Sunday, September 12, 2010
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Unknown HO Dance
I saw this dance at one of the social occasion in Mayurbhanj district of Orissa, India. The dance was performed by HO tribe from near by village.
When i inquired about the dance and song, local says this dance is in verge of extinctions. Unfortunately i am unaware of name of this dance...
thanks.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
I am Sober
Santhals and Handi (rice beer) are inseparable. Use and misuse of Handi can be concise in two occasions, one during sacred rituals and other during festivity of Santhals. I think former is used to provide a source of happiness to Bonga-Buru (God and Goddesses) of Santhals. And later is used to provide a source of happiness to Santhals itself. In other words, Happiness of Santhals and their God depends on Handi. It’s my wild imagination to relate Bonga with Handi as I know Bonga may not be demanding to be worshiped with Handi only. It is the Ojha (Priest) who performs religious duties and ceremonies in SARNA (Santhal religion) demands Handi and adult male chicken offered to Bonga.
I have some unique attachment with handi though I never tasted (except once). I was fond of Para (daily market) since my pre-schooling time. Village Para include adult male Chicken fight, Handi sellers, rarefied gamblers, vegetable sellers and spectators. I was among the regular visitor to witness win-loss in cock fight, drunkard’s show, and gamblers. I wanted to experience gambling in cock fight and taste Handi. But in a small locality everyone knows everyone. I was scared to roam near cock fight area and Handi seller zone. One day population was thin due to probable rain and I took chance to taste Handi. Seller was from same village and her house was adjacent to mine. I ordered one full bottle with some snacks. She helped me pouring Handi in glass and took first sip. It was tasty and sweet, overall I liked it. I thanked her and about to take second sip…. I show my elder brother in-front of me. At the first site he asked casually “what are you doing here?”, “I am drinking water” I answered. But he saw the color of water and it was pale white. He understood everything in fraction of second. After that, we roamed in Para and went home back. During my study time, he gave me example of my father and other relatives, who never touched Handi in their life. He told me that, “when someone takes handi, he loses ability to learn, forget things easily and face difficulty in judgment.” That moment decided not to take Handi anymore. I never supported the idea of consuming Handi ever since that incident.
Monday, September 6, 2010
“ADIVASI”
Introduction
ADIVASI, the Indigenous People of India is representing about 8.08% (as of 1991) of the total population of India, are primitive remnant of early Homo-sapiens. They persist in an archaic and primitive lifestyle. Most of them are hunters and gatherers or rudimentary agriculturists using slash and burn methods of cultivation. Most of them live in isolation in hills and forests and are isolated in their culture and religion. In some areas they are the dominating group and therefore they do not live in isolation, in many cases they are settled agriculturists cultivating the land in a wide range of ways.
History
The 67.7 million people belonging to “Scheduled Tribes” in India are generally considered to be ‘Adivasis’, literally meaning ‘indigenous people’ or ‘original inhabitants’, though the term ‘Scheduled Tribes’ (STs) is not coterminous with the term ‘Adivasis’. Scheduled Tribes is an administrative term used for purposes of ‘administering’ specific constitutional privileges, protection and benefits for specific sections of peoples considered historically disadvantaged and ‘backward’. Even Indian Constitution does not use the term ‘Adivasi’ and instead refers to the STs as ‘Anusuchit Jana Jati’. Traditionally ‘Jana’ was the more popular term to refer to the tribes in the Hindi heartland. (Ray: 1972). The Adivasis have remained relatively free during the pre-colonial time from the control of outside status. This process was changed by an influx of traders, money lenders and landlords who established themselves under the protection of the colonial authority and took advantage of the new judicial system to deprive the adivasis of large tracts of their land. In this way, outsiders who had dealt previously with the adivasis on terms of relative equity become their exploiters and masters. There have been many migrations in and out of this region in the past centuries and the other group certainly displaced present adivasis at some earlier stage of history.
Meaning
The term Adivasi means: Adi = beginning or earliest time, vasi = resident of. The idea is that the adivasis were the original inhabitant of India. The term Adivasi is not portrayed just for literary reasons. It has a political support. It has often been used to convey the position of exclusion of the tribes (Kumar: 2001: 4052-4054) and their subaltern status (Ekka: 2000-2001: 4610-4612). The term Adivasi has been even used to focus the tribal rights (Dietrich: 2000), their resistance (Pati: 2001), protests (Viswanath: 1997), assertions (Hardiman: 1988, Rahul: 1998), struggles (Raman: 2002) and movements. (Bijoy and Raman: 2003) The term in a way conveys a sense of ‘empowerment’ of the tribes. This empowerment is being asserted by linking with the global indigenous people’s movement.
