Tribal Middle Class in India

Introduction

Class and tribe are contradictory terms. Tribes are conceived, which among other things, include homogeneity of economic and social life founded on kinship-based social relationships, lack of social differentiation and hierarchy as important features. Their social and economic diversification has been transformative, raising questions over their categorisation as tribes. Hence, to address the question of the tribal middle class, one needs to spell out the sense in which the term ‘tribe’ is being employed. I find Godelier’s formulation of tribes as a society, a certain type and stage in the development of society instructive (Godelier, 1977, p. 30). When tribes transform, there is a discernible change of type and stage, but they remain intact as a society. Such a conception of tribes helps overcome the anomaly in the discussion of the middle class as it represents the departure from a type and stage with which tribes are generally associated. Tribes as a society are marked off as populations tied to a particular territory with a distinct language and culture of their own, and they maintain a regular and durable social relationship cutting across different spheres of lives and a feeling of unity and identity.

Conceptualising the Middle Class

The emergence of a capitalistic economy gave rise to a dichotomous conception of society, of owners and non-owners of the means of production and, tied to this, was the notion of producers and non-producers of surplus value. Thus, while a class of owners of the means of production lived off the surplus produced by others, others did not own the means of production but produced a surplus, which the owners appropriated. Broadly, then, there have been two considerations on which the middle class has been delineated: ownership of means of production and production of surplus value. The other delineating distinction is between manual and non-manual labour. The former is more prevalent among economists and the latter among sociologists. One can then broadly identify four categories of ownership and surplus production: first, those who own means of production and produce surplus value (petty bourgeois); second, those who own means of production but do not produce surplus value (bourgeois); third, those who do not own means of production but produce surplus value (proletariat); and fourth, those who own neither means of production nor produce surplus value. Routinely, the first and fourth categories are identified as the middle class (Misra, 2010, p. 145).

The old middle class thus consists of manufacturers, shopkeepers, artisans, independent farmers and peasants, and the new managers, technocrats, professionals, engineers, educators and white-collar office workers. Thus, the old and new middle class stood between land and capital on the one hand and labour on the other. The old middle class shares features of land and capital on the one hand and labour on the other (Misra, 1983, pp. 1–13). In contrast, the new middle class shares no features of land and capital but shares features of labour, except those features are strikingly different. It is characterised by intellectual (non-manual) rather than manual labour, reflected in work, pay and working conditions. The new middle class neither possessed land and capital nor performed manual labour.

Compared to the old middle class, the new middle class neither produces nor appropriates surplus value. Instead, it realises a surplus and receives a share of the surplus in return. The other perspective on understanding the middle class comes from the distinction between the working class and white-collar workers, which is based on the distinction between production and realisation of surplus value and division based on manual labour and intellectual or non-manual labour (Braverman, 1998, p. 287). Others (Croner, 1938) have tried to conceptualise white-collar work and, hence, middle-class not in terms of intellectual and non-intellectual work but in certain functions such as administration, supervision, management and commercial.

Undoubtedly, any rigid distinction between manual and non-manual is artificial and arbitrary, but the consequences of the distinction are real. The distinction has traditionally informed employment laws, leading to distinctions in legal rights and protection and employers’ practices ranging from wages to work rules and behaviour. Such powerful division in conceptual and administrative organisations helps shape the attitudes and actions of employees. The two sets of workers thus regard each other qualitatively differently. The nature of the work milieu and the object and function of work differ for both categories. Hence, the distinction is important in analysing the middle class in the context of tribal society.

This is not to deny the importance of ownership of land or other resources, which is critical for understanding what has been described as the old middle class. The attempt here is to explore the middle class in the context of a particular society or social category following the Aristotelian footsteps. This approach categorises the population into the upper, lower and middle class in terms of status grading based on asset ownership and its impact on living standards, even though a lack of social differentiation may mark society in reference. However, this approach has limitations as it fails to identify the middle class and define the boundaries of its membership. The notion of the middle class presupposes a class above (bourgeois) and a class below (proletariat). The absence of such a lens suffers from limitations of explanatory scope, normative implications and the underlying notion of the structure (Kreckel, 2010, p. 123). The term middle class makes sense if different positions are grouped into at least distinct macro social collectivities of upper, middle and lower.

