The Tribes In The Indian Censuses History Essay

The Tribes In The Indian censuses History EssayThe idea of tribes is ruinicularly complex in the Indian subcontinent, where indigenous/ gross inhabitants were neither eliminated, nor quite absorbed, by the rising civilization in the course of history.It is plain nice that the human ecology of tribal flock gutternot loom large in Indias overall demographic scene (the formers elicitual congress size existence only a little to a great extent than 8%). But, as we will see, demographic features in tribal societies induct often been distinct and/or rather distinguished both in historic and comparative perspectives. In particular, the chief object of the present paper is to evaluate the overall demographic features and their special K sociocultural underpinnings in the pile up tribal state, in comparison, particularly, with their closest counterparts, namely, the lower grade (officially cognise as plan caste (SC)) deal and others. Apart from illuminating reusable insights into the nature and strength of the cognise connection between sociocultural milieus and demographic behaviour, this paper throws fresh light on the Indian public opinion of the tribe and its comparative position vis--vis the mainstream since the late 19th century, especially in the contemporary context of eruptment and globalization.Key Terms Tribes, Demographic Patterns, Socio-Economic, Sociocultural Char bringeristicsIntroductionThe supposition/identity of tribes is particularly complex in the Indian subcontinent, where indigenous/primitive inhabitants were neither eliminated, nor quite absorbed, by the rising civilization in the course of history. For example, although Indias tribes switch been studied intensively (and extensively) for many an(prenominal) another(prenominal) ten dollar bills, both in the lead and aft(prenominal) independence, they appear as obscure as ever (Xaxa 1999). While they put one across often been glorified (particularly by older-generation anthropologists), their popular persona has remained rather vague, indifferent, and indeed, full of misconceptions and folklore. Despite substantial accumulation of literature (official and non-official a manage) on the (relative) vulnerability of tribes, despite absolute laws enacted for protecting their rights, and despite approximately half the countrys mineral and forest resources belonging to tribal expanses, they remain the roughly under break uped community (J onenesss 1978). All this clearly reflects a resolute ambivalence on the part of the Indian state towards tribes (who fetch a numerically insignificant fraction of electoral support).It is plain enough that the demography of tribal people cannot loom large in Indias overall demographic scene (the formers relative size being only a little more than 8%). But, as we will see, demographic features in tribal societies have often been distinct and/or rather distinguished both in historical and comparative perspectives. In particular, the chief object of the present paper is to evaluate the overall demographic features and their common sociocultural underpinnings in the fuse tribal state, in comparison, particularly, with their closest counterparts, namely, the lower caste (officially known as schedule caste (SC)) people and others. Apart from illuminating useful insights into the nature and strength of the well known connection between sociocultural milieus and demographic behaviour, this paper throws fresh light on the Indian notion of the tribe and its comparative position vis--vis the mainstream since the late 19th century, especially in the contemporary context of development and globalization.For example, Indias large-scale development initiatives in the post-independence period be often being seen by scholars to have gene valuate a shifting orientation in tribal studies, namely, from a focus on tribes as communities to a view of them as subjects of modernization and development or as the ir victims (Xaxa, 2003).Our present aggregative come near, of course, departs from anthropologists (and probably of many others) overriding perception that a study/analysis of aggregate tribal people can hardly hire sense. However, the latter view is not always unquestionable. First, this (anthropological) perspective though it has for long dominated Indias tribal discourse, has arguably failed to provide cohesive and consistent statements on the predicaments of tribal people as a unanimous and on their effective remedies. As the report of an Advisory Committee on the Revision of the disceptations of SCs and scheduled tribes (STs) had find in 1965,it would be in the best interest of these communities if they are taken out from the list of scheduled castes and tribes and are toughened exclusively as a distinctive group, with development schemes specially designed to suit their governing characteristicsSecond, since diversities sociocultural, environmental, and