knowledge and mastery. The syntax and semantics of his oration went several notches higher, and now he wanted to talk politics in the presence of another male member! I was sitting and staring at the happenings. It just took a gender identity to open all access to knowledge and information. I cannot blame him, can I?

Conclusion

 One way of dealing with the situation is to plan and design your specifically for women – where she is the privy knowledge bearer, which cannot be shared with the expertise of men. Another way is to structurally and reflexively believe in the fact that our society is a shared reality. Women do not only might have special insights to share but her existence itself matters. Sometimes, the inclusion of their knowledge/perspectives/ experience should be inbuilt in our research project. Sometimes, this inclusion should be done not because they are women, and one needs a representation but because the project should be unbiased and just.

I took time and then some more time to write this note. I had the choice to write about the challenges of researching women’s issues and present women’s issues as if that is the only thing important about them as a subject. Turning the lens towards men is also important. I was not sure if I was to write as a researcher or as an indigenous women researcher. I will not dare to assume that I do not have any privileges and share the same power status as most of the women I worked with in knowledge generation. But I know that I am an intimate insider to their experiences. As my friend said, it will take just a few turns of fate or a context before I might be standing exactly at the same spot as my informants are in. It is really difficult to escape this fate if I wish to own my indigenous identity in a community. Many patriarchal men and women still believe that I could be ‘put in the right place’ and reminded of what is women’s position in society’, and that ultimately, I am a woman. Every time each of us, me and my friends, we choose to speak about women’s situation in our community, we bite the bullet with a grit that only ignorance or faith could bring.

So today, I once again choose to speak not with anger or any hatred but against the ‘appalling silence’[i] and denial by many men and women. We are often advised – not to talk like you are complaining, angry or like a victim, don’t talk as if all men are the same, don’t talk like western/Savarna feminists, don’t talk like some ‘city madam’, don’t talk as if women’s issue are the only issue, your time has not come, don’t cause trouble. Just too many instructions to subdue and deny your self-awareness. I have to state without any pretence, allusion or with apologetic disclaimers which only delays and impairs the process of change but only based on my own experience of what I have seen, known, learned and felt. Nothing new, different or radical but just stating it straight so that no one has to interpret it or hide in denial: Tribal societies are oppressively patriarchal societies which systematically and ideologically privileges men at the cost of women. Its patriarchy is sometimes obscured by everyday communitarian way of life and a durable sense of ethnocentrism but in the end, it is unjust and unfair towards women. Despite its outward appearance, women hold an oppressed, underprivileged, subjugated and dehumanized status in tribal society like in any other patriarchal society of the world.

Now let us see where we get from here on.

End Notes

[i] Borrowed from ‘Appalling Silence’, a poem by Neal Hall. Hall, Neal (2015) Appalling Silence. Council for Social Development: Hyderabad (p2).

Excerpt:

It’s not the night,

but the absence of light

that keeps us in the dark

And in that darkness, we must remember not

the words of our enemies, but

the silence of our friends

 

 

Introduction

Tribal communities at the intersection of international Borderlands are straddled between nation-states, and the harsh realities of the border subjects them to difficult concrete conditions. An ontological crisis arising out of culturo-historical identity, belongingness to a geopolitical landscape, and state bounded citizenship manifest in challenging doxalogical asymmetries. However, this does not imply that they are people without a unique history nor one devoid of socio-cultural traditions. The concept of borders and territoriality delineated by nation-states starkly contrasts doxalogical experience, origin narratives, shared cosmologies, and communal histories of Borderland Tribes cutting across States-Nation. During my constant engagement with Tribal communities inhabiting the Borderlands, I struggled to comprehend viewpoints grounded on their perspective, and to submerged myself in the knowledge enterprise. My own positionality and epistemic privilege compounded the complexity of this endeavor as a fellow Tribal researcher operating within the domain of critical axiology. As I embarked on my quest for knowledge, I found myself confronted with a plethora of unanswered questions that extended much beyond the bounds of my sociological imagination. These questions included several considerations such as:

1. How can I conscientiously bridge the gap between the diverse realities experienced by the borderland tribes?
2. What methodological approaches can be employed to resonate with the cultural ethos of these tribes and uncover the underlying structures of their diverse ontologies?
3. What unique methodologies and frameworks do these tribes employ throughout their lifeworld to imbue value and meaning into their existence?
4. How can I respectfully engage with distinct beings while fostering a dialogical space conducive to mutual co-existence?

To address these complexities, I positioned myself as an empiricist engaged in empirical observation informed by ‘engaged observation’ (Bodhi and Jojo, 2019). My primary objective was to analyze the tensions caused by border delineations, understand the lived experience of living along an imagined boundary, and determine the meaning of the border in the context of people’s everyday lives.

This short article reflects my experiential and research-oriented journey with the Tribes inhabiting the Indo (Naga)-Myanmar borderland. It is not intended to present a generalized portrayal of borderland Tribes across diverse communities. Rather I have tried to critically examine the methodological complexities inherent in engaging with frontier Tribes, which, within the post-colonial context, have become identified as Border Tribes. In this endeavor, I deliberately steer my research approach in alignment with what Bodhi (2022) conceptualized as a “diversity – coexistence” framework instead of adopting a “universal-particular” frame of reference. The present framework, informed by the perspective and gaze of tribes within non-caste societies, provides a platform for theorizing from within, drawing upon tribal epistemologies deeply embedded within their contextual realities. Tripura (2023) ably pointed out that ‘any serious researcher involved with Tribes must first decolonize their mind in order to reject the universal-particular frame of reference and to adopt a context-specific frame of reference, and concurrently de-caste themselves within in order to look without, putting themselves on the path to decolonizing ethnography practices’ (:12). As such, it becomes imperative to view border tribes from the perspective of epistemological freedom.

Reflection on Tribal Epistemology(ies)

As a researcher exploring the complex fabric of life in borderlands, defined by its entanglement within the multifaceted realities of nation-states, my initial endeavor was to adopt research methodologies, tools, and techniques that resonated with the cultural ethos of the context – that of the border tribes. This approach could be framed within the purview of tribal epistemologies, encompassing their ways of knowing, sensing, tasting, and co-producing knowledge or what Bodhi (2022) called a “dialogical knowledge”. For Bodhi (2022:50‒51), ‘this knowledge is an act of engaging, conversation and reciprocity rather than defining, construction and controlling (…). This inter-epistemic dialogue speaks simultaneously to its own context and also to other dynamic context in a rational, dignified and self-respective manner.’ Xaxa (1999), in his seminal paper, posited that there remained a need to study tribal societies in their own right and to reverse the frame of reference i.e., from colonial and caste centric to tribal gaze or perspective from within. Echoing these methodological perspectives, the present research followed multiple methods of interactions with people living in the borderland. This includes what Tripura (2023) called ‘sitting around the fire’, ontological walk around the village, informal conversation and sharing narratives, conversation over delicious smoked-meat dinners and black tea, listening to the narratives of village elders among others.

Upon reaching the border village, the absence of any discernible demarcation signifying the international border dividing India and Myanmar prompted a perplexing question: Where does the border lie? Accompanied by the village chairman and several elders, I was guided through the village. They described the important sites and explained how the village is situated between two nation-states, India and Myanmar. As we approached the Indian Army outpost, located approximately 2 km from the main village, one of the elders gestured towards a solitary concrete pole positioned amidst the village grounds. This unassuming marker delineated the boundaries of two countries in opposing directions, serving as a tangible manifestation of the partition. Consequently, the imaginary international boundary line traverses the heart of Pangsha village. Adjacent to the inconspicuous concrete pole stands the outpost of the Assam Rifles, the paramilitary force responsible for safeguarding the Indo-Myanmar border. Most notably, there are no border police from Myanmar at all, and the only things remaining are crumbling buildings that are supposedly international commercial hubs but don’t actually have any active trade. This ontological walk around the village helped me familiarize with the morphology of the village structure.

I could identify the spots where my fellow tribal members felt most at ease to engage in conversations, typically near the fireplace in the kitchen. Among the Naga tribes residing in villages, the kitchen fireplace serves as the customary spot for interacting with peers, neighbors, and guests or hosting small gatherings. Therefore, most of my discussions with individuals from border areas occurred while seated around the kitchen fire. This method, dubbed the “sitting around the fire” approach by Tripura (2023), entailed participants gathering around the fire for conversation. My engagements with the village chairman, elders, youth, and women unfolded around the warmth of the fire. The process facilitated my understanding of collective memory, as multiple individuals shared their narratives while warming themselves. For example, if one member faltered in recalling the sequence of events, another would step in to provide clarity. Such interactions often extended until mealtime. There is an age-old tradition among the Naga tribes wherein village elders impart folktales, songs, stories of their origin, and other cultural narratives to teenagers gathered around the fire. This practice ensures the transfer of tribal knowledge from generation to generation, thereby preserving these narratives intact. The same tradition resonated during my discussion in the border region, where the village elders graciously gave me permission to tell their tales to other tribes around the world.

Subjective Experience of Engaged Observation at the Border

The ontological framework underpinning my research primarily examines the fundamental infrastructure elements (such as roads, electricity, telecommunication, and housing) and the quotidian experiences of individuals residing in border regions. My initial impetus for delving into border areas stemmed from personal observations of goods from China and Southeast Asia, readily available in local village shops and retailers. These goods are commonly referred to in local parlance as “Moreh products”. However, my academic pursuit was propelled by a genuine curiosity to comprehend my own reality vis-à-vis the experiences of other Naga tribes who dwell in border areas. These Naga tribes consist of Tangkhul, Konyak, Khiamniungan, Yimkhiungs (Yimchunger), Moyon, Makuri, Lainong, and others. The scope of this research was confined to the Indo (Naga)-Myanmar borders situated within the states of Manipur and Nagaland (in India), as well as the Sagaing Region of Myanmar, which falls within the purview of the Naga Self-Administered Zone. It is interesting to note that Indo-Myanmar border spans approximately 1643 km and it is predominately inhabited by tribes (Nagas, Kukis, Chins, Mizos, among others). Unlike the heavily fortified borders between India and Pakistan or India and China, the Indo-Myanmar border remains largely unfenced. This porous and abstract boundary traverses numerous tribal villages, residential dwellings, agricultural lands (including paddy fields and shifting cultivation areas), grazing pastures, and community forests.

Prior to commencing my fieldwork in these border regions, I received counsel from peers, colleagues, well-wishers, and even Indian army officers. The prevailing sentiment was one of skepticism regarding the rationale behind conducting fieldwork in border areas characterized by various factors such as perpetual unrest, insurgency, multifaceted conflicts, challenging terrain, inadequate infrastructure, geographic isolation, and other challenges. However, these factors intensified my resolve to delve into the reality of border inhabitants. Since my upbringing and the experiences of border communities were comparable, I felt emotionally ready to face these truths. Despite not belonging to the tribes inhabiting the border region, I share the same ethnic identity as the Nagas.

The village of Longwa, situated in the Mon district of Nagaland, is often touted as the “last Indian village” and serves as a notable illustration of the border intricacies. Accessible by road, Longwa is a popular tourist destination renowned for the residence of the village chief (Angh). Notably, the imaginary international boundary pierced through the residence of Angh, creates a unique situation where Angh and his family dine in Myanmar but sleep in India. The traditional Konyak architecture of the Angh’s house underwent renovation, funded by the Member of Parliament Local Areas Development (MPLAD) initiative, resulting in a concrete structure with a tin roof adorned with traditional Konyak art and design. The inauguration of this revamped house by the governor of Nagaland in 2016 marked a significant development in the village’s landscape (Ziipao 2020). There is a symbolic representation of dual sovereignty within the Angh’s residence that draws tourist attention: the presence of two national flags painted – one representing India and the other Myanmar – adorning the entrance. This emblematic portrayal underscores the coexistence of two distinct nation-states within the confines of a single dwelling. Moreover, the provision of basic infrastructure and the proliferation of homestays and guest houses supported by state initiatives underscore Longwa’s positioning as a burgeoning tourist destination. This is indicative of an assertion of symbolic sovereign power.

The less conspicuous border villages located within the Mon, Tuensang, Noklak, and Kiphire districts of Nagaland and the Sagaing Region of Myanmar also find themselves positioned along the borders of two distinct nation-states. For instance, Pangsha village, nestled amidst the international boundary, presents a logistical challenge as it remains inaccessible by jeep from the district headquarters. It is therefore necessary to use motorcycles to get to these border settlements. In a personal endeavor to elucidate this reality, I embarked on a motorcycle journey from Kohima to Pangsha village, spanning approximately 289 kilometers and requiring approximately 13 hours to reach the destination. Upon arriving at Pangsha in the evening, I struck up a conversation with the village chairman to express my curiosity about the lives of those who live along borders. I made it clear that I did not speak for any organisation or government agency. In hindsight, the village chairman expressed his apprehension, citing different instances where researchers and visitors had made promises that were never fulfilled, leaving him bewildered about the utility of their conversations and interviews. My intent in engaging with these communities was not to objectify, categorize, or classify them as my subjects of study but rather to foster a dialogical exchange to explore diverse realities. As such, I made a conscious effort to fully integrate myself into the environment when interacting with other tribe members from border regions. This approach facilitated a deeper understanding of the experiences of villagers residing in borderland communities, allowing for the alignment of their epistemologies with the research process. To put it simply, this meant giving people’s opinions more weight and highlighting viewpoints from the community, representing a research ethos that honors and takes into account their actual experiences.

 Community as a Border: Insights from the Study Area

Among the Naga tribes, each village has its distinct sense of boundary and territoriality. Commonly used boundary markers include rivers, grazing lands, mountain ranges, valleys, or erected monoliths, symbolizing the extent of each village’s territory. This practice is followed by the tribal groups. For example, the Ao, Angami, Lotha, Konyak, Khiamniungan, Poumai, and other tribes maintain a clear sense of boundary for their respective communities, despite existing within and across different nation-states in the contemporary geopolitical landscape. Historically, the Treaty of Yandaboo, signed in 1826 between the King of Ava and British East India Company was the first to arbitrarily demarcate the present Myanmar and Northeast India. Henceforth, during the colonial era, many Naga villages were either ruled by British India or Burma administration partially and some other Naga villages were categorized as excluded areas. This divide and rule gave birth to the politics of territoriality and arbitrary practice of colonial cartography as part of their imagination. Nevertheless, the social relationships and routines of the Naga tribes continued as usual, therefore there were no serious consequences on their territoriality.

Following the independence, India and Myanmar inherited the colonial legacy of arbitrary and imaginary boundary lines. There have been numerous attempts to negotiate the international boundary between the two countries, most notably in 1953 between the Prime Ministers of India and Myanmar. However, it was unsuccessful. It was not until the military regime of Myanmar that a boundary agreement was eventually signed with India on 10th March 1967. This agreement did not involve fencing, but it specified erecting a few symbolic pillars marking the border. The implications of this agreement are significant, as the Indo (Naga)-Myanmar boundary line cuts through the heart of many villages, leading to an escalation in (in)securitization of people (Ziipao, 2020). The mobility, social interactions, and day-to-day activities of people residing in borderland areas were significantly impacted by this circumstance, which resulted in multiple conflicts and the disintegration of conventional land and boundary systems. However, the draconian measure adopted by the Government of Myanmar in 2016 i.e., construction of barbed wire fencing along the Indo (Naga)-Myanmar border, led to intense protest from people, civil societies, insurgents and the Government of Nagaland. The construction of border fencing was put on moratorium post the series of protests and negotiation with the states. In a strong op-ed piece, Putchong Thai (2017) from Pangsha village writes,

The imaginary line that divides the Khiamniungan (Naga) as Indo-Myanmar Khiamniungan son’s and daughter’s was enough (…) Those mountains, my forefather’s named it as ‘Dan Kheng’ and I want to let the Govt. of India and Myanmar know that, Dan Kheng is not the limit of my forefather’s land. The people of Khiamniungan (Naga) still have more than 3500 acres of land besides DK, we don’t need visa to go to our own field; we will stand up for our land, for our right, for our will, and we won’t keep silent.[1]

Similar sentiment and strong assertion were also observed during my fieldwork in 2019. In the words of the village chairman of Pangsha, ‘We have been living here for generations without any border demarcation. With border fencing in place, how will our tribesmen commute and continue our shared space for grazing, collecting firewood, jhum fields, and most importantly our strong kith and kin relations across the borderland?’ (Ziipao, 2020:13). It is pertinent to note that for the tribes, land is the central component of their ontological framework. Bodhi and Ziipao (2019), for example, noted that land, from the tribal worldview, is dynamic, pulsating, processual, a living epistemological entity that defines, produces and reproduces an identity, a tribe, a language, a culture and a tribal ontology. When any agency or nation-state distorts or manipulates land in the form of boundary demarcation and territorialization, it can lead to ontocide.

People who live near borders view nation-state borders as an abstract concept that is frequently seen as the result of state imagination. On the ground, borders are imagined in relation to the respective communities, villages, and tribes, delineated according to customary practices and ancestral traditions. This demarcation of boundaries does not necessarily lead to land fragmentation or the division of tribes or villages; instead, it upholds communal principles deeply embedded within the framework of fraternity and synchronizing with the natural environment. Therefore, it appears to be difficult to conceptualize borders exclusively via the prism of the state’s imagination or within the framework of the nation-state, particularly concerning domains such as livelihoods, social relations, and traditional practices. Primarily, the subsistence patterns of tribal communities are deeply rooted in agricultural practices and related activities. Firstly, their territories, encompassing paddy fields, shifting cultivation lands (jhum), grazing lands, forests, mountains, hunting grounds, drinking water sources, rivers, and other resources, often extend far beyond the geographical boundaries of their village settlements. Secondly, people in such tribal villages traverse borders freely, maintaining kinship relations, sharing resources, and preserving their stories of origin. The third aspect concerns traditional institutions and customary laws. For example, the Angh (chief) of Longwa village hold ritual authority over clusters of villages across the border. However, movement, social connections, festivals, ritual observance, and religious affairs were severely constrained due to the installation of international boundary lines and growing securitization, causing major disruptions in day-to-day living.

Conclusion

In hindsight, my research experience regarding borders aligns with many context-based practices advocated by other tribal intellectuals (Xaxa, 1999; Bodhi, 2019; Akhup, 2024; Tripura, 2023). This entails that the self (researcher) in the research is part and parcel of the context. Each context has its own approach and epistemology (Bodhi, 2019). My deliberate endeavor was to explore ontologies rather than approaching the study with preconceived notions about borderland tribes. Within this framework, a space for contextualization emerges, wherein the researcher becomes immersed in the context’s epistemology, generating its modes of engagement, experiences, interpretations, and meaning-making processes. This was imperative since I was trying to take in perspective from within. It is interesting to highlight that endemic social realities cannot be unraveled using data quantification in the study of borders and borderland communities. In contrast, it is only through contextualization that one can present the persistent issue and complex social reality of border fencing initiated by the nation-states creating many conflicts. From the domain of lived experience of people living in the border, there is actually no border and the border as imagined by the states is an idea. Since the states implemented securitization and international border fencing, events have happened and are still happening. This engenders significant discord and fractures community cohesion, territoriality, belongingness, and identity.

 

Acknowledgment

I thank the Tribal Intellectual Collective India for providing academic leadership, and I sincerely appreciate the enriching discussions with bodhi s.r. which significantly contributed to the refinement of this paper.