In terms of self-employment, the middle class is thus invariably tied with social differentiation within society. At the top are those who own the means of production and earn income in the form of profit from the sale of the product. The lowest strata are constituted by those who earn wages by selling their labour. Those who fall in between are identified as middle class. There is, of course, the difference among sociologists as to whether there is a single middle class or whether the middle class is composed of several discrete segments, with one segment (lower middle class) almost a part of the working class, another of the upper class (upper middle class) leaving another segment truly as the middle (middle-middle class) (Abercrombie et al., 1984).

Social Differentiation and the Emergence of the Tribal Middle Class

At the advent of British rule, groups and communities, later described as tribes, were at different stages of their development. Some lived on hunting and food gathering, others on shifting agriculture and others on settled agriculture. However, such neat categorisation of their mode of living was far from the actual reality. Those dependent on shifting cultivation or even settled agriculture derived much of their livelihood from hunting and food-gathering. It is important to note that despite differences in significant sources of livelihood, they shared many features—the lack of heterogeneity in the division of labour and other forms of social differentiation being one of them. This was the case even with societies based on settled agriculture. Social differentiation in tribal society has been due to both internal and external processes but the latter, the British rule in general and laws, regulations and administration, in particular, has been the most critical.

The British brought tribal people and territories they inhabited under their control through war, conquest and annexation. They extended the rules, regulations and administrative practices already in force in tribal territories. These had a devastating effect on tribes. They introduced the system of private property and landlordism in tribal areas and conferred the title of ownership on erstwhile kings, chiefs and revenue collectors. This turned the erstwhile owners into tenants of the landlords, who had to bear the burden of a high rate of revenue that the landlords transferred to tenant cultivators by demanding exorbitant rents from them. Unprepared or unable to pay the exorbitant demand, their eviction became routine.

There was, thus, large-scale eviction of tribes from their land, and consolidation of non-tribes in their place. In regions and places where tribes still held control over land and forests, massive transfers of land took place from tribes to non-tribes through fraud, deceit, mortgage, etc. Since tribes did not know reading and writing and had no record-keeping practice, non-tribes took advantage by forging evidence and transferring documents in their favour. The local administration worked hand in glove with their ethnic kindred to ensure the smooth land transfer from tribes to non-tribes. The court language was alien to tribes, so they were unaware of what was happening in the court (Mullick, 1993; Singh, 2002). This initiated the process of marginalisation of tribal communities and the phenomenon of landlessness among them. This process of proletarianisation among tribal communities was more due to the appropriation of tribal land by people from the plains, especially traders, moneylenders and officials of colonial administration, than less to do with the dynamics of differentiation within the tribal society.

This process was accelerated with the extension of roads, railways and other means of communication. The colonial administration expanded the means of transport and communication and trade and commerce, leading to widespread mobility of non-tribes from the plains to tribal areas. This opening up of the credit and land market played havoc in tribal societies. Unable to pay back the high interest rates on the credits they took from the creditors, they lost their land to non-tribes. That is how rapid proletarianisation began and opened space for the labour market in tribal societies. Tribes thrown off their land were either employed as wage earners by landlords (resident or absentee) or in establishments run by traders and money lenders. Many even worked without payment of wages. This agrarian situation led to a series of revolts, forcing the British to move out of the general system administration in practice to the special system of administration of the tribal areas known as the non-regulated tracts meaning general rules were not automatically applicable in such areas. The non-regulated tract later became known by such terms as agency tracts, scheduled districts and excluded and partially excluded areas (Reid, 1944, p. 18). Such an administrative arrangement aimed at restricting appropriation and proletarianisation worked relatively well in the northeastern region. However, it greatly failed in mainland India due to the opening of the tribal regions to the outside world. It was at this phase of the historical transformation in tribal societies that enterprises, such as mines and plantations, emerged in colonial India. The proletarianised labour force in tribal society found a ready market for labour in these enterprises.