geophysical ar e as much (or at least no less) germane to the tribal and non-tribal nations a the like, it is clever to wonder as to why only tribal diversity, rather than commonality, should deserve academic priority and attention. If aggregate (or average) tribal patterns say, demographic and sociocultural are distinct from those of their non-tribal counterparts, the former could well be treated as one entity vis--vis the latter. Thus, turn not denying the value of anthropological methods and micro-level studies, we adopt here an aggregative approach which we believe to be useful to policy formulation for Indias overall tribal people.Tribes in the Indian CensusesIndia is one of actually few non-western countries for which detailed decennial numerate information is available since as back as the 1870s. The census reports and statistical tables have since been presenting demographic information separately for the tribal population and often for many unmarried(a) tribes. However, the cens us information, like most other large-scale data, is not perfect, calling for appropriate caution in drawing conclusions. In examining the long-term trends, the question of comparability of data from one census to other could be of key importance, while in a comparative demographic analysis of deuce sub-populations for a single census year the question of relative accuracy and coverage would be of greater significance. In the censuses of British India (except in 1941), religion was one prominent criterion for potpourri of the countrys population, with tribes being categorized as those practicing hundreds of contrary primitive religions. In fact, they used to be classified as animists until the 1931 Census, in which they were enumerated under the heading tribal religion. Thus, up to 1941, the use of religious category in the census numeration enabled the authorities to bypass many complex issues anthropological, sociological and historical involved in the notion and/or identity of diverse tribes crossways the country.It was only in 1941 that the tribals were defined, for the first time in the history of the Indian census, not in toll of their religion or faith, but their origin. In fact, this study shift in the criterion of enumeration brought in a earnest difficulty of comparability between 1941 and the preceding census enumerations (Davis, 1951). Around the time of Indias independence, a serious rethinking on the notion of the tribe or tribal identity was initiated by political leaders who treasured tribal and other backward sections to bring gradually through affection, friendliness and some special protections and alimentation to the mainstream levels.The Constitution of India empowered the chair to declare any tribal community or part in that respectof as a scheduled tribe eligible for those special provisions and benefits. With the credence of the Constitution in 1950, the president promulgated in the same year a list of STs and scheduled a reas, which was based, in a large measure, on the list of backward tribes promulgated in 1936 by the British colonial administration. At the first census of independent India in 1951, the number of scheduled tribal communities or part thereof was 212, with particular(prenominal) areas being earmarked for each. The Constitution provisions, thus, sealed the boundaries between tribe and non-tribe and gave to the tribal identity a kind of definiteness it lacked in the past (Bteille, 1986). Thus, since the 1950s, there emerged not only a definite tribal identity with legal sanction, but also a distinct political interest forging that identity.Without move down unique(predicate) criteria for scheduling a tribe, the Constitution has empowered the president of the country to appoint a backward classes commission, with three major(ip) tasks to evaluate conditions of neighborlyly backward classes recommend policy for amelioration of their hardships and deprivations and go over the exist ing list of STs for suggesting its revision, if necessary.The first such backward classes commission was appointed in 1953, which came up with a recommendation for declaring some additional communities as scheduled. Accordingly, a modified (and enlarged) list of STs was notified by the president in 1956, and the list was published under SCs and STs (Modification) Order, 1956. Consequently, by the 1961 Census, the number of STs rose to 427 (which was an outgrowth by more than twice the number at the 1951 Census), and to 432 by the Census of 1971.Owing to various problems and complaints, the Removal of Area Restrictions (Amendment) turn of events of 1976 was passed to remove the area restriction on tribal identity, and, henceforth, the list of STs was made applicable to all areas in a state. Consequently, STs began to mean, for all practical purposes, tribal population of the country. Difficulties, of course, remained payable, inter alia, to the varying definition of