End Notes

[1] Retrieved from https://easternmirrornagaland.com/pangsha-villagers-and-the-indo-myanmar-border-fencing/  (accessed on 14 February 2024).

References

• Bodhi S R. (2020). Epistemology of the Peripheralized: A Decolonial-Historical Approach. Nagpur: New Vehicle Production.
• Bodhi, S R. (2022a). The Decolonial-Historical Approach in Social Sciences Research: Its Methodological Contours’. Journal of Tribal Intellectual Collective. India 6: 1–12.
• Bodhi, SR and Jojo, B. (2019). The Problematics of Tribal Integration: Voices From India’s Alternative Center. Hyderabad: The Shared Mirror Publishing House.
• Bodhi, SR and Ziipao, RR. (2019). Land, Words and Resilient Cultures: The Ontological Basis of Tribal Identity. Tribal Intellectual Collective India.
• Akhup, A. (2022). Social work research through tribal/adivasi people’s lens: observations from academic engagement.  Social. Work Education Practice. 7: 30–44.
• Tripura, B. (2023). ‘Decolonizing Ethnography and Tribes in India: Toward an Alternative Methodology’. Front. Polit. Sci. 5: 1-15. doi: 10.3389/fpos.2023.1047276
• Xaxa, V. (1999). ‘Transformation of Tribes in India: Terms of Discourse’. Economic and Political Weekly. 34 (24): 1519-1524.
• Ziipao, RR. (2020). ‘Frontier Tribes and Nation States: Infrastructural Intersection at the Indo (Naga)-Myanmar Borderland’. Asian Ethnicity. 23 (3): 587-607.

 

Introduction                   

The objective of this paper is to examine how the ‘Tribal object’ was constructed before the writings of Virginius Xaxa. The paper tries to map how the term ‘Tribe’ has been used by various Western as well as Indian scholars over a period of time, and also look at the various alternative terms which came into existence because the meanings that the term ‘Tribal’ connotes have been found to be deeply problematic. This mapping involves a survey of not just the meanings of the terms but also a broad identification of the historical contexts in which these terms evolved, and how they have been used subsequently. For a long time, these terms were mainly coined and used by the western and upper caste scholars, many times in a simplistic manner. It is only recently that a few scholars who emerged from the ‘Tribal’ communities have begun to interrogate the dominant notions of the category called ‘Tribe’ and emphasized the problematic nature of the use of this term. I attempt to show, that their critiques have reconstituted the very meaning of the term ‘Tribal.’ I have grounded this paper around the ideas of Virginius Xaxa and use the theoretical framework laid by the Tribal Intellectual Collective India called Pre and Post Xaxa Tribal Studies.

The Notion of ‘Tribe’: Pre Xaxa

Historians trace the genealogy of the term ‘tribe’ in India to the colonizer’s imperative to produce knowledge about the colonized.  Initially, ‘tribe’ was used to describe various groups of people, along the axes of common ancestry or occupation: ‘regal tribe’, ‘wild tribe’, ‘pastoral tribe’, ‘agricultural tribe’ or even ‘mixed and imperfect tribes’ (Sengupta, 943). The well-known anthropologist Verrier Elwin points out that European merchants and travellers in India from the seventeenth century onwards used the term ‘tribe’ but in a very generic sense. Elwin says that it was used for certain communities, after a series of conflicts that ensued between the colonial rulers (7).

Elwin’s works on ‘Gond’ tribes is well-known as is Felix Padel’s work on ‘Konds’ in his book Sacrificing People: Invasions of a Tribal Landscape. In his essay “Savaging the Civilized” Elwin and the Tribal Question in Late Colonial India” Ramachandra Guha observes that Elwin called attention to the neglect by the national movement of the predicament of the tribes. He further observes, “Hill and forest tribes” he [Elwin] remarked were a “despised and callously ignored group”. Their problem was as intense as that of the untouchables. Ramchandra Guha points out that the Government of India Act of 1935 which sought self-government ‘excluded’ certain tracts of predominantly tribal population. As a consequence, the Government of India Act 1935 which excluded the tribals sparked off a wide-ranging debate on the future of tribals in India.

At this juncture, Elwin’s works on tribals assumed singular importance simply because it is through his work the other Indians learnt many things about the tribals, their distinctive culture, their tradition and their way of life. The encounter between the ‘primitive’ and the ‘civilized’ was dismally one-sided in which the tribals stood to lose their lands and their forest, their culture and their self-esteem. Ramchandra Guha points out that:

Elwin’s plea, then, was for civilisation to allow the aboriginals to their lives in the way they knew best. This meant providing them security of the land, the freedom of the forest, and protection from landlords, money lenders, and subordinate officials (2379).

In his article “Colonial Transformation of Tribal Society in Middle India” K.S.Singh postulates two assumptions with regard to transformation of tribal society in colonial India: The first set of assumptions describes tribal communities as in isolation and tribals as Noble Savages, and their primitive condition was described as a state of Arcadian simplicity. He further suggests that the deterioration of tribal communities was attributed to the Sanskritisation of the semi tribal chiefs and to the vulnerability of tribal character (1221). He is of the opinion that missionaries are the protectors of the tribals against non-tribals. The second set of assumptions suggests that the tribes were a subsystem of the Hindu system and that they were absorbed into the Hindu system.

However, eventually, like many other categories, the term ‘tribe’ too gained prominence as a specialized category in India during the British rule. During this period, the people whom the British thought as the ‘oldest ethnological segment of Indian population’ were designated as tribes. This does not mean that tribes in India did not have a distinct identity of their own prior to the British rule. What is important to note here is that most scholars today seem to agree upon the fact that the creation of a separate category of ‘tribes’ was a colonial construction (Singh 36).

Singh observes that:

The colonial system bore harshly on the tribal communities who with a sensitivity born of isolation and with a relatively intact mechanism of social control revolted more often and far more violently than any other community including peasants in India (1229).

He discusses the deleterious effects of missionary activity during colonialism on the tribes of India.

When the British extended their administration into inaccessible forests of central India in the early nineteenth century, they found that these areas were inhabited by socially and culturally distinct groups that had been living in relative geographical isolation. They called these groups “tribes” in the sense of people living in the American and African continents under similar conditions. In this context, these populations were recognized as a special category for purely administrative convenience.

Apart from colonial rulers, many scholars have shown enormous interest in studying tribes. As a result, a huge body of knowledge has been created by those who are specialized in studying ‘tribes.’ British anthropologists, sociologists and Indian statesmen such as, Verrier Elwin, Von Furer Haimendorf, Govind Sadashiv Ghurye, Andre Beteille, Ajay Skaria, and M. N. Srinivas, have all set the pace for a sustained study of ‘tribes’.

Anthropologists and sociologists defined tribes in many different ways. While anthropologists such as Sir Herbert Hope Risley, Elwin, A.V. Thakkar and Haimendorf preferred to use the term ‘Aborigines’, American cultural Historian Paul Hutton called them ‘Primitive tribes’. Other scholars used some alternative terms such as ‘backward Hindus’ (Ghurye 1963), ethnic minorities (Pathy 1988) and so on. Before explaining what the term aborigines means and its implications for this kind of a study, let me look at how some of the recent scholars define the term ‘tribe’ itself.

Jacob John Kattakayam defines tribe as a cluster of village communities which share a common name, members of which occupy a common territory, language and culture, and are economically interwoven (13). Similarly, W.J. Perry defines tribe as a group speaking a common dialect and inhabiting a common territory (Perry). Indian anthropologists and sociologists seem to share a similar view.

The Backward Class Commission under the Chairmanship of Kakasaheb Kalelkar tried to provide certain criteria to be adopted for identifying the Scheduled Tribes.

In the preamble to their questionnaire regarding Scheduled Tribes, the commission observed that “the STs can be generally ascertained by the fact that they live apart in hills, and even where they live on plains they lead a separate excluded existence and are not fully assimilated into the main body of people. STs may belong to any religion, they are listed as STs because of the kind of life led by them” (Backward Class Commission, 1953, Appendix 11, p 224).

D.N. Majumdar, for example, argues that a tribe is a collection of families or groups of families with a common name and its members occupy a common territory and speak the same language. According to Majumdar, tribes also observe certain taboos regarding marriage, profession or occupation and have developed a meaningful system of reciprocity and mutuality of obligation. He further comments:

A tribe is a social group with territorial affiliation, endogamous, with no specialization of functions, ruled by tribal officers, hereditary or otherwise, united in language or dialect, recognizing social distance with other tribes or castes, without any social obligation attaching to them, as it does in the caste structure, following tribal traditions beliefs and customs, illiberal of naturalization of ideas from alien sources, above all consciousness of homogeneity of ethnic and territorial integration.[1]

A tribe is also understood as a group of people occupying a territory, bound by a sense of unity derived from the belief that their origins are from a unique mythical vision. Besides, it is argued, numerous similarities in culture, dressing, language, food habits and modes of entertainment give them a sense of belonging to one community. As L.P. Vidyarthi argues:

Till today they [tribals] have retained their customs and regulations, nearly all marry within their restricted local groups, and are sometimes guided by their own elders or political chiefs in their internal and external affairs. In other words, they form socially distinct communities in contrast to their neighbours (Vidyarthi 33).

However, there are others who seem to share a slightly different view. G.N. Devy, in his book Painted Words argues that the most useful indicator of tribal identity is language.

A cursory look at the definitions given above shows that large number of groups and communities, different from one another in many ways, is brought under a single nomenclature. In fact, Indian ethnographers and anthropologists are aware of these variations and the parameters they apply to describe a tribe. However, they continue to use the term in a rather problematic manner. Shereen Ratnagar in his book Being Tribes quotes Gail Omvedt’s statement which was delivered in the Verrier Elwin Memorial Lecture at the Bhasha Kendra in 2004 “… the term tribal is ‘demeaning’ and inaccurate…. (7)”. Thus, keeping this aspect in mind, it must be pointed out that there is no conceptual clarity with regard to the use of the term ‘tribe’ among literary critics, ethnographers, scholars, administrators, activists and social scientists.

Tribes as Aborigines

The term aborigine is mainly used in the Australian context to refer to the indigenous population and the literal meaning of the term is “from the sunrise.” In his article “The Mapping of the Adivasi Social: Colonial Anthropology and Adivasis”, Bhangya Bhukya discusses that:

During the colonial era, a range of disparate groups that lived for the most part in the more inaccessible hill and forest tracts, survived largely from hunting and gathering or rudimentary swidden agriculture, categorized by the British as “aboriginals” or “early tribes” (103).

However, the term ‘aborigine’ is not frequently used in India. Instead, the frequently used terms in India are tribes and Adivasis. The term aborigines or aboriginals connotes that these people were the first or original inhabitants of the land. In the Indian context, many terms are used in this sense since the tribes in India live in the forests and naturally in isolated regions. For instance, they are variously known as vanyajati (castes of forest), vanvasi (inhabitants of forest), Adivasi (first settler), janjati (folk people), adimjati (primitive people), anusuchit janjati (Scheduled tribe) and so on (Singh).

Scheduled Tribes (STs)

The Government of India refers to ‘tribes’ as ‘Scheduled Tribes’ (STs), which is an administrative category following the description given in the Article 342 of the Indian Constitution.  However, critics have pointed out that the Indian nation state’s understanding is not free from the colonial understanding of the ‘tribes.’ For instance, it has been pointed out that the word ‘Scheduled Tribes’ itself comes from the administrative category of ‘Tribe’ that evolved through the British administrative system in India (Bindu 2). Through a series of legal enactments beginning with Criminal Tribes Act of 1871, nearly 200 communities were ‘notified’ by the colonial government as ‘criminal tribes’. After independence, these communities were ‘denotified’ and listed in the scheduled tribes, castes and ‘other backward communities.[2]

The umbrella category called ‘Scheduled Tribes’ has been contested for another important reason i.e. it homogenizes the various tribal communities in India. As we all know, each tribe in India has its own distinct social, traditional, political affiliations, economic status, language, culture, traditions and social aspects in terms of development. This is agreed upon even by the state. A good example of this kind of homogenization is the Anthropological Survey of India of 1987. Critics have argued that despite the best intentions of its editor, K.S. Singh, it suffers from the colonial legacy of ‘descriptive ethnography’ where the ‘people of India’ are enumerated into discrete and separate categories of ‘tribes and castes.’ (Anand 50).

The fact to be recognized first and foremost of all, while considering the problem of the Denotified Tribe and Nomadic Communities of India is that it is not a homogeneous group of communities, but a completely heterogeneous one. It is rather a diverse group comprising different sections within society, at present sailing in the same boat and encountering similar fate. The communities categorized under this title bear varied occupational traditions, carry different strands of history with them and have had quite diverse socio-economic relations with other sections of society. Their present categorization together is a sheer administrative categorization based on their single shared trait, that of nomadism or constant travelling on a community basis, and administrative complexities arising out of that. Apart from the administrative or governance-related problems, the other issues faced by the communities under the category, especially the occupational issues are not uniform, and therefore, the solution to their problems, too, cannot be one generalized solution.

Even within the category there are divisions, and it is absolutely essential to understand the difference between these to realize their specific social position both in historical and contemporary times, and the issues troubling each of them. It has been observed that there are great misunderstandings and confusions relating to these communities often within even the scholarly circles working with only one or other section, as well as the governmental or policy-making bodies who tend to go by nomenclatures. Hence, some basic clarification may not be out of place. All the communities under this category are not ‘Denotified and Nomadic’; but there are several traditionally nomadic communities and there are several communities who were de-notified, and with some communities there is an overlap of these two aspects. Similarly, it is often thought that, just as there are categories created for positive discriminatory action due to their specific historical reasons of being victims of traditional untouchability or of having total seclusion from the mainstream, this is yet another category having its own specific historical burden.

Though it is quite likely that such a category can and may be created, once again for undoing administrative errors and injustices, it needs to be noted that here, there are not one uniform but several varied historical burdens carried by different sections within the category. And with any of these communities, an overlap between different layers of categorization is always possible. Thus Pardhis, a tribe, were notified criminals and therefore are denotified, and may sometimes be nomadic; Nats are considered to be OBCs and are nomadic by nature of occupation, and were also denotified; whereas Vasudevs or Bhats have been traditionally nomadic but very much socially accepted.  There are communities in this category which were quite revered by the rural folk, others who were essential economic factors, and yet others who have been abhorred and treated as untouchables. Thus, the social position of various communities such as Banjaras, Pardhis, Bhats, Jogis, Gujjars, and Musahars is practically incomparable[3].

Particularly the Lambadas were recognised by different names, there are serious anomalies in the state-wise positions of these communities and their categorization at the level of central Government. A particular community may be categorized as SC in one state, as ST in another, fall in the OBC list at the centre and also be part of the DNT-NTs. With such discrepancies in identity, persons from the community residing in different states or moving from one state to another often have to face significant problems, not just in availing themselves of the benefits of reservations and other schemes in jobs and education, but also in terms of social behaviour and attitudes towards them.

The term ‘STs’ used in the post-independence period is closely linked with the welfare -related benefits offered by the government to these groups. Thus, this term is often used officially for purposes of administering certain specific constitutional privileges, protection and benefits to tribal populations as they are considered to be historically disadvantaged or ‘backward’. It is another matter that such schemes unfortunately have turned these people into vote banks for many political parties.

Criminal Tribes

The Criminal Tribes Act (CTA) of 1871 was ‘notified’ referring to the tribals as born criminals by the British Government. According to this Act any criminal tribe should be: (a) restricted in its movements to a specified area, or (b) settled in any place of residence (Radhakrishna 198). Thus the itinerant nature of the tribe was completely curbed. They were expected to show a licence if they were to move out of their settlement. By denying them their lifestyles the ruling class deprived the tribes of their very identity. Now the only identity they had was that of their ‘inherent criminality’. The provisions of this Act were extremely discriminatory and oppressive, and these people have been perpetually marginalised. Despite gaining independence from the British colonial rule, the plight of these tribes remains the same. They were ‘denotified’, but the prejudices associated with their supposedly inherent criminality remain. The oppression meted out through the CTA during British rule has been continued through the Habitual Offenders Act (HOA) 1952. They continue to be social outcasts, ignored by the state and harassed by the mainstream.

Meena Radhakrishna’s book Dishonoured by History: Criminal Tribes and British Colonial Policy is a thought provoking book. It is an innovative venture to study the impact of the Criminal Tribes Act, politically and socially. As Meena Radhakrishna points out, it was the British administrative and intellectual circles who considered the Criminal Tribes a ‘definable caste of hereditary criminals within the Hindu social system’; it was never thought so by the tribes or the Hindus concerned. To say that a person is criminal is one of the worst forms of discrimination. When the mainstream society believes that it is the truth, no matter what the reality actually is, the marginalised communities will live with that assumption ever in their minds, which will be a part of their very being. It gradually merges with their own consciousness, and they begin to identify themselves as criminals, even at times, taking to crime to eke out their meagre livelihood. They have been wronged by the people in power for generations and have been typecast as ‘criminals’. They have never been given the opportunity to prove their innocence. One wonders how long these tribes will face this inhuman treatment and can actually have the right to claim to be citizens of this country.

People on the Move: Nomads as Tribes

“Who are you?”

“We are nomads, saab.”

“Where have you come from?”

“We are nomads, saasb.”

“Since when are you staying here?”

“Even before you, saab.”

“Mind your tongue.”

“We will watch our language saab.”

“What work do you do?”

“Traditionally we have been artists…we have lost our forests and land…so

Now we beg for our survival.”

“Hmm. We know what kind of artists you are. We have been taught that all

All you tribes are “Born Criminals.”[4]

The word ‘Nomad’ means ‘no fixed place’ and nomadic communities are believed to have no fixed abode. The word ‘Nomad’ is derived from the Greek word ‘Nemo’ which literally means wanderers and “to pasture.” Although officially most wandering or nomadic communities are considered to be ‘tribals’ they are called by different names, in different languages, in different parts of India. For instance, in Andhra Pradesh nomads are called Drimmarulu which in Sanskrit as well as in Telugu literally means ‘wanderers’ and in Lambadi Ladne.

If we look at the village structure, the so called ‘upper caste people’ live in the middle of the village, Dalits live on the outskirts of the village, while Adivasis are those who live far from the village in the forest area. There are others who have no home in the village, no cultivable land and they migrate from place to place carrying their belongings on their head and they are called nomadic tribes. Lambadas are mainly nomads, and they largely subsist by rearing cattle, selling milk and milk products. In the past, they led a nomadic life and moved according to seasons and availability of large areas of pasture (Rao 26).

Rada Dyson-Hudson, an anthropologist, describes nomadic characters as having a pride hauteur, strong sense of individual worth and an equally strong sense of the nobility of pastoralism as a calling (51). This is the subject many anthropologists examined and which in fact attracts them to study nomadic communities. B. H. Mehta describes nomadism as “regular seasonal or cyclical or group sustenance (36).  He considers nomads to be grass-landers and cattle breeders. For these anthropologists, the so-called nomads are ‘tribals’ and often merely serve as the necessary objects of academic studies.

Adivasi and its Origins

With regard to Adivasis and their origins Ganesh Devy makes a pertinent observation:

In the process of development, we have forgotten that much that is valuable in Indian society, culture and heritage is of Adivasi origin, that in fact the Adivasi has much with him. A century and a half of deeply flawed education had taught us to ape the west in every respect. It has also taught us to leave the Adivasis out as the apes of the great Indian society (Devy 13).

