Abstract
During my fieldwork in the summer of 2023, the Adivasis of Khunti district in Jharkhand, led by a Maoist rebel-turned-politician, gathered at the district commissioner’s office to submit a list of demands related to the ongoing land survey for a highway project. Contrary to a common portrayal of Adivasis as hapless victims or rebels, their primary concern was not opposition to the project itself but rather the fairness of the process and securing better compensation for the land being acquired by the state. As one retired schoolteacher in the group remarked, ‘We know the state cannot be trusted, but we know how to deal with them. Our ancestors dealt with them in their times, and we are dealing with them in ours’. I find an echo of this ‘intimate antagonism’ with the modern state in Uday Chandra’s Resistance as Negotiation: Making States and Tribes in the Margins of Modern India, a scholarly masterpiece developed over 15 years of historical research and ethnographic fieldwork (p. 4). The book sheds light on the complex and enduring interactions between Adivasis and the state, interpreting these through the framework of ‘resistance as negotiation’ (p. 22). It explores the overlapping processes of state-making and tribe-making in the margins of modern India, tracing the intricate and entangled story of modern Adivasi self-fashioning.
Chandra, who describes himself as ‘a rogue political scientist among historians and anthropologists’, weaves together several major strands of scholarship, positioning his work at the intersection of history, anthropology and political science (p. 4). He challenges the interpretations offered by Scott (2009) and Shah (2010), which frame the margins as stateless zones and describe their inhabitants as fundamentally resistant to the processes of state formation. Instead, Chandra argues for recognizing the ‘mutual constitution of modern states and their margins and of everyday state and society’ (p. 11). He develops his theoretical framework of resistance as negotiation to emphasize Adivasi engagement with the state, focusing on negotiation—both peaceful and violent—rather than outright negation. Chandra demonstrates that Adivasis not only shaped and moderated state-making processes from below but also co-created ethnopolitical categories that formalized tribal customs and autonomy within legal structures (p. 17). Chandra’s approach departs from top-down narratives on the colonial construction of tribes in India, instead bringing Adivasi agency to the forefront in the processes of state-making and subject formation. He also moves beyond the subaltern studies framework (Guha 1999), which, though recognizing Adivasi agency during rebellions, often frames them as fundamentally opposed to the state. Such frameworks tend to fall into the Weberian dichotomy of secular versus religious, thus interpreting Adivasi politics as inherently antagonistic to the modern rational state. In contrast, Chandra highlights the rational political agency of Adivasis, who have historically engaged with the state-making process from the ground up. He further explores the continuities between various modes of engaging with the state, showing how Adivasis creatively integrate modern political vocabulary with theological and cultural resources, allowing them to reshape their society while simultaneously asserting their claims on the state.
The book offers a historically grounded, empirically detailed and theoretically engaging examination of Adivasi modernity by reinterpreting existing archival records, introducing new materials and drawing on over a decade of ethnographic research conducted in Jharkhand’s Adivasi heartland. It provides a robust conceptual framework for engaging with Adivasi history, politics and identity, transcending reductive binaries to investigate the nuanced interactions between agency, structure and historical trajectories. By rethinking the concept of resistance, unpacking the processes of Adivasi identity formation, and foregrounding the ongoing struggle for recognition and autonomy—deeply embedded in the logics and language of the state—the book facilitates a more refined study of Adivasi agency and experiences in modern India. In doing so, it brings Adivasi voices to the forefront in a rich and compelling narrative.
The book, organized into eight chapters excluding the introduction and conclusion, spans the precolonial to postcolonial period. The first chapter establishes the precolonial context, laying the groundwork to explore the formation of tribes, tribal regions and marginal spaces. Chandra challenges the view of Adivasi communities as static and isolated, instead reconstructing Jharkhand’s precolonial history to reveal its fluid boundaries, extensive interactions and integration into wider political, religious and economic networks. Adivasis, rather than being marginal, were central to trade, tributary systems and political alliances. Chandra argues that their perceived marginality arose from the colonial encounter, as British policies of territorial control, land settlement and classification created distinctions between tribal and non-tribal populations. The chapter dispels the myth of inherent marginality, emphasizing that these margins were shaped by historical power dynamics and co-created through negotiations between the state and local communities. Viewing these margins as fixed overlooks the dynamic histories of regions like Chotanagpur.
Two key themes emerge from this chapter and recur throughout the book: first, the formation of Adivasis as part of the modern state-making process, where they redefined themselves as original inhabitants in both colonial and postcolonial contexts (p. 12); and second, the idea of Adivasi modernity as ‘the newness of the old’, where layers of history and memory intersect, demonstrating both continuity and change in their evolving identity (p. 111).
In chapters 2–4, Chandra operationalizes his theory of resistance as negotiation by examining three major Adivasi uprisings in nineteenth-century Jharkhand: the Kol Insurrection (1831–1832), the Santal Hul (1855–1856) and the Birsaite Ulgulan (1895–1901). He challenges the conventional view of these rebellions as primitive outbursts, instead depicting them as calculated responses to colonial state-building, the agrarian order and the dominance of zamindars and moneylenders. These uprisings aimed to reclaim land, resist exploitation and reshape Adivasi socio-political structures. Rather than rejecting the state entirely, these movements sought to renegotiate their relationship with colonial authorities, addressing grievances such as land alienation and economic oppression.
