10 Ethnic Movements: The Case of India

Contents

1. Objective

2. Introduction

3. Learning Outcome

4. Theoretical Explanations of Ethnic Identity Movement

4.1. Primordialist Logic

4.2. Instrumental Perspective

4.3. Modernization Approach

4.4. Social Constructionist Approach

4.5 Evaluation of Approaches

5. Factors Affecting Ethnic Identity Formation in India

5.1 Necessary Conditions

5.2 Sufficient Conditions

6. Conclusion

1. Objective

The objective of this module is to introduce learners to the issues and intricacies of ethnic identity movements. As several factors have dictated the contours of this movement, this module will allow you to introspect into diverse structural processes and discursive conditions that have been responsible for the rise and sustenance of such movements particularly in the Indian context and relate those with available theoretical explanations.

2. Introduction

The contemporary social life is confronted with emerging contradiction and contestations. These contradictions and contestations have contributed to the creation of a world of endisms, postisms, beyondisms and newisms (Oommen 1995: 141). It was earlier predicted that with ‘modernization’ of a society, primordial loyalties based on caste, religion, kinship, region, or language would lose their importance. It was also widely believed that in the age of globalisation, citizens of the ‘global village’ would develop and nourish homogeneous identities. While certain aspects of culture today do support the homogenization thesis, there are contrary tendencies too (Ghosh 2011). It would be fare to argue here that we are now living in a complex and dynamic world where old and existing boundaries are constantly contested, but new boundaries and categories are created and re-created. The rise and fall, the construction and deconstruction of various types of identities and their concomitant boundaries is the very story of human civilization though in the modern world such processes have gained momentum.

The term ‘identity’ refers to a state of being identical or unique as compared to others. Identity can be both personal and collective. Social scientists are, however, interested in collective identities, which may as well be collection of some individual identities. Analytically speaking an identity group representing the mini-society should have mutual trust, respect, some degree of equality, mutual aid, regular communication, informal leadership etc. Identity groups help their members to swim across. Most identity groups provide opportunity for regular sharing in neighbourhood and locality to their members, though some groups may have members living in widely scattered locations (Ghosh 2001).

It should be recognised that recognition of one’s own identity or the creation of a boundary involves a much complex process. While certain identities are based on our ascriptive status, members of a group may discover their ‘new’ identity on the basis of certain developments. The contextual significance of any identity formation therefore becomes crucial for sociological analysis. If identities are not just natural or trans-historical objects, but are equally creation and recreation of social and political processes, it is important to critically examine the factors that have promoted such identities particularly in the contemporary context. It is equally important for us to explain the popularity and rise of ethnic movements in a modern, industrial, urban and global social life.

Interestingly, rise of explosive ethnic revivals is a global phenomenon. In Africa and Asia, ethnic movements have been gaining force since the 1950s. Initially, it was believed that ethnicity is found mostly in developing world because of cracks and strains in the secular sphere (Phadnis 1989). But Rattansi (1994: 1) confirmed that “The spectre that haunts the societies of the ‘West’ is no longer communism, but both within and outside their frontiers, a series of racisms and ethnocentrisms”. In Europe and America, ethnic movements unexpectedly surfaced from the 1960s. The downfall of Soviet Union has only encouraged the move. Many new nations based upon dominant ethnic affiliation have been recognised since 1990. The rise of such nations led Hutchinson and Smith to comment that “The ‘end of history’, it seems, turns out to have ushered in the era of ethnicity” (1996: Preface). Ethnicity is one of the fastest growing contemporary phenomena and there are also very strong connections between globalisation and ethnicity. Like globalisation, ethnicity is both ‘local’ in its claim and ‘universal’ in its applications. Its growth on the contemporary world scene articulates the process whereby ‘subjectivity’ can be demonstrated to be an instance of the objective consequences of globalisation (Poppi 1997: 289). It is not the unexpected survival of ethnic particularism. Rather, it is the emergence of new forms of ethnic expressions despite the actual decline of ethnic solidarities in the sociological sense of kinship and community and despite the narrowing of cultural differences (Fenton 1999: 230). This module would try to deal with the process of such boundary/identity formation so as to explain their contestations and multiplicity from the perspective of social movement.

3. Learning Outcome

This module deals with the rising phenomenon of ethnic identity movements particularly from the Indian point of view. Readers would be able to learn about the factors that have promoted such a rise in different parts of the country and be able to explain such phenomenon theoretically. The linkages between the theory and praxis of ethnicity would allow them to go beyond a particular movement and relate one movement with the other. Such analysis would also allow one to trace change and mutability in the nature of ethnic expressions in the modern world.

