Table of Contents
Situated in peripheral north eastern region of India, Assam has always been a vibrant plural society since time immemorial. Plurality as a liability has been experienced in contemporary period as communities along with the existence of strong primordial values, has been experiencing ethnic assertion and strife for quite some time (Goswami, 2001). Ocassionally various groups and communities use ethnicity as a major resource while engaging with the state to fulfill their various demands.
Chhetri (2016) explains that the engagement with the state has undergone significant transformation from its colonial origin to its post-colonial development which in turn has shaped and reshaped the political processes. The demand for Scheduled Tribe (ST) status by various communities namely the Ahoms, the Koch-Rajbongshis, the Morans, the Mataks, the Chutias and the Tea-tribes in Assam and the responses of the state needed to be examined in this fashion. As shown by Chhetri (2017) ethnicity has been periodically reconstituted by retracing their genealogy with the reaffirmation of their belongingness to the nation state.
The whole process is not without contestation, as many of the communities who already belong to the category, oppose the demand of the six communities arguing that they do not fulfill any criteria for inclusion in the list; triggering contesting polarized atmosphere in the region in recent times. In addition to this, plurality of the society of Assam shoots up a wide range of ethnic identity movements attracting attention of academicians and policy makers as well (Farnandes, 1999).
127 our experts are availableright now
In such a context the category of tribe needs a proper conceptualization. Scholars argue that the category of tribe in India is a colonial construction (Beteille, 1995; Xaxa, 2008; Singh, 1978). Persistence of the colonial anthropological approaches has significantly contributed to the ethnic problems to an already stratified society along ethnographic lines (Bordoloi, 2014). Categorization done on the basis of certain features such as religion, caste, physical traits, etc added more to the differences. Appadurai (1993) stated that such differences were reinforced by the British among the populations and created social boundary, which might have been, otherwise flexible.
Provision of the affirmative action for the historically oppressed and backward groups has been incorporated in the constitution of the sovereign independent India to achieve a just and egalitarian society. This predetermined desire made it essential for the government to classify the population into different groups. In pursuit of this goal, the Government of India (GoI) formed the First Backward Classes Commission in the year 1953 under the chairmanship of Kaka Kalelkar. The commission formulated five criteria for a tribe to be scheduled (a) primitive traits, (b) distinct culture, (c) geographical isolation, (d) shyness of contact with the community at large (e) general backwardness (Backward Classes Commission, 1955).
However this formulation for welfare mechanism intensified discontents among other groups those who do not fall under the list of ST. Similarly, the case of Assam can also be contextualized in a similar fashion witnessed with projection of ethnicity to articulate political rights with interest’s group politics (Brass, 1985; Smith, 2009). Revival of shrinking and abandoned customs and practices, re-imagination and reconstruction of past is integral to the assertion of ethnic identity (Erickson, 1968; Hobsbawm, 1983; Brass, 1991).
The recognition as ST is justified by searching for the primitive practices of the groups concerned and complemented by large-scale collection of narratives outlining their historical and cultural genealogies. This process can be equated with what Nagel calls ‘ethnic -renewal’ and ‘ethnic-switching’ (Nagel, 1994). In this similar fashion, the Ahoms are now organized themselves to revisit their past, their abandoned customs and traditions to rationalize the coveted status of ST.
The proposed research focuses upon the assertion related to Ahoms who are demanding for ST status in Assam. The study of the Ahoms is important in this context because they are found to be numerically significant and has the potential of determining the socio-political scenario of the state. The study also tries to analyze the process of engagement of Ahoms in Assam with the larger state and society in their demand.
Literature review
To carry forward any academic activity and delving further into the problem undertaken it becomes imperative to take into considerations the already existing literatures and its standpoints on the concepts related to it.
Tribe
The term tribe has its origin in the Latin word ‘tribus’ meaning, a group of persons forming a community and claiming descent from a common ancestor (Fried, 1975). A wide range of Anthropological study covering regions like Africa, Australia, Asia and other parts of world exemplify the study on tribal. Among the studies mentioned may be made of L.H. Morgan, Mayer Fortes, E.E. Evans-Pritchard, Bronislaw Malinowski, A.R. Radcliffe-Brown and others who conducted intensive study on primitive tribes.
With their ethnographic account they tried to understand family, kinship, marriage, religion, magic, economy, political institution, law and social relation of primitive tribes. In India the term tribe was used by the British anthropologists and the colonial administrators to categorize a large number of groups who do not fit into the categories of ‘caste’ or ‘Hindu’ (Munshi, 2012). The words like ‘adivasi’ (first settlers), ‘vanvasi’(inhabitants of forests), ‘vanyajati’ (forests communities), ‘pahari’ ( hill-dwellers), ‘adimjati’ (original communities/primitive people), ‘janjati’ (folk people), ‘anusuchit jati’ (ST), are also used in India to refer to tribes (ibid).
