Abstract
Very recently, precisely in February 2025, top anthropologists of the country, in a roundtable discussion, called for a paradigm shift in the way India defines a tribe. The discussion was held under the auspices of the Indian Anthropology Congress in the headquarters of the state-of-the-art auditorium of the Anthropological Survey of India (AnSI) in Kolkata. A broad consensus was reached during the discussion for developing a scale to distinguish tribal populations from caste-based and “mainstream” communities in India. The discussants included, among others, senior officials of the AnSI and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST). Is not it surprising that even after 93 years of what Ghurye (2008) said in 1932, “that a caste and a tribe are two ends of the same scale”; the “top anthropologists” of the country were still brainstorming over a roundtable discussion to discover the criteria to develop a “spectrum of triableness” for classifying whether a community is a caste or a tribe? The roundtable discussion raised three questions in a listener’s mind: first, whether the concept of tribe, as enunciated by the British social anthropologists during the exploration-cum-colonization period, was applicable in letter and spirit in the context of Indian tribes? Second, why the American, Chinese, and Canadian anthropologists and their respective governments do not refer to their indigenous populations as “tribe”; instead, they refer to them by different nomenclatures, such as Native Americans or American Indians in the United States, Ethnic Minorities in China, and First Nations in Canada? And third, why did Service (1962) publish his four classifications of the stages of “social evolution and political organizations” into band, tribe, chiefdom, and state/kingdom?
The editorial discusses the British, American, and Indian concept of “tribe,” besides probing into the history of the term itself. The British concept of tribe developed during the exploration-cum-colonization period, when European travelers and explorers (British in particular) confronted the indigenous populations of newly discovered lands in different parts of the globe. The British social anthropologists called such people “tribes.” American anthropologists considered the term “tribe” as pejorative and colonial; hence, they called them by different nomenclature. The Indian concept of the term is shrouded in ambiguity. Tribes in India are only those groups of people who have been listed and notified as scheduled tribes (STs) by an order of the President of the Republic of India. This has created a quandary situation since independence, because many groups are such that they qualify to be included in the list of the STs as per the criteria laid down by the government, but have been deprived. And on the contrary, many such groups, though they do not qualify, but have been enjoying all the constitutional privileges and safeguards enshrined in the constitution. Let us examine this complex issue threadbare.
The earliest reference to the term is found in the Old Testament, which refers to the 12 groups of Israelites, named after the sons of Jacob (also known as Israel), who formed the core of the Hebrew people. It meant a collection of families descending from one ancestor. The “12 tribes” of the Hebrews were the 12 collections of families that sprang from the sons of Jacob.
The second reference for the term “tribe” comes from ancient Rome, where “tribus” denoted a division within the state. The modern English word “tribe” stems from Middle English tribu, which ultimately derives from tribus.
To understand the concept of tribe in anthropology, one has to delve into the period of exploration-cum-colonization. During this period, whichever traveler and/or explorer from any country on the European continent first hoisted the national flag on a newly discovered land, it ultimately turned out to be the colony of that nation. Thus began the European colonization of far-off and unexplored lands in the world. The major European countries involved in the “race for colonization” included Portugal, Spain, England, France, and the Netherlands. Later, Germany, Italy, and Belgium also joined the race. The period of European colonialism spanned from the late fifteenth century to the mid-twentieth century. During this period, European nations colonized vast areas of the world, with the peak of colonial expansion occurring before World War I.
No sooner had any European nation occupied a newly discovered land than the Christian missionaries and the colonial administrators began to flock there. Both worked hand in glove in their vested interests and began to write monographs on the indigenous peoples inhabiting the land. The missionaries immediately learned their language to transcribe the Bible in the local tongue in Roman script, opened a school and a hospital, and began proselytizing the indigenous population. The colonial administrators, with a view to understanding them, studied their religious beliefs and practices, rituals, customs and superstitions, social, economic, political, kinship organizations, and so on, with a view to ensure smooth administration without any hassle and hostility with the indigenous people. They wrote an enormous number of papers, monographs, gazetteers, and so on. Thus, the missionaries and the colonial administrators worked in close association with each other to achieve their respective goals.
This resulted into a huge amount of the so-called “savage literature” that piled up in European libraries. During the mid-nineteenth century, such intellectuals as Herbert Spencer, E. B. Tylor, J. F. McLennan, Adolf Bastian, J. J. Bachofen, Sir James Frazer, and others in Europe, and L. H. Morgan in America, were very keen on studying the so-called “savage literature.” They compared them with the then Euro–American culture, compared them among one another, and formulated theories and concepts based on “similarities and differences” between cultures. The genesis of anthropology as a scientific discipline could be sought in the writings of the aforementioned scholars.
Of all the European nations, Britain had occupied the vastest unexplored lands on the planet. The British Empire comprised the entire Australia, New Zealand, Tasmania, many islands of the Western Pacific, Canada, India, South Africa, and many other small and big nations of Asia and Africa. The British social anthropologists called the indigenous peoples of their empire “tribes.” No wonder India, under the British Raj, adopted the same term for those people who lived in or near the forests, hills, deserts, and various other difficult terrains. American anthropologists largely stopped using the term “tribe” to refer to indigenous populations due to the term’s perceived pejorative connotations stemming from colonialism and its perceived lack of analytical precision. The term “tribe,” according to them, gained negative connotations in the colonial context, often being used to describe “primitive” or less civilized societies.
Let’s also try to understand the notion of tribes in India through the Census Reports during the British Raj. Though the process of conducting the census in India began as early as 1872 under the leadership of Lord Mayo, however, the first countrywide census was undertaken in 1881 by W. C. Plowden, who was the first Census Commissioner of India. In the earlier censuses from 1872 to 1891, there was no formal definition of census categories for caste, race, or tribe. In the 1891 census, Jats and Rajputs were recorded as both castes and tribes. In the 1901 census, the category of “tribe” was formally adopted in India. In the 1931 census, the first serious attempt to enlist communities as “primitive tribes” was made. In the 1935 act passed by the British Parliament, for the first time, provision was made for representation of “Backward Tribes” in Provincial Legislatures, and a list of Backward Tribes was notified in 1936 for all the provinces except Punjab and Bengal. In public services also, reservations were made in certain categories of posts.
In this context, it is also important to refer that the teaching of anthropology began in Calcutta University in 1920 as an independent subject of study. Very naturally, the courses of anthropology that were taught in Oxford and Cambridge and other universities of the United Kingdom were also introduced in most of the universities of the British Empire. India remained no exception to the rule. And thus, the British concept of “tribe” also percolated into Indian anthropology.
The above two factors: first, the inclusion of “primitive communities” as a category of “Backward Tribes” in the Census of India, and second, the beginning of the courses of anthropology in Calcutta University, officially consolidated the British concept of “tribes” in India, which in my opinion, did not fit into the context of the “so-called” Indian tribes. It was a misnomer because the indigenous peoples whom the Europeans first encountered had lived in complete “geographical” and “social” isolation since time immemorial, whereas the so-called “primitive communities” in India lived only in “comparative” social and “geographical isolation.”
Therefore, the connotations that were applied by the Europeans for defining the indigenous peoples of the newly discovered lands as “tribes,” did not fit into the tribal communities of India. The so-called Indian tribes had never lived in “complete social and geographical isolation” ever since their known history, whereas the exact dates and years of the arrival of the Europeans in all the newly discovered lands are well known. For example, Christopher Columbus arrived in the “New World” (the Americas) on October 12, 1492, landing on an island in the Bahamas, which he named San Salvador. In 1770, Lieutenant James Cook charted the east coast of Australia and claimed it for Great Britain. He returned to London with accounts favoring colonization at Botany Bay (now in Sydney). The First Fleet of British ships arrived at Botany Bay in January 1788 with a view to establishing a penal colony.
