42
CHAPTER 2
THE TRIBE AND SOCIAL FORMATION:
CONCEPTUAL FRAME WORK
2.1
Introduction
The study is based on two major concepts, the „tribe‟ and „social formation‟
and both of them requires some logic explanations. The tribe and social formation
are not usually interrelated phrases because the tribes keep an isolated life pattern
and they select the places for their settlement either in the midst of forest or in the
outskirts of forest. They have been following the traditions and practices, to a
great extent, unfamiliar to the mainstream societies. They disliked to entertain the
strangers and always kept a distance from them. It is our duty to give ideological
base to the concept of social formation and then only we can define and confine
the migration of tribals to the outlook of modernity, by comparing them with the
sophisticated life style of non-tribes. This chapter is an attempt to find out the
meaning and concept of tribes and social formation.
2.2
The Tribe: Concept
The first Census Report of Bainee during 1891, the then Commissioner for
Census of India, included all Tribal groups as „Forest Tribes‟ and kept the same
under the sub-heading of Agricultural and Pastoral Castes. They were again
classified as „Animists‟ or people following „Tribal Religion‟ in the Census Report
of 1911 by Gait; as „Hill and Forest Tribes‟ in the Census Report of 1931 by
Hutton. The Government of India Act 1935 and the Census Report of 1941 used
the term Tribe. There are many terms used in the place of „Tribe‟ almost
synonymously as Adivasi (Original Settlers), Girijan (Hill dwellers), Vanyajathi
43
(Forest Caste), Adimjati (Primitive Caste), Janajathi (Folk Communities) and
Anusuchit Janajathi (Scheduled Tribe). In the recent past, Anthropologists and
others have come across of a new term, i.e., „indigenous people‟ to a large extent,
similar to that of the term „native‟ used during the colonial period.1
A proper definition of the „Tribe‟ is not given in the Indian Constitution.
Colonial Masters used many terms liberally for the communities under their
control, such as, „Primitive‟, „Savage‟, Barbarous‟, „Uncivilized‟, „Pre-literate‟,
„Non-literate‟, „Little community‟, „Aborigine‟, „Native‟ etc. All these words have
inferior meaning and revealed the negative attitude of the colonial masters towards
their subjects. Any community which is listed in the schedule of the Constitution
as a tribe is known as the „Scheduled Tribe‟ in India. The Tribe is an
administrative product, marketed by the Social Scientists.2
The term aboriginal is usually applied to the tribal population of India, not
in any derogating sense but to indicate their being the earliest among the present
inhabitants of the country. The English word „Tribe‟ is derived from the Latin
„Tribus‟, one of the three political divisions or patrician orders of ancient Roma.
The idea of „Indigenous people‟ is an issue of considerable contention in
India today. Administrators, politicians, workers and even scholars widely used
the term to refer to a certain category of people. They hardly felt any unease in the
use of native equivalent of their term, viz., „adivasi‟.3
1
Behura N.K. & Nilakantha Panigrahi, Tribals and the Indian Constitution, Jaipur:
Rawat Publications, 2006, p.6.
2
Kumar B.B., The Tribal Societies of India, New Delhi: Omson Publications, 1998,
p.2.
3
Bijoy C.R., “Adivasis Betrayed: Adivasi Land Rights in Kerala”, Economic and
Political weekly, December 18, 1999, p. 3589.
44
2.3
The Tribe: Definitions
Most definitions of the tribe are confusing ones. There is haziness and the
definitions are never precise.
According to Risley, “the tribe represents a collection or group of families,
bearing a common name, which as a rule does not denote any specific occupation,
generally claiming common descent from a mythical or historical ancestor and
occasionally from an animal, but in some parts of the country, they are held
together rather by the obligation of blood fond than by the tradition of kinship,
usually speaking the same language and occupying or chaining to occupy a
definite tract of country. A tribe is not necessarily endogenous, i.e., it is not an
invariable rule that man of a particular tribe must marry a woman of that tribe”.4
In the words of D.N. Majumdar “A tribe is a collection of families or group
of families bearing a common name, members of which occupy the same territory,
speak the same language and observe certain taboos regarding marriage,
profession or occupation and have developed a well assessed system of reciprocity
and mutuality of obligations. A tribe is ordinarily an endogamous unit, is a
political unit in the sense that the tribal society owns a political organization”.5
According to Dubey, “the tribe generally refers to territorial communities
living in the relative isolation of hills and forests. The comparative isolation, in
some ways, has kept them apart from the mainstream of society in the country.
Partly because of this isolation, and partly because of their limited world-view,
characterized by lack of historical depth (resulting in the early merging of history
into mythology) and the overall tradition orientation, they are integrative themes
4
Herbert Risley, The People of India, Delhi: William Crooke, 1969, p.62.
5
Majumdar D.N., Races and Cultures of India. Bombay.(1958). p.355.
45
and a special cultural focus gave them a separate cultural identity and they often
possesses latent or manifest value attitude and motivational systems which are
remarkably different from those of the other people”.6
Mandelbaum has defined the tribe as “The social unit larger than the local
group with which the families of a local community almost always have a sense of
belonging”.7
Roy Burman has tried to define the tribe under demographic parameters
and has used demographic indicators for the purpose.8
According to Jacobs and Stern, “A cluster of village communities which
share a common territory, language and culture and are economically interwoven
is often designated a tribe”.9
In the opinion of R. N. Mukherjee, “A tribe is that territorial human group
which is bound together by commonness in respect to locality, language, social
codes and economic pursuits”.10
The definition of tribe by Dr. Rivers is quoted by D. N. Majumdar, which
says, “A tribe is a social group of a simple kind, the members of which speak a
common dialect and act together in such common purposes as warfare”.11
6
Dubey S.C., Approaches to the Tribal Problems in India, Journal of Social Research
Vol. III No.2, 1960, p.11.
7
Baum Mandel D.G. and Shapiro H.L., Social Groupings in Man, Culture and Society,
New York: Oxford University Press, 1956, p. 295.
