The Vanvāsīs of India - Past to Present, Realities and Possibilities

# Culture and Policy

The Vanvāsīs of India - Past to Present, Realities and Possibilities

culture

|

ecology

24 January, 2023

|

3166 words

Sushant Gangoli

share this article

It happened in one of the most remote villages, or pāḍā as they are called, of Kashivali in Jawhar District, Maharashtra. While on an excursion to understand the status and implementation of CFR (Community Forest Rights) under the Forest Rights Act, I talked to one of the village elders in his 90s. He told me about his lived experiences before and after independence.

He highlighted an economic problem speaking in Marathi, “नागली आहे, पैका नाही दादा आमच्या कडे” (We have all the Ragi we can eat brother, but don’t have that which you call money); it meant Vanavāsis are not impoverished or hungry because they don’t have enough to eat, but the broader capitalist microeconomic environment of which they were forced to be a part has caused the collapse of their system through the interaction of the economic tool that is money. I then realised that the most profound knowledge often comes from the most uncomplicated people.

Marshall Sahlins, the famous American anthropologist, once called the tribal society, which he characterised by hunting and gathering, the original affluent culture or society of plenty. He implied that according to modern economic perceptions, these people who rooted their existence in the ambit and embrace of nature and lived in this form of subsistence could live a prosperous lifestyle from the bounty of nature and accumulate wealth in the form of gifts and grains, furthermore have livestock to build and expand their economies and societies.

When we try to understand the ethos of Vanavāsi culture from this view of Sahlins and look at it in the backdrop of the recently concluded COP15:

We understand that the global ecological and environmental movement, in principle, has agreed that indigenous populations around the globe are responsible for the effective conservation and management of biodiversity.1 They have protected wetlands, rainforests, grasslands, and coral reefs appropriately. They have seen to it that biodiversity does not just remain a notion on paper, as the Vanavāsis in India and other indigenous inhabitants make it a point to imbibe conservation as a lived practice rather than simply a thought or a paradigm.

The Conference of Parties also recognised that Indigenous Rights are at the heart of Conservation.

As of now, it is not only a matter of human rights but also backed by scientific research that indigenous peoples are the honest stewards of nature. They represent 5% of humanity but protect 80% of the earth’s biodiversity.2 This epiphany has come after years of dispossessing, uprooting, and destroying their way of life in the name of the Western notion of conservation and development.

Also, the world memorialises and marks the 9th of August as the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, which completed four decades last year in 2022. It marked the day of the first meeting of the United Nations (UN) Working Group on Indigenous Populations of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in 1982, which along with the ILOs Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989, laid the foundation of the whole idea of what it means to be indigenous.

One query is crucial here, how do we understand the idea of what is ‘Indigenous’? Even while one tries to comprehend this generalisation of what the UN terms as Indigenous and how it impacts India. There are 10.42 crore Indians who are notified as ‘Scheduled Tribes’ (ST), of which 1.04 crores live in urban areas.

The Western colonial narrative states that the “Indigenous are those who are suppressed by an invading and occupying majority by dispossessing them of their land and resources”, a deceptive definition. In our case, this is far from true as when understood, social history in India is different from the Americas and Australia, where ‘indigenous’ groups have much longer histories of residence compared with white settlers who inhabit their land in these continents. In India, with the advent of Europeans, their control and their departure post-1947, indigenous as a term cannot be genuinely labelled for tribals, as all those who lived in this land of Bhārata were and are indigenous to it.

Although the term ‘tribe’ is considered misleading now - an artefact of colonial anthropology - it has come to stay as a postcolonial marker of identity in India. The Indian constitution has a schedule or list of more than 600 communities identified as ‘tribes’; hence, the official term used for them is ‘Scheduled Tribes’. However, in both scholarly and everyday usage, it has been replaced to a large extent by the term ‘ādivasi’. This Hindi word means ‘original dweller’, which is considered to have a less pejorative connotation. Adivasi is often conflated with ‘indigenous people,’ but some scholars find this term also to be contentious. However, understanding this idea of tribalism which was raised in the earlier part of this reflection, the present-day notion of ādivasi too, is a part of identity politics, a post-modernist phenomenon of marginalisation due to globalisation. To explain further what forms the basis of this is the UN Convention on Indigenous and Tribal peoples in Independent countries 1989. Since social realities differ across regions and nations, the idea of self-identifying ādivasi as ‘indigenous’ is obscure as the Indian situation is very different from American or Australian situations.

All this can be linked surprisingly to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) convention on indigenous tribal people whose articles 1 (a) & (b)3 establish the ideas of separation of socio-cultural identities from the national community and loss of land due to colonial conquest. These do not apply to Independent India, as mentioned earlier; post the leaving of the white colonial masters, everyone who remained was indigenous.