4. Theoretical Explanations of Ethnic Movement

Let me begin this analysis by explaining the very term ‘ethnicity’. The word comes from the ancient Greek ethnos, which seems to have referred to a range of situations in which a collectivity of humans lived and acted together. In Sociology and Anthropology, an ethnic group is frequently seen as culturally rather than physically distinctive. But, while defining ethnicity, we often confuse between the two seemingly identical terms: ‘ethnic group’ and ‘ethnicity’ (Ghosh 2015). Even though ethnicity cannot be evoked unless there is an ethnic group, the presence of an ethnic group itself does not guarantee the rise of ethnic sentiments. This means that ethnic groups and ethnicity are not the same phenomena. As Paul Brass (1991: 19) argues, “ethnicity is a sense of ethnic identity’ and hence ‘ethnicity is to ethnic category what class consciousness is to class”. In other words, ethnicity refers to the expressive aspects of ethnic identities. We all know that ethnic groups are based on three predominant attributes, namely i) biological attributes like descent, kinship, ii) cultural attributes like language, religion and c) territorial attributes like region, locality. But the transformation of a group/category into a ‘subjectively self-conscious community’ having psychological unity of a kind takes place through a complex process.

We may, therefore, define ethnicity as the process of formation and reformation of consciousness of identity (real or supposed) in terms of one or more social-cultural-political symbols of domination/subjugation of a group(s) or community by another that emerge out of the processes of assimilation, acculturation, interaction, competition and conflict (Ghosh 2003: 223).

Social scientists however differ about the role of different structural and procedural factors in explaining the rise of ethnicity. Thus, from the Marxian point of view, ethnic differences seem to be directly associated with variations in power and material wealth. More particularly, differential allocation of resources in a class divided society gives shape to ethnic antagonism (Cox 1959). It should be noted that from the Marxist point of view, ethnicity (an element of Superstructure) is nothing but expressions of economic/class (related to Base) differences. It is possible that members of a class may join an ethnic movement because of economic reasons, but the concept of class for the Marxists, is different from that of ethnicity.

As opposed to such interpretation, the Interactionists argue that culturally shared meanings resulted out of social interactions are more salient in explaining ethnicity. This is because in contemporary life individuals and groups have to interact continually with others who are strangers to them in contexts where little or no possibility of the development of trust arises. If societies are thrown too rapidly too close contact with neighbouring societies, new habits of interaction cannot be developed fast enough and violence results (Boulding 1993: 216). This explanation is valid to the extent that modern complex society is prone to confusion, chaos and mistrust where labelling factor looms large. But we have enough evidences to suggest that religious proximity in South Asia did not result in religious neutrality or equidistance (Madan 1993: 547). We, therefore, need to look beyond interactionist perspective to explain ethnic identity formation.

For Rajani Kothari (1988) ethnic upsurges are a consequence of the homogenising trend of modern states and of their technological/educational imperatives. A host of social scientists have also suggested that while culture and cultural variations are not completely irrelevant in the study of ethnicity, political processes have greater impact on such formation. For Dipankar Gupta (1996a, 1996b, 2003), ethnicity is basically a political process. Cohen (1974) has equally argued that ethnicity does not require a cultural or historical explanation; contemporary politics and ‘structural conditions’ are the keys to understand the phenomenon. This argument is however criticised on the ground that historical accounts of any ethnic movement including cultural factors provide significant inputs for any study of ethnicity (Peel 1989).

Given such controversies, it is important to review in brief the four major theories explaining ethnicity1. As the Marxist and Interactionist explanations are already included in our discussion, we have avoided their repetitions here. While analysing the theories discussed here it should be kept in mind that each of them does contain different shades or versions within itself. Hence, in order to develop a comparative assessment, their internal differences are not taken into consideration.

4.1. Primordialist Logic:

This conservative model recognises ethnicity to be essential aspects of human nature. It had a deep historical root in the reactions to Enlightenment rationalism. This ideology of promordialism naturalises ethnic groups and justifies ethnic sentiments. The primordial approach was first proposed by Edward Shils in 1957 (Haralambos and Holborn 2000: 232). Shils claimed that people often had a primordial attachment to the territory in which they lived, or from which they originated, to their religion and to their kin. This attachment involves strong feelings of loyalty and a state of comprehensive solidarity. According to Barth (1969) this is a ‘taken-for-granted’ model of ethnicity and it has four theoretical features:

i)  Ethnic groups are biologically self-perpetuating;

ii) Members of this group share basic cultural values manifest in overt cultural forms;

iii)The group is a bounded social field of communication and interaction; and

iv) Its members identify themselves and are identified by others as belonging to that group.

