|
A day long
workshop on Role of Tribal and Indigenous People in Contemporary
Scenario and Criteria for Determination of Scheduled Tribes was
held on 24th of April 2006 at Department of Anthropology
University of Delhi. The workshop was sponsored by Commission
for Review of Social & Environmental Sector, Policies, Plans and
Programmes (CRESP) Government of Sikkim and organized by the
Indian Anthropological Association. The workshop witnessed an
eclectic gathering well represented by scholars, bureaucrats and
NGO representatives.
The inaugural session was graced by the distinguished guest Ms.
Meena Gupta, IAS, Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs,
Government of India. Professor B.K. Roy Burman, the eminent
anthropologist and the ch`air person CRESP delivered keynote
address while Professor R.K. Jain chaired the session. Professor
Surinder Nath, Head, Department of Anthropology extended a warm
welcome to the guests and delegates. In his welcome address
Professor Nath highlighted the need of collaborative effort of
the academic genius and the government machinery to arrive at a
meaningful discourse and policy pertaining to the tribes of
India. Dr.
S.M. Patnaik, President, Indian Anthropological Association
introduced the gathering to the theme and spirit of the
workshop. While explaining the nuances of academic and
administrative perspectives towards the tribal population, Dr.
Patnaik reconciled the divergences between the two approaches by
drawing attention from theory and practice to the matters of
theory in practice towards indigenous population of India. Dr.
Patnaik’s address gave the point of departure for further
discussions. Professor B.K. Roy Burman reiterated need for
viable criteria of determination of scheduled tribes. Professor
Burman drew the attention to the 8-point criteria identified by
him on the basis of his rich experience with tribes and tribal
studies.
Ms. Meena Gupta’s
observations on the tribal scenario with regard to the
government policies and programs gave a different dimension to
the discussion giving a desirable twist from the theoretical to
practical issues. Ms. Gupta elaborated on the policy of
liberalization which provides for the scheduling of tribes.
Emphasizing on the geographical and cultural diversities
challenging the process of scheduling, Ms. Gupta highlighted the
need of sub-categorization for the fair and more manageable
distribution of the benefits which are otherwise cornered by the
powerful sections. She said that more and more entrants for
scheduling add to the burden to resources which will not be able
to carry the loads unless the options of sub-categorization and
de-scheduling are a given a serious thought. At this juncture
Ms. Gupta called for the support of anthropologists to
disentangle the knots. Mr. Mardip, secretary general,
International Consortium of Indigenous people, spoke on the
struggle of the indigenous people in assertion of their identity
in the changing global order. At the end of the session,
Professor S.L. Malik gave the vote of thanks.
The first session of the workshop revolved around the themes (i)
Precolonial and Colonial experiences with the tribes of India
and (ii) Understanding Diversity and Process of ‘othering’.
Professor R.S. Mann touched the various chords of the problem of
identifying uniform criteria for such a diverse populace as
Indian tribes. He dwelled on the three approaches –
Philosophical, Substantive and Comparative, to arrive at the
actual import of the term ‘tribe’. He drew on rich ethnographic
data from various tribal communities of India and anecdotes to
highlight the inefficacy of the old criteria of low-level
technology, dwindling/stagnant population, low level of
literacy, etc. Professor Mann urged the anthropologists to look
beyond the boundaries of the country and take cues from the
other countries dealing effectively with their tribal
population.
Dr. Meena
Radhakrishnan took up the case of Korawa of central India
through a historical perspective. She explained how the tribe
that was a victim of displacement of railway project was labeled
as denotified tribe. Dr. Radhakrishnan raised important
questions with regard to the plight of the ‘denotified’ tribes
and the administrative apathy towards them. Dr. Nilika Mehrotra
drew attention towards the policy of ‘othering’ that has been
continuously marginalizing the tribal communities in a vicious
manner. She emphasized on the role of anthropologists and their
ethnographic knowledge in rescuing the communities from such a
vicious cycle and identifying the relevant mechanisms in dealing
with the tribal situation.
Professor R.K.
Jain talked of the dialectics of longing and belonging in Indian
diaspora. Professor Jain said that one gets important insights
into the tribal situation by looking at Indian overseas. He
touched upon the issue of identity, transnationalism and
citizenship to come to terms with the demarcation of criteria of
identifying scheduled tribes. Dr. R.P. Mitra drew attention to
the colonial tinge in the manner we define and perceive the
tribal communities. Dr. Mitra urged to move from the discourse
of rationality which is the hangover of colonial government to
the discourse of developmentalism. Professor V.K. Srivastava
drew attention to the life cycle of the terms and concepts. He
said that when the concepts or terms are coined they are not
value loaded but gradually they take up the values and
connotations as it happened with the term ‘primitive’. Professor
Srivastava moved on to the concept of tribe and its implications
in the contemporary tribal and academic scenario.