The term ‘Adivasi’ has gained more public legitimacy than other terms in India. David Hardiman prefers to use the term ‘Adivasi’ over ‘tribe’ his point is that Adivasis have ‘shared a common fate in the past century and from this have evolved a collective identity of being Adivasi’. In his books he prefers to use the term Adivasi. Unlike other terms which were coined by non-tribals, the term ‘Adivasi’ is a self-designated term as it was coined by the ‘tribals’ themselves. During the first decades of the twentieth century, educated and politically active tribals from eastern and central India started to use the Sanskrit term “Adivasi”. During the course of their struggle, they discovered that terms such as tribal, aboriginal, girijan and so on are not only inadequate when it comes to representing their communities but also carry negative meanings and reveal them in a poor light. Thus, it is in this context they invented the new term ‘Adivasi’. Adi means earliest and vasi means resident meaning original inhabitant. It could have originated in Chhotanagapur of Bihar in 1930s, and it was widely popularised by a social worker, A.V. Thakkar, in the 1940s (Bhukya 13). Irrespective of the various names for individual tribes, the self-designated term Adivasi has since then become widely accepted. The main intention of using this term is to describe tribal communities collectively.

The acceptance of the term Adivasi, to some extent, can also be attributed to the recent developments all over the world such as liberalization and globalization and the role of the world organizations such as the UNO. Since the 1950s representatives of “indigenous people” have been networking at a global level under the auspices of the United Nations. They contributed towards elaborating international legal standards in order to preserve their diverse traditional cultures and in order to work towards a future of self-determination. Against this backdrop, some scholars like Bhangya Bhukya, K. Balagopal, Haragopal, and Ramdayal Munda prefer to refer to Adivasi movements as movements of empowerment and assertion of Adivasi identity.

However, it must be clarified that Adivasi movements are not to be understood as affected by global agencies nor are these movements always completely autonomous. Vibha S. Chauhan, in her article mentions the relation between the state and the Adivasis. According to Vibha Chauhan:

The relationship between the Adivasi communities and the state has been fraught with tension over time. These communities have been historically distanced from the wider “external” society not just because of geographical isolation but also because of an extremely keen sense of identity based on their specific and distinctive languages, cultures and social systems. An immense heterogeneity exists amongst the indigenous groups themselves and this gets clearly expressed by the nomenclatures that they use to describe themselves as members of distinct groups (57).

We must also resist the simplistic idea that Adivasi is a purely cultural phenomenon. On the contrary, Adivasi signifies an awareness of a distinct self-identity that is being carved out of a history of struggles against various dominant forces that these communities have been fighting against. Centuries ago, the Adivasis were driven into the jungles by the Aryans. They lived in harmony with nature, sharing its bounty. They were devoid of notions of property and possession. Though the British gave them literacy and a script, they had until then preserved their folk literature through oral traditions.

Research on Adivasi literature can reveal a great deal about their history which is generally missing in Indian writing and heritage. At the best there are exaggerated and fanciful accounts of praising the heroes. These are far from the truth. Folk literature, though it adheres to truth, has its own limitations. The literature has thus become a chronicle of the ways of change in Adivasi life that outlines both the need and necessity for tribal writing. Vaharu Sonawane is an Adivasi activist and his poem “Stage” is an apt example:

We never went on stage, Nor were we called

A gesturing finger showed us our proper place,

There we sat, and received praise. And they stood on stage

Telling us about our own pain. Our pain remains ours

It never became theirs… Our doubts we whispered.

They listened Hummed and hawed

They twisted our ears and warned us

Apologise or else… (Ramnika191-192)

It expresses the compulsion to speak of one’s pain in one’s own idiom. Moreover, it points to a political programme meant to conserve and promote these cultures and to attain self-determination in a wider political context and also make claims on forest resources, agricultural land and so on. Ever since the social category ‘Tribal’ was conceptualised, decisions regarding tribal development have been made from the top, whether these were to keep the Adivasi identity intact, or whether the forest dwellers were trying to occupy the subject position. It is rarely that the terms of development were determined in consultation with the Adivasis.

Tribe as Caste

From the 1920s onwards, Indians with sociological and anthropological training began to put their distinctive stamp on the understanding of caste (Bhukya 14). There has been much confusion among the scholars on the question of whether tribes and castes are one and the same. According to Haimendorf,

Anthropologists concerned with India have for some time debated the problem of the distinction between autochthonous tribal groups and Hindu castes. Those speaking of tribe-caste continuum hold the view that it is impractical to draw a sharp line between tribes and castes, whereas others feel confident of their ability to decide in concrete cases whether a given community should be classified as a tribe or a caste (Haimendorf 32).

N. Devy in A Nomad Called Thief points out that in the initial period of India’s contact with the western nations the two terms tribe and caste were used synonymously, and any difference between them lay only in the social status of the groups they described. Devy says that Louis Dumont, in his discussion of the caste system, tells us that almost till the end of the eighteenth century ‘caste’ was used for the socially privileged groups as against ‘tribe’ which was used for the groups lower in the social hierarchy. However, tribe became an independent category as the colonial rulers prepared an official list of communities in (1872) as the list of Indian tribes. Since then the ‘tribes’ are perceived as a distinct segment of Indian society. Eventually, as Devy rightly points out, these terms have become “much like long-worn masks” that start acquiring real personality. The result is that today, no Indian describes Indian society without taking recourse to the categories ‘caste’ and ‘tribe’ (Devy 10).

Another view is that in India, the continuities between tribes and castes are so much that it often becomes difficult to distinguish or separate one from the other. Not only is this the experience of contemporary students of tribal societies, but also of the census enumerators in the late nineteenth century. Often, communities were arbitrarily listed as tribes or castes, and this decision was left to the perception of the local community by the individual enumerator. There have been cases of communities classified as tribes in one state and as caste in another. The best example for this is, Lambadas are a tribe in Andhra Pradesh, Scheduled Caste in Karnataka and Denotified tribe in Maharashtra.

The Notion of ‘Tribe’: Post Xaxa   

Virginius Xaxa, points out that tribes have been seen as the natural equivalent of caste by many scholars even today. He also says that even change among tribes has been studied in terms of their transformation into caste. He explains that, paradoxically, this has been the case despite the fact that tribes have been seen primarily not only as a society but also as a particular type of society. Ideally, then, he says, the contrast should have been not with caste but with society, as in the case of the Oriyas, Bengalis, Telugus, etc (Xaxa 16).

A similar and related assumption put forward by scholars is that tribes were part of the Hindu religious order. Such a kind of classification began with the need to provide detailed information about people in the census. Thus, various groups of people have been categorized as castes and tribes. The criterion that has been used in the naming and enumeration is highly controversial and also ambiguous. Critics have challenged this kind of absorption which was spelt out by many anthropologists in terms of ‘the integration of tribals’ into the economic organization of caste system in India (Xaxa 14).

Representation of ‘Tribals’: Negative Connotations

The idea of ‘tribe’ has provided for the production of a large number of images such as seeing them as the true representatives of organic cultures and identities, detached from the more differentiated and modern set of political, economic and social relations typified by caste, religion and commerce (Sundar 34). Such theorizing, predicated as it is on such stereotypical images rather than a more complex representation, has allowed both for a romance with, and a rejection of, tribals. In the words of Deliege,

The modern subject’s nostalgia for a “lost” state of freedom, on the one hand, and its censure of the non-modern on the other, coalesce around this image. Thus, debates among Indian anthropologists have tended to operate within the dualism of tribal as “noble savage” who must be protected from the ravages of modernity and tribals as ‘primitive’ needing to be urgently assimilated into the State processes of a developing society (Deliege 13-14).

Tribes are also visualized through various derogatory terms such as ‘Savage’, ‘Primitive’, ‘Barbarian’ and so on. According to K.S. Singh, we find two kinds of opinions in the historical writings on tribes. One is the conceptual framework developed by the British administrators turned ethnographers and by anthropologists which was inspired by the then prevailing model in anthropology. In this framework of understanding, Singh says, tribal communities were treated as isolates or noble savages, and “the primitive condition was described as a state of Arcadian simplicity.” He further points out that the deterioration of tribal communities was attributed to the Sanskritisation of the semi-tribal chiefs and to the vulnerability of tribal character (Singh 1221). Singh challenges these views by arguing that,

…it is evident that in the semi- exposed tribal regions the portrayal of a tribal as a Noble Savage, innocent of the operation of the historical processes, was both naive and untenable, but this led to the build-up of a myth that has bedevilled all historical writings on Chotanagapur and inspired all tribal movements. This simplistic model also served to justify the presence and the role of the missionaries as the protectors of the tribals from the non-tribals. The second set of assumptions postulated that the tribes were a sub-system of the Hindu system and that they were being absorbed into the Hindu society (Singh 1223).

Ironically, the colonial notion that nomadic communities were ‘criminal communities’ continued to prevail during the period of post-independence India. The earliest expression of such representation (or ‘misrepresentation,’ as some scholars would like to call it today) can be found in the Report of a Reform Committee headed by Antrolikar on the eve of India’s Independence (Antrolikar 24). But the issue had to wait for a contesting voice until Marathi writers like Laxman Mane and Laxman Gaikwad came up with their life-stories in the early eighties. Laxman Mane and Laxman Gaikwad each coming from nomadic communities, were hailed as Dalit writers. It is during the last 30 years, that the various tribal voices and literary works have started making their presence felt. These writings were initially seen as ‘experimental Dalit writing’ by readers of Marathi literature. Nomadic communities in the states outside Maharashtra did not find similar spokespersons.

The laws of Independent India too are not free from the colonial notions of tribals as criminal-minded people. For instance, Criminal Tribes Act 1871, as Meena Radhakrishna, a colonial anthropologist, points out was a colonial piece of legislation in spirit, and she explains why such a law is problematic:

From 1871 onwards, many of the nomadic communities were declared ‘criminal tribes’ by the British, who were suspicious of their constant movements. Upon independence, the piece of legislation which had unjustly notified them as criminal tribes during the colonial period was annulled in 1952, and they then came to be known as denotified tribes. Not all denotified tribes are nomadic, and vice versa, but a large overlap remains between these two sets of people. These communities are mostly spread over the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and OBC categories (Radhakrishna 201).

Today, as is evident from the above discussion, the view that nomadic communities are criminals has come in for a serious criticism, even from the liberal non-tribal scholars, who have argued that tribals, far from being criminal in nature, are in fact quite “liberal and catholic in terms of interacting and exchanging ideas and resources with other communities and cultures (211).” On the other hand, they have pointed out that the tribals have been the real targets of criminal acts of violence perpetrated by the non-tribals and the so called civilized people. This is what G.N Devy has to say about what the state apparatus and the so-called mainstream culture have done to tribals:

Here is a random list of what we have given the Adivasis: Forest Acts depriving them of their livelihood; a Criminal Tribes Act and a Habitual Offenders Act; taxes and the tax collectors; alien languages for education; chemical fertilizers; a severe penal code; the compulsion to subscribe to a religion and enter it in their birth certificate; moneylenders; mosquitoes and malaria; naxalites and ideological war-groups; the Greyhound Police Academy; a schedule of their identity defined from outside; and perpetual contempt (6).

These oppressive interventions by the state, private companies and religious organizations in the social, cultural and economic matters of the tribes are yet to be investigated thoroughly. With increasing globalization, tribals today are being deprived of their livelihood and are forced to migrate to the nearest towns and cities where they experience hostility and exploitation. These are the people who have not been dependent on others, either for economic or cultural needs, and have had their own ways of sustenance for centuries!

Although, the identity of tribal people owes to the fact that they live far from the mainstream society, either in hills or in forests, and have their own traditions and cultures, what is conveniently overlooked are the changes that modernization brought in the lives of ‘tribals’ and in the process, the latter’s readiness to borrow from other traditions and aspects of life style from other communities.

One of the challenges today is that there are very few tribal writers or scholars to reflect on and write about tribal issues. For instance, in the Indian academic institutions such as universities, we hardly find scholars from tribal communities. Such a state of affairs is simply attributed to the inaccessibility of education to the tribal communities.

End Notes

[1]  Majumdar 48

[2]  Devy10, 2007

[3]  Mukut Saad August, 2011, Aruna Joshi

[4]  <http://budhantheatre.org/>

Reference

• Anand, Sanjay. “Tribal Identities and Movements in India: A Conceptual Exploration.” Delhi: unpublished manuscript, Department of Sociology, Delhi School of Economics, 1995. Print.
• Bhangya, Bhukya. Subjugated Nomads: Lambadas under the Rule of Nizam. New Delhi: Orient Black Swan, 2010. Print.
• —.“The Mapping of the Adivasi Social: Colonial Anthropology and Adivasis” Economic and Political Weekly, September 27, 2008. Pp.116, Print.
• Bindu, K.C. “Constructing Adivasi Identity: Reading the Dominant, Reading the Adivasi.” Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Hyderabad: Department of English, University of Hyderabad, 2004. Print.
• Deliege, Robert. The Bhils of Western India: Some Empirical and Theoretical Issues in Anthropology in India.  New Delhi: National Publishing House, 1985. Print.
• Devy, Ganesh. A Nomad Called Thief: Reflections on Adivasi Silence, New Delhi: Orient Longman, 2004. Print.
• —. Painted Words: An Anthology of Tribal Literature. New Delhi: Penguin Books, 2002. Print.
• Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. London: Basil Blackwell, Oxford University Press, 1983. Print.
• Elwin, Verrier. The Tribes in India: Selected Writings. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.
• Ghurye, G.S. Caste and Race in India. Bombay: Popular Prakashan Private Lit, 1979. Print.
• Guha, Ramchandra. “Savaging the Civilised: Verrier Elwin and the Tribal Question in Late Colonial India”. Economic and Political Weekly. Vol. 31, No 35/37, Special Number, September, 1996. Print. pp. 2375-2389.
• Gupta, Ramnika. “Adivasi Literature: An Emerging Consciousness”. Indignity, Culture and   Representation. Eds. G.N Devy, Geoffrey V. Davis, and K.K. Chakravarty.  New Delhi: Orient Blackswan Pvt Ltd, 2009. Print.
• Hall, Donald E. Subjectivity. New York: Routledge, 1960. Print.
• Haimendorf, Christoph Von Furer. Tribes in India: The Struggle for Survival, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1981. Print.
• Jacob John, Kattakayam. Social Structure and Change among the Tribals. Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation, 2001. Print.
• Jaganath, Pathy. Tribal Peasantry: Dynamics of Development. New Delhi: Inter-India Publications, 1984. Print.
• —. Ethnic Minorities in the Process of Development. Jaipur: Rawat Publishers, 1988. Print.
• Kakasaheb Kalelkar  “Backward Class Commission,” 1953, (Appendix 11, p 224).
• Majumdar, D.N.  A Tribe in Transition: A Study in Culture Pattern. London: Longmans Green&Co, 1997. Print.
• Mehta, B.H. Gonds of Central Indian Highlands: A Study of Dynamics of Gond Society. Vol no 1, New Delhi: Concept Publication, 1984. Print.
• Radhakrishana, Meena. Dishonoured by History: Criminal Tribes and British Colonial Policy. Orient Longman New Delhi, 2001. Print.
• —. “Stratification among the Disadvantaged: Identifying the Rockbottom Layers”. The Journal of Industrial Relations, Special Issue on Affirmative Action, Vol. 44, No. 2, October 2008. P.No.33. Print
• Rao, K Mohan. Tribal Development in Andhra Pradesh: Problems, Performance & Prospects. Hyderabad: Booklinks Corporation Narayanaguda, 1999. Print.
• Sangeeta, Kamat. “Anthropology and Global Capital: Rediscovering the Noble Savage”. Cultural Dynamics. London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi, 2001. pp. 29–51. Print.
• Sengupta, Nirmal. “Reappraising Tribal Movement: A Myth in the Making,” Economic and Political Weekly of India. Vol 23, 28 May, 1988. pp, 1111-1112, Print.
• Singh, Pramod Kumar. Tribes of North India: Socio-economic Study of Tribes of Kaimur Hills. Jaipur: Book Enclave, 2007. Print.
• Singh, Suresh Kumar. “Colonial Transformation of Tribal Society in Middle India” Economical and Political Weekly, Vol 13, July 29, 1978. Issue no 30. P. 1221-123. Print.
• Sundar, Nandini, Satish Deshpande and Patricia Uberoi. “Indian Anthropology and Sociology: Towards a History”, Economic and Political Weekly. Vol. 35, Issue 24. June 2002.  pp. 10–16.  Print.
• Ratnagar, Shereen. Being Tribal. New Delhi: Primus Books, 2010. Print.
• Vibha, Chauhan. “Crystallizing Protest into Movement Adivasi Community in History, Society and Literature”. Indigeneity: Culture and Representation. Eds. G.N. Devy, Geoffry V. Davis and K.K. Chakravarty. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan Pvt Ltd, 2009. Print.
• Vidyarthi L.P and Binay Kumar Rai. The Tribal Culture of India. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company, 1976. Print.
• Xaxa, Virginius. The State, Society, and Tribes: Issues in Post-Colonial India. Delhi: Pearson Longman, 2008. Print.

Vislavath Rajunayak is Associate Professor, English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad

 

Abstract

The process of knowledge creation has always been entrenched in the perpetuation of existing dominant social relations. The subjugated and marginalized social groups face multiple forms of domination including the epistemic one. Such domination has to be challenged through appropriate methods informed by the apt epistemic standpoint. The social construction of reality by positivist scientific methods and its naturalization through the claim of objectivity and neutrality has to be subjected to the test of its contextual privilege. The research from the marginalized society’s point of view should lead to epistemic emancipation that demands a moral imperative to do research from the ‘within’ rather than the dominated. While questioning such prevailing claims of both European and caste epistemologies, this article argues for a Tribal epistemology that is instrumental in the emancipatory struggle of the community and highlights that such epistemic defiance can challenge the issues of social inequalities, injustices, and exploitation that are embedded in our social relations.

Key Words: Tribal Epistemology, Social Research, Domination, Subjugated Knowledge, Emancipatory Research Methods

Introduction

Teaching in an interdisciplinary department of social exclusion studies made me realize that the concept of social exclusion is a multidimensional one that needs multidimensionality in addressing issues of exclusions. This concept is defined as the ‘inability to participate’ by individuals and social groups in the mainstream life of a nation. However, the problem arises when one tries to identify with the constitutive ingredients of such mainstream. If it is a space of reproduction of dominant hegemony, then the resistance against such ‘mainstreaming’ from the excluded groups is visible in various forms. Hence, creating a democratic mainstream space that respects diversities of various kinds is a challenge that is monumental in front of traditional nation-states like India where the Brahminical culture is promoted as the national culture while ignoring ‘other’ cultures. Teaching a research methodology course at the doctoral level titled ‘Research in Social Exclusion Studies: Methodologies and Methods’ made me realize that mainstream academic knowledge has standard methodological, ontological, and epistemic positions that are located in the dominant European and caste social relations, that has been produced and reproduced in the name of knowledge. While moving further it was also realized that the knowledge is socially embedded and constructed, hence political. It is far from the claims made by both dominant European and caste epistemic positions that knowledge production is a neutral process, such claims face an inherent challenge that the ‘dominant ideologies’ are the instrument in the hands of the dominant to maintain and reproduce the existing social hierarchies.