Chandra highlights how the colonial state, operating with a paternalistic primitivist ideology, responded not only with repression but also with concessions, such as recognizing customary land rights through the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act of 1908, enacted after the Birsa Ulgulan. Adivasi resistance significantly influenced colonial governance, forcing the state to accommodate their demands and thereby shaping the state-making process. The diverse strategies Adivasis employed—from armed resistance to legal petitions—reflect their adaptability and engagement with colonial structures. Though eventually suppressed, these uprisings left a lasting impact on colonial policies, embedding Adivasi agency within a system intended to marginalize them, and their legacy continues to shape contemporary struggles for rights and autonomy. Chandra also observes that British codification of land ownership intensified internal differentiation among Adivasis, especially towards the end of the Raj.
Chapters 5 and 6 provide an ethnographic analysis of postcolonial state-making and Adivasi resistance in Chotanagpur, examining the complex relationship between the state and Adivasi communities. Following the rejection of Jharkhand’s demand by the States Reorganisation Commission in 1956, which marginalized Adivasi voices, Chandra revisits the internal colonialism framework through a ‘state-in-society’ approach to better understand this marginalization (p. 192). He demonstrates the state’s entanglement with societal structures and alliances across state/non-state and Adivasi/non-Adivasi lines, exposing internal divisions within Adivasi communities that complicate unified resistance. Chandra highlights how Adivasis, rather than merely resisting, strategically engage with state-led development, actively shaping their relationship with the postcolonial state. He links the rise of ‘democratic authoritarianism’ to the emergence of Adivasi political actors, reflecting the state’s integration with local dynamics (p. 143). Chandra examines peaceful resistance efforts like the Koel-Karo anti-dam movement, highlighting how such efforts, while effective in negotiation, often reinforced state structures, limiting transformative potential. He also observes a shift towards violent claim-making as Adivasis confront contradictions in postcolonial development and democratic principles. These chapters reveal how Adivasis navigate and reshape the political landscape from India’s postcolonial margins.
Chapters 7 and 8 delve into the socio-political dynamics of twenty-first-century Jharkhand, where young Adivasis, disillusioned with both the postcolonial state and traditional leadership, increasingly embraced Maoist insurgency to pursue radical change. These youth not only challenged state power but also sought to dismantle internal hierarchies within Adivasi society, advocating a ‘tribal modernity’ that rejected narratives of primitiveness (p. 241). Drawing on both historical Adivasi resistance and Maoist ideology, they aimed to reshape their communities. Chandra illustrates how insurgency and social protest blurred the lines between state and society, with multiple overlapping sovereignties emerging as village elders, rebellious youth and NGOs exercised various forms of authority. The shift from armed insurgency to participation in electoral politics by former rebels further redefined Adivasi struggles, with ex-insurgents taking on roles as state representatives, attempting to remake rural society according to their visions. Chandra also highlights the internal divisions within Adivasi communities, driven by intergenerational conflict and socioeconomic inequality, which complicated the evolving political order. This political landscape, shaped by shared sovereignties and overlapping authorities, underscores the fluid and intertwined nature of state-making and resistance in rural Jharkhand.
The book offers a detailed exploration of Adivasi resistance, breaking down binaries like rebellion versus assimilation, violence versus nonviolence, and state versus society. It highlights the intertwined relationship between the state and Adivasis, showing how they navigate legal, political and cultural frameworks to shape state-making processes. By moving beyond rigid dichotomies, the book advocates for rethinking theories of resistance and sovereignty in marginal spaces characterized by fluid boundaries, continuity and change. It underscores a processual understanding of state–society relations, where both political subjects and the state evolve in tandem with modes of resistance.
The book provides valuable insights into Adivasi politics but leaves room for further inquiry in certain areas. First, its analysis could have been strengthened by a more detailed engagement with contemporary developments, such as the formation of Jharkhand as an Adivasi state, the shifting dynamics of electoral democracy and the increasing influence of Hindu nationalism. These factors have been pivotal in shaping Adivasi identity, representation and autonomy, and a deeper exploration of these themes could have offered a more nuanced understanding of Adivasi politics and its interactions with state power and communal tensions. Second, while the resistance-as-negotiation framework has offered a compelling lens, its emphasis on state-centric interactions could have been broadened to include alternative forms of resistance that extend beyond direct engagements with the state. Intra-community tensions, tribe–caste relations and inter-tribal conflicts have highlighted the complexity of Adivasi political dynamics and suggest the importance of a more decentralized perspective. Expanding the scope in this way could have provided a richer and more comprehensive account of the varied forms of Adivasi resistance.
Nonetheless, as questions of autonomy, religious identity and Scheduled Tribe status intensify—particularly in Jharkhand—Resistance as Negotiation proves both provocative and generative. It offers valuable insights and encourages further scholarship on the complexities of Adivasi political dynamics. This is an essential text for scholars of Adivasi studies, political theory and the anthropology of the state in India.