Colonial Policies and Tribes

Tribal Communities Tribal communities in India

Historically there have been three main types of policies towards the tribes:

1. Policy of Segregation/Isolation.
2. Policy of Assimilation: A result of constant contact of the Tribes with the rest of Indian population and the effort of Social Reformers.
3. Policy of Integration of the Tribes in Regional and National setting. These approaches may be viewed in some detail.

Historically, the people considered tribals were living in remote forest and hilly areas as part and parcel of India population. They had enjoyed a free life of their own. It was only in the immediate past in the British period of Indian history that these people were approached in quite a different way. Need for a policy towards tribes was felt after the consolidation of British rule in Bengal in the later half of 18^th Century. Initially Colonial powers extended Politico – Administrative rule in Bengal which had considerable Tribal concentration. The revenue administration was extended to villages through gradual institution of land tenure systems. The initial efforts from the Britishers have extended revenue administration of tribal areas through either Britishers administration or local attribute could not be much successful. The notion of the “tribe” held by the Britishers was one of primitive, barbaric or uncivilized people. Conforming to civilizational ideal[1], initially British tried to interfere in the socio-culture life of the tribals. Both these efforts were registered by the labor in the form of number of revolts which started from the end of the 18^th Century. Towards the beginning of the 19^th century, by an act, the Christian missionaries were legally allowed to operate in Tribal areas. Religious missionaries followed a policy which was a mix of isolation, assimilation and integration.

Therefore initial effort of the Britishers did not bear much fruits. In the middle of the 19^th Century a policy of administration segregation which result beginning of policy of Administration isolation toward the tribes . Because the British tribal policy was political and colonial, the British administrators feared, that if these tribals (bow-and-arrow armed tribals were often labelled as militant, unruly and junglee) were to have contact with the mainstream of Indian society, the freedom movements would gain further strength. In this background it seemed logical to them to isolate, administratively and politically, the regions that had predominantly tribal populations.

Excluded and partially excluded were created from keeping the tribes in isolation. As tribal habitations coincided with the forests, they had to formulate a separate policy for the forests in order to facilitate the appropriation of the forests for satisfying the commercial interests. In pursuance of this need, they systematically took away the traditional rights of the tribes to appropriate the forests. Through various forests acts tribes were confined to small pieces of forests. This led to further impoverishment of the tribes.

Apart from all these efforts certain benevolent adminstrators, social reformers also approached the tribes from the humanistic angle. They contributed towards the improvement of the health, education economic, status of the tribes.

It must be mentioned here, the tribe in India never shared homogeneous conditioned features. Certain tribes were geographically isolated living in hills, forests, in isolation on one stream and in close association with the Hindu population on the other. They differed highly in terms of the degree of socio-cultural segregation vis-à-vis others groups. The segregation quite visible in North East India but least in Central India. The colonial policy towards tribes only considered these groups as tribes.

Thus, the colonial policy towards the tribals had two major elements. Firstly, it favoured

isolation of the tribal areas from the mainstream (Bhowmick 1980; Chaudhuri

1982). Thus was given the concept of ‘excluded’ and/or ‘partially excluded areas’.

Secondly, at the level of reform, the British administration was interested in ‘civilizing’ these people. In their ethno-centric assessment, the tribals were viewed at par with stage of bestiality. In the words of Sir E.B. Tylor, these people inhabiting the hilly or forested terrain with sparse population and difficult communication were ‘social fossils’; a study or whom would illuminate the prehistoric phases of human existence.

Policy of Segregation

Administrative segregation

The foremost policies which were adopted by the British rulers were is isolate these people from the general mass and separate the tribal areas from the purview of the normal administration. The policy of isolation by the British Government was largely effected by their deliberated efforts not to develop communication in the tribal areas which, as a result remained cut off from the rest of the population. A few roads that were constructed were for security purposes and to enable contractors to exploit the forest produce, Communication with the other groups of people, e.g., plain people, was also discouraged as the tribal areas were made secluded by the authority. The most burning example that can cited in this respect is of the north-eastern Himalayan tribes. They had no communication with the rest of India and consequently a sense of separatism had developed in them.

In isolated tribals areas a very small number of people were allowed, i.e., some contractors, Government officials and a few businessmen. They grouped together and started business on their own terms. This isolation led to much exploitation by non-tribal money-lenders, contractors, zamindars and middlemen. In the segregated areas, however only a few such people could enter through the administration. But they were not welcomed by the tribals. Also their contact with non-tribals added to their strain of fighting a lone battle against nature in the hilly and forest areas.