Epistemology: from Description to Emancipation

Epistemology is a theory of knowledge that delineates a set of assumptions about the social world about who can be a knower what can be known and how we can know something. In de Sousa Santos’s (2018, 2) opinion, it is about analysis identification and validation of knowledge in general, as well as justified belief. Broadly speaking three epistemological positions are predominant in social research. The first one is positivist epistemology, which is also referred to as logical positivism. The purpose of this epistemic position is that is to explain, discover laws and predict the course of social life. Social scientific positivism while taking the naturalist approach to studying the social world, posits an epistemological view that the reality in the natural world is ‘out there’ that is to be verified, measured, defined, and classified. This objective reality can be investigated by removing ‘emotional contaminants’ (Scott 2013, 18).

In the Enlightenment period philosophers and scientists saw the universe as a logical and organized place run on rational and ordered principles. The key to understanding the universe was to uncover these principles with the help of objectivity and deductive empiricism. Scientists seek out universally valid, timeless and applicable laws concerning the natural world. On similar lines, the positivists seek the social world as orderly rather than chaotic or random which can be measured, classified, defined and shown to work on similar ordered universal laws. The work of social scientists was to uncover these laws through the same rigorous testing of hypotheses in the value-free, objective style of natural scientists. The resultant social laws would be universal, that applies to all societies, timeless and unchanging. It assumes that society ‘out there’ is an objective reality that acts upon individuals similarly to natural law works on the natural world. It assumed that all individuals are rational and self-interested and respond to social forces, and all individuals act in essentially the same ways.

Early sociologists took the scientific model and applied it to the social world. According to Emile Durkheim, ‘what is demanded is that the sociologist put himself in the same state of mind as the physicist, chemist, physiologist when he probes into a still explored region of the scientific domain’ (Scott 2013, 19). It assumed that the society was deemed to run on sets of universal laws that could be uncovered just like the laws of physics or chemists. Western epistemology focuses upon the validation of modern science that is premised on systematic observation and controlled experimentation which is a specific creation of Western modernity that is different from other ways of knowing that are popular, practical, commonsensical, oral and intuitive. Scientific knowledge, combined with superior economic and military power, granted the global North the imperial domination of the world in the modern era up to our very days (de Sousa Santos 2018, 6).

The epistemologies of the South that may strengthen the struggles against capitalism, colonialism, and patriarchy can also be included in caste epistemology in the Indian context.  The ‘dominant groups establish a hegemonic hold on society primarily through successfully positioning their epistemic privilege and dominant worldview as the most legitimate and natural way to view the world’ (Vaditya 2018, 273). The second one is the interpretative or hermeneutical epistemic position which is interested in studying the everyday methods that people employ for the production of social order. Its goal is to document the methods and practices through which members of society make sense of their world and discover the meanings of their social reality. The third Critical epistemology tries to disclose the dominant social myths and illusions that have been created as hegemony, while doing so it also fosters emancipation and empowerment of the socially marginalized. It regards ‘social reality’ as a verb as it is the creation of dominance. The Tribal epistemology as a critical epistemology questions the validity of positivism as well as caste epistemologies and proposes alternative ways of knowing, perceiving and theorizing tribal social realities.

Tribal Epistemologies: Theorizing the Realities from Within

The European epistemology also known as enlightenment epistemology ‘rests on a dualistic foundation, qualities such as rationality, reason, objectivity, and impartiality are privileged over and opposed to, irrationality, emotion, subjectivity and partiality’ (Vaditya 2018, 274). To reclaim subjugated indigenous knowledge epistemology has to be interlinked with methodology [1] and methods [2]. Here epistemology is a theory of knowledge that becomes the guiding source of methodology and methods. Reclamation of subjugated knowledge is possible through emancipatory research practices, which are inclusive of a variety of research methods and methodologies. Several research approaches are arising from epistemologies in feminism, critical hermeneutics, postmodern, and critical theory, critical action research, and Indigenous and collective memory work, all of which share an emancipatory research objective. The epistemological assumptions of these varied methodologies contend that those who are in the marginalized position of society experience silence and injustice.

The research from the margins is not research on the marginalized but research by, for, and with them/us. It is research that takes seriously and seeks to trouble the connections between how knowledge is created, what knowledge is produced, and who is entitled to engage in these processes. It seeks to reclaim and incorporate the personal and political context of knowledge construction. It attempts to foster oppositional discourses, ways of talking about research, and research processes that explicitly and implicitly challenge relations of domination and subordination. It is grassroots in the sense of considering as ‘legitimate’ what we have to say about our own lives and the lives of others, and how the conditions of those lives might be transformed. The research work that seeks to be carried out by/on marginalized communities has to give priority to notions like respect, representation, revising, reclaiming, renaming, remembering, reconnecting, and recovering. Implicit in all of these principles are strategies for resisting dominant norms in research (Brown and Strega 2005, 14).

Unlike the Western ‘methodological individualism’ social epistemologists and feminist epistemologists have recognized that the ‘epistemological agents are communities rather than individuals’ (Calvert-Minor 2011, 210). In Ogaba’s (2019, 210) opinion, ‘It is fundamental to tribal epistemology that it is a people’s epistemology rather than an epistemology carved out of some preconceived ideas of rationality, truth and justification’. Even the central theme in Native American epistemology is the ‘notions of ‘ceremonial worlds’ and ‘narrative’ (Hester and Cheney 2001, 319). The tribal communities create knowledge collectively; unlike western epistemology which emphasizes on ‘disembodied individual’ that is removed from the context and emotion involved in creation of knowledge. Spaces like traditional ‘dormitories’ assume an important role transmission and modification of tribal knowledge. Tribal epistemology considers realities both physical and spiritual that are inter-connected, considering that all living things are manifestations of spirit and were gifts from the creator. Unlike the Western/positivist epistemology, in the tribal thought structure and process ‘myth’ and ‘oral tradition’ assume preponderance and acceptable ways of knowing the reality.

Transmission of cultural knowledge takes place through oral tradition among them the ‘culture is generally transmitted from generation to generation through stories, myths, and re-enactments of rituals and ceremonies’ (Ogaba 2019, 207). The predominant and common mode of oral tradition is narrating the story. Knowledge is transmitted through stories shaped in relation to the wisdom of the storyteller at the time of the telling. This tradition is passed down to posterity to make sense of past moral values as well as the moral changes in the present. The tribal epistemology distinguishes between an outsider’s account of theorizing the realities from a cultural distance and the cultural insider’s ways of theorizing their social realities and constructing knowledge. In Ogaba’s (2019, 210) opinion:

By tribal epistemology, social scientists mean a cultural group’s ways of thinking and of creating, reformulating, and theorizing about knowledge via traditional discourses and media of communication, anchoring the truth of the discourse in culture. From the tribal standpoint, the ways of creating knowledge are parts of the mosaic of cultural knowledge that includes the whole person, family, kin group, and society. As a concept, tribal epistemology focuses on the process through which knowledge is constructed and validated by a cultural group, and the role of that process in shaping the thoughts and actions.

The Tribal epistemology assumes that knowledge is socially constructed in a particular cultural context. The southern African concept of ubuntu stands for the ontology of co-being and coexistence “I am because we are” in contrast with the Western philosophy of “I think therefore I am”. The indigenous philosophy of Pachamama, which has been included in the Constitution of Ecuador, designates ‘nature not as a natural resource but rather nature as a living being and source of life, to which rights are ascribed as to humans: nature rights side by side with human rights, both having the same constitutional status’ (de Sousa Santos 2018, 10). Such is the case with the concept of Quechua‘s idea of chachawarmi.[3] In the Andean Part of Latin America, the notion of interculturalidad-translating ‘interculturality’ is the core component among the indigenous social movements in their social and political struggle for recognition, it attempts ‘to break out of the prison of colonial vocabulary—modernization, progress, salvation (Aman 2016, 97).

Apart from knowing the social realities through oral traditions ‘and tribal use of native epistemologies to construct and theorize knowledge, it is encoded and passed on to the next generation (Ogaba 2019, 210). Epistemic disobedience, thus, is part of the process towards decolonial humanity in that it questions who counts as human, who counts as a knower, and whose knowledge counts as knowledge. These are central interrogations in Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge and movements. Epistemic creativity is an important way to challenge dominant epistemic assumptions. The tribal epistemology assumes that the ‘culture is variable, an ongoing conversation embodying conflict and change, shaped by the dialectic of structure and agency, inherently ideological, and prone to manipulation and distortion by powerful Interests’ (Ogaba 2019, 211). Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999, 4) claims that:

To resist is to retrench in the margins, retrieve what we were and remake ourselves. The past, our stories local and global, the present, our communities, cultures, languages and social practices—all may be spaces of marginalization, but they have also become spaces of resistance and hope.

Wilson (2008, 73) highlights the non-linear nature of Indigenous epistemology, and the research practice upholds the view that an epistemology where the relationship with something (a person, object or idea) is more important than the thing itself. In the research, consequences need not be forma, it is celebrated as a ceremony for improving a relationship with an idea. Contrary to enlightenment epistemology, the Indigenous epistemology is fluid, non-linear, and relational, in other words, it announces that ‘no research without relation’. Kovach (2005, 28) draws several key assertions from an Indigenous epistemology, which can guide the research process with the indigenous communities:

(a) Experience as a legitimate way of knowing.

(b) Indigenous methods, such as storytelling, as a legitimate way of sharing knowledge.

(c) Receptivity and relationship between researcher and participants as a natural part of the research ‘methodology’ and

(d) Collectivity as a way of knowing that assumes reciprocity to the community.

The indigenous research privileges indigenous concerns, practices and participation in the research process. The research agenda is conceptualized as constituting a programme that is situated within the decolonization politics of the indigenous peoples’ movement. The research becomes a tool in the hands of indigenous people that encourages ‘the acts of reclaiming, reformulating and reconstituting indigenous cultures and languages have required the mounting of an ambitious research programme, one that is very strategic in its purpose and activities and relentless in its pursuit of social justice’ (Smith 1999, 142). The decolonial-historical approach proposed by Bodhi (2022, 67) also challenges both European and Caste epistemology which are epistemically blind and silent to the concerns of indigenous people.

Against European and Caste Epistemologies

The British colonial rule superimposed a social change process on the tribal population that they thought was ‘necessary to civilize them, and the Indian administrators inherited this line of thinking after British rule ended in the country (Padel, 2015). This tendency could be described as epistemology, which is understood as the process of assimilation of tribal communities into both caste and peasant societies rather than treating tribal realities that co-existed along with the caste social realities. Akhup (2015, 31) attempts to view tribal studies from the epistemology of ‘location in the field’ and argues for ‘an embedded theorization process positioned as ‘reverse anthropology’ approach.

The important goals of critical and emancipatory research methods include identifying the role of interest and ideology in the processes and outcome of research practices. It encourages researchers to take organic positions in research to assume an active role in the social justice struggle through research as a process and outcome. While doing so it exposes the hypocrisy of dominant research practices and encourages gross root action. It takes an epistemic position of ‘social embeddedness’ and ‘no research without relationship’. It prioritizes agendas like social equality, and social justice for oppressed groups, not just, as an ideological position but that is deeply rooted in their very real lives, struggles and experiences to overcome certain stereotypes and improve their human rights positionalities. This is connected with the struggle of tribal communities that document their lived realities, experiences, and concerns, and counter certain stereotypes and biases by challenging the structures and ideologies of oppression. In that process, it claims that the knowledge-building process has never been a value-free enterprise rather the social realities were never static, and any claim of stable social realities are not above the paradigm of ‘social construction of reality by the dominant western and caste epistemologies’.

It repudiates the division between knower and knowable, object and subject, researcher and researched. It questions the ethics and utility of such research practices that maintain the distance between knower and knowable. It encourages alternative ways of thinking, which are different from Western, and caste epistemologies by rejecting the fixed and unchanging social realities (which are lying out there) as well as objective, neutral and value-free research process. According to Bodhi (2022), tribal epistemology needs to debate decoloniality, difference/decentering, survivalist politics, context epistemology, cultural deconstruction, settler epistemology, logic of elimination, epistemicide, epistemological disintegration, diversity politics, epistemological stability and epistemological integration. While arguing for decolonizing ethnography in India Tripura (2023, 1) argued that ‘the methods and frame of reference employed must be congruent with indigenous ways of being, knowing, and doing. Furthermore, it also insists that critical reflexivity, responsibility, and sensitivity are keys to Tribal studies in India’.  Bhukya (2021, 13) suggested as a way forward for the Adivasi study project in India and proposed the theoretical approach of ‘decoloniality’ that does not homogenize diverse Adivasi communities and their histories. The important point to remember is that ‘the issue of indigenous people is not only epistemological but also political’.

The tribal epistemology engages with the tribal realities that are marked by the loss of knowledge related to land, water, forest agriculture, livelihoods and language in India. The British rule and administration created both the British and native-caste society’s colonialism in mainland tribal India. The tribal regions have been freed from British colonialism but not the colonialism of caste society. In the opinion of Xaxa (2022, 65) ‘internal colonialism has persisted and become deeply entrenched in social, economic, political, and cultural structures, due to the nature and agenda of development pursued by the state’. It resulted in varied forms of ‘epistemological disintegration’ of tribal communities; it is not a concrete reality that all communities are experiencing. However, many tribal communities are exhibiting epistemological stability and others some degree of ‘epistemic distortion’.[4] In another sense, there have been some academic efforts made here and there through alternative epistemic positions to restore tribal autonomy over their collective destiny. In other words, the efforts are against the process of tribal assimilation that ‘is characterized by a loss of power and identity, fragmentation of the community, a blurring of social boundaries, ruination of language and spoliation of history. This has led to the ‘epistemological disintegration’ of the Tribes (Bodhi and Jojo 2019, 46).

The education system is one of the prime reasons for the epistemic disintegration of tribal communities. The tribal communities are taught in the medium of regional dominant languages. Apart from that, in recent times in indigenous-inhabited territories, the mining companies have removed education from the hands of indigenous peoples, under the guise of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Through CSR education initiatives orchestrated and administered by actors opposed to an indigenous way of life. Indigenous communities continue to combat a similar kind of domination in the present that they encountered during the European colonial era. These CSR education initiatives illustrate the words of the late Paulo Freire, who considered ‘education as the practice of domination’ (Pyke 2002, 58). The tribal society’s position concerning alternative paths to modernity is against a singular path to modernity defined in the dominant West and the caste societies. The operational principle now is engaged governance, this principle is premised on ‘tribal people’s active involvement in the governance of the tribes. This also indicates that ‘tribal communities move back and forth across a governance spectrum between lesser degrees of epistemological freedom and greater degrees of politico-epistemological freedom’ (Bodhi 2022, 67). It incorporates approaches like interpretations, subjectivity, emotions, and embodiment to expand understanding and a meaningful form of enquiry that expands the potentiality for new forms of knowledge creation outside of positivism. It encourages situated aspects of the knowledge-building process that the worldviews ‘can be maps’ that guide the research process from the tribal epistemic position.  It considers the bodily and emotional realm as a source of knowledge that is necessarily inclusive and pays closer attention to elements such as personal experience, subjectivity, worldviews and emotions.

Conclusion

In the end, oppression exists in various forms including epistemic form. Tribal epistemology in general and the emancipatory researcher, in particular, make a political commitment to make research as a tool of social emancipation. That is feasible with the inclusion of the critical epistemic standpoint of ‘tribal epistemology’ in our research process. It gives voice to the tribal realities by exposing the hypocrisy that is involved in dominant academic methods and it takes the explicit political position that social research should empower and emancipate oppressed groups. Tribal epistemology presumes the existence of knowledge in multiple forms, hence multiple epistemologies. It is an emancipatory epistemology that makes social justice a part of the research process as well as the research outcome. It fosters the oppositional discourses to challenge relations of domination and subordination. It acknowledges that the dominant knowledge formations take place under gender, race, class and caste hegemonies and this domination is naturalized in academic research practices with the help of scientific methods. The political as well as epistemic violence inflicted upon tribal communities is a disturbing phenomenon.

End Notes

[1] The methodology here is understood as a theory of how research is done or should proceed.

[2] A method is a technique (or a way of proceeding in) gathering shreds of evidence.

[3] Quechua has become a key concept in the liberation struggles of indigenous women in some countries of Latin America. It designates an egalitarian, complementarian notion of gender relations while dispensing with the patterns and languages under lying Eurocentric feminism.

[4] Bodhi and Jojo. (2019, 46) defines epistemological stability as a state in which a community displays characteristics such as stable ontology, history and cultural processes, distinct social/identity boundaries, firm control over natural resources, experience reality in their language and on their organic socio-cultural terms, have a strong sense of nationhood and has state power to negotiate their realities with the other. ‘Epistemological distortion’, however, is defined as a condition in which a community emits features, such as ontological or identity negotiations with self and others, tension between endonym (name given by self) and exonym (name given by others), demand for engagement and dialogue with the dominant forces, numerous protest and resistance movements, overt assertion and display of cultural practices, attempts to protect and seek recognition for language and script, make historical claims over land, water and forest, resist expropriation by outside forces yet have experienced some degree of cultural appropriation.

References

• Akhup, A. (2015 ed). Identities and Their Struggles in North East, Kolkata: Adivani.
• Aman, R. (2016). “Delinking from Western Epistemology” En Route from University to Pluriversity via Interculturality in Ramón Grosfoguel, Roberto Hernández, and Ernesto Rosen Velásquez (eds) Decolonizing the Westernized University            Interventions in Philosophy of Education from Within and Without, London, Lexington Books.
• Bhukya, B. (2021). “Featuring Adivasi/Indigenous Studies”, Economic & Political Weekly, 56(25), pp.13–17.
• Bodhi S.R. (2022). “Tribal Studies in India: Pre and Post-Xaxa”, Journal of Tribal Intellectual Collective India 6(1): 59-76.
• Bodhi, S.R., & Jojo, B. (2019). “Introduction”, In Bodhi, S.R and Bipin, J (Eds.), The Problematic of Tribal Integration, Voices from India’s Alternative Centers, Hyderabad: The Shared Mirror.
• Brown. L and Strega. S. (2005 Eds). “Transgressed Possibilities” in Research as Resistance: Critical, Indigenous, and Anti-Oppressive Approaches, Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
• Calvert-Minor, C. (2011). “Epistemological communities and the problem of epistemic agency”, Social epistemology, 25(4), pp. 341-360.
• de Sousa Santos, B. (2018) The End of The Cognitive Empire the Coming of Age of Epistemologies of The South, Duke University Press, London.
• Hester, L. and Cheney, J. (2001). “Truth and Native American epistemology”, Social Epistemology, 15 (4), pp. 319-334.
• Kovach, M. (2010). “Conversational method in indigenous research”. First Peoples Child Fam. Rev. 5, 40–48. doi: 10.7202/1069060.
• Ogaba, I. S. (2019). Tribal Epistemology, Pinisi Discretion Review 2(2), pp. 205- 216.
• Padel, F. (2015). Sacrificing People: Invasion of Tribal Landscape’, Hyderabad: Orient Black Swan.
• Pyke, L. (2022). “Mining Sponsored Education in West Papua”, Seminar, 751 (March): 56-58.
• Scott, JF.  (2013). “The Nature of Social Research and Social Knowledge” in Ian Marsh (ed) Theory and Practice in Sociology, Routledge, London, pp-26-68.
• Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books.
• Tripura B. (2023). “Decolonizing ethnography and Tribes in India: Toward an alternative methodology”, Front. Polit. Sci. 5:1047276. doi: 10.3389/fpos.2023.1047276.
• Vaditya, V. (2018). “Social Domination and Epistemic Marginalisation: towards Methodology of the Oppressed”, Social Epistemology, 32:4, 272-285, DOI: 10.1080/02691728.2018.1444111.
• Wilson, S. (2001). “What is indigenous research methodology?”, Canadian Journal of Native Education; Edmonton, 25 (2), 175–179.
• Xaxa, V. (2022). “India’s Tribal Situation and Self-Determination”, Seminar 751 (March): 63-66.