The tribes in India have always remained in socio-economic and religious interactions with their neighboring castes since time immemorial. Even the most ancient and revered epics of India, written thousands of years before—the Ramayana and Mahabharata, both mention various tribal groups. The Ramayana highlights the presence of groups like the Bhils, Gonds, Kol, and others, and the Mahabharata refers to tribes like the Sakas, Yavanas, Kiratas, and so on. Indian history is thousands and thousands of years old. No European ever discovered India, as they discovered the New World, Australia, New Zealand, and so on. In this context, it is very apt to quote (Keay, 2013), who writes, “Thomas Twinning wrote in 1790, … (that) Indian history was like some deep Aladdin’s cave. The outer chambers were well lit…, but beyond them the cave was in darkness. How far back it went no one could tell” (page 15).
Therefore, the Indian tribes could best be understood in juxtaposition with the caste with whom they have interacted for ages. Both are social groups; both have distinct identities; both have institutions to settle disputes among the members of their respective groups; the castes have the “caste-panchayats,” and every tribe has its “tribal-council”; both are endogamous groups; both observe clan exogamy; and so on. However, whereas a caste is an “occupational” group, a tribe is considered “multi-occupational.” In a similar vein, whereas a tribe—as per the criteria of British social anthropology—is necessarily a “linguistic group,” a caste is “multilingual.”
Before the advent of the British and the missionaries, and exposure to education and modernization, the tribes in India seldom needed the help of any occupational group in their day-to-day life. They even constructed their mud or thatched houses themselves. In a way, they did all sundry works by themselves; hence, they were considered multi-occupational. On the other hand, every caste is an occupational group because the very origin of castes is based upon occupation.
Likewise, every tribe, howsoever big or small it may be in number, must be a linguistic group (as per the British social anthropology). In fact, all the indigenous peoples whom the Europeans discovered had their own language. In India also, all the major tribes have their languages, such as Kurukh of the Oraon, Mundari of the Munda, Santali of the Santal, and so on and so forth. Whereas the castes are multilingual groups. For example, a Brahmin speaks Kashmiri in Kashmir, Tamil in Tamil Nadu, Malayalam in Kerala, Assamese in Assam, and so on.
Let’s briefly discuss the timeline of categorization of “STs” in the Indian Constitution. The Indian Constitution recognizes STs, and the power to define them rests with the President of the Republic of India, through Article 342(1) and Article 366(25), which were first introduced on September 17, 1949. The Dhebar Commission was appointed in 1960 to study the development of STs in India. The commission’s report led to the creation of the “Primitive Tribal Groups” (PTGs) sub-category, which was later renamed “Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups” (PVTGs) in 2006. The Lokur Committee, officially the Advisory Committee on the Revision of Lists of scheduled castes (SCs) and STs, was constituted in 1965 to advise the government on revising the lists of SCs and STs in a “rational and scientific manner,” focusing on identifying communities based on specific criteria. The NCST was established through the constitution (89th Amendment) Act, 2003, which came into force on February 19, 2004, by bifurcating the National Commission for SCs and STs and creating a separate commission under Article 338A to oversee the implementation of safeguards for STs.
Any discussion on the tribes in India and the measures undertaken by the government for their upliftment in post-independent India would remain incomplete without mentioning Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar and Amritpal Vithaldas Thakkar (popularly called Thakkar Bapa). B. R. Ambedkar was deeply concerned with the plight of STs and SCs in India, viewing them as vulnerable and marginalized groups facing similar challenges. He recognized their backwardness, advocated for their social, economic, and political empowerment, and ensured their rights and welfare were enshrined in the Indian Constitution. As Chairman of the Constituent Assembly, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar ensured to incorporate in the constitution the policies to provide social rights and protection for the tribal communities. He also proposed the constitution of a committee to focus on educating the tribal communities. Very few anthropologists know that Ambedkar had studied anthropology also in Columbia University in 1915. Thakkar Bapa, a prominent Indian social worker, also played a significant role in advocating for the upliftment of tribal communities and was deeply involved in the process of constitution making, particularly regarding the inclusion of tribal rights.