Barth, thus writes, “…we are led to imagine that …a world of separate people, each with their culture and each organised in a society which can legitimately be isolated for description as an island to itself” (1969: 11). This theory is strengthened by the earliest anthropological notions of ‘ethnic group’ as the Western colonial interest in the uncivilised people of the colonies or ex-colonies. The ‘orient’, for example, was constructed as the ‘Other’ or the contrast of western culture. The belief that tradition has a complete sway over the minds of most people, particularly in the less developed societies, is taken to be an absolute truth. Within anthropology, the name that is most often identified with a primordial model of ethnicity is Clifford Geertz (1973). Drawing upon the works of Edward Shils, Geertz was concerned to understand the obstacles that ‘primordial attachments’, deriving mainly from kinship, locality and culture, enforce. He defined ethnicity as the “world of personal identity collectively ratified and publicly expressed’ and ‘socially ratified personal identity” (Ibid. 268, 309). Primordialism, however, fails to explain ethnicity properly. This theory is therefore criticised on several grounds:

i) McKay (1982) suggests that though this approach can account for the emotional strength of ethnic bonds, it tends to be deterministic and static. It assumes that members of ethnic groups have little choice about their sense of attachment. As against such a view, ethnographic evidences suggest that ethnic identification is not given, static or trans-historical. They are rather fluid and in a state of flux. Mere membership of a group does not transform a social category into a ‘subjectively self conscious community’.

ii) Criticisms of this approach have mainly come from the Instrumentalists. Thus, it is argued that ‘ethnicity in heart’ or ‘hot ethnicity’ may go hand in hand with ‘cold ethnicity’ or ‘ethnicity in head’. As a corollary predicting any particular form of ethnic movement even in places where there is a persisting core culture is extremely difficult if not impossible. In other words, primordial attachments are not sufficient for explaining rise of ethnic movements particularly in the contemporary context. According to Paul Brass (1991), certain primordial attachments like language, kinship, or caste are variable. Again, migration may create new attachments with land. Instrumentalists like Brass also argue that ethnic attachments do not necessarily belong to non-rational part of human personality.

iii) Cultural tradition has very little to do with ethnic movements. For instance, neither Shiv Sena’s sons of the soil movement in Maharashtra or Sikh extremism in Punjab drew on tradition in any significant sense. Gupta (2003) has shown that there was no history of antagonism among the Maharashtrians and South Indians, neither in Mumbai, nor elsewhere in India. Likewise, the Sikhs were considered for the past three centuries to be the sword arm of Hinduism. But suddenly, after the killing of Mrs Indira Gandhi by a Sikh guard, Shiks were identified as the killers of Hindus and wreckers of the Indian state. Similarly, in case of Tripura, the rise of ethnic clashes typically undermines the processes of Sanskritisation undertaken by the tribal kings of the princely state and the resultant acculturation of the tribals with the Bengali Hindu tradition (Ghosh 2003).

4.2 Instrumental Perspective:

The ‘instrumentalists’ or ‘mobilisationist’ argue that ethnic identities are actively created, maintained and reinforced by the individuals and groups in order to obtain access to social, political and material resources. This approach had derived inspiration from the work of Fredrik Barth (1969). Barth was however influenced by Max Weber, who as early as in 1922, had argued that “ethnic membership does not constitute a group; it only facilitates group formation of any kind, particularly in the political sphere. On the other hand, it is primarily the political community, no matter how artificially organised, that inspires the belief in common ethnicity” (Weber 1978: 389). For Weber, therefore, ethnicity is a consequence of collective political actions rather than its cause. Even though an ethnic group appears to be a particular form of status group for Weber, he did argue that possibilities for collective action rooted in ethnicity are ‘indefinite’.

Barth, in his Ethnic Groups and Boundaries (1969) has emphasized that ethnic identity is generated, confirmed or transformed in the course of interactions. Ethnicity is a relational concept as it takes at least ‘two’ to be ethnic. Ethnicity is also a matter of politics, decision making and goal-orientation. The shift from a static to an interactional approach was carried on further to argue that people can and do shift as well as alter their ethnic ascriptions in the light of circumstances and environment. The pursuit of political advantage and/or material self-interest is the calculus which typically influences such behaviour. Certainly, explaining ethnicity as instrumental and opportunistic is comparable with an action framework. Actors very often make calculation to use ethnicity as a means to seek an end. This clearly implies that social identities are instrumental and not ascriptive. Following the same logic, Paul Brass (1991) has argued that ethnicity arises out of specific types of interactions and competition among the elites. Ethnic identity formation is seen by him as a process in the dynamics of elite competition and manipulation. This approach has been able to identify the flexible and situational aspects of ethnic identity movements. Yet, it is criticised on several grounds.

i) It is always not possible to use one’s social identity as an instrument. This is because many of social categories like the Bengali, Tamil, Hindu, Muslim, Scheduled Caste or North-Indian are very often than not coercive. A person belonging to Muslim community, for instance, might not normally feel emotionally attached to his/her community unless he/she becomes a victim of the process of ‘otherisation’. Ethnicity might result because of such constraints.

