Abstract
Various forms of protest such as rail-road roko and election boycott have been displayed by the Kurmi community to show their strength and legitimacy in their claim for Scheduled tribe status. By analysing pre-independence census data by British anthropologists, their study of culture and tribal way of life, and current socio-economic and political standing, the authors have attempted to trace the location of Kurmis (Mahto) of Chotanagpur region in the indigeneity discourse and their claim for ST status.
In Jharkhand, the Kurmi community has been demanding Scheduled Tribe (ST) status for a long time. The Kurmis are negotiating with the State for their inclusion in the list of Scheduled Tribes and recognition of Kudmali language (Grierson, 1903) as an official language in the 8th schedule of the Indian Constitution, through various contestations and devices such as boycotting local elections (Dainik Bhaskar, 2023) and Rail and rasta roko (Daily Pioneer, 2023; Prabhat Khabar, 2023) (Times of India, 2023). The basis of their claim lies in the pre-independence historical fact of their inclusion as ST in the Scheduled Tribes list of 1931 (Census of India, 1931, 1951; Hutton, 1931; Layaquiddin, 1937).
These questions could have been easier to decode if we could have understood how modernity has translated into the lives of tribals, and how it is being interpreted by them. Some of these questions have been touched upon by leading Indian sociologists like G. S. Ghurye, M. N. Srinivas and Andre Béteille. Ghurye (1959) rejected the view of Adivasi as aboriginals and labelled them as ‘Backward Hindus’ with the reasoning that they were born and bred the same as caste-Hindus. Srinivas (1966) also provided the assimilation narrative of Adivasis into the caste-Hindu fold by identifying the Sanskritization process where they aspire to incorporate the practices and rituals of the Hindus for contesting symbolic claims to Kshatriya status. Similarly, Béteille and Nandini Sundar have also talked of ‘co-existence’ of Adivasis and non-Adivasis, unlike the aboriginal narrative given by Xaxa (Bhukya, 2021; Sundar, 2005; Xaxa, 1999).
Next, we will see how similar debates on indigeneity and backward Hindus are also reflected in the Kurmi community.
While some scholars have suggested Kurmis of Chotanagpur as an aboriginal tribe (Dalton, 1872; SenGupta, 1988, p. 1003), others have seen Kurmis as backward Hindus trying to assert themselves to be recognized as Kshatriyas (Coupland, 1911; Nanda, 1999). Nanda argues that in the perception of the upper caste Hindus, Kurmis were marginalized and bracketed with other Tribals since they were of low caste. Hence, facing alienation from the Hindu society and socially distanced from the Tribals, Kurmi activism involved reconstruction of their identity to assert themselves as Kshatriyas by incorporating Kshatriya practices such as restrictions on sangha (widow remarriage), drinking liqueurs like Mahua/Hadiya (rice beer) and many more (Nanda, 1999). Political assertion attempts were also made by the dominant section among Kurmis, that is, Kurmis of Bihar, by forming the All-India Kurmi Kshatriya Mahasabha in 1894 to mobilize all parallel Kurmi castes from as far as Gujarat in the West and Andhra in the South, but negated their Chotanagpur (Mahto) Kurmi neighbours till 1924 (SenGupta, 1988). Although ignored by the Kurmis of Bihar, a similar Kshatriyazation movement among the Kurmi Mahtos was reinforced by Congress social reformers (Mehta, 1982). Simultaneously, a Gossaiyan movement had also begun among the Kurmi Mahtos of Chotanagpur to prevent their assimilation with an alien culture (Jha, 2009; SenGupta, 1980, p. 665).
Later, with the support of Brahmins, who didn’t much resist and historically also never objected to having water offered by Kurmis of Bihar 1 (Morgan, 1877; Risley, 1892, 1915) and non-resistance from the colonial authorities, Kurmis were recognized as a caste instead of a tribe by 1931 (Nanda, 1999). This also had an impact on governmentality in the form of a shift from ST to the OBC category in 1951. This was also reflected in the Census of 1961, where the Kurmi community were completely omitted as compared to Census of 1951 where Mitra (Census of India, 1951: 80) mentioned of Kurmis (Mahto) of Chotanagpur having tribal customs, unlike the Kurmis of Bihar who were orthodox Hindus.
Despite their distinctiveness and political subordination of the Kurmis (Mahto) of Chotanagpur region by their superior Bihar counterparts, the Chotanagpur section fell prey to the latter’s narrative towards assertion into the Hindu fold. There was no resistance from the Chotanagpur Kurmis in this narrative towards upward mobility because of lack of opinion and visible leadership from this region, resulting in conforming to the interest of the larger group.
In this article, the authors particularly focus on the Kurmis of Chotanagpur (Mahto) and argue that they were always connected with nature and their original animistic practices continue till date even after the Sanskritization influences (Jha, 2009, p. 15).
