Who in North-east India Are Indigenous?
As the struggle for gaining recognition as "indigenous peoples" gains momentum, more and more tribal communities in north-east India have begun identifying or projecting themselves as such. Although no community is officially declared indigenous, the central and state governments grant constitutional and political concessions to certain tribal communities in the north-east, recognising their claims to indigeneity. But in the region, the question of who is indigenous remains contentious. While reflecting on the implications of recognising some communities in the region as indigenous, this article focuses on the limitations of the politics of indigeneity.
A draft of this article was presented at the national seminar on “Interrogating Indigeneity, Citizenship and the State: Perspectives from India’s North-East”, organised by the Department of Sociology, Tezpur University, Tezpur, in March 2013.
It is not intellectual curiosity alone that prompts one to examine which community first settled in a particular place. An enquiry as to who in a given region or country could be considered indigenous is not just a question for scholars in the disciplines of history or anthropology. Indigeneity is now above all a political question, closely bound with claims to territory, status, identity, and political power. Although the United Nations (UN) has finally adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the fight of indigenous peoples for identity and justice is far from over. While acknowledging the continuing relevance of the discourse on indigeneity to several oppressed and marginalised native communities across the globe, it is necessary to be aware of the limitations of the politics of indigeneity. If not guided properly, there is a possibility that the ideology and politics of indigeneity could well become a tool in the hands of the indigenous elite and be an obstacle to understanding the interests of oppressed native communities and poor migrant populations. Keeping in mind the diverse trajectories of the politics of indigeneity, this article examines the increasing demands for recognition as indigenous peoples by hill communities and discusses the relevance of the politics of indigeneity in the hill areas of north-east India.
Idea of Indigenous People
The term “indigenous peoples” has gained popularity because of the experiences of the Americas and Oceania, where colonisation and immigration from European countries had resulted in large-scale deprivation, displacement and discrimination of native communities. White settlers, who overpowered the natives demographically, economically, culturally and militarily, destroyed native institutions, cultures and languages and made the locals subjects of capitalist nation states (Stannard 1993; Dyck 1991; Minnerup and Solber 2011; Srikanth 2010). Despite the nation state’s efforts to eliminate the identity of indigenous peoples, the subjugated native communities gradually began reorganising themselves and asserting their identity as indigenous peoples, or first nations. Asserting their right to self-determination, they demanded self-government that ensured aboriginal rights over the lands and resources. They built networks of native communities across countries and brought pressure on the UN and other international organisations to listen to their voices.
The struggles of Native American Indians in the Americas and other indigenous peoples in Oceania and northern Europe have highlighted the negative effects of colonialism on indigenous peoples, and the need to address the existential problems or dilemmas of native communities living in modern nation states. Decades-long campaigns and lobbying by aboriginal activist groups in the west have attracted the attention of different tribal and marginalised communities in the developing world. Although their historical trajectories are different, tribal and marginalised communities in Afro-Asian countries have begun identifying themselves with the first nations and demanding recognition as indigenous peoples in their own countries. The Indigenous Peoples of Africa Co-ordinating Committee (IPACC), for instance, insisted on recognising herding and hunting people, and also people such as the Pygmies, who are subjected to discrimination because of their physical appearance, as indigenous peoples.1
With more and more communities seeking recognition as indigenous peoples, it becomes necessary to arrive at some kind of consensus on who are to be considered so. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) in its Convention No 169 on the working rights of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, 1989, used the term “indigenous people” to refer to both tribal peoples whose social, cultural, and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws or regulations, and also to peoples who are regarded as indigenous because of their descent from populations that inhabited the country at the time of conquest or colonisation (ILO 1994). Realising that there are several communities in the world claiming indigenous status on one ground or the other, Erica-Irene Daes, who was chairperson of the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations (UNWGIP), avoided a precise definition of the term. Yet she helped in broadening the concept by recognising different communities of peoples as indigenous. According to her, indigenous peoples include (1) descendants of groups that were in the territory of the country at the time when other groups of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived there; (2) those who have preserved the customs and traditions of their ancestors almost intact, which are similar to those characterised as indigenous because of their isolation from other segments of the country’s population; and (3) those who are placed under a state structure that incorporates national, social, and cultural characteristics alien to theirs.2 Later, the World Bank suggested identifying indigenous peoples on the basis of the following characteristics – (1) close attachment to ancestral territories and the natural resources in those areas; (2) self-identification and identification by others as members of a distinct cultural group; (3) an indigenous language, often different from the national language; (4) the presence of customary social and political institutions; and (5) primarily subsistence-oriented production.3
From the above descriptions, one can make out certain attributes or requirements necessary to claim indigenous status. The distinguishing characteristics of indigenous peoples are the following.