It is a clear point of fueling a sub-national identity emerging in India by stating that injustice was done to these indigenous people. It is not the whole truth but a conspiracy of the coloniser; the mentioned injustice and resulting continuation have to be understood as a noxious colonial weed bearing fruit in present-day Bhārat. It was in the 1970s when the term ‘ādivasi’ emerged as a part of a counter-colonial culture where sections of the Vanavāsis started identifying themselves as dispossessed and denied categorisation as a class of primitive people and also later identified with the global indigenous movement. Hence these indigenous peoples are Vanavāsis who are stalwarts of the pristine ecology, rather than tribal or ādivasi, which are nothing more than terms impressed upon us from colonial memory. It feels like a misconstrued effort on the part of the West failed on two fronts. First, it is the outcome of the said colonial outlook and interpretation of what indigenous is. Further, a bhāratīya perspective should be adopted, looking truthfully at who that suppressor is. In reality, it is the invading Islamic and European powers, not the Indian non-tribal majority who is the coloniser, as conveniently projected by a colonised narrative.

Unfortunately, such a false narrative brings to the fore the ills of Left-Wing extremism, the Christian Conversion Lobby and other Anti-National movements, which are fixated upon causing a demographic shift in India, threatening the integrity of our Nation-State with the ensuing destabilisation.

Now, as we have understood the roots of the emergence of identities and their true meaning, a historical dive is necessary to understand the issues Vanavāsis face today. For the same, we shall study the Vanavāsis in three phases keeping the colonial phase at the centre and getting into the pre and post of the same. This will showcase the impact of the colonial imposition and the ensuing dread it caused in the Vanavāsi life and culture.

Pre-Colonial Phase:

With the advent of Europeans in India and their consolidating power, via the East India Company EIC and later the British crown, the British not only took over various princely states but also the forest under the control of these states, which the tribals and the indigenous folk were native to (being referred to as indigenous henceforth, as the Britisher is the invading alien here). Vanavāsis lived in insulated and secluded enclaves before the invasion of the British in India. It meant that their economy and culture were relatively untouched by outside markets. And their control over the pristine ecologically enriched flora and fauna made them egalitarian and prosperous communities. These societies were free of exploitation because they had no private property, and need, rather than a profit motive, necessitated their relationship of exchange. In one sense, the tribal economy was quite the opposite of the colonial peasant agricultural system. Where the peasants, even though they held individual titles to land, were dependent on settled agriculture, and were part of the commercial market. This destroyed Indian agriculture as colonial agriculture was resource-extractive and commercialized the whole agriculture system which was sustainable and regenerative originally. We can feel its ramifications to this day.

Also, one can understand the situation of the tribal economy during the pre-colonial stage through the following points:

  • The pre-colonial conflict between the Mughals and Marathas created alliances for and against these powers among the tribal chieftains often persecuted by invading Islamic forces.

  • Many times, these tribes were perceived in Mughal and British records as savages and lawless.

  • The Zamindars of Jharkhand engaged in open-ended trade, particularly in silk cocoons, and had connections with traders in Bengal.

  • The prominent Sal (wood) trade was an independent and fair system along with forest produce such as Lac, Silk, Beeswax, Mhowa, and Amla that existed throughout the Indian peninsula controlled exclusively by tribals.

  • Domination of tribal aristocracy over peasants, as seen in Ahom Kings in Assam.

  • A unique practice in this region involved paying for the cultivation of ‘The Good Land’ and operating Kheda enclosures for animals through physical labour.

  • And even if some issues were emerging out of the socio-political rift, the autonomy of local institutions and mobility between different ecozones helped them survive and prosper in the late pre-colonial period.

Colonial Phase:

With the dawn of British colonial economics, the situation changed in the following ways, the brunt of which is still suffered by the Tribals:

One of the most harmful acts was the passing of the India Forest Act 1865, which allowed for the creation of private forests and converting forests into Zamindari estates. This process of dispossession affected the forest-dwelling communities, causing them to lose their rights to their land. Tribals became landless members of the State as most of the land was passed on to princely states and Zamindars. Colonial interventions created a drastic imbalance in tribal structures, forcing producers to become labourers.It alienated them from their own lands, reducing and destroying their mobility due to the ban on Jhum cultivation(Jhum cultivation involves cutting the tree tops to burn vegetation on land. This creates fertile soil for cultivation also called shifting cultivation). The permanent settlement act4 led to the penetration of rich Bengali peasants into the tribal areas who exploited the tribals to their advantage. Another malicious legal act was the Criminal Tribes Act of 1871, which criminalised the whole forest dwelling and pastoral communities, where serious restrictions were imposed on male members and their movement. These semi-nomadic forest dwellers did not partake in agricultural activities and sustained mostly on petty trade and animal husbandry, this from a colonial perspective was considered a menace. The colonial state saw this as some civilising movement but this destroyed the very social fabric of nomadic forest-dwelling societies throughout India. Uprooted from their way of life, and criminalised for generations, these tribes continue to carry the stigma even after the repeal of the act in the year 1949.

This Act resulted in a series of severe responses from various Vanavāsi groups throughout the land of Bhārat:

Throughout the tribal regions, there were armed uprisings, including the Kho uprisings and the Munda uprisings led by Birsa Munda. Birsa Munda, a legendary figure, sought to assert the Mundas’ rights as the genuine proprietors of the soil and to expel any intermediaries, especially the British.