In some areas the British rules also created “excluded” and “partially excluded” area and gave them separate political representation. In fact the area-wise isolation began with the enactment of the Government of India Act of 1870 and a few tracts were specified as ‘scheduled tracts’, viz., in the Himalayan region, the then Assam Darjeeling, Kumaon and Garhwali, the then Tarai Paragas, Jaunsar-Bawar, Lahaal, and Spiti; in middle India, Chotanagpur and Santhal Pargana, Angul Mahal, Chanda, Chhattisgarh, Chhindwara, Manpur (Indore), Jhansi, Mirzapur, Ganjam; in western India, Panch Mahals, Mewasi (Khandesh); and in south India. Vizagapatam (Visakhapatnam) Godavari, and Lakshdweep, In 1874 the Scheduled District Act gave effect to the Government of India Act 1870. A number of Acts were enforced from time to time till 1919 when certain territories were declared “Backward Tracts[2]” under the Government of India Act of 1919. the areas were, more or less, the same as those of ‘scheduled tracts’ and ‘scheduled districts’ with certain additions and omissions[3]. They considered certain are as to be backward, the people, being primitive without political institutions as so on. Again in 1936 two areas were created, “Excluded Areas” and “Partially excluded Areas” Under sections 91 and 92 of the Government of India Act of 1935. The list of the areas was embodied in the Government of India (Excluded and Partially Excluded Areas) Order, 1936. On the whole the list of excluded areas or partially excluded areas largely left the situation as it was in 1874 barring only certain areas on the then frontiers. The main features of distinguish an Excluded Areas from a partially Excluded Area were :

(i) the Governor functioned in his own discretion in an “excluded area”,

(ii) the expenditure in regard to the former was non-votable while the demands in the latter case were subject to a vote of the Legislature,

(iii) the discussion of any matter regarding the excluded areas needed prior consent of the Governor.

In 1939 Elwin advocated (1939 : 511-519) for the “establishment of a sort of National Park” of the tribals and advise that their contact with the outside world should be reduce to the minimum. Again in 1941 he (Elwin ; 1941) supported the idea of “isolationism” to a great extent.

Forest policy and tribes

Before the advent of the British rule the regulation of people’s use of forest was mainly through local customs. Their own beliefs regarding both plantation and felling of trees, contributed much to the conservation and expansion of forests. The forest policy followed by British administrators in India has entailed hardships on the so-called aborigines. The forests adjoining the village are the natural grazing grounds for the cattle of the agriculturists, who resort to them also for collecting cowdung and firewood. The manure of the village fields is provided by the cow-dung, dry leaves, and dry wood to be procured from the forests.

The relationship between the tribal communities and the forest is extremely close. The tribals are generally called Vanya Jati or forest dwellers. The relationship is symbiotic i.e. a close and multi faceted inter independence. The main aspects of the relationship are economic, religiocultural and emotional. Economically, certain groups of tribals heavily depend on forests. These groups are the food gatherers, hunters and shifting cultivators. A majority of the remaining tribal communities also support and supplement their economy from forests by way of collection and sale of minor forest produce (MFP), materials uses in crafts, fuel. Wage-earning in the forest work is another vital supplementary source. The religion-cultural life of the tribes dwelling in the forests revolves round the forests. Their beliefs, abode of gods and the spirits, taboos etc., are all forest, linked. Emotionally, many tribal communities are so much attached to the forest life that they find it difficult to imagine a meaningful existence bereft of the forests.

The British saw Indian forests as a valuable resource to be exploited for the purpose of revenue and export combined with a general policy to increase the agricultural land at the cost of forest. They started heavy deforestation for the needs of their Navy, much before initiating a forest policy in 1855. Governor General Dalhousie issued a memorandum on forest conservation to curtail the previous access enjoyed by rural communities declaring teak as state property the felling of which was to be strictly regulated. Restrictions were also placed on the collection of MFP. As a follow up of the policy, and Inspector General of Forest was appointed by the Government of India in 1856. Forest Act of 1865 was made to regulate forest exploitation, management and preservation. The hitherto socially regulated practices of the locals were to be restrained by law. The law was applicable only to the forests notified as government property, and not private forests.

At this movement , three distinct strands of thinking manifested within the colonial bureaucracy on the question of customary common property rights. The first section, called ‘annexationist’ by Gadgil and Guha, wished for a total state control over all forest areas. Baden-Powell and the then Secretary of the Agricultural Department, A.O.Hume took this position that state monopoly of forest and wasteland was an undisputed feature of ‘Oriental’ sovereignty and the colonial state by its ‘right of conquest’ inherited this monopoly right. The second prominent position mainly held by forest officials of Madras government, denied the legitimacy of any state intervention in the customary rights of use exercised by the rural communities. The third Intermediate position, represented by the Inspector-General of Forests, Dietrich Brandis and some other officials, held the view that the state had undisputable right in certain cases but favoured retention of customary rights of villagers to freely graze their cattle, cut wood, etc., subject to some restriction by the state. The passing of Indian Forest Act (1878) clearly resolved the question in favour of an ‘annexationists’ position.

Forest Act of 1878 aimed to remove the existing ambiguities about the absolute proprietary rights of State. It increased government control over forests. The classification of forests into reserved, protected and village forests was introduced. The acts like grazing of cattle and entry for collection of fuel in reserved forest were abolished and declared punishable offenses. Thus, it meant total exclusion of right holders from forest management. The area under reserved forests was increased gradually .

