3 Autochthons, Peopling of India

Dr. Ratika Samtani

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Learning Outcomes

1. Introduction

2. Peopling of India

3. Tribes as Indigenous People

4. Debate on the Autochthon status of Tribes

5. Summary

Learning Outcomes

After studying this module:

You shall be able to understand the concept of indigenous community, autochthones of India
You will develop a clear insight on the peopling of India project
You will know the view of different scholars on the aboriginal status of tribes.
In addition, you would understand the debate and discussion over the autochthon status of tribes in India.

1. Introduction

Indigenous people are those groups especially protected in international or national legislation as having a set of specific rights based on their historical ties to a particular territory, and their cultural or historical distinctiveness from other populations. The legislation is based on the conclusion that certain indigenous people are vulnerable to exploitation, marginalization and oppression by nation states formed from colonising populations or by politically dominant, different ethnic groups.

Indigenous peoples can also be described as those which have 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 are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generation their ancestral territories and their ethnic identity.

Indian Society is marked by considerable heterogeneity in terms of ethnic/cultural diversity and has, therefore been perceived more in terms of differences than similarities. The major social categories in terms of which the differences have been perceived are religion, territory, language and caste. These categories were reinforced during British rule through the decennial enumeration and classification of the population into groups and categories, one of the major intellectual and administrative preoccupations of the colonial state (Cohn 1968; Dirks 1989, 1992, 2001; Inden 1990). To these existing categories, a new category was added during the period called “Tribe”. One of the most common alternative terms for tribes was aborigines. One can find reference to this in the writings of Risley (1915), Elwin (1944), Thakkar (1941). Some scholars and social reformers also make use of the term Adivasis, or autochthonous people of the land, implying that they were the early settlers. In India the term „Adivasi‟ has gained immense popularity in the last few decades to identify the tribes. This term is more commonly brought to use by the NGO circles and activists of the „mainstream‟ or „mainland‟ India. In Hindi the term „Adivasi‟ means original settlers.

Anthropological survey of India conducted the People of India Project which enumerated 461 tribal communities , of which 174 have been identified as sub-groups. The 67.7 million people belonging to „Scheduled Tribe‟ in India are generally considered to be „Adivasi‟, literally meaning „Indigenous People‟ or original inhabitants, though the term „Scheduled Tribe‟ (ST) is not coterminous with the term „Adivasi‟. Scheduled Tribe is an administrative term used for the purpose of „administering‟ certain specific constitutional privileges, protection and benefits for specific section of peoples historically considered disadvantaged and „backward‟ (Bijoy, 2003). However, this administrative term does not exactly match all the peoples called „Adivasi‟. Out of the 5653 distinct communities in India, 635 are considered to be „tribes‟ or „Adivasis‟. In comparison, one finds that estimated number of STs varies from 250 to 593.

For practical purposes, the United Nations and multilateral agencies generally consider the STs as ‘indigenous peoples’. With the ST population making up 8.08% (as of 1991) of the total population of India, it is the nation with the highest concentration of ‘indigenous peoples’ in the world! The Constitution of India, which came into existence on 26 January 1950, prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth (Article 15) and it provides the right to equality (Article 14), to freedom of religion (Articles 25-28) and to culture and education (Articles 29-30). STs are supposedly addressed by as many as 209 Articles and 2 special schedules of the Constitution – Articles and special schedules which are protective and paternalistic.

Article 341 and 342 provides for classification of Scheduled Castes (the untouchable lower castes) and STs, while Articles 330, 332 and 334 provides for reservation of seats in Parliament and Assemblies. For purposes of specific focus on the development of STs, the government has adopted a package of programmes, which is administered in specific geographical areas with considerable ST population, and it covers 69% of the tribal population (Bijoy, 2003).

Despite this, and after the largest “modern democracy” of the world has existed for more than half a century, the struggles for survival of Adivasis – for livelihood and existence as peoples – have today intensified and spread as never before in history.

Over centuries, the Adivasis have evolved an intricate convivial-custodial mode of living. Adivasis belong to their territories, which are the essence of their existence; the abode of the spirits and their dead and the source of their science, technology, way of life, their religion and culture.