ii) McKay (1982) argues that the instrumentalists tend to underestimate the emotional bonds and assumes that ethnicity is always related to common interests being pursued by the group. The fact that some ethnic groups pursue political and economic interests does not mean that all ethnic groups have identical interests.

iii) It is equally possible that members participating in an ethnic movement might not always be calculative in expressing solidarity with the community/group. Calculations do not always work and even a ‘calculative’ person may turn out to be ‘emotional’ at the last resort.

iv) Moreover, too much of stress on the role of elites for evocation of ethnicity ignores the spontaneous voices of the common people at large. It might also be argued that popular voices may limit or shape political actions. Ethnicity cannot be successfully evoked unless objective social reality in the form of public grievances or dissatisfaction is clearly evident. In other words, along with some ‘situational’ factors, there must be certain structural reasons leading to the rise of ethnicity. The role of the state and other agencies also become significant in such mobilisation.

v) Furthermore, ethnic movements may themselves become a rallying point for some to become elite. The case of Bimal Gurung may be cited here to explain the way he has ascended to leadership of the Gorkhaland movement, riding the crest of anti-Subhas Ghising sentiment, with no political experience in the hills of Darjeeling (Bagchi 2012: 146). There are plenty of such instances from different parts of India which would prove that ethnicity may produce ‘mass’ leaders instead of elites making use of ethnicity. Looking into experiences of varied ethnic movements in India and elsewhere, it would be safe here to argue that evocation of ethnicity very often than not involves complex processes that would deny credibility to any particular attribute or line of argument.

4.3 Modernization Approach:

According to the theorists of this school, ethnicity is an aspect associated with pre-modern ‘archaic’ societies. In the evolutionary scheme of Marx, Durkheim, Tonnies and Weber, social, economic and cultural changes in the modern society were argued to be associated with the decline of attachment to primordial loyalties including ethnicity. This theory assumes that identity groups are temporary phenomenon and these will be assimilated into modern nation state with growing passage of structural changes from a ‘traditional’ to ‘modern’ society. The three elements of modernization, namely, industrialization, nationalism and capitalism are believed to undermine ethnicity. The modernists believe that the emergence of ‘universal homogeneous’ state would exert a levelling effect and sideline cultural differences gradually. The theorists of modernization approach also put forward certain logic to account for the failure of this project to homogenise differences:

a) The resurgence of ethnicity is a proximate and not an ultimate consequence of modernity;

b) It is due to inadequate modernization in the developing countries that ethnicity is gaining salience;

c) It is the distorted form of modernization that accounts for the revival of ethnicity (Sharma 1990).

There are many problems with this approach.

i)     Thus, to begin with, it has failed to explain the rise and proliferation of ethnic groups in the advanced Western countries. The ‘bourgeois revolution’ and the ‘proletarian revolution’ could not do away with the so-called socio-cultural differences of its population. The ‘new’ nations, the USA, Canada, Australia, for instance, have different layers of population who are racially and culturally different. Cultural groups, minorities and nationalities of Europe and America often clash with each other on the question of ethnic identity.

ii)   It is also seen that ethnic movements tend to rise as a reaction to the dehumanising face of modernity. According to Rajni Kothari (1990), ethnicity is a response including reactions to both homogenisation and ‘Majoritarianism’. Revivalism is often a corrective response to the homogenising and commercialising force of modernisation and development. In this sense, ethnicity is “a call for celebrating diversity” (Ibid. 224). We may, therefore, argue that modernisation may not de-ethnicise cultural communities, but may crystallise them. The tribal movement seeking separate identity or distinctiveness in Tripura, for instance, is neither parochial nor opposed to modernity. Had that been the case, concern for ‘power’ and ‘politics’ would not have remained the axial point of tribalism in Tripura (Ghosh 2003). In case of Adivasi movements in Jalpaiguri and Darjeeling districts of North Bengal, the shared perception of losing their land and a common experience of marginalisation in the economic, social and political spheres together have prepared the ground for the formation of the ethnic movement (Roy 2012: 81-103).

iii) The process of modernisation marked by objectivity, universalism, achievement and individuality may simultaneously generate a craze for particular, local or social things. Similarly, in multi-ethnic societies, issues of economic security, exploitation and class contradictions are very often channelized through primordial attachments. In other words, rise of new inequalities in the modern societies contribute to either opposite tendencies among the opponents of ‘modern project’ or ‘secular’ distortion and exploitation of ethnic identities by elites. We may argue that the quest for ‘community’ is likely to crystallize more easily among the deprived (a sense of relative deprivation in a global economy) and such deprivation is perceived not only in economic terms, but also in terms of denial of one’s cultural identity.

iv)  The emphasis of unity and universality of culture by the nation state has often led to undermining of local identities. It has been observed that the state ignores the justified demands of ethnic minorities unless the movement becomes violent or acquires ethno-national character. Gupta’s (1996) research also exemplifies that the Punjab agitation, which began with some secular demands like Chandigarh as capital of Punjab, water sharing between Punjab and Haryana and territorial tribunal to settle the dispute was ethnicised by the Central Government and the Congress Party for political gains. Yet, when the Akalis came to power in 1977, it did precious little on these demands even though it was a significant member of the national level Janata Party government in New Delhi. There are plenty of instances to argue that ethno-nationalism is encouraged and sustained by the lack of developmental initiative on the part of corrupt state administration as well as untimely or delayed state response. It may fairly be concluded that the nation state remains at the central focus of the entire episode of ethnicity and hence ethnic movements often thematize the nation state as against any communal movements.

