Colonial Policies and Tribes in India

Although the early anthropological work of the colonial era had described tribes as isolated cohesive communities; colonialism had already brought irrevocable changes in their world. In most parts of the country, colonialism brought radical transformation of the tribals as their relative isolation was eroded by the penetration of market forces and they were integrated with the British and princely administrations. A large number of money-lenders, traders, revenue farmers and other middlemen and petty officials invaded the tribal areas and disrupted the tribal’s traditional way of life. They were increasingly engulfed in debt and lost their lands to outsiders, often being reduced to the position of agricultural labourers, sharecroppers and rack-rented tenants. Many were forced to retreat further into the hills. Belated legislation to prevent alienation of land by the tribal people failed to halt the process.

Verrier Elwin, who lived nearly all his life among the tribal people in central and north-eastern India and who had one of the formative influences in the evolution of the new government’s policies towards the tribes, was refered the fate of the tribal people under British rule as follows: they suffered oppression and exploitation, because there soon came merchants and liquor-venders, cajoling, tricking, swindling them in their ignorance and simplicity until bit by bit their broad acres dwindled and they sank into the poverty in which many of them still live today. Simultaneously, missionaries were destroying their art, their dances, their weaving and their whole culture.

1. Colonialism also transformed the tribals relationship with the forest. They depended on the forest for food, fuel and cattle feed and raw materials for their handicrafts. In many parts of India the hunger for land by the immigrant peasants from the plains led to the destruction of forests, depriving the tribals of their traditional means of livelihood. To conserve forests and to facilitate their commercial exploitation, the colonial authorities brought large tracts of forest lands under forests laws which forbade shifting cultivation and put severe restrictions on the tribal’s use of the forest and their access to forest products.
2. Network railways and road way extended to tribal areas because tribal areas were resources rich areas. So to exploit these resources like forests, mines; britishers broke their isolation. Along with britishers, there come band of moneylenders and plantation formers. These outsides had different economic motives and way of life. They had no sensitivity to tribal culture and ecology.
3. Loss of land, indebtedness, exploitation by middlemen, denial of access of forests and forest products, and oppression and extortion by policemen, forest officials and other government officials was to lead to a series of tribal uprisings in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, for example the Santhal uprising and the Munda rebellion led by Birsa Munda and the participation of the tribal people in the national and peasant movements in Orissa, Bihar, West Bengal Andhra, Maharashtra and Gujarat. Following the various rebellions in tribal areas in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the colonial government set up ‘excluded’ and ‘partially excluded’ areas, where the entry of non-tribals was prohibited or regulated. In these areas, the British favoured indirect rule through local kings or headmen.

The famous isolation versus integration debate of the 1940s built upon this standard picture of tribal
societies as isolated wholes

1. The isolationist side argued that tribals needed protection from traders, moneylenders and Hindu and Christian missionaries, all of whom were intent on reducing tribals to detribalized landless labour.
2. The integrationists, on the other hand, argued that tribals were merely backward Hindus, and their problems had to be addressed within the same framework as that of other backward classes.

This opposition dominated the Constituent Assembly debates, which were finally settled along the lines of a compromise which advocated welfare schemes that would enable controlled integration.

The subsequent schemes for tribal development – five year plans, tribal’s sub – plans, tribal welfare blocks, special multipurpose area schemes all continue with this mode of thinking. But the basic issue here is that:

1. The integration of tribes has neglected their own needs or desires;
2. Integration has been on the terms of the mainstream society and for its own benefit.
3. The tribal societies have had their lands, forests taken away and their communities shattered in the name of development.

The strategies adopted by the British administrators for solving the problems of the tribals included acquiring tribal land and forests and declaring certain tribal areas as excluded or partially excluded.

In addition, they never undertook development activities because they did not want them to oppose their forest and mineral policy. They wanted that little tradition of tribes and great tradition of British. Therefore they promoted christianisation of tribes. Gandhi said that conversion is greatly responsible for rise of Hindu militatism in India. S.C. dube argued that British wanted to create a body of militantistic tribe through conversion. So current insurgency is British legacy. According to A.R. Desai tribes lives in India in state of volutaristic isolation. British with their policies broke down their isolation. Tribes were not prepared for such sudden intrusion and disruption in their isolated lives. This sudden exploitation and systematic destitution is affecting even today.

But the British government had also established a number of schools and hospitals in the tribal areas with the help of Christian missionaries who converted many tribals to Christianity. Himendroff shares this view, he writes Christian missionaries was instrumental in bringing tribes from darkness to light. They introduced knowledge, rationality, modern healthcare. So he argues that do not asscuse British of engineering divide between caste and tribes. Thus, by and large, during the British period the tribals remained victims of colonial-feudal domination, ethnic prejudices, illiteracy, poverty and isolation.

After Independence, provisions were made in the Constitution to safeguard tribal interests and promote their developmental and welfare activities. Gandhi and Thakkar Bapa also did some pioneering work among the tribals. Nehru enunciated the policy of Panchseel for tribal transformation, which rested on following five principles:

In 1960, the Scheduled Tribe Commission was set up under the chairmanship of U.N. Dhebar to work for the advancement of the tribals. After the Fifth Five Year Plan, the Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP) strategy was designed in 1980 which consisted of two things:

1. Socio-economic development of the tribes, and
2. Protection of tribals against exploitation.

The funds for TSPs are provided by state governments and the cultural ministries.

However, TSP results have not been commensurate with the expectations and the investments made so far, as heavy emphasis is laid in several states on infrastructural development without corresponding emphasis on the development of the STs. The TSP schemes are supposed to lay emphasis on family oriented income-generating schemes in sectors like agriculture, animal husbandry, cooperatives, tribal crafts and skills, etc., besides laying emphasis on education, health and housing.

In the Five Year Plans, the programmes for the welfare of the STs aim at:

1. Raising the productivity levels in agriculture; animals husbandry, forestry, cottage and small-scale industries, etc.,
2. To improve the economic conditions,
3. Rehabilitation of the bonded labour,
4. Education and training programmes, and
5. Special development programmes for women and children.

But various evaluation studies on all these programmes for the integrated development of the tribals have brought out the inadequacies of

In the Five Year Plans, the programmes for the welfare of the STs aim at:

1. Raising the productivity levels in agriculture; animals husbandry, forestry, cottage and small-scale industries, etc.,
2. To improve the economic conditions,
3. Rehabilitation of the bonded labour,
4. Education and training programmes, and
5. Special development programmes for women and children.

But various evaluation studies on all these programmes for the integrated development of the tribals have brought out the inadequacies of

In the Five Year Plans, the programmes for the welfare of the STs aim at:

1. Raising the productivity levels in agriculture; animals husbandry, forestry, cottage and small-scale industries, etc.,
2. To improve the economic conditions,
3. Rehabilitation of the bonded labour,
4. Education and training programmes, and
5. Special development programmes for women and children.

But various evaluation studies on all these programmes for the integrated development of the tribals have brought out the inadequacies of of these programmes.

The End of the Blog: Colonial Policies and Tribes in India