Use and Misuse
One of the prime factors for claiming aboriginal or indigenous status for the tribes is to enable them to gain territorial, land rights and control over natural resources. There are, however, vicious forces in the country who are overtly active in not conceding these rights. The Hindutva forces term the tribes as ‘Vanvasi’. This term not only conveys a sense of primitiveness but also tries to deny the territorial rights. The Gandhians too were not very far from it and they considered the tribes more from a cultural position and referred to them as ‘Vanyajati’. It is disconcerting that most of the anthropologists and sociologists have either remained indifferent to such developments or have passively supported the ‘Adivasi’ terminology and thus jeopardized the legitimate rights and interests of the tribes dwelling in the regions beyond the Hindi heartland. At the outset it needs to be realized that a nation-state like India is not a cultural but political entity which was borne due to a quirk of history. It is also not true that the tribes in all quarters of the country are aboriginals of the regions where they inhabit at present. While the famous historian Kosambi (1956) viewed that the tribes had migrated to the plain areas at a much later date only after the vegetation had thinned out and wild animals became less numerous—making the area less dangerous for human habitation and fit for settled cultivation, others feels that the tribes practicing settled cultivation in the plains were pushed to the hills and forests by the profligate Aryan invaders and later Hindu settled cultivators and the outside traders. Few also expressed about the inapplicability of the concept of aborigine to the tribesmen in India. The autochthon status of the tribes in their present habitats in different parts of the country can be easily contested by the trends of migration patterns. It is important to note that the tribes in India are not the only group to claim indigenous status. Even many of the Dalit intellectuals have made similar assertions. (Massey: 1994) Next, the Government of India itself refuses to grant indigenous status to the tribes. One of the important reasons for this is that, a few Brahmin and Rajput communities like the Jaunsari in Uttarakhand or the Kanaura in Himachal Pradesh have been enlisted as Scheduled Tribe. More importantly, the term ‘Adivasi’ is popularly used in North Bengal, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Tripura to refer to the tea plantation labourers—the tribes like Santhal, Munda, Oraon and Ho who had migrated to the region during the British colonial period. The local tribes in these States find it humiliating to identify themselves as ‘Adivasi’. The indigenous Rabha, Mech and Rajbansi tribes/ethnic groups in North Bengal prefer to identify themselves by their own names and not as ‘Adivasi’. The Sikkimese tribesmen too identify the migrant plantation laborers from Chotanagpur as ‘Adivasi’ and not by their specific tribal names. The Santhal, Oraon, Munda and Ho migrant tribes in the Sunderbans of West Bengal, working as agricultural laborers or cultivating small farms, are collectively referred to as ‘Adivasi’ by the local Bengali settlers, a majority of whom are Scheduled Castes. The term ‘Adivasi’ therefore, remains a generic name in East and North-East India for identifying the migrant tribal laborers and small peasants from central India. In most places in North Bengal and North-East India, the adivasis are considered to be encroachers or intruders. During the Naxalite uprisal at Naxalbari in the late 1960s the Rajbansis en-block resisted the onslaught of the adivasi land grabbers. Ethnic clashes between the indigenous Bodos and Santhals encroachers in the Bodoland Territorial Council areas are endemic. In one such clash a few years back hundreds of Santhals were killed by the Bodo militants. The Bodo Territorial Council (BTC) is contemplating to move the Supreme Court against the recommendations of the 2006 Tribes and Forest Dwellers Act, which stipulates regularizing lands encroached in government forests prior to December 13, 2005. Almost 40 per cent of the forests in the Bodo areas have been encroached upon and majority of the encroachers is outside migrants (many of them are adivasis). It needs to be reiterated that it would be a gross mistake to consider the term ‘Adivasi’ to be equivalent to the term ‘Tribe’ in India. This could only reinforce the anti-Indian feelings among many of the tribes inhabiting, North Bengal, Sikkim and other North-Eastern States. The term will be considered pejorative and humiliating to most of them. It must be realized that the term tribe itself is a colonial construct and ‘aboriginal’ ‘autochthon’ percepts are outcome of colonial conquests. India have been amateurishly trying to romanticise the term in the name of radical empowerment. The tribal situation in India is extremely heterogeneous and a unified approach may not do justice to all the communities. It must also be understood that the definition of ‘Indigenous Peoples’ as projected by the UN Working Group for Indigenous Peoples has an European bias as it states, Indigenous peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with their pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of societies, now prevailing in those territories or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generation their ancestral territories and their ethnic identity as the basis of their continuous existence as peoples in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system. The tribes residing in territories not externally colonised are not deemed to be indigenous as a consequence. This leaves out the scope of around 120 tribal communities in Europe from being declared as indigenous peoples (Griggs: 1993). Their rights of self-determination too are denied as a result. The Basques of Spain and Portugal, Skanians in Sweden, Cornish, Welsh and Shetlanders in the UK are consequently denied of several rights and privileges enjoyed by indigenous people in other parts of the world. It is similarly feared that the use of the term ‘Adivasi’ in an unqualified manner may fail to ensure legitimate rights of many of the authentic indigenous tribes/ peoples in India. In the name of ‘Adivasi’ pressures are put on the Indian government by the western sources to ensure all types of rights for them. In India some of the tribal NGOs linked to Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Delhi which have intimate links with the European Indigenous People’s Movement groups are mainly responsible for trying to popularise the ‘Adivasi’ concept in the last few decades. They too are trying prop up the ‘Adivasi’ movements in North-East India. In many areas this is leading to serious ethnic conflicts with the indigenous tribes.