(1) They are the descendants of the original inhabitants of the land before colonial conquest.
(2) They are usually tribal or communitarian in their status and outlook.
(3) They have a subsistence economy, engaging primarily in hunting, food gathering, and shifting cultivation.
(4) They are united on the basis of real or imaginary common blood ties.
(5) They are guided by customary laws.
(6) They live in close association with nature.
(7) They have been marginalised, and made subordinate to communities that migrated and colonised the land.
(8) They continue to follow old customs and traditions despite being a part of nation states with different values and ethos.
It may not be possible for any community to meet all these attributes or requirements. However, it would be interesting to examine how far the communities claiming indigenous status in north-east India meet the criteria.
Tribes in India: Several communities in India that consider themselves tribes have been officially recognised as scheduled tribes (STs). Special provisions have been made in the Constitution to provide reservations to STs in education, employment, and political positions. The central and state governments have come out with several development programmes and welfare schemes for STs. Officially, STs are not accorded the status of indigenous peoples. But certain tribal areas in the hills of the north-east enjoy special constitutional status, which guarantees considerable administrative and financial autonomy to tribal communities to manage their affairs. The Sixth Schedule of the Constitution includes autonomous district councils and regional councils for select hill areas of the north-east, to be administered exclusively by tribes inhabiting particular areas. Some of these autonomous districts evolved into the tribal-dominant states of Meghalaya and Mizoram.
While conceding statehood to Nagaland to satisfy the national aspirations of the Nagas, Article 371 A was incorporated in the Constitution, ensuring that no act of Parliament would bring any change in religious or social practices, customary laws, and traditional ownership patterns in Naga society without the consent of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly. Similarly, despite the Bodos, a plain tribe of Assam, not being a majority in the territory they claim to be their homeland, the government created the Bodo Territorial Council in 2003 under the Sixth Schedule and bestowed considerable autonomy and powers to them. Far from satisfying tribals, such concessions to powerful tribal communities have led to further claims for greater autonomy by smaller tribal groups. In recent years, even communities not officially listed as STs have begun claiming indigenous status for themselves. To accommodate the growing demands for autonomy, the state governments of Tripura, Manipur, and Assam have come out with different types of autonomous administrative units.4
The struggles for autonomy for tribal areas in north-east India have their roots in the historical and geographical specificities of the region and the communities inhabiting the region. However, the struggles of indigenous peoples in other parts of the globe have also had an effect on autonomy movements in the north-east. Given the political advantages that recognition as indigenous peoples brings, the idea is instantly welcomed by tribal communities in the north-east. As the enchantment with it grows day after day, it makes sense to examine whether these native tribal communities deserve indigenous status in accordance with the norms developed by international agencies and organisations such as the ILO, UNWGIP, and the World Bank.