2. Peopling of India

The People of India data recognizes 4635 such ethnic communities. Many of these are however clusters of endogamous groups with similar traditional occupations and social status. The actual number of endogamous groups is decidedly much larger, of the order of 50 to 60 thousand (Joshi, Gadgil and Patil 1993; Gadgil and Malhotra 1983). This persistence of tribe like endogamous groups, characteristic of hunter-gatherer-shifting cultivation stage all over the world, in a complex agrarian, and now industrial society of India is a unique phenomenon. It seems to be a result of a peculiarly Indian tradition of subjugation and isolation, rather than the worldwide practice of elimination or assimilation of subordinated communities by the dominant groups.

The Indian subcontinent has been populated by a series of migrations propelled by significant technological innovations outside India since the first major expansion of non-African Homo sapiens, probably around 65,000 years before present. The likely major migrations include (i) Austric language speakers soon after 65,000 ybp, probably from northeast (ii) Dravidian speakers around 6,000 ybp from mideast with the knowledge of cultivation of crops like wheat and domestication of animals like cattle, sheep, goats (iii) Indo-European speakers in several waves after 4000 ybp with control over horses and iron technology (iv) Sino-Tibetan speakers in several waves after 6000 ybp with knowledge of rice cultivation. A notable feature of Indian society is the persistence of thousands of tribe-like endogamous groups in a complex agrarian and now industrial society. In this society populations of dominant groups have continued to grow, while those of subjugated groups may have stagnated most of the time (Gadgil et al, 1997)

Humans not only transmit genes from one generation to the next, they also transmit cultural traits. Some of these are extremely conservative, being transmitted quite faithfully from parents to offspring. Foremost amongst these is language; children almost invariably acquire their mother tongue from their parents and other relatives. Language and other conservative traits such as practices relating to disposal of the dead are therefore excellent devices to trace historical changes. According to Cavalli-Sforza et al (1994), languages are good markers for unraveling the ancestries and movements of people. All languages of India, can be assigned to one of four major language families – Austric, Dravidian, Indo-European and Sino-Tibetan. An excellent information base on the speakers of these languages is provided by the People of India project of the Anthropological Survey of India. This project involved assigning the entire Indian population to 4635 ethnic communities and putting together detailed information on each of them through interviews of over 25000 individual informants spread over all districts of India, along with compiling information from a variety of published sources (Joshi, et al., 1993). This project records as the mother tongue the following number of languages of different families spoken by Indian ethnic communities:

Global distribution

The geographical range of distribution of Austric, Indo-European and Sino-Tibetan speakers is extensive; India harbours only a minority of the languages within these families. The geographical range of distribution of Dravidian languages is however restricted largely to India; there are only two outlying populations – Brahui in Baluchistan and Elamic in Iran. Dravidian languages might then have developed within India, others are less likely to have done so, for we have no evidence of any major technological innovations that could have served to carry speakers of those languages outside India (Gadgil et al, 1997).

The tribal communities of India continue to extensively hunt and gather as well as practice low input shifting cultivation. These communities are likely to have migrated to India relatively early, perhaps prior to the beginning of agriculture and animal husbandry. Some tribal groups or other speak languages belonging to each of the four families. Korkus, Mundas, Santals, Khasis speak Austric languages; Gonds, Oraons Dravidian languages, Nagas and Kukis Sino-Tibetan languages and Bhils and Varlis speak Indo-European languages.

But it is amongst Austric speakers that all communities are exclusively tribals. Outside India also most Austric speaking communities practice very primitive technologies. This suggests that Austric speaking people may be the oldest inhabitants of India. They may be amongst the first group of Homo sapiens to have reached India, perhaps some 50-65 kybp. Since over 98% of Austric speakers today lie in southeast Asia, they may have entered India from the northeast (Gadgil et al, 1997).

Sino-Tibetan speakers of India also include many tribal groups, though they also include communities like Maites of Manipur valley practicing advanced agriculture. Their concentration is along the Himalayas; only one community of West Bengal has reached mainland India. Many of them report having moved into India from Myanmar or China within last few generations. They are therefore peripheral to the broader peopling of India.