The themes of the
second session were (i) Assertion of Identity and Politics of
Scheduling and (ii) Revisiting Constitutional Provisions. Mr.
C.B. Tripathy led the discussion while tracing out the history
of the usage of the term “primitive tribe”. He summarized how
the concept of criteria of primitive tribe was developed and
debated in the various committees and departments instituted to
deal with the administration of tribal population. By hailing
Loku Committee of 1964 as a landmark, the criteria identified by
the committee are still invoked by the Ministry of Tribal
Affairs, Dr. Tripathy he dwelled on the ideas of Ms. Meena Gupta
pertaining to Sub categorization and de-scheduling and urged the
audience to visit the criteria identified by Professor RoyBurman
in that background. He sought the critique and comments of the
larger academia on these criteria.
Professor
Subhadra Channa took the audience to the different terrain by
diverting the attention to the administrative handling of the
tribes. She spoke of the difference between the perspectives of
the administration and that of the anthropologist. Giving
example of the Kalinganagar firing she held that the present
administrative approach towards the tribal people is much of the
colonial legacy that is not really sensitive to the tribal
problems. Drawing on the idea of a meaningful perspective, Dr.
Nilika Mehrotra called for the consideration of political
economy approach.
Professor
Virginius Xaxa’s compelling deliberations on the issue of tribal
identity gave important insights into the process of scheduling.
Professor Xaxa showed how the tribal identity is akin to middle
class identity and how the movement of population bears upon the
identity formation and assertion and the further implications on
scheduling and de-scheduling. Professor A.K. Kapoor, the
chairperson of the session summarized the arguments of the
various speakers and put across his comments on the politics of
scheduling. Professor Kapoor also pointed to the ambiguities
pertaining to the scheduling of caste and tribe.
In the
valedictory session, the chairpersons Prof. Tiplut Nongbri and
Dr. S.M. Patnaik gave opportunity to the floor for open
discussion. Prof. Nongbri took the lead and delineated the
actual purpose of the discussion which had to be beyond the
definitions of tribe and more towards the process of ‘othering’.
She took up the issues of de-scheduling and heterogeneity in
discussion on the criteria of scheduling. Mr. Saha, Joint
Director from the office of Registrar General of India
appreciated the initiative of the workshop and openly sought the
involvement of social scientists in dealing with the tribal
issues. Dr. Sunita Reddy pointed to the weak data base from the
tribal situation. Dr. Reddy called for a shift from
micro-perspective to macro perspective so that a data base could
be arrived at to facilitate research and understanding of the
tribal people.
Professor P.C. Joshi reflecting on the background paper and the
keynote address tried argue for more scientific approach rather
than the emotional one to identify the criteria, moreover the
criteria has to be more dynamic than static touching the ground
realities of everyday life. He further said the diversities of
the tribal world have to be accommodated which can be done by
stratifying the criteria in terms of essential, desirable and
additional criteria. Finally the political implications of the
criteria have to be kept in mind.
Dr. Nilika
Mehrotra expanded the scope of the discussion by pointing to the
issues pertaining to the minority and Dalit issues on the whole.
She said that the tribal issues can not be delinked from this
larger context. She called for the inputs from the spokespersons
from different tribal regions. Dr. R.P. Mitra reiterated the
necessity of developmental outlook for dealing with the tribes
and advocated for the conservation of local bio-resource and
indigenous knowledge. Professor I.S. Marwaha talked of the
obsoleteness of the existing criteria of identification of
scheduled tribes and urged upon the academic community to arrive
at more viable criteria taking cognizance of such issues as
movement and migration.
Professor V.K.
Srivastava summed up the session and the workshop. Beginning
from the approach of protective discrimination immanent in the
idea of scheduling, Professor Srivastava traversed different
terrains, debating the utility and indispensability of the
concept of tribe to the importance of understanding the
distinctiveness of tribal communities to the necessity of
remaining attentive to the emic viewpoint and ethno history in
dealing with the tribes. Professor P.C. Joshi read out the
rapporteur’s report and delivered the vote of thanks to the
Chair. |
