Tribal Communities in India: (a) Definitional Problems

The term "tribe" in the Indian context is riddled with definitional ambiguities, posing significant challenges for both sociological understanding and policy formulation. Unlike caste, which is a well-defined structural component of Hindu society, tribes represent pre-literate, non-Sanskritised, kin-based communities that often lie outside the conventional varna order.

Lack of a Universal Definition

There is no single sociological or constitutional definition of a tribe in India. Instead, identification has been contextual, region-specific, and often political.

The Constitution (Article 342) merely lists Scheduled Tribes (STs) based on certain traits (isolation, backwardness, distinctive culture), but doesn’t define "tribe".

D.N. Majumdar called tribes “primitive people living in relative isolation with a simple technology and economy,” but this essentialist view doesn’t apply to modern or semi-urbanised tribal populations.

Thinkers’ Perspectives

G.S. Ghurye famously argued that “tribes are nothing but backward Hindus,” pointing to increasing Sanskritization and the erosion of distinct tribal identity. He emphasized cultural fusion and integration into the caste system.

Verrier Elwin, by contrast, advocated for tribal autonomy, opposing assimilation. He emphasized cultural preservation and “isolation with honour” rather than forced integration.

A.R. Desai, through his Marxist lens, saw tribes not as isolated communities but as exploited proletariats. He criticized state development policies that integrate tribes into capitalist relations, causing alienation and land loss.

Surajit Sinha distinguished between:

• Segmentary tribes (e.g., Todas) — more isolated,
• Peasant tribes (e.g., Gonds) — assimilated to caste peasantry,
• Bourgeois tribes — influenced by capitalist modes of production.

Challenges Due to Definitional Ambiguity

• Exclusion Errors: Several genuinely deprived groups, such as Denotified Tribes (DNTs) or Nomadic Tribes, often remain outside ST lists due to lack of fixed settlement and administrative clarity.
• Inclusion of Advanced Groups: Some communities with political influence have been included as STs, creating intra-tribal inequality.
• Homogenization in Policy: Despite cultural differences, policy treats all STs uniformly. For instance, Nagas in the Northeast and Baigas in Madhya Pradesh differ vastly in lifestyle, political structure, and language.

Practical and Ethnographic Challenges

The 1961 Census attempted a classification of tribes but failed to maintain consistency in later decades.

Urban Tribes: With rapid migration, many tribal groups in urban settings lose traditional indicators (language, attire, livelihood), complicating identification.

Assimilated Tribes: Tribes like Gonds or Oraons have undergone de-tribalization, further blurring the line between caste and tribe.

Examples

• Gujjar-Bakarwal in J&K: Pastoral nomads who are STs, but lack fixed address—often denied benefits.
• Jharkhand’s Santhals: Retain traditional institutions like the Manjhi Pargana system, but are increasingly integrated into wage labour, challenging the “isolated” label.
• Lambadas in Telangana: Originally nomadic, they have adopted many caste-like features due to sedentarisation.

The definitional issues surrounding tribal communities stem from colonial ethnographies, administrative convenience, and lack of updated sociological engagement. A nuanced understanding—rooted in field studies, community narratives, and dynamic cultural changes—is essential for equitable development, representation, and justice for tribal populations in India.

← Back to Articles

📄 Download PDF