Conclusion
Most local tribes are opposed to the adivasis being included in the list of Scheduled Tribe. They are estimated to be around 20 per cent of the Assam population, that is, more than 40 lakhs, while the Bodos are a little over 27 lakhs. The total number of tribes in the northeast being a little over 80 lakhs, if the adivasis are included in the schedule, the number of tribals in the northeast will rise by 50 per cent and they would be a third of the total. Many tribal groups are afraid that it will lead to competition for the few jobs available and for the depleted natural resources. As a result, most tribal of the region oppose their inclusion. Moreover, the adivasis are considered outsiders since they were brought by the British from Jharkhand as plantation laborers. The British appropriated the land of the local populations through unjust means. Since the adivasis worked on this land as indentured labor, the resentment of the local people at losing their land to the colonialist (partners) is not surprising. To conclude, the term ‘indigenous peoples’ itself appears to be contentious in the Indian context as there are many claimants to it; these include the Dalits (claiming their Dravidian antecedence), the Vaishnavite Meiteis of Manipur and the caste Hindus of Assam. It will perhaps be always better to explore term ‘Advisai’ in the academic discourse.
References
Bijoy, C.R. and Raman, K.R., 2003, “The Real Story: Adivasi Movements to Recover Land” in EPW, Vol. 38, No. 20 (May 17-23).
Bijoy, C.R., 2003, “The Adivasis of India A History of Discrimination, Conflict and Resistance” in PUCL Bulletin, February.
Dietrich, G., 2000, “Dams and People: Adivasi Land Rights” in EPW, Vol. 35 No. 38 (September 16-22).
Ekka, A., 2000-01, “Jharkhand Tribals: Are They Really a Minority?” in EPW, Vol. 35. No. 52/53 (December 30, 2000-January 5, 2001).
Griggs, R.R.A., 1993, Role of World Nations; Washington: Centre for World Indigenous Peoples.
Hardiman, D., 1987, The Coming of the Devi: Adivasi Assertion in Western India; Delhi: OUP.
Kar, R.K. and Sharma, K.L., 1990, “Ethnic Identity of Tea Labour: A Case Study in Assam” in D. Pakem (ed.) Nationality, Ethnicity and Cultural Identity in North-East India; New Delhi: Omsons.
Kosambi, D.D., 1956, An Introduction to the Study of Indian History, Bombay: Popular Prakashan.
Kumar, S., 2001, “Adivsias of South Orissa: Enduring Poverty” in EPW, Vol. 36, No. 43 (October 27-November 2).
Massey, J., 1994, “Indigenous People: Dalits: Dalit Issues in Today’s Theological Debate”.
Pati, B., 2001, “Identity, Hegemony, Resistance: Conversions in Orissa” in EPW, Vol. 36, No. 44 (November 3-9).
Prasad, A., 2003, Against Ecological Romanticism: Verier Elwin and The Making of an Anti-Modern Tribal Identity, New Delhi: Three Essays Collective.
Rahul, 1998, “Bhil Women of Nimad: Growing Assertion” in EPW, Vol. 33, No. 9 (February 28-March 6).
Raman, K.R., 2002, “Breaking New Ground: Adivasi Land Struggle in Kerala” in EPW, Vol. 37, No. 10 (March 9-15).
Ray, N., 1972, “Introductory Address” in K.S. Singh (ed.) Tribal Situation in India; Shimla: IIAS.
Viswanath, C.K., 1997, “Adivasis: Protesting Land Alienation” in EPW, Vol. 32, No. 32 (August 9-15).
Introduction
ADIVASI, the Indigenous People of India is representing about 8.08% (as of 1991) of the total population of India, are primitive remnant of early Homo-sapiens. They persist in an archaic and primitive lifestyle. Most of them are hunters and gatherers or rudimentary agriculturists using slash and burn methods of cultivation. Most of them live in isolation in hills and forests and are isolated in their culture and religion. In some areas they are the dominating group and therefore they do not live in isolation, in many cases they are settled agriculturists cultivating the land in a wide range of ways.
History
The 67.7 million people belonging to “Scheduled Tribes” in India are generally considered to be ‘Adivasis’, literally meaning ‘indigenous people’ or ‘original inhabitants’, though the term ‘Scheduled Tribes’ (STs) is not coterminous with the term ‘Adivasis’. Scheduled Tribes is an administrative term used for purposes of ‘administering’ specific constitutional privileges, protection and benefits for specific sections of peoples considered historically disadvantaged and ‘backward’. Even Indian Constitution does not use the term ‘Adivasi’ and instead refers to the STs as ‘Anusuchit Jana Jati’. Traditionally ‘Jana’ was the more popular term to refer to the tribes in the Hindi heartland. (Ray: 1972). The Adivasis have remained relatively free during the pre-colonial time from the control of outside status. This process was changed by an influx of traders, money lenders and landlords who established themselves under the protection of the colonial authority and took advantage of the new judicial system to deprive the adivasis of large tracts of their land. In this way, outsiders who had dealt previously with the adivasis on terms of relative equity become their exploiters and masters. There have been many migrations in and out of this region in the past centuries and the other group certainly displaced present adivasis at some earlier stage of history.
Meaning
The term Adivasi means: Adi = beginning or earliest time, vasi = resident of. The idea is that the adivasis were the original inhabitant of India. The term Adivasi is not portrayed just for literary reasons. It has a political support. It has often been used to convey the position of exclusion of the tribes (Kumar: 2001: 4052-4054) and their subaltern status (Ekka: 2000-2001: 4610-4612). The term Adivasi has been even used to focus the tribal rights (Dietrich: 2000), their resistance (Pati: 2001), protests (Viswanath: 1997), assertions (Hardiman: 1988, Rahul: 1998), struggles (Raman: 2002) and movements. (Bijoy and Raman: 2003) The term in a way conveys a sense of ‘empowerment’ of the tribes. This empowerment is being asserted by linking with the global indigenous people’s movement.
Use and Misuse
One of the prime factors for claiming aboriginal or indigenous status for the tribes is to enable them to gain territorial, land rights and control over natural resources. There are, however, vicious forces in the country who are overtly active in not conceding these rights. The Hindutva forces term the tribes as ‘Vanvasi’. This term not only conveys a sense of primitiveness but also tries to deny the territorial rights. The Gandhians too were not very far from it and they considered the tribes more from a cultural position and referred to them as ‘Vanyajati’. It is disconcerting that most of the anthropologists and sociologists have either remained indifferent to such developments or have passively supported the ‘Adivasi’ terminology and thus jeopardized the legitimate rights and interests of the tribes dwelling in the regions beyond the Hindi heartland. At the outset it needs to be realized that a nation-state like India is not a cultural but political entity which was borne due to a quirk of history. It is also not true that the tribes in all quarters of the country are aboriginals of the regions where they inhabit at present. While the famous historian Kosambi (1956) viewed that the tribes had migrated to the plain areas at a much later date only after the vegetation had thinned out and wild animals became less numerous—making the area less dangerous for human habitation and fit for settled cultivation, others feels that the tribes practicing settled cultivation in the plains were pushed to the hills and forests by the profligate Aryan invaders and later Hindu settled cultivators and the outside traders. Few also expressed about the inapplicability of the concept of aborigine to the tribesmen in India. The autochthon status of the tribes in their present habitats in different parts of the country can be easily contested by the trends of migration patterns. It is important to note that the tribes in India are not the only group to claim indigenous status. Even many of the Dalit intellectuals have made similar assertions. (Massey: 1994) Next, the Government of India itself refuses to grant indigenous status to the tribes. One of the important reasons for this is that, a few Brahmin and Rajput communities like the Jaunsari in Uttarakhand or the Kanaura in Himachal Pradesh have been enlisted as Scheduled Tribe. More importantly, the term ‘Adivasi’ is popularly used in North Bengal, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Tripura to refer to the tea plantation labourers—the tribes like Santhal, Munda, Oraon and Ho who had migrated to the region during the British colonial period. The local tribes in these States find it humiliating to identify themselves as ‘Adivasi’. The indigenous Rabha, Mech and Rajbansi tribes/ethnic groups in North Bengal prefer to identify themselves by their own names and not as ‘Adivasi’. The Sikkimese tribesmen too identify the migrant plantation laborers from Chotanagpur as ‘Adivasi’ and not by their specific tribal names. The Santhal, Oraon, Munda and Ho migrant tribes in the Sunderbans of West Bengal, working as agricultural laborers or cultivating small farms, are collectively referred to as ‘Adivasi’ by the local Bengali settlers, a majority of whom are Scheduled Castes. The term ‘Adivasi’ therefore, remains a generic name in East and North-East India for identifying the migrant tribal laborers and small peasants from central India. In most places in North Bengal and North-East India, the adivasis are considered to be encroachers or intruders. During the Naxalite uprisal at Naxalbari in the late 1960s the Rajbansis en-block resisted the onslaught of the adivasi land grabbers. Ethnic clashes between the indigenous Bodos and Santhals encroachers in the Bodoland Territorial Council areas are endemic. In one such clash a few years back hundreds of Santhals were killed by the Bodo militants. The Bodo Territorial Council (BTC) is contemplating to move the Supreme Court against the recommendations of the 2006 Tribes and Forest Dwellers Act, which stipulates regularizing lands encroached in government forests prior to December 13, 2005. Almost 40 per cent of the forests in the Bodo areas have been encroached upon and majority of the encroachers is outside migrants (many of them are adivasis). It needs to be reiterated that it would be a gross mistake to consider the term ‘Adivasi’ to be equivalent to the term ‘Tribe’ in India. This could only reinforce the anti-Indian feelings among many of the tribes inhabiting, North Bengal, Sikkim and other North-Eastern States. The term will be considered pejorative and humiliating to most of them. It must be realized that the term tribe itself is a colonial construct and ‘aboriginal’ ‘autochthon’ percepts are outcome of colonial conquests. India have been amateurishly trying to romanticise the term in the name of radical empowerment. The tribal situation in India is extremely heterogeneous and a unified approach may not do justice to all the communities. It must also be understood that the definition of ‘Indigenous Peoples’ as projected by the UN Working Group for Indigenous Peoples has an European bias as it states, Indigenous peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with their pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct from other sectors of societies, now prevailing in those territories or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generation their ancestral territories and their ethnic identity as the basis of their continuous existence as peoples in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system. The tribes residing in territories not externally colonised are not deemed to be indigenous as a consequence. This leaves out the scope of around 120 tribal communities in Europe from being declared as indigenous peoples (Griggs: 1993). Their rights of self-determination too are denied as a result. The Basques of Spain and Portugal, Skanians in Sweden, Cornish, Welsh and Shetlanders in the UK are consequently denied of several rights and privileges enjoyed by indigenous people in other parts of the world. It is similarly feared that the use of the term ‘Adivasi’ in an unqualified manner may fail to ensure legitimate rights of many of the authentic indigenous tribes/ peoples in India. In the name of ‘Adivasi’ pressures are put on the Indian government by the western sources to ensure all types of rights for them. In India some of the tribal NGOs linked to Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Delhi which have intimate links with the European Indigenous People’s Movement groups are mainly responsible for trying to popularise the ‘Adivasi’ concept in the last few decades. They too are trying prop up the ‘Adivasi’ movements in North-East India. In many areas this is leading to serious ethnic conflicts with the indigenous tribes.
Conclusion
Most local tribes are opposed to the adivasis being included in the list of Scheduled Tribe. They are estimated to be around 20 per cent of the Assam population, that is, more than 40 lakhs, while the Bodos are a little over 27 lakhs. The total number of tribes in the northeast being a little over 80 lakhs, if the adivasis are included in the schedule, the number of tribals in the northeast will rise by 50 per cent and they would be a third of the total. Many tribal groups are afraid that it will lead to competition for the few jobs available and for the depleted natural resources. As a result, most tribal of the region oppose their inclusion. Moreover, the adivasis are considered outsiders since they were brought by the British from Jharkhand as plantation laborers. The British appropriated the land of the local populations through unjust means. Since the adivasis worked on this land as indentured labor, the resentment of the local people at losing their land to the colonialist (partners) is not surprising. To conclude, the term ‘indigenous peoples’ itself appears to be contentious in the Indian context as there are many claimants to it; these include the Dalits (claiming their Dravidian antecedence), the Vaishnavite Meiteis of Manipur and the caste Hindus of Assam. It will perhaps be always better to explore term ‘Advisai’ in the academic discourse.
References
Bijoy, C.R. and Raman, K.R., 2003, “The Real Story: Adivasi Movements to Recover Land” in EPW, Vol. 38, No. 20 (May 17-23).
Bijoy, C.R., 2003, “The Adivasis of India A History of Discrimination, Conflict and Resistance” in PUCL Bulletin, February.
Dietrich, G., 2000, “Dams and People: Adivasi Land Rights” in EPW, Vol. 35 No. 38 (September 16-22).
Ekka, A., 2000-01, “Jharkhand Tribals: Are They Really a Minority?” in EPW, Vol. 35. No. 52/53 (December 30, 2000-January 5, 2001).
Griggs, R.R.A., 1993, Role of World Nations; Washington: Centre for World Indigenous Peoples.
Hardiman, D., 1987, The Coming of the Devi: Adivasi Assertion in Western India; Delhi: OUP.
Kar, R.K. and Sharma, K.L., 1990, “Ethnic Identity of Tea Labour: A Case Study in Assam” in D. Pakem (ed.) Nationality, Ethnicity and Cultural Identity in North-East India; New Delhi: Omsons.
Kosambi, D.D., 1956, An Introduction to the Study of Indian History, Bombay: Popular Prakashan.
Kumar, S., 2001, “Adivsias of South Orissa: Enduring Poverty” in EPW, Vol. 36, No. 43 (October 27-November 2).
Massey, J., 1994, “Indigenous People: Dalits: Dalit Issues in Today’s Theological Debate”.
Pati, B., 2001, “Identity, Hegemony, Resistance: Conversions in Orissa” in EPW, Vol. 36, No. 44 (November 3-9).
Prasad, A., 2003, Against Ecological Romanticism: Verier Elwin and The Making of an Anti-Modern Tribal Identity, New Delhi: Three Essays Collective.
Rahul, 1998, “Bhil Women of Nimad: Growing Assertion” in EPW, Vol. 33, No. 9 (February 28-March 6).
Raman, K.R., 2002, “Breaking New Ground: Adivasi Land Struggle in Kerala” in EPW, Vol. 37, No. 10 (March 9-15).
Ray, N., 1972, “Introductory Address” in K.S. Singh (ed.) Tribal Situation in India; Shimla: IIAS.
Viswanath, C.K., 1997, “Adivasis: Protesting Land Alienation” in EPW, Vol. 32, No. 32 (August 9-15).
We don’t need lukewarm acceptance
There can be no gainsaying the fact that, injustice engulfed the Santhals (Indigenous people) in every nook and corner of India. One can easily establish the validity of incidents from recent past. Public humiliation including rape, police firing to unarmed, illegal land acquisition, illegal eviction and labeling them as extremist are few to name them. The collection of rules imposed by authority violates Santhal’s rights and their rights over water, forest and land (jal, jangal, jamin) are ignored. By knowing through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; when oppressed Santhals demanded the freedom in so called democratic country, they are being charged with different IPC Sections and labeled as Anti National, Maoist and extremist.
In the midst of darkness, Santhals (Adivasis as whole) are helpless to express their grudges even in day light. Political, social and economic leaders from same community failed to fulfill the expectation of common masses. As they betrayed when achieved desired position or monetary benefits provoked them to serve as puppet of oppressor political or administrative power. Few torch bearers are being constitutionally ruled out, branded and segregated. Others are humiliated in several public forums in order to keep them speechless. Now the intriguing question to answer is that how to go about the step leads to Santhal’s development. As we know from past experiences, Santhals hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon.
To prove valedictory contribution, let’s examine the properties attributed by Santhal’s ancestry. Santhal’s rebel leaders Sidhu, kanhu, Chand and Bhairo on June 30, 1855 had organized opposition to British authority. In other words we can say that, a conflict against corrupt Usury system and their operatives. Birsa Munda challenged the agrarian breakdown and culture change of property rights imposed by British in 1874. Santhals have many unfold stories to disclose.
But not a single brave Santhal struggle against the British has been treated as part of the "National" Struggle for Independence. Adivasi heroes like Sidhu, Kanhu, Birsa Munda, Khazya Naik, Tantya Bhil, Lakshman Naik, Rupa Naik, Thamal Dora, Ambul Reddi, Thalakkal Chandu
etc are only recapture in the songs and folklore of the Adivasis but ignored in every possible manner.
After the transfer of power from British, Santhals dominated areas were left unattended. Santhals and other tribals at large in the central part of India where they were preoccupied with their own survival, the picture was different in the north-east because of the historic and material conditions.
After India got Independence from British, Santhals were restricted in scheduled area left neglected and unattended. After 62 years of independence, Santhals are struggling to achieve two square of meal in their ancestral land. So far no body offered him a landing ears and helping hands. In this critical situation Santhals as whole are in a crossroad.
Let’s examine other aspect of realism. In term of occupancy, total forest cover in India is reported to be 765.21 thousand sq. kms of which 71% are in Adivasi areas. Of these 416.52 and 223.30 thousand sq. kms are categorized as reserved and protected forests respectively. About 23% of these are further declared as Wild Life Sanctuaries and National Parks which alone has displaced some half a million Adivasis. By the process of colonization of the forests that began formally with the Forest Act of 1864, Indian Forest Act of 1927and finally the The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, the rights of Adivasis were reduced to mere privileges conferred by the state.
Recent uprising in different part of country for example in Nagpur, tribal and forest dwellers' condemned the assaults by forest department and declared that the struggle for people's control over resources in forest product. In Burhanpur District of Madhya Pradesh, several people have died since the beginning of last year in the violence unleashed by forest authorities against the communities of the area. In Jagatsinghpur and Niyamgiri, Orissa, the tenacity of people’s resistance against illegal attempts to grab their resources has been matched on only by the brutality of state repression and the sheer brazenness of the Central government's illegal actions in behalf of POSCO and Vedanta. In Mudumalai, Tamil Nadu, an ongoing and expanding people’s struggle against resource grabs in the name of tiger conservation has been met with bribes, threats and the ever-present possibilities of violence. And across the country, from Gujarat to West Bengal, from Rajasthan to Andra Pradesh, Orissa,
Assam, and in Jharkhand the forest Act, only Adivasis have been violated at every level of the state machinery. Act of Forest authorities illegally suppressing people's rights, Suppression of democratic control over resources, Illegal grabbing of forest land by corporate and government agencies, Utilizing wildlife conservation to legitimize resource grabbing field are only subject of Adivasi’s forest land.
Other methods of deserting the Santhal’s forest land adopted by the crooked administration are manmade IDPs(The latest world refugee survey put the total number of IDPs in India as 507,000; the Indian social institute in Delhi and Global IDP Project place it as 21.3 million), eviction, ethnic cleansing, forced migration, developmental induced displacement without proper rehabilitation. These are nothing but bureaucratic restrictions on Santhal's rights and gross human right violation. And as we know India has no national policy and legal institutional framework to deal with IDPs. Due to absence of national policy on resettlement and rehabilitation of IDPs, there have been only piecemeal and ad hoc initiatives at every level. And displaces due to land acquisition ministry of rural development does not deal with other short of displacement.
Critically government accountability for the consequences of state-imposed displacement has been virtually absent. Despite of national policy for rehabilitation which include the rehabilitation coverage the entire community (landless, labourers, landholder, houseless, householders, unemployed and forest dweller), their socio-cultural cost of displacement and economic dimensions (upgrading of skills, accumulation of physical assets and social capital).
In my opinion, with the sub-human treatment and no alternative left in hands of Santhal’s except to prepare for direct action, whereby we belong to particular community need to present our bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the National community. Demand for the proper look after in terms of any sort of displacement, accountability of expenditure for Santhal’s development, basic necessity of living including health and proper education system in Adivasis areas are the few focused idea to be taken care of by government.
As of now we are aware of the fact that, “laws is just on its face and unjust in its application”. Recent statement by Prime Minister of India on conference of Chief Ministers and State Ministers of Tribal Affairs is the clear confession of rejection of Santhal community and Adivasi
community as a whole. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. Either administration has to provide required attention to segregated Santhals or shall face the consequences in term of not anticipated activities. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.
There can be no gainsaying the fact that, injustice engulfed the Santhals (Indigenous people) in every nook and corner of India. One can easily establish the validity of incidents from recent past. Public humiliation including rape, police firing to unarmed, illegal land acquisition, illegal eviction and labeling them as extremist are few to name them. The collection of rules imposed by authority violates Santhal’s rights and their rights over water, forest and land (jal, jangal, jamin) are ignored. By knowing through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; when oppressed Santhals demanded the freedom in so called democratic country, they are being charged with different IPC Sections and labeled as Anti National, Maoist and extremist.
In the midst of darkness, Santhals (Adivasis as whole) are helpless to express their grudges even in day light. Political, social and economic leaders from same community failed to fulfill the expectation of common masses. As they betrayed when achieved desired position or monetary benefits provoked them to serve as puppet of oppressor political or administrative power. Few torch bearers are being constitutionally ruled out, branded and segregated. Others are humiliated in several public forums in order to keep them speechless. Now the intriguing question to answer is that how to go about the step leads to Santhal’s development. As we know from past experiences, Santhals hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon.