The bulk of Indian mainland populations are Dravidian and Indo-European speakers. Both include communities‟ at all economic levels from tribals to the most advanced cultivator, pastoral, trader or priestly groups. Many of the technologically less advanced amongst these communities such as Dravidians speaking Kanis of Kerala or Indo-European speaking Bhils of Rajasthan may have acquired these languages in more recent times through the influence of the economically more advanced mainstream societies. It is however notable that while there are several Dravidian speaking forest dwelling tribal communities such as Gonds or Oraons in a matrix of more advanced Indo-European speaking communities, there are no enclaves of forest dwelling tribal Indo-European speakers surrounded by more advanced Dravidian speaking communities. The tribal Indo-European speakers of south India are all nomadic communities such as Banjaras or Pardhis with known history of migration from Rajasthan to south India in recent centuries. This is strongly suggestive of Dravidians being older inhabitants of the Indian subcontinent, having been pushed southwards, surrounded by or converted to Indo-European languages by later arriving Indo-European speakers (Lal, 1974; Rakshit and Hirendra, 1980).

One may then suggest the following sequence of migrations of these major language speaking groups into India: Austric-Dravidian-Indo-European. If this be correct, another interesting prediction follows. Austric languages having arrived in India earliest may show the most diversified vocabulary, Indo-European languages the least. To test this , researchers have compiled words for universally used nouns such as mother, water, tree in several Austric, Dravidian, Indo-European and Sino-Tibetan languages (Gadgil et al, 1997). While a more objective analysis of the extent of such variation is under way, it appears true that Austric languages show the greatest and Indo-European the least divergence.

3. Tribes as Indigenous People

Aborigines are one of the most common alternative terms for tribes. Some scholars have also advocated the usage of the term Adivasis, or Autochthonous people of India, implying them to be early settlers. Jaipal Singh, the tribal leader and the representative in the Constituent assembly, made a plea for retaining the term Adivasi to refer to tribal people. It was Ambedkar who argued against it and opted for the term Scheduled tribe in order to ensure more effective implementation of and compliance with the legal and administrative concessions and benefits meant for them. There has been a lot of debate among research scholars on the idea of calling tribes as Indigenous/Autochthones. In India, there have been waves of movement of population dating back to thousand of years. This being the case, it is not easy to find a neat divide between the original settlers and migrants. The claim of tribal communities as the original people is also contested on the grounds that the traditions and mythologies of the tribes themselves speak of movement from one place to another. Tribes are also said to be living in close interaction with the non-tribal people for centuries, leading to much acculturation and even assimilation into the larger hindu society. The nature of interaction between tribal and non-tribal communities is of peaceful co-existence rather than that of conquest and domination. This means that the historic situation of the encounter between tribal and non-tribal communities in India is radically different from that of indigenous people in the America or Australia. It is hence argued that the term indigenous person is not appropriate to describe tribal people in India (Beteille 1998; Dube 1977)

The counterpart to this view is that many tribal activists claim that the present tribes are descendants of ancestors who lived here thousands of years before Aryan Invasion, and demand that international instruments for rights of the indigenous should be made applicable to them. However, the term Indigenous, in conjunction with other related terms such as aborigines, autochthonous, etc. has also been extensively used by scholars and administrators in their writings and reports. The term was used mainly as a mark of identification and differentiation, that is to mark out a group of people different in physical features, language, religion, custom, social organization etc. Even Ghurye (1963:12) who otherwise talks of tribes as backward Hindus and has reservation about the use of the term ‘adivasi‟ refers to them as the aborigines. He writes, “When the history of internal movements of peoples is not known, it is utterly unscientific to regard some tribe or the other as the original owner of the soil. It is possible to contend that even if the tribes are not aborigines of the exact area they now occupy, they are the autochthonous of India and to that extent they may be called the aborigines”.