First Settlers in North-east India
The first argument usually advanced by claimants of the status of indigenous peoples is that their community was the first to settle in a given territory, and hence it is entitled to special status and treatment. In countries like the US, Canada and Australia, it is not difficult to distinguish between the first settlers and later migrants (Page 2004; Wilson 2000; Bann 2007; Havermann 1999). However, identifying the first settlers in a vast country like India with a complex history of invasions and migrations is not easy. Scholars such as Andre Beteille have reflected on the problems associated with identifying tribals in India as indigenous peoples (Beteille 1998: 187-91; Xaxa 1999: 3589-96). What Beteille says is also true of the north-east inhabited by different ethnic communities. Even before the British, India’s north-eastern region was inhabited by several Mongoloid communities, who had migrated in waves from east and south-east Asia at different points of time and settled both in the plains and hill areas of the north-east. In the plains, the communities looked for space for settlement either in forests or near the banks of rivers where there was fertile cultivable land. However, hill communities faced harsh physical conditions and were compelled to move from one place to another in search of cultivable land and better living conditions. The process of migration and settlement was not smooth. There were frequent wars between communities that had migrated and settled earlier and communities that sought an entry a little later. It was only during colonial rule that the movements of hill communities in the north-east were contained through enactment of the inner line regulations and the creation of separate hill districts to accommodate the major hill communities.
Since all Mongoloid communities settled in the region had migrated to the region at some point in history and many were moving from one place to another in the region, it does not make much sense to argue who among them were the first to settle in the territory that they now occupy. Most communities went through a process of conflict, displacement and accommodation. During the precolonial period, it was not possible to make a clear distinction between the plains people and the hill communities on the basis of development, or tribal and non-tribal characteristics. Even the more advanced communities such as the Kochs, Ahoms, and Meiteis were also tribal at one time. In the course of time, some of these communities, living mostly in the plains, were Hinduised; they even built kingdoms that exhibited feudal characteristics. But even in the plains, there were many communities such as the Bodos that remained tribal. Similarly, although almost all the communities living in the hills remained tribal, those like the Jaintias and Dimasas, officially identified as tribals, had proto-kingdoms and their chieftains were called rajas by even British officers (Gait 1963; Mackenzie 2004).
There were occasions when the Ahom and Metei kings attacked the hill communities and tried to bring them under their control. But not all kings and people in the plains were powerful and had the ability to exploit and dominate the hill communities. Many rulers and communities inhabiting the plains were scared of the hill tribes and tried to make peace by offering them posa, a kind of protection tax, to prevent their attacks (Barpujari 1998: 21). Notwithstanding the conflicts between the hill communities and the peoples living in the plains, there developed an adjustment, an accommodation and a mutual dependence between them. No community was so big or strong as to occupy and control the entire north-east and there was space for all communities to inhabit some place in the region. The situation changed once the north-east was colonised by the British.
Colonial and Postcolonial Experience
The experience of colonial rule in the north-east was quite different from what Native Indians or other natives experienced in the Americas and Oceania. Unlike in the US or Australia, the north-east, or for that matter India as a whole, did not witness large-scale migration and settlement of white people. To the British, India was a colony, not a second home. Although white people did not flood the region, colonial rule did contribute to voluntary or forced migration of different communities from the rest of India to the north-east. It was not that all migrant communities were economically and culturally superior to the locals. The adivasis who were forcibly brought to work in tea and other plantations and Bengali Muslim peasants who were forced to migrate because of poverty were no exploiters in any sense (Guha 1977; Schendel 2005; Sharma 2011; Karotemprel and Roy 1990). Further, the negative effects of large-scale immigration of people from other parts of British India to the north-eastern region were confined mostly to the plain areas. By and large, the hill communities retained their traditions and continued to exercise control over their land and resources.