However, as new enterprises kept expanding, demand for labour grew which could not be filled in by proletarianised labour alone. The gap was filled in by those who worked as self-employed on their farms. The large labour force that came to man mines and plantations came from this segment of the tribal population. This is not to suggest that self-employed tribal peasants left their farms altogether and joined the new ventures as the labour force. What happened is that some members of the family moved out to work as labourers in the new enterprises, whereas others stayed back to man the family farm. This was how the working class had its genesis in tribal society. This new phenomenon had, however, no impact on the existing social relations. The social distance between workers (mines and plantations) and self-cultivating peasants was non-existent. The division between the middle class (self-cultivating households) and workers in plantations and mines was far from sharp. Instead, there were interlocking relationships. Some family members working as wage earners and others as self-employed cultivators have been common in tribal society, at least in colonial India. Further, those who worked as wage earners also owned land, like those who continued cultivating their family farms. Both landless/proletarianised and traditional landowning cultivators engage in manual labour. The distinction between manual and non-manual, which is critical to the idea of a new middle class, was far from tenable in the context of the tribal society during the British period. The location of the middle class in tribal society is thus to be traced in opposition to the proletarianisation process. An administrative-legal structure and the new economic enterprises that engendered proletarianisation gave way to the middle class (old and new) in tribal society. Such process in tribal society was not the result of the endogenous process or internal dynamics/differentiation within the society but of the process of appropriation of tribal land by non-tribal outsiders, mainly traders, moneylenders and landlords that the British had created in the wake of new land and revenue settlement and opening up the tribal areas to the outside world through extension of roads and railways on the one hand and trade and commerce on the other.

The proletarianisation process has been markedly absent in tribal societies of northeast India. Here, land is predominantly owned by individuals, lineage or village communities. There have, of course, been some groups or communities that had a system of chieftainship. Such chiefs among some groups even owned village land, which they distributed among the villagers for cultivation. In return, the villagers paid rent to their chiefs. Further, among some chiefs, there was even a practice of keeping slaves (Misra, 1983). Undoubtedly, there has been inequality in tribal communities, but it is not a result of proletarianisation or dispossession through appropriation within or from outside the community. The phenomenon of landlessness in northeast India is a post-independence phenomenon.

The process of social differentiation in the northeast was more in terms of religion and modern education. The coming of the Christian Missionaries in the region, conversion to a new religion and access to modern education opened new employment avenues, first as religious workers and instructors and, later, as schoolteachers and office assistants in institutions run by the missionaries. The new employment was not only a new source of income but also a new basis of social status in society. Northeast India and mainland India have different trajectories of social differentiation, and hence they had different routes to what is known as the middle class. At the same time, what is known as the old middle class in the form of people making their living from trade, shopkeeping and business is a new phenomenon in the context of tribal societies of both mainland and northeast India.

The Diversification of the Tribal Middle Class

The self-employed and landowning category, a dominant feature of tribal society through British rule in India, was considerably eroded in the post-independence era of economic development and the national reconstruction process. This can be inferred from the phenomenon of landlessness and agricultural labourers in tribal society that grew manifold in post-independence India and concomitantly led to the decline in the proportion of tribals drawing livelihood from self-cultivation. By 1961, the percentage of cultivators among tribals had declined to 68.18%, further declining to 54.5% by 1991. Conversely, the percentage of agricultural labourers increased from 19.71% in 1961 to 32.69% in 1991 (Government of India, Planning Commission, 2001, p. 91). The size of cultivators and agricultural labourers, as per the 2011 census, was enumerated at 37% and 49%, respectively (Institute for Human Development [Eastern Regional Center, Ranchi], 2015, p. 41). A significant portion of the operational holding of tribes belongs to marginal farmers, who supplement their income through labour and other ancillary activities. This indicates the shrinkage of the old middle class and the process of greater proletarianisation. The erosion of control over land and other resources has been relatively low in northeast India, resulting in an absence of proletarianisation. Additionally, the spread of education has contributed towards an increase in the size of the new middle class. This is evident from their participation in central government services across different groups of services. Tribal participation, for example, in groups A, B, C and D services increased from 0.40% to 4.8%, 0.37% to 6.0%, 1.47% to 7.7% and 3.59% to 6.8% between 1970 and 2011 (Government of India, Department of Personnel & Training, 2011). There has also been growth in the number of people drawing livelihood through trade, business and shopkeeping. This segment of the middle class, a new phenomenon in tribal society, forms an important component of the middle class and is more developed in northeast India than in mainland India.