 

Dr. Venkatesh Vaditya is currently serving as an Associate Professor in the Department of Cultural Studies at the School of Interdisciplinary Studies, The English and Foreign Languages University in Hyderabad, Telangana. Earlier he served in the Department of Social Exclusion Studies between 2010-2023 in the same institution. His areas of interest include Human Rights, Indian Political Thought, Political Economy, Tribal Studies, and Research Methodology.

 

 

Abstract

In this paper, I try to examine the issues of Adivasi women and the social discrimination that they face in local governing bodies such as Panchayati Raj institutions in Telangana State. An important reason for the Dalit and Adivasi communities have been left out of the development agenda of the Indian state for the last 75 years is their lack of representation in the political institutions such as and the other public spaces such as panchayat raj.  This problem is all the more aggravated in the case of grassroots institutions such as village panchayats. It was only after the 73^rd Amendment Act of the Indian Constitution, seats were reserved for Dalits and Adivasis in Panchayati Raj Institutions, thus paving the way for these marginalized communities to take part in the political decision-making processes at the most immediate level of governance. But despite these Constitutional provisions, according to Mahi Pal, casteism and patriarchy still exercise a stranglehold on Panchayati raj institutions, making a mockery of decentralized governance and grassroots democracy. Moreover, it is the Dalit and Adivasi women who bear the brunt of these social inequalities, as they are disadvantaged both as women and as Dalits and Adivasis. The persistence of such forms of social inequality has adverse effects on their ability to participate actively and to contest in panchayat elections, and then to work effectively as panchayat members/sarpanches. Brahminical and patriarchal interests come together to create a number of hurdles in the way of women who want to come forward as grassroots political representatives. However, as Ambedkar said in his book, Annihilation of Caste, “Caste is a big giant…. unless we kill it, there will not be any change.”

 

Keywords: Caste, Democracy, Discrimination, Inequality, Gender and Patriarchy

 

Women’s participation in the affairs of government is constrained by the lack of education and economic independence, and low societal and familial status. Moreover, the social position of each individual lies at the intersection of caste, class, and gender. These are the points of intersection through which social power operates, and these additional factors must also be accounted for in understanding the constraints of women’s representation and participation in Panchayati Raj institutions.

Dalit and Adivasi Women in Panchayati Raj Institutions

 The Panchayati Raj institutions have strengthened grassroots level governance in the Indian democratic system. However, the question of political participation and representation of the Dalit and Adivasi women in Panchayati Raj Institutions raises a number of specific issues that are for the most part ignored in field research. At the outset, the Dalit and Adivasi women are doubly oppressed, by caste as well as patriarchy. This, however, is not simply a question of “multiplying” the forms of oppression faced by such citizens. Rather, it allows a new perspective on the complexity with which social power plays out in real, concrete situations.

Some studies have tried to capture this complexity of exercising power through various social relations. A recent study shows how a Dalit woman in Gujarat was made a consensus candidate, but the threats from the local dominant caste members that they would deny her husband employment in the village should she not act according to their directions shows the complexity of the situation. With a focus on Dalit women, the report also argues that “reforms must recognize that political participation cannot be viewed in isolation: efforts to realize other enabling rights especially the rights to education and information, to free employment, alongside the right to equality within the family and in society—must be integrated with efforts to ensure Dalit women’s enjoyment of their right to political participation.”

Moreover, there have also been many instances of direct violence against Dalit and Adivasi women. For instance, there have been reports from four districts of Madhya Pradesh, Raigarh, Chattarpur, Raisen and East Nimar of a lady Sarpanch being stripped naked, another lady sarpanch being gang raped, an upa-sarpanch (deputy president) being tortured and a Dalit panchayat member being beaten up.⁴ A lambada woman Sarpanch in Nalgonda District of the Telangana State was not allowed to hoist the national flag on the eve of Independence Day. There were some examples of SC and ST women representatives being disallowed from chairing Panchayat meetings and participate in higher caste male dominated occasions and ceremonies. To sum up, caste remains a major obstacle in the way of Dalit women representatives’ substantive participation in panchayats. But this in no way diminishes the importance of representation of the Dalit and Adivasi women in Panchayats. As Mahi Pal notes, “the reservation system has been instrumental to a significant extent in igniting the process of releasing the depressed, oppressed and suppressed energy of the Dalit women who have got the opportunity to come forward as elected representatives.”

Through decades of struggle, “women” is today a recognized political category in political discourse in India. While this is part of a broader phenomenon playing out on a world-wide scale, the fractured nature of society and democracy in India raises particular problems. “Women” in India cannot be understood as a homogenous category. It is further determined by factors such as caste, class, ethnicity, religion and such other marks of social difference. The specificity of the structural inequalities faced by Dalit and Adivasi women demand a reworking of conventional social scientific methods such that they may be able to articulate the complex power relations within which Dalit and Adivasi women are participating in Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) today. Explanations must take up the culture and the mechanisms of social stratification to account for outcomes.

The assertion of Dalit interests has posed new challenges for the women’s movement in India which has been criticized for its blindness to the question of caste. Dalit women are using their caste identity, alongside their identity as village-level activists, to further their interests beyond the realm of upper caste women’s activism.

The question of inadequate political representation and participation of Adivasi women raises a number of important theoretical questions. This social group does not signify simply a “double” disadvantage due to their identity as “woman” and “Adivasi.” Rather, as I had already mentioned, these two forms of social exclusion and systemic disadvantage overlap in different ways to exclude Adivasi women from effective participation in the political processes.

Neema Kudva has noted that field studies are collecting a growing amount of evidence to show that village women found it easier to approach women representatives about issues that directly impacted their lives. In his book Savaging the Civilised, Ramachandra Guha says, “adivasis are largely voiceless. Excluded from effective democratic participation, they are also subject to systematic exploitation.”⁷ Thus, the role of the Adivasi women in the local governing bodies should be taken much more seriously because such an initiative is bound to have positive long-term effects, as it will help them to articulate themselves more freely and to substantively participate in the procedures of formal democracy.

In this paper, I also look at some instances where the women Sarpanches have taken the initiative to lead campaigns for social transformation and against social problems such as alcoholism and lack of educational facilities. Additionally, I also describe some of the important developmental work carried out by the Sarpanches in their villages. Finally, I will look at some of the problems the Sarpanches face in carrying out their developmental works in the Gram Panchayats. I will also focus on the complaints of administrative apathy and non-payment of pending bills that adversely affect the ability of the Adivasi women sarpanches in initiating and implementing their independent local agenda.

This paper argues that the political empowerment of Adivasi women has a wider impact on the social status and access to life opportunities. The entrusting of women with the responsibilities of political representation in grassroots democracy leads to a transformation in the social relations at the level of the family, the community, and in relations between the community and the state/bureaucracy.

At the same time, my research also shows that much remains to be done with regard to political awareness of Adivasi women. There are many social barriers of patriarchy, gender and caste, which remain obstacles to their full participation in grassroots democracy. Manifesting themselves in the form of various social pressures experienced by the women Sarpanches in their work, these forms of social hierarchy remain powerful forces that stifle social transformation. Thus, even as the provision of political reservations to Adivasi women at the panchayat level has shown some beneficial effects, the optimism should not make us lose sight of the many ways in which the inequalities of gender continue to constrict real social development of marginalized sections of society particularly the Adivasi women.

Most of the areas that I have visited during my fieldwork had poor educational facilities, where students have to travel long distances even for primary education. For many Adivasi women sarpanches, it was their first time contesting in elections. In one case, the Sarpanch in question was the first ST woman to occupy the post in the Gram Panchayat. The Adivasi women also informed me that sometimes the educated men mislead them. They were of the opinion that misleading takes place in the office where they get some letters from the government such as contract work notices and they were just asked to sign on the official documents without any knowledge of the content.

Political Empowerment of Women

Among the opponents of reservation for women in panchayat, one of the most common arguments is that even though on paper, women may have achieved a milestone on their journey towards substantive democratic participation and empowerment, but in reality, they remain trapped in patriarchal forces such that the male elites in the family and village would not only impinge upon the responsibilities and freedoms but also try to exploit their Sarpanch for their own private gain⁸. This paper contests this widely accepted claim about women political representatives by discussing some cases from the fieldwork, through which one may get a better understanding about how women have resisted, subverted or transformed these pressures arising from their additional work of being political representatives. In many cases, the women Sarpanches we spoke to were the first from their community to do so. One of the sarpanch was the first-ever woman ST Sarpanch from that Gram Panchayat in Warangal District of the Telangana State.

It is important to note that some sarpanches were able to contest in ST Gram Panchayat seats that were not reserved for women. In the election she was able to win against the male candidates. It is an important indicator of the effects of Panchayati Raj Act which was developed for the political empowerment of women and that helped an Adivasi woman that she was able to win by a margin of 150 votes out of a total of 2,400 against six other candidates which include both men and women.

Anti-Alcoholism Movement

Women representatives, together with local women’s collectives, have historically been proactive in organizing mass campaigns against alcoholism. The anti-alcoholism movement grew rapidly in south India throughout the 1990s. Such grassroots movements, however, are often overpowered by a combination of political interests, corrupt bureaucracy and vested business interests. ⁹ While it is true that state institutions often reflect and reinforce a patriarchal power structure, it must also be noted that a democratic political system can also allow women and women’s organizations a space for autonomous action. These organisations can both challenge and work with the state.¹⁰ For example, one of the lambada sarpanch from Warangal district said that she was the first woman to stop the production and consumption of gudumba that was the local country liquor, which was damaging the health of all in the Dornakal division. Taking serious action as Sarpanch against the social problem of alcoholism, she declared that anyone found producing gudumba would be denied their pension and ration rice, and their Aadhar card would be cancelled.

In another case, one of the respondents from Adilabad District actively took part in local agitations to improve educational facilities in the area. She stated that on one occasion she also sat for a dharna in front of the ITDA office demanding a tribal university for Utnoor. Some women Sarpanches have also been able to garner greater social respect within their community. Some Sarpanches stated that “maku manchi peru vachindi”(we got a good name) after becoming Sarpanch and carrying out her responsibilities, she had created goodwill among her community, and she and her husband are now always invited to every important social or public function in the community. For example, one of the interviewees earned the respect of the community by giving a donation for the erection of the Ganapathi statue in her village during the Vinayaka Chaviti (Ganesh) festival.

In the course of fieldwork, it was found that the supporting role of the family is an important factor in determining the extent to which women Sarpanches were able to participate in their panchayat responsibilities. It has often been noted that opposition from the family and society at large has been one of the reasons for the disproportionately poor representation of women in positions of representation, be it in the Lok Sabha, in State Assemblies, or in bodies of local self-government. It has also been noted that the provision for the reservation of one-third seats in Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) has been instrumental in increasing women’s participation in the process of political representation and decision making at the local level.¹¹ The most significant evidence of the empowering effects of women’s reservation in Panchayati Raj institutions is the wide disparity in women’s representation in local bodies as compared to state and national legislatures, where women form no more than 10 per cent of the total representatives.

One of the major obstacles faced by women representatives in Panchayati Raj institutions is that the official responsibilities usually come as an additional burden. Having to take care of all the household responsibilities, as well as take part in agricultural activities, women are left with very little time to devote to their panchayat responsibilities. This is a problem that the formal provision of reservation cannot solve by itself. This requires a deeper change in gender relations at the family and social level. It is only then there is a redistribution of work and responsibilities that women will be able to fully execute their panchayat functions. At times the role of the husbands in the women Sarpanch’s work is questionable and may be seen to hinder the possibility of women’s empowerment.

For example, one of the sarpanch from Warangal district noted, she only goes to the Gram Panchayat or Mandal Parishad when there is a meeting. Even on these occasions, she only goes to sign her name and her husband does all the talking. In fact, her husband has taken on such an important role that he has even given up his well-paying medical practice, where he earns about Rs 22,000- 25,000 per month. He now devotes himself fully to the affairs of the Gram Panchayat. Women still face a degree of discomfort in appearing in public and the authority of their decisions are often challenged. During the fieldwork, it was found that the women Sarpanches had many problems in engaging with officials in the police and bureaucracy. They were not given often the due respect and were made to feel uncomfortable about appearing and speaking directly to the usually male officials. As a result, some of the Sarpanches stated that while they accomplished their official responsibilities within the village and among the community, it was their husbands who would go to meet officials in the police station and the civil administration.

During the interviews, the Sarpanches also gave an indication of the social pressures that women representatives must constantly struggle with. They mentioned many cases in which women Sarpanches have committed suicide. One of the elected women-representative’s husbands, mentioned a case in Khammam district, where a Lambada woman Sarpanch committed suicide, as she was unable to pay back a loan. She had taken Rs 6 lakhs from local moneylenders in order to cover her expenditure during elections. However, due to a delay in repayment, the moneylenders came to a Gram Panchayat meeting and asked her in public to pay back the money she owed them. Humiliated by this public insult, she immediately left the meeting and committed suicide in her home immediately afterwards. This example shows clearly how a combination of financial problems and the targeted use of social humiliation against Adivasi women led to the Sarpanch’s suicide.

Chenchu tribal women became Sarpanches twice. She says that “officials come and see the Chenchu tribal issues because of her pressure and they address the problems otherwise, they would not have come here”. ¹² She also said, “the political party from which she got elected does not allow her to speak in the meetings.”¹³ She has been asked to attend all the party meetings as well as official meetings with collectors and other administrative officers. However, she does not get a chance to share her views on developmental issues of the village and becomes a mute spectator. She also said, “sometimes I feel very sad”. It shows the male and patriarchal nature   of the society.

The researcher went to Chenchu respondent’s GP office several times to interact with her, but she was not ready to interact with the researcher due to some fear in her mind that the “the researcher may inform the higher authorities.” Therefore, she did not meet the researcher. It has been a surprise that though the same family members have been elected as Surpanches four times, the plight of the family has not changed. If you look at the picture of their house, you will realize that their socio-economic condition has not changed.

Conducting development work amid a chronic shortage of funds and powers to allocate them, the women Sarpanches, who are seriously committed to their duties and responsibilities, have thus often been regarded with more respect and goodwill than their male counterparts. Some of the interviewees also brought up cases of rampant corruption in the panchayat offices. For example, one of the sarpanch’s husband from Warangal district, said that one always needed to take about Rs.500 whenever they went to the panchayat office to pay off the various low-level functionaries there. Without paying them some money on the excuse of “having tea” or “having lunch,” it was impossible to get work done, or even to command their respect and attention. Field studies elsewhere have shown this to be a recurrent phenomenon in panchayat offices. Badri Narayan argues that one of the major areas of financial corruption in panchayats was in the giving of contracts and in allocation of land ownership.

Moreover, standing for panchayat elections was a risky affair as well, since there was now large spending on elections, and one might lose even after spending a lot of money. For this reason, it was easier for established candidates with family wealth or the backing of an established political party to stand for elections rather than independent candidates who may be genuinely interested in developing their village.

Finally, the study showed that a part of the problem faced by the women Sarpanches arose from the structural limitations faced by the Panchayati Raj model on the local initiative of people. While on the one hand, the empowering effects of Panchayati Raj Institutions and reservation of seats within them are clear in many instances; on the other hand, the powers of the Institutions themselves have been so restricted that the Sarpanches cannot do much more than carry out basic infrastructural development works like building roads or facilities for drinking water supply.

There have been a number of incidents of Dalit and Adivasi women being subjected to public humiliation, torture and even physical violence simply for trying to stand in elections or carry out their official duties.¹⁶ Moreover, as Dalits and Adivasis have become more assertive about their rights, such instances of violence have increased.¹⁷ In the decade after Independence, Panchayati Raj institutions became the site where the rural, land-owning elites were accommodated within the power structure. Continuing to function more or less in the traditional manner, the panchayat was an instrument in the hands of the entrenched caste elites in the countryside to maintain their social authority, as well as garner the major share of the state’s growing public spending in the name of development. The social antagonisms, however, came to the fore through the 1960s in the form of various political movements, most significantly by landless Dalit peasants and Adivasis against feudal authority across the countryside.

By the time the 73^rd Amendment was passed to provide constitutional validity to Panchayati Raj Institutions, it became an instrument to co-opt the rising Dalit and Adivasi assertion in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Most of them owned marginal land holdings for cultivation, and the size of land holdings owned by various Sarpanch families varied between 0.5 and 10 acres. Moreover, the Sarpanches’ families did not seem to have much wealth as the small pucca houses, or houses with an asbestos sheet above them indicate. The aim of the Panchayati Raj Act is to empower women but in practice it is not much helpful to avoid the caste and gender- based discrimination in rural India because they lack money and muscle power. For instance, in an extensive study conducted among Dalit women panchayat members in Gujarat and Tamil Nadu, it was found that around 85% of Dalit women were pushed into panchayat politics primarily by dominant castes or their husbands, the former often working through the women’s husbands. Here, her family has become heavily dependent on the local caste elites for their financial sustainability. The Sarpanch’s husband and the entire family, becomes dependent on the landlord when they are provided land for lease at a discounted rate. Through such a complex web of favors on the one hand, and restrictions on the other, the hierarchies of caste operate to make Adivasi women Sarpanches either directly or indirectly dependent on the local dominant castes.

A study reported that an Adivasi woman candidate was asked after winning the election to submit her house title deeds to the dominant caste elites. In addition to this, the powers of the candidate were given away to the highest bidder. Apart from such measures, candidates are often obstructed from discharging their responsibilities as panchayat members. They are kept away from attending meetings or taking part in discussions.

They had difficulty in participating in meetings because they were unfamiliar with the regulations and various schemes. Moreover, they also received little co-operation from fellow panchayat members in becoming familiar with the relevant rules and regulations. According to the respondents, they faced an atmosphere of hostility in the panchayat and had no support from other members. Even when they were knowledgeable about the regulations, they were not allowed the authority to make independent decisions about the allocation of funds, contracts, and panchayat development policies.

They could not engage in projects that would challenge the existing gender-caste inequalities such as land distribution. While on the other hand, one of the elected women sarpanch from Khammam district, made donations for the construction of the local Ganesh temple, and was a patron of the Vinayaka Chaturthi festivities. However, the donation has become a compulsion and actually has affected her everyday financial maintenance. Some sarpanches enjoy limited powers as they function as proxy candidates due to the deep sense of fear towards the dominant caste hegemony, lack of political experience, lack of adequate education and so on. These factors act as real detriments that hinder Adivasi women’s opportunities to build the necessary capacities to effectively take on the roles of political representation.

A tacit agreement between the bureaucracy and police, and the dominant caste elites ensures that complaints of caste discrimination and intimidation are not acted upon. Additionally, Dalit and Adivasi women Sarpanches are put under external pressure by the bureaucracy, which does not sanction permissions and funds in a timely manner.