In this context, it is also desirable here to mention about the two Commissions constituted by the Government of India, namely, the Renke Commission (2006–2008) and the Idate Commission (2014–2018), to address the issues relating to Denotified Tribes (DNTs), Nomadic Tribes (NTs), and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (SNTs), whose number, according to 2001 census, was 10.74 crores. The Renke Commission was headed by Balkrishna Sidram Renke, and the Idate Commission was chaired by Bhiku Ramji Idate.
Constitutionally defined characteristic features of STs in India, such as Primitive Traits, Geographical Isolation, Distinctive Culture, Shyness of Contact with the Community at Large, Backwardness, and so on, indeed appear to be vague. More scientific and sharper tool is, of course, needed to determine a community, whether it could be enlisted as ST or not? In this context, Ghurye’s maxim that “a caste and a tribe are two ends of the same scale” still holds significance (which we have earlier referred to). In addition, the concept of “tribe-caste continuum” by Sinha (1965), and the concept of “Sanskritization” of Srinivas (1952) will also be helpful to anthropologically examine the “spectrum of triableness” for classifying whether a community is a caste or a tribe, with some additions and deletions. Sinha developed the concept of “tribe-caste continuum” in his study of the Bhumij tribe of the central India. Sinha was inspired by Robert Redfield’s two concepts, namely, “folk-urban continuum” and “peasant society and culture.” And, according to Srinivas, “Sanskritization” is a process by which a lower caste, or tribe, or any other group changes its customs, rituals, ideology, and way of life in the direction of a higher, or more often, twice-born caste.
Whether it is Ghurye, Sinha, or Srinivas, one thing appears to be common in their concepts, that is, they all highlight the “social and cultural mobility” of a community—be it a caste or a tribe. However, none of them, it appears, has adequately focused on the causes of such “mobility.” It is generally understood that the main reason for such fluidity in mobility in a community is because of long interaction between the two communities at a given time and space. But it requires a deeper probe to ascertain the ultimate causes of such mobility. It is sometimes puzzling that why not any of the aforementioned doyens of Indian anthropology of the previous century did not take into consideration the “material and/or technological” aspect (precisely the subsistence technology), either in defining a tribe or a caste, or explaining its social and cultural mobility. Even the defining characteristics of a tribe in the Indian Constitution (as mentioned in an earlier paragraph) do not mention the level of subsistence technology of a caste or a tribe.
At the time when Srinivas worked among the Coorgs, “purity and pollution” was the yardstick to determine the social hierarchy of any community in rural India. Therefore, every community attempted to adopt the lifestyle of its neighboring community to enhance its social status. Much water has flowed down the Ganges since Srinivas’ work. Today, “power, politics, and economy” determine the social and economic status of any community in democratic India. Due to the “adult franchise” power and politics are yielded by the groups who are demographically more in number. Obviously, the groups that hold more political power today, their economies also become stronger. The “constitutional privileges and safeguards” to the STs and SCs in India have further accelerated the social change in the country. The material conditions of such communities, which were earlier comparatively at the receiving end, have now been holding more political power than those who enjoyed higher social status earlier because of the criteria of purity and pollution. It is for these reasons that hundreds of memoranda are laying before the Commissions that look after the interests of the STs and SCs by different communities for inclusion of their groups in the list of ST and/or SC. If, merely, the constitutional privileges and safeguards to the ST and SC communities are abrogated; hypothetically, no wonder, the criteria of “purity and pollution” would again come to the fore, for the communities to enhance their social hierarchy. There are numerous examples in which a community once attempted to adopt the lifestyle of its neighboring community of higher social hierarchy, but soon after the independence of India and the coming into force of the Indian Constitution, it began to claim its tribal origin. Why is it so? Is not it because of the constitutional privileges and safeguards?