a tribe, by ch anges to the list of officially recognised tribes, by qualitative deficiencies in demographic data, administrative changes to Indias regions and by the reclassification of tribes as castes (Wiercinski, 1996). But these possible defects of census data have not usually been so serious as to obliterate the discernible distinctions in demographic features and parameters between the tribal and mainstream populations.The preparation of schedules for tribal and lower caste people had occurred simultaneously. Although there might have been some anomalies in the official recording of these deuce social identities, this does not preclude the possibility of fruitful and imaginative use of census information (at least) for some specific purposes. In fact, census data do often depict contrasting demographic patterns/outcomes between these two social groups. Unsurprisingly, these two groups do not seem historically to have been much different in terms of economic levels and footings, but they hav e been pretty distinct socioculturally. in that locationfore, it should be illuminating if tribal demographic patterns and trends are examined in comparison with those of the SC population.Understanding tribes in the light of their demographic trends, patterns, and outcomes should provide useful insights into the evolution of the notion of tribes and their relative social position.Demographic Patterns and Trends of Indian Tribes fudge 1 Long-Term Trends in tribe and Its Growth, and Sex-Ratio, Total and Tribal Populations, India (1881-2001)YearTotal PopulationTribal PopulationDecadal Growth enumerate (%)Sex-Ratio (Female Per 1,000 Males)No.%TotalTribalTotalTribal188125,01,55,05064,26,5112.57954189127,95,75,32491,12,0183.2611.7641.79958992190128,38,67,58481,84,7582.881.54-10.189721,021191130,30,04,35495,93,6953.176.7417.219641,016192130,57,26,52890,72,0243.000.89-7.2955996193133,76,75,36176,29,9592.4510.45-15.99501,009194138,89,97,955(a)87,91,354(b)2.2615.206.17945985Independent In dia1951*36,10,88,0901,91,11,4985.299461,021196143,92,34,7713,01,30,18423.1033.84*941987197154,81,59,6523,80,15,1626.9324.8026.179309821981(c)66,52,87,8495,16,28,6387.7624.69emailprotected9349831991(d)83,85,83,9886,77,58,3808.0823.7925.6892797220011,02,86,10,3288,43,26,2408.2022.7024.50933977(a) Includes 23,31,332 persons in North-West Frontier responsibility not enumerated by religion, but believed to be Muslim.(b) In view of a change in classification in the 1941 Census, this is an estimate made for the purpose of achieving comparability with the figures of tribal population identified as Animists work on 1931 or as people practising tribal religion in 1931 Census of tribal population in 1941, derived after ad retributivements to the enumerated population of tribal origin. See Davis (1951), Appendix J for adjustments and assumptions involved in obtaining this estimate.(c) Excludes Assam. The decadal growth rate during 1971-81 has been calculated by excluding the population of A ssam.(d) Excludes Jammu and Kashmir. The decadal growth rate during 1981-91 has been calculated excluding population of both Assam and Jammu and Kashmir.* See degrade 1below + for India and Pakistan together (Visaria 1968, Table 2.9) This has been calculated on the tooshie of revise estimate of tribal population for 1971 (which is 3,94,89,232 excluding Assam) after taking account of the abolition of hitherto imposed area restriction for most tribes by an act of Parliament in 1976, which resulted in larger population of several tribes in many states correspond to 1971 Census than were actually enumerated (see Sinha 1986, Tables 4.1, 4.2, and Appendix). In fact, the office of the registrar worldwide worked the revised population of tribals for states where the revision was necessary (see commissioner for plan Castes and Scheduled Tribes 1977 and also Sinha 1993).(1) In 1951 Census the tribal population was for the first time enumerated according to a statutory list of scheduled t ribes notified by the president under Article 342 of the Constitution, which was enlarged through adaption as per order in 1956. According to the 1956 Modification order the tribal population for the 1951 Census was revised upward as being 2, 25, 11, 584, with the revised percentage rising to 6.23. Since tribal population in 1961 was enumerated according to the 1956 Modification list of scheduled tribes, the decadal growth rate of tribal population during 1951-61 has been calculated on the basis of this revised tribal population for 1951.Source For the British India figures, Davis (1951), Table 77, p 179 and Mamoria (1958), p 26 Natarajan (1971), p 9. For post-independence period, see Census Reports, Nag (1984), 15-16 Bose (1996), Government of India (2004).We now examine the broad features of long-term growth of the tribal population since the late 19th century, in comparison with the aggregate population (Table 1). besides for three decades, namely, 