Most approaches to social development in the Indian context seem to treat reservations as the sole component in enabling emancipation and equality to marginalised social groups. However, we have seen that the structure of caste is pervasive in all aspects of Indian society, be it productive, social, sexual or spiritual relations between individuals. Mahi Pal argues that the main impediments to Dalit women Sarpanches acting effectively are: illiteracy and lack of awareness about powers and functions and developmental schemes; encroachment of common land; poverty and economic dependency; social inequality and casteism. Here, we would add that caste discrimination cannot be isolated into “one” of the various problems. Rather, Dalit and Adivasi women’s access to social resources as well as equal opportunity structurally determine each of these above factors. As a result of which the dominant caste communities are able to capture the lion’s share of the resources. In addition, they face casteist and patriarchal traditional strictures on education and employment.

In addition, it is clear that in the very ‘Preamble’ of Indian Constitution it is stated “to secure Justice, social, economic and political, Equality of status and opportunity” is needed However, despite its stated aim of ensuring equality for all citizens and putting an end to untouchability and caste-based discrimination, caste continues to be practiced in various forms. It is essential for policy makers to realize that political empowerment through reservation cannot be seen in isolation. Along with political empowerment, it is essential to address other obstructions and inequalities in the fields of education, employment and equal wages, rights within the family and society, and right over property and so on.

Kumkum Sangari and Sudesh Vaid in Recasting Women had warned us against a tokenistic inclusion of women, against framing women against this or that context, against seeing patriarchy as singular, against reading class, caste and region-specific moments and movements as universal. It is clear that just including women in the processes of governance and development is merely a tokenism and does not change structural conditions. Indeed, this is the over-arching insight of this paper: that inclusion or even positions of power are no guarantee of social change because if structural conditions remain the same, the objectives enshrined in the Constitution are defeated. While the idea of reservation in the Panchayats has opened up avenues for women that hitherto did not exist, it is not as though they have magically transformed the lives of Adivasi women overnight.

The seven major insights that have been envisaged are:

1. Just including women is tokenistic and does not change much.
2. Women Sarpanches with husbands running the show are indicative of the fact that political power cannot be determined only by positions at the governance table.
3. Upper castes still dominate the scene and structurally inhibit the ability of Dalit and Adivasi women and men to change structural hegemonies and consequently the conditions of their lives.
4. The lack of access to land (most of the Adivasis are landless in terms of land ownership) and to different kinds of economies makes it difficult for Adivasis, especially women, to change the conditions of their lives.
5. Low levels of education among Adivasi women make it very difficult for women to take decisions on their own lives and livelihoods.
6. The upper-caste political funding of elections makes the whole process money-run rather than run by processes of democratization and change which women show they are very capable.
7. Political awareness is a crucial factor that is missing among women. By political awareness, I mean the consciousness-raising that is a vital part of helping women recognise and work to dismantle structures, institutions and ideas that dominate their lives. Programmes like Mahila Samakhya, now dismantled by the government, achieved this to a remarkable extent and that methodology has to be replicated in Only when traditional and constricting ways of thinking change in the psyches of women can any structural and transformational change become possible.

Nevertheless, it is important not to over-estimate the change that political representation brings. This brings us to the first point in the list that we began this Conclusion with. The mere inclusion of women into political processes does not automatically mean equality or social transformation. For example, we saw that many women’s husbands merely used their wives’ election as a way to become Sarpanches themselves in a form of proxy politics. This phenomenon is indicative of the fact that patriarchal structures are deep-rooted and the inequality of the family as an institution cannot be eradicated by merely offering women positions outside of it.

This is symptomatic of the larger structural constrictions of the caste/class system which positions Adivasis outside it and at the very bottom, in positions worse than Dalits. Adivasis face harassment even from Dalits and definitely from the middle and upper castes who own the land and dominate the markets. Caste plays an important role in Adivasi life though Adivasis, strictly speaking, have nothing to do with caste. Upper caste domination and harassment of Adivasis is common and keeps them out of economic and political power as the strings are still pulled by the upper castes and tribal groups are still obligated to them. The domination is compounded by the fact that most Adivasis are landless or have marginal land holdings and the fact that they have no hold on the economic systems of the market of which they do not control means that the domination of them is near-total. Within these three formations – caste, land and market – the structural exploitation of women is worse than that of men, and women face these structural constraints doubly. In Postcolonial terminology Adivasi women face a ‘double colonisation.’

From basic literacy (to enable them to sign forms) to more advanced forms of education to help them understand the systems of which they are part, the lack of education is a serious structural impediment to women. The main objective of this paper has been to study if political empowerment of Adivasi women enables an improvement of other social indicators, including education, psychological empowerment and access to social justice institutions. Further, it seeks to show the practices and institutions through which these changes are affected. The study looked at how structural inequalities in society have a detrimental effect on the empowerment of women and the ways in which political empowerment can help in pushing back the negative effects of these forms of social inequality. Specifically, the research focused on how hierarchies of caste and gender are factors in determining Adivasi women’s participation in the institutions of local self-governance. Instead of becoming an agent that can act against the prevailing social inequalities of caste, class, and gender, they have become deeply entrenched in perpetuating these inequalities.

Set against this background, this study has sought to look at the continuing effects of caste, class and patriarchy in Adivasi women’s participation in grassroots political institutions. Historically, Adivasis have been a marginalized community, excluded from the mainstream and misrepresented in the dominant cultural imagination. The process of massive displacement and widespread exploitation of Adivasis, through the introduction of modern land tenancy laws and reserve forest areas, is a trend that has come to be intensified in post-independence India. In this context, we have pointed to how Adivasi women are doubly disadvantaged. Not only do they suffer from class discrimination and Brahminical domination, but they are also subjected to the violence of patriarchal forces. Adivasi women are subjected to exploitation by non-tribals, from the mainstream caste Hindu society, from Dalits and from their own men.

The present study, however, remains limited in scope, primarily because it mapped the political and economic developments more than the psychic and cultural impediments from within women’s minds. At the same time, it provides some important findings that can be further studied and proved through a framework that takes into account the cultural, psychic as much as the economic in re-framing the very parameters of inclusion and exclusion. Only then can Ambedkar’s vision of real democracy be realized within the system of Panchayati Raj. Previous studies have suggested the vulnerability of women to proxy candidature²¹ and also for Dalit women in particular. During fieldwork, it was found that proxy candidature is a problem for Adivasi women as well. The priorities of caste and patriarchal hierarchies often determine the scope of work that an Adivasi woman Sarpanch is able to undertake. The vast and complex networks of social relations of caste limit her financial abilities, as well as decision-making authority in sanctioning development projects aimed specifically at marginalized groups. They faced pressures from contractors of dominant caste groups, and also apathy from government officials in sanctioning projects that would benefit marginalized groups in the community.

In fact, this may even be regarded as a structural feature of grassroots democracy in India. The continued influence of these forms of hierarchy in politics today arises from the historical failure and weakness of the modern Indian state in confronting these forms of social hierarchy. Rather than destroying such forms of social hierarchy as part of its project of creating a society of freedom and equality, the Indian state has accommodated and integrated them within the various levels of the state apparatus itself. In such a situation, the real affectivity of Constitutional measures for equal representation is continually undermined and subverted by these entrenched interests. A substantive grassroots democracy is possible only when these pernicious forms of social hierarchy are contested and eradicated.

 

Reference:

1. Ahmad, S. Waseem, Nilofer and Gazala Parveen. “Women’s Political Participation and Changing Pattern of Leadership in Rural Areas of UP.” The Indian Journal of Political Science, 69.3 (July- September 2008). 663-664.
2. From Reservation to Participation Capacity Building of Elected Women Representatives and Functionaries of Panchayati Raj Institutions. UNDP-India, pp. 22
3. George Mathew, “Panchayati Raj Institutions and Human Rights in India”. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Jan. 11-17, 2003), pp. 155-162
4. George Mathew, “Panchayati Raj Institutions and Human Rights in India”. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Jan. 11-17, 2003), pp. 157
5. Jayshree Mangubhai et al. Dalit Women’s Right to Political Participation in Rural Panchayati Raj: A Study of Gujarat and Tamil Nadu. IDEAS, JustitiaetPax, Equalinrights: The Netherlands. 2009, p. 7
6.  Ibid, p. 8
7. Katarju Padmamma (2015) Interviewed by the researcher on 30 September 2015
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid
10. Kudva, Neema. “Engineering Elections: The Experiences of Women in Panchayati Raj in Karnataka, India.” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 16.3 (Spring, 2003). 452.
11. Mahi Pal, “Caste and Patriarchy in Panchayats” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 39, No. 32 (Aug. 7-13, 2004), pp. 3581
12. Mangubhai, Jayshree, Aloysius Irudayam SJ and Emma Sydenham. Dalit Women’s Right to Political Participation in Rural Panchayati Raj: A Study of Gujarat and Tamil Nadu. Madurai: IDEAS, Justitia et Pax, Equalinrights, 2009. 14.
13. Mathew, George. Panchayati Raj: From Legislation to Movement. New Delhi: Concept Publishing House. 2002. Print. 12.
14. Narayan, Badri. “Democracy and Violence.” Economic and Political Weekly, 48.14 (April 6, 2013). 14.
15. Ramachandra Guha. Savaging the Civilized: Verrier Elwin, His Tribals, and India. Penguin Random House Delhi, India. 2014.p.xiv
16. Sekhon, Joti. “Engendering Grassroots Democracy: Research, Training, and Networking for Women in Local Self-Governance in India.” NWSA Journal, 18.2 (Summer, 2006). 120.
17. Shashi Kaul and Shradha Sahni, “Study on the Participation of Women in Panchayat Raj Institution” Kamlaraj Publications, New Delhi. 2009 p 29-38
18. Society of Tribal Women for Development. Impact of Bottom-up Planning Under PRIs and Women Participation Therein in the States of Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Jharkhand and Maharashtra. New Delhi. 2006. 28-29

 

Dr. Sunitha Bhukya is Post-Doctoral Fellow (ICSSR), Dept of Public Administration Osmania University Hyderabad Telangana State, India.

 

Abstract

The emergence of Indigenous politics in Northeast India has been a transformative phenomenon to the socio-political profile in the region. This paper examines the complex nexus between governance, development and emergence of indigenous politics in this ethnically differentiated and ecologically endowed part of India. Provided is an extensive historical and modern assessment of the main factors behind and implications of this political shift. Northeast India is marked by immense cultural diversity and home to diverse indigenous groups. These groups of indigenous people who have been traditionally oppressed and deprived from participating in the central political processes have expanded their activism to demand for their right and to incorporate their community governance system. In the process of India’s government development in the area, many indigenous communities were placed at the intersection of development and dispossession. This paper explores conflict and resistance to development dynamics in Northeast India, where infrastructure developments, natural resource extraction as well as land acquisition have resulted into. Secondly, development-induced displacement and its devastating impact on indigenous livelihoods and identities lay the foundation for indigenous politics. In this transformation process, governance has featured as a source of frustration and political mobilization. It examines the changing relation of these indigenous communities with the state pertaining to representation, autonomy and self-governance. Finally, it highlights the necessity for an informed comprehension of the historical and contemporary basis of this evolution.

Keywords- Northeast India, Governance, Development, Indigenous politics

 

Introduction

Northeast India, a region characterized by its geographical isolation and rich cultural diversity, comprises eight states: these include states like Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, and Tripura. Located in between Bhutan, Tibet, Myanmar and Bangladesh, this part of the world has great biodiversity and many indigenous people speaking various languages. Each of them has its own tradition, and society structure. The region also had experienced an intricate combination of colonialism, independence politics, and lingering ethnic conflicts resulting in a richly historical but socially complex present time.

Nevertheless, Northeast India has been a hotbed of incessant political strife and social inequity where native inhabitants frequently constitute the core participants in demonstrations and calls for enhanced independence, fairness and natural resource ownership. The essence of this study therefore is aimed at identifying and unravelling the complex inter-connection of governance, development and indigenous political developments and prospects in Northeast India.

The primary objectives of this study are twofold: first, to explain historically why and how indigenous politics emerged in Northeast India; and secondly, the impacts of this political change to the governance, development, and the socio-political milieu of the area. Overall, this aimed at advancing the complex understanding of multidimensional nature of politics in north-eastern India.

Historical Background of Northeast India

Northeast India is a region with great history and of cultural significance. The prehistoric period of Northeast India is characterized by its rich archaeological findings, including tools, cave paintings, and remains that suggest early human settlement. The region’s diverse geography, ranging from high mountains to dense forests, provided a conducive environment for early human life.

Northeast India’s ancient history is intertwined with the broader history of the Indian subcontinent. The Ahom Kingdom, established in the 13th century in Assam, is a significant part of this period. The Ahoms, originally from present-day Myanmar, ruled for nearly 600 years and left a profound impact on the region’s culture and society (Baruah, 2004). The medieval period saw the rise of various kingdoms and dynasties in Northeast India. The Koch, Kachari, and Tripura kingdoms were prominent during this time. This period was marked by cultural and political interactions with Southeast Asia, evident in the region’s art, architecture, and religious practices (Guha, 1980). The British East India Company’s annexation of Assam in 1826 marked the beginning of the colonial era in Northeast India. The British colonial administration significantly altered the region’s socio-political landscape. The introduction of tea plantations, especially in Assam, and the discovery of oil in Digboi led to economic changes and an influx of migrant labor, altering the region’s demographic composition (Mackenzie, 1884). In post India’s independence, the Northeast region faced challenges related to integration with the rest of India, leading to various movements for autonomy and independence. The Naga movement in Nagaland and the Mizo movement in Mizoram are some notable examples. In recent decades, the Indian government have initiated various policies for the economic development and the integration of the region, addressing issues of insurgency, ethnic conflicts, and infrastructural development. The region is home to numerous tribes, each having its unique language, culture, and traditions. Festivals like Bihu in Assam, Hornbill in Nagaland, and Sangai in Manipur showcase the region’s rich cultural tapestry (Bhattacharjee, 1997). The region is characterized by its rich biodiversity and unique ecosystems, including the Eastern Himalayas and the Brahmaputra River Valley. It is home to several national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, such as Kaziranga National Park, known for its one-horned rhinoceros (Goswami, 1991). Northeast India’s history is therefore a complex interplay of various cultures, kingdoms, and influences. Its unique geographical location has made it a melting pot of Indo-Tibetan, Southeast Asian, and South Asian cultures. Hence, understanding the historical background of Northeast India is crucial for appreciating its role in the broader context of Indian history and its contribution to the cultural and ecological diversity of the country.

The Emergence of Indigenous Politics

The rise of Indigenous politics is a deep-seated and transformative phenomenon that has manifested itself in various countries across the world. The movement is marked by the affirmation of various indigenous peoples’ rights, including acknowledgement of their distinctive cultural identities and demand for self-determination. Indigenous politics started from the colonization of their lands by Europeans that began in the late 15th century and took many centuries. During this colonial era, there was the confiscation of indigenous lands, exploitation and imposition of foreign cultural norms and legal systems.

These injustices gave rise to the Indigenous resistance movements. These movements usually manifested in a form of warfare against the colonial powers that Indigenous peoples fought for lands and their lifestyle. Gradually, these struggles transformed into political campaigns for the protection of indigenous rights and for self-determination.

The following are the key drivers that fueled the emergence of Indigenous politics:

1. Land Dispossession: Indigenous politics revolve around land. Colonial powers and settler governments forced many Indigenous communities from their ancestral lands. The motivation of the land reclamation has been a leading force in Indigenous political movements. The land rights are considered vital in the protection of Indigenous cultures and ensuring their communities health.
2. Cultural Preservation: The Indian descent people have been victims of cultural assimilations with attempts to obliterate their languages, traditional ways and practices. This revitalization of Indigenous politics is related to the urge of restoring, appreciating and safeguarding proprietary identity. This process has involved language revitalization, traditional ceremonies and cultural parliaments.
3. Legal Frameworks: Such international legal frameworks as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007 have created a basis for indigenous communities to claim their rights. UNDRIP acknowledges the right of Indigenous peoples to ownership of ancestral land and self-determination as well as protects their cultures.
4. Global Indigenous Solidarity: These different networks of solidarity have given birth to indigenous movements. They usually have common problems and policies to handle them like land rights, self-governance, cultural preservation among others. This has increased the efficacy of the indigenous politics in a global scale.

Despite the progress made, Indigenous peoples still continue to face significant challenges:

1. Land Disputes: In many countries, land still remains a contentious issue that has also led to conflict between indigenous communities and their governments or multinational corporations. Land rights have currently become crucial and complex concerning many historical; legal reasons.
2. Marginalization: In many cases, indigenous people are marginalized, discriminated against and subjected to unequal access of resources, education and health care. Indigenous political movements focus their attention on the closing of these gaps.
3. Legal Recognition: However, in national legal systems around the world the recognition and implementation of Indigeneity vary greatly even though international legal frameworks such as UNDRIP are present. However, some governments have been reluctant to do so continuing an attempt for legal recognition.
4. Environmental Concerns: Several times, indigenous communities are at the head of environmental shield. They are trying to protect their lands as well as resources at the same time grappling with the need for sustainable development which aligns to their cultural and ecological values.
5. Political Representation: However, it still is a difficult task to provide significant political representation for indigenous peoples in the national governments. There are few cases where the Indigenous communities have been underrepresented in decision making.

Indigenous Politics in Northeast India

The historical roots and the dimension of contemporary emergence of Indigenous Politics in Northeast India are as follows:

1. The Bodoland Territorial Region (BTR) in Assam: The indigenous group of Bodo people in Assam has a long history of fighting for their rights and self-rule. The Bodo Accord was signed in 2020 after years of armed struggle and negotiations leading to the establishment of Bodoland Territorial Region (BTR). The region covers an area of over nine thousand square kilometres and is predominantly inhabited by the Bodo people and other indigenous communities of Assam.
2. Nagaland and the Naga Peace Accord: The Naga conflict in Nagaland is one ethnically based insurgencies of India. Naga peace talks have been part of this agreement and negotiation processes that has lasted for several decades.
3. Meghalaya and the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council (KHADC): The Khasi people are among the largest Indigenous communities in the state of Meghalaya. It is this objective that made the creation of the KHADC in safeguarding the welfare of the Khasis.
4. Arunachal Pradesh and Land Rights of Indigenous Tribes:  Several tribal communities inhabit Arunachal Pradesh having their own cultures as well as languages. It has been a struggle for the state in terms of land rights concerns, mostly when it comes to big infrastructural projects. The indigenous communities of Arunachal Pradesh are vigorously pursuing their land claims and resist development activities that put their territories at risk. Therefore, policymakers have become sensitive to Indigenous land rights and there is a tendency of ensuring it as a condition for making decisions with regard to governance.
5. Manipur and the Manipur People’s Bill:  Various indigenous communities, such as the Meitei, Naga and Kuki’s live in Manipur. In 2018, a Manipur People’s bill was made for the protection of interests and rights of the indigenous people.
6. In Tripura, despite having Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (TTAADC), the indigenous political parties still demand for separate Tipraland in order to pursue governance and development in their own terms and conditions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this paper provided an understanding of the governance, development and emergence of Indigenous Politics in Northeast India, weaving together historical trajectories and contemporary dynamics. The struggles for identity, autonomy, and economic justice continue to shape the political landscape of the region, making it imperative to address these issues for sustainable and inclusive development in the region.

References

• Baruah, S. (2004). India Against Itself: Assam and the Politics of Nationality. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Bhattacharjee, J. (1997). History of Modern Assam. New Delhi: Anmol Publications.
• Goswami, P. (1991). Economic Development of Assam. New Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications.
• Guha, A. (1980). Planter Raj to Swaraj: Freedom Struggle & Electoral Politics in Assam. New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research.
• Mackenzie, A. (1884). The North-East Frontier of India. New Delhi: Mittal Publications.