4.4 Social Constructionist Approach:

The idea of ‘ethnicity as a social construction’ is an extension and revision of the arguments of the instrumental perspective on ethnicity as it tries to offer a comprehensive view on the matter. An early sociological disposition of this model can be located in the writings of Max Weber and Everett Hughes. The Chicago sociologist Hughes, like Weber, rejected the commonsensical notion of ethnicity based on cultural traits (Hughes 1994: 91-6). He tried to argue that ethnic identification arises out of and within interaction between groups. Touraine (1977) has gone a step further to argue that in modern societies, marked by historicity, knowledge of social processes is used to reshape our identities. From a different position, Castells (1996) has stressed on the fact in the ‘network society’, personal identity becomes a much more open matter. This is because, we now do not take our identities from the past; rather we actively make them in interacting with others. Such ‘social reflexivity’ (Giddens 2006: 123) and construction of our identities in daily life discourages the intrusion of biologically based conceptions of ‘race’ into social analysis.

The social constructionist approach tries to distinguish between ‘group identification’ and ‘social categorisation’. The first occurs inside the ethnic boundary and the second outside and across it. While outlining the basic social constructionist model of ethnicity, Jenkins (1997: 40) has identified four elements of this model:

a)    ethnicity emphasises cultural differences;

b)   ethnicity is cultural;

c)    ethnicity is to some extent variable and manipulable; and

d)   ethnicity as a social identity is both collective and individual, externalised and internalised.

Thus, ethnic meanings and collective identities change in form and content as circumstances change. Cultural traditions as boundary markers are, therefore, ‘invented’ and put into place according to selective agendas whose rationale is entirely determined by contingent circumstances (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983).

The social-constructionist view comes closer to the post-modernists’ view of ethnicity which argues that identities are relatively ‘free-floating’, detached from the bases of social structure. Stuart Hall (1990), for instance, has argued that cultural identities are not fixed but are always evolving. Hall has emphasized on the role of discourses about ethnicity in creating new identities. The idea of new ethnicity here implies that internal differentiation within ethnic groups provides the foundation for a plurality of ethnic identities. Hall also did not deny the possibility of ‘hybridisation’ and ‘cut and mix’ in the formation of new ethnicity. In this sense, ethnic movements differ from old social movements based solely on class, caste, community or tribal identity and thereby constitute new social movements. Allen (1994) has also stressed that awareness of ethnicity is not constant throughout an individual’s life; it emerges only in specific contexts. In short, the post-modern, post-structuralist view of ethnicity stresses on the following features:

a)         Stress on differences and diversity

b)        Attack on essentialism

c)         Stress on the role of discourses

d)        Formation of fractured identities.

It is worth noting here that fragmentation of identities may result due to a) internal split, b) external fragmentation, c) fragmentation as a result of general process of social change, and d) fragmentation as a synonym for individuation. As a combination of such factors, the process of identity formation in the contemporary world is marked by contextuality, fluidity, hybridity and plurality.

4.5 Evaluation of Approaches

The process of formation of ethnicity appears to be very complex and often contradictory. Hence doubts are expressed about the theoretical potentiality of the concept. It might also appear that many of the approaches on ethnicity discussed here contain assorted arguments. The problem probably lies in the nature of ethnicity itself. Weber (1978) had reminded us that since the possibilities of collective action in ethnicity are ‘indefinite’, the ethnic group cannot easily be precisely defined for sociological purposes. Phadnis also, therefore, considered the concept as ‘methodologically unsound’ (1989: 241). But, McKay (1982) argues that we may combine these approaches to explain the process. In doing so, McKay is able to distinguish five types of ethnicity namely, a) ethnic traditionalist, b) ethnic militants, c)  symbolic ethnics, d) ethnic manipulators, and e) pseudo-ethnics. These types running from ‘high’ to ‘low’ merits, however, do not subsume the mixed types, and they also do not explain why ethnicity takes one form or another.