5. Debate on the Autochthon status of Tribes

The autochthon status of the tribes in their present habitats in different parts of the country can be easily contested. The Kukis in Manipur or the Luseis of Mizoram have migrated to their present areas of dominance from South China and Chin Hills only a couple of centuries back. The Kukis were settled by the British in the Naga predominant areas so as to create a buffer between the Nagas and the Vaishnavite Meiteis. The Sailo chiefs belonging to the Lusei tribe were encouraged by the British to operate as labour contractors for constructing roads in the remote areas of Mizoram. The aboriginal tribes of the State who were pushed to the western borders along Tripura are now known as Tuikuk. In Tripura the tribal king had as a policy invited many Reangs and Chakmas to settle in the State so as to augment the production of cotton through jhum cultivation and ensure forward linkage to the cotton mills. Even the Bodos, believed to be a secondary formation, had migrated in waves from the Bhutan hills to settle in their present domains in Assam. The Toto tribe of Totopara on the borders of North Bengal and Bhutan is too a secondary formation as it evolved as a constellation out of a number of migrant criminal clans who were pushed out by the Bhutan kingdom. The matrilineal Khasis of Meghalaya who belong to the Mon-Khmer linguistic group are believed to have migrated from the Kampuchea region. The Denzong Bhutias, the royal Sikkimese tribe, too on record have migrated from Tibet, in the historical past. The Santhals of Rajmahal Hills or Santhal Parganas in Jharkhand had similarly migrated from the plains of Birbhum and Midnapur, West Bengal, in historical times.

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 labourers 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 labourers 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 labourers and small peasants from central India.

6. Summary

However, the question of central importance is that

whether groups designated as tribes have been natives of India and non-tribes immigrants; and
if they have not been natives whether their settlement is prior to that of the arrival of the major racial group, the Aryans.

Most of the scholars are of the view that tribes could hardly make legitimate claim that they are the only natives of India. They cite observations made by scholars, howsoever conflicting they may be, in support of their position. Hutton for example is of the view that only the Negritos may be considered as the original inhabitants of India though they do not have any marked presence now. He considers groups belonging to the Austric, Dravidian categories etc. as much outsiders as the Aryans. Guha is also cited for nuking similar observation in the context of Austric speaking people [Shah 19821- But more authoritative sources on which such claim is questioned are the traditions of the tribes themselves as they speak Dube (1977:2) writes, “it is difficult to speak of ‘original’ inhabitants, for tribal traditions themselves make repealed mention of migration of their ancestors. There is considerable evidence to suggest that several groups were pushed out of the areas where they were first settled and had to seek shelter elsewhere. And there are several groups, now absorbed in Hindu society, which can make an equally tenable claim to being original.

It is said that there arc tribes in India especially in the north-east whose settlement in the territories they inhabit today is an even later phenomenon than the settlement of many non-tribes in other parts of India The Nagas for example are stated to have come to India around the middle of the first millennium BC first to Tibet and later to the territory where they live now.

