Relevance for Upsc
Paper II Anthropology: Changing tribal classification, ethnographic research tools.
GS Paper II (Governance): Policy implications, NCST role.
GS Paper I (Society): Tribal diversity, identity conflicts.
Essay / Ethics: Self-definition vs. state definition, epistemic justice
Introduction: Paradigm Shift in Defining Tribes
- The article captures an important development from the recent Indian Anthropology Congress, co-organized by the Anthropological Survey of India (AnSI) and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST).
- Anthropologists argue that tribal identity is not binary (tribe or not) but exists on a spectrum of “tribalness”, demanding a move away from outdated colonial-era classification methods.
- This shift has real-world implications, as hundreds of communities across India are seeking inclusion in the Scheduled Tribes (ST) list to access affirmative action benefits.
2. Existing Framework: Lokur Committee Criteria (1965)
The five criteria defined were:
- Primitive traits
- Distinctive culture
- Geographical isolation
- Shyness of contact
- Backwardness
Criticisms:
- Considered condescending, obsolete, and derogatory by contemporary scholars.
- Almost no community meets all five conditions.
- Built on outdated anthropological assumptions and colonial biases.
3. Emerging Perspective: Spectrum or Matrix Approach
Key Proposals:
- Create a matrix of up to 150 indicators.
- Measure the “degree of tribalness” instead of rigid qualifications.
- Indicators include language, rituals, kinship structures, material culture, autonomy of institutions, etc.
Indicators May Include:
| Domain | Sample Indicators |
|---|---|
| Social Organization | Kinship, marriage rules, clan systems |
| Culture | Rituals, folklore, traditional dress or weapons |
| Language | Use of endangered or distinct tribal languages |
| Material Culture | Headgear, hunting tools, craft practices |
| Political Autonomy | Traditional councils, decision-making institutions |
4. Institutional Views and Academic Input
- Dr. B.V. Sharma (Director, AnSI): Emphasizes the need for nuanced tools for ethnographic reports and policy assessment.
- Prof. S.M. Patnaik (Delhi University): Advocates moving from a Eurocentric evolutionary framework to a civilisational and historical approach rooted in India’s plural coexistence.
- Roundtable Consensus: Communities should also be allowed to define how they see themselves, not just how the state or anthropologists have historically studied them.
5. Policy and Administrative Context
- Current ST List: 756 entries as per the 2011 Census.
- Post-2011 Additions: 27 communities added (5 main + 22 sub-entries).
- Pending Demands: Many more communities are demanding ST status, e.g., Meiteis of Manipur, leading to inter-community tensions (e.g., with Kuki-Zo and Naga tribes).
- Resistance: Tribal organizations like Akhil Bharatiya Vanvasi Kalyan Parishad still support strict adherence to Lokur criteria.
- Previous Attempt to Reform: Hrusikesh Panda Task Force Report (2014) recommended revision, but the Centre chose to continue with Lokur’s framework.
6. Conclusion and Significance
- A new anthropology-driven framework could lead to a more just and representative classification of tribal communities in India.
- Such a framework would:
- Reflect ground realities and self-perceptions of communities.
- Prevent exclusion based on obsolete stereotypes.
- Help reduce inter-community conflict and policy ambiguity.
- Aligns with India’s constitutional mandate and the evolving understanding of tribal identity as a lived, dynamic experience, not a static label.
Reference – https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/what-makes-a-tribe-top-anthropologists-say-the-answer-lies-on-a-spectrum-not-in-a-binary-classification/article69334085.ece