1891-1901, 1911-21 and 1921- 31, the aggregate tribal population did register increases. For example, during 1881-91, the enumerated wide population increased by near 12%, while the increase recorded for the tribal population was three and half times larger. This could be due to improvements in enumeration coverage of tribal peoples in remote and isolated terrains. However, over the following decade of 1891-1901, the tribal population had experienced a substantial decline in its absolute number vis--vis an increase in the total population. This (arguably) reflects a greater mortality toll among the former in the two large-scale famines of 1896-97 and 1899-1900. But in the following decade, 1901-11, the enumerated tribal population had increased much faster than the commonplace population. This could be due to a lessened severity of famines in terms of frequency, scale and coverage, and also (presumably) due to quicker recovery in the post-famine years (e g, through high than normal levels of fullness) of t he tribal population, which had suffered a greater (proportionate) population loss in the preceding major famines (Maharatna, 1996).Growth of total population was negligible during 1911-21 in spite of appearance which occurred the great influenza pandemic of 1918, causing a heavy toll of human lives including even enormous depopulation among tribals. Again, during 1921-31, Indian tribes appear to have experienced a decline in aggregate population, while there had been an increase in the total population. This differential seems attributable to the heightened politics over religious divisions around the 1931 Census, with, for example, an fighting(a) political pressure mounting on the authorities to return everyone of doubtful status as Hindi (Davis, 1951).Furthermore, the shift of criterion from religious affiliation to tribal origin as the basis of tribal enumeration in the Census 1941 was (at least partly) responsible for a record of their comparatively slower increase in 1931- 41 (Table 1). Except for the dramatic effects of famines and epidemics, the enumerated tribal population up to 1921 was growing at rates no less (or may, indeed, be sometimes higher) than those for the total population. The somewhat sluggish recorded increases of the tribal population over the three decades preceding independence could partly be an artifact of social and political turmoil on religious lines.Another famed feature of pre-independence tribal population growth is the somewhat effort of its proportion to the total since the late 19th century, as against temporal declines in the proportion of the Hindus. While the former ranged between 2.26% and 3.26% during 1881-1941, the latter dropped from 75.1% to 69.5% (Davis, 1951). This differential, according to Kingsley Davis, was due to the higher fertility of tribal population than that of the Hindus. But there could be other possibilities as well. For example, as we argue later, this constancy of the tribal proportion could have resulted from its relatively lower mortality, not from higher fertility vis--vis those of the Hindu population.In the first census of independent India in 1951, the enumerated number of tribal people turned out to be more than twice its size in the preceding census, despite the Partition of India in 1947. This might have been partly because the regions (e g, north-western parts and eastern Bengal) that were carved out from erstwhile India were historically of low tribal concentration. However, this can hardly be a full explanation, especially when total population of the country declined by about 7% in 1941-51. The clue lies in the fact that enumeration of tribal and lower caste people was made for the first time on the basis of respective statutory schedules prepared and approved by the government.Many persons not considered as tribals on the criterion of their religious affiliation and/or otherwise before independence, could find themselves so identified in the 1951 Census. Thus, with the decadal growth of enumerated tribal population being higher than that of the total population in the post-independence period, the formers proportion rose from 5% in 1951 to more than 8% in 2001 (Table 1). Note, however, that the initiative in these two recorded growth rates has been the highest during the 1951-61 decade, and it narrowed down over the following decades (perhaps with the expulsion for the 1971-81 decade). This relative inflation of ST population in the post-independence period does partly reflect expansion of ST list. As Bteille (1986) observes, paradoxically, the number of communities deemed to be tribes has increased with the modernization of India between 1950 and 1976.However fairly rapid enlargement of the list of STs, especially up to the late 1970s and early 1980s, as well as the removal of the area restriction in 1976, account for the extent of the recorded surges in tribal population that took place merely