Forest Policy Resolution 1894 was more favorably disposed to village needs to assuage widespread discontent. It declared that forests would be administered in public interest, but went on to further restrict the claims of the local communities in the larger interest and in consistence with imperial interest. The rights of the forest dwelling communities were changed to rights and privileges. A new four-fold classification was introduced - (a) Such forests the preservation of which was essential on economical and fiscal grounds; (b) Forests which supplied valuable timbers for commercial purpose; (c) Minor forests; and (d) Pasture land. The resolution also allowed freely the conversion of forests into cultivable lands and made some suggestions for utilization of wastelands. Conversion of forest lands facilitated tea and coffee plantation by Europeans and increased entry of outsiders into tribal areas.

Under the Indian Forest Act of 1927, the government increased it s control over the forest and strengthened the forest department with a view to regulate people’s claims to forest land and produce and increase its commercial exploitation. Certain MFP became commercially valuable and hence there was a need to further reduce traditional rights and codify all the practices of the forest officials. The rights were classified as concessions, rights, privileges and an emphasis was led on detailed codification regarding these. By and large, the private forests could also now be taken over by the government. The machinery to punish offenses under the Act was strengthened and the powers of the forest officials enlarged. Large areas in the princely states were also drawn into forest management.

The British policy relating to forest management had thus been fashioned to satisfy the needs in England as well as India, and earn large revenues. The result was a loss of cohesion in the rural communities, utter misery for tribal groups depending on forests, opening up of their areas to outside elements and fast decline in their traditional management systems and in - born sense of ecology. Even at the time of framing the 1874 law, the government of Madras Presidency had called it a bill of confiscation and pleaded for community rights and for the aboriginals. This policy also led to tribal unrest and uprisings in different parts of country.

Policy of reform

In a colonial assessment, the tribals were viewed at par with stage of bestiality. They treated the ‘contemporary primitives’ as the remnants or survivals of the early stages of humanity, savagery and barbarism. In the words of Sir E.B. Tylor, these people inhabiting the hilly or forested terrain with sparse population and difficult communication were ‘social fossils’; a study or whom would illuminate the prehistoric phases of human existence. Consequently, Missionaries were sent to some of the difficult areas inhabited by these people. Animism, as the tribal religion was often characterised, was replaced by one or the other denomination of Christianity. Beginning with the conversion of the Khasi of Assam in 1813, of the Oraon of Chotanagpur in 1850 and of the Bhil of Madhya Pradesh in 1880 by Christian missionaries, Christianity brought about many changes in the cultural life of the trbals in India. Schools were opened up, and obviously English was opted as the main language of instruction. Along with came the Western medical system, which slowly started exorcising the traditional practices of cure. Styles of life and ways of behaviour began changing. And they became very conspicuous in dress patterns, especially of men.

And this evaluation – the tribal culture must be ‘museumified’ lest it disappear with the onslaught of modernity – promoted the classical ethnographic studies. In them, the way they were changing was not attended to. The attempt was to record as meticulously as possible the tradition, or better the dying tradition of the people.

Impact of colonial policies

1. The colonial Forest Acts had a number of ruinous consequences for many nomadic and pastoral communities and for people surviving on hunting gathering of forest produce and based on shifting cultivation. The colonial administration disapproved shifting cultivation or Jhum and forced many tribal communities to adopt sedentary agriculture as the colonial officials believed that revenue generating potential of settled agriculture was more.

2. The control and power of colonial bureaucracy also strengthened agrestic serfdom and practice of begar (unpaid free labour) in many areas inhabited by tribal communities. Associated with increasing penetration of market forces was intrusion of indigenous capital (merchant-cum-usurer) into forest areas. The settlers from plains entered areas inhabited by tribal groups secured by proprietary rights and forms of debt-recovery alien to such indigenous communities. As a result of all these social and economic changes, conflicts and confrontations over forest and pasture lands, over the exercise of customary rights by local social groups became frequent. A variety of forms of resistance including migration, defiance of forest laws, legal assertion of their rights to open fituris or rebellion were adopted by the indigenous communities to articulate their grievances against the partnership of colonial state and money-lender-traders.

3. Many movements emerged among the tribes in the pre independence period. Examples of such movements among the tribals are the Munda Rebellion, Jatra Bhagat Movement and Kharwar Movement. All these examples show that the exploitative forces (against whom the movements were addressed) were not only colonisers, but also the non-tribals. The influencing contact with the outgroup did not come only from Christian missionaries but also from Hindus and Muslims.

2. Gadgil and Guha (1992) projected colonialism in India as an ecological watershed. According to them, Europeans intervened and radically altered existing food producing systems and their ecological basis. Three basic elements of this unprecedented intervention in the ecological and social fabric of Indian society by colonialism, according to them, are: