Rituals, Natives, and the Colonial State

Communications between the ‘political’ and the ‘religious’ domains were an important instrument for establishing authority and legitimacy. The chiefs and Hindu kings were often giving royal patronage to these inhuman practices.

The kingdom of Jeypore, the present day Koraput District was ruled by the dynasty of Jeypore Suryavamsis¹⁹. They established power in the mid fifteenth century and retained it up to modern times (Misra 2005:234- 235). An important means by which the kings exercised authority over the indigenous population was through patronage of tribal goddess to be found in Rayagada - known as goddess Majhighariani. She was worshipped in the form of seven white stones. The largest of the seven stones was painted with vermillion to represent her head. Sacrifice of a human being on the eighth day of Durgapuja was an established practice there. The priests of the temple were the low ranking caste of Paiks. They were also the king’s militia. It was believed that the human sacrifice would bring good fortune and wellbeing of its inhabitants, increase the fertility of the land, and end the droughts and other calamities in the life of an individual or of the community as a whole. The king was nominally subordinate to Gajapati kings of Orissa. Other goddesses, where human sacrifices were performed, included Khambeswari in Aska, Thakurani in Berhampur, and Mohuri Kalua near Berhampur. Kulke (1993) sheds light on how the tribal deities were patronised by the Gadajat kings and how their legitimacy over the tribal regions was based on their position in the tribal cult. Goddess Khambeswari is widely worshipped in Southern and Western Orissa by Sudramunis who are of tribal origin. The Terasingha copper plate (Mishra & Behera 2018:114, 115-116) found on the river bank of Rishikulya river mentions the temple of Khambeswari (the Goddess of Pillars) worshipped by local tribes.

The worship was appropriated by Tushitkara ruling over Kalahandi, Baudh, and Ghumsar during the fifth and sixth century AD. She was also the deity of the Sulki royal family (600-800) of Kodalakamandala and the Bhanja dynasty (ninth Century AD) in Khinjilimandala (Mishra & Behera 2018: 116-117). The rulers appropriated the local gods and goddesses in order to extend their ritual as well as political legitimacy over these regions and people. These tribal deities later on became their Rastrdevatas, for example Bhattarika of Badamba and Maninageswari in Ranpur. This patronage secured the kings the support and the loyalty of the tribe and safety of their kingdoms. Another example of such ritual and political appropriation is the case of Vyaghradevi, the guardian deity of Bhanjas of Ghumsar. She was the goddess of Khonds and Savaras of Ghumsar. Kulladaha, the Khond chief who was worshipping her in 13 th century AD was defeated by the Bhanja king of Ghumsar and the latter appropriated the goddess (Satapathy 2017:57). With the establishment of the British legal system these practices were held as barbaric and the local political authority was held responsible to curb such practices. The local king submitted himself to the British authority to remain an ally in British civilising mission. However, many times, they became involved with the practice to win over the trust and support of their people. Thus, the local elites played double games by pretending to be good legal subjects of the British on one hand and retaining the support of the people on the other. In both games, they had nothing to lose and the colonial legal machinery fell heavily on the innocent people.

The foremost target of the British was the ‘collective crime’ or the crime committed by a group of people. Collective crime refers to a particular group or some people of the group committing a crime. In the 19th century, the colonial government discovered that certain communities of Orissa are aberrant factors and had to be controlled coercively.

Sandria Freitag (1990:231) has narrated how the British legal system created two realms to deal with the law and order problem. One was with the individual and the other was for the collective realm. The British brought different regulations and structures to contain individual crime. The collective realm was taken more seriously as the British perceived collective crimes as being directed against the state and a challenge to their authority. The ‘Criminal Tribes Act of 1871’ was introduced to deal with these communities. The CTA provided registration of all dictated criminal tribes and imposed restrictions on the movement of the members of such ‘criminal tribes’. Under the Act, the members of the tribes declared as criminal were to report to the police station at regular intervals. They required passes for travelling outside their settlement and the members without passes were imprisoned. Escaping from any settlement or reformatory invited imprisonment or fines or both. The colonial administration identified the criminal groups from anecdotal evidence provided by indigenous informants and control was established over them through registration, surveillance, and incarceration. Further, reformatories and mental asylums were established for the children and mentally unstable people of the tribe and classes.

This Act was amended in the year 1897 to make punishment more stringent going up to seven years of imprisonment and transportation for life²⁰. Provisions were made to separate children of four to 18 years of age from parents. These children were sent to the reformatories established solely for the children of declared criminal tribes and classes²¹. The British colonial authority and the discourse of rule of law defined crime and criminality which were culture bound and contextual. In the words of J.A. Sharpe, “the law was a cultural and ideological force so widely diffused in English society as to inform the notions and actions of the population at large” (Sharpe 1999:143).

One such criminal tribe were the Khonds residing in some parts of the districts of Ganjam and Vizagpatam in the then Madras Presidency and the Tributary States of Baud, Daspalla and Nayagarh, Angul and Kondhamal during the colonial period. They were also found in the northern part of Kalahandi and the south of Patana (Swaro 1987:46). The Khonds believed in the offering of meriah (human sacrifice) for propitiating the deity for the maintenance of the fertility of the soil and to avert diseases and natural calamities (Swaro 1990:119). The cruel practice was more prevalent in the Taripenu sect of the Kondhs (Campbell 1986:141). The Kondhs buried the flesh of the victims in the soil which, as believed, had the power of fertilising the land. In the case of the turmeric crop, the Kondhs had a belief that the tears of the victims brought rains and the blood of the victims caused redness of the turmeric. The Oriya hill rajas also performed human sacrifice to get divine blessings when they assumed power or wished to avert danger (Padhi 1986:180). Captain John Macpherson of the Madras Government service was selected to become the first Agent of the Government of India to work for the Meriah Agency²². The Meriah Agency was given the authority over the entire tribal tract which was then divided under the administrative jurisdiction of the Governments of Bengal and Madras. To abolish this inhumane practice, the British followed the policy of persuasion and repression. Captain Macpherson tried his best to identify himself as one among them and collaborated in their day-to-day life. He went hunting with the Khond chiefs, distributed beads to the Khond women, and gave presents to dissuade them from the practice of human sacrifice (Gangte 2017:120). The British went on establishing schools, providing medical aid, and developing infrastructure in Khond territories to bring them under the control of the Colonial government.

9.4

<< | >>

↑

Source: Behera Maguni C. (ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Readings on Tribe and Religions in India: Emerging Negotiations. Routledge,2024. — 502 p.. 2024

Rituals, Natives, and the Colonial State

More on the topic Rituals, Natives, and the Colonial State: