Paper No.

: 05 Tribal Culture of India

Module : 01 Tribe and its Problematic Nature

Development Team

Principal Investigator Prof. Anup Kumar Kapoor

Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi

Prof. Anup Kumar Kapoor

Paper Coordinator
Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi

Dr. Kanato Chophy

Content Writer Department of Anthropology, Central University, Jharkhand

Prof. A. Paparao
Content Reviewer
Sri Venkateswar University, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh

Tribal Culture of India

Anthropology
Tribe and its Problematic Nature
 Description of Module

Subject Name Anthropology

Paper Name 05 Tribal Culture of India

Module Name/Title Tribe and its Problematic Nature

Module Id 01

Tribal Culture of India

Anthropology
Tribe and its Problematic Nature
 Introduction
The concept of tribe has traversed a long academic and intellectual history in anthropology. In fact,
many scholars consider the term ‘tribe’ synonymous with the development of anthropology as a
specialized discipline, which focused primarily on the study of ‘primitive’, remote, isolated and small-
scale societies. The word tribe in medieval Europe loosely referred to a group of people maintaining
close contact with each other and claiming descent from a common ancestor; nevertheless, it also
gained notoriety for its assumed barbarous condition, amorphous and apolitical state as opposed to the
centralized authority and city-state political organization inherited as part of the Roman Empire. In
fact, the term tribe is also closely associated with what is known as the ‘Dark Age’ in Europe—a
period said to be populated by hordes of kin based warring groups steeped in chaos and barbarity until
rescued by the Renaissance and the Enlightenment in Europe, deemed as the age of Reason. The
inheritance of the intellectual concept of tribe by the early Victorian thinkers propping the conceptual
development in anthropology followed the same analogy, where European society was seen as the
pinnacle of civilisation and technological advancement as opposed to the primitive, barbarous and
technologically inferior societies in Africa and the Orient. In crux, the development of the concept was
shrouded in value judgment and measure of civilisational superiority invented and nurtured by the
western society.

In Europe, the region to which anthropology owes its beginning, it was mostly the lawyer-philosophers
who systematized the concept with the aim to delineate the types of societies in relation to the
emergence of different laws, customs and political institutions underpinning human societies and
guiding the functionality of human marriage, family, kinship and other institutions. Thus it was
especially in the writings of people like Henry S. Maine, J.F. McLennan, J.S. Mills, and Johannes
Bachofen, etc., who gave shape to the concept to classify the progression of human societies and
cultures on an evolutionary scale; and later in the works of early anthropologists like E.B. Tylor, L.H.
Morgan, Robert Lowie, Malinowski, and Evans-Pritchard the term became a common currency in
anthropology influencing the development of anthropological theories and ethnographic method.
Consistent with this anthropologists like Elman Service and Marshal Sahlins classified human societies
on the basis of political organisations such as bands, tribes, chiefdoms and states— here the tribes
represented by a political formation based primarily on kinship bonds and segmentary lineage system.
However, the term ‘tribe’ became increasingly complex as scholars across interdisciplinary boundaries
began to attribute both specific and general characteristics to the concept. As such varying criteria like
geographical isolation, marginality, economy and livelihood, language, religion, political organisation,
territorial integrity, and distance from civilization began to be identified and to accentuate the
understanding of the term tribe.

Tribal Culture of India

Anthropology
Tribe and its Problematic Nature
 The Theoretical and Conceptual Development

The conceptual development of the word tribe is mired in controversy because of the close association
between anthropology and European colonialism. It is evident that the concept emerged in the context
of Africa, Australasia and North America, but later towards the second half of the 18th century the
concept became popular in the Indian context to identify and classify Indian populations on the basis of
social formation by the colonial government. Given the diversity within the population groups regarded
as tribes, different terms were used such as aborigines, natives, first nations, primitive peoples, and
indigenous peoples, etc. All these terms were used interchangeably to denote groups of people deemed
different from the mainstream societies. Nevertheless, there was no unanimity among the scholars as to
the exact definition of tribe, thereby churning out a great deal of definitions; hitherto, there is no
working definition except some shared commonalities, although those characteristics which were
earlier identified as attributes of tribal communities are fast changing and have become increasingly
problematic in the contemporary situation.