For example, the Kurmi community of South Bihar (now Jharkhand), joined the Kurmi Mahasabha in 1931—a caste-based organization of North India. The Jharkhand Kurmis began practicing most of the Hindu rituals, marrying with the Kurmi caste of North Bihar, employing Brahmin priests to perform rituals in marriage ceremonies and other religious function, and so on, to claim themselves as being a caste; and thereby, enhance their social status and distinguish themselves from the neighboring tribal societies. But they soon realized that their neighboring tribal communities, like the Mundas and the Oraons, and others were fast progressing because of the constitutional privileges and safeguards granted by the Indian Constitution. The Kurmis of Jharkhand, despite being numerically one of the strongest communities, lagged behind their tribal counterparts in terms of jobs, scholarships, and all other constitutional privileges. As a result, after the formation of states in 1956 on a linguistic basis, they began to distance themselves from the Kurmi Mahasabha of North India. They claimed their tribal origin and identity as Kudmi—a tribe, not Kurmi—a caste. They also launched strong movements to compel the government to include them in the list of STs. Numerous such cases could be found with different communities in different parts of the country.
Listing or delisting of any community among the STs rests in the powers vested with the President of the Republic of India through Article 342(1) and Article 366(25). The interest of the central and the state governments both is to protect the marginal communities and ensure their upliftment at par with the mainstream communities. Therefore, their criteria to define a tribe would obviously be different from those of anthropologists. For example, many such communities that live in the Himalayan region of Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand like the Thakurs (Rajputs) and Brahmins, enjoy the status of a tribe and caste both. Whereas many communities listed as ST in one state are considered SC, or in the category of other backward classes (OBC), in the adjoining state, such and many other anomalies continue to prevail throughout the country. Likewise, many communities do not qualify to be ST by anthropologists, yet they have been listed as ST either by the central or state governments.
After all is said and done, the dichotomy of the “spectrum of triableness” for classifying whether a community is a caste or a tribe could be, to a great extent, resolved by the help of certain anthropological theories and concepts, namely, materialist theories of culture, and the energy theory of White (1959). There are four materialist theories: Historical Materialism and Dialectical Materialism of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Cultural Materialism of Marvin Harris, and Human Materialism of Paul J. Magnarella (for all the materialist theories, see Sahay, 2024, pp. 257–271). Of all the materialist theories, historical materialism is the most important. The rest of the theories are basically built upon it. The basic tenets of the historical materialism are as follows: Infrastructure is the cause of structure and superstructure of a society. A change in subsistence technology (i.e., infrastructure) brings subsequent changes in structure and superstructure in a society.
Infrastructure in historical materialism includes only the mode of production, that is, the subsistence technology by which a group ekes out its living—whether by hunting and gathering, or by horticulture, or by intensive agriculture, or by pastoralism, and so on. Accordingly, its structure, that is, “Social Structure” (domestic and political economy), and also the superstructure, that is, beliefs, rituals, magic and religion, science, and so on.
Let us examine in brief, White’s theory of cultural evolution. Emphasizing upon the importance of “energy” and “technology,” White presents the following equation:
“E” stands for amount of “energy” (particularly the muscle power), and “T” stands for number of “tools and technology” employed by a group for its subsistence. Accordingly, when a group exerts more muscle power to eke out its living, and has a less number of tools and technology at its disposal, the level of cultural development of that group is low; and contrarily, if the group exerts a lesser amount of muscle power to meet its subsistence, and has a more number of tools and technology, the cultural development of that group would be at a higher level.
Hopefully, whenever the next “brainstorming roundtable” discussion is organized by the “top anthropologists” of the country, to ascertain “What makes a tribe” and attempt to “Developing a scale to distinguish tribal populations from caste-based and ‘mainstream’ communities,” they would take into consideration the materialist theories and that of White too. Thus, only, the quintessential scale for the purpose could be developed perhaps!