The old middle class in tribal society emerged by default as the phenomenon of self-employment that gave shape to the middle class (old) was already there. The new middle class was, however, different and associated with modern education. Tribal society did not have a tradition of reading and writing. Modern education among tribes initiated by missionaries in different parts paved the way for the emergence of new occupations hitherto absent in tribal society. The education the missionaries imparted during the colonial period in tribal areas was largely restricted to school education, often confined to elementary or middle levels. Educational institutions imparting instruction up to high school were scarce. A few of those who completed higher education went to college. However, limited and restricted, acquiring modern education opened opportunities for new occupations. Those educated mostly worked as teachers in elementary, middle and high schools run by Christian missionaries. A few even worked as clerks and supervisors in those same institutions. Though not altogether absent, their entry into government service, especially in northeast India, was still few. Most of the group was made up of converts. Thus, during the colonial period, Christian missions played a significant role in the emergence of the new middle class in tribal society.

Alongside this process, another segment emerged, which derived their living from non-manual occupations. They constituted a segment of the middle class (new), which was different from those identified based on self-cultivation or self-employment. They still had their roots in the land and supplemented income from non-manual occupations with income from the cultivation of land by the family members. Thus, the new middle class in tribal society during this period still drive their livelihood from land and manual labour. The rupture between the new middle class and their association with the land and manual labour is a recent phenomenon in tribal society. This has been so due to migration to distant towns and cities. The new middle class in the place of their origin, especially in small towns or emerging urban centres, is still very much tied to land and manual labour. Hence, the distinction between manual and non-manual labour remains blurred, and where there is a differentiation between the proletarianised and middle class (in the sense of the old middle class), the distinction is not marked, except in terms of sources of living. Both landless/proletarianised and traditional landowning cultivators engage in manual labour. The distinction between manual and non-manual which is critical to the idea of a new middle class was untenable in the context of the tribal society during the British period.

The tribal middle class has grown manifold in post-independence India. Though there is no data to substantiate it, they probably form the smallest in terms of the new and old middle class. A rough estimate of the size could be made from the income expenditure and consumption characteristics. Rural Scheduled Tribes represented only 6.6%, 7.3%, 7.8% and 6.7% share in the top 15% of monthly per capita expenditure for 1983, 1988, 1994 and 2000, respectively. As against this, the urban Scheduled Tribe population represented 8.7%, 9.1%, 8.8% and 9.8% of the top 15% of monthly per capita expenditure for the year referred to in the discussion above. In examining the community composition of the top 15% of monthly per capita expenditure, it was found that tribes represented only 4.5%, 5.1%, 5.6% and 4.7% of the top 15% of the rural population in 1983, 1988, 1994 and 2000. However, they constituted about 11% of the rural population. What is more striking is that tribes constituted only 1.6%, 2.3%, 1.9% and 2.2% of the top 15% of the urban population in 1983, 1988, 1994 and 2000, respectively (Deshpande, 2006, pp. 227–228).

The growth of the tribal middle class has much to do with the policies and programmes of the Indian state. The reservation policy for Scheduled Tribes has been instrumental in shaping the nature and type of middle class in tribal society. Provision of reservation in institutions of higher learning and state employment complemented each other. Despite such provisions, the middle class’s growth has been slow. This is evident because the quota reserved for tribes in educational institutions, especially government employment, could not be filled. The gap was large in the early phases but was somewhat bridged in later decades. The new middle class has grown manifold, which can be inferred from their employment in various segments of the state employment, such as government employment, public sector enterprises, banks and insurance. Notwithstanding, the gap remains. Low literacy rates, high dropout rates and small enrolment in higher educational institutions are some of the reasons behind this. Their employment in the private sector has been very negligible.