He also fought against the proselytizing Christian missionary activity, having once converted to Christianity he reconverted to Hindu dharma especially into Vaishnava fold under the guidance of Guru Anand Panre.

The monk also gave the tribal youth the sacred thread. Soon, Birsa and his followers came back to the Vaishnava fold. With the Vaishnavaite mark on the forehead, worship of the Tulasi plant and explicit prohibition of cow slaughter, they clearly announced their resistance to both colonialism and evangelical colonialism.5

Further, Maria Adivasis revolted, followed by the tribes of Garo, Khasi, and Jaintia hills, as the influx of outside labour destroyed their way of life. The Kukis and Nagas staged the most severe revolt against their forced recruitment as bonded labour, to be sent to France for the First World War(as the authorities subjected the tribals to forced labour, known as Pothang).

And no one can forget the long-drawn and fiercest revolt headed by Gaidinliu, a Naga spiritual and political leader who led a rebellion against British rule in India. The movement later turned into a political action seeking to drive out the British from Manipur and the surrounding Naga areas.

Post-colonial:

Now looking at the post-independence situation, not much betterment is seen in the lives of the tribals in India. Economic and social backwardness, outdated agricultural practices, and insufficient political representation are still visible problems. We don’t seem to understand the urgency and need to bring tribal issues to the forefront. Despite coexisting for thousands of years and sharing a common ancestry, religion, and way of life that includes Vedic religion and Hindu practices, there is a conspiracy to pit the indigenous people against the non-tribal population in India; which has led to an increase in Naxal movements and ultra-left Maoist activities.

The Maoists are communist revolutionaries who see India as a semi-feudal and semi-colonial state and aim to overthrow existing state institutions through a ‘protracted people’s war’. Their rebellion has waxed and waned for more than four decades, away from the cities, in the poor rural hinterland of central and eastern India,6 establishing itself most firmly in forested districts like Dantewada and central and eastern parts of India . Undoubtedly, the State and its ignorance, along with severe cases of police atrocities, are also responsible for this. But one cannot say that the Indian State is oblivious to the cause of the Vanavāsi. On the government front, various schemes such as

Special Central Assistance to Tribal Sub-Scheme (SCA to TSS), Development of Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) and Institutional Support for Development & Marketing of Tribal Products / Produce (Central Sector Scheme) have been initiated.

To boost the economic dynamic of the tribal society, the inauguration of the National Tribal Research Institute (NTRI) in New Delhi by the Government of India which is envisaged as the fulcrum of tribal concerns, issues and matters in academic, executive, and legislative fields, was done.

The NTRI collaborates and networks with other reputed research institutes, universities, and organizations, as well as academic bodies and resource centres. It also monitors projects of 27 Tribal Research Institutes (TRIs), Centres of Excellence (CoEs), and research scholars of NFST and has set up norms for improvement in the quality of research and training.7

On the Vanavāsi front, one example is that of the Bhattra tribe situated in areas of Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. They speak a unique language, Bharti, and they have adopted new agricultural practices and organic farming to catch up with recent trends in agriculture. Another example is that of the Gond Tribes, mainly concentrated in central and south India, with a population of 1.25 crore, one of the largest tribal demographics. They have revived the age-old practice of Ghotul, a traditional learning centre, a youth republic,, represented by a spacious hut where the young come together to learn dance and music. This space also works as a sociocultural training centre where peer-to-peer teaching and learning can take place, emphasizing the vocational transfer of traditional knowledge for its conservation. Further expansion can be seen in the neo-ghotuls created to impart language and computer training to tribals.

To improve the existing situation the following are the areas that the State has to pay particular focus on:

  1. Adopting an inclusive approach in every dimension and implementing the constitutional and legal provisions of the Forest Rights Act 2006 in a better way.

  2. The recent changes to the Forest Conservation Rules infringe on the rights of the Vanavāsi and eliminate the need for their consent concerning forest land and its diversion for other uses; this will have long-term ecological implications and must be rectified.

  3. State can involve Vanavāsis as a formative partner of electoral politics and bring them into the political mainstream.

  4. Looking at Vanavāsi development from their perspective, in terms of a regenerative outlook.

  5. The State can work towards conserving the Vanavāsi way of life along with their traditional knowledge, which is useful in the emerging pharmaceutical and medicinal research industries.

  6. Traditional Knowledge Systems, which are a subset of the Indian Knowledge Systems, have become crucial today for conserving our collective ancestral memory.

As one can recall, what Wade Davis voices in his most profound work, ‘Light at the Edge of the World’, is the tragic irony of the ethnocide of the tribal population with disappearing indigenous cultures; their homogenisation of the ethnosphere into a consumerist, materialistic, technological monoculture. To avoid such a tragedy, we must not force our worldview on the tribal Vanavāsi but look at their world through their eyes. Vanavāsis (forest dwellers) reflect the true symbiosis with mother earth and are the keepers of the old ways of conservation and coexistence. Whatever identity they decide to take on, imbibing their wisdom and protecting their way of life, is a paramount duty of every Bhāratavāsi.

References:

Latest Posts