The Mizos are said to have settled in the territory where they live only in the 16th century. The Kuki settlement is considered even later than that of the Mizos. In contrast to this, the non-tribal groups like the Bengalis. Gujaratis, Oriyas, etc. have a much longer history of settlement than these tribes. Given this, it becomes indeed problematic to say that all tribal people in India are earlier settlers than the Aryans and therefore tribes are indigenous and non-tribes non-indigenous. The Santhals may have settled in the territory where they live now, the Santhal Pargana or its adjacent areas, in the beginning of the 19th century. They may have even settled there later than the Bengalis. But that in no way negates the fact that their settlement in India is prior to that of the groups commonly referred to as the Aryans such as the Bengalis or Gujarat is. But to claim indigenous status on this ground is not so simple as one can see from the discussion that follows. Conversely, the settlement of the Mizos in the India may have been a later development than those of the Gujarat is or Bengalis, but the fact remains that they arc the original settlers of the place where they live now. It needs to be mentioned here that the tribal groups in India are not solely comprised of the Dravidian and Austro-Asiatic speaking groups. A very large number of the tribal groups in fact belong to the Tibeto-Burman speaking groups, many of whom can hardly be considered indigenous if the arrival of the Aryans is taken as the cut-off mark to decide who is indigenous and who is not indigenous. To restrict the terms indigenous to refer to only those groups of people who had entry prior to those of Indo-Aryan group would be to exclude many tribal groups of the Tibeto-Burman family from the status of indigenous people. There are also tribal groups like the bhils that speak languages of the Indo-Aryan family. This poses the problem of their identification as indigenous people. Yet it is generally held that the groups so referred have been drawn into the languages they speak through the process of interaction and acculturation with the Indo-Aryan speaking groups. What this means is that people identified and described as tribals are not to be necessarily treated as indigenous and that there are tribal groups which could be treated as indigenous and others which could not. In contrast many groups and communities especially those belonging to the Dravidian language speaking group such as the Tamilians, Telgus. Malyalis could stake a claim of being indigenous people by virtue of the fact they have been inhabitants of India prior to the coming of the Aryans. They are however not recognized as tribals and share few attributes in common with the tribals who stand dispossessed, exploited and marginalized. Rather they constitute a part of the dominant national community. In terms of other criteria that go to make up indigenous people, viz. marginalized status, loss of control over resources etc, they can hardly be considered for the indigenous people status. The congruence between the term and the concept on which the tribal activists defend the application of the term docs not stand valid in all situations. There is still another ground on which the indigenous claim is contested in the Indian context. It is generally held that the Indian society is made up of a number of castes and groups and that many of these have been formed out of the process of fusion of various groups and communities including tribes. This is all the more true in case of the regional linguistic communities such as Bengalis, Gujaratis. Oriyas etc. In view of this, it may become necessary that a segment of the same community be identified as indigenous and another as non-indigenous.

you can view video on Autochthons, Peopling of India

References

Cohn, B.S., 1968. Notes on the history and studyof Indian society and culture. In: Singer, M.,Cohn, B.S. (Eds.), Structure and Change in Indian Society. Wenner-Gren Foundation, New York
Dirks, N.B., 1989. The original caste: power, history and hierarchy in South Asia. Contributions toIndian Sociology n.s. 23(1), 59–77.
Dirks, N.B., 1992. Castes of mind. Representations 37,56–78.
Dirks, N.B., 2001. Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Inden, R., 1990. Imagining India. Basil Blackwell,Oxford
Risley, H.H., 1915. The People of India, 2nd ed.W. Thacker, London.
Elwin V. The Aboriginals. H. Milford, Oxford University Press, 1944.
Thakkar A V., 1941. The problem of aborigines in India.
Bijoy C.R. 2003. The Adivasis of India-A History of Discrimination, Conflict, and Resistance, PUCL Bulletin, Core Committee of the All India Coordinating Forum of Adivasis/Indigenous Peoples
Joshi, N.V., Gadgil, M. and Patil, S. 1993 Exploring cultural diversity of the people of India.Current Science, 64(1), 10-17.
Gadgil, M. and Malhotra, K.C. 1983 Adaptive significance of the Indian caste system : an ecological
Perspective Annals of Human Biology, 10 : 465-478
Gadgil, M., Shambu Prasad, U.V., Manoharan, S, Patil, S. and Joshi, N.V. 1997 Peopling of India Balasubramanian and N. Appaji Rao (eds.) The Indian Human Heritage, pp.100-129. Universities Press, Hyderabad.
Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., Menozzi, P. and Piazza, A. (1994). The History and Geography of Human Genes, pp. 541. Princeton University Press, Princeton, and Genetic Maps, 518.
Lal, P. (1974). The tribal man in India: A study in the ecology of the primitive communities. In M.S. Mani (ed.) Ecology and Biogeography in India. The Hague. 281-329.
Rakshit, Hirendra K. (1980). Ethnohistory of the tribal population of middle India. Journal of Indian Anthropological Society, 15, 97-112.
Béteille A, (1998). The Idea of Indigenous Peoples, Current Anthropology, 39(2). 11
Dube , S.C (ed) (1977) Tribal Heritage of India, New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House
Ghurye, G.S. 1980. The Scheduled tribes of India, New Brunswick: Transaction

Suggested Readings

S.S Sarkar., The Aboriginal Races of India, Calcutta, Bookland Limited, 1954
BHOWMICK, Prabodh Kumar Ed : Tribal people of India : Society culture and development ( R N, Bhattacharya Kolkata, 2008)