Within tribal society, the growth of the middle class, especially the new middle class, has been far from even. The new middle class is the most visible in northeast India, followed by eastern India. Elsewhere, in India, it has remained dormant. This visibility is evident in a high literacy rate and high enrolment of tribes in institutions of higher learning. Northeast, as per 2011 census, comprises only about 14% of the tribal population in India. Yet, there is a very high density of higher educational institutions in northeast India. Every state in the region has a central university, though many states have a population much less than the population of some tribes in mainland India. In addition, there is a heavy outflow of students from the region to universities elsewhere in India. This is hardly the case with tribes of mainland India. There is also greater absorption of the tribal population from northeast India in state employment. This has been due to the grant of statehood for most tribal populations of the region. Indeed, state employment in hill states of the region is almost exclusively manned by tribes. However, the proportion of the middle class among the different tribes of the region is far from even. Within the same state, some tribes have greater representation of the tribal middle class than others. Khasis in Meghalaya, Lushais in Mizoram, Ao and Angamis in Nagaland represent such instances. In mainland India, Meenas and Oraons represent such groups.

The middle class in northeast India is more pronounced than the rest of India and much more diverse than in mainland India. In mainland India, it is rare to find tribes engaged in trade, commerce, business and shopkeeping. This constitutes an important segment of the middle-class population in northeast India.

Articulations and Movements as Pathways of Integration with Identity

The changes that the British rule introduced in tribal regions led to numerous tribal revolts/struggles, wherein the role of the old middle class in the form of landowning cultivators was critical (Bara, 2020, p. 6; Singh, 2002). The subsequent influx of the non-tribal population in tribal areas invigorated the old middle class to delve into their social, cultural and religious lives, either to embrace other traditions or selectively adopt features of other traditions. Such movements had emerged out of exposure and influence of other religious traditions—Hinduism and Christianity being the more dominant.

With the momentum of the freedom struggle movement since the 1920s, agrarian and forest issues came to the forefront of the movement among the tribes, but with a difference. The congress or the other nationalist leadership initiated the larger mobilisation process of civil disobedience or non-cooperation movements, aimed broadly at the security of tenure, reduction of rent, increased share of produce and so on (Ekka, 1972; Iyer & Mahajan, 1986; Singh, 2002). Tribal cultivators aligned with other exploited classes of the agrarian society, in their fight against landlords for the security of tenure, reduction of rent or larger share of produce under a sharecropping arrangement by participating in peasant movements launched by Communist and Socialist parties. The tribal working class, such as plantations, mines and industrial workers, also participated in such movements. Civil society organisations such as political parties, trade unions and other forms of association have been important for integrating tribals with the larger Indian society.

While the old middle class played a decisive role in these movements, the new middle class took over the prominent role in articulating and directing the movement, specifically movements tied to the demand for political autonomy and control over land, forest and other resources. The new movements that began in the late 1930s and 1940s, and continued into post-independence India, were modern and future-looking. They aimed to reorient the tribal society in a new mould. This was, to begin with, articulated in the form of the demand for a separate state either within the Indian Union or outside of it. The stirring of autonomy movement by tribes in the form of separate states could be traced to the period preceding the end of British rule. After India became independent, the movements for separate states began to gain momentum among tribes living in different parts of tribal India but, more importantly, in northeast India. The motive behind the autonomy movements by tribal groups is largely the dominance of non-tribes over tribes in economic, political, social and cultural spheres. Often, such movements have gone to the extent of cessation from India, with the middle class playing a significant role. At the same time, the middle class has also been instrumental in peace negotiations and accords, thereby integrating people and regions with India. Alongside such political articulation, there has also been the articulation of identity concerning their language, religion, customs and traditions.