Verrier Elwin (1943) describes tribals as the original settlers of India and he proposed that tribals should be kept in isolation in response to G.S. Ghurye’s (1943) idea of assimilation of tribal with the Hindus (as cited in Guha, 1999). N.K. Bose (1941) tried to define tribe as original settlers and argued that they are increasingly coming into the fold of Hindu through the process which he called as “Hindu Method of Tribal Absorption”, in his study of the the Juang community of the Pal Lahara region, now in Odisha.
In understanding tribes, Bailey (1958) relates tribe with caste and distinguished them in relation to economic and political entity. Similarly, in India the continuities between tribes and castes are so much that it often becomes difficult to distinguish one from the other. Because there are numerous instances of communities as tribes in one state and as castes in other; many communities were arbitrarily listed as tribes or castes by the perception of the individual enumerator of the census (Srivastava, 2008).
He argued that a caste society is hierarchical while a tribal society is segmentary and egalitarian. On the other hand L.P. Vidyarthi and Binay Kumar Ray view tribes as isolated and hill dwellers those who retain their customs and traditions. Therefore they form distinct communities in contrast to their neighbours and these communities have been listed as scheduled for special treatment.
Beteille (1986) has tried to define tribe by adopting evolutionary and historical approach. According to him in the Indian context, the term ‘aboriginals’, ‘hill and forest tribes’ were widely used to refer to ‘tribe’. He also argued that the process of designating or ‘scheduling’ tribes in India began during British rule and acquired a systematic character from the time of the 1931 census.
The question of tribes in India is closely linked with administrative and political considerations (Beteille, 1986; Xaxa, 1999). In anthropological literature the term ‘tribe’ is generally equated with the term ‘primitive’ (Burman, 1983). Xaxa (2008) discusses the term tribe and its undergone transformation in Indian society in the past. He brings into light the inadequacies of different definitions of the term tribe. Xaxa (1999) defines tribes as indigenous people. They were primarily seen as a stage and type of society.
The difficulties and ambiguities inherent with the epistemology of the term ‘tribe’ posed enormous challenges in the past as well as in the contemporary period. However for administrative purposes the British administrators brought those groups and communities who were historically deprived and marginalized into an umbrella term called Scheduled Tribe (ST).
Independent India continued to use the same as an administrative category with the approval of the constitution (Beteille, 1998). The constitution of Indian union (Article, 366) has defined Scheduled Tribe as such tribes or tribal communities or part or groups within such tribes or tribal communities as are deemed under article 342 to be scheduled tribes for the purpose of this constitution. So following the same measures adopted in the pre-colonial era the government of India has adopted some criterias laid down by the Lokur Committee to identify tribe to be enlisted in the Scheduled Tribe list.
The criterias are (a) primitive, (b) distinct culture, (c) geographical isolation, (d) shyness of contact with the community at large, and (e) backwardness. But it is also not without ambiguity and remained contentious in terms of operationalization. In fact the criterias laid down by the committee are hardly relevant today to describe any tribe (Srivastava, 2008).
Ethnicity
Though the term ‘ethnicity’ is of recent origin, the sense of kinship, group solidarity, and common culture to which it refers is as old as the historical record (John Hutchinson & Anthony D. Smith, 2009). Stating ethnicity as a new term Glazer and Moynihan, (1975) point to the fact that the world’s earliest dictionary appearance is in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1972 (cited in Hutchinson and Smith, 1996). Its first usage is attributed to the American sociologist David Reisman in 1953 (Glazer & Moynihan, 1981).
The word ‘ethnic’ is derived from the Greek word ethnos (which in turn is derived from the word ethnikos), which originally meant heathen or pagan (Eriksen, 1993). Ethnicity is the relationship between persons or groups who think or consider themselves distinct from the members of other groups and try to maintain the distinctiveness. It is a dynamic and shifting aspect of social relationships (ibid). Smith (2009) basically focuses on the measures of ethnic community’s subjectivity.
According to Max Weber (1965) ethnic groups are those human groups that entertain a subjective belief in their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or both, or because of memories of colonization and migration and this belief must be important for the propagation of group formation (as cited in Hutchinson and Smith, 1996).
Ethnicity has both objective as well as subjective connotations. Objectively, it is seen as “primordial affinities and attachments” (Isaacs, 1975; Greeley, 1974 as cited in Subba, 1996) and subjectively, as an “activated primordial consciousness” (Geertz, 1973). Brass (1991) in his book “Ethnicity and Nationalism”, suggests that there are three ways of defining ethnic groups in terms of objective attributes having different cultural features such as language, color, dress etc; with reference to subjective feelings which uses cultural symbols that makes subjectively self conscious community that establishes criteria for inclusion and exclusion from the group and with relation to behavior according to cultural differences.