Distinctiveness of Mahto Kurmis of Chotanagpur
According to Risley (1892), Kurmi Mahto in Jharkhand (then Chotanagpur) were a ‘Hinduized branch of Santhals’; He also mentioned that the Kurmis of Bihar were a different race from the aboriginal Kurmis (Mahto) of Chotanagpur. They have animistic beliefs, which are characteristic of the Dravidian races but also overlapped by the thinnest coating of conventional Hinduism (Risley, 1892). Even the lived experiences of the author’s observations in this discourse have been that though the Kurmis (Mahto) of Chotanagpur have partially assimilated within the Hindu fold but they could never be alienated from their animistic roots and their closeness with nature (Singh, 1985). Hence resulting in the terminology of twice-born caste, one inherited from the aboriginal ancestors and the other which was put on them in the upward caste mobility narrative process. The practice of jajmaan (followers) and bhagwaan (believers) still has a huge influence on the everyday lives of the subaltern Jharkhandi Kurmis.
The Kurmis (Mahto) of Chotanagpur have totemic practices, unlike the Bihar Kurmis. Such totemic customs prevent them from harming, eating, or cutting the plants/animals to which they belong as given in Table 1. Such customs also prohibit a man/woman from the same totem to marry in the Kurmi Mahto community. Kurmi Mahto marriages also take place according to similar animistic tribal practices of Munda and Mahli tribes, which involve marrying a tree first. On the wedding morning, the bride marries a Mahua tree, whereas the bridegroom marries a mango tree. After that, the bride wears a bracelet of the leaves of the mahua on her right wrist and walks around the tree seven times. Her right hand and right ear are tied to the Mahua tree with thread and are made to chew mahua leaves. Similarly, the groom also follows the same ritual in a mango tree but circles nine times instead of seven.
Some of the Totems of Kurmi Mahto.
Even Singh (2005) has reflected upon Kurmis of Chotanagpur having tribal antecedence for their totemistic cultural similarities and their interdependence on forests like the tribals. He has further elaborated on their hunter–gatherer extensive knowledge about plants, roots and trees used as food or medicine. Other than the above, they are mainly primitive agriculturist and celebrates agricultural and nature-related thirteen festivals in a year from Aakhine to Tusu. Unlike Kurmis from Bihar, for Chotanagpur counterparts it is a celebration of their connectedness with nature like in Rohin parav (festival) they start sowing seeds in their fields and pray to nature’s superpowers and ancestors after offering three handfuls of paddy seeds for better yield and protection. Karam is also an important parav marking the celebration of paddy crop before germination and is celebrated by unmarried girls (Kumar, 2019). Similarly, mothers celebrate Jituwa parav by worshipping the banyan tree for the welfare of their children. The celebration of human–animal relationship is seen in Bandana or Sohorai festival, celebrated by all tribes and Kurmis across the Chotanagpur region at the time of cultivation. This festive period traditionally also involved repairing and renovating mud houses with several types of soils. And after harvest, Tusu is celebrated by all with folk songs and dance around chaudal (Mohanta, 2011). Later during spring when the mountains, the forests and the tree are in full bloom, Sarhul is celebrated by Kurmi Mahtos along with their other neighbours like the Mundas, Santhals, Hos, etc., worshipping Sal flower.
From the above discussion we see how despite Kurmi’s exclusion from the list of Scheduled Tribes after 1931 (Devalle, 1989), Kurmi Mahtos still maintain their traditional culture which shows in their life cycle and annual rituals and festivals.
Socio-economic and Political Standing of Kurmi (Mahto) of Chotanagpur Region
The low socio-economic condition and way of living of the Kurmi Mahtos have been stated to be similar to the tribals by several scholars and statesmen (SenGupta, 1980, p. 666; Prakash, 2001, p. 92; Janardhan Yadav in Rajya Sabha debates Mar 1997; The Constitutional ST Order Amendment Bill, 2017). Even today the otherness of the Kurmis of Chotanagpur region by the elite Bihar counterparts is quite evident in their culinary food habits, limited marriage proposals, political participation and occupation (agriculturists–forest dwellers).
Kurmi Mahtos have been demanding their inclusion in the ST List since the 1970s (SenGupta, 1980) based on their backwardness and inadequate political representation in contrast to Kurmis of Bihar who comprise only 2% of the Bihar population but still have strong dominance in politics and administration in Bihar (The Print, 2020). Their socio-economic status is also accentuated in the classification of Kurmis of Bihar as OBC, while Kurmi (Mahto) of Chotanagpur comes under Extremely backward Class (EBC) in Jharkhand (The Indian Express, 2023). Kanaujiya Kurmis of UPs are also historically well off and hegemonically politically superior as compared to the Kurmi (Mahto). Due to lack of political assertion by the Kurmi Mahtos, they have always been victims of decisions being taken on their behalf by their dominant counterparts.
The Kurmis (Mahto) and tribals having similar socio-economic backwardness also resulted in the alliance of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) comprising of leaders such as Binod Bihari Mahto, Shibu Soren and Sadananda Jha, who later played a major role in the state formation of Jharkhand (Prakash, 2001).