Yet, this model can be used to examine how ethnic groups change over time and move from one type to the other. The argument here, however, goes beyond the simple melting pot model of ethnicity which stressed on blending of identities as an outcome of ethnic diversities. Research has proved that there are sequences (Smelser 1963) in the development of social movement, including change from one phase to the other depending on the context (Oommen 1997). Herein, we may accept the Post-modernists argument that human beings themselves function as active agents in the construction of their identities. This approach also rightly stresses on plurality and heterogeneity of our identities. But, it must also be recognised that identities are not totally and always free floating objects. There are ‘limits to plasticity of ethnicity as well as to its fixity and solidity’ (Jenkins 1997: 169). Steve Fenton (1999: 21) believes that there is ‘double contextualisation’ in ethnicity. Ethnicity as a social phenomenon is embedded in social, political and economic structures. At the same time, ethnicity, as an element of individual consciousness and action, varies in intensity and import on the context of action. Ethnic attachments cannot, therefore, be totally ‘imaginary’ without any social-cultural base. The social structure in which each of us is located put constraints and limits upon the possible range of identification. It is due to these limits that ethnicity is not totally ‘instrumental in the hands of elites’ always.

5.  Factors Affecting Ethnic Movements in India

From the experience of several ethnic movements in India, it is possible to list the factors affecting ethnic identity formation in India. Before we begin the discussion, let us first mention some important facets of ethnic identity groups which must be kept in mind in analysing them.

Thus, to begin with, such groups do not always depend on any particular aggregate of cultural traits for their survival and hence, ethnic identities may persist even when such groups are not visibly different or politically organised.

Again, an ethnic identity group may not be inherently consistent or homogeneous though ‘outsiders’ may treat this as a ‘unity’. For instance, the categories like Hindus, Muslims, tribals, Bengalis, Madrasis and the like do subsume very strong socio-cultural differences though these terms are often used to constitute or identify a boundary. Such labelling plays a major role in the creation of ‘they’ as against the ‘we’. What is more interesting is that an identity group often becomes a reality due to such labelling. In reality, however, there are constant changes in the level of integration and disintegration of such a group. There are Muslim liberals who come forward to question the Muslim orthodoxy just as Hindus have been querying, debating and opposing Hindu fundamentalism. A study on the state of ethnicity and insurgency in Tripura (Ghosh 2003) reveals that the tribal insurgents who till recently were unitedly fighting against the common Bengali ‘outsiders’ later got divided over the issue of Christianity. There are many other instances of internal differences among the ‘insiders’ that are responsible for changes in the nature and character of their mobilisation. For instance, the Shiv Shainiks who initially attacked the South Indians later made friendships with them and turned them against the Muslims and Communists instead. Similarly, the social base of Jharkhand movement later got broadened to include the non-tribals so as to transform it from an ethnic to a regional movement.

The fission and fusion of ethnic boundaries, hence, make it impulsive for us to treat it as a discursive process with different levels or phases of integration. Oommen (1997: 135) has identified five major phases in the transformation of political authority structures and the concomitant variations in the nature of social movements from a historical point of view. There is a need to identify the phases of each social movement from an empirical point of view.

A review of some major ethnic movements in India during the last six decades would reveal that such movements are deeply influenced by several socio-cultural, economic and above all political factors in modern times. It is possible to classify these factors into two types of conditions: Necessary and Sufficient conditions. Necessary conditions include several socio-economic factors like poverty, inequality, land alienation and eviction, domination, exploitation, displacement, under-development, unemployment, influx of migrants etc. Though such necessary conditions provide a ‘social-base’ for ethnic (and many other types of movements2), they in most cases depend on sufficient conditions that include factors like a sharp sense of perceived discrimination among the group members, emergence of a strong elite leadership, political competition and manipulation, casual and unwise government policies and actions, and easy accessibility to foreign support. It is seen that unless these sufficient conditions become either active or powerful, identity movements may fail to find its language of expression.

5.1 Necessary Conditions

Among the necessary conditions of identity formation, competition for scarce resources in an underdeveloped economy is very significant. When economies are retarded and development becomes unequal, groups may organize on ethnic platforms to fight for better equity and justice. For instance, in both Assam and Tripura, the native peasants protested against large tracts of land going to the ‘outsiders’. Land alienation, forceful eviction from land, rising unemployment, poverty, victimisation and exploitation by outside businessman, lack of development, influx of non-tribals in tribal land etc., are some of the major factors affecting tribal and regional ethnicity in India. Changes in the demographic profile of states like Maharashtra, Assam or Tripura due to incessant influx of migrants or refugees has particularly aggravated the local competition for scarce resources and subsequent publicity for the ideology of ‘sons of the soil’. In the case of Tripura, the tribal natives who constituted 64 per cent of the total population in 1874, were reduced to 36 per cent in 1911, 28.44 percent in 1981 and 29.59 per cent in 1991. Due to such ‘demographic imbalance’ the density of population in the state has increased from 17 (per square milometer) in 1901 to 283 in 1991, the numerical domination of the Bengalis in Tripura has gradually translated into their cultural, economic and political domination with corresponding pressure on the tribals for survival (Ghosh 2003).

