Problematic Discourse

The State and non-state actors who have engaged with Adivasis, both pre- and post-inde­pendence, have done a gross injustice to them. Fault lines can be seen in the approaches adopted by them.

Anthropological writings and colonial and sociological accounts depicted a misrepre­sented and misleading image of tribal communities. Earlier construction of tribals as sav­age, ‘primitive’, etc. justified the subjugation of the population citing them antithetical to ‘civilised’ society. By the 1940s there was a debate between assimilationist, interactionist, protectionist, and isolationist groups; with Ghurye representing assimilation and Verrier Elwin representing first isolation and later integration. All of these approaches are marked by the absence of tribal representation, the correct understanding of their culture, the role of their religion, and their worldview in general in the formulation of perspectives on them.

The absence is attributed, by some scholars like Vivek Kumar, to the logic that the twice born mainly dominated the discourse on knowledge production, methodology, and dis­semination (Kumar 2016).

The State and academic class remains paternalistic towards Adivasis. This can be evi­dent from the fact that in 1941, on the suggestion of Verrier Elwin, who inferred similarity between religious practices of tribals and the Shaivite sect, the government was convinced that tribals should be considered Hindus (Markam 2019). So, tribes other than Christians began to be counted as Hindus. That is how intellectuals and scholars could potentially influence tribal developmental discourse and constitutional and legal provisions with the notion that tribes lack agency to understand their own ambitions and yearnings.

What the earlier intellectual class and governments failed to comprehend while con­structing tribal identity is the role of cosmology, belief system of tribes, customary laws that are as relevant as any other organised religions, and institutionalised laws in modern society. In doing so they ignored the fact that tribes deserve a separate identity including in the sphere of religion as any other organised community. What Adivasis think of them­selves, what their plights are and what is their history should have been given primacy in intellectual discourse. Along with that one needs to engage with the internal fissures that have developed among tribes pertaining to religious identity questions. Over the centuries, acculturation, assimilation, regionalism, and proselytisation have changed cultural dynam­ics of tribal communities across the nation; and thereby creating complexities in matters of tribal religious identity.

26.1.1 Adivasi Voice and Resistance

Government policy of diluting tribal religious identity has been met with resistance by tribals. Gondwana Mahasabha retaliated against the removal of tribal religion code from the census and began demanding a separate code for Koya Punem² religion for Adivasis. Prior to the demands of Sarna Dharma code, there was a demand for Gondi religion, which fell on the deaf ears of the State. Over 200 tribal heads from Odisha, Chhattisgarh, and Jharkhand under the banner of Akhil Adivasi Dharma Parishad (Tribal Religion Council) placed their demand before the central government to recognise their religion as Adi religion and opposed the separate religion code by the name of Sarna Dharma code. Akhil Bhartiya Adivasi Vikas Parishad (Jharkhand) also demanded Adivasi code in the census in opposi­tion to Sarna Dharma code. Demand for separate religious identity columns is resonating from different parts of the country. National Adivasi-indigenous Religion Coordination Committee (NAIRCC) also put forward the demands of a separate Adivasi religious code column in the census.

What is evident from this is that even the tribes have no unanimity for a separate ‘reli­gion code’. Different groups have different claims. Scheduled Tribes in India do not belong to a single religion. So, identifying Scheduled Tribes under any particular religion is not possible. Their customs, religious concepts, rituals, and practices differ across the country. As far as tribes are concerned, the politics of identity are highly fragmented and discordant. A few years back there was conflict among Christian and non-Christian tribes of Singpur village, Ranchi over the installation of a Mother Mary portrayal wearing white saree with red border (representing goddess Sarna). This was opposed as the efforts of distortion of traditional worship practices of Sarna Dharam followers who worship nature, particularly trees. For Sarna (animist) followers it is related to their identity and so accused the Church of alluring tribals for conversion (Kumar 2014).

Non-converted tribals have mainly three arguments against converted tribals. Firstly, Christian tribals avail the benefits of minority as well as those entitled to ST category. Secondly, tribals who are converted are no longer eligible for tribal status under the ST cat­egory as they are different from a traditional religion. Finally, according to non-converted tribals, converted tribals are no longer marginalised³. Although these claims are debatable, they certainly imply internal fissures and fragmentation of tribal identity, and hold the potentiality for larger religious disputes and emergence of conflicting regionalism.

26.1.2 Detribalisation and Identity

Indian tribes organise themselves depending on how members of a tribal group fulfil the demands of collective life and social functions such as activities like marriage, family, main­tenance of culture, and rituals.

G.S. Ghurye initiated the debate about Hinduisation of tribal population in 1963 by describing them as backward Hindus. This was his response against missionary activities (Ghurye 1963). N.K. Bose (Bose 1975) and Sujit Singh (Singh 1959) looked at it more criti­cally. Singh (1959) in his study pointed out that among Adivasis some groups like Bhumji protested and wanted to move away from tribal status and wanted to acquire Kshatriya status. He further concluded that the British were the ones who thought of tribes outside of the Varna-jati system (occupational Hindu social division), and further said that Indian civilisation has mutually adaptive strategies that absorb the tribes but maintain their iden­tity and isolation.

Social change, particularly the process of detribalisation through ideological change, relates to identity alienation. The alienation happens through various means and methods. For instance, tribal schooling was/is ridden with religious involvement and political anxi­ety. When we see the trajectory of tribal schooling, we can notice that by the mid-19th century Christian missionary schools created elite tribal classes, with many tribes con­verted to Christianity. The colonial concept of tribe showcased the need for ‘civilisation’.

Christian missionaries created the impression that the British were the earliest educat­ing tribals. Colonial education did appeal to many tribals such the Oraon, the Munda, and others for opposing land lordship and seeking a better-quality life. But this in turn pushed tribal towards cultural handicap which one saw in terms of increased dropout rates and students continuing in the same class repeatedly. This depicts tribal children’s aspirations for colonial education. This problem persists in the post-colonial period as well towards tribal education because the same colonial idea of ‘tribe’ continues in public discourse (Bara 2010). In response to that, nationalists based on the Gandhian concept began educating tribals. The first Ashram school started in 1922 at the Mirakhedi village in the Panhmahal district, Gujrat for Bhils (Deshmukh 2004) which was later acquired by Government and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s (RSS) Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram. The agenda of tribal education has always been assimilation of tribes in the so-called dominant traditions of India (Xaxa 2021). In the contemporary period aggressive Hindutva cam­paigns have reached tribal dominated areas through RSS’s affiliates like Saraswati Shikshan Sanstha and Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram. RSS schooling upholds certain notions of citizenship and larger Hindu identity. It is RSS’s agenda to absorb subaltern groups into the Hindu fold in order to establish Hindu supremacy and perpetuate existing hierarchical social order. RSS’s pedagogical project is clearly a political project. As Bose said earlier, these are Hinduising methods of absorption of tribals in the Hindu fold through techniques of acculturation (Sunder 2004). Tribals are very important for the Hindutva narrative and RSS/BJP cannot afford to treat them like other minorities. A coercive approach is not suit­able for their design. Therefore, propaganda education and the ‘development’ narrative that has Hindutva overtones are deployed to polarise tribals. This gives two-fold benefits to RSS; it helps RSS to ignore the claims of tribal groups to call themselves ‘Adivasis’, and secondly, by considering tribal groups as part of the larger Hindu society to inflate Hindu population. As Snigdendhu Bhattacharya concludes, this is not only an ideological victory for RSS, but also reinforcement of their larger Hindu nation narrative (Bhattacharya 2020 and Kumar & Sunny 2009).

26.2