Politics of Reservation and Representation
Affluent Kurmis(Mahto) tried to negotiate with the State to fall outside the Tribal identity and climb the social standing hierarchy as Kshatriyas. But only the Kurmis of Bihar and Ayodhya were able to climb the sociopolitical hierarchy while the Kurmis of Chotanagpur were left behind. Leaders of Kurmis of Chotanagpur like B.B. Mahto worked towards social reformation and economic upliftment by restoring alienated lands lost during industrialization. The common theme of marginalization of Kurmi Mahtos and tribals got them together in JMM to fight for bifurcation from Bihar but their demand to be included in the ST list was never encouraged by the tribals.
Only in 2004, the Arjun Munda led BJP government recognized their demand and recommended their inclusion in the ST List.
Currently, the ST scheduling process involves first receiving recommendation proposals from State Governments/UTs which are then scrutinized by Registrar General of India (RGI) and National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) and take the help of Tribal Research Institutes of respective states. But even after much criticism of the criteria for scheduling of ST status by the Task Force formed by Ministry of Tribal Affairs in 2004 (The Hindu, 2023), it remains the same, namely, (a) Primitive traits, (b) distinctive culture, (c) geographical isolation, (d) shyness of contact with community at large, (e) backwardness.
The proposal for inclusion of Kurmi Mahto in the ST list was studied by Dr Ramdayal Munda Tribal Welfare Research Institute (TRI, Jharkhand) and on report dated 23 November 2020, TRI found them ineligible to be rescheduled as STs. The reasoning stated includes lack of primitive characteristics, having comparatively stronger socio-economic, political and educational background; their non-hesitation in contacting people from other communities, especially Hindus and having no social stigmas like untouchability among them.
But in terms of political representation, an analysis of the Jharkhand political history would show that top-level political posts of the state mostly remained within the dominant ST tribal groups of Santhal, Oraon and Mundas whose population comprises around 27% as per the 2011 Census. Over the years, this has resulted in mounting resentment of the Kurmis (Mahto) of Jharkhand because most of the Kurmi organizations feel that they have inadequate political representation in comparison to their population which is also estimated to be around 27% (The Constitutional (ST) Order Amendment Bill, 2017). Further, even though after post-independence they failed to be reckoned in the ST list, the Britishers had included them in the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 in the State of Jharkhand, where sale and purchase of land was restricted only among the people of the same tribe in the list.
The current reservation in Jharkhand is given in Table 2.
Current Reservation Policy.
Currently, Kurmis are eligible for reservation under Backward class Annexure I (BC I) which is 8%. The Tribal reservation is currently reserved for 32 Scheduled Tribes in Jharkhand and is mostly dominated by the Santhal, Munda and Oraon.
The dominant tribal group comprising of Santhals, Mundas and Oraons fear that the inclusion of the Kurmis as the 33rd Tribal group would disrupt the power balance and shake their dominant position in decision-making. Hence to satiate the Kurmis contestation for ST status, a makeshift solution was devised by the State to stabilize the discontentment, by passing the amendment of Jharkhand Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Service Act, 2001 and bringing in 77% reservation for SC, ST, BC, OBC and EWS. Jharkhand Government has also requested the Central Government to include this Act in the 9th Schedule since it violates the 50% reservation limit set by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case. Although tribal-dominated states such as AP, Mizoram, Meghalaya and Nagaland have ensured around 80% ST reservation through this constitutional route.
The proposed reservation bill is given in Table 3.
Proposed Reservation Slab.
Kurmis (Mahto) will be a part of EBC (extremely backward caste) and get reservation in jobs and education seats up to 15% if the act is to be implemented but the demand for adequate political representation in State Legislative Assembly would remain a distant dream. ST status for Kurmis would also require the state mechanism to record their population. In turn, an increased population of all Tribal groups would make them eligible for an increased representation percentage in political, economic and educational representation in the State.
Conclusion
In this article, the authors have attempted to trace the location of Kurmis (Mahto) of Chotanagpur region in the indigeneity discourse and their claim for ST status. Their ongoing movement highlights the current challenges and politicization of the Scheduled tribe definition and its Scheduling in the context of indigenous identity. Categorization of Tribal communities has varied ranging from being considered animistic by the colonial census authorities to being considered tribals as autochthons, that is, them being first settlers who were pushed to the forest and hills by the Aryan invaders. But it is problematic to see tribals having homogenous identity as there can be seen a lot of variations among them based on the area, they live in. As compared to the mainland tribes, the North-Eastern tribal’s indigenous identity could be retained to a greater extent due to isolation from the outsider, as the Britishers never crossed the Inner Line Permit (ILP) which exists till date. While the mainland tribals are not alien to the dominant Hindu traditions due to their decades of social, capitalist and now digital interaction with other cultures. Such considerations raise questions about the obsolete criteria recommended by Lokur Committee and still followed by the state to determine the scheduling of Scheduled Tribe List. Thereby, a uniform solution for the tribal people is bound to cause problems and dissatisfaction as they do not share common existential conditions and cultural ethos.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.