Scholars like Rajani Kothari (1988) have argued that the process of formation of ethnic identity gets momentum when domination of the majority over the minority becomes an evident fact. Often, the dominant majority tries to assimilate and integrate the minority into the so-called mainstream. Kothari has therefore linked the ethnic movements in India with the movements of marginalised people and of those seeking indigenous authenticity. Pathy (2000) also equally argued that the Indian state has followed the western model of nation-state and undermined tribal identities. It has also deprived them of much of their land, livelihood, language, religion and culture. Similarly, the construction of ‘Hindutva’ in India is a kind of ‘culturocide’ as it does violence to the Indian reality. The western assumption of nation-state as a melting pot leading to a homogeneous national culture has not proved to be a myth. The tribal, non-tribal or Hindu-Muslim interactions in India did not result in the extinction of any particular culture in India. On the contrary, such ‘nationalistic’ project has activated suspicions in the minds of the local ethnic communities or cultural minorities about the designs of the nation-state to annihilate their cultural identities. The massive presence and relevance of minority (and majority too) identity groups in India is a lesson for us. It is fare to argue that ‘domination’ and ‘exploitation’ by the majority or group in power have consolidated ethnic discreteness of the minority.

5.2. Sufficient Conditions

Paul Brass (1991), using an instrumentalist perspective, argues that identities are not pristine in character, but they are created and released by elites for combative purposes. Brass is also critical of the way religion is used very instrumentally by the apolitical agents. In several other studies on ethnic movements in India it has been shown that elite competition and modern political processes play an important role in the creation and management of group identity. For instance, the VHP’s attempt to create a division between ‘we Hindus’ and ‘they Muslims’, or the attempt by the BJP and the VHP to build up the Adodhya issue, vindicate our instrumentalist position. Veena Das (1990) and Imitiaz Ahmad (1984) show how economic and political rivalries fuel communal tensions and movements. In the Shah Bano case elites and professional communalists contributed to the fabrication and distortion of identities (Zoya Hassan 1989). Hassan also argues that in the later Indira Gandhi years the communal situation has escalated to such an extent that the minorities felt threatened nationwide, and that is why the Muslims fell prey to fundamentalist pressures (Hassan 1989: 45). In all these cases, the symbolic and cultural aspect of ethnicity and communalism depended on political expression and mobilization for their outburst. Writing some 60 years ago Nehru rightly projected that ‘the communal problem is not a religious problem, it has, noting to do with religion’ (quoted from T.N. Madan 1993: 550). It was not religious differences as such but its exploitation by the calculating politicians for the achievements of secular ends which had produced the communal divides. The rise of tribal ethnicity in India is equally influenced by the growth of an elite leadership who could nurture a sharp sense of discrimination among the youth. The issue of use or misuse of ethnicity should, however, be extended to include the activities of those who try to manipulate group identity in an attempt to join the rank of elites. The popularity of several political personalities like Shibu Soren, Bal Thackeray, Prafulla Mohanta, Subhas Ghising, Bimal Gurung, K. Chandrashekhar Rao can be linked to their successful utilisation of nativistic sentiments of the common masses. The issue of ‘sons of the soil’ and similar other appeals are so electrifying that even the participants of class organisations and movements often shift their allegiance to such movements. The Nepalese plantation workers of North Bengal and the cotton textile workers of Mumbai had changed their loyalty from the leftist trade unions to nativistic organisation like Gorkha National Liberation Front, Gorkha Jana Mukti Parishad, Adivasi Bikash Parishad, and Shiv Sena almost en masse. 

The success of any ethnic identity movement also depends to a large extent on the manner in which state and union government handles it. Theoretically speaking, a just, timely and tactful handling by the state and union government may contain the actions of the aggrieved group at the initial stage. But, in reality, the state hardly responds to the demands of any movement in a logical or rational manner (Oommen 1997: 158). Its approach is one of tension-management, taking invariably a short term view of the situation preferably with the use of force. There is enormous evidence to suggest that demands have been conceded by the state only when the concerned movement demonstrates its political clout. For instance, the demand for separate state or administrative unit in the whole of North East India, Punjab, Darjeeling, Uttarakhand or Jharkhand was not conceded till those movements achieved political significance. But in doing so, the state has perpetuated conflicting situations indirectly and contributed to the proliferation of similar movements. The success of Mizo or Naga revolt in the North East had inspired all other groups of the area to launch similar kind of movement. All the major insurgent groups of North East today maintain underground linkages so as to exert greater pressure on the Indian State. The static response, thus, paradoxically becomes catalytic agent for the emergence of ethnic movements. Even when the state tries to manage tensions through cooption of the movement’s leadership, the attempt backfires in the long run by giving birth to new leadership aspiring for a better placement. In case of Tripura3, the process of ‘concessional democracy’ for more than two decades became counterproductive as terrorism has gradually become an ‘industry’ with contending political parties wooing this or that rebel group (Ghosh 2003). 