The ethnographic studies conducted by anthropologist across the globe exacerbated the conceptual
ambiguity since what scholars like Morgan, Sahlins and Godelier saw as organized society with well
demarcated social, cultural and as endogamous unit was challenged by later scholars who witnessed
fluidity and permeability in the afore mentioned boundaries within the societies identified as tribes
especially in the context of South Asia. In a radical departure from the tacit definition of tribes, Morton
Fried posited tribe as a kind of epiphenomena taking its form and identity from other social
formations—which he opined would take a different form and identity when the external source from
which the group derive its identity begin to shift its boundary and change over time. Though Morton
Fried’s thesis can be supported by ethnographic data from Africa, North America and the Indian sub-
continent; however, what Maurice Godelier posited tribe as both ‘a type of society and a stage of
evolution’ could be equally substantiated by anthropologists conducting fieldwork in the sub-Saharan
region, Australia and the Pacific islands, although guided by differing theoretical perspectives. For
instance, in the study conducted by Elisabeth Colson, she observed that the identity of Makah Indians
as a tribe owed its existence not to the assumed distant past but to a more recent period, a process
emerging out of the administrative policy of the United States government primarily in the works of
the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. But also among the Australian Aborigines, African tribes and Native
Americans, early social scientists like Durkheim, Mauss, Tylor and Robertson Smith found a pristine
and isolated societal and cultural stage, which provided scope not only for theoretical developments
but also notable characteristic features to identify and characterize what was known as primitive and
tribal societies. Interestingly, what these scholars theorized, such as ‘primitive classification’, ‘division
of labour’, ‘animism’, ‘totemism’, and ‘segmentary system’ became point of reference for
classification and identification of tribes. As such concepts like animism and totemism still finds

Tribal Culture of India

Anthropology
Tribe and its Problematic Nature
 popular usage and provides theoretical underpinning to the conceptual understanding of tribal
communities. Thus for instance, in the Indian census operation of 1901, tribes were identified as those
who practiced ‘animism’, a conceptual framework that would change in the succeeding census
operations.

In retrospect, the rise of anthropological theories on religion and political organisation influenced the
contours of conceptual developments of tribe amongst the theorizing of other social institutions.
Consistent with this, it was Durkheim’s theorizing on the primitive and non-state societies based on
evolutionary principle that had paramount influence on the conceptual development of tribe. Emile
Durkheim’s conceptual developments such as categories of thought, division of labour, primitive
classification and segmentary system was used extensively towards the latter part of the 19th century;
however, it was scholars in the Commonwealth who resuscitated Durkheim’s original work on the
‘polysegmental society’ to lend conceptual framework to the understanding of tribe. The two notable
works that popularized segmentary system was Evans-Pritchard’s The Nuer and Meyer Fortes and
Evans-Pritchard’s edited volume African Political Systems. As observed it was in the ethnographic
works of Evans-Pritchard and Paul Bohannan on segmentary lineage system on the Nuer and the Tivin
Africa that caught the imagination of researchers who began to replicate his structural model in
communities around the globe to develop a uniform conceptual understanding of tribe. The definition
of tribe as a segmentary system found takers among anthropologists on both sides of the Atlantic. Thus
it was the American anthropologist, Marshal Sahlins, whose definition of tribes as a ‘segmental
organisation’ gained prominence in an attempt to universalize the definition of tribes across cultural
and geographical boundaries.

The definition of tribe as segmentary system was understood as a societal system composed of
equivalent segments, or parts each similar to the other in structure and function based primarily on
kinship rules—both imagined and real— stretching further into larger genealogical groups but
maintaining structural parallelism, as best exemplified by Evans-Pritchard work on the Nuer, where a
local segment stretched further into hierarchy of lineages up to the binary opposition of the Nuer and
Dinka tribal identity. The tribe as segmentary system was not without criticism, as the segmentary
principle was not consistent everywhere; and scholars began to critique tribes as an evolutionary stage,
which was significantly diverse and too amorphous to be contained within a fixed conceptual
framework.

In the Indian subcontinent, the problem is more observed due to the pervasive reality of what the
Indian anthropologists call as ‘tribes in transition’ or the tribe-caste continuum. According to N.K.
Bose categorization of ‘jana and jati’ i.e., tribe and caste—the jana had been interacting with the jati in
significant ways since time immemorial. Bose argued that Indian tribes were never isolated but were

Tribal Culture of India

Anthropology
Tribe and its Problematic Nature
 part and parcel of Indian civilization; and therefore, it is important to understand the process of what he
calls as tribe-caste continuum.

Unlike in other parts of the world where the Anglo-American anthropologists drew their ethnographic
data to build a case for evolutionary perspective of tribes or as a ‘stage of evolution’, the same could
not be applied in the Indian context comprising the Old World, where substantial ethnographic data
and ancient Sanskritic texts garnered a case of centuries of coexistence between tribes and civilization.
In the Anglo-American definition and characterisation of tribes, the distance, if not isolation of tribes
from civilization featured prominently in the theoretical and conceptual developments. However, the
case of Indian tribes presented a peculiar situation that challenged the popular conception of tribes.
Thus for instance, in recent times communities like the Gujjars in Rajasthan and the Mahato in
Chotanagpur are reasserting their identity to be counted as tribes, a contentious identity politics in India
substantiating Morton Fried’s thesis of tribes as an epiphenomena; however, on the other hand,
‘primitive’ tribal groups like the Andaman Islander tribes can fit into what anthropologists have
identified as a ‘stage of evolution’.

André Béteille in his important contribution noted that tribes and civilization have coexisted together,
and the demarcating identity of tribe in India has been that of ‘remaining outside the state or
civilization, whether by choice or necessity’ rather than occupying a definite stage of evolution in the
progression from simple to complex social formations. Béteille’s contention was to challenge the
West’s conceptual development of tribe, but as he further observes, the development of the concept of
tribe in India was to identify rather than define; and the administrative and political pursuits have
supplanted the theoretical and methodological considerations.

Definition

Anthropologists have defined tribe in varied ways, but if we survey the literature on tribes, some
consensus can be arrived at. Broadly speaking, tribes are conceptualized in anthropological literature as
isolated or relatively isolated communities having cultural autonomy with a demarcated territory,
having a specific dialect, showing relatively simple mode of production using crude and simple
technology, characterized by subsistence economy and absence of monetized economy; it is a group
with its own traditional religion, deities, semiotic system, cosmology, rituals, ceremonies and beliefs;
characterized by political sovereignty and self-determination, having control over resources at the level
of individual and the community; sharing the same culture, ethnic identity, history, future aspirations,
and where the members have a sense of belongingness to a common stock which Ralph Linton called
as ‘Esprit-de-Corps’. However, if we understand tribes by all these features, they point toward a
particular social stereotype of tribal communities, because in reality the communities enlisted as tribes
do not possess all the characteristics.
6

Tribal Culture of India

Anthropology
Tribe and its Problematic Nature
 These characteristic features conjures an image of a small group of people isolated in terms of culture,
language and having a different lifestyle in which religion and economy play an important role along
with politics but they do not override the cultural values. It is characterized by a communitarian
lifestyle with the community wellbeing taking precedence over individual aspirations, a lifestyle in
which the society develops on the availability of local resources. Also a collective living in which they
worship certain gods and goddesses, not comparable with the gods and goddesses of great religions,
and they have their own religious as well as political leadership. What is being hinted in this definition
is a whole community, which is not affected by so called civilization and mainstream culture. This way
of understanding tribes have created many conceptual problems and ambiguity in the definition of
tribes.

Problems of definition with special reference to India

The term tribe is definitely an exterior category, which fails to reflect the indigenous reality. The term
tribe is not an indigenous category and lack consensus. Many anthropologists would have reservation
using the term tribe; instead, some have used the terms adivasi, adimjati, anusuchitjanjati, vanvasi, and
so on. The term tribe is not a universally valid category since the similar groups of people whom we
call tribes in India are called Native Indians in North America, minorities in China, Aborigines in
Australia, and indigenous peoples in South America, etc. Even within a particular country, there are
different stakeholders who are interested in the study and administration of tribal affairs: there are
administrators, census enumerators, planners and developmental specialists, members of civil societies,
and academics, etc. Even among the academics there are anthropologists, historians, political scientists,
sociologists, and social workers, etc., and there is no consensus as to what should be called a tribal
society. The problem is even more acute in the case of India due to two fundamental reasons.

1. The multiplicity of cultures, socio-economic formations, and language, etc., are so diversified that
hunter-gatherers, cultivators, pastoralists, artisans, and industrial labourers are all clubbed together
under the category of tribe. The social categories are diversely formed on the principles of
matriliny, moiety system, to caste like formation, and tribes are known for cultural richness and
diversity. There is tremendous diversity and one word cannot do justice to all these types of social
formations.
2. The other problem is how the question of tribe has been handled by various stakeholders, and
more importantly by the government agencies. If we look into the categories used by census
enumerators, we find that in a relatively short span of time between 1901-1951 different terms
were used for designating tribal communities. In 1901, they were named as people who practiced
animism, in 1921 as hills and forest tribes, and in 1951 as Scheduled Tribes, etc. Before 1901, they
were named as aboriginals, primitive peoples and outcaste, etc. Thus these census exercises have
added more confusion rather than ameliorating the concept.
7

