26.0 Introduction
The census is the place where the State officially recognises the existence of a community and other aspects related to it. As far as Adivasis are concerned, they are recognised under the category of Scheduled Tribe, but there is no place in census records where the State recognises religious status of individual tribe or tribe as a category.
They were given the option of categorisation as ‘Other’ in censuses, which later was removed by the government. In such a scenario, Adivasis are being forced to accommodate themselves in any other available religion (Kukreti 2020). It is important to understand Adivasi demands in relation to tribal identity politics, its implications on the meta narratives of dominant religion, and collective Hindu identity in India. To put it in perspective, the gravity of the tribal religious identity question can be gauged from a couple of things, firstly overall decline in religious plurality in country, secondly epistemic fabrications in Adivasi religious identity construction, and thirdly growing demand for denotifying scheduled areas based on a sizable proportion of tribal population. Religious identity is important because it affects states’ tribal welfare activities; in addition, it affects policies and provisions that are designed for tribal people staying within the Fifth Schedule area of the constitution. As per the panchayat provisions, population is considered the basis for reservations of posts for tribals at panchayat. Similarly, the criterion of the size of population of tribe decides which area to be considered as Fifth or Sixth Schedule areas. This implies that reduction in tribal population on record and resultant change in the ratio of tribal and non-tribal population will cause subsequent demand for de-notifying Fifth Schedule areas in the country (Sabrang India 2019). Census enumerations of tribal population in various categories have always been a contentious issue. As per the 2011 census tribals are the third largest group, in spite of that, such a large section of population has no religious column in the form of census of India. Not recognising tribals in the census under a separate religious category is apparently against constitutional provisions and spirits, and also a systemic design to exclude and put tribals into either other larger religious groups or as miscellaneous categories.During the colonial period from 1871 to 1891 there was a separate column named ‘aboriginals’ in census records; and from 1901 to 1921, there was the column named ‘animist’
406
DOI: 10.4324/9781003516415-34
and Tribal religion in 1931, Tribes in 1941 and Others in 1951 to categorise tribal population. The British government did not consider tribals as part of Hindu social order. For them, tribes belong to either aboriginal or animist categories. But it is a case to be investigated why in the first census of independent India, the column of tribal religion was removed and what were/are its implications on Adivasi people. For instance, in the state of Rajasthan tribal population was 12 per cent in the 1941 census which was reported under tribal or animist religion category, but in the 1951 census tribal population was not recorded as there was no separate religion code to classify them. On the other hand, in the same State Hindu population which was 75 per cent in the 1941 census increased up to 90.7 per cent in the 1951 census and overall population of tribals in Jharkhand state had declined from
38.3 per cent to 26.02 per cent in 2011 since 1931. Similarly, historical mapping of Bhils in census data is interesting to study as the population of the Bhil tribal community has changed over the decades. The first census was taken in Rajasthan in 1891 where all Bhils were shown in the tribal religion category. But in the census 1901, 1911, and 1921 they were divided into two groups: Hindus and tribals. In the census of 1931 there were over 69 per cent Hindus, 30 per cent tribals and 0.15 per cent Christians (Ahuja 1965).
When words or terms are removed, eventually the idea they convey is removed from the history of civilisation as well. Terms represent philosophy, culture, tradition, language, literature, and are symbol of community. Scheduled Tribe is an administrative category, it could be abolished or scrapped, which is subject to revisions as per constitutional requirements, but terms such as Adivasi, indigenous, or aboriginals think of a community beyond merely a political entity. Scheduled tribe status usually characterises in terms of level of ‘backwardness’ of a community. Creating a scheduled tribe category aimed to address impoverishment that communities have faced and so to devise means and methods to empower the community. This is indeed essential considering material deprivation and exploitation faced by tribals in the country, and focused measures and efforts becomes inevitable to rectify historical injustice and damage inflicted on tribal communities in India. Although it is essential to have administrative categorisation, but it does not directly translate into symbols and identity markers that the community represents such as a philosophy, culture, and language of tribal communities. For tribals terms such as ‘Indigenous’ and ‘Adivasi’ are not just symbols of religions, but also an identification of culture, tradition, and a democratic social system which is distinct and different from any other religion and culture. The tribal problem was never a merely administrative one. The tribal question of representation and self-identification remains stuck between approaches adopted by administrator-scholars, census officers, and nationalists of time, due to which tribals received condescending and paternalistic treatment.
This raises important questions such as why the census of tribal religion did not take place in the post-independence period under a separate category, what were the reasons the tribal ‘religion census’ category was removed by the State post-independence, and where those 12 per cent population enumerated under tribal religion have gone (Census of India 1951)?
It is a well known fact that organised religions like Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism have impacted tribal communities.
Particularly, culture contact and interaction with Hindus before the colonial period are major causes of religious impact on tribes. Ancient texts have abundant references to the interaction between tribes and Hindus. As far as epics like the Mahabharta, the Ramayan are concerned, cases of interactions between tribes and Hindus are abundant. Lord Rama stayed with tribes on Chitrakut forest; Bhil women Sabri offered fruits to him. Historically, many tribal groups have been impacted due to dominant religions. For example, Tharu and Khasa tribes have assumed the status of kshatriyas and thus are in Hindu folds; Bauri tribe accepted vaishnavism and its members wear sacred thread. Several tribes worship Hindu gods and goddesses. The Bhagat movement, which began in the Chhota Nagpur region in 1914 among the Oraon, advocated in favour of ascetic life and abstinence from consumption of meat, liquor, etc. Influence of Vaishnava sect (Kumar 2008) is evident. So, the influence of organised religions, particularly Hinduism over tribal groups is apparent. Cultural change is a constant and natural process, but when the dominant cultural trait is imposed on weaker social groups, weaker groups may face danger of loss of cultural identity and go through existential crisis leading to acts of rebellion and resistance. Recent controversy over the demand for a separate code for tribal religion is the outcome of this resistance. It creates a discursive and contesting space for the question of Adivasi community’s religious identity. But an important issue is how we approach this question. Adivasis are in themselves a heterogeneous population, who follow different religious practices, faiths; and worship their unique gods and ancestors based on community standards. The questions are why there is a violence unleashed against converted tribal Muslims and tribal Christians by Hindu nationalists? Why tribals are against converted tribals when it comes to assuming tribal religious identity? Why are organised religions aggressive to proselytisation attempts among the tribes? We have to comprehend the growing demand of Adivasis for a separate code for religion in the census and the struggle for the distinct recognition of tribal religion in the context of micro conflicts that are embedded in the process of identity struggles. Discussion on the topic of religious identity of tribals in the contexts considers the framework based on inclusion and exclusion paradigms.There are stakeholders who have taken certain positions in case of ‘tribal religion code’ questions. The State denies giving a separate code for tribal religion citing administrative inconvenience, and stating that the acceptance of Sarna code1, the religion based on nature worship, can encourage further demand for separate codes among various tribal groups practising different religious customs (Markam 2019).
26.1
More on the topic 26.0 Introduction:
- 1 Introduction
- Introduction
- Introduction
- 19 Introduction
- Introduction
- Introduction
- INTRODUCTION
- Introduction
- Introduction
- Introduction
- Introduction
- Introduction: Hegel, Marx and the Dialectic
- INTRODUCTION: OVERVIEW OF COMPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH HIV THERAPY
- Introduction
- Introduction
- Introduction
- Introduction