The Punjab case is another example of how does the state ethnicise issues. The Sikhs in Punjab, with a highly developed sense of cultural distinction and dignity as well as remarkable access to modern resources and opportunities, have been harbouring a sense of discrimination in economic and political matters. Initially the Punjab agitation had centred on some secular demands, like Chandigarh, water redistribution and territorial demarcation. But the centre has bottlenecked these issues for quite a long time and the Congress party in particular has ethnicised these regional issues for partisan ends (Gupta 1996b; Vanaik 1990). It has, however, been pointed out that this has been the general policy of the Congress party in the seventies (Manor 1983). Political bitterness created among the Sikhs during the seventies, and some other ill-conceived government policies and actions like Operation Blue Star, Delhi riot in 1984, police atrocities on common people etc. have contributed to the growth of alienation, ethnicity and extremism in Punjab. 

Finally, the involvement of foreign or outside agents has aggravated the problem of ethnicity and insurgency in South Asia. In the absence of such a support, ethno-national movements would not have gone beyond the parameter of just law-and-order problem. These agents do provide financial, military and intellectual support to the insurgents and often try to legitimise such struggle. It is a wide known fact that Chittagong Hill Tracts provide a common hiding base for all the North Eastern insurgent groups who also use this pace for collection of arms, training of guerrillas, treatment of injured rebels and coordination of activities. Sometimes, NGO’s and religious organizations also provide tacit support and network to such activities by collecting fund for them and providing a mass-base through socio-cultural activities. The World Conference of Indigenous Peoples is a good example of an NGO that provides a global network to support movements of native peoples around the world. Such vertical and horizontal linkages within and across borders provide clue to the sustenance and rise of ethnicity and insurgency in modern civil society.

6.   Conclusion

This analysis reveals that ethnic identities are not natural, trans-historical or ‘essential’ entities; they are rather created and marked by the production of economic, political, symbolic and positional categories. The boundaries of a particular category are both constructed through and challenged by other social identities. This makes occasional intersection of both social categories and identities possible. A man who is Hindu by religion, Tamil by mother tongue, Radical by political affiliation and nationalist by tradition can sustain overlapping and conflicting identities. The project of boundary formation thus rests on both discursive and structural conditions. The process as such is not totally random, but are linked fundamentally to forms of available resources like economic, cultural, political, social and symbolic ‘capital’. We may argue here that ethnic pluralism and diversity and their accompanying political manifestations will increase, and not decrease in the 21st century. The groups providing identity, meaning and a sense of self-worth to their members are better equipped to solve and manage local/regional level problems than those available at the national level.

It is unwise to argue that movement for cultural and political identity necessarily constitute a threat to the nation-state. The imagining of India as a national community as also of the collection of sub-national identities like linguistic, regional, religious or tribal identity are not necessarily antagonistic. It has been demonstrated that the nature of many of our identities are only contextually relevant. As identities are variable and as ethnic movements change their colour and shape over time, there is nothing inevitable about ethnic conflagrations. Even those insurgent groups who apparently look anti-Indian, compromise finally on economic and political gains. In many cases, the anti-India posture is a camouflage to draw the attention of the state.

We might also argue that differentiations and integrations of the communities in India are interlinked processes. Hence, strong ethnic loyalties are not inimical to the formation of an Indian national identity. One should not conceive of the unity of India in monolithic term with disregards to its rich diversity. The attempt to reduce such diversity into a singular identity say ‘Hindu’ identity is itself a political act. It can also be argued that the attempt to produce fixed or pre-determined categories represents a strategy of power, one that is often involved in preserving a particular hegemonic representation of the category. It should, however, be kept in mind that movements seeking separate identity and distinctiveness are neither parochial nor opposed to modernity. This is because ethnic movements, as in the case of Jharkhand or Telengana, may work as organs of civil society to strengthen democracy. Hence, these movements should be viewed from a wider and historical perspective rather than from a narrow and time bound framework.

Note:

1. Discussions of these theories are based on one of my earlier paper entitled ‘What Explains the Salience of Ethnicity? Some Conceptual Clarifications’, in Sanjay K. Roy and R.S. Mukhopadhyay (Eds.) Ethnicity in the East and North-East India (51-65). New Delhi: Gyan Publishing House, 2015
2. I have used this broad classification in the module on Maoist Movement (SM 33) also For a detail analysis of the Tripura situation read my paper ‘Ethnicity and Insurgency in Tripura’, Sociological Bulletin, 2003, 52 (2): 221-243.