The Stage of Transition and the Visibility of ‘Liminality’ in the Sahariya

In the present times, like many other tribes, the Sahariya have also experienced many changes in their life. Historically, tribes were mainly living in isolation with little interac­tion and interconnection with other non-tribal communities.

all tribal societies due to the presence of their non-tribal neighbourhoods. These neighbour­hoods can also be seen for them as their reference group, who were and are actually or notionally more powerful in many aspects. These kinds of emulation and imitation by the tribal communities are leading them to the state or position where they are showing the signs of assimilation of traits of other communities. They are now adopting, borrowing, and also integrating with a number of cultural facets of the so called dominant groups with whom they are sharing their proximity.

In this context, Sinha (1958) labelled tribes of India as the part of ‘little tradition’ follow­ing Redfield (1956) conception articulated in Peasant Society and Culture. He also stressed that tribes as community could only be understood when seen in relation to the great tradi­tion. Indian Scholars like D. Kosambi (1975), A. Beteille (1986), N. K. Bose (1941), and S.S. Deogaonkar and S.G Deongakar (1990) observe that there has been fusion of the elements of tribes into the society which considered themselves above them. But the nature of change which is registered among almost all tribal communities are not of losing their own identity and their cultural heritage; rather it is of assimilation with nearby communities and castes which are residing near them.

As several concepts are available to study the interactive space, the choice for ‘liminality’ needs an explanation. The interactive space of the Sahariya is a manifestation of theirs and of Hindu religious worldviews, but within the Sahariya perception. They worship Ganesh, Durga, and other Hindu gods and goddesses, but do not get a space in Hindu structure. Similarly, they equate Bhairuji with Hanuman and Ramdeo ji with Lord Krishna thereby creating a space for Hindu gods in their traditional belief. Further, they follow the tradition of believing in and worshipping their traditional deities like Mehttar Baba, Moti Maharaj, Ashmani Mata, etc. which are not found at the core of the Hindu belief system. They also believe in deities like Gogaji, Teja ji, etc. having regional importance and Sheetla Mata that has cross-region importance in India. Undoubtedly, it does not point to a third space as the emerging reality does not occupy a distinct space in between the Sahariya or the Hindu; rather the community retains its Sahariya identity and as such concepts like syncretism, hybridity, etc. are likely to oversimplify the religious worldview that spreads across two boundaries - the Sahariya and other communities, particularly the Hindus, but do not pre­sent a visible third space for the community identity. Moreover, the liminality concerns the weaker Sahariya, but not the stronger Hindu tradition. Here Turner’s argument is useful to understand the context. He states, “The liminality of the strong is socially unstructured or simply structured; that of the weak represents a fantasy of structural superiority” (Turner 1991:168). What the Sahariya’s contemporary religious tradition reveals is not structured in Hindu society, but it is structured in the former’s religion that shows the situation in between its tradition and adoption to Hindu traits within the Sahariya worldview.

The Latin word ‘limen’ means threshold that lies somewhere in-between. During socio­economic progression individuals/people generally pass through some transitional phase where they along with their own conventional cultural traits adopt some new arrangements. Chakraborty (2016) mentioned that during this process the shift from one social posi­tion to another might not get transferred completely; it remains incomplete (Chakraborty 2016:146). Further, Homi K Bhabha while mentioning and using the ‘liminality’ termed it as a border situation, where subjectivity tuned with sameness and alterations results in new kind of forms (Chakraborty 2016:146). He mentioned that this, “interstitial passage between fixed identifications opens up the possibilities of a cultural hybridity that enter­tains differences without an assumed or imposed hierarchy” (Bhabha 2004 in Chakraborty 2016:146).

The term ‘liminality’ was first used by anthropologist Arnold Van Gennep in his work on the ritual patterns to understand the societal process of transition. Lately, Victor Turner popularised Gennep’s idea of liminality. According to Turner (1991:95), “Liminal entities are neither here nor there; they are betwixt and between the positions assigned and arrayed by law, custom, convention, and ceremonial”. His idea is elaborated by Dara Downey, Ian Kinane, and Elizabeth Parker (2016) (cited in Bode & Jacobson 2018:3). They write, Turner contends that

in (post) modern societies, in which rules of law and traditional customs have under­gone major upheaval or change, individuals and communities are left in a continually unfixed, destructed, and liminal state of existence, caught between the conventions of customary social practices and the burgeoning social practices of new and radically different social formations.

(Bode & Jacobson 2018:3)

In many changing facets of life-sketch, religion was mainly considered as the core element of tribal life. In its earlier form, almost all of the tribal communities’ religions were in the form of ‘animism’ due to closed habitation in nature and forests. Lately, in contact with Hindu communities they have been introduced to other folk deities and gods across all of the states.

Among the Sahariya, it has been found that the main factor responsible for their follow­ing other’s deities and gods is the perception of their neighbourhood’s powerful position. They carry the faith that other’s deities and their gods help them in acquiring a better eco­nomic and social position in the society. Added to this, even the derogatory outlook of their neighbours towards them, attached with their position of being less developed, traditional, and marginal, and attributed to their old practices of ‘animism’ make them conscious to relook and reframe their own religious methods like the fading of totemism in them or accepting others deities and festivals.

19.6