Tribal Culture of India

Anthropology
Tribe and its Problematic Nature
 If we look into the empirical situation, the problem of defining a tribe gets compounded. For instance,
let us take the criteria of isolation or semi-isolation; studies from North East India suggest that the
Naga tribes during the colonial and pre-colonial rule enjoyed a different kind of isolation. The Naga
villages were located on hill tops and were fortified having boundary walls and reinforced with
wooden palisades, sentry outpost and khel gates to protect the community from invasion and
headhunting raids; and as such it helped the colonial administrator-ethnographers to conceive the Naga
as an isolated community. However, Haimendorf reported that the Nagas as early as the 18th century
would organize themselves and come to the neighboring plains to take away plunder from the markets,
since their relationship with their neighbours was marked with hostility. In the case of Andaman
Islands among the tribes like the Sentinelese, Jarawa, and Shompen, etc., who is known for their
aversion toward outside contact, the colonial government had been sending unmanned boats of
bananas, blankets, tents and other items; and they have been using these commodities, and as such the
argument of absolute cultural isolation is a misnomer. Therefore, the criteria of isolation cannot be
regarded to judge the community as a tribe or non-tribe. On the contrary, in the Nilgiri hills of South
India,the Toda, Kota, Kurumba and Badaga best exemplify the case of economic interdependence and
cultural contact between tribe and caste. The Toda are pastoralists, the Kota are medicine men, the
Kurumba are artisans, and the Badaga are agriculturalists; and importantly, they are not in hostile
relationship with their neighbours. There exists a kind of exchange mechanism among the four
communities characterized by bartering system assuming a form of jajmani system; and jajmani system
is found among caste communities. These four tribal communities are not isolated but they live
together in a system of economic interdependence. The very notion of isolation among Indian tribes is
a misnomer, since the tribal situation can range from punctuated hostility (like among the Naga and
Sentinelese) to a system of harmonic economic dependence not only within the tribal communities but
also with the neighbouring caste communities.

If we look into the tribal economy, the argument of subsistence economy is not always true; many a
times tribal economy is marked by the production of surplus, and they enter the market economy
especially among the rich and the elite. In the India context, tribes like the Totos and Bhotia were
traders supplying hand woven items like shawls to their long time clients. Among the West African
tribes, cowrie shells were regarded as a medium of exchange. The Tiv of Nigeria used iron rods as
medium of exchange, while among the Ashanti, golden weights and blankets were used. In this
context, anthropologists like Dalton and Bohannan have used the term ‘primitive money’ for such kind
of exchange. Thus owing to diverse economic livelihood among the communities deemed as tribes, the
parochial definition of subsistence economy fails to capture the prevailing social reality.

On the aspect of political life, the tribal societies show diverse political systems and institutions. If we
look into the tribal governance, traditionally many tribes may have been autonomous, but after the

Tribal Culture of India

Anthropology
Tribe and its Problematic Nature
 formation of the Indian state, the collective resources were brought under the state, and over a period
of time the people who owned them became daily wage labourers in their own land; and therefore, it is
important to understand the emerging political domination by the exterior state to an extent to which
they get pauperized. Tribes as sovereign communities are no longer applicable; they have to pay tax,
abide by common law of the land, and the problem of governance is creating more vexing issues about
tribal polity. The rise of modern day Naxalite movement in Central India and the separatist movements
in North East India are all examples of evolving tribal polity and governance, and therefore it would be
erroneous to argue that tribal people have their own autonomy.

‘Tribe’: the Future of the Concept

The term tribe has fallen into disrepute in the contemporary anthropological thought; nevertheless, this
does not imply that the concept has been completely discarded for lack of unanimity and coherence.
The term is considered pejorative for its negative connotation grading human societies on an
evolutionary scale; moreover, scholars in the postcolonial context associate the concept with European
colonialism and imperialism perpetuating the colonial condition and consciousness. Be that as it may,
to denounce the social formation albeit paradoxically identified as tribe in India, and by host of other
names in various parts of the globe would be to commit an intellectual fallacy. The concept tribe may
be seen as a social construction, but nevertheless it also represents a type of social formation
maintained by the duality of the self and other, where the resilience of human adaptation, creativity and
environmental factor take the form of ethnic and cultural diversity.

At least in the Indian context, the concept is here to stay, and will occupy an important space in the
Indian anthropological scene for decades in the 21st century. This does not imply that Indian social
scientists are averse to change nor are they oblivious to postmodern semantics and the conundrum of
multiple identities vexing anthropological discourse. The concept of tribe has ensconced itself in the
Indian context as it has become conflated with the government’s affirmative action and constitutional
safeguard for marginalised communities of the Indian state. In fact, the term Scheduled Tribe has
constitutional legitimacy and sanction consequently influencing the academic discourse as well as
policy making involving various stakeholders interested in the study of tribes. The social category
called as tribe and also interchangeably by other terms like adivasi, indigenous peoples, andjanjati, etc.,
will continue to both enhance and perplex Indian anthropology.

Tribal Culture of India

Anthropology
Tribe and its Problematic Nature