According to Brass, the most appropriate definition is the objective cultural markers and also recognizes that they are susceptible to change and variation. He also argues that ethnicity and nationalism are not ‘given’ but are social and political constructions. However, most other scholars have emphasized on the subjective aspect of it; for instance Barth (1969) as the process of ascription and identification of status by the actors themselves, (Wallman (1979), as interest groups and Bell (1975), as a perception of group difference, Glazer and Moynihan (1975) as interests plus effective tie (as cited in Subba, 1996). Nagel (1994) in his work “Constructing Ethnicity: Creating and Recreating ethnic Identity and Culture” has shown how identity and culture serves as the two basic building blocks of ethnicity and how it creates boundaries among different ethnic groups.
Theoretical Framework
In the context of the present study various approaches of ethnicity are being examined. The major approaches are primordial, instrumental and constructionist theories.
According to the primordial theory, ethnicity is an ascribed status and is static in nature. It stresses the role of primordial factors such as lineage and cultural ties. Geertz (1973) suggested that ethnic identity developed from certain givens of social existence which includes blood and kin connections, religion, language, region and custom. Within this framework there are two differing views.
First one is the socio-biological perspective given by Pierre ven den, which emphasizes that kinship is determined by ethnicity. He argued that ethnicity is an extension of kinship from a family to an extended family and finally to an ethnic group. The other one is the culturalist perspective which emphasizes the importance of a common culture like a common language, a common religion which determines the genesis and tenacity of ethnic identity even in the absence of common ancestors.
Instrumentalists approach emerged as a challenge to the classic primordial approach. Barth (1998) argues that primordialist’s view of ethnic groups embedded with innate cultural characteristics. He emphasizes on subjectivists standpoint and suggests that individuals selectively emphasize those forms of cultural differentiation that are important to them. Group boundaries among ethnic groups are maintained through the interaction process which delineates ‘us’ and ‘them’. He further argues that cultural features are not fixed and depend upon the situation in which the interaction occurs. Barth, thus, emphasizes the relational, interactional and situational nature of ethnicity.
Another group that challenged the primordial approach is the members of the ‘Manchester School’. Among the group the most important study was carried out by Cohen (1969), in studies on the instrumentality of ethnic affiliation. Here he investigated the Hausa and Yoruba tribes of Nigeria and suggested informal political organization as the principal function of ethnicity. ‘Primordial’ symbols, Cohen argued, are sometimes created by the political elites but also sometimes use and exploit them to gain the allegiance of political powers (Cohen, 1969). The scholarly works of Barth and Manchester School brought about a fundamental shift in the theoretical foundation of anthropology because of the analysis of tribe as a unit of social structure to ethnicity as a process of social organization (Jenkins: 2008).
The constructionist theory of ethnicity views ethnic identity as the constructed entity. It is the product of human choices and actions. It is the creation of elites who draw upon, distort, and sometimes fabricate materials from the cultures of the groups they wish to represent in order to protect their well being or existence or to gain political and economic advantage for their groups as well as for themselves (Brass, 1999).
The constructionist school also embodies numerous different views which emphasized different components. William Yancey et al. (1976) proposed ‘emergent ethnicity’ and they downplayed the importance of cultural aspect and viewed ethnicity as an “emergent phenomenon” created by structural conditions. On the other hand Sarna (1978) differs from such views and maintained that ethnicity is created by two conditions, i.e., ascription and adversity. Ascription refers to the assignment of individuals to particular ethnic groups by outsiders such as governments, churches, schools, media, natives and other immigrants.
Adversity includes prejudice, discrimination, hostility and hardship. It is held that adversity forces members of a same group to maintain solidarity and also helps in forming unity (Sarna, 1978). Though her theory undermines the active role of ethnic groups in shaping their identities thereby inflating the effects of outside forces yet the merit of her theory lies in its call to locate the creation of ethnic identity in relation to the larger society. There are also some scholars who focused on the resurgence of old ethnic identities and boundaries.
According to such approach ethnic identities are constructed on the basis of formerly established historical boundaries or identity. This is evident among the white American groups (Alba 1990; Baklian, 1993; Kivisto, 1989; Waters, 1990). The social constructionist views ethnicity and race as social construction and in terms of dynamic processes of ethnic and racial formation. Social constructionist Werner Sollar (1989) rejected Primordialist assumption and argued that ethnic identity is rooted in tradition, which is relived and sustained by people through recreation (as cited in Philip Q. Yang 2000). Nagel (1996), in a same vein contended that it is reconstructed by internal forces of actions through reconstructions and negotiations and external forces like economic, social, political processes and outsiders. Thus he asserts it as dynamic in nature upheld by the ethnic group.
Looking at the complex nature of the issues of ethnicity and tribe and the anticipated challenges emerging in the field; grounded theory will also be used in exploring the integral social relationships among various groups and communities in this context. As a qualitative theoretical approach grounded theory would provide us the base for observation, interactions and settings about the study population. It provides additional advantage of containing explicit guidelines that show us how we may proceed (Charmaz, 2006). This is essential because the study requires critical engagement in the field to have proper understanding of every aspects underlying in the demand for ST.