through reclassification, and, he nce, of redistribution of the existing population. But there is the fairly strong evidence suggesting a higher received indispensable growth of the tribal than that of the total population. While the estimated growth of the matched populations of STs between 1961 and 1971 turned out to be only about 1% point lower (25.3%) than that (26.2%) based on unadjusted figures, the former happened to be 1% point higher than that of the total population, affirming a higher natural growth rate among tribes vis--vis general population in the post-independence period (Sinha, 1986).The relatively high growth of tribal population in the newly independent country could be related to the new development and modernization initiatives, which via changes in lifestyles, customs, values, and some somatic improvements with little prevalence of modern contraception, could induce rises in fertility (so-called pre-transition rise of fertility, i e, rises of fertility just prior to the beginning of its sec ular decline). In fact, such pre-transition fertility rise has probably been relativity delayed, prolonged, and pronounced among the ST population vis--vis SCs, as the former have arguably lagged the latter in the processes of modernization/Sanskritization.What emerges, on the whole (ignoring periods of dramatic losses of population during famines, epidemics and the like), is a picture of the tribal population having grown much like the general population at very moderate rates during pre-independence decades, but at much higher rates, thereafter partly because of inclusion of new tribal identities and partly because of late occurrence of their pre-transition rise of fertility. However, like total population, the indication of the onset of a declining trend in the growth of tribal population in more recent decades seems well discernible.A broad regional pattern of Indias tribal population namely, tribes being tough (in descending order) in central, eastern (including north-easte rn) and western regions (these together constituting about 90% of total tribal population) has remained largely unchanged.However, there has been a distinct decline of tribal share of eastern states (particularly Bihar and Orissa) in the post-independence period. still possible enumeration biases (e g, over enumeration of tribals in southern and western regions most prominently up to 1981), the large part of the explanation for the changing pattern of regional composition of the tribal population lies in the interstate differences in real demographic processes, e g, birth, remnant rates and their trends, patterns of spatial mobility and movements of tribal people (Maharatna, 2005).Table 2 Growth of Population and Growth of Numerically Large Tribes, India (1941-91)TribeRegions of HabitationPopulationAverage Annual Growth Rate (%)1941196119711981**1941-611961-711971-81No. (%)No. (%)No. (%)No. (%)BhilGujarat, MP and Rajasthan23,30,270 (9.2)38,36,308 (12.8)51,82,625 (13.6)73,92,983 ( 14.3)3.233.514.26GondMP, Orissa, AP and Maharashtra32,01,004 (12.6)39,91,767 (13.4)48,09,165 (12.7)73,87,376(14.3)1.242.055.36SantalBihar, Orissa, WB and Tripura27,32,266 (10.7)31,54,107 (10.5)36,33,459 (9.6)42,60,842(8.3)0.771.521.73OraonBihar, MP, Orissa and WB11,22,926 (4.4)14,47,429 (4.8)17,06,091 (4.5)18,65,779(3.6)1.441.800.94MinaRajasthan11,55,916 (3.9)15,33,513 (4.0)20,86,692(4.0)3.273.61MundaBihar, Orissa, WB, MP7,06,869 (2.8)10,19,098 (3.4)11,63,338(4.0)14,22,830(2.8)2.211.422.23KhondAP, Orissa7,44,904 (2.9)8,45,981 (2.8)9,11,835(2.4)0.680.78Boro Assam, WB, Tripura5,94,979(2.3)3,51,583-2.05Varli3,74,184** (Roy Burman 1993 199) the percentage shares have been calculated by the present author on the total tribal population of India (exclusive of Assam). AP Andhra Pradesh MP Madhya Pradesh WB West Bengal. Borokacharis These are 1941 Census enumerations of specific tribes on the criterion of tribal origin (rather than tribal religion used in 1931 and before). Therefore, the respective shares of tribal groups have been calculated on total enumerated tribal population of 25, 441,548, which is much larger than adjusted figure of 87,91,354 as presented in Table 1.Source Roy Burman (1993 199) Government of India (1961), Report of the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes Commission,Vol 1, 1960-1961, p 7 Sinha (1986), Table 4.3, p 47.Despite the number of STs having already exceeded 500, it is only a few major tribal groups that gain a large bulk of the aggregate tribal population of the country. For example, as Table 2 shows, about nine major tribal groups engraft nearly half of countrys total tribal population, and they are concentrated in general in the central, western and eastern parts. The tribe-composition has remained broadly unaltered over the post-independence period, notwithstanding proliferation of new tribal subgroups. For example, relative shares of Bhil and Gond populations have