8
Burman Roy B. K., Tribal India: New Frontiers in the Study of Population and Society,
Indian Anthropologists, 1978, p. 80.
9
Kumar B. B. op.cit. p. 3.
10
Mukharjee R. N., People and Institutions of India, Mussorie, 1960. p. 43.
46
The meaning of the word „tribe‟ according to the Oxford Dictionary is, a
race of people, now applied specially to a primary aggregate of people in a
primitive or barbarous conditions, under a headman or chief.
According to the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, the term tribe usually
denotes a social group bound together by kin and duty and associated with a
particular territory, members of the tribe share the social cohesion associated with
the family, together with the sense of political autonomy of the nation.12
According to Ralph Linton, “In its simplest form the tribe is a group of
bans occupying a contiguous territory or territories and having a feeling of unity
deriving from numerous similarities, in culture, frequent contacts and a certain
community of interests”.13
To Lucy Mair, “The tribe is an independent political division of a
population with a common culture”14. To G.W.B. Huntingford, “A tribe is a group
united by a common name in which the members take a pride by a common
language, by a common territory, and by a feeling that all who do not share this
name are outsiders, „enemies‟ in fact”.15
L.M. Lewis defines “Ideally, tribal societies are small in scale, are
restricted in the spatial and temporal range of their social, legal and political
relations and possess a morality, a religious and world-view of corresponding
dimensions. Characteristically too, tribal languages are unwritten and hence, the
11
Majumdar D. N., op.cit. p. 336.
12
Marshall Gordon, Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, New York: Oxford University
Press, 2004.
13
Hasnain Nadeem, Tribal India Today, New Delhi: Herman Publications, 1983, p.13.
14
Ibid., p.15.
15
Ibid., p.17.
47
extent of communications both in time and space is inevitably narrow. At the same
time, tribal societies exhibit a remarkable economy of design and have a
compactness and self-sufficiency lacking in modern society”.16
In India, near 10 percent of the population comprises of the tribes. The term
„Adivasi‟ is widely used to depict the different ethnic groups as „Adi‟ means
original and „Vasis‟ means inhabitants of the country.17
Gandhiji called the tribes „Girijans‟ and Das has referred them as „submerged humanity‟.18
According to Imperial Gazetteer of India, “A tribe is a collection of families
bearing a common name speaking a common dialect, occupying or professing to
occupy a common territory and is not usually endogamous, though originally it
might have been so”.19
Article 336 (25) of the Constitution says that Scheduled Tribes or tribal
communities or parts or groups within such tribes or tribal communities which the
president may specify by public notification under Article 342 (1).20
The tribal communities‟ consultation held at Shillong in 1962 declared, “A
tribe is an indigenous unit speaking a common language, claiming a common
16
Ibid., p.18.
17
Indian Journal of Youth Affairs, Vol. 9, No.2, July-December, 2005. p. 5.
18
Rao Shankar C. N., Sociology: Primary Principles, New Delhi: S. Chand and Co.Ltd.,
2004. P. 616.
19
Hasnain Nadeem, op.cit. p.12.
20
Rao Shankar C.N., op.cit. p.817.
48
descent living in a particular geographical area, backward technology, loyalty
observing social and political customs based on kinship”.21
Following are some of the features of the tribes given by various Indian
writers.
1. A definite territory or who claim to occupy a common territory.
2. A common name.
3. A common dialect.
4. A common culture.
5. Behaviour of an endogamous group.
6. Common taboos.
7. Existence of distinctive social and political systems.
8. Full faith in their leaders.
9. Self-sufficient in their distinct economy.22
Paddington say that, “A tribe is a group of people speaking a common
dialect, inhabiting a common territory and displaying a certain homogeneity n
their culture”.23
Prior to the colonial era the use of a generic term to describe people was, on
the whole absent. Even if there were terms such as „jana‟ and against „jati‟, they
did not have the kind of generality that the term tribe came to acquire during the
colonial and post-colonial period. The use of the term, „tribe‟ to describe people
21
Tripathy S.N. (ed.), Tribals in India: Changing Scenario, New Delhi: Discovery
Publishing House, 1998. p. 338.
22
Vidyarthi L.P and B. K. Rai, The Tribal Culture of India, Delhi: Naurang Rai Concept
Publishing Co., 1977, P.167.
23
Mathur P.V.R., Tribal Situation in Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram: Kerala Historical
Society, 1977, p.23.
49
who were different from those of the mainstream civilization has been viewed as a
colonial construction. There is no doubt that the use of the category „tribes‟ to
describe people so heterogeneous from each other in respect of physical and
linguistic traits, demographic size, ecological conditions of living, regions
inhabited or stages of social formation and level of acculturation and development
as put forward by the colonial administration. The term tribe since the 16th century
has referred to groups or communities, which lived in primitive and barbarous
conditions of living. The pre-colonial depiction of the tribal people in India as
dasyus, „daityas‟, „rakshasas‟ and „nishadas‟, when juxtaposed with the mid 19th
century western racial concept. To the colonial administrators cum ethnographers,
tribes came to be constituted as people who practiced animism or tribal religion.
Tribes are addressed by their tribe names, which generally correspond with their
distinct language or dialect. But, this aspect of the labeling of tribes has been
overlooked in sociological discourse on tribes.24
A tribe is a political unit in the sense that the tribal society owns a political
organization, either recognizes hereditary tribal chiefs or the several sections of it
are welded in to a territorial group rule over by class chiefs of hereditary kings.25
W. J. Perry observes, “Tribe is a group speaking a common dialect and
inhabiting a common territory”.26
D. N. Majumdar, in another occasion defined tribe, “A tribe is a social
group with territorial affiliation, endogamous ,with no specialization of functions,
ruled by tribal officers, hereditary or otherwise, united in language or dialect,
24
Sarin Madhu, “Scheduled Tribes Bill 2005 – A Comment”, Economic and Political
Weekly, March 26, 2005, pp. 1363-64.
25
Singh R. (ed.), Social Transformation of Indian Tribes, New Delhi: Anmol Publications
Pvt. Ltd., 1999, p.18.
26
Ibid.
50
recognizing social distance with other tribes or castes without any social
obligation attached to them as it lies in the caste structure, following tribal
traditions, beliefs and customs, liberal of naturalization of ideas from alien
sources, above all conscious of homogeneity of ethnic and territorial
integration”.27
Kinship ties, common territory, one language, joint ownership, is political
organizations, absence of internecine strife has all been referred to as the main
characteristics of the tribe. It is not easy to define a tribe or a tribal conclusively
and any standardization of this regard is very difficult to obtain.28
T. B. Naik presents some criteria for a tribe. They are:
1. A tribe to be „tribe‟ should have the least functional interdependence
within the community.
2. It should be economically backward: which means:
a) A full import of monetary economics should not be understood by
its members.
b) Primitive means exploiting natural resources should be used.
c) The tribe‟s economy should be at an under developed stage; and
d) It should have multifarious economic pursuits.
3. There should be a comparative geographic isolation of its people from
others.
27
Kumar A. Tribal Development in India, New Delhi: Sarup and Sons, 2002, p.8.
28
Ibid, p.9.
51
4. Culturally, members of the tribe should have a common dialect which
may be subject to regional variations.
5. A tribe should be politically organized and its community panchayat
should be an influentional institution.
6. The tribe members should have the least desire to change. They should
have a root of psychological conservatism making them strict to their
old customs.
7. A tribe should have customary laws and its members might have to
suffer a law court because of these laws.29
These tribes might be undergoing acculturation, but the degree of
acculturation will have to be determined in the context of its customs, gods,
language etc. A very high degree of acculturation will automatically debar it from
being a tribe.
Ehrenfels elaborates the following features of the tribe:
1. A community however small it may be, may remain in isolation from
the other communities within a geographical region.
2. We should delete the following words from the definition of a tribe,
“economically backward”, “primitive means” and “under developed
stage” and substitute them by the word “self-sufficient”.
3. We agree with the definition of geographical isolation, though not every
tribe is an isolated unit of people.
4. Common dialects or languages are typical for tribes.
29
Ibid, pp.10-11.
52
5. A tribe need only always be politically organized not have a
community Panchayat.
6. The members of the tribe have a feeling of belonging to a group, the
existence of which is valuable.
7. Almost all tribes have customary laws and practices, more or less
different from their non-tribal neighbours.30
Ghurye has given the following statements regarding the tribes.
1. Tribal people are geographically isolated and live in hills.
2. They use distinct tribal languages.
3. They are animists.
4. They are adivasis.31
According to Roy Burman, there are two ways to look at the tribes, one as
primitive folk, who have remained backward in the scale of civilization, the other
as minority population who has not assimilated in the main body of the
population.32
Bateille has discussed in detail describing all the characteristics of the
tribe which may at times be present, but also accept that, there may not be any
readymade definition of a tribe, variation in size, customs and affiliation with the
larger society of India.33
30
Ibid, pp. 11-12.
31
Ibid, p. 55.
32
Roy Burman B. K., Basic Concepts of Tribal Welfare and Tribal Integration, Indian
Anthropology in Action, 1960, pp.16-24.
33
Andre Bateille (ed.), The Definition of Tribe, Tribe, Caste and Religion in India, 1977,
pp. 7-14.
53
Naik‟s definition seems to be insufficient; he writes that a tribe must have
least desire to change.34
Dube in another occasion defines the tribes as, “An ethnic category defined
by real or fictine descent and characterized by a self identity and a wide range of
commonly shared traits of culture. They are not egalitarian. They are at least nonhierarchic and undifferentiated.35
The tribes could not be brought under a single definition due to differences
in their cultural, economic, political and structural dimensions. The tribal groups
are, at places, isolated and away from the civilization centres, but at some places,
they are trying to be assimilated in the wider Hindu society. Some groups are more
advanced than others, while some are still hesitating to mix with the main stream
of the national life.36
The word „tribe‟ would seem to be one of the most glaring anachronisms of
our time. In a world which is so often described as a global village, applying the
term “tribe” and adjective “tribal” to be particular kind of ethnic and social groups
of people who are distinguished by their way of life and existence, remote from
the beaten paths of civilization, seems an error of visual acuity.37
From the above definitions, it is clear that the term „tribe‟ has many
connotations. A single definition which contains all aspects of tribe is impossible
to a great extent, because each tribe is different from others. The tribes in the
34
Naik T.B., What is a Tribe: Conflicting Definitions, Applied Anthropology in India,
1968, p.25.
35
Dube S.C., Tribal Heritage of India, New Delhi,1977, p.29.
36
Singh R., Tribal Beliefs, and Insurrections, New Delhi: Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd.,
2000, pp. 271-72.
37
Shashi S.S., Tribes of Kerala, New Delhi: Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd., 2005, p.1.
54
North-Eastern part of India are entirely different from the central and Southern
parts of India.
2.4
The Tribes as Indigenous
The term indigenous people have been in use in India for a long time. The
social workers, missionaries and political activists have been using the term
„Adivasi‟, the Indian language term for the indigenous people. The scholars and
administrators extensively used the term like aborigines, autochthonous etc. to
identify the „Adivasis‟. These terms were used mainly as a mark of identification
and differentiation, to identify a group of people different in political features,
language, religion, custom, social organization etc.
In modern period, aspects of marginalization are found among the
indigenous people. They are subjected to subjugation and domination. The term
„Adivasi‟ used as a mark of differentiation between those who were part of
civilization and those who were not. So the use of the term „Adivasi‟ to describe
tribal people seems to have some validity even if the sense of marginalization.
There is a misconception among the majority that the „Adivasis‟ were not familiar
with the modern aspects of civilization and the yardsticks of civilization are not
suitable to them.
„Adivasi‟ is hence defined as a group which shared a common fate, in the
past century and from this, has evolved a collective identity of being „Adivasis‟. It
is not meant to imply that „Adivasis‟ are the original inhabitants.38
Indigenous people are members of small scale cultures who are engaged in
a contemporary struggle for autonomy and survival in a world dominated by
38
Hardiman D., The Coming of the Devi: Adivasi Assertion in Western India. Delhi:
Oxford University Press, 1987, p. 41.
55
national governments and international markets. Within the political arena,
indigenous means the original inhabitants of a region and is posed in opposition to
the colonists, usurpers and intruders who came later in search of new resources to
exploit. Indigenous people are the original inhabitants of a territory and seek to
maintain political control over their resources and their small scale cultural
heritage.39
Indigenous people self identify as members of small scale cultures and
consider themselves to be the original inhabitants of the territories that they
occupy. Perhaps 200 million or more indigenous people are scattered through out
the world, often in remote areas containing valuable natural resources. They are
self conscious of the advantage of their cultural heritage in comparison with life in
the large scale systems surrounding them.40
In the introduction to the “Philosophy of History” Hegel constructs the
major poles of his dialectical narrative through the opposition between the
“sensual Negro” and the “rational free spirit of the European” and then they argue
that the rational mediation between the Negro and the European is slavery.41
There is the old argument that the poor are responsible for their own plight,
since the opportunities for self improvement are in place and they simply do not
take advantage of them because of their own laziness and incompetence. In the
present system, minorities need to be empowered through affirmative action which
will take the form of, for example, quota places in higher education or
39
Bodley John H., Cultural Anthropology: Tribes’ States and the Global System,
Mountain View, California: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1994, pp. 362-63.
40
Ibid, p. 365.
41
Willet Cyntia (ed.), Theorizing Multi culturalism; A Guide to the Current Debate,
Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers, 1998, p. 34.
56
employment legislation, even if there is at the expense of the dominant majority
groups.42
Tribes are seen as one of the ingredients of variety, the degree and manner
in which they are part of the oft-claimed „unity‟ is rather vague and varied. Indeed,
most of India‟s diversities do often, get metamorphosed into a so called „main
stream‟, but tribes are unmixable oil over vast water mass. Tribes, as a subject of
academic inquiry, seem to have been almost a „birth right‟ of Indian anthropology,
though there are wide possibilities as well as the necessity for more interdisciplinary perspectives and approaches.43
From the above discussions, given by different social scientists, for defining the
term „tribe‟, we can reach the following conclusions.
1. Common name
2. Common language
3. Common Technology
4. Common territory
5. Common descent from a mythical or historical ancestor or the totemistic
origin.
6. May or may not be endogamous
7. The name of the tribe should not denote any specific occupation.
8. The tribe should observe certain taboos regarding marriage, profession
or occupation.
9. Should have developed a well assessed system of reciprocity and
mutuality of obligations.
42
Watson C.W., Multi Culturalism, New Delhi: Viva Books Pvt. Ltd., 2002, p.50.
43
Arup Maharatna, Demographic Perspectives on India’s Tribes, New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 2005, preface xii.
57
10. Should have their own political organization, be a political unit.
11. Sense of belonging.
12. Relative isolation of hills and forests.
13. Limited world-view.
14. Lack of historical depth resulting in the early merging of history into
mythology.
15. Overall tradition orientation.
16. Integrated in terms of themes rooted in past.
17. Separate cultured identity.
18. Barbarous conditions.
19. Chieftainship.
20. Smallness.
21. Homogeneity.
22. Self sufficiency.44
2.5
Classification of Tribes
There are different types of classification of tribes. In different states the
level of
classification is also different. The states of India with more tribal
concentration has different categories of tribes, each one different from the other
in social, religious, economic and agricultural profile.
Roy Burman classifies tribes into four categories.
1. Those incorporated in Hindu society.
2. Those positively oriented to Hindu society.
3. Those negatively oriented, and
4. Those indifferent to Hindu society.45
44
Kumar B.B., The Tribal Societies of India, New Delhi: Omsons Publications, 1998,
P. 4-5.
58
Vidyarthi L.P. and Rai B. N talked of tribes as:
1. Living in forests,
2. Living in rural areas
3. Semi-accultured and
4. Assimilated.46
Elwin envisaged four categories of tribes:1. Purest of pure tribal groups.
2. Groups in contact with the plains but still retaining the tribal mode of
living.
3. Group forming the lower rungs of Hindu faith.
4. Living in modern style.
Tribes have been classified on the basis of the characteristic mode of livelihood.
Bose, divided the tribal people into:
1. Hunters, fishers and gatherers.
2. Shifting cultivators.
3. Settled agriculturists using plough and plough cattle.
4. Nomadic cattle-keepers, artisans, agricultural labourers and
5. Plantation and industrial workers47.
With the advent of the settled agriculturists, among the tribes, they are
increasingly specialized as peasants and but that even the settled agriculturists
45
Roy Burman B.K., Tribal Demography: A Preliminary Appraisal in K. S. Singh‟s
Tribal Situation in India, Shimla: Indian Institute of Anthropological Survey, 1972,
p.72.
46
Vidyarthi L.P. and Rai B. N., The Tribal Culture in India, Delhi: Concept Publication
Company,1977, p.111.
47
Bose N.K., Tribal Life in India, Delhi: Government Publications, 1971, pp. 4-5.
59
among them are not yet peasants in several respects, particularly in the area of
culture.48
There are many differences between the tribes and the non-tribes. If tribals,
have community living (as a type of traditional society), the people on the opposite
pole are “individualistic”, if tribes conserve their environment, their polar opposite
indulges in Wanton destruction, if tribals respect their elders, the non-tribals reject
them as “unwanted species”, if tribals have subsistence economy, the non-tribals
have market oriented economy.49
The primitive tribes or primitive tribal groups (PTG), a list of 75 Scheduled
Tribes, created in 1973, which are supposed to be more backward than the others.
The following criteria have generally been used for their classification.
1. Pre-agricultural level.
2. Dwelling in isolated and remote habitations.
3. Small number, near constant or declining population.
4. Low levels of literacy and
5. Economic and social backwardness.50
Bhupinder Singh has made between two types of tribal communities: first,
those that demand the “first-aid treatment” (which means little help), and second,
those which require, “hospitalization” (i.e., proper intensive care). To him, the
48
Oommen T.K., Alien Concepts and Asian Reality, Delhi: Sage Publications, 1995, pp. 21-37.
49
Vinayakumar Srivasthava, Concept of Tribe in the Draft National Tribal Policy, December 13,
2008, p. 32.
50
Ibid, p.33.
60
primitive tribes fall in the second category. He also proposes that they may be
called the “Primary Tribes”.51
A Committee constituted by Indian Conference of Social Work
recommended that the Indian Tribes can be divided in to four main groups:
1. Tribes: those who live away from the civilized world in the forests and still
maintain their pattern of life.
2. Semi-tribes: Those who have more or less settled in rural areas and adopted
agriculture and other allied occupations.
3. Accultured: those who have migrated to urban and semi-urban areas and are
engaged in civilized occupations and have adopted some traits of culture of the
civilized population, at the same time continuing contacts with their tribal
culture.
4. Totally assimilated: Those who have been totally assimilated in the civilized
urban way of life.52
2.6
Social Formation: Conceptual Framework
In the pre-historic period the people led a nomadic life almost like wild
animals. He faced threats and calamities alone, sometimes survived or perished. In
the Paleolithic or Old Stone Age, the settled life and societal habit did not develop
in most parts of the world. The beginning of cultivation and settled life adopted,
especially in the Neolithic or New Stone Age, opened up a new era of community
life. The inauguration of solid families and the emergence of clan, tribe etc.,
51
Buddhadeb Choudhari (ed.), Tribal Transformation in India, Volume I, New Delhi:
Inter-India Publications, 1990, p.11.
52
Tripathy S.N. (ed.), Tribals in India; Changing Scenario, New Delhi: Discovery
Publishing House, 1998, p. 358.
61
framed a new canvas of group formations. The term social formation got shape
and popularity in the modern period. The Marxian Philosophy coined and
explained many terms, directly or indirectly related to the mode of production like
Asiatic Mode of Production, Prebendalism, Tributary State, Segmentary State,
Oriental Despotism etc.
The Economists and Social Scientists identified many types and stages of
social formation. It extends from the nomadic to post industrial societies. The
evolution of social change is a highly even process and the development of various
stages of socio-economic progress was witnessed in different ages. The prehistoric and historic periods passed through divergent occupational stages. The use
of iron and other metals enhanced the vigour of human advancements. The use of
new technologies and techniques supported and supplemented by new tools and
weapons aided the foundation of new kingdoms and dynasties. The Harappan
Civilization, a milestone in the history of India, witnessed a well advanced social,
economic, religious, technological and architectural progress. That period earned
the name and fame as; First Urbanization‟. Later, the rise of „Sixteen
Mahajanapadas‟, generally known as the age of „second urbanization‟, was a high
time of another advanced social formation.
2.7
The Structuralism Theory
Social formation is a term used by Karl Marx rarely in his work. He used
the term „Social Formation‟ and „Society‟ interchangeably in the preface of his
work, „A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy‟. Later this term was
developed as a concept and a method of enquiry by the “Structuralist Marxists”
like Maurice Godelier, Louis Althusser, Barry Hindess and Paul Hirst, in the
second half of the 20th century. They used it as a concept and method of enquiry to
study the social totality comprised of different structures, in the context of
different modes of production. As opposed to the humanist readings of Marx
62
offered by Lukaacs, Gramsci and others, which stress the role of human agency
and history in social development, the Structuralist Marxists have contented that
what Marx primarily points the way is a scientific structural analysis of social
formations. Althusser views Marxism as a new science of the history of social
formations. These are not centered on human agencies, rather they comprise a
structure of hierarchies relatively autonomous but determined in the last instance
by the economic sub-structure. Some of these theorists have attempted to
distinguish between the usage of social formation and society, however, Althusser
understands „social formation‟ as the total complex of superstructure and
economic infrastructure contains perhaps the most potential for the practical
application of this term. The Structuralist-Anthropologists like Maurice Godelier
preferred the term „Socio-economic formation‟ instead of social formation as they
consider it more useful in the analysis of more concrete historical realities.
Social formation is conceived as consisting of a complex dialectical
relationship between the economic base of a society and the super structure of a
social consciousness and state formation.53 The Structuralists believes that in
primitive tribal societies, the rules of kinship and marriage have an operational
value equal to that of socio-economic phenomena in our society. Hence the
analysis of only kinship relations rather than economic infrastructure provides
further account of the profound structure of the primitive societies.54 The NeoMarxist, on the other hand asserts that kinship relations do not dominate the
overall organization of all these primitives and tribals socio economic formation.
53
Sharp R., Knowledge, Ideology and Politics of Schooling, London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul, 1980.
54
Claude Levi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology, New York: Doubleday and Company,
1969.
63
Such domination is associated with the presence of either a single mode of
production or several modes of production.55
According to the structuralist interpretation, social formation represents a
definite combination of structural levels like economy, politics, and culture and
mode of production that produce a determinate and distinctive „society effect‟. The
„society effect‟ of the social formation depends on the overall reproduction and on
the forms of the levels corresponding to that hierarchy. If the hierarchy is
displaced, it is replaced by a new hierarchy with a new „society effect‟ and a new
form of social formation emerges. Althusser has the opinion that social formation
is a „decentered‟ one, and it has no particular centre. It is a pyramid like structure
distinct from one another. In the social formation, the economic aspect has the top
priority. The other features have also specific significance. Herber Marcuse has
characterized social formation as an „integrated totality‟.
The social formation has been in effect, in different type of societies like
slave society, primitive society, feudal society, capitalist society etc. It has been
also prevalent in particular societies like the Japanese society, the French society
etc.
Althusser acknowledged Marx‟s emphasis on the causal weight of the
economic structure, but insisted upon the “relative autonomy” of the
„superstructures‟. An alternative way had to be found to theorize the structural
complexity of whole societies or “structural formations”. The notions of
“structural causality”, and of society as an “over determined structure in
dominance” were introduced to address this problem. Cultural and political
struggles and processes were recognized as having their own specific character
55
Emmanuel Turrey, Marxism and Primitive Societies, New York: Monthly Review
Press, 1964.
64
and role in the maintenance or transformation of societies, but still in ways shaped
by the greater causal weight of economic processes and relations.56
In orthodox readings of Marx, historical societies could be thought of as a
series, in which each successive form arises out of contradictions in its
predecessors, and constitutes an advance over it, towards a pre established end
state, the realization of human potential, the future communist society. So, the
various “pre capitalist” modes of production (primitive, communist, ancient and
feudal modes) are so many “progressive” epochs, leading to capitalism and
eventually, through class struggle or the basis of economic contradictions, to
socialism and communism as the culmination of historical developments. On
Althusser‟s account Marx, and later Lenin, theorized revolutionary transitions as
“exceptional events”, as “conjuncture”, brought about by the contingent coming
together of numerous contradictions inhabiting the complex structures of social
formation.57
There is no linear or undimensional process of the transformation of tribes
into peasants. Now a day, we see diversities, variations, continuity and autonomy
in all social formations. Assimilation will never end, and acculturation is a
continuous process. Pattern of interactions become available. The profile of tribes
or forest tribes or castes and of their relationship that is heterogeneous.58
Theoretically a social formation refers to the interactive co-existence of two
or more economies structured by the dominance of one. Any study of social
formation at the outset necessitates knowledge about the material processes of
56
Anthony Elliot and Larry Ray (ed.), Key Contemporary Social Theorists, USA:
Blackwell Publishing Company, 2003, p.21.
57
Ibid.
58
Singh K.S., Rethinking of Forest, Forest Dwellers and Ecological History, New
Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2004, p. 44.
65
human adaptation to the different ecosystems of the region and the social
processes of appropriation. The co-existence and interaction multiple economies,
people and the emergent power structure, characterizes the social formation.59
To Marxists, the concept of social formation represents recognition, in the
historical societies. People do not experience their lives in terms of separate
spheres of existence. Basic economic necessities and social relations are superior,
but the factors like religion, politics or culture and their structure and activities are
less significant. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but
their social being that determines their consciousness. A social formation is
intended to denote the unity among the aspects of social existence, and one
specific to a geographical area. A social formation is indented to refer to the
existence of subsidiary modes of production within the dominance of defining
mode. The precise historical changes which occur will be variously paced and
infected in different social formations even though dominated by the same mode
of production.60
2.8
The Classical Concept of Social Formation
The concept of social formation is a means of approximation of concrete
social formations conceived as existing independently. The classical concept of
social formation has the following crucial features:(a) It is a combination of different structural levels like economic, political and
ideological aspects and modes of production that produces determinate and
59
60
Rajan Gurukkal, Tribes, Forest and Social Formation in Early South India, New
Delhi: Manohar Publishers, 2004, pp. 65-66.
Denis Losgrove, Social Formation and Symbolic Land Scope, London: Croom Helm,
2001, pp. 46-47.
66
distinctive „society effect‟ and it has a mode of existence and makes it
relatively autonomous from other existence.
(b) Modes of production represent sub-unities of this existence and they
contribute to the „society effect‟ with varying degrees of determination
depending on their position of domination or subordination.
(c) The „society effect‟ of the social formation depends on the overall
reproduction of its hierarchy of determinacy of modes of production and on
the forms of levels corresponding to that hierarchy. If the hierarchy is
displaced, it is replaced by a new hierarchy with a new „society effect‟ and
a new form of social formation emerges.
(d) Change of form of „effect‟ is not a change in all the elements of the social
formation. Subordinate modes become dominant or vice versa.61
Social formation is the Marxist equivalent of the empiricist, historical and
sociological conception of society as object. Once the conception of social
formation as a determinate unity of being, existence corresponding to its concept,
is abandoned, then the problems of the form of connection between the component
elements of its unitary effect, the problems of empirical contingency on the one
hand and of determination in the last instances on the other, must vanish.62
The conceptualization of social formation involves the following levels of
theorization.
61
Bary Hinders and Paul Hirst, Mode of Production and Social Formation: An Auto
crique of Pre-capitalist Modes of Production, London: The Macmillan Press Ltd.,
1997, pp. 46-47.
62
Ibid, pp. 47-48.
67
1) The specific means and processes of production, the forms of distribution
of the products and the relation of those forms to the condition of
reproduction of the production processes.
2) Forms of class relations specific to the structure of the social formation.
3) Forms of state and political appearance.
4) Specific cultural and ideological forms.
5) The conditions for the transformation of certain of these economic, political
and cultural/ideological forms.
6) Forms of relation to other social formations.
There is no consideration of the possibilities of the existence of class
relations through the condition of distribution of means and conditions of
production entailed in the social relation of a social formation. Concepts of
relations of production and forces of production therefore function as means of
formation of the concepts of determinate social formations.63
The concepts of social formation require definite political and theoretical
problems as the means of their development. In Marxist theory, concepts of modes
of production have been developed on the basis of problems arising from very
diverse sources and with diverse means of representation as problems, the
historians practice, the process of theoretical exposition (e.g. the concept of simple
commodity
production
in
Capitalism);
political
ideologies
(Socialism,
Communism) etc.64
Marxist scholars have long been aware of difficulties in the definition of
certain key terms in Marx‟s writings. In particular, the expressions like social
63
Ibid, p. 56.
64
Ibid, p. 58.
68
formation have been subject to divergent theoretical interpretation on
contemporary Marxist analysis. These differing interpretations can be and have
been supported by reference to particular passages by Marx in which term or terms
are employed in corresponding fashion.
2.9
Stages of Social Formation
The journey of human progress has been passed through different
transitional stages, i.e., from nomadic life to settled life, from shifting cultivation
to highly sophisticated industrial society. The transformation process was a very
slow one, among all human races in general, but extremely slow pace among the
tribes. The rate of growth of progress is different in different communities. The
peculiar life features of the tribal communities, their close relation with forest,
food habits, forest related subsistence, rituals, customs, aversion and fear of the
outside world etc, made the progress of tribals difficult. In India, the tribal
response to progressive measures shows different trends. In North-East India, the
life style of the tribe gives a progressive picture. The social formation acquired
momentum and mobility in that area. But in some other parts tribal communities
are still following the traditional primitive life style and their social formation is
still passing through its early stages.
Earnest Gross, with the help of revolutionary perspective, put forward the
following stages of development.
(1) Collectional economy
(2) Cultural nomadic economy
(3) Settled village economy
(4) Town economy
(5) Metropolitan economy
69
Ehrenfels has put forward the four economic types among the early human
societies of South Asia.
(a) Food gatherers
(b) Higher hunters
(c) Plant cultivators
(d) Nomadic herdsmen
Deryll Forde presents five-fold divisions of economics
a) Collection
b) Hunting
c) Fishing
d) Cultivation
e) Stock raising65
Thurnwald has presented a scheme of various types of economic life, some of
which concerns us directly:1. Homogeneous Communities of men as hunters and trappers, women as
collectors. The Kadar, the Chenchu, the Kharia, the Korwa are some of the
Indian tribes falling into this category.
2. Homogeneous Communities of hunters, trappers and agriculturists. The
Kamar, the Baiga and Birhor are examples of this type from tribal India.
3. Graded society of hunters, trappers, agriculturists and artisans. Most of the
Indian tribes fall under this category.
65
Singh R., Social Transformation of Indian Tribes, New Delhi: Anmol Publications Pvt.
Ltd., 1999, pp. 190-191.
70
4. The herdsmen - the Toda and some sections of the great Bhil tribe furnish
classic examples in India.
5. Homogeneous hunters and herdsmen. This category is not represented
among Indian tribes. The Todas do not hunt nor do they catch fish or birds.
6. Ethnically stratified cattle breeders and traders. The Bhotiyas of the SubHimalayan region of the Uttar Pradesh breed yaks and Jibus (cross between
yak and cow) and are itinerant traders, they come down to the plains in
winter and go over the hills right up to Tibet.
7. Socially graded herdsmen with hunting, agricultural and artisan
population.66
The tribes of India may be divided into following broad categories on the
basis of dominant economic activities in the respective economies.
a) Food gatherers and hunters
b) Shifting cultivators
c) Cultivators
d) Pastoralists
e) Artisans
f) Industrial labourers.67
In India, the tribes who are turning their face against the progressive
measures and still living in the hilly regions are going on with their primitive
mode of life and they are referred as barbarians, savage, uncivilized, wild men,
head hunters etc,. Those who migrated to the valley land were being transformed
66
Ibid.
67
Ibid, p.192.
71
into progressive groups and following the life style of the non-tribes living in their
premises.
The primitive tribes in the hills and forests possessed extremely crude
technology with their sparse population and abundance of natural vegetation, were
engaged in hunting of the wild animals and collecting forest products for their
subsistence.68
The primacy of forest culture and tribal way of life continued until the
social formation get dissolved itself into a new one dominated by advanced wetrice agriculture. The breaking up of the tribes and forest social formation began to
show clearly the form of a series of institutional and structural changes. The social
formation cannot be persisting on for a long time in a set up of complex
redistribution, generating contradictions. There is a tendency of the gradual
breaking up of the existing social formation.
The existing social formation will be disintegrated by the process involved
the spreading of wet-rice fields, growth of domestic hereditary arts and crafts,
formation of villages on agrarian basis, the growth of artisans, craftsmen and
tillers to supplement the occupation of farming, the development of household
owned and controlled by land owners. The alteration from forest based economy
to agrarian based economy was a result of self-realization, mainly due to the
implementation of strict forest laws, first by the colonial rulers and later by the
post-colonial rulers. The primitive, traditional social relationship of the tribe was
based on kinship, and many times they were reluctant to dissolve the kin based tie
up. But the changes of circumstance have broken up the bonds and a new social
formation beyond the social relationship of kinship developed. The social
formation dominated by forest economies disappeared or discouraged and in its
68
Ibid., P.149.
72
place a series of new trends emerged like, the transition from kin-labour to non-kin
labour, multiple functionaries to hereditary occupation groups, clans to castes,
simple clannish settlements to structured agrarian villages, and chiefdom to
monarchy.69
2.10
Social Formation and Changes on Tribals
The twentieth century, however, has seen far reaching changes in the tribal
life. The dissolution of traditional life helped their assimilation process easier and
faster. The extinction of forest resources and external thrust, compelled them to
give up their in born features and life style to a sophisticated mode of living.
Improved transportation and communication has brought about deeper intrusions
into tribal lands, merchants and a variety of government policies have involved
tribal people more thoroughly in the cash economy, although not on favourable
terms. Improved communication, roads with motorized traffic and more frequent
government intervention led to increased contact of tribals with outsiders.70
The opportunities of tribals to go outside and maintain regular contact with
non-tribes encouraged their social transformation. The transmigration of tribal
culture to a new style, some what closer to the mainstream society, opened a new
era of social formation. The Christian missionaries played an important role. They
have inaugurated infrastructure facilities like schools, dispensaries, hospitals, selfemployment opportunities, vocational training etc in the tribal areas. In the NorthEastern states of India, many tribes reached the zenith of progress in this way. In
their march to progress, large scale conversions also took place. The nomadic
69
Rajan Gurukkal, op. cit., pp. 75-79.
70
Nishi Dixit K., Tribes and Tribals: Struggle for Survival, Delhi: Vista International
Publishing House, 2006, pp. 5-6.
73
social formation in its long march paved the way for metropolitan standards of
living.
In some tribal societies, the interplay of both traditional and modern forces
activises heralded change. The traditional forces include Hinduisation,
Sanskritisation and tribe-caste continuum, and the modern forces like
proleterization, urbanization, industrialization, planned development, education,
communication, administration, globalization, neo-liberalization, post modernism,
post structuralism etc., stimulate the process of change. Unlike other societies, the
tribes have only a least reflection to other cultures or forces. The tribal society
possesses slightly different social phenomena. So, they always exhibit a low level
of change and development. As a result, they have been outside the periphery for a
long period. Special constitutional provisions provided by the Government of
India, to a great extent, accelerated the process of change. So, many isolated tribal
communities are now exposed to the outside world and are experiencing the
conditions of conflict, continuity and change. The shake up and replacement of
certain traditional traits with newly emerging value orientations have been clearly
pronounced in most of the tribal communities and they are also undergoing several
changes in their way of life.71
The rate of social formation increased with the introduction of Panchayat
Raj system. The development facilities such as drinking water, electricity and
communication have been initiated in many villages. The government and other
development agencies give special consideration to provide educational and
irrigation facilities.
71
Singh R. (ed.), Environmental Policy and Tribal Modernisation, New Delhi: Anmol
Publications Pvt. Ltd., 2000, p.12.
74
2.11
Sanskritisation and Acculturation
The life and culture of the tribes have been undergoing a slow process of
transformation as a result of the contacts with the more advanced people from the
non-tribal areas. This process of cultural contact is known as „acculturation‟. The
process is the result of individuals or groups of people having different cultures
come in to continuous first hand contact.72 The terms like „disintegration‟,
„fusion‟, and „assimilation‟ have been used to describe changes resulting from
contact. The study of acculturation analyses the areas and extent of contact and the
consequences of these conditions upon the concerned cultures.73 Contact between
different cultures will produce positive or negative results. It may be advantageous
to one group or disadvantages to other group. But in some other cases the contact
will be equally beneficial to both parties. Hence contacts are of different types
like, „antagonistic contact‟, „exploitative contact‟ and „philanthropic contact‟.74
The social formation to an advanced stage is possible through the process of
acculturation. The assimilation process has two way directions, i.e., „alienation‟
and „reorientation‟. It is „alienation‟, if the change on the part of members of one
culture is away from the rules governing their traditional structured activities
without internalization of the rules of the other culture, and second the
„reorientation‟ is the change towards the rules governing the structured activities
of the other culture. In „alienation‟, the rules of the culture are abandoned, in
72
Robert Ralph Redfield, Linton, and Melville Herskovits, Memorandum for the Study
of Acculturation, American Anthropologist. Vol. 38, 1936, p. 149.
73
Bruce Dohren P and Robert J. Smith, Toward a Theory of Acculturation, South
Western Journal of Anthropology: 18:3, 1962, p. 31.
74
Ibid, p. 37.
75
„reorientation‟, the rules are altered by processes of internationalization to bring
them in line with those of other cultures.75
Famous Marxists historian, D.D. Kosambi opined that, in India
acculturation has been a continuous process extending over centuries, so the
period of inception is unknown. Basically, it was not a violent action, but a
benevolent action, since both the more advanced and less advanced elements in
the formation of a new society are borrowed from each other.76
„Sanskritisation‟ is another concept developed in India. M. N. Srinivas
coined this term. The lower castes, in order to raise their position in the caste
hierarchy, adopted some customs of the Brahmins and gave up some impure
practices, they followed earlier like meat eating, liquor consumption, animal
sacrifices etc. Through the adoption of this life style, they expect, within a
generation or two they could claim higher class position in the hierarchy of castes.
The lower castes have been adopted vegetarianism and teetotalism in order to
move higher in the caste hierarchy and sanskritising its ritual pantheon.77 Besides
the adoption of vegetarianism, teetotalism, and by sanscritising its ritual pantheon,
it took over the customs, rites and beliefs of the Brahmins and by the adoption of
Brahmanism, a low caste seems to have been frequent, though theoretically
forbidden. The Sanskritisation is a process of Brahminisation and certain Vedic
rites are certified to the Brahmins and two other „twice-born‟ castes.78
75
Ibid, pp. 33-34.
76
Kosambi D.D., An Introduction to the Study of Indian History, Mumbai, 1990, p. 50.
77
Srinivas M.N., Social Change in Modern India. Bombay. (1994). p. 57.
78
Srinivas M.N., Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India, Culcutta, 1952,
p.30.
76
2.12. Conclusion
The process of social formation is a reality among the tribes of India, but its
rate of influence will be highly varied among different tribes, in different areas. To
a great extent, it depends upon their attitude towards the changing scenario and
their accessibility to the welfare measures adopted by the government and other
agencies. It is a pleasant fact that, most of the tribal groups, so far, abandoned their
old practices of nomadic life and entered to some other stages of social formation
considered to be advanced. But, minority is still following their traditional isolated
life, in the midst of forest and in the dark caves, reluctant to exhibit themselves to
the sophisticated external world. In the post independent era, the intensification of
socio-economic changes were the results of the tribal welfare measures introduced
by the government, the expansion of such facilities as roads, housing and
education, while increasing their contact with the outside world, helped to widen
the world outlook of the tribes.
The welfare measures encouraged the
development of urban tendencies in the tribal areas.
The non-tribal peasant migration to tribal areas was an important reason for
socio-economic changes. Large scale migrations helped to inundate the tribal
regions with non-tribal habits and practices and promoted intensive urbanization in
those areas. In the march of social formation, the tribes lost their ancestral lands,
traditional life style, peaceful atmosphere, food habits, customs, practices etc. But
the progress in education and basic infrastructure facilitated them to defeat their
negligence to the ever progressing and changing world around them. The social
formation is a never ending process and nobody can demarcate its area of
influence and yardsticks of impact. The inclination of tribals towards
the
mainstream tendencies, at low or high rate is a great instance for their pro-attitude
towards social formation. If education is a basic concern to analyze the progress of
77
a community, the Kerala state, one of the most literate states in India, has achieved
remarkable progress in tribal literacy.