 

Dr.Babudhan Tripura is Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Government (General) Degree College, Government of Tripura. Currently the Head of Department, In-charge Dept. of Political Science, A.M.B.S Mahavidyalaya, Amarpur, Gomati, Tripura.

 

Context

While entwined within the intricate tapestry of a politically complex ontological existence, oscillating between the roles of a subject and an object of research, I have consciously endeavored to reconcile the nuances between my academic and personal selves. This reconciliation has been particularly challenging, given the myriad methodological discrepancies that often confront individuals within academia, revolving around the concepts of ‘objectivity’—often equated with ‘neutrality’—and ‘universality,’ which posits the applicability of knowledge across diverse temporal and spatial dimensions. These imperatives are frequently championed by Western European theorists as fundamental to the research process.

However, as I delved deeply into the intricacies of research on Tribal issues throughout the years, I’ve come to a profound realization regarding the problematic nature of universalization. This tendency tends to manifest as homogenization within the political landscape, perpetuating the subtle reproduction of colonialism through the very categories meant to serve as objective and universal foundations. I argue that such issues stem from a somewhat dogmatic and naive adherence to the value and efficacy of knowledge produced within Western European frameworks.

My rejection of epistemological premises advocating for this particular line of thought is not solely based on their role in perpetuating colonial reproduction. I now comprehend that these frameworks lack the intrinsic capability to capture and provide profound insights into diverse eco-epistemic realities outside the normative Western European gaze. A critical discrepancy arises when viewing eco-epistemic realities through a Western European lens, leading to dissonance between the lived experiences and theoretical constructs. This dissonance becomes particularly evident when embarking on a re-exploration of Tribal realities through colonial archives and writings.

My realization, based on this process, highlights the challenge many Tribes face in experiencing their history in ways that align with their organic structures, practices, and daily lives. The frames of reference through which Tribes seek to comprehend history often result in numerous epistemic discrepancies, manifesting as contradictions in the socio-cultural and political realms. The endeavor to reconcile these contradictions is no simple task at the individual level, as it requires an understanding of both the overarching discourse that subsumes the self and the meta-rules that structure day-to-day processes.

History holds a pivotal role in shaping human societies, exerting its influence universally and unfolding in a way that deeply impacts our collective existence. Firstly, societies find themselves confined by history, tethered to its before and after, with none able to escape its grasp. Secondly, the challenge arises in the way history is transcribed compared to how it is experienced—entering the realm of historiography, creating an ontological gap between the written text and the lived context.

For many societies burdened by the historical weight of colonialism, relying on texts crafted by colonialists for historical documentation poses significant challenges. These texts, rooted in colonial epistemology, inherently construct and categorize within a universalist paradigm, neglecting the nuances of contextualist perspectives.

Location

Reflecting on my journey as a researcher, I’ve consistently felt the need to explicitly articulate my ontological and epistemological assumptions regarding the demarcated context of my research. This stems from my discomfort with the structuring of knowledge pursuit within the confines of colonial epistemology. Approaching a context from a universalist viewpoint, seemingly devoid of preconceived notions, and adhering to preformulated methods claiming objectivity and neutrality has always felt disconcerting.

Delving into the politics of colonial epistemology unveils the challenges faced by Tribal scholars researching within a Tribal context. Colonial epistemology, intricately linked with epistemicide—a term employed by indigenous scholars worldwide—represents the obliteration, destruction, demeaning, or devaluation of indigenous epistemologies by Western European counterparts over centuries of colonization.

My rejection is not directed at epistemology as a concept but specifically at Western European epistemology, founded on the operationalization of epistemicide. It’s crucial to note that when referring to the “West,” I do not speak geographically but as an epistemology and a positionality. The pervasive influence of Western epistemology, bolstered by colonialism, has permeated the Indian reality, intersecting with dominant epistemologies of caste society. Tribes, caught in the crossfire, become passive recipients of this complex blend, resulting in the assimilation of “received theories” that embody a problematic synthesis of Western and Caste epistemologies.

Operating within the framework of Western-Caste epistemology, the pursuit of knowledge transforms into an act of power rather than truth-seeking. The acquisition of power, seemingly the ultimate aim of these epistemologies, takes precedence over the transformative potential of insights gained. Scholars navigating this complex terrain find themselves compelled to conform to these dominant epistemologies, overshadowing alternative perspectives. The recognition and authority bestowed upon these epistemologies within academic circles further perpetuate their dominance.

Critical Tribal scholars acknowledge the challenge of experiencing their own history and reality through frameworks imposed by dominant Western European and caste epistemologies. The complexities of academic engagements and university structures provide little support in demystifying these processes. The discomfort intensifies as Tribal scholars submit themselves to frameworks that diverge from their organic community contexts.

In this article, I aim to expose alternate epistemic frameworks in knowledge pursuits, acknowledging the formidable task ahead. While articulating a succinct alternative epistemological frame proves challenging, the imperative to attempt its recovery for the benefit of self and other critical Tribal scholars remains pressing. Despite the difficulties, a subjective urge persists to reclaim some organic Tribal epistemology, recognizing its political, theoretical, and methodological significance.

Positionality

In any pursuit of knowledge, I contend that the concept of theory is enveloped within methodology, and every methodology is encapsulated by its context. It is within the context that both theory and methodology take tangible form. Each context inherently embeds its unique epistemology, communicating its social struggles and cultural processes to the knowledge seeker in its distinct terms and references. Consequently, any theoretico-methodological framework that fundamentally positions knowledge production as an objective endeavor with universal applicability, as advocated by Western and caste-based epistemologies, clashes with a research process that places context at the core of the knowledge enterprise.

While it is not erroneous to assert that every knowledge project, regardless of perspective or origin, commences with fundamental questions pertinent to any researcher, the context perspective diverges. Generic questions such as (i) the purpose of one’s research for personal truth-seeking and the dynamic Tribe/Tribal community, (ii) the meaningfulness of the questions to both the researcher and the Tribe under study, and (iii) the essence of what one seeks to know and why are posed by all researchers. However, for those grounded in a contextual approach, the identification of qualifying data and the methodology are derived and cultivated from the context itself. The context assumes the role of the teacher, demanding that the researcher possesses the capability to discern its various articulations, both overt and nuanced. This epistemological stance challenges the conventional perception of preconceived methodologies claiming universality in the research process.

On the matter of epistemological consideration, I wish to emphasize that, as a researcher, I do not perceive myself as detached from the context. Every effort to answer the questions mentioned earlier is a quest for a ‘dynamic self in context,’ shaped by conditions that are relative. I term this approach ‘Engaged Observation,’ underscoring the importance of context and perspective, which sees the self as subsumed within the context. My advocacy for Engaged Observation is not an attempt to uncover an authentic tone or reality that exists independently; rather, it seeks to unravel the context, with all its subjectivities, and gain deeper insights into its underlying and sublime realities.

Since reclaiming my agency in knowledge production, I have favored an approach that initiates a knowledge project by first attempting to articulate a ‘conceptual kit.’ Despite recognizing the inherent problematic nature of concepts, which are not innocent or devoid of politics, the desire to pursue the truth of a particular condition infused with conceptual and theoretical elegance has consistently guided my knowledge pursuits. At times, I attribute this embedded urge to my Tribal reality—albeit distorted by colonialism, yet, to some extent, internally unmarred by rigid social and hierarchical classificatory systems that fragment being and obliterate epistemology.

Concluding Remarks

In my approach to research, I tread carefully, guided by fundamental epistemological principles concerning social reality. These include viewing reality as diverse, understanding knowledge as multiple, considering knowledge production a dialogical process, experiencing the self as a reflexive conscious being in context, entering the universe of study as a context, and studying it through engaged observation.

As my exploration extended to historical narratives, I recognized the limitations of relying too heavily on the accounts of ‘colonizers.’ While colonial writings offer valuable insights into historical events, time, and place, caution is necessary. Taking colonial writings as absolute truths about the conditions of a Tribe is precarious, as these writings often perpetuate colonialism through their conceptualizations of the ‘other’ and their desired political constructs of social reality.

In response to the discursive dominance of colonial writings and their construction of social conditions, I actively turned towards histories emerging from local sources. These narratives, rooted in the organic day-to-day experiences, ideas, dialogues, and practices of the people, provide a counterbalance to the colonial perspective.

The future trajectory of Tribal scholarship remains uncertain, and predicting its course is challenging. However, the imperative for Tribal scholars to reclaim agency in knowledge production remains critical. The act of challenging dominant narratives and seeking alternative perspectives from local sources becomes essential for a more nuanced and authentic understanding of Tribal histories and realities.

Dr.bodhi s.r. is Associate Professor of Dalit and Tribal Studies and Action, and Chairperson Centre for Social Justice and Governance, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.

 

Abstract

This article is an outcome of a self-reflexive engaged observation of my experience in teaching tribal studies. It delves into my personal journey with the question of epistemic privilege to unravel how experience becomes an embodiment of knowledge. The insights from this journey show knowledge is closely linked to an encounter with an interdependent and multidimensional world – ‘ontology of diversity’. ‘Ontology of diversity’ posits a layered world; dependent, lived, shared and dialogical. It suggests a Perspectival pedagogy for holistic and value-based teaching learning process.

Keyword: Perspectival Pedagogy, Epistemic Privilege, Tribal Studies, Experience, Knowledge, Self and Tribal Societies

Education and the teaching profession is what I was introduced to from the very early stage of my encounter with school education in my village, at a tribal village school. School and education to me is ‘a life-giving source’ and ‘school learning’ to me is an everyday ‘dal-chawal-roti’/‘bread and butter’. In between these counters, knowledge runs as a common theme. Knowledge is embodied in the very person that I present and represent in this social world, a world where ‘quest for knowledge/knowing’ stands out as fundamental. That we all seek knowledge about ourselves and about others in the social world in which we are situated is an existential fact (see also Sarukkai, 2012; Jayaram, 2017). In seeking knowledge and making meaning on a daily basis individuals, groups and societies live everyday lives.

The self, ‘I’ is located within a meaning-making system, has access to varied forms of knowledge – ‘apriori’, ‘aposteriori’, ‘lifeworld’ and the ‘experience’ (see Sarukkai, 2012) – ‘experience’ is the primary focus in this paper. The self/‘I’ is capable of reason and action – agency. The ‘I’ in this person is an epistemic location, has the ability to occupy a ‘point-of-view’, and ‘experience’ becomes both method and the empirical. Knowledge is embodied in the experience itself and the method to reach this empirical requires the self, ‘I’ – the ‘I’ as self-seeking truth as different from the colonial ‘I’^[1]. The experience in knowledge takes over ‘observation’ (positivism) as method and paves the path for ‘experience observation’ (post positivism) – how the ‘I’ observes ‘its experience?’. The process of the I/self-observing the experience can remotely be referred as ‘self-reflexive engaged observation’^[2]( see also Kenway and McLeod, 2004; bodhi, 2022; Tripura, 2023). Self-reflexive engaged observation could be defined in terms of the ‘choice’ available for the subject ‘to be’ or ‘not to be’ part of the experience – a situation of ‘lived experience’^[3] (see Guru and Sarukkai, 2012). In lived experience, the subject observes oneself and its lived reality, a process that cannot be separated from each other. To this end, I would like to believe that the person itself is an embodiment of knowledge and makes it possible for me to conceptualize and argue for an ‘epistemic privilege’ in the experiential knowledge, and if I can claim my ‘epistemic privilege’? (see Haraway, 1988; Smith, 1999) I will engage on this question based on my self-reflection of my experience in teaching a subject domain referred to as ‘tribal studies’.

My experience in teaching tribal studies comes within the context of the programme of the Centre for Social Justice and Governance, School of Social Work, Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) Mumbai Campus. This location might raise several questions about my ‘positionality’ (see also Marguin, et al., 2021; bodhi, 2020) as a teacher as well as the subject of the study. Academically, a person trained in social work, I eventually matured through a doctoral degree in the school of social sciences with an interdisciplinary orientation (see also Sutar, 2023). The institutional location of my experience provides me the legitimacy of teaching tribal studies, although largely within the public policy vision – ‘antyodaya’ (ensuring the rise and empowerment of the last), ‘leave no one behind’ (UN Agenda for SDG 2030).

TISS stands out as one of the premier institutions of India, also in South Asia, that has worked for tribal communities within the public policy framework since 1936. The emerging specific themes from this journey of mine, namely social work, social sciences, experience, tribal identity, tribal village school etc. make my positionality look complex (if not confusing), but actually becomes the foundation that constructs a particular lens – a Perspectival plurality and diversity on which the social world can be perceived and comprehended (See also Go, 2021; Sarukkai, 2012; Guru and Sarukkai, 2012; Akhup, 2022).

Being aware of the risk of straight jacketing the social work discourse, I would like to put in perspective my teaching experience of tribal studies in the school of social work. In the first instance, social work can be approached both as a profession and discipline. The former one constitutes social work in terms of the practice that responds to social issues. It can be taken like any profession that addresses human and social issues such as health, education, livelihood etc. From its inception, social work professional orientation has focused on having a method, skills and values to respond to social issues and problems.

The latter defines social work as a discipline, having its own theoretical and methodological boundary. Social Work discipline today is recognized as an allied discipline of applied social sciences. It draws its theoretical base for understanding individuals, groups, communities and societies from sociology, psychology, anthropology etc. My experience with social work began with the former and eventually moved towards the latter. The latter trend is shaped by my experience at the Tata Institutes of Social Sciences (TISS) and the School of Social Work. The Institute today has about nineteen schools and five independent centers, and the School of Social Work has nine centers. These schools and centers represent the varied subject domains of TISS engagements cutting across themes such as social, political, health, human resource, management, policy, social work, economic etc. The experience in this context oriented me to move beyond simplistic and binary framing of science and social science. To my experience, Social Work actually provides me a lens of science that includes alternative sciences and epistemologies and allows me to move beyond a positivist’s conceptualization of science and social science. In a pluralistic approach to science (see Sarukkai, 2012), social sciences can hardly be restricted to a particular theory and method. This approach recognizes the contexts and paradigms that inform science. Science itself takes a ‘methodological plurality’ turn.

I encountered tribal studies from varied lenses over the last twenty years of my teaching. Initially, due to my personal connection with the anthropologists and sociologists working on tribal communities, I got introduced to the classical constructs of tribal studies from disciplines such as social anthropology and anthropology (see Roy Burman, 1994; Danda and Danda, 2010; Channa, 2020). The literature in this realm is extensive, but selectively, I would say that there have been visible trends, shifts and changes, and emergence of newer categories and themes over a period of time and place.  For example, I scanned through the emerging discourses on tribal studies across regions (see Leach, 1954; Barth, 1961; Beitelle, 1986; Pfeffer and Kumar, 2002; Xaxa, 2003; Oommen, 2007; Scott, 2011; Savyasaachi, 2012; Kannabiran, 2016; Banerjee, 2016; Padel, Dandekar and Unn, 2018) and  observed phenomenal theoretical shifts and changes: from ‘functional to structural’, ‘cultural element to cultural boundary’, and the emergence of the ‘political’ and ‘political economy’. These various lines of discourses within tribal studies produced newer categories (socio-political and historical in nature) such as ‘segmented societies’, ‘imagined communities’, ‘indigeneities’, ‘Scheduled Tribes’, ‘ethnicities’, ‘identities’, nationalities, non-state societies etc. used and applied in varied contexts, and thus allowing tribal studies to move beyond colonial constructs. These categories in tribal studies can broadly be grouped into themes around a) state/constitutional category that establishes the citizenship within the special arrangements – Schedule Tribe is a point in reference, b) ethnicity as cultural category that refers to the larger/generic group and/or confederacy within the state that aspires for special social protection, and b) ethnonationalism (subnational movements) that refers to tribal ethnic groups who claim their right of being a nation-state. These categories contributed to building different sub-strands of discourses within tribal studies, and allowed contextualization and historization, as eventually being done across geopolitical regions like Africa, Latin America, Australia, Middle East and Southeast Asia, and India in particular. With regard to Indian context, I observed three sub-strands in the post colonial period namely, a) ‘Tribal/indigenous’ that counters the evolutionary and tribe-caste continuum, b) ‘Subaltern’ and ‘political economy’ that argues for the voices of the tribal people as margins and peripheralized by neoliberal development projects c) ‘political and governance’ that argues for empowerment of tribal communities through recognition and establishment of local governance system in asymmetrical federal principle, and d) ‘tribal society, sustainability, livelihoods, and environment/biodiversity’ that argues for tribal philosophy, ethics and ‘way of life’ against the backdrop of both the neoliberal and global climate change discourses. The last sub-strand also deals with governance and jurisprudence, and resources, and contributes to deepening the meaning of equity and redistributive justice (see also Fraser, 1995; Foster, 1998; Kaswan, 2003; Xaxa, 2008; Nathan and Xaxa, 2012; Patel, 2016; Bhukya, 2017; Shekar, 2017; Bodhi and Jojo, 2019; Lele, 2020; Akhup and Tripura, 2022).

Along this, I eventually stumbled upon a new strand of thought (see also Akhup, 2015; Bodhi and Bipin, 2019; Bodhi, 2020) that provided me ‘a perspective’ to teaching tribal studies. It is mildly referred to as an ‘alter-native centres’ (see bodhi and Jojo, 2019). This strand of thought is anchored by the forum called Tribal Intellectual Collective India (refer to http://www.ticijournals.org/ accessed on 25.01.2024). To this end, ‘decolonial-historical’ (see Bodhi, 2020; Tripura, 2023) is a new methodological entry, the one which emphasizes on ‘methodologies of the peripheralized’^[4], a framework that creates possibilities for the emergence of alternative epistemologies. This entry suggests a ‘decolonial turn’ that eventually gave primacy to the historical, geopolitical, context, autoethnographic, stories, narrative, ethnomethodology, experiences etc. This trend is influenced by the emergence of tribal and/or organic academicians and made a fundamental theoretical ‘turning point’ from ‘object to subject’ in the domain of tribal studies. Although susceptible to ‘theory of ghettoization’ – ‘inward looking syndrome’, the emergence of organic tribal academic intellectuals actually give rise to a condition for a recognition of epistemologies of the peripheralized and paves the path towards a process of epistemological decolonization and epistemological justice. Here, the tribal as subject matter of study frees itself from being trapped in the state framework of ‘isolation-integration-assimilation’ (Verrier-Nehru- Ghurye) and emerges as a society/culturo-political entity which has a capacity/agency to occupy points-of-view, and the ability to adapt and negotiate with the changing context as matter of ‘being and becoming’. The question of ‘being and becoming’ defines the politics of tribes, often defined as survival politics. Survival politics is value based, and it is defined by the principles of mutual coexistence, adaptation and negotiations (see also Barth, 1961; Leach, 1954; Bodhi and Bipin, 2019; Akhup and Tripura, 2022).