After British rule came to an end, the Government of India acknowledged the autonomy of the hill communities and came out with appropriate constitutional and political interventions (KumÄra and Gassah 1996; Bhaumik and Bhattacharya 2005; Prasad 2004; Roy Choudhury 2005). On the eve of Independence, the hill communities had apprehensions of being flooded and dominated by Indians from the plains, but their fears have not come true. Barring Tripura, which experienced a large-scale influx of Bengalis from East Pakistan and then Bangladesh, to this day, tribals remain a majority in other hill areas or states (Debbarma 2005: 141-147; Datta 2013; Ali 2011).5 Although in urban centres like Shillong and Dimapur, one can see a considerable number of non-tribals, political and economic power is very much in the hands of the local tribal elite. That non-tribal migrants in these hill areas are at the mercy of the local tribal elite is clear from several articles by scholars and activists (Dev 2004, 2006; Chakraborty 2008). The indigenous, educated middle-class elite continue to view the migrant population as a threat to demography, culture, and the identity of indigenous peoples. However, upcoming native entrepreneurs – owners of the coal mines, civil contractors, traders engaged in inter-state trading, transport and the hospitality business – understand the need for engaging cheap labour from across the border or other parts of India. Migrant labourers are indispensable to this class of indigenous proto-bourgeoisie and they are not so vociferous about banning migrant labourers (Lamare 2014). Further, in recent years, several elite indigenous families have been sending their wards to cities such as Delhi, Bangalore, Pune and Hyderabad for higher studies. These indigenous youth, who often experience racial discrimination in the rest of India, realise the need to be more accommodative to “outsiders” in their own states.6
Cultural Domination
Advocates of indigenous rights speak not only of the economic deprivation but also the cultural domination that indigenous peoples have had to suffer in colonial and postcolonial states. Here, the experience of north-east India differs considerably. Colonial rule in the region did not wipe out local languages. The native communities in the north-east did not experience the sense of alienation that native children experienced in residential schools in Canada and the US (Littlefield 2001; Miller 2003; Francis 1998: 51-87). Christian missionaries opened schools in remote villages. They learnt the local languages of the people and developed scripts for local dialects. Both preaching and teaching were done in local dialects. It is true that the spread of Christianity spelt the doom of most local religious beliefs and customs. But most tribal communities, especially in the hill areas, accepted Christianity and began identifying themselves as Christians (Snaitang 1983; Subba, Puthenpurakal et al 2006). Today, we do not see many in the north-east lamenting over the loss of their traditional faiths and beliefs. Rather Christianity has become an identity for most of the hill communities in the region to distinguish themselves from the rest of India.
Fears were expressed on the eve of Independence that joining India would lead to Hindus or Muslims dominating those that follow Christianity or their traditional faiths. But constitutional guarantees and political initiatives taken by the government of India restored confidence that the customs, religions, languages and traditions of local communities would be respected. It is true that racial prejudice exists and the people of the north-east experience discrimination and harassment outside their region (Thounaojam 2012: 10-13). But, in the region, they are at the helm of affairs and no outsiders dare humiliate or look down on them. As such, the precolonial, colonial and postcolonial experience of the local people in the north-east has been very different from the experience of indigenous peoples in countries like the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It is not that there are no differences between tribals and non-tribals, the people in the plains and the hill people, and the people of the north-east and the rest of India. But to say that the contradictions have taken the form of a conflict between indigenous people and dominating migrants is a bit of an exaggeration.
Present Stage of Development
Let us examine the economic development of the hill communities. The literature on indigenous peoples makes it more or less clear that they include primitive or disadvantaged communities that are basically dependent on hunting, food gathering, or jhum (shifting) cultivation. Such a criterion precludes indigenous status to several communities in the plains that have long taken to settled cultivation, business and other modern vocations for earning their livelihood. On the eve of Independence, most hill communities in the north-east practised jhum cultivation and their socio-political life was regulated by customary laws and practices. Many communities inhabiting frontier and excluded areas had little or no contacts with the rest of India. The British policy of exclusion, a near absence of administration, and the lack of proper road connectivity allowed the survival of traditional tribal relations.
However, after political and economic integration with the Indian union, the situation in the north-east changed considerably. Over the decades, the market and administration penetrated into hill areas. Several hill communities took to settled cultivation. In almost all the hill states, community ownership over means of production was gradually replaced by individual ownership, leading to economic inequalities (Misra 1979: 888-892; Fernandes and Barbora 2008; Nongbri 2003; Srikanth 2011: 27-39). These changes have little to do with the presence of non-tribal immigrants. Non-tribals are hardly visible in villages due to restrictions on the transfer of land to outsiders in hill areas. Although one can see a considerable number of non-tribal immigrants in urban centres, working as government employees, businessmen, daily wage labourers, and petty vendors, the natives continue to have control over the economy and political power.