risen, admittedly marginally, with a meager reduction in the s hare of Munda population (Table 2).There are quite a few tribal groups each constituting (e g, as per 1971 Census count) slightly more than 1% of total tribal population, namely, Ho (1.42%) in eastern India, Naga (1.23%) in north-eastern states (Sinha, 1986). Apart from them, there are numerous minor(ip)er tribal groups dispersed across the country. In fact, there are some small and so-called primitive tribes of which enumerated populations range from as low as 20. Many of such small tribes are, indeed, on their way towards extinction. However, the phenomenon of so-called vanishing tribes, if at all, is extremely localised, and indeed, specific to very small groups situated in very special circumstances. These most vulnerable tribal groups, who currently number around 75, constituting nearly 2% of total tribal population, include Onges, Shompens, the Greater Andamanese, Rajjis Didayis, Hill Korwas and Bondas. An acute food deprivation and extreme vulnerability to death and disease have generally been held responsible for diminution of some small tribal groups in specific locations (Bhagwan, 1997).The vanishing tribes phenomenon, of course, deserves an attention and an effective public action in its own right, but it is important to keep in mind that the former does not represent the aggregate tribal situation in India. In fact, the major tribal groups (except some small vanishing ones) are not experiencing a uniform positive rate of population growth. While Bhil and Gond dominant central and western tribes have had accelerating population growth since the early 1960s, Santals, Mina and Munda mostly eastern tribes have fared far less in terms of population increase (Table 2). For example, the populations of Katkari, an originally fluid tribe of Konkan region of Maharashtra, have been almost stationary during 1961-71 in the face of nearly 2.3% average yearly growth rate of aggregate tribal population in the state (Kulkarni 2002). While this could well be related to acute material deprivation, other possibilities (e g, effect of removal of area restriction) cannot be ruled out. For example, among the major tribes of central and western states (e g, Bhil, Gond, Mina), growth of population has been above the national average and even accelerated in the post-independence period, at least up to the 1980s. This rapid growth of tribal population, especially over several decades since independence, seems to have caused inter alia by a relatively late occurrence of modern improvements in mortality of tribal population, and (somewhat related) by pre-transition fertility rises consequent upon generally sluggish pace of modernization across tribal communities.In contrast, the major tribes of eastern India (e g, Santal, Orao, Munda, Khond) have registered much smaller population increase vis--vis both general population in this region and tribes of western and central India. A relatively larger underenumeration of tribal people in this region, e specially in the late 1970s, could be a factor, since official recognition of tribal identity on the basis of area restrictions continued here for some time even after latters formal annihilate in 1976 (Burman, 1993). But this cannot constitute a complete explanation. A relative mortality dis returns and comparatively low fertility among these tribes (vis--vis those of central and western India) are also likely to have been contributors especially over the recent past. Furthermore, specific historical factors might have made major East Indian tribes relatively prone to long distance migration and movement (Burman, 1993).In sum three major tribal groups, namely, Bhil, Santal, Gond constitute nearly 40% of the countrys total tribal population, and this numeric dominance of just a few major tribes amidst hundreds of tiny groups and subgroups has been continuing for a long time past, leaving aggregative analysis of Indias tribal population useful and credible.Perhaps the most glaring difference between tribal and general populations lies in the sex ratio, i e, female-male ratio (FMR hereafter) (Table 1). In distinct contrast to Indias overall FMR being unfavourable to females, it has been relatively match among tribes.In fact, females outnumber males in the entire western world and in many developing countries outback(a) Asia and North Africa. Such excess female scenario derives both from females biological edge over males in natural survival chances as well as from their relative mortality advantage in wars, accidents and lifestyles. Thus, a big deficiency of females, as indicated by low FMR in general population, reflects adverse social influences outweighing females intrinsic (biological) advantage in survival.There have been several attempts at estimating what Amartya Sen famously coined missing women in countries with lower than a benchmark FMR, which generally obtains in the abs