As my understanding and reading evolved over a period with direct engagement in teaching of two courses – “Tribes, State and Governance”, and “Tribes and Social Research” my perspective eventually got strengthened. I began to find more meaning in what I was teaching, connecting it well with the students, their expectations and positionalities. Slowly and gradually, I began to realize that I was merging into the subject matter of the study. I am myself the embodiment of the subject of study, and at the same time, tribal studies provided me a framework to see and analyze this social work with meaning and purpose. This was further strengthened by my engagement with my doctoral engagement, research projects and publications. I realized that I was talking to myself and finding meaning in relation to others – the students. I could connect with students at different levels. For example, in the master level teaching “Tribes, State and Governance” I was able to engage with students on larger questions of state, society, governance, tribe, caste with a different ‘points-of-view’. The level of the pedagogical connection with Master’s, M.Phil and PhD depended on the location of every student. ‘Positionality’ emerged as a major category for building knowledge, and personal learning. As I enhanced the intensity of the pedagogy through affective and reflective engagement, I realized that learning and meaning making depended on the social location/experience of the students. But in general, tribal studies provided a common foundation for understanding Indian social reality. This engagement got deeper when I was able to locate tribal studies in relation to the larger caste based Indian society. The learning that came after I was able to see a connection between caste reality and tribal reality made my engagement more meaningful, and I could situate teacher student relationship and learning process within the principles of social justice enshrined in the Constitution of India.

In the attempt to better the teaching process – increase meaningful connection with students, I realized that I had to provide a foundation for a deeper learning, and there, I directly encountered with a category called ‘ontology’ – ‘being and becoming’; the question of ‘what is?^[5] The question of ‘being and becoming’ in tribal studies led me to relate myself with the social world of diversity, in other word ‘ontology of diversity’ (see Cupchik, 2001; De Gialdino, 2009). This level of engagement at the ontology of diversity paved a way for a deeper engagement into the natural social reality itself with all its complexity and dynamicity and allowed me to be located within a perspective. The ‘ontological diversity’ itself now began to make sense to me at the practical level, and provided categories that allowed me to ask deeper questions of life in the context of tribal studies. What is the meaning system that defines my learning process? Who am I? What is tribal social reality? This realm of engagement revealed the need to identify categories, concepts and reorganize to be able to construct a reality both at the ontological and axiological level (what is? and what should it be? – the normative and ideological base). It entailed situating and unframing the ‘received theories’ – ‘theories as given’, to make meaningful learning across students who come from varied social backgrounds.

My experience shows that teaching is closely linked to lived reality – the foundation of Perspectival pedagogy. In Perspectival pedagogy, experience emerges as the most important source of knowledge, and method of teaching. In experience lies knowledge, and through experience teaching becomes meaningful. Experience makes pedagogy located and situated and recognizes the learner and subject of the study as constitutive of value and ethics; knowledge founded on human values. Knowledge from tribal studies has to be an ethical project – about empowerment of the people in a social justice framework. Teaching tribal studies to me is not about anthropology or sociology. It is a process of embedding value – care, equality, equity, co-existence, and solidarity in education.

The aspect of value (the principle that guides the process of becoming) in teaching tribal studies connects me to the ground reality – a reality diverse and dynamic (ontological diversity). This reality when viewed should be understood as dynamic and complex but should operate on the principle of ‘diversity-coexistence’ (see also Akhup, 2015; bodhi, 2022). Reality is diverse, pluriverse and the normative aspect in the teaching lies in being close to ‘diversity-coexistence’. A construct of reality on the principle of ‘diversity-coexistence’ allows me to enter into the space of dialogical social relations. It entails a social world of interdependency – a foundation of ethics of care and social justice.

Tribal studies recognize the dignity of individuals and cultural groups and indicates a dialogical social realm and meaning making process. The challenge therefore is to de-frame the foundationalist, elementalist and exclusivist construct of reality, and create space for ‘diversity-coexistence’ ‘without inequality’. Social reality viewed from tribal reality is necessarily ‘diversity-coexistence’. Anything that goes against this natural phenomenon is likely to be gripped by violence. The dismantling of ‘diversity-coexistence’ is closely linked to what we could term it as colonialism. Colonialism is a power process that dismantles ‘diversity-coexistence’ (see bodhi, 2022). This also suggests that teaching tribal studies should move towards the contextualization and epistemological decolonization process. The process allows the recognition of the histories of the particulars, in time and place, spatio-temporal, where culture is embedded, and epistemology is located.

I realized, in this teaching journey, tribal studies have become a ‘point-of-view’, an epistemological standpoint from where I could engage with the larger issues that confront the present society. I would like to believe that tribal studies is a perspective. It gives me a way of seeing and understanding. It gives me a framework to interpret and find answers to the issues that confront me at a micro level, and also issues at the macro level. For example, I would like to believe that tribal studies give me a deeper insight into pressing issues such as climate change and ‘Anthropocene’ (see also Moore, 2015; Singh, 2018) – an age defined by the centrality of man and its activities infringing on the ecology and environment.

The tribal/Indigenous studies in varied contexts of Indigenous and tribal societies (see also Quijano, 2000; Surrallés and Hierro, 2005; Descola, 2005; Smith, 2009; Hart, 2002; Ardill, 2013) particularly by scholars belonging to the tribal/Indigenous peoples themselves, indicate as well as affirm the framework, concepts and process involved in the meaning-making of a daily lived experience at their own specific location and context. This framework is unique as it is anchored by the Indigenous worldview – a worldview constructed by a reality of an intricate and/or dialogical relationship between different aspects namely, a) physical world, b) the spiritual world, and c) human world. In this relational world, land occupies a central contextual category of territory, history, livelihood, identity and spirituality. In fact, land is often referred to as the mother – the origin and source of life. Land becomes their standpoint or the frame of reference. ‘Land’ anchors their cosmology and worldview, shapes the meaning of their lived experiences and the way how they construct knowledge out of the sense that they draw from a relationship with themselves and others in the world around. Viewed from this kind of a worldview, there are two important aspects that constitute the Adivasi or the Indigenous standpoint: that pedagogy is informed by Indigenous theoretical standpoint where this world is constituted by social reality. The foundational aspect of social reality is described by two concepts namely, a) ‘universality of subjectivism’ – meaning a shared human and social foundation, and b) ‘objectification of the particularity’ – meaning lived experiences and boundaries of differences. This is often referred to as the foundation on which ‘sociality’ is conceptualized in the Indigenous social world.

Although this view might sound idealistic, the perspective actually reveals an alternative social world (deep ontology) – dependent origination, interdependent world (see also Devall, et., al. 1985; Descola, 2005; Archuleta, 2006; Knudsen, 2023). This world is defined by ‘universality of spirits’ – ‘a condition that defines animism’ (spiritual foundation), and human-earth connectedness – ‘a condition that defines totemism’ ‘objectification of the particular’ (ontological diversity) [^6]. Animism and totemism constitute the axiological – the value base. This foundation constructs a particular ethics – ‘ethics of connection with ‘jal-jangal-jameen’. The ‘ethics of connections to the land’ can provide deeper meaning to ‘vasudhaiva kutumbakam’ – ‘one world, one family, one future’ with equity and social justice that can resist neoliberal disembodiment of the experience.

In particular, it can be observed that the Indigenous scholars posit these categories as a methodological proposition against dualistic framing of the Western/European. They argue for a world of diversity and sociality or social interaction, where every entity has a point of view, and power and ability to act. Secondly, the Indigenous standpoint is informed by the studies conducted from the perspective of indigenous women’s experience. In this, Indigenous feminists (see also Smith, 1999; Alvares, 2003; Moreton-Robinson, 2014) describe how Indigenous women’s methodological standpoint is rooted in the philosophy of the Indigenous peoples’ philosophy from the indigenous contexts. They argue that relationality, a concept referring to human relatedness and sociality, is the centre of indigenous peoples’ philosophy. Therefore, Indigenous women’s standpoint is defined by ‘relationality’. Relationality becomes a point of departure as well as a frame of reference for Indigenous women’s standpoint against the feminist standpoint built on binary construct. Moreover, relationality as a frame of reference in tribal women’s research standpoint draws a distinction, a point of difference as well as suggests a point of view in relation to other feminist methodological categories such as positionality, intersectionality, epistemic violence, marginality etc. (see also Spivak, 1988; Haraway, 1988; Harding, 2004; Davis, 2012; Collins, 2019).

In conclusion, I would like to draw attention to the question that I posted at the outset – can I claim epistemic privilege? To me the answer is ‘yes’ to begin with, but it does not end there. As a tribal teacher myself, I would like to believe that my social location allows me to give better insight to tribal studies. But I cannot be dismissive of the interdependent world, and the intersubjectivities – the lived and shared knowledge, a necessary condition for dialogical epistemology (see also Akhup, 2015). I would like to believe that we can learn from Indigenous feminist perspectives. Some Indigenous feminist writers have been making major pathways to the conceptualization of ‘situated’ and ‘co-produced embedded’ knowledge (see also Smith, 1999; Moreton-Robinson, 2014). They show that an Indigenous feminist perspective moves beyond conventional feminist standpoints and constructs a reality that is dialogical, a knowledge that emphasizes ‘relatedness’ and ‘situatedness’. The dialogical knowledge to me is closely linked to a ‘Perspectival Pedagogy’ (see also Go, 2016). Perspectival pedagogy is founded on Perspectival realism (layered reality, interdependent ontology). Realism is not flat but deep, having many layers (see also Mir and Watson, 2001; Archuleta, 2006; Knudsen, 2023). There is no one way but many ways from which this reality can be understood – the lens matters. The Perspectival pedagogy recognizes the ‘being and becoming’ (possibilities) as closely linked to experiential and values – equity and social justice. It could be a framework for a holistic and value-based teaching learning process.

Acknowledgements:

I am very thankful to bodhi s.r. for always being a reflexive mirror to me in the teaching and learning process. I acknowledge Ruby Hembrom and Manish Meena for their insightful comments on the draft. Plus, I thank them for suggesting deeper questions, and also editing it. Please note that the Reference section is included with the intention of providing PhD scholars with a list of texts for their use on this perspective.

References

• Akhup, A. (2022), Social Work Research through Tribal/Adivasi People’s Lens: Observations from Academic Engagement, Journal of Social Work Education and Practice, vol. 7, issue 2, ppl 30-44.
• Akhup, A. (ed.) (2015), Identities and their Struggles in North East, Kolkata: Adivaani.
• Akhup, A. and Tripura, B. (2022), Tribal Identity and Governance in Northeast India Tripura Tribal Areas, The Indian Journal of Social Work, Volume 83, Issue 3, pp. 383-407.
• Archuleta, E (2006), I Give You Back: Indigenous Women Writing to Survive, Studies in American Indian Literatures, Series 2, Vol. 18, No. 4 (WINTER 2006), pp. 88-114
• Alvares, S. E. et. al. (2003), Encountering Latin American and Caribbean Feminisms, Signs, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Winter 2003), pp. 537-579.
• Ardill, A. (2013), Australian Sovereignty, Indigenous standpoint Theory and Feminist standpoint theory, Griffith Law Review, 22(2), 315–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2013.10854778.
• Banerjee, P. (2016), Writing the Adivasi: Some historiographical notes, The Indian Economic and Social History Review, 53, 1, pp. 131–153.
• Barth, F. (1961), Nomads of South Persia: The Basseri Tribe of the Khamseh Confederacy, Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
• Beitelle, A. (1986), The concept of tribe with special reference to India, European Journal of Sociology, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 297-318.
• Bhukya, B. (2017), The Roots of the Periphery: A History of the Gonds of Deccan India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
• Bodhi, S. R. (2022), Tribal Studies in India: Pre and Post-Xaxa, Journal of Tribal Intellectual Collective India, Vol.6 (1), pp. 74-91.
• Bodhi, S.R. (2020), Epistemology of the Peripheralized – A Decolonial-Historical Approach, Nagpur: New Vehicle Productions.
• Bodhi, S.R. and Jojo, B. (eds.) (2019), The Problematics of Tribal Integration: Voices from India’s Alternative Centers, Hyderabad: Shared Mirror.
• Channa, S. M. (2020), Anthropological Perspectives on Indian Tribes, New Delhi: Orient Black Swan.
• Collins, P. H. (2019), Intersectionality as Critical Social Theory. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
• Cupchik, G. (2011), Constructivist Realism: An Ontology That Encompasses Positivist and Constructivist Approaches to the Social Sciences, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Volume 2, No. 1, Art. 7.
• Danda. A. K and Danda D.G. (2010), Anthropology in India: Current Epistemological and Future Challenge, Indian National Confederation and Academy of Anthropologists, Jhargram and Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Manav Sangrahalaya, Bhopal.
• Davis, N. (2012), Dialogical Epistemology – An Intersectional Resistance to the ‘Oppression Olympics’, Gender and Society, 26 (1), pp. 46- 54.
• De Gialdino, I. V. (2009), Ontological and Epistemological Foundations of Qualitative Research, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 10, No. 2, Art. 30.pp.n.a.
• Descola, P. (2005), Ecological as Cosmological Analysis in Alexandre Surralles and Pedro Garcia Hierro (ed), The Land Within Indigenous Territory and Perception of the Environment, Copenhagen: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs.
• Devall, et. al. (1985), Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered, Peregrine Smith, Salt Lake City, UT.
• Fraser, N. (1995), From Redistribution to Recognition, Dilemmas of Justice in a ‘Post Socialist Age’, bttps://newleftreview.org/issues/i212/articles/nancy-fraser-from-redistribution-to-recognition-dilemmas-of-justice-in-a-post-socialist-age, accessed on 27.01.2024.
• Foster, S. R. (1998), Justice from the Ground Up: Distributive Inequities, Grassroots Resistance, and the Transformative Politics of the Environmental Justice Movement, 86 Cal. L. Rev. 775 (1998) Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/295, accessed on 27.01.2024.
• Go, J. (2016), Postcolonial Thought and Social Theory, New York: Oxford University Press.
• Guru, G. and Sarukkai, S. (2012), The Cracked Mirror: An Indian Debate on Experience and Theory. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
• Haraway, D. (1988), Situated Knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective, Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066.
• Hart, M. A. (2010), Indigenous Worldviews, Knowledge, and Research: The Development of an Indigenous Research Paradigm, Journal of Indigenous Voices in Social Work, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp. 1-16.
• Jayaram, N. (2017), Towards Knowing the Social World, in N. Jayaram (ed), Knowing the Social World, The Orient Blackswan.
• Kannabiran, K. (2026), Constitutional Geographies and Cartographies of Impunity Human Rights and Adivasis/Tribes in Contemporary, Economic and Political Weekly, India. Vol LI Nos 44 & 45, pp. 92-100.
• Kaswan, A. (2003), Distributive Justice and the Environment, 81 N.C. L. Rev. 1031 (2003). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol81/iss3/4.accessed on 27.01.2024.
• Kenway, J.& McLeod, J. (2004), Bourdieu’s reflexive sociology and ‘spaces of points of view’: Whose reflexivity, which perspective? British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(4), 525-544.
• Knudsen, S. (2023), Critical Realism in Political Ecology: An Argument against Flat Ontology, Journal of Political Ecology, Vol.30, pp.1-22, https://journals.librarypublishing.arizona.edu/jpe/article/id/5127/ (accessed on 23.01.2024).
• Leach, E. (1954), The Political Systems of Highland Burma: A Study of Kachin Social Structure, London: The Althlone Press.
• Lele, S. (2022), Environmental and Well being – A perspective from the Global South,2020, pp 41-63 https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii123/articles/sharachchandra-lele-environment-and-well-being (accessed on 23.01.2024)
• Marguin, et. al. (2021), Positionality Reloaded: Debating the Dimensions of Reflexivity in the Relationship Between Science and Society: An Editorial, Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung, Vol. 46, No. 2, Special Issue: Reflexivity Between Science and Society (2021), pp. 7-34.
• Mir, R. and Watson, A. (2001), Critical Realism and Constructivism in Strategy Research: Toward a Synthesis, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22, No. 12 (December 2001), pp. 1169-1173.
• Moreton-Robinson, A. (2014), Towards an Australian Indigenous Women’s Standpoint Theory: A Methodological Tool. Australian Feminist Studies, Vol.28(78): 331-347, DO;10.1080/08164649.2013.876664.
• Moore, A. (2015), The Anthropocene: A Critical Exploration, Environment and Society, Vol. 6 (2015), pp. 1-3.
• Nathan, D. and Xaxa, V. (eds.) (2012), Social Exclusion and Adverse Inclusion: Development and Deprivation of Adivasis in India, Oxford: Oxford University Press India.
• Oommen, T.K. (2007), Knowledge and Societies, Situating Sociology and Social Anthropology, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
• Padel, F., Dandekar, A. and Unn, J. (2018), Ecology, Economy: Quest for a Socially Informed Connection, New Delhi: Orient Blackswan Private Limited.
• Patel, S. (2016), Doing Sociology Today, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. LI (46): 33-40.
• Pfeffer, G. and Kumar, D. (2002), The Concept of Tribal Society, Vol. 5. Delhi: Concept Publication.
• Quijano, A. (2000), Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/4/article/23906/pdf (accessed on 23.01.2024).
• Roy Burman, B.K. (1994), Tribes in Perspective, New Delhi: Mittal Publications.
• Sarukkai, S. (2012), What is Science? New Delhi: National Book Trust.
• Surrallés, A. and Hierro, P. G. (2005), The Land within Indigenous Territory and Perception of Environment, International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs.
• Savyasaachi (2012), Struggles for Adivasi Livelihoods Reclaiming the Foundational Value of Work, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol XlVII, no 31, pp. 27-31.
• Scott, J. (2011), The Art of Not Being Governed, An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia, Yale University Press.
• Shekar, H. S. (2017), The Adivasi Will Not Dance Stories, Speaking Tiger.
• Singh, N. M. (2018), Introduction: Affective Ecologies and Conservation, Conservation & Society, 2018, Vol. 16, No. 1 (2018), pp. 1-7.
• Smith, L. T. (1999), Decolonizing Methodologies, Research and Indigenous Peoples, London: Zed Book.
• Spivak, G. C. (1988), Can the Subaltern Speak? in Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg (eds), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture London: Macmillan.
• Sutar, A. (2023), R. K. Hebsur (1935–2022): The Epitome of Multidisciplinary Research, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol LVIII no 4, pp. 28-30.
• Tripura, B. (2023), Decolonizing Ethnography and Tribes in India” Towards an Alternative Methodology, Frontiers in Political Science, DOI: 10.3389/fpos.2023.1047276.
• Xaxa, V. (2008), State, Society, and Tribes: Issues in Post-Colonial India, ‎ Pearson.
• Xaxa, V. (2003), Tribes in India. in V. Das and Co. (eds.), The Oxford Compendium to Sociology and Social Anthropology in India, New Delhi.

End Notes

^[1]. Colonial ‘I’ from a decolonial sense works on the framework of universal-particular. It is located in colonial epistemology that objectifies and dismisses local and indigenous knowledge.

^[2]. Engaged observation is a suggested method that attempts to go beyond classical ‘participant observation’ of objectification of the subject and field. It involves merging with the field and subject and observing experience through the self.

^[3]. Shared experience when it takes into consideration the common in the experience of the subjectivities.

^[4]. The category ‘methodologies’ indicates ‘plurality of methods’ – a common theme running across the discourse on epistemology. But the concept peripheralized, used arbitrarily, not to claim victimhood, is considered as a process that suggests recognition of the ‘social’ epistemologies as well as a process called epistemological decolonization of tribal communities who had been objectified by waves of colonial epistemology. Epistemological decolonization should be read as a process driven by the decolonial framework rather than development theory of ‘centre-periphery’.

^[5]. Philosophical and methodological underpinnings of pedagogy.

^[6]. A layered world.

Dr.Alex Akhup is Professor at Centre for Social Justice and Governance and Action and Coordinator PhD Programmes, School of Social Work, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.