Laws could protect the locals against outsiders, but they could not stop class differences growing within. Today, among the hill communities, some are crorepatis while most others do not even have an acre of land to cultivate. One only has to look at the economic background of a majority of the politicians in the states who get elected as members of legislative assemblies (MLAs) and Parliament (MPs) to understand how tribal they are.7 Interestingly, the neo-rich tribal elite often talk vociferously about indigeneity, not so much to benefit the poorest within communities, but to protect and promote their own interests.8
Of late, anthropologists have been making a distinction between the indigenous and autochthonous, the first to refer to communities that are truly primitive, marginalised, and discriminated, and the second to denote those who have established superiority in the region, but are apprehensive of future domination by more powerful communities or groups of people (Gausset, Kenrick et al 2011: 135-42; Ceuppens and Geschiere 2005: 385-407). All the communities in the north-east have not become autochthonous, but in all the native communities, one can see a section that has the attributes of being autochthonous. This section of people, living mostly in urban areas and drawing incomes from non-agrarian sources, has lifestyles and values different from the rest of the population. They live in big bungalows, own costly vehicles, buy luxury items, spend lavishly on entertainment and travel, seek wealth and political power, and in their own interest establish contacts with politicians, businessmen, and other influential persons outside the north-eastern region. Although they regularly attend church and participate in meetings of traditional political institutions, they care little for communitarian values and customary laws that are so dear to indigenous peoples. Indigenous ideologies and movements lose their progressive content once such autochthonous elite develop and begin dominating the economy and politics of native communities (Rata 2002: 173-195).9
Limits of Indigenous Identities
Of course, it can be argued that such an elite is a minority, and that indigeneity has relevance to the majority of native people, who are poor, marginalised, and neglected. That most people or communities in north-east India are poor, marginalised, and neglected is a fact, but whether invoking indigeneity helps them to overcome their disadvantages is doubtful. If all their problems were the result of domination and exploitation by a more advanced migrant population (does not matter whether they are other Indians or the Bangladeshis), the appeal to indigeneity would have had some relevance. But the migrants that most local communities in the north-east have been fighting are economically and politically vulnerable, often at the mercy of their native employers. The problems of poverty, regional underdevelopment, landlessness, lack of alternative avenues for livelihood, growing unemployment among the educated, and administrative insensitivity are not due to any outsiders, but by-products of the impersonal forces unleashed by a capitalist market economy. The prescriptions offered by advocates of indigeneity such as the formation of tribal states, the creation of more territorial or district councils, the extension of inner-line boundaries, imposing legal restrictions on transfer of land to non-tribals, and constitutional recognition for traditional political institutions have little relevance in the age of globalisation and neo-liberalism. They create the illusion that one can be safe only in one’s ethnic cocoon. At best, they help in redistributing the existing cake, not enlarging it. Those under the influence of the politics of indigeneity often cannot think beyond native-migrant, tribal-non-tribal binaries.
In the hands of the elite, the ideology of indigeneity masks the growing class exploitation within. It effectively stalls native communities from raising more relevant questions, like why land should continue to be the major source of livelihood; what comes in the way of generating other viable alternative sources of livelihood; why could tribal states and autonomous administrative units not preserve tribal traditions and tribal ownership of land and other resources; and in what ways do the practice of indigeneity in a limited territorial space help community members who live outside ethnic cocoons. Further, the ideology of indigeneity forecloses all possibilities of understanding the problems of the poor and disadvantaged among other communities and makes it difficult for progressive forces to build a unity of all oppressed and exploited sections against capitalist-imperialist forces and their followers in the country and the region. Are these the reasons why not only the UN, but also the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, which vociferously prescribe a neo-liberal path for the world, take pains to promote the idea of indigenous peoples?
No comments:
Post a Comment