The attainment of autonomy in the form of a separate state or regional/district council has not brought the issue of identity articulation to a halt. In areas with a strong tribal presence and significant non-tribal migration, the concern over tribal identity and the fear of becoming a minority in their territory is prominently expressed. Often, such articulation has resulted in a demand for preferential treatment for local tribes, leading to tension and conflict between the groups involved. At times, such tension and conflict have even resulted in violence and loss of lives and property. However, such new middle-class articulation directed against other communities has not remained confined to non-tribal communities alone. It has, at times, moved in the direction of other tribal communities or even groups within the same community, especially in the context where communities in question have competed for greater share and control over limited resources. An apt illustration is a deep cleavage between the Christians and non-Christians, resulting in demands for the de-scheduling of Christian tribes. This cleavage can be seen in more vivid form in Eastern India (Jharkhand, Odisha and Chhattisgarh) but has now spread to other parts of mainland India.

The distinction between the old middle class and the new middle class has come to be well acknowledged with the integration of the tribal society with the state institutions on the one hand and the market economy on the other. However, with globalisation and changes in the organisation of the economy, the distinction is increasingly getting blurred, as most white-collar occupations, which were earlier pursued away from home, are increasingly being pursued from home. In the process, white-collar employment has increasingly taken the shape of self-employment. However, such a phenomenon is marked by the absence in the context of tribal societies, which makes the distinction still valid and important.

The Tribal Middle Class and the Politics of Integration

The nature and type of provisions enshrined in the Constitution point towards tribal people moving in the direction of integration. The provisions aim to ensure their control over their land, resources, language, religion, traditions and customs. These have also been evident in laws enacted from time to time, such as restrictions on the alienation of land from tribes to non-tribes, including restoration of alienated land in many states, the Provisions of Panchayat (Extension to Schedule Areas), Act, 1996, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers Act, 2006. The protective provisions are also enshrined in the Fifth and Sixth schedules of the constitutions and special constitutional status in the form of 371A and 371G for Nagaland and Mizoram, respectively. Along with these provisions, there have also been provisions and policies regarding their representation in political institutions, state employment and higher educational institutions, as well as their economic and social development.

People who have been able to enter these institutions form and represent the new middle class among the tribal population. Their representation in such institutions has been the axis of tribes’ integration with the larger Indian society. However, such integration in India has not been without costs and has been contrary to the spirit of the constitution. The entry to such institution has been contingent on education, which in the case of tribes other than the northeast, has been pursued through the incorporation into the nationalist and sub-nationalist linguistic, religious, and cultural agenda and curriculum. The former is primarily based on the dominant religion and language of the country, and the latter is based on regional/subnational language and culture, of which tribes are not a part. Instead, tribes have their language, history, social organisation and cultural values. However, rather than developing an educational system in consonance with their distinct identity, at least to a certain stage of education, tribes have been constrained to go through a system of education alien to them.

The tribal middle class, other than those of the northeast, thus stands uprooted from the core of their distinct identity as people. Their integration into the larger Indian society is marked off by what may be termed as adverse integration as the assimilationist agenda is built into it. This had also been the trajectory in northeast India, but the middle class was able to resist it. In contrast to the state-led integration of the new middle class, the market has been the key player in integrating the old middle class, including landowners, traders and shopkeepers. The market, which was earlier confined to commodities in the form of buying and selling of goods, has gradually expanded into other forms of market, namely, labour (manual and non-manual) and credit. Tribes are intricately integrated with the rest of Indian society through participation in the state and market institutions. In this, the role of the middle class, especially new, has been pivotal.

Paradoxically, despite such entrenched integration, scholars and commentators keep on raising the issue of integration as the fundamental problem in the context of their engagement with tribes in India. Such an articulation tends to demand something more than political and economic integration. It also demands their social and cultural integration, namely, abandoning their language, religion, culture, customs and traditions in favour of those of the dominant national and subnational identity. In short, under the garb of integration, they demand their assimilation, a perspective contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.