To prove valedictory contribution, let’s examine the properties attributed by Santhal’s ancestry. Santhal’s rebel leaders Sidhu, kanhu, Chand and Bhairo on June 30, 1855 had organized opposition to British authority. In other words we can say that, a conflict against corrupt Usury system and their operatives. Birsa Munda challenged the agrarian breakdown and culture change of property rights imposed by British in 1874. Santhals have many unfold stories to disclose.
But not a single brave Santhal struggle against the British has been treated as part of the "National" Struggle for Independence. Adivasi heroes like Sidhu, Kanhu, Birsa Munda, Khazya Naik, Tantya Bhil, Lakshman Naik, Rupa Naik, Thamal Dora, Ambul Reddi, Thalakkal Chandu
etc are only recapture in the songs and folklore of the Adivasis but ignored in every possible manner.
After the transfer of power from British, Santhals dominated areas were left unattended. Santhals and other tribals at large in the central part of India where they were preoccupied with their own survival, the picture was different in the north-east because of the historic and material conditions.
After India got Independence from British, Santhals were restricted in scheduled area left neglected and unattended. After 62 years of independence, Santhals are struggling to achieve two square of meal in their ancestral land. So far no body offered him a landing ears and helping hands. In this critical situation Santhals as whole are in a crossroad.
Let’s examine other aspect of realism. In term of occupancy, total forest cover in India is reported to be 765.21 thousand sq. kms of which 71% are in Adivasi areas. Of these 416.52 and 223.30 thousand sq. kms are categorized as reserved and protected forests respectively. About 23% of these are further declared as Wild Life Sanctuaries and National Parks which alone has displaced some half a million Adivasis. By the process of colonization of the forests that began formally with the Forest Act of 1864, Indian Forest Act of 1927and finally the The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, the rights of Adivasis were reduced to mere privileges conferred by the state.
Recent uprising in different part of country for example in Nagpur, tribal and forest dwellers' condemned the assaults by forest department and declared that the struggle for people's control over resources in forest product. In Burhanpur District of Madhya Pradesh, several people have died since the beginning of last year in the violence unleashed by forest authorities against the communities of the area. In Jagatsinghpur and Niyamgiri, Orissa, the tenacity of people’s resistance against illegal attempts to grab their resources has been matched on only by the brutality of state repression and the sheer brazenness of the Central government's illegal actions in behalf of POSCO and Vedanta. In Mudumalai, Tamil Nadu, an ongoing and expanding people’s struggle against resource grabs in the name of tiger conservation has been met with bribes, threats and the ever-present possibilities of violence. And across the country, from Gujarat to West Bengal, from Rajasthan to Andra Pradesh, Orissa,
Assam, and in Jharkhand the forest Act, only Adivasis have been violated at every level of the state machinery. Act of Forest authorities illegally suppressing people's rights, Suppression of democratic control over resources, Illegal grabbing of forest land by corporate and government agencies, Utilizing wildlife conservation to legitimize resource grabbing field are only subject of Adivasi’s forest land.
Other methods of deserting the Santhal’s forest land adopted by the crooked administration are manmade IDPs(The latest world refugee survey put the total number of IDPs in India as 507,000; the Indian social institute in Delhi and Global IDP Project place it as 21.3 million), eviction, ethnic cleansing, forced migration, developmental induced displacement without proper rehabilitation. These are nothing but bureaucratic restrictions on Santhal's rights and gross human right violation. And as we know India has no national policy and legal institutional framework to deal with IDPs. Due to absence of national policy on resettlement and rehabilitation of IDPs, there have been only piecemeal and ad hoc initiatives at every level. And displaces due to land acquisition ministry of rural development does not deal with other short of displacement.
Critically government accountability for the consequences of state-imposed displacement has been virtually absent. Despite of national policy for rehabilitation which include the rehabilitation coverage the entire community (landless, labourers, landholder, houseless, householders, unemployed and forest dweller), their socio-cultural cost of displacement and economic dimensions (upgrading of skills, accumulation of physical assets and social capital).
In my opinion, with the sub-human treatment and no alternative left in hands of Santhal’s except to prepare for direct action, whereby we belong to particular community need to present our bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the National community. Demand for the proper look after in terms of any sort of displacement, accountability of expenditure for Santhal’s development, basic necessity of living including health and proper education system in Adivasis areas are the few focused idea to be taken care of by government.
As of now we are aware of the fact that, “laws is just on its face and unjust in its application”. Recent statement by Prime Minister of India on conference of Chief Ministers and State Ministers of Tribal Affairs is the clear confession of rejection of Santhal community and Adivasi
community as a whole. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. Either administration has to provide required attention to segregated Santhals or